Pros and cons of Veg Life

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mr. Yellow Sunshine Pants on April 1, 2008 at 12:58pm

I'll give some peer-reviewed scientific sources to contradict him, but first:
- "Doctor" Ronald Roth on the acu-cell website is not a **medical** doctor as far as his own website indicates; he is only an acupuncturist according to the letters he gives after his name -- i.e. no nutritional education listed, but giving nutritional advice. ;-) He uses "Dr." only on the bottom of this page and usually "D. Acu." at the most on other pages...

On one hand, what he says about MANY issues is confirmed by REAL experts whose work I've seen published in peer-reviewed journals as VERIFIABLE nutritional data, but...
- The biggest hole in his "facts": He starts out with "Contrary to vegan-based reviews or commentaries [<---we already have a "Poison the Well" fallacy of logic here: e.g. the sources I give below are NOT from vegans, and yet the study by Key et al contradicts his very next claim], people following a strict vegetarian diet are not healthier than their omnivorous counterparts. In fact, on average, they suffer from as many, or more, medical complaints as compared to non-vegetarian individuals" and of course he says this "in fact" statement with absolutely NO reference to research which could VERIFY the honesty of the statement (just like he doesn't verify the statement just before he says "in fact," and that statement is directly contradicted by the research by Key el all, below) -- and more importantly, the problem is that EDUCATED nutritionists and REAL doctors who specialize in nutrition cannot check his "fact," how he arrived at that conclusion, and so that experts can comment in a major journals dedicated to nutritional sciences (e.g. critique his methodology of how he determined this "fact," or numbers of people he surveyed -- or if he is even relying on simple anecdotes instead of GOOD statistical scientific surveys, including a check of each person's non-dietary lifestyles that would give them health problems, frequency of "medical complaints" that turned out to be nothing [e.g. his only 2 veg patients might have been a hypochondriac couple, or junk-foodies, or smokers, or genetically predisposed to some disease, etc., etc.]).
- It strongly suggests that he hasn't properly researched the above statement or seen anyone else do so when he says vegetarians have "as many, or more" health complaints: Well which is it? If he had actual data to prove his "fact," then he wouldn't be so uncertain of this.
- He also gives no support for: "Kidney and liver chemistry are the chief resources to base the decision on of whether a patient would benefit more from an omnivorous, or vegetarian lifestyle". This seems right up there with "blood chemistry" i.e. the "blood type diet" where you decide to be veg or omni if you're a certain blood-type, and as he makes this claim whilst he (correctly) pointed out that there's no proof the "blood type diet" works, why shouldn't he be held to the same standard? Where is his proof that this "kidney and liver" type diet works -- and when I say "proof" I mean in published, peer-reviewed journals (I still read them all occasionally, have seen nothing proving this, and would expect to have seen a proof of this IF it existed).
- Of course -- so they go to him for nutritional testing -- he should want people to lose confidence in all the diets he reviews (and with Atkins, blood-type diet, etc., for good reason, or like I said, peer-reviewed nutritional research I've read concurs with SOME of what Roth says). CAN a veg diet be unhealthy? Sure, and the ADA/www.dieticians.ca link I'll give below agree that you can't eat junk-food, or no variety (e.g. just tofu), you might need supplements even if you get variety but for example, you don't eat enough leafy greens as a vegan (calcium/magnesium) -- but I've never heard of a need for custom-tailored supplements this guy seems to sell

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mr. Yellow Sunshine Pants on April 1, 2008 at 1:15pm

continued...
after he tests you, though. And you just need to do veg'nism -- or any diet -- the RIGHT way, according to the dieticians I link to below, but choosing a diet based on kidney/liver chemistry is something you won't find in REPUTABLE sources such as the link to the world's largest group of dieticians which I'll cite below: And in their process of citing more than 250 sources for a meta-study or "full view" of vegetarian diets overall, do ya really think they just forgot to mention that some people with certain kidney/liver "chemistry" should NOT be vegetarians, as this acu-cell website claims?? ;-)
- and I need to laugh at some other non-scientific/unproven things he also considers factual, w/o question: "The good news is, there is only one true God (De 4:35, 2Sa 7:22, Is 44:6, 1Ti 2:5)." Well, all you Hindus are just plain wrong. ;-) And no, he doesn't need to prove ya wrong, just like he doesn't need to prove vegetarianism has NO health benefits. He says nothing like "I believe..." or "I have faith..." that "there is only one true God".
- "While it makes sense that atheists or agnostics would want to extend their lives at all costs, or want to desperately cling to the physical, rather than the spiritual aspects of life (erroneously expecting death to end it all)..." ;-) No "I believe..." or "I have faith..." that this is "erroneous". Why, I guess I should believe he has super-human knowledge that lets himself never be "erroneous," or he might even BE God himself!! ;-) I'd be the first to say prayer (or any optimism) probably has a physical effect, and mental benefit, for at least some people (we can OBSERVE that...unlike heaven, hell, etc.), but other than that, only a real tool would conflate his religion with medical science. ;-)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- vegetarians and vegans live longer: Key TH, Thorogood M, Appleby PM, Burr ML. Dietary habits and mortality in 11,000 vegetarian and health conscious people: results of a 17-year follow up. BMJ. 1996;313:775-779. i.e. for the AVERAGE person -- as "doctor" Roth made the point of looking at the "average" -- vegetarianism IS healthier (and even veganism, as this is one of the few studies to show).
- the meta-study www.dietitians.ca/news/downloads/vegetarian_position_paper_2003.pdf doesn't contradict him as directly, but it cites over 250 peer-reviewed sources to conclude "Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits...".
.............Comparing "doctor" Roth to these REAL experts, well let's just say I'd rather get advice from my dogs than Roth, cuz my dogs are as credentialed in nutrition as "doctor" Roth, but they keep their yaps shut instead of making written statements w/o any empirical (scientific) support whatsoever and they seem to at least know the limits of their knowledge (e.g. they're still in awe of humans whenever we flip a lightswitch ;-) ) unlike Roth, who can't cite any of his own research, nor can cite actual experts to support his statements (as I did), but still claims his unproven statements are "facts". i.e. he's a pseudo-scientist, a QUACK. :-)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mr. Yellow Sunshine Pants on April 1, 2008 at 2:00pm

direct contradiction from many sources for another particular condition [B12 anemia] instead of overall veg-health (now I'm just beating a dead horse):

He says "There are only animal, but no vegetarian sources of Vitamin B12" Incorrect, there are only BACTERIAL sources for B12: Nature 1980 Feb 21;283(5749):781-2, Vitamin B12 synthesis by human small intestinal bacteria. Albert MJ, Mathan VI, Baker SJ.) See also:
"The normal flora synthesize and excrete vitamins in excess of their own needs, which can be absorbed as nutrients by the host. For example, enteric bacteria secrete Vitamin K and Vitamin B12, and lactic acid bacteria produce certain B-vitamins.". And bacteria have been considered a kingdom separate from plants and animals for a couple hundred years now...
...However, this self production [in the human gut] is typically not enough to sustain adequate B12 (Callender ST, Spray GH. Latent pernicious anemia. Br J Haematol 1962; 8: 230-240.), i.e. some dietary B12 is needed, as told in the dieticians.ca link above. The only problem that I've read about, for getting B12 from bacteria in soil, that plants absorb, is that B12-producing bacteria get killed by pesticides used within the last 75 years or so (this is also covered in the "tinyURL" link above) ...and these pesticides -- especially the older types with excessive half-lives -- are still in the world's water and even hit organic farms to some extent (evaporating water from old farms-->vapor clouds/fog-->then rains on an organic farm), so even organic crops are not considered reliable sources of B12, however it IS possible to get an unreliable amount of B12 from vegan food (plants): see J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 2002 Oct;48(5):325-31. Characterization and bioavailability of vitamin B12-compounds from edible algae. or Am J Clin Nutr 1988; 48: 852-858. Herbert V. Vitamin B12: Plant sources, requirements, and assay. or Areekul S, Pattanamatum S, Cheeramakara C, Churdchue K, Nitayapabskoon S, Chongsanguan M. Department of Tropical Radioisotopes, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. Vitamin B12 contents were determined on 10 commercial tempeh samples purchased from various markets in Jakarta, Indonesia.)
side-note: Even with this nutrient that vegans lack more than most people, B12 deficiencies are just as prevalent amongst non-vegans, due to low bio-availability from animal sources (B-12 is so firmly attached to animal proteins that the human body can detach and digest very little). source Katherine L. Tucker, the Jean Mayer USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University and Framingham (Massachusetts) Offspring Study; as cited in: "Are You Vitamin B12 Deficient?"; Aug. 2000 issue of Agricultural Research mag.

"One of the misconceptions perpetuated by some sources is that eating meat promotes cardiovascular disease, while vegetarian diets prevent it." OMFG, do I really need to??! :-) He continues: "We all know that the body cannot exist without cholesterol, and that dietary cholesterol has little or no effect on serum cholesterol, so that leaves oxidation of fat and simple sugars (once converted in the liver) as contributing factors with atherosclerosis." Yeah well the AVERAGE cut of meat has more saturated and overall fat than the AVERAGE vegan meal, and more overall "promotion" of heart disease there "doctor". side-note: Even skinny meat-eaters have higher risk of heart disease: Preventive Medicine 13 (1984): p.490

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by pradtf on April 2, 2008 at 8:41pm

i think jeff puts roth in proper perspective - there are claims, but there is no substantiation for them.

jeff also does an excellent job taking apart these claims which he brilliantly initiates via the poison well fallacy. i've often heard people say my doctor says veg is unhealthy (one fascinating philosophy 101 student said my professor says veg is unhealthy - never got to the doctor part), but then you find out the doctor has no experience with veg. so why on earth would you go to a non-veg person to learn about veg?

the b12 thing is really a bit of an amusement. when we went veg back in 1990 our veg doctor was recommending b12 injections and said that the b12 supply last for about 7 yrs. when we went to a presentation by him a couple of years later the number had changed to 14 yrs. then in the late 90s we heard it was 21yrs. about 5 yrs ago i read it was 30 yrs. i don't recall where i read it because i lost interest in the topic more than a decade ago - it seemed evident that the longer i waited the longer my b12 supply would last. i drink a very small amount of soy milk which is fortified with the usual b12 (not because i'm worried about deficiency, but because i haven't bothered to figure out how to make oat milk yet) and my eighteen yr old son who is a lifelong vegan, doesn't even drink soy milk. being primarily raw food eaters do no junk or drugs of any sort and who never supplement, we do wonder what the brouhaha is about.

i must say that roth seems rather fixated on b12 coming from feces which is really puzzling since, as jeff points out, comes from bacterial sources so this fecal obsession really isn't necessary. the tuff study, btw, revealed that 40% of americans were b12 deficient so since 40% of the population isn't veg, it is clear that being veg and being b12 deficient don't correlate too well.

this deficient thing is a bit strange too since research will show that veg folks are deficient in protein, fat and various other 'essentials'. but then they are also deficient when it comes to heart disease, cholesterol levels, diabetes etc etc so perhaps the 'medical' establishment isn't sufficiently appreciative of deficiency.

i was a bit surprised not to find any reference to protein antigeneity in roth's effort considering the ingestion of large animal proteins result in inflammatory ailments like arthritis, asthma and excema. also, there was no mention of the effect of animal proteins and their effects on calcium a la "got milk - got osteoporosis?"

possibly roth is well-intentioned (though i too would prefer to hear jeff's dogs), but a look through his site shows that he's coming at all this from one perspective - this cellular nutrition thing. despite his throwing in some strange stuff about god on the 'spiritual' health page, it doesn't seem to me that he is really making a case for anything other than this is how it is because i say so.

far better to find out about veg from some of the sources jeff provides (as well as his rather dismantling arguments) or say the detailed references dr mcdougal or dr greger provide than a website that appears to be yet another 'pet project'.

in friendship,
prad

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by pradtf on April 2, 2008 at 9:11pm

edit: the boston tufts study which was sponsored by the usda (i believe) can be found in various places but here is one:

Recent research (Tuft’s University, 2000) indicates that B12 deficiency is far more widespread than formerly believed. Researchers at Tuft University found that in the US 39 percent of the study population had low values.
(link)

since the study was sponsored by the usda, there is a good possibility that someone figured people weren't eating enough corpses and planned on using this as leverage :D

in friendship,
prad

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sidney Cozzoi on April 3, 2008 at 9:50am

WOW! Awesome responses, guys! I think that with any life choices and beliefs should be fully understood, the good and the bad of every side. GREAT INPUT!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by pradtf on April 3, 2008 at 11:39am

you wrote:
"I think that with any life choices and beliefs should be fully understood, the good and the bad of every side."

agreed, sidney!
only some life choices don't have any bad, while others don't seem to have any good ;)

in friendship,
prad

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mr. Yellow Sunshine Pants on April 21, 2008 at 11:10pm

Yes, and be sure to understand that there isn't a completely rosy picture for veganism in the ADA link I gave -- just a lot more verified (i.e. realistic ;-) ) than the picture that the acu-cell guy gives: "I think that with any life choices and beliefs should be fully understood, the good and the bad of every side."

However, the ADA also gives advice for how to reduce any potentially-bad habits that some vegans fall into whilst keeping veganism's benefits, in that ADA link above -- or like I said in my hideously long ;-P original replies to you: it's just a matter of doing veg*nism "the right [healthy] way" if you're interested in really maxing-out your health, and not only interested in the benefits to animals/environment (e.g. I'm not ALWAYS interested in my health if it's, oh, maybe coconut milk (worse than most veg oils) or deep-fried...anything, several times per week ;-) But at least I deep-fry in canola, healthier than other oils.... mmm, and avocados slathered in olive oil, and Kahlua-peanutbutter-chocolate pie... :-) ).

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by pradtf on April 21, 2008 at 11:54pm

i recall canola isn't a good idea based on some of the stuff on the net and other sources which i've forgotten about now (admittedly, urbanlegends seem to think it is just a hoax).

pcrm did work on the oil in general and suggest very low quantities. they also did some work linking it to menstrual problems (fat raises estrogen levels):
http://www.scienzavegetariana.it/nutrizione/pcrm/pcrm_menstrual.html

heated oil can also be a source of free radicals.

we gave up all cooking with oils several years ago. food tastes much cleaner and there isn't any film left behind in your mouth. it's interesting because we thought we wouldn't like the taste initially, but that was because you can get addicted to oil in cooking and salad dressings and start craving that taste - but everything has been so much better without it all these years.

in friendship,
prad

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mr. Yellow Sunshine Pants on May 10, 2008 at 10:32am

My BMI and waist-to-hip ratio are both already on the skinniest number that's suggested for the "healthy range". The waist-to-hip one is supposed to be a lot more accurate than BMI. The average person tends to gain fat and lose muscle until their 60's, so what I eat now should (1) keep me in the center of that healthy range as I get old (fatter than I am now), (2) w/o becoming underweight today. I'd seriously worry about becoming underweight if I replaced all the oil I cook with, i.e. use water to boil everything, no frying food, like you do. Dunno if I'm genetically lucky, but it feels like I've always eaten whatever I wanted, and never had to try too hard (just the veganism which I do more for animal-rights than trying to max-out my lifespan).

