Vegans shouldn't have sex with meat eaters?
There's a group in New Zealand vegans shunning vegans who have relations with meat eaters.
Do you think this is taking Veganism to an extreme?
I think it does. You can't be 100% vegan. It's only something you try to achieve, but so many everyday products we use are not vegan. I'm sure we're familiar with cars and junk ( Read more... )
Do you think this is taking Veganism to an extreme?
I think it does. You can't be 100% vegan. It's only something you try to achieve, but so many everyday products we use are not vegan. I'm sure we're familiar with cars and junk ( Read more... )
Soy is a complete protein. A complete protein is a protein that provides all the essential amino acids in adequate amount for human growth and development. There are dozens upon dozens of them in the plant kingdom.
The notion of "proper ratio" is a throwback from the 1930's. The growth studies of rats in that era has been refuted for decades as well. Rats whose hair mass/body mass ratio is orders of magnitude higher than humans require significantly more of the sulfur containing amino acids. This notion of a rigid idealized ratio hasn't been used by nutritional researchers for decades.
Why?
Because it's math. The human body needs a certain amount of lysine, a certain amount of methionine, tryptophan, etc... The body has the ability to mobilize amino acid stores depending on need. It does not need to have lysine every day or even every two days. It just needs a certain amount of this raw material to do it's work. If one day you get lots and the next day you don't the body can move a little stored around here and there.
Now, Take Oats for example. It is about 4.2% lysine, it's "limiting" amino acid, but it is still "complete" because it has adequate amounts of all essential amino acids. The general consensus is that protein with about 5.5% lysine is a good quality protein. So, lessay a person needs a 70kg person needs 70kg * 0.8g/kg =56g of a good quality protein. 5.5%/4.2% * 56g = 72g of oat protein.
So if oats were your sole source of protein, eating 72g would give you all the lysine you need. But who eats only one kind of protein *every* day.
Ya ever notice that gorillas, our close biological cousins are 20x stronger than people, but have a 97% plant based diet. They don't manufacture lysine, nor any of the other essential amino acids. They eat them in plants, green plants. Leafy greens have great amino acid scores and 30% by dry weight. So as long as you eat your caloric requirements of spinach you will get all the protein you need. Same goes with a lot of plants.
Chimps our closest biological cousins eat 95% plants and they are about the same weight as humans, bt 5x stonger. There's been a number of studies on the digestive kinetics of our extant ape cousins compared to humans and our digestive kinetics are really not that much different. They don't make essential amino acids. Like humans, they get them from diet.
Now, there is growing abundance that all this excess of essential amino acids is actually *bad*, becuase of this little hormone called IGF-1. IGF-1 is great when you're a child, but as an adult, you aren't growing anymore. An abundance of essential amino acids tends to increase IGF-1 which tells cells to grow, including cancerous cells that lack the instruction to die.
It essentially accelerates the growth/death cycle of cells, but cancer cells keep growing. The link between dairy milk and human breast cancer is staggering.
Anyway, that's just one counter-point. I invite you to read up on this at a university library. Stay away from any food writer that lists "entrepreneur" as her secondary credential for being a food writer.
As a counter-point to you "unhealthy vegan" stance, I invite you to browse through: Becoming Vegan: The Complete Guide to Adopting a Healthy Plant Based Diet You can look at the author information by following the "browse inside" link. You'll see why I look at people's credentials when I read food books. Compare them to your author.
Another good book, which has a subtle ridicule of vegans is
The California Nutrition Book: A Food Guide for the 90s from Faculty at the University of California and the Editors of American Health (Hardcover)
jv
Reply
Chimps our closest biological cousins eat 95% plants and they are about the same weight as humans, bt 5x stonger.
You say this like we have the potential to double or triple our strength for our size if we cut animal products out of our diet. Chimps and gorillas have physiologies that developed under circumstances different from those of humans, and I don't think diet has much to do with their inherent strength.
Reply
I say primates are a better animal model than rats when attempting to determine protein quality for human nutritional need.
jv
Reply
My point was that the inherent strength of a chimp has less to do with diet than its genetics.
Reply
You jumped in on the part of the thread where I was critiquing the original poster's reference to Nina Plank, who still believes in a very old and obsolete notion of plant proteins being incomplete. The notion stems from experiments in rats who need far more methionine and cysteine than humans due to the much larger hair mass/body mass ratio compared to humans.
jv
Reply
And the link between dairy and breast cancer is inconclusive:
http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/diet/fs33.dairy.cfm
http://www.breastcancer.org/faq_risk_dairy_products.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16373955&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus
Even the Vegan Society recognizes that the studies are conflicting.
