66 replies to this topic

[tunt01]

The best source of Vitamin K-2 are fermented vegetable products like Nattō.

this isn't true necessarily. the form of K-2 from natto is MK-7. i'm talking about MK-4 which is really the form your human body needs. that only comes from animals.

http://wholehealthso...enone-mk-4.html

[The Immortalist]

However, at this phase in your life, I wouldn't shy away from dairy, meat, eggs, tofu, etc.

Otherwise, the diet you described seems good, although I think it is lacking in saturated fats / mono-unsaturated fats.

Why do you think saturated fats are necessary? Wouldn't it be better having a higher ration of omega3 fats than mono-unsaturated fats? I've heard that most westernerrs consume an extemely higher ration of Mono-unsaturated than omega 3. Also I don't seem to bruise or bleed easily when I have alot of Omega 3 fats.

[The Immortalist]

.

Edited by The Indefinite Lifespaner, 03 April 2010 - 09:48 AM.

[Application]

I'm not the one to authoritatively say, but T. Colin Campbell feels he has adequately rebutted the below rebuttals to The China Study.

edit: realize there is another round where Masterjohn rebuts Campbell's rebuttal.

Reading the back and forth it doesn't seem like China Study is 'debunked', but again, this is just my opinion. The key issue seems to be whether Campbell radically misrepresented the correlations in the raw data.

Well, the single fact that he misrepresented the data so much should make him a very bad authority to listen to and should make suspicious everything he writes/says.

Also, if you look at his answer to Chris Masterjohn, it's ridiculous how bad his answer his. He don't shoot at the message at all, mostly only the messenger. Masterjohn made some very valid points, and none are being answered by Campbell.

Just seeing how sloppy he is in his interpretation of the data, in his reflexion, in his answer, and how biased to the core for vegan, he's exactly the kind of man no one should listen to. I have no biais what so ever about anything (well, I certainly do, but i'm really trying to let 'em at the door) - i'm really trying to figure out the truth. If I ever realize that vegan is the way to go, i'll go this way 100%, but it's clearly not a man like Campbell that will make the case.

I agree its a weak disappointing response. As I see it, basically Campbell denies mis-representing or mis-interpreting the data and then attacks Masterjohns's and Western Price Foundation's credentials and biases. Campbell claims at length in his rebuttal and his book that he was biased his whole life towards animal protein and his research pushed him towards veganism, not the other way around. In the second link attacking China Study, Harriot Hall accurately points out the huge amount of press and attention that the China Study generated. While Campbell's response is weak, his point that academic peer reviews have not come to the same conclusions as Masterjohns and Hall is noteworthy, especially given the level of attention and distribution that China Study received.

[Forever21]

The China Study

http://www.cholester...hina-Study.html

http://www.cholester...Masterjohn.html

http://www.anthonyco...hina_study.html

[Application]

I think all of these fall under the category of non-academic, and like Campbell says, sources biased heavily toward meat and fat consumption. Again the main question boils down to whether the critics are more accurately interpreting the raw data than Campbell did.

The China Study

http://www.cholester...hina-Study.html

http://www.cholester...Masterjohn.html

http://www.anthonyco...hina_study.html

Edited by Application, 02 April 2010 - 03:59 AM.

[Skötkonung]

However, at this phase in your life, I wouldn't shy away from dairy, meat, eggs, tofu, etc.

Otherwise, the diet you described seems good, although I think it is lacking in saturated fats / mono-unsaturated fats.

Why do you think saturated fats are necessary? Wouldn't it be better having a higher ration of omega3 fats than mono-unsaturated fats? I've heard that most westernerrs consume an extemely higher ration of Mono-unsaturated than omega 3. Also I don't seem to bruise or bleed easily when I have alot of Omega 3 fats.

I think you are confused. Westerners generally have more n-6 PUFA than n-3 PUFA. A ratio close to 1:1 seems optimal for reducing markers of inflammation.

Regarding other types of fats: I'm sure you are aware of lipid peroxidation end-products, a major component to aging. PUFA may protect against cardiovascular disease by providing more membrane fluidity than monounsaturated fats, they are more vulnerable to lipid peroxidation (rancidity). Longer chain fats are more stable, less easily oxidized, and will retard this component of aging MUFA lower LDL cholesterol, while raising HDL cholesterol.

I suggest you read this review in Nutrition and Metabolism:
The case for not restricting saturated fat on a low carbohydrate diet

Also consider that a study of 297 Portuguese males with acute myocardial infarction (MI), found that "total fat intake, lauric acid, palmitic acid (two common saturated fats) and oleic acid (a monoinsaturated fat) were inversely associated with acute MI" and concluded that "low intake of total fat and lauric acid from dairy products was related to acute MI". The authors suggest that "recommendations on fatty acid intake should aim for both an upper and lower limit" Another 3-year study conducted of 235 postmenopausal women with established coronary artery disease, many also having metabolic syndrome concluded that "in postmenopausal women with relatively low total fat intake, a greater saturated fat intake is associated with less progression of coronary atherosclerosis."

