Shaolin diet, vegetarianism and stuff

[Kymus]

Yes but the majority of B12 in animals people eat is synthesized and injected anyway. So much for the appeal to 'nature'

Presentation: Are we designed to eat meat?

List of cholesterol in foods

Presentation: America's 15 leading causes of death (and how many are easily prevented, reduced/alleviated, and even cured through a plant-based diet)

There is zero credible evidence to show that animal products correlate with disease. Nor is it sensible to say that humans are not designed to eat meat (Increased meat consumption was an important part of human evolution). Cholesterol is a necessary nutrient for the human diet that is important for cognitive brain function and viral immunity.

Here's some articles (discussing studies) pertaining to cholesterol:

Eat Whole Eggs All Day and Throw Your Statins Away? 375x Increased Dietary Cholesterol Intake From Eggs Reduces Visceral Fat & Promotes Healthy Cholesterol Metabolism

"Eggs" - 4-Letter Food Improves Both Cholesterol Particle & Phospholipid Profile + HDL-Driven Lipid Reverse-Transport

New Study: Women With Higher Cholesterol Live Longer (correlation doesn't prove causation, but if cohorts are so great at proving meat is dangerous, why is this one showing the opposite?)

In regards to the other phantom that gets trotted out, saturated fat, that is harmless. There is no evidence that proves it correlates with heart disease. A number of studies have been published and I have not index each one, but this article by Dr. Stephan Guyenet does a good job of analyzing the available evidence (as of 2011).

I mean no offense to you in any way, Mathew, but this sort of "vegan science" drives me up the wall. It's highly selective, tempered by moral values, and the researchers that promote it should know better.

Before I studied nutrition, I was a true believer in the works of Dr. Gary Null, David Wolfe and the chuckle-heads at the PCRM. They said that a plant-based diet was the best diet for you, period. Since then, I've learned how (at best) their moral beliefs cloud their judgement of basic science or (at worst) they willingly distort the facts to encourage others to adopt their moral beliefs (IMO, the latter is especially true of the PCRM).

If one doesn't want to consume animal products for moral or religious reasons, I've got no problem with it. But eschewing animal products for health? There's no evidence to support that. Just crummy cohorts and some scary biochemical isolation studies.

[rett]

u think shaolin jinnaluo cult is a joke?

I just think you make too much of things you read in books.

[breeze]

So let's be basic: is is the same for you to go in the garden chopping a salad-"head" (in German called "Salat-Kopf") and to chop off a rabbit's or a lamb's head, tear of it's skin etc,? Is it for your emotion the same?

[bawang]

I just think you make too much of things you read in books.

I think you should act like real shaolin and eat meat.

[GeneChing]

I didn't bother to gut&paste all the netizen responses mostly because I feel that's just bad journalism when you resort to including those - if you're going to report, get off your ass and talk to some experts; don't just surf the web until you find the answer you want. This report is somewhat in error too, as RR has had veg alternatives for years. It wasn't recently introduced. I used to eat there a lot (love their blue ribbon burger and unlimited fries) but now I'm given pause because any org to make a marketing gaffe this stupid probably isn't watching their kitchens that well.

Red Robin Says Vegetarians Are Like Teen Girls 'Going Through A Phase'
Laura Stampler Jun. 17, 2013, 3:46 PM 5,225 16

Red Robin recently introduced a garden burger to its fast food repetoire.

But rather than using this as an opportunity to welcome an entirely new demographic through its doors — vegetarians — the chain managed to insult all potential vegetarian and vegan customers instead.

While touting Red Robin's selection of 24 different burgers, the spokeswoman then condescends, "we even have a garden burger ... in case your teenage daughter is going through a phase." Cue the dramatic eye roll for effect.

While some vegetarian consumers were first excited to add a new restaurant to their rotation, the impulse to go to Red Robin dissipated after they were compared to finicky little girls.

Other vegetarians responded angrily on Red Robin's Facebook, as well.

Red Robin hasn't been replying on Facebook, yet.

According to Gallup, about 5% of Americans call themselves vegetarians. Vegans and vegetarians expressed frustration that their lifestyle choice was being openly mocked as trivial and transient.

Of course, others think the 15-second ad, which is in steady rotation, is spot on.

But anti-vegans, who see it as more of an expletive than an innocuous word, aren't the new customers Red Robin was trying to win.

[wenshu]

Yes but the majority of B12 in animals people eat is synthesized and injected anyway. So much for the appeal to 'nature'

Presentation: Are we designed to eat meat?