Reply
"Also, excess intake of IGF-1 raises IGF-1, not an excess of amino acids.
Nutrient dependent growth signalling has been known for at least 20 years. There's a vast amount of data supporting this along with a scientifically sound mechanism. Just as insulin is produced in response to blood glucose, IGF-1 is produced in response to protein, more specifically essential amino acids, of which meat and dairy and isolated soy protein are chocked full of.
Makes sense, because if you have the raw materials, you can build.
The problem arises when IGF signals growth when there's nothing to grow. It allows a greater chance for cancer to grow.
Researchers believe this could be one explanation why exercise reduces the risk of cancer; exercise shifts the growth dynamics toward growth and repair of muscles, bones, etc... leaving less energy/nutrients for cancer growth.
Anyway, here's a few papers. This should give you enough information to look further into this. If you do, you will in fact find "excess amino acids *do* raise IGF-1", but only essential amino acids.
Metabolism. 1985 Apr;34(4):391-5
Supplemental essential amino acids augment the somatomedin-C/insulin-like growth factor I response to refeeding after fasting.
J Biol Chem, Vol. 273, Issue 43, 28178-28184, October 23, 1998
Branched-chain Amino Acids Are Essential in the Regulation of PHAS-I and p70 S6 Kinase by Pancreatic beta -Cells
A POSSIBLE ROLE IN PROTEIN TRANSLATION AND MITOGENIC SIGNALING
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(keyword mitogenic signalling)
A decent review on nutrient dependent growth signalling:
Annu. Rev. Nutr. 1991. 11:393-412
NUTRITIONAL REGULATION OF IGF-I AND IGF BINDING PROTEINS
Here's just one of several published papers on the differences in circulating IGF and IGFBH in veg*ns vs meat eaters:
The Associations of Diet with Serum Insulin-like Growth Factor I and Its Main Binding Proteins in 292 Women Meat-Eaters, Vegetarians, and Vegans
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Vol. 11, 1441-1448, November 2002
"Intake of protein rich in essential amino acids was positively associated with serum IGF-I and explained most of the differences in IGF-I concentration between the diet groups. These data suggest that a plant-based diet is associated with lower circulating levels of total IGF-I and higher levels of IGFBP-1 and IGFBP-2.
Btw, Isolated soy protein also increases circulating levels of IGF-1, but whole soy foods do not. Even though plant heads eat a lot of soy, they also eat a lot of other plant proteins such that the overall % of essential amino acids is significantly lower than omnivores. It's about balance.
jv
Reply
Even though plant heads eat a lot of soy, they also eat a lot of other plant proteins such that the overall % of essential amino acids is significantly lower than omnivores. It's about balance.
This still assumes you're working from some kind of set intake of animal protein in omnivores and that it's already too high. It also assumes that the omnivore is relying on animal proteins for the majority of their essential amino acids.
It is about balance. These articles are relevant to your argument if they assume a lot of the factors that make up an omnivorous diet. I don't think I need to outline the type of diet vegans seem to think of when someone says "omnivore", but most of the time they assume the worst.
Reply
When you read the studies between omnivores, vegetarians and vegans, you notice that even when they are not trying to determine the statistical average of animal protein intake, the number always shows up between 60%-85% for omnivores. The lower end is typically found in european countries, the higher in North American Countries.
The majority of plant protein consumed by omnivores is mostly oat or soy protein, both of which contain a good hearty level of essential amino acids.
Now, you can take these numbers, normalize them and dump them into nutritiondata.com and you will find that the essential amino acid profile of the combination of various animal foods with oats & soy protein doesn't change the essential amino acid score, because plant proteins have essential amino acids too.
To get closer to the EAA scores of even an ovo-lacto veggie diet, the animal % is around 10-20%, far less than the average intake of omnivores found in studies.
Why so low?
Because veg*ns mix complete proteins with incomplete proteins, while omnivores mix high EAA complete animal proteins with other high EAA complete plant proteins.
There is at least one study that went out to determine the animal protein intake of americans.
This study is an average of all americans, so the numbers will be artificially depressed wrt omnivores, because it includes vegetarians and vegans.
So, my estimates of animal protein being to high is based on sound statistical and nutritional data. I'm not "assuming the worst",[sic] I am
using the average.
Oh, here's a nice little review about the benefits and risks of plant proteins., in case you want a more detailed look at the amino acid profile of plants vs animal proteins and the effect on metabolic processes.
jv
Reply
Here it is:
Estimates of animal and plant protein intake in US adults: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1991.
jv
Reply
Ref:1 is 7 years old. Surely, there is more recent research. It doesn't address the role of essential amino acids and IGF1 production.
Ref:2 is a non-committal non-statement. "The dairy-free diet is intriguing, but it's certainly not a miracle cure." That really says absolutely nothing. (date uncertain)
It falls into the "listen to what I am not saying." She is not saying she knows if it does, if it doesn't or has any data, references, or anything.
Compare that to another statement on that site in 2005"
Devon: Are dairy products safe?
David Grotto: “Safe” is an interesting way of asking. It's somewhat of a mixed bag when it comes to fighting cancer. About dairy products, there was an interested study in The Lancet that showed that premenopausal women who had a small increase in insulin growth factor (IGF1) had up to 7 times the breast cancer risk of women with lower levels. The reason I bring that up is there was a study of dairy benefits showing insulin growth factor can possibly increase breast cancer. The casein in dairy can increase IGF.
Ref:3 doesn't address the possible role of essential amino acids in raising endogenous production of IGF-1. It only covers exogenous IGF-1.
It's one instance of the old adage " The questions we ask as scientists, ultimately bias our results."
The vegan society's statement is also 6 years old, in response to a single study that claimed dairy reduces the risk of breast cancer. More and more research is focussing on the role of nutrient signalled IGF production.
I'll look up some more recent papers later at work.
jv
Reply
It is ridiculous to point to a single food and say it's inherently unhealthy, and responsible for a host of modern medical issues. This goes for soy, this goes for milk, this goes for meat. The way vegans attack milk and meat consumption is incredibly similar to the animosity a lot of omnis show for soy - and when I read those kinds of arguments, I think everyone is missing the big picture.
Reply
Not ridiculous, but rather common throughout history. Humans determine what is considered "food" by collective knowledge & consensual approval, not by instinct, not by nutritional content. You eat certain foods because someone told you it was food, even if it is inherently bad.
For example, arctic explorers thought polar bear liver was "food" because they were told some time in their lives animal livers were food, against the advice of their native guides. 3 of them suffered irreversible neurological and occular damage due to retinol overdose. Differences in "collective knowledge" determined what was food, but the locals knew it was "inherently bad"
Other cultures eat clay which depletes zinc from their bodies. Clay is considered "food" to them and is determined to be bad for them. It is inherently bad.
Throughout history, there's been several cases of people trying all kinds of "foods" to extend their lives only for it to be cut short, because the food was actually a cumulative poison, mercuric compounds being the most popular.
Rhubarb leaves are inherently bad, because of the high level of oxalic acid, but people did eat them at one time. Inuits still do.
Cotton seed was considered "food" until it was discovered it makes men irreversibly sterile due to the gossypolol content.
A bunch of goofy raw foodists who ate a bunch of seeds in the 70-80's because some other quack said seeds contained "Vitamin B17", and died of cyanide poisioning, thought cyanide containing seeds were "food", but these seeds were inherently bad.
Modern society has this sophmoric notion that we have somehow reached an apex in our understanding of the world, and the mistakes of our "unenlightened predecessors" couldn't possibly be made by us.
In the case of meat and dairy, there are known mechanisms and empirical data in which animal proteins increase urinary calcium and oxalate, both markers for osteoporosis, arterial sclerosis, and gout.
When you read enough of these nutritional and epidemiological studies, you start seeing "the big picture". What is common knowledge about meat and dairy. "It has a lot of protein and fat", but has been implicated in heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancers of the gastro-intestinal track, gout, diverticular disease. The big picture is pretty clear. So clear that the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society, all independently recommend the same diet, one that is high in plant food and low in animal foods.
When you start reading about plant foods and the amount of anti-oxidants, vitamins, fiber, phyto-nutrients and the interaction of their nutritional makeup, like potassium vs sodium, citrate and calcium solubility, alkaline amino acids and calcium metabolism, non-essential amino acids and upregulation of glucagon vs down regulation of insulin, you start to see the big picture.
When you start reading about human physiology and comparative anatomies and digestive kinetics of other primates, you start to see the big picture.
Humans are a very resourceful bunch, we overcome obstacles. We get rid of inherently bad things in "food", by processing. Cooking meat is an example. We also can negate some inherently bad foods with inherently good foods.
