MsMittens,
I am not a vegetarian. I tried a couple times, but wound up crawling on my hands and knees into a steak joint.

A vegan diet can be tricky. You want to get enough protein (not terribly hard) but the tricky part is getting all the essential amino acids. You have to mix n match to get complete protein.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

Some will need vitamins. In a perfect world, everyone would be tested every few years to see if they were deficient in any of the essential nutrients. But I think a person starting out into the vegan thing really should do that once or twice in the first year.

There are also some pitfalls, some people simply replace meat with soy. This gives you too muuch soy. I have nothing against soy. I have some every day. You want diversity. Lentils are great.

A lot of people have vegetarian days. It used to be a very popular way to ease into it. It's also good for you.

My parents were/are exclusively vegan. I found it difficult to training effectively and got a lot of heat from coaches/trainers. They were hardly familiar with the concept.
I added eggs and cheeses slowly and saw a significant difference.
I am no longer vegan or vegetarian but I choose my food carefully as a result.
With the exception of chocolate. :D

It all sounds very interesting, but I cant think of life being exciting or fun without a grilled NY Steak topped with a balsamic/rosemary reduction and a side of grilled avocados and artichokes, that's life baby!

You think HE looks impressive?

There's a lot of myths that go both ways regarding veganism. If you're a vegan, it's not that hard to get protein (you don't need that much anyway), calcium, and most other essential nutrients.

There's a lot of missinformation that's put out by vegans as well. Probably the biggest lie is that some claim farming animals makes inefficient use of the land that could otherwise be used to produce food for starving nations (not true).

He made tabacco should we smoke that?

I gave up meat over a month ago. i feel better ride faster, longer5+ hour rides are a walk in the park. i been training for 3 years, after a month of no meat ive made big gains. people over rate and consume to much protien. it's working for me so **** meat.

People are so quick to question a vegetarian about their diet. We are doing fine, go talk to the other 90% of the population, they are the ones who need the help and the education.

Protein is way overrated! Don't get me wrong it's essential and we all need it but, endurance athletes don't need any more then about 10% to maybe 15% of calories coming from protein. I'm Vegan and can do that no problem. As well the more protein you eat the more calcium you need, and I know so many people who think to get calcium you need to drink 2 liters of milk a day. Milk from cows is made to make calf’s gain a few hundred pounds in a small amount of time. Who thought this would be a good idea to eat. If you are living is a place where food is hard to come by then yes, milk will probably do your body wonders due to lack of other sources of food, but it is by no means an ideal source of anything. Eat greens and you can get all the calcium you need. The 5 countries with the highest dairy consumption also have the high rates of osteoporosis. I think there might be a link.

Sorry for the rant... It happens from time to time :)

There's a link between people who have very high protein diets and osteoporosis. The reasons are unclear. The real reason could be something that has nothing to do with protein itself, but something else in the diet of people who consume large amounts of protein. To start making quantum leaps in conjecture and say everyone should stop drinking milk and stop eating good sources of protein doesn't make much sense. The biggest causes of osteoporosis have nothing to do with calcium consumption.

There's nothing nutritionally wrong with milk if consumed in moderation. The Amercian Cancer Society found that people who drink at least 8 oz of milk per day have a 15% lower risk of colon cancer. This pretty much shoots PETA's credibility straight to hell when they start putting out information that milk causes colon cancer. They probably say that the ACS has been bought off by the milk industry though. They always have an answer to everything.

"High Protein Diets: Separating Fact From Fiction"
http://www.theomnivore.com/Stephen%2...20article.html

The evidence between people who eat high protein diets and osteoporosis is pretty clear. What's not so clear is if it's the protein itself and not something else. I don't think it's a good idea to base your sources solely on people who are pro-vegan, or anti-vegan. It's not that difficult to find various studies to support your argument on either side of the issue. Stephen Byrnes was definitely anti-vegan and based a lot of his hypotheses on obscure and less-than-conclusive studies. Stephen Byrnes was a pretty sharp guy who had a lot of good information about nutrition and health. Ironically though, he died of a stroke at a young age. I'm not sure I'd want to put a whole lot of stock in everything he has written.

ok, I'm taking the bait....

I try to avoid these "discussions" because they require a bit of time and thought to research appropriate references, etc, etc, but..........


Firstly, you've gotta do more than simply dis that link because of where it is. That short article has 25 references, perhaps you should work through each one of them, one by one.


Here's a starter: Vegan Diets - Fast Track To Ill-Health

"Osteoporosis

Ms. Pike, the well-worn claim that high-protein diets can cause osteoporosis really is a bad joke, considering that it is a well-established fact that protein is an essential component of bones, and that epidemiological studies repeatedly show that it is low-protein intakes, not high protein intakes, that are associated with reduced bone density.(47)

It is typically claimed that high protein intakes will cause an increase in calcium excretion. Researchers recently examined this premise by performing a series of experiments in which intestinal calcium absorption was measured (using dual stable calcium isotopes) in pre- and postmenopausal women who were fed diets of varying protein content. Unlike a number of similar previous experiments, the diets of the women were tightly controlled, and the wide variations between individuals in calcium absorption were countered by using each women as her own control. Under these well-controlled conditions, the researchers found that calcium absorption was significantly lower during periods of low protein consumption (0.8g/kg and below) than during periods of high protein consumption. The researchers concluded, in a rather understated manner, that these studies "call the traditional high protein hypothesis to question". No kidding!(47)
http://www.theomnivore.com/Open_letter_to_Pike.html

This article only has 86 references, :rolleyes: so get to work


If you wanna be a vegan for moral reasons, then fair enough (obviously), but being healthy on such a diet is more complicated than getting a bit of protein, b12 and iron.

If you're determined that you will NEVER change your mind, no matter what, just tell me now, so I don't waste any time bashing my head up against a brick wall.


http://www.theomnivore.com/Ornish.html (about 1/4 way down the page)
"The well-worn claim that high-protein diets can cause osteoporosis is also a bad joke, considering that it is a well-established fact that protein is an essential component of bones and that epidemiological studies repeatedly show that it is low-protein intakes, not high protein intakes, that are associated with reduced bone density.(24).-- Anthony Colpo, The Omnivore


this is one of my favourites:
THE MYTHS OF VEGETARIANISM
http://www.powerhealth.net/selected_articles.htm

First if you could point to the point in my post where I said people should stop eating good sources of protein I would appreciate it. And no Milk is not a good source of protein, there are many better sources. Milk is hardly a good source of anything, however if you look at the standard American diet, milk is probably an improvement on a lot of levels. So when the cancer society says, drink milk and your risk of cancer will drop, ya that’s probably true, but look at the sample population. Over 1/3 are severely obese and couldn't run a block without pushing themselves to the limit. Take a healthy person who doesn't drink milk and add it to their diet and their chances of colon cancer of way up. My father has bowel disease and has been told by many specialists he is at high risk of colon cancer and the best thing he can possibly do is greatly reduce your consumption of dairy products. Now on top of that if you live in the US you have a whole other reason to not eat dairy. The US is the ONLY country in the world to allow the use of Bovine Growth Hormone in dairy cows. Why is the US the only one you ask, because every other country that has looked at the drug has said, this stuff is not at all safe. Also take into account that it causes mastitis in cows which causes udders to become infected and leak puss into the milk they produce. Since BGH has been used there is now an acceptable level of puss allowed in your milk. So go ahead and drink the mammary secretions of another animal infused with puss. By all means you have the right to make your own choices, but when you can live healthy without it WHY would you choose to eat it.

For the record I'm not a fan of PETA.

Aussie531

It's kind of ironic that you take a quote from doctor dean ornