|
|
Re: Nutrition and Chronic Disease
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Re: Nutrition and Chronic Disease - June 14, 2005 6:26:00 AM
|
|
|
JLS_PT_OCS
Posts: 1684
Joined: January 30, 2005
From: USA
Status: offline
|
Nicole-
The book The China Study has multiple citations and an in-depth discussion of the role of the vegan diet in prevention/treatment of autoimmune diseases, especially MS.
Here's something to check out in the meantime:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11461185&query_hl=1
J
_____________________________
Jason Silvernail DPT, OCS, CSCS
"It isn't what you're able to do that requires your courage but rather what you have come to understand and are willing to express." - Barrett Dorko,PT
**I no longer post on RehabEdge**
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Nutrition and Chronic Disease - June 14, 2005 6:57:00 AM
|
|
|
coreconcepts
Posts: 68
Joined: April 13, 2005
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline
|
Jason and all,
Still a great discussion. I think Luke sums up my thoughts on the subject with this quote
"Just so you know, I also support and follow a natural wholefoods, plant based diet, but I don't think there is enough evidence to say that it should be a plant exclusive diet."
I will read the China Study soon. Our local library has a wait list of over 75 for it! I'll have to just bite the bullet and buy a copy. On that subject, I read an exerpt that said that tumors thrive on higher amounts of protein, and that they recommend only 10% of calories come from protein. Is this accurate? Do they recommend this for cancer patients, the general population or both? Also, I recall a previous exchange with you on the subject where you mentioned that it wasn't the saturated fat of the meat that was the problem, but meat consumption in general.
What is Colin Campbell's rationalization for the eschwing of meat? ie. what is it about meat that his research has found to be either carcinogenic, atherogenic (or whatever other diseases he purports meat to cause).
Does he (or you) feel that it is the hormones, antibiotics and other "impurities" that are now present in meat that is the concern, or the meat itself?
Thank for your time in answering my queries.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Nutrition and Chronic Disease - June 14, 2005 11:26:00 AM
|
|
|
JLS_PT_OCS
Posts: 1684
Joined: January 30, 2005
From: USA
Status: offline
|
Core-
Happy to help, thanks for helping me revive an old thread.
I disagree with Luke in that I have seen ample evidence to support a plant exclusive diet, and it's from the China Study.
I don't know where you got the 10% of calories from protein thing, I think the source has misquoted attempts at finding a happy medium of animal protein consumption.
It's actually the consumption of animal protein itself that is the problem. The saturated fat intake is useful only as a marker of animal product consumption.
I am active, lift weights, etc, so I need more protein than 10%, which I get plenty of, mostly soy.
I can't speak for Dr Campbell on the meat thing, only to say that it's not a rationalization, it's citation of research evidence that drives that decision. You make a good point about impurities and antibiotics, but it is your body's reaction to the animal protein itself that is the problem. The impurities and antibiotics (not to mention the moral issues) are just other good reasons to avoid eating animals.
"Animals are my friends, and I don't eat my friends." -GB Shaw
"If you love animals you call pets, why do you eat animals you call Dinner?" - Unknown
:)
J
_____________________________
Jason Silvernail DPT, OCS, CSCS
"It isn't what you're able to do that requires your courage but rather what you have come to understand and are willing to express." - Barrett Dorko,PT
**I no longer post on RehabEdge**
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Nutrition and Chronic Disease - June 15, 2005 7:10:00 AM
|
|
|
coreconcepts
Posts: 68
Joined: April 13, 2005
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline
|
Hi Jason,
I'm not sure anymore where I read the "10% thing", but I'll scroll throught the exerpts section of the China Study website. Here's an article you may be interested in from reuters.
Study Confirms Red Meat Link with Bowel Cancer
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_25215.html
This seems to be a well-controlled, large population study. Interesting how they found a link between red meat and processed meat, but not chicken. Also interesting, was that fish consupmtion attenuated for the effects of the meat consumption.