I'll admit, it seems we each have a different perspective on what constitutes a "bad" food. I look at it from a cumulative sum of it's good and bad aspects, whereas it seems you look at it in terms of quantity to achieve the least risk and derive some benefit.
jv
Reply
Seal and polar bear liver, clay, and rhubarb leaves are all very actively toxic, or at least antinutrative. Raw rhubarb and taro leaves will kill you or at least inflame your mucosal membranes but both can be made edible. But oxalates and oxalic acid are not what we're discussing. None of those foods ("foods") are consumed on a global scale, specifically for the reasons you cited. Nobody pretends that eating a brick of cream cheese a day is best for your health, but can you honestly say that the health specialists you mentioned would place meat and dairy - a huge umbrella - alongside rhubarb leaves and polar bear liver in terms of sheer toxicity?
It's when you say things like "common knowledge about meat and dairy" that I begin to doubt you actually consider them to be anything beyond the type of products Industrial America has to offer, and still approach omnivores assuming they are the "average American" omnivore that consumes these products.
I mean, how else could you use hamfistedly generalize every breed and species of mammal and their milks, fowl, reptile, fish, crustacean, and insect that mankind consumes for nutrition as just good for "protein and fat"?
Modern society has this sophmoric notion that we have somehow reached an apex in our understanding of the world, and the mistakes of our "unenlightened predecessors" couldn't possibly be made by us.
So you think that you're ahead of the game because the world hasn't dropped animal products yet? Don't flatter yourself.
cooking meat is an example
Cooking meat has always been as much about the mode of the time as necessity. Raw animal products have always had their seat at the table.
I look at it from a cumulative sum of it's good and bad aspects, whereas it seems you look at it in terms of quantity to achieve the least risk and derive some benefit.
Look, I just finished writing a 20-pager on oxalic acid and human health. The cumulative sum of the good and bad aspects of my food are not as important as how it can fit into my diet as a whole, but fuck if I can't look at raw spinach anymore without ".97mg/100g MOSTLY SOLUBLE" flashing in front of my eyes.
Reply
Reply
Nah, I just don't pay attention to "the public eye". I do pay attention to nutritional studies.
"I mean, how else could you use hamfistedly generalize every breed and species of mammal and their milks, fowl, reptile, fish, crustacean, and insect that mankind consumes for nutrition as just good for "protein and fat"?
I can say that because the nutrient density of animal stuff is largely inferior to fresh vegetables, and thus one needs to eat a lot more of it.
Animal stuff are energy dense, but not nutrient dense. It's devoid of fiber[1], anti-oxidants, woefully lacking in A, C, E, K, and most of the other vitamins are killed off by cooking, but high in saturated fat. Fortification helps alleviate some of this.
I will concede, aquatic animals are an exception. They are reasonably nutritious, but we messed that up to.
"So you think that you're ahead of the game because the world hasn't dropped animal products yet?
Nah, I just question culture, society, mores, and, consequently that includes food. Food is intimately related to culture. Culture by it's very definition is about homogeneity. People don't like changes to that culture.
"Cooking meat has always been as much about the mode of the time as necessity. Raw animal products have always had their seat at the table.
Sure and then folks realized they were getting ill from it and parasites were living in their guts.
"Look, I just finished writing a 20-pager on oxalic acid and human health. The cumulative sum of the good and bad aspects of my food are not as important as how it can fit into my diet as a whole, but fuck if I can't look at raw spinach anymore without ".97mg/100g MOSTLY SOLUBLE" flashing in front of my eyes.
You should have wrote a few more pages that also included some research about dietary calcium intake and decreases in urinary oxalate excretion or potassium intake and/or citrate intake and decrease risk of kidney stones, along with animal vs plant proteins and the risk of kidney stones, and maybe include the decreased risk of kidney stones between vegans and vegetarians even though the ingest more oxalate and more ascorbic acid, but also more potassium, more citrate, more alkaline foods, more water, and less sodium. Then you would realize that the 97mg/100g of soluble oxalate in spinach is not much of an issue. Ok, it's an issue if you're an omnivore :P
btw, soak the spinach and drain the water. Better yet, mix in some sisymbrium seeds and CaSO4 set tofu in a nice salad and it will drastically reduce oxalate absorption in the gut.
jv
[1] ok the exoskeleton of bugs are a form of insoluble fiber.
Reply
Leave a comment