[Don Wiss]

The China Study was designed by a vegetarian to prove that vegetarian is best. When you design a study and you already know the outcome you want, you can do all sorts of things. Like carefully select who you study.

This reminds me of the various studies that the MSG trade organization would run. To be selected they first interviewed you by phone. They asked if you were sensitive to MSG. If you answered affirmatively you were not invited to participate. Then in the study they used aspartame (also a neurotoxin) as the control beverage. The results? 15% reacted to the MSG and 15% reacted to the control. Therefore there is nothing wrong with MSG!

[Forever21]

and funded by vegan groups, vegetarian business interests

[Application]

Oh yes, those powerful wealthy vegan interests, once again warping science and academia..... lol

and funded by vegan groups, vegetarian business interests

[Logan]

I must admit that I am biased toward a vegan diet for a long list of reasons (though definitely not in any way relating to the so-called "animal rights" nonsense)....

That said, I am yet to see the main points made in The China Study debunked in any substantive way, in spite of the billion-dollar protein supplement and an even bigger meat & dairy industries (one of the most powerful government lobbies in the U.S.) who would go out of their way to resist it. There's a lot of profit in meat and dairy, and those products are actually several times more expensive than we think they are, with the rest of the cost being covered by government subsidies, limited liabilities, etc.

you need vitamin b12, you need vitamin k2 (mk-4). these come almost exclusively from animals. i would go 100% vegan if it made sense. but it mechanistically and biologically does not.

Especially for a developing teen

[oehaut]

While Campbell's response is weak, his point that academic peer reviews have not come to the same conclusions as Masterjohns and Hall is noteworthy, especially given the level of attention and distribution that China Study received.

The problem is that Campbell 1) cherry picked data and 2) misrepresented most of the data he used. That should close the discussion here. If you still want to use him as an authorative source, go ahead, but be aware that anyone with a basic understanding of the scientific method who takes time to review his ''evidences'' and review the litterature on the subject will realize that Campbell work is built upon lies and misused of science.

That's why even vegan people here think the China Study is a waste. It's not about being meat-biased you see, it's about recognising pseudoscience, and Campbell falls into this.

[ironchet]

Campbell is a member of and is on the advisory board of The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), an organization that promotes vegan diet and has financial ties with PETA. Would you trust someone with a clear vegan agenda to write objectively about meat consumption?

http://en.wikipedia....nsible_Medicine

Edited by ironchet, 02 April 2010 - 06:21 PM.

[Forever21]

Campbell is a member of and is on the advisory board of The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), an organization that promotes vegan diet and has financial ties with PETA. Would you trust someone with a clear vegan agenda to write objectively about meat consumption?

http://en.wikipedia....nsible_Medicine

There was a list of organizations that funded this study. I couldn't find the link. Its in this forum. These are not Exxon Mobil who's agenda is to make their shareholders happy. To these groups, the survival of one cow is like a billion dollar deal and converting a book reader to an anti-meat activist is tantamount to world domination. So the book is actually quite a success. Even the director of this forum was once a follower.

[Alex Libman]

You call that a debunking?

Yes, critics of The China Study are correct in pointing out that the conclusions are based on interpretations of the data that aren't stone-cold perfect, but that doesn't change the fact that the argument for the vegan diet is very strong, especially for people worried about obesity and degenerative diseases. Those critics sound like people who are so addicted to their meat-based diet they'd find any excuse to stick with it, which is their right of course, but if you frame the question as "why eat meat?" instead of "prove to me beyond all reasonable doubt that I can't eat meat?" then the vast majority of nutritional advantages point toward little or no animal products in the ideal human diet.

The critics are also correct in pointing out that just a tiny bit of meat (especially fish) and dairy might be a healthier and safer choice than absolute zero, and I wouldn't recommend absolute veganism to everyone, but I do believe it is the way to go for me due to my portion control issues. Zero meat is much healthier than too much meat, and very few meat-eaters are able to restrict themselves to itty bitty portions. Only being able to cook and eat meat in tiny amounts is nothing short of self-torture...

No one hates PETA more than I do, but just because you get some strange bedfellows in your research study doesn't mean that you're wrong. (As a libertarian I get spam from republicans, democrats, even the greens...) Hey, even a stopped (analog) clock is right twice a day!

There is a lot more lobbyist money pushing research bias in the pro-meat / pro-fish / pro-dairy direction - after all, meat costs several times more to produce (with most of the cost hidden through government subsidies), and so by selling you a pound of meat they also sell you 6+ pounds of grain and all the other feed that it takes to raise a cow, 2,500 gallons of water per pound of meat, sanitation of animal waste, butchering costs, freezing costs, transportation costs, etc, etc, etc. Meat production is also an elite club ever-more limited to a few government-friendly corporations, with ever-growing regulations making it ever-more difficult for the small rancher to compete with them, while almost anyone can grow beans and tomatoes in their backyard.

Edited by Alex Libman, 02 April 2010 - 10:27 PM.

[oehaut]

You call that a debunking?

Well, he made some very valid point. Can you tell us why they are wrong? Apparently Campbell couldn't.

Yes, critics of The China Study are correct in pointing out that the conclusions are based on interpretations of the data that aren't stone-cold perfect, but that doesn't change the fact that the argument for the vegan diet is very strong, especially for people worried about obesity and degenerative diseases. Those critics sound like people who are so addicted to their meat-based diet they'd find any excuse to stick with it, which is their right of course, but if you frame the question as "why eat meat?" instead of "prove to me beyond all reasonable doubt that I can't eat meat?" then the vast majority of nutritional advantages point toward little or no animal products in the ideal human diet.

Carnosine, taurine, carnitine, vitamine B-12 are all suboptimal on vegan diet. If you ask me why eat meat, this is my answer. Unless you supplement these, you're diet might be better than the SAD, but not better than a plant-based diet that include small amount of grass-fed meat, cooked ways that minimize the formation of AGEs and ALEs.

I think there are much more important thing to do than taking meat out of your diet if you want to protect yourself from obesity and degenerative disease. It would be among the last move i'd do.

Actually, if this can clarify my bias, I think that a vegan diet supplemented with everything missing from the meat might be the safest diet to go with if one want to put every chance on his side (considering that we know (do we?) everything that could be missing from meat, and that there is no synergetic effect with the nutrients from meat).

Really, if you eat high quality meat from a local market, and use good cooking methods, I see no reason else than ethical to exclude animal product completly from a diet. Why would eating only a small amount of meat be a torture compare to none at all? Quite the contrary. I'd rather have some, albeit less, than none at all. It's a good source a very important nutriments, such a these name in the beggining of my post.

But this debate is endless. I'm going with what is the best for me based on the evidence that I know for my health, my lifestyle, my goal, my convenience... and in the end, we all do whatever we want.

Just don't come here telling that the China Study worth anything from a scientific point of view I'm sure there are many much clever vegan people out there to make a much more convincing case than Campbell can do.

Edited by oehaut, 03 April 2010 - 12:04 AM.

[Application]

I think Oehaut makes a lot of sense here. This can be an endless debate with near religious overtones. I also share the bias that a supplemented vegan diet is likeliest the healthiest and adding small amounts of animal products does not pose a major health risk and arguably adds some nutritional benefit. As has been mentioned in these forums there probably is no "perfect" diet- ie what is most natural may or may not be best for longevity.

Still, this supposed debunking does not resolve the question of the chinese population associations- which center on interpreting the associations in the raw data. That portion of the China Study book was a complex mult-variable epidemiological study with multiple confounders. Colin Campbell has a PhD in nutrition and has decades of peer reviewed research funded primarily by the US government (the Chinese gov't supplied significant funding for the China population portion), not vegan interest groups.

Believing the critics would require us to assume that Dr. Campbell radically butchered the data while supported by a powerful wealthy vegan interests who were able to simultaneously squash any conflicting academic analysis of the raw data from seeing the light except for the work of a few pro-cholesterol, self-taught, fringe journalists.

Oehaut, have you gone through the raw data to verify that Camppell did get so much of the evidence backwards, messed up the confounders, or cherry picked out of context? I have not. So for me, so far this boils down to which secondary source to trust.

You call that a debunking?

Well, he made some very valid point. Can you tell us why they are wrong? Apparently Campbell couldn't.

Yes, critics of The China Study are correct in pointing out that the conclusions are based on interpretations of the data that aren't stone-cold perfect, but that doesn't change the fact that the argument for the vegan diet is very strong, especially for people worried about obesity and degenerative diseases. Those critics sound like people who are so addicted to their meat-based diet they'd find any excuse to stick with it, which is their right of course, but if you frame the question as "why eat meat?" instead of "prove to me beyond all reasonable doubt that I can't eat meat?" then the vast majority of nutritional advantages point toward little or no animal products in the ideal human diet.

Carnosine, taurine, carnitine, vitamine B-12 are all suboptimal on vegan diet. If you ask me why eat meat, this is my answer. Unless you supplement these, you're diet might be better than the SAD, but not better than a plant-based diet that include small amount of grass-fed meat, cooked ways that minimize the formation of AGEs and ALEs.

I think there are much more important thing to do than taking meat out of your diet if you want to protect yourself from obesity and degenerative disease. It would be among the last move i'd do.

Actually, if this can clarify my bias, I think that a vegan diet supplemented with everything missing from the meat might be the safest diet to go with if one want to put every chance on his side (considering that we know (do we?) everything that could be missing from meat, and that there is no synergetic effect with the nutrients from meat).

Really, if you eat high quality meat from a local market, and use good cooking methods, I see no reason else than ethical to exclude animal product completly from a diet. Why would eating only a small amount of meat be a torture compare to none at all? Quite the contrary. I'd rather have some, albeit less, than none at all. It's a good source a very important nutriments, such a these name in the beggining of my post.

But this debate is endless. I'm going with what is the best for me based on the evidence that I know for my health, my lifestyle, my goal, my convenience... and in the end, we all do whatever we want.

Just don't come here telling that the China Study worth anything from a scientific point of view I'm sure there are many much clever vegan people out there to make a much more convincing case than Campbell can do.

[tunt01]

a plant-based diet that include small amount of grass-fed meat, cooked ways that minimize the formation of AGEs and ALEs.

this is basically what im doing, though its been more seafood (wild sockeye salmon) lately than meat. i eat like 5 pounds of veggies/fruits/plant food a day, then a little bit of animal product.


though i do supplement all those you mentioned, carnitine, taurine, etc. thing that i worry about is that scientists will find something (another nutrient like carnosine) and i'll have been missing it, if i went pure vegan+supplements. it's what keeps in the game right now on animal foods.

[Skötkonung]

There is a lot more lobbyist money pushing research bias in the pro-meat / pro-fish / pro-dairy direction - after all, meat costs several times more to produce (with most of the cost hidden through government subsidies), and so by selling you a pound of meat they also sell you 6+ pounds of grain and all the other feed that it takes to raise a cow, 2,500 gallons of water per pound of meat, sanitation of animal waste, butchering costs, freezing costs, transportation costs, etc, etc, etc. Meat production is also an elite club ever-more limited to a few government-friendly corporations, with ever-growing regulations making it ever-more difficult for the small rancher to compete with them, while almost anyone can grow beans and tomatoes in their backyard.

Sorry, I need to cry "BULLSHIT" on this claim.

It is true, meat is more expensive if you raise it in industrial feedlots, but what about grass fed beef? Let's consider the following scenarios:

Industrial Feedlot
1. GMO corn is grown using heavy application of pesticides.
2. Corn is fertilized with liquid ammonia, derived from processing natural gas. Nitrogen washes into rivers, causing damage to surrounding ecosystems.
3. Soil is fortified using phosphorus strip mined from mountainous regions. Potassium is artificially produced.
4. Corn is watered using non-renewable aquifers.
5. Due to annual monocrop nature of corn, soy, and wheat, massive erosion occurs. Topsoil in the American Midwest has declined from 3m to 6 inches in 100 years.
6. Corn is harvested and transported to feed cows. Uses a lot of oil in transport / harvest.
7. Cows can't properly digest corn and develop ulcers and e.coli in their feces.
8. Given close living confines and bad slaughter practices, feces intermix with meat, causing e.coli contamination. Antibiotics and hormones given to speed healing and growth.
9. Feces get into water supply, contaminate surrounding ecosystems and plant crops with e.coli.
10. Cows accumulate pesticides and other toxic compounds. These are passed on to consumers.

Grass-fed beef
1. Cows graze on indigenous grass species.
2. Grass is perennial species, roots prevent topsoil loss.
3. Alternating cows (and their feces) with plant growing areas increases / enriches topsoil.
4. Removes expenditure of artificial soil fortification (potassium, phosphorus, nitrogen). Reduces costs of vegetables / perennials.
5. Local grasses do not require irrigation from non-renewable aquifers.
6. Because cows are raised on grass, in large open areas, they do not develop infections. E.coli does not enter food supply.
7. Beef is enriched with essential n-3 fats (EPA / DHA). High levels of antioxidants Carnosine, Carnitine, Liopic Acid, etc.

Tell me how eating organic, grass-fed beef is a bad thing? Not only does it enhance the environment by enriching / increasing topsoil, it also removes dependency on oil and GMO crops. Traditional agriculture has always used animals to bring down cost. Long-term successful agriculture works within the existing ecosystem.

Furthermore, unless you live in the sub-tropics, it is almost impossible to live entirely on indigenous plant based foods without destroying the environment. Those year-round fruits, vegetables, nuts, soy products... most of those would be impossible to grow in American / European climates without substantial imported resources and modification of the environment. And worth noting, our obsession with annual mono-crops (soy, wheat, corn, etc) have destroyed more forest, prairie, and rivers / lakes than any amount of industrial meat production (they actually make industrial meat production possible). If you live in a Northern latitude, the best thing you can do for yourself and the environment is to eat locally produced animal products. In Sweden, we eat a lot of meat and dairy because it would be economically and environmentally disastrous to tear up our ecosystem to eat only plants. We would have to import practically everything..

No thanks.

Those beans and tomatoes you speak of, they won't grow without fertilization. Even with nitrogen fixing from legumes, you still deplete potassium and phosphorus. And because they are annual crops, they encourage erosion. And because they are non-indigenous species, they require more water than is naturally available (fresh water is already a dwindling resource). The idea you can live on plants grown in your back yard without any outside fertilization or water is entirely erroneous for most people in the world. It is a broken system going against the existing ecosystem.

Besides, haven't you heard vegans and vegetarians have higher rates of glycation? Even more glycation than a SAD... again, no thanks.
Plasma levels of advanced glycation end products in healthy, long-term vegetarians and subjects on a western mixed diet

Finally, maybe if you increased the protein content of your diet, you would increase your lean mass. Decreasing your carbohydrate load would probably help as well, given you have some degree of insulin insensitivity (your weight gain). That would make losing weight easier.

Edited by Skotkonung, 03 April 2010 - 01:23 AM.

[oehaut]

though i do supplement all those you mentioned, carnitine, taurine, etc. thing that i worry about is that scientists will find something (another nutrient like carnosine) and i'll have been missing it, if i went pure vegan+supplements. it's what keeps in the game right now on animal foods.

This is also exactly why I don't drop meat from my diet. I'm afraid I would miss either a nutrient we don't yet know, or a synergetic effect from different nutrient in there.

[EmbraceUnity]

Sorry, I need to cry "BULLSHIT" on this claim.

It is true, meat is more expensive if you raise it in industrial feedlots, but what about grass fed beef? Let's consider the following scenarios:

Industrial Feedlot
1. GMO corn is grown using heavy application of pesticides.
2. Corn is fertilized with liquid ammonia, derived from processing natural gas. Nitrogen washes into rivers, causing damage to surrounding ecosystems.
3. Soil is fortified using phosphorus strip mined from mountainous regions. Potassium is artificially produced.
4. Corn is watered using non-renewable aquifers.
5. Due to annual monocrop nature of corn, soy, and wheat, massive erosion occurs. Topsoil in the American Midwest has declined from 3m to 6 inches in 100 years.
6. Corn is harvested and transported to feed cows. Uses a lot of oil in transport / harvest.
7. Cows can't properly digest corn and develop ulcers and e.coli in their feces.
8. Given close living confines and bad slaughter practices, feces intermix with meat, causing e.coli contamination. Antibiotics and hormones given to speed healing and growth.
9. Feces get into water supply, contaminate surrounding ecosystems and plant crops with e.coli.
10. Cows accumulate pesticides and other toxic compounds. These are passed on to consumers.

Grass-fed beef
1. Cows graze on indigenous grass species.
2. Grass is perennial species, roots prevent topsoil loss.
3. Alternating cows (and their feces) with plant growing areas increases / enriches topsoil.
4. Removes expenditure of artificial soil fortification (potassium, phosphorus, nitrogen). Reduces costs of vegetables / perennials.
5. Local grasses do not require irrigation from non-renewable aquifers.
6. Because cows are raised on grass, in large open areas, they do not develop infections. E.coli does not enter food supply.
7. Beef is enriched with essential n-3 fats (EPA / DHA). High levels of antioxidants Carnosine, Carnitine, Liopic Acid, etc.

Tell me how eating organic, grass-fed beef is a bad thing? Not only does it enhance the environment by enriching / increasing topsoil, it also removes dependency on oil and GMO crops. Traditional agriculture has always used animals to bring down cost. Long-term successful agriculture works within the existing ecosystem.

Furthermore, unless you live in the sub-tropics, it is almost impossible to live entirely on indigenous plant based foods without destroying the environment. Those year-round fruits, vegetables, nuts, soy products... most of those would be impossible to grow in American / European climates without substantial imported resources and modification of the environment. And worth noting, our obsession with annual mono-crops (soy, wheat, corn, etc) have destroyed more forest, prairie, and rivers / lakes than any amount of industrial meat production (they actually make industrial meat production possible). If you live in a Northern latitude, the best thing you can do for yourself and the environment is to eat locally produced animal products. In Sweden, we eat a lot of meat and dairy because it would be economically and environmentally disastrous to tear up our ecosystem to eat only plants. We would have to import practically everything..

No thanks.

Those beans and tomatoes you speak of, they won't grow without fertilization. Even with nitrogen fixing from legumes, you still deplete potassium and phosphorus. And because they are annual crops, they encourage erosion. And because they are non-indigenous species, they require more water than is naturally available (fresh water is already a dwindling resource). The idea you can live on plants grown in your back yard without any outside fertilization or water is entirely erroneous for most people in the world. It is a broken system going against the existing ecosystem.

Besides, haven't you heard vegans and vegetarians have higher rates of glycation? Even more glycation than a SAD... again, no thanks.
Plasma levels of advanced glycation end products in healthy, long-term vegetarians and subjects on a western mixed diet

Finally, maybe if you increased the protein content of your diet, you would increase your lean mass. Decreasing your carbohydrate load would probably help as well, given you have some degree of insulin insensitivity (your weight gain). That would make losing weight easier.

Great post. Though portion control, cooking methods, and other issues still come into play. Personally I like saving the money and eliminating all doubt from an ethical perspective... we have very little way of confirming the veracity of the claims on a label, but all your points are valid. The only way I would feel comfortable eating meat is if I had raised it and slaughtered it myself and could thus know it was treated humanely. However, animals can be a great addition to any permaculture set-up. Even "aquaponics" can allow for a relatively self-sustaining micro-ecosystem that produces crops hands-free.

Besides the subsidies, I wonder what sort of efficiency these industrial practices have over grass-fed farms. I had heard some experimentation with radically efficient farms in Iowa that rotate crops and animals, but they can still command a high premium by being grass-fed. Perhaps it is just the network effect allowing the industrial farms to scale up more, and perhaps the size of industrial cows are bigger and are less labor-intensive (because of confinement, etc).

However, regarding the monoculture issue, all the problems with mono-culture from plants can be solved through sustainable agricultural practices just as they can for meat. It also seems pretty silly to claim that plant monoculture is what is destroying the environment when the majority of it is simply used to feed animals. It is sort of a chicken and egg problem, but clearly the demand flows only one way. Next thing you're going to tell me is Say's Law is real.

If we stopped eating meat, supply of monoculture plants would reduce. If we stopped subsidizing those plants, meat prices would rise and demand for meat would fall. But at base it is all because of demand... our subjective valuations of things.

Sorry for my economics digression.

Do you know if the other nutrients besides omega 3 are higher in grass-fed/organic meats? Such as carnitine, carnosine, creatine, etc. Your post seemed to imply this, but I have never seen any studies.

Edited by progressive, 03 April 2010 - 02:04 AM.

[Skötkonung]

However, regarding the monoculture issue, all the problems with mono-culture from plants can be solved through sustainable agricultural practices just as they can for meat. It also seems pretty silly to claim that plant monoculture is what is destroying the environment when the majority of it is simply used to feed animals. It is sort of a chicken and egg problem, but clearly the demand flows only one way. Next thing you're going to tell me is Say's Law is real

If we stopped eating meat, supply of monoculture plants would reduce. If we stopped subsidizing those plants, meat prices would rise and demand for meat would fall. But at base it is all because of demand... our subjective valuations of things.

Sorry for my economics digression.

Do you know if the other nutrients besides omega 3 are higher in grass-fed/organic meats? Such as carnitine, carnosine, creatine, etc. Your post seemed to imply this, but I have never seen any studies.

If we stopped subsidizing those plants, they would fall out of favor as a filler product in most pre-packaged / processed foods. Cattle would go back to being grass-fed. It would also help many countries become agriculturally independent. Currently, most of the US corn is marked for export. Domestically, it may be used for feedlots, but as a whole, it is exported. Because it is heavily subsidized, it can be bought cheaper than domestic foods in many third world nations.

At any rate, with our growing population, depending on monoculture plants for the bulk of our calories is going to be detrimental to the environment. We need to revert to regionally appropriate polycultures. Depending on where you live, it may make more sense to eat meat and dairy than soy and tomatoes. I mean, try doing the sustainable vegan thing in Iceland.... it ain't going to happen. And in the Midwest, where is the water going to come from to irrigate all that corn / soy (ignoring the erosion aspect) if we aren't draining the rivers and aquifers? In some places, corn and soy just wasn't meant to grow. Only through complete subjugation of the land are we currently successful -- and that is not a permanent solution as we rely on non renewable resources.

Now I hear about human manure being used in farming. This is scary because many pharmaceuticals (such as birth control and vigra) are showing up in the plants we eat. There is also a danger for parasites. Humanity really needs to reduce population and revert to traditional methods of eating.

Regarding your other question: I would search through my previous posts. I made a thread on beneficial compounds in meat not but a month or two ago. One of the studies showed that these valuable substances (carnosine, etc) all increase with activity and age of the muscle. It goes without saying that since grass fed cattle live longer and are more active they will have more of these beneficial compounds.