I still contend that one who eats moderate amounts of meat as part of an otherwise healthy plant-based, varied diet will be no less prone to chronic disease than their vegan counterparts.
"There's plenty of room for all God's creatures. Right next to the mashed potatoes" :)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Nutrition and Chronic Disease - June 15, 2005 7:28:00 AM
|
|
|
JLS_PT_OCS
Posts: 1684
Joined: January 30, 2005
From: USA
Status: offline
|
Nice quote. :)
I'll save the moral angle for some other time and place, we can all get together over frosty beverages and hash it out someday...I'll buy the first round...
I understand the "moderation" argument, but the difficulty comes in deciding what moderation is. Moderation for me is eating something baked with milk or eggs (bread, cookie, etc) once a week or so, or having some soymilk that unknowingly has vitamin D3 in it in my Thai Tea with my tofu curry dinner.
To you, moderation may be only 9 oz of meat per day.
I think the China Study data go a long way towards understanding exactly where to draw that line. (hint: it's a lot closer to me than to you). :)
I certainly admit that a good longitudinal study done on vegans vs "healthy-omnivorous-but-rarely-meat-eaters" has not been, and probably won't ever be, done. But the general principle remains.
J
_____________________________
Jason Silvernail DPT, OCS, CSCS
"It isn't what you're able to do that requires your courage but rather what you have come to understand and are willing to express." - Barrett Dorko,PT
**I no longer post on RehabEdge**
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Nutrition and Chronic Disease - June 15, 2005 7:43:00 AM
|
|
|
coreconcepts
Posts: 68
Joined: April 13, 2005
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline
|
Hi Jason,
I'm glad you took the quote in jest. I graciously accept your offer for a converstion over a pint, should our paths cross.
I will try to run out and get hte book soon. I am very open-minded about the research, as it sounds pretty sound. I also agree that a "vegans vs. healthy-omnivorous-but-rarely-meat-eaters" study is warranted. I also agree that is won't likely happen.
BTW, good point about the moderation issue. While doing some digging with some of my clients, it is amazing what they consider "moderation" lol...
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Nutrition and Chronic Disease - June 15, 2005 7:55:00 AM
|
|
|
JLS_PT_OCS
Posts: 1684
Joined: January 30, 2005
From: USA
Status: offline
|
Here's a bit you might like about the "Moderation" topic from Caldwell Esselstyn, MD, a Cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic.
http://www.vegsource.com/esselstyn/moderation_kills.htm
I think the conventional wisdom says moderation in all things is OK, even good. But clearly, among many things (and I think eating animal products is one) it is not.
:)
J
_____________________________
Jason Silvernail DPT, OCS, CSCS
"It isn't what you're able to do that requires your courage but rather what you have come to understand and are willing to express." - Barrett Dorko,PT
**I no longer post on RehabEdge**
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Nutrition and Chronic Disease - June 15, 2005 8:01:00 AM
|
|
|
coreconcepts
Posts: 68
Joined: April 13, 2005
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline
|
Thanks Jason - I will read it.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Nutrition and Chronic Disease - June 15, 2005 6:54:00 PM
|
|
|
Randy Dixon
Posts: 744
Joined: August 6, 2004
Status: offline
|
I certainly admit that a good longitudinal study done on vegans vs "healthy-omnivorous-but-rarely-meat-eaters" has not been, and probably won't ever be, done. But the general principle remains-Jason
I saw an article on the Google newspage when this topic first came out about exactly the type of study you are talking about. It supported Jason's claim. I didn't read it though, only saw it in passing and I was going to post the link here but figured someone else would do it. Maybe if you NEWSGOOGLE some terms it will pop up.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Nutrition and Chronic Disease - June 16, 2005 4:45:00 PM
|
|
|
anoopbal
Posts: 124
Joined: May 3, 2005
Status: offline
|
I havent read the book, but from what little I have learned it is quite difficult to compare vegetarian and non veghetarina diets.
Unless you are down to the specifics of the diet and activity patterns, we are just beating around the bush.
Most of the meat based diets people eat are poorly balanced, like too much fatty meat,very few servings or none of fruits and vegetables,too much high GI crap, too high saturated fat. As well, youi can have plenty of saturated fat coming in vegan diet by consuming those fat cheeses and pottae chips.
I think anybody will be hard pressed to find something wrong with a diet which provides plenty of lean meat,
plenty of fruits and vegiies,
healthy fats and low gi foods.
I think it's quite difficult to pull out something conclusive in epidemiological stduies when you have so many changing variables like activity level, body fat levels , and so on.
Anoop
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Nutrition and Chronic Disease - June 17, 2005 1:46:00 AM
|
|
|
JLS_PT_OCS
Posts: 1684
Joined: January 30, 2005
From: USA
Status: offline
|
Anoop, read the book, your concerns are valid but addressed quite well in the data.
Especially the concept that lean meat is OK or somehow better than the "fattier" cuts.
And vegans don't eat cheese. I won't tell you what we consider it to be. :)
J
_____________________________
Jason Silvernail DPT, OCS, CSCS
"It isn't what you're able to do that requires your courage but rather what you have come to understand and are willing to express." - Barrett Dorko,PT
**I no longer post on RehabEdge**
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Nutrition and Chronic Disease - June 17, 2005 4:24:00 AM
|
|
|
Lukey
Posts: 180
Joined: September 14, 2004
From: Australia
Status: offline
|
Hi Jason,
I don't have time to read The China Study at the moment. Could you give me a quick out line of how, or if, it deals with the fact that -
Hominids have survived and thrived with animal proteins in the diet for several million years.
There isn't a single traditional culture that is / has been pure vegan.
The cultures that have the longest life expectancy aren't vegan.
All of the centarians in Australia (for eg) are 'meat and three veg' folk.
In traditional chinese medical care all unwell people are prescribed special medicinal preparations based on animal broths, placenta or organ meats.
I'm curious.
Regards,
Luke
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Nutrition and Chronic Disease - June 17, 2005 10:19:00 AM
|
|
|
JLS_PT_OCS
Posts: 1684
Joined: January 30, 2005
From: USA
Status: offline
|
Luke-
1. Hominids have only very recently begun living very long at all. Even 300 years ago, the life expectancy was considerably low. This has probably lots of causes. Hominids have also survived by treating themselves through local tribal "witchdoctors" or "medicine men/women" throughout most of their history. Are you arguing that because we are still here, everything that we have historically done must be correct in some way? I don't see how that makes sense.
2. I'm not sure what traditional cultures have to do with what the most healthy current diet is. Traditional does not equal good or optimal. I think that's an important point.
3. Cultures with longest life expectancy. Well, rural chinese give everyone a run for their money, that's for sure. And they are nearly vegan. Certainly genetics plays a large part, no argument there. Which brings me to....
4. Centarians in Australia or the US for that matter, don't often have the best health habits. Many drink/smoke, etc. See genetics number 3 above. Again, I don't think I need to comment on anecdotal evidence...
5. Traditional Chinese medicine is full of many things, some useful, some quackery. Like any culture's medicine for that matter. I'm not sure what that has to do with diet, those animal preparations are not helpful in any disease treatment I am aware of.
Thanks.
J
_____________________________
Jason Silvernail DPT, OCS, CSCS
"It isn't what you're able to do that requires your courage but rather what you have come to understand and are willing to express." - Barrett Dorko,PT
**I no longer post on RehabEdge**
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Nutrition and Chronic Disease - June 18, 2005 12:14:00 AM
|
|
|
Lukey
Posts: 180
Joined: September 14, 2004
From: Australia
Status: offline
|
Hi Jason,
1&2. No, that is not what I am arguing at all. My argument is that the publication of The China Study is not adequate evidence that the most appropriate diet for every person on the planet is a pure vegan one. The first 2 queries are related to the fact that several million years of instinctive behaviour and natural selection cannot be discounted in the blink of an eye. We have evolved with particluar biological needs, which must be met. How would your average cave man or Australian aborigine have fared without his fortified soy milk, rice protein powder, B12 capsules, extracted fish oils or bottles of flax seed oil, spirulina, plant protein combinations etc, that vegans take to maintain adequate nutrition? I am not saying that we should try to maintain a prehistoric lifestyle (this would be impossible even if we wanted to), only that for many people on the planet that legacy is still active in our physiology. Of course, we continue to adapt. Some cultures, the rural Chinese and Indians for example, have been moving in a vegan direction for much longer than say Europeans.