List of cholesterol in foods

Presentation: America's 15 leading causes of death (and how many are easily prevented, reduced/alleviated, and even cured through a plant-based diet)

What do those links have to do with b12?

im confuse

[Kymus]

I didn't bother to gut&paste all the netizen responses mostly because I feel that's just bad journalism when you resort to including those - if you're going to report, get off your ass and talk to some experts; don't just surf the web until you find the answer you want. This report is somewhat in error too, as RR has had veg alternatives for years. It wasn't recently introduced. I used to eat there a lot (love their blue ribbon burger and unlimited fries) but now I'm given pause because any org to make a marketing gaffe this stupid probably isn't watching their kitchens that well.

If it's a soy burger, don't eat it.

That stuff is about as fake as a monkey beak

[GeneChing]

A Gardenburger and a Boca burger (vegan)

[Kymus]

A Gardenburger and a Boca burger (vegan)

I have a very strict stance when it comes to soy (fermented or GTFO) due to the fact that it's rather famous for its antinutrients. Of course, assuming one doesn't eat out that much, it shouldn't affect the thyroid much. I'd personally advise against eating either on a regular basis, though (which I know a lot of vegans and vegetarians do, unfortunately).

If given the choice, the Garden Burger is "less bad". Both contain soy protein isolate, but it's not a main ingredient in the Gardenburger.

[kungfujunky]

looks like the Soards have lost more of their schools.....

[Matthew]

There is zero credible evidence to show that animal products correlate with disease.

Right, but lack of vital nutrients, phytochemicals, antioxidants have more such correlations. And lacking adequate sources of these (and as we know, they’re found in conveniently healthy and fibrous packages – plants) is a health issue.

So you really could say there is little ‘credible evidence’ that individually consumed anything correlates with diseases. Biochemical mechanisms to understand then apply to high-sample sized, long term RCT and reproduced…takes a lot of funding and time.
----------
IME the optimal health argument central to plant-based diet is
that for every bite of unnecessary bite of animal you consume, you’ve forgone that much anti-oxidants, fiber, phytochemicals, and other awesome plant-based advantages.

So rather than implying meat causes x,y, or z, instead analyzing the opportunity cost of eating meat (or diary, cheese, etc) giving up x, y, and z plant sources.
-------------
Even from the website you yourself posted of Dr. Stephen, he says: “I think the link between high red and processed meat consumption and colorectal cancer is plausible, via the heme iron (and resulting free radicals), carcinogens resulting from high-heat cooking, and nitrosamines. Risk can probably be reduced by eating fresh rather than processed meat, cooking gently, and eating red meat along with antioxidant-rich foods .”

Nor is it sensible to say that humans are not designed to eat meat

Not only is it sensible, it is well supported by physiological comparison to our closest ancestors, and other mammalian herbivores, frugivores, omnivores, and carnivores.

(Although it doesn’t support assertions that plant-based diets are necessarily healthier, if that is what you meant to say)... although better supported/sensible than paleo-meat-only-diet, it is still a partial appeal to nature.

But function is relevant, and bowel movement size, through-time, and frequency being "worse" in meat eaters, is a good indicator that comparison of our intestine length to similar herbivorous/frugivorous mammals is sensible.

Increased meat consumption was an important part of human evolution.

Having sex with our siblings and cousins, and cannabalism may have also played key roles in human evolution. Doesn't mean we should continue it.

Either way, thanks. It's an interesting development since my last read on a refutation of the expensive tissue hypothesis. (I like Evo Bio)

Cholesterol is a necessary nutrient for the human diet that is important for cognitive brain function

I’m not a biochemist, my understanding of cholesterol metabolism is poor at best, and my posting the cholesterol link was more of a juvenile quip at the B12 postings, than a serious critique of people’s total cholesterol intake As B12 deficiency can occur in carnivores as well

I didn’t see dietary cholesterol mentioned in that study. As well, there are some interesting pilot studies involving using various plants for treating such as with social anxiety disorder, and depression.

and viral immunity.

Right, I don’t think anyone would contest the role of cholesterol in our well-being.. but properly balanced ratios of different types of cholesterols, if I understand it correctly, is what’s more relevant and important.

Here's some articles (discussing studies) pertaining to cholesterol:

Interesting articles. All my experience in China (where the study was done) even back when I was an egg-eater… I never saw oversized, industrially farmed, “standard American” eggs anywhere. Not a single one, All were smaller profile more likened to the free-range ones you can get from local farmers.

In any case – thank you for actually getting me to spend time reading on this – I haven’t made time recently and might start back into my biochemistry books and hit up some lectures (free on iTunes U- which collects free lectures from universities around the world). Cholesterol, cholesterol metabolism (and metabolism) are super interesting, and make me wish I had the heart (, time, and financial situation) to go back to school and do some serious medicinal study.

New Study: Women With Higher Cholesterol Live Longer[/URL] (correlation doesn't prove causation, but if cohorts are so great at proving meat is dangerous, why is this one showing the opposite?)

Well, other than I didn’t see where meat had to do with it..…

Isn’t it discussing overall cholesterol, rather than HDL ratio or LDL (which is more related to CVD?)

And I haven't seen studies or summaries that ruled out endothelial inflammation from high LDL levels, which could be related to these heart issues?

In regards to the other phantom that gets trotted out, saturated fat, that is harmless. There is no evidence that proves it correlates with heart disease. A number of studies have been published and I have not index each one, but this article by Dr. Stephan Guyenet does a good job of analyzing the available evidence.

Wow – neat summary he provides. From anything I’ve learned, it isn’t harmless, but important to ensure there is a proper fat balance between saturated and poly/mono unsaturated fats.

While some short term trials (as left out by Dr. Stephan for his interest in longer-term trials) did show some correlation to increased LDL cholesterols, it’ll be cool to see what significantly more important markers we discover in the future for CVD.

Either way, plenty of plant sources of saturated fats, and various lengths unsaturated fats too.

I mean no offense to you in any way, Mathew, but this sort of "vegan science" drives me up the wall. It's highly selective, tempered by moral values, and the researchers that promote it should know better.

No offence taken. I’m certainly driven in part by my interest in animal suffering, undoubtedly.
That being said, I’d be the last person to say that ‘the china study’ (or similar research) is hard evidence, as opposed to the start of a hypothesis – although I can’t say the same of a lot of vegans (one reason I don’t participate in local vegan meetups/activist groups).

Before I studied nutrition, I was a true believer in the works of Dr. Gary Null, David Wolfe and the chuckle-heads at the PCRM. They said that a plant-based diet was the best diet for you, period.

Well, I’ve heard of the PCRM, but am not familiar. I did a quick search and saw they had a law suit against the USDA for for transparency into the USDA potential conflicts of interest in the meat, egg, and dairy industries.

So growing up, we (Americans) were brainwashed to the opposite extreme, thinking eating animals and animal dairy was necessary for a balanced diet.

Interestingly enough, over time, USDA suggested reduced intake of eggs, meat, high saturated and animal fats.

Since then, I've learned how (at best) their moral beliefs cloud their judgement of basic science or (at worst) they willingly distort the facts to encourage others to adopt their moral beliefs (IMO, the latter is especially true of the PCRM).

I can agree and understand the concern on letting personal views interfere with scientific research.

Although it’s worth mentioning that before refinement of scientific process, so many of history’s most outstanding breakthroughs in society, technology, and even science started with someones personal viewpoint that went against the grain of society. Chemistry used to be witchcraft and people mixing potions thinking they would find an elixir to eternal life.

Fast forward to today, where our newest national “MyPlate” guidelines finally include the “possibility” of a nutritionally complete plant-based diet. This is important and relevant because public schools, lazy doctors, and lazy health advisors will use it without doing their own research.

If one doesn't want to consume animal products for moral or religious reasons, I've got no problem with it. But eschewing animal products for health?

Right… I don’t have a problem with people eating meat for personal, religious, or selfish reasons.. but eschewing it’s necessity in a healthy diet?

I still don’t see any substantial benefit that you wouldn’t get the same, if not better, from a healthy varied plant-based diet.

[Matthew]

What do those links have to do with b12?

im confuse

Nothing - but I think we talked about it like 20 pages ago. If you eat factory farmed animals, they're getting b12 from injections and supplements their fed anyway (not implying you are).

In any case, even if you eat animal products, you can't assume that you are getting sufficient b12, according to data in a 2004 study in Massachusetts.

[Kymus]

Hi Mathew,

Right, but lack of vital nutrients, phytochemicals, antioxidants have more such correlations.

Lacking fat soluble vitamins, essential fatty acids, essential amino acids, improper balance of omega 3 to omega 6 all have such correlation to bad health too. Heck, if you include offal, there's no comparison on a nutritional scale.

Is this an indictment on a specific diet or simply consuming a Standard American Diet? I don't see how a lack of phytochemicals is an indictment against consumption of animal products. Considering the essential nutrients gained.

So you really could say there is little ‘credible evidence’ that individually consumed anything correlates with diseases.

Not really. The evidence is there, or it isn't. There's evidence that unprepared (via soaking, sprouting, or fermenting) grains lead to mineral deficiency. To my knowledge, this is regardless of grain type or whether it's conventional or organic.

Soy has been studied more extensively (although it is an industry favorite), and that shows that it's not healthy to consume unfermented. Again, to my knowledge, this is regardless of quality.

Meat quality can matter. There's debate over the effects of preservatives for one. Existence of fatty acids for two.

Pasture-raised meat? No negative health effects. Is it really the meat, or is it the processing? Or is it the white sugar and white flour that the SAD eats alongside it?

IME the optimal health argument central to plant-based diet is
that for every bite of unnecessary bite of animal you consume, you’ve forgone that much anti-oxidants, fiber, phytochemicals, and other awesome plant-based advantages.

In exchange for fat soluble vitamins, essential amino acids, essential fatty acids, saturated fat and cholesterol.

Even from the website you yourself posted of Dr. Stephen, he says...”

HCA fear is likely overblown based on the actual dosage used in studies. But to play devil's advocate, there are a number of meat companions like onions and rosemary that studies have show reduce or eliminate it. A number of nutrients found in our food (plant and animal based) protects against cancer. More on that in a bit.

The only studies I've seen that mention a link to "processed meat" (the definition of which is not standard and can mean some absurd things) is poor cohorts which generally do a poor job of taking care of a number of variables. Take the big one from last year that said red meat will take years off of your life, as an example. These studies are a dime a dozen.

The data from the China Oxford-Cornell study showed that protein (casein) intake has a negative correlation with cancer. Fat soluble vitamins and fatty acids also have a negative correlation with cancer. Is there any data that shows that potential carcinogens (I use the word potential since a lot of this is up in the air) from isolated nitrates and nitrites and from HCA is still dangerous despite the numerous anti-cancerous compounds in quality food?

Not only is it sensible, it is well supported by physiological comparison to our closest ancestors, and other mammalian herbivores, frugivores, omnivores, and carnivores.

Except, humans are omnivores. Humans evolved as omnivores. Even chimps are omnivores. Furthermore, correlation doesn't prove causation. Studies have already demonstrated that humans evolved as omnivores. All we can debate is the extent to which this has effected our dietary needs and how much of this can be obtained in a vegan vs omnivorous diet.

I'm not an evolutionary scientist, but I'd venture to guess this is why our bodies need cholesterol, as well as certain amino acids and fatty acids as well as B12.

But function is relevant, and bowel movement size, through-time, and frequency being "worse" in meat eaters, is a good indicator that comparison of our intestine length to similar herbivorous/frugivorous mammals is sensible.

These are the types of flimsy cohorts I'm talking about and that the article I linked to in my first reply specifically talked about.

It's comparing someone that generally has poor lifestyle habits and consumes a Standard American Diet to someone that generally has good lifestyle habits and does not consume SAD. SAD does not = meat. SAD = every screwy thing you can think of. This in no way is an indictment of meat.

Besides, meat digests perfectly fine. Even a low fibre diet won't have constipation with enough fat in the diet. But that's separate.

Look in to the GAPS diet (GAPS = Gut and Psychology Syndrome). It's a digestive rejuvenation protocol. Individuals repair their digestion despite consuming an omnivorous diet.

Having sex with our siblings and cousins, and cannabalism may have also played key roles in human evolution. Doesn't mean we should continue it.

This is not a logical argument. I'm talking about something that was continuous and present in every day life for millions of years and affected our dietary requirements.

I’m not a biochemist, my understanding of cholesterol metabolism is poor at best, and my posting the cholesterol link was more of a juvenile quip at the B12 postings, than a serious critique of people’s total cholesterol intake As B12 deficiency can occur in carnivores as well

1. Spend some time reading the writings of Dr. Chris Masterjohn and/or Dr. Uffe Ravnskov. They both specialize on the topic of cholesterol. Masterjohn is a biochemist, Ravnskov is an MD
2. See my reply to the B12 post you mentioned.

I didn’t see dietary cholesterol mentioned in that study. As well, there are some interesting pilot studies involving using various plants for treating such as with social anxiety disorder, and depression.

Eggs are high cholesterol foods that raise cholesterol (*the physiological effect of dietary cholesterol is a different topic). But there have been a number of studies published showing that eggs do not correlate with heart disease. So my position is: if dietary cholesterol is a risk factor, then why doesn't it correlate with heart disease?

Please note your word use: treat. Very low cholesterol levels, like what is common in a vegan diet (possibly less so in a vegetarian one, variables depending) correlates with cognitive issues. Cholesterol is something the body needs, so at a minimum, I think this suggests that a lcato-ovo vegetarian diet would be more prudent than a vegan diet.

Right, I don’t think anyone would contest the role of cholesterol in our well-being..

Oooh you'd be surprised bro.

but properly balanced ratios of different types of cholesterols, if I understand it correctly, is what’s more relevant and important.

Sticky subject, long story short. But lifestyle factors play a bigger role than dietary cholesterol.

[QUOTE]I never saw oversized, industrially farmed, “standard American” eggs anywhere. Not a single one, All were smaller profile more likened to the free-range ones you can get from local farmers./QUOTE]

It depends on the breed. The eggs I get from a small, pasture-based organic farm are large and some times could be considered extra large.

Well, other than I didn’t see where meat had to do with it..…

A no-cholesterol diet begets very low cholesterol, does it not?

This suggests that cholesterol is a necessary part of the diet (the amount of which I'm really not interested in discussing)

Isn’t it discussing overall cholesterol, rather than HDL ratio or LDL

From what I understand, ratio is one of many other possible markers. Again, it's a sticky and complicated subject. I'll try to PM you some info; consider it supplementary to whatever you look at.

Wow – neat summary he provides. From anything I’ve learned, it isn’t harmless, but important to ensure there is a proper fat balance between saturated and poly/mono unsaturated fats.

There have been a number of studies showing saturated fats do not correlate with heart disease. I'm not sure if Dr. Guyenet went over it, but there was a meta analysis published in 2010 that was published in AJCN.

[Kymus]

Either way, plenty of plant sources of saturated fats

Other than coconut and palm?

I’m certainly driven in part by my interest in animal suffering, undoubtedly.

IMO, you'd make a greater impact by advocating for agricultural reform and getting people to support local, pasture-based farms.

That being said, I’d be the last person to say that ‘the china study’ (or similar research) is hard evidence

It's a joke. Campbell is a liar or a dupe. I don't say that about just anyone, either. Campbell believes that the data doesn't have to fit the conclusions (of the study).

Well, I’ve heard of the PCRM, but am not familiar.

You're better off that way. They're basically PETA's science wing. It's a group of vegan doctors that advocate a low or very-low fat vegan diet that may include avoiding extracted oils.

I did a quick search and saw they had a law suit against the USDA for for transparency into the USDA potential conflicts of interest in the meat, egg, and dairy industries.

Industrial farms are sickening, for sure. But their "goods" are largely overshadowed by their "bads". Which IMO is pushing science they know is not absolute as absolute.

Interestingly enough, over time, [URL="http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2010/DGAC/Report/E-Appendix-E-4-History.pdf"]USDA suggested reduced intake of eggs, meat, high saturated and animal fats. [/URL

]

The USDA wouldn't know science if it slapped them across the face. They're notorious for promulgating poor science. Their own food pyramid was essentially bought and paid for by the industry (read Food Politics by Dr. Marion Nestle)

Although it’s worth mentioning that..

If I, as a meat eater, continually pushed studies of "junk food vegans" as the definitive evidence that a meatless diet was the bane of humanity, I'd expect you and every other individual with a basic concept of how science works to call me out on my bull****. Put the shoe on the other foot, and you've got the PCRM.

Their research doesn't bother me; it's their conclusions.

[bawang]

Nothing - but I think we talked about it like 20 pages ago. If you eat factory farmed animals, they're getting b12 from injections and supplements their fed anyway (not implying you are).

In any case, even if you eat animal products, you can't assume that you are getting sufficient b12, according to data in a 2004 study in Massachusetts.

people should live their lives balanced in yin and yang. many people dont eat vegetables and have yang unbalance. you have yin unbalance.

you want to become feminine prey, like a sheep or a rabbit. but in real life not many human beings can afford to be prey. you have the protection of modern upperclass society to act as you please.

personally I eat lots of vegetables and soy. but I eat meat too.