Then again, weight is only one indicator of good health... but my cholesterol is also good (in the low 100's, w/a good balance of "good" versus "bad" cholesterol)... All good, despite that I'm what people seem to consider a "high fat vegan" (I'm havin' breaded DEEP-FRIED okra as soon as I finish writing this...and an Indian mattar paneer that uses 3 TB more oil tonight--I use tofu flavored like the Indian 'paneer'. :-) Have a bag of tater chips on the counter to snack on, as usual, and I just ate 6 TB of olive oil this morning in my cavatelli w/broccoli... "TB"=tablespoons.) and speaking of weight NOT being the only indicator of health, compare me to these 2 popular (yet very different) diets:
* e.g. #1 Even skinny meat-eaters had higher cholesterol, on average (see Preventive Medicine 13 (1984): p.490). But I don't eat those nasty ANIMAL-fats. :-)
* e.g. #2 Despite that people on low-fat diets tend to stay skinny for years and years (as opposed to yo-yo diets, like how most people react to Atkins... See Dansinger, M.L., Gleason, J. L., Griffith, J.L., et al., "One Year Effectiveness of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone Diets in Decreasing Body Weight and Heart Disease Risk", American Heart Association Scientific Sessions November 12, 2003 in Orlando, Florida. Or "The National Weight Control Registry, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) tracked the habits of successful dieters for over 10 years. Of the 5,000 Americans confirmed to have lost an average of 70 pounds and able to prove they have kept it off for at least 6 years, less than 1% were Atkins adherents". [The Washington Post, 27 August 2002] And then one of the chief investigators confirmed in an interview: "Almost [none of these successful 5,000 subjects were] on a low carbohydrate diet". [Reason, March 2003]), the reasons I don't bother with low-fat diets are that they:
(a) cause more deficiencies in fat-soluble vitamins if you don't get approx 10g of fat per day (this one is on vitamin E & kids: Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Aug, 1992; 11 (4): 441-444.) ...or with vitamin A: Journal of Nutrition, 2002; 132 (12): 3693 - 3699.)
(b) usually (i.e. unless you use supplements...and generally I try to eat whole-foods instead of pills, juices, or synth nutrients.) don't give you the life-prolonging "good fats": EFA's. N.B.: The average vegan is especially low in these (citations #101-104 in here)
(c) The Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial published by the AMA showed no heart disease nor cancer benefits to low-fat diets, and actually showed 26% WORSE heart-disease risks among women who'd previously had heart disease if they tried a low-fat diet.
OTOH, low-fat reduces calories, and that has benefits. So it seems to be a trade-off, with no clear benefits and a need to change the foods I've always loved (and perhaps even, overall, DETRIMENTS to health compared to my diet of "high fat, but avoid the 'bad' fats," but I have a feeling the jury is still out until more research is done), so I decided that aside from being vegan -- whic

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mr. Yellow Sunshine Pants on May 10, 2008 at 11:04am

haw, woops, I lost the rest of that post, but there wasn't much more after that. The important parts:

(1) I go for the Okinawan or Mediterranean attitudes toward fat: Fairly generous amounts, but I avoid anything with a lot of the "bad" fats.

(2) "aside from being a vegan" as my last post ended... I don't really feel any need to make a conscientious effort to reduce the fats I eat. Maybe if my cholesterol or waist-to-hip ratio (or BMI) was higher.

(3) As I get older, I do find it harder to eat something REALLY greasy as an entire meal, like my zucchini fritters with feta topping ("feta"=tofu+flavorings), unless the feta (watery) is most of it instead of the deep-fried fritters (oily); I can eat it only as an appetizer with a non-greasy entree. :-) My parents had the same thing happen; who knows, maybe the body does better with more fats at younger ages. I also like meals where I can get a bite of something non-oily to clear the film of oil off my mouth...but then be able to fill my mouth with the deliciousness (the fat :-) ) again for the next few bites.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by pradtf on May 10, 2008 at 12:40pm

lot of substantial references there!
that atkins stuff is so funny.

i wasn't suggesting reduction in fat consumption - just the oil that bothers me nowadays.
there are plenty of ways to eat fats in more natural form eg avocado, nuts even peanut butter.

i used to love fried okra!
i think i'd still like okra, but we'd steam it instead. haven't tried any though for years, possibly because of heading primarily raw.

in friendship,
prad

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page