3&4. I think the Japanese top the list and look at the amount of fish in their diet. We agree that genetics are important. That is perhaps why Inuits do very poorly without large amounts of fish and seal blubber and why Pacific islanders suffer obesity on far less calories than we do. However, "the total genetic contribution to longevity is 25%. (Cournil & Kirkwood 2001)". Therefore other factors play a larger role.
From, Eaton et al Preventive Medicine 34, 119–123 (2002)
Lifestyle and Longevity
"Healthy lifestyle choices can improve an individual’s body composition, strength, and endurance. They can minimize risk of stroke, heart attack, diabetes, and cancer. What they cannot achieve is major impact on a population’s average life expectancy. Completely eliminating the major known risk factors for nine leading chronic diseases would increase life expectancy at birth by only 4 years. While desirable, a 4 year gain pales when compared to the near 60-year has occurred in Western nations over the past three centuries." "It is the combination of these [public health achievements - purer water, adequate sewage disposal, safer food, effective systems of quarantine, food availability] societal developments rather than individual lifestyle choices which have led to an average life expectancy twice that of any prior human society."
Regarding the health of meat eaters in a natural setting -
"This allows comparison between age-matched younger members of industrial and technologically primitive societies. Biomarkers of obesity, rising blood pressure, nonobstructive coronary atherosclerosis, and insulin resistance are common among the former, but rare in the latter. Measurements of muscular strength and aerobic power reveal similar discrepancies, again favoring individuals whose lives more closely resemble the ancestral pattern. About 20% of hunter-gatherers reach age 60 or beyond**, but even in this age bracket, individuals from foraging and other technologically primitive cultures appear almost completely free from manifestations of most chronic degenerative diseases (osteoarthritis is an exception).
**(Of course bacteria, predators, accidents, extremes in weather and the lack of a reliable food source affects the stats of primitive cultures much more that ours. Keep in mind they still had animal foods)
5. The first intervention in Tradition Chinese medicine IS diet. The most famous doctor in chinese history said no medicine should be given until the diet was altered/supplemented. Animal products are used when their is weakness, low weight, malabsorption, poor immunity, lethargy etc (sounds like some vegans I've worked with). I bring this up because even in China there is an awareness that animal products do offer the human body certain benefits that are difficult to obtain elsewhere - unless you have access to multivitamins, concentrated and fortified foods.
I have worked as a nutritionist treating vegans (as a vegan), and it is not as clear cut as you seem to think it is. I know you hate anecdote, but not everyone who becomes vegan remains well - even the ones who are careful. I remember discussing the issue of weight loss and fatigue in vegan males with the head dietition of the Austalian Vegan Society. He said "Yes, that does happen in some people. We find that the best way to mainatin weight is to make the bulk of the diet white rice, white pasta, potatoes, fruit juice and peanut butter." Is this a satisfactory solution for the health conscious? Believe me, I (and my wife) would be vegan if I could remain well on such a diet. Unfortunately, like many others, I can't, but I am not extrapolating that to mean no one should be vegan.
As you know, there is a big difference between statistical significance and clinic significance. And even if an intervention is clinically significant, it is not so for every person studied. Adverse effects in any treatment should also be reported. What do you do with these people?
There is also the issue of causality. Epidemiological studies report a reduction in various diseases when on a vegan diet, not elimination. Does that mean a vegan diet is a cause of such disease, but in fewer people?
I am not advocating the Western diet, just trying to point out that it is probably a bit premature to suggest the entire human species is biologically ready to become vegan tomorrow, that having even some animal protein in the diet is the predominant factor in creating chronic disease, or that veganism is the panacea for chronic disease.