Edited by Skotkonung, 03 April 2010 - 08:31 AM.

[Skötkonung]

The only way I would feel comfortable eating meat is if I had raised it and slaughtered it myself and could thus know it was treated humanely.

I don't have any moral issues eating meat, even if the humane treatment cannot be guaranteed. These are my reasons:

1. Animals benefit from their domestication as much as we benefit from eating them. The chicken for instance was a small shrub bird living in a isolated portion of Asia. After it was domesticated, it was spread across the globe making it one of the most successful species presently on the Earth. Yes we may eat chickens hence harming the individual bird, but as a species, we evolutionarily benefitted them.

2. We all take turns being the consumer and the consumed. A little buddhism. If we lived in hunter-gatherer type cultures, this cycle would be even more apparent. To stop this process is to want to escape nature. In nature, death is rarely pleasant or quick.

3. As mentioned in my previous post, eating meat can be ecologically practical / beneficial. One animal dies for the benefit of the planet.

Edited by Skotkonung, 03 April 2010 - 09:37 AM.

[The Immortalist]

However, at this phase in your life, I wouldn't shy away from dairy, meat, eggs, tofu, etc.

Otherwise, the diet you described seems good, although I think it is lacking in saturated fats / mono-unsaturated fats.

Why do you think saturated fats are necessary? Wouldn't it be better having a higher ration of omega3 fats than mono-unsaturated fats? I've heard that most westernerrs consume an extemely higher ration of Mono-unsaturated than omega 3. Also I don't seem to bruise or bleed easily when I have alot of Omega 3 fats.

I think you are confused. Westerners generally have more n-6 PUFA than n-3 PUFA.

Miscommunication. That is what I said.

[Forever21]

1. Animals benefit from their domestication as much as we benefit from eating them. The chicken for instance was a small shrub bird living in a isolated portion of Asia. After it was domesticated, it was spread across the globe making it one of the most successful species presently on the Earth. Yes we may eat chickens hence harming the individual bird, but as a species, we evolutionarily benefitted them.

Yep. 20 billion chickens in the world.

Not to mention we make them more delicious. If they're eaten by lions, what's the fun in that? But we humans, we barbecue them, we boil, broil, bake and saute them. Chicken kabobs, chicken creole, chicken gumbo. Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. Kentucky fried. There's pineapple chicken, lemon chicken, coconut chicken, peppered chicken, chicken soup, chicken stew, chicken salad, thai chicken, orange chicken, chicken teriyaki, chicken burger, chicken sandwich.

Thank you humans.

[The Immortalist]

1. Animals benefit from their domestication as much as we benefit from eating them. The chicken for instance was a small shrub bird living in a isolated portion of Asia. After it was domesticated, it was spread across the globe making it one of the most successful species presently on the Earth. Yes we may eat chickens hence harming the individual bird, but as a species, we evolutionarily benefitted them.

Yep. 20 billion chickens in the world.

Not to mention we make them more delicious. If they're eaten by lions, what's the fun in that? But we humans, we barbecue them, we boil, broil, bake and saute them. Chicken kabobs, chicken creole, chicken gumbo. Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. Kentucky fried. There's pineapple chicken, lemon chicken, coconut chicken, peppered chicken, chicken soup, chicken stew, chicken salad, thai chicken, orange chicken, chicken teriyaki, chicken burger, chicken sandwich.

Thank you humans.

More like the most pathetic species on this planet.

[kismet]

 

This is also exactly why I don't drop meat from my diet. I'm afraid I would miss either a nutrient we don't yet know, or a synergetic effect from different nutrient in there.

On the face of it this makes sense, but:

Presumably we have long term evidence that vegetarians are as healthy or healthier than omnivores (IHD incidence?) This implies that whatever you do miss is outweighed by the benefits of a vegetarian diet. (which is pretty amazing considering all the deficiencies vegans and strict vegetarians have)

Additionally, we do know many of the beneficial substances in meat, which we can supplement, further improving an already superior diet. And there is quite some evidence that is meat per se that is detrimental to health (yes, heme-iron, SaFa, cholesterol, heat-related toxins, etc)

Which means that adding meat you give up proven and speculative benefits for merely speculative ones ("nutrient X" and its synergies).

[wydell]

This logic makes sense to me, though I still eat some meat every now and then - mostly for social reasons.

 

This is also exactly why I don't drop meat from my diet. I'm afraid I would miss either a nutrient we don't yet know, or a synergetic effect from different nutrient in there.