Luke
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Nutrition and Chronic Disease - June 19, 2005 7:20:00 AM
|
|
|
anoopbal
Posts: 124
Joined: May 3, 2005
Status: offline
|
Good post, Luke.
I am always skeptical of claims which try to pin down causality to a single agent.And I have made the same mistake in the past. But I will defintely take alook at the book, just bcos JAson reccomends it.Here is a good website and their retort to the China Study:
http://beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-8e.shtml
Anoop
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Nutrition and Chronic Disease - June 19, 2005 2:37:00 PM
|
|
|
Lukey
Posts: 180
Joined: September 14, 2004
From: Australia
Status: offline
|
Anoop,
I remeber one of my nutrition professors saying once that chronic disease is the result of the overall internal ecology, not the direct result of a single dietary agent. Speaking of causation, I found this quite interesting in light of the info being discussed.
Roberts-Thomson RA, Roberts-Thomson PJ. Rheumatic disease and the Australian aborigine. Ann Rheum Dis. 1999 May;58(5):266-70.
"A comprehensive review was performed of the archaeological, ethnohistorical, and contemporary literature relating to rheumatic diseases in these indigenous people. No evidence was found to suggest that rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), or gout occurred in Aborigines before or during the early stages of white settlement of Australia. Part of the explanation for the absence of these disorders in this indigenous group may relate to the scarcity of predisposing genetic elements, for example, shared rheumatoid epitope for RA, B27 antigen for AS. In contrast, osteoarthritis appeared to be common particularly involving the temporomandibular joint, right elbow and knees and, most probably, was related to excessive joint loading in their hunter gatherer lifestyle. Since white settlement, high frequency rates for rheumatic fever, systemic lupus erythematosus, and pyogenic arthritis have been observed and there are now scanty reports of the emergence of RA and gout in these original Australians. "
(There was no shortage of kangaroo, barramundi, brown snake and goanna in these peoples diet. Again this points to a multifactorial pathogenesis)
I first became aware of beyondveg.com 8 years ago when I was struggling on a vegan diet. It is a very useful site. Of course I outrightly regected the info when I first came across it because it didn't valdiate my philosophy... until I got even worse that is. It was started by a guy who went through a similar experience.
Luke
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Nutrition and Chronic Disease - June 20, 2005 4:15:00 AM
|
|
|
JLS_PT_OCS
Posts: 1684
Joined: January 30, 2005
From: USA
Status: offline
|
Luke-
Thanks for the continued discussion. I believe you have misrepresented my position on the vegan diet, especially as it relates to disease. I do not maintain that it is a panacea, perfect for everyone, or that animal protein is the cause of all chronic diseases.
I agree that any study of epidemiology is full of multiple confounding factors, and there is great difficulty in establishing causation for many problems and diseases, even with high quality research.
Your Quote:
"How would your average cave man or Australian aborigine have fared without his fortified soy milk, rice protein powder, B12 capsules, extracted fish oils or bottles of flax seed oil, spirulina, plant protein combinations etc, that vegans take to maintain adequate nutrition?"
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you asking whether I think our ancestors should have been making soymilk?
I agree the Japanese have an excellent longevity (though that is decreasing with movement away from traditional diet). They do eat a lot of fish, but virtually no beef, pork, or chicken. The lactose intolerance rate of Asian populations is known to be quite high, as well. Interesting, and overall better evidence for the near-vegan diet, I would think. We agree that no particular diet can account for individual genetic or physiological differences. I don't think either of us is arguing this isn't true.
Your chinese medicine point - I fail to understand where you're going with this. They provide animal products for lethargic patients (which you liken to vegans - how wonderfully anecdotal of you), interesting. I'm sure that system calls for all kinds of silliness for all kinds of conditions. It also prescribes ground up seahorses for fertility, I think. Native quackery fails to convince mem of anything, I'm afraid.
I don't know what to say about the obviously wrongheaded quote from some supposedly vegan guy. I have not read any such recommendation in discussions of vegan nutrition. Clearly poor GI carbs and peanut butter do not a good diet make.
I think the data is quite clear-cut. As I have said before, no amount of data can account for some individual differences in genetics or physiology. As with any diet, if something's wrong, change it. Surely no one needs to read a book to figure this out.
If you do not examine the sources and evidence I present, I don't see how you can make a reasoned rebut.
Also, I think we really agree on most things about nutrition, the only point of contention really is how much animal products it should contain.
I have seen a lot of good quality evidence that supports a minimal or even nonexistent amount.
Again, I doubt we will ever see a longitudinal study comparing your diet (healthy and with lean meats and low-fat animal products) to mine (almost completely vegan) in the general population, so to be able to make a strong case one way or the other about whose diet is best probably isn't possible.
What IS possible is to see the aggragate data and despite small arguments over statistics (such as those brought up in the link above) this does present a very strong case. Which anyone can only grasp if they actually study the data.
Diet is always rife with lots of strong emotion, which to be honest I have never understood. I think that people have a very visceral reaction when I tell them what I don't eat, and I think that it has something to do with a perceived rejection of the culture from which the standard western diet is taken. Or perhaps an assumption on their part that I take umbrage with what they choose to eat. I really am only interested (for the purpose of this thread) in the scientific evidence behind this particular diet.
I have seen to date a lot of theoretical points about cavemen and chinese medicine, anecdotal stories about pale and sickly vegans, arguments about esoteric statistics, and some even some aphorisms about moderation. What I haven't seen is any clear or convincing refutation of the data I have presented.
As usual, I close with my encouragement for everyone to not take my word for it, but to read the book and make their own decisions. No panacea, just convincing evidence that this diet can play a strong role in the development and treatment of some chronic diseases.
Thanks Luke for the ongoing discussion, and keeping me sharp. Have a great week.
Jason.
_____________________________
Jason Silvernail DPT, OCS, CSCS
"It isn't what you're able to do that requires your courage but rather what you have come to understand and are willing to express." - Barrett Dorko,PT
**I no longer post on RehabEdge**
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Nutrition and Chronic Disease - June 20, 2005 12:22:00 PM
|
|
|
Diane
Posts: 1477
Joined: March 9, 2001
From: Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Status: offline
|
Just an aside.. I watched a nature program (I love nature programs) about chimps.. the male chimps formed "hunting parties" and took out monkeys. They ate them actually, but what was interesting was the political currency they gained from the exercise: the females with babies did submissive postures and so on (begging) to be given bits of meat. The male chimps used the meat to consolidate power positions or to renegotiate their status in the troup. V-e-r-y interesting..
The main point here, of course, is that chimps will eat meat from time to time.
There was also a clip of a big male (dominant) hippo, heaving himself up out of the water and waddling over to a nearby carcass of a rotting something or other, and filling up on, yes, meat. Amazing.
Anyway, back to the thread..
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Nutrition and Chronic Disease - June 20, 2005 3:03:00 PM
|
|
|
Lukey
Posts: 180
Joined: September 14, 2004
From: Australia
Status: offline
|
Hi Jason,
That's fair enough. I think we understand each other.
I'm glad this is not an emotionally charged issue for you. I have found that it is often the emotional (or philosophical) attachment that makes one unwilling to change any diet - vegan or Western - even when they are unwell on it.
Regards,
Luke
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Nutrition and Chronic Disease - June 20, 2005 4:33:00 PM
|
|
|
Jon Newman
Posts: 1690
Joined: April 24, 2004
From: Amherst, WI
Status: offline
|
Ian Stevens has posted another worthwhile link over at noigroup.com. Check it out in the library section (see Interview with Norton Hadler). While it has nothing to do with vegetarianism per se, it does address some of the general issues that are implicit in this conversation.
jon
_____________________________
[URL=http://www.sonymusic.com/clips/selection/30/064887/064887_03_03_30.wav]Evidence[/URL]
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
0.219
|
Printable Version