On the face of it this makes sense, but:

Presumably we have long term evidence that vegetarians are as healthy or healthier than omnivores (IHD incidence?) This implies that whatever you do miss is outweighed by the benefits of a vegetarian diet. (which is pretty amazing considering all the deficiencies vegans and strict vegetarians have)

Additionally, we do know many of the beneficial substances in meat, which we can supplement, further improving an already superior diet. And there is quite some evidence that is meat per se that is detrimental to health (yes, heme-iron, SaFa, cholesterol, heat-related toxins, etc)

Which means that adding meat you give up proven and speculative benefits for merely speculative ones ("nutrient X" and its synergies).

[Application]

Nicely put Kismet.

 

This is also exactly why I don't drop meat from my diet. I'm afraid I would miss either a nutrient we don't yet know, or a synergetic effect from different nutrient in there.

On the face of it this makes sense, but:

Presumably we have long term evidence that vegetarians are as healthy or healthier than omnivores (IHD incidence?) This implies that whatever you do miss is outweighed by the benefits of a vegetarian diet. (which is pretty amazing considering all the deficiencies vegans and strict vegetarians have)

Additionally, we do know many of the beneficial substances in meat, which we can supplement, further improving an already superior diet. And there is quite some evidence that is meat per se that is detrimental to health (yes, heme-iron, SaFa, cholesterol, heat-related toxins, etc)

Which means that adding meat you give up proven and speculative benefits for merely speculative ones ("nutrient X" and its synergies).

[tunt01]

while i agree w/ kismet, i think it is more of a shade of grey issue rather than black/white.

this is my cron-o-meter data for the last 4 days, about 215 calories per day is coming from all animal sources (including dairy). i think the question is how much? i'm near vegetarian, but not complete. 12.5% of all calories are coming from animal sources. should it be 0% (and that means going full vegan), i'm just not sold on the idea.

do we really know that vegetarians are going to live longer? maybe i'm not paying attention, but do we have data showing that? i understand the viewpoint on restricting methionine or protein. i understand CR. but vegetarian diet explicitly producing a longer lifespan, isn't readily apparent to me...

note: choline supplement use is not factored into this data.

===========================================
Nutrition Summary
March 30, 2010 to April 2, 2010
Daily Averages over 3 days
Report generated by CRON-o-Meter v0.9.7
===========================================

General (88%)
===========================================
Energy | 1716.4 kcal 98%
Protein | 98.8 g 114%
Carbs | 208.7 g 86%
Fiber | 59.6 g 157%
Starch | 66.8 g
Sugars | 62.6 g
Fat | 66.8 g 98%
Alcohol | 0.0 g
Caffeine | 1.3 mg
Water | 1771.9 g 48%
Ash | 18.4 g

Vitamins (100%)
===========================================
Vitamin A | 17810.8 IU 594%
Retinol | 94.2 µg
Alpha-carotene | 432.6 µg
Beta-carotene | 10059.4 µg
Beta-cryptoxanthin | 253.8 µg
Lycopene | 256.3 µg
Lutein+Zeaxanthin | 16175.8 µg
Folate | 1095.6 µg 274%
B1 (Thiamine) | 2.2 mg 185%
B2 (Riboflavin) | 2.4 mg 182%
B3 (Niacin) | 19.0 mg 119%
B5 (Pantothenic Acid)| 9.2 mg 184%
B6 (Pyridoxine) | 3.1 mg 235%
B12 (Cyanocobalamin) | 171.8 µg 7160%
Vitamin C | 450.5 mg 501%
Vitamin D | 2339.7 IU 1170%
Vitamin E | 20.1 mg 134%
Beta Tocopherol | 0.2 mg
Delta Tocopherol | 0.3 mg
Gamma Tocopherol | 2.8 mg
Vitamin K | 1381.6 µg 1151%
Biotin | 0.0 µg 0%
Choline | 371.3 mg 68%

Minerals (100%)
===========================================
Calcium | 1421.8 mg 142%
Chromium | 0.0 µg 0%
Copper | 1.9 mg 212%
Fluoride | 368.3 µg 9%
Iron | 20.1 mg 251%
Magnesium | 550.8 mg 131%
Manganese | 8.4 mg 364%
Phosphorus | 1734.3 mg 267%
Potassium | 4693.3 mg 156%
Selenium | 82.7 µg 150%
Sodium | 1579.3 mg 105%
Zinc | 25.3 mg 230%

Lipids (66%)
===========================================
Saturated | 12.1 g 60%
Monounsaturated | 31.0 g
Polyunsaturated | 15.8 g
Omega-3 | 5.0 g 312%
Omega-6 | 10.5 g 62%
Trans-Fats | 0.0 g
Cholesterol | 130.2 mg 43%
Phytosterol | 84.7 mg


any critiques on dietary intake?

Edited by prophets, 03 April 2010 - 07:33 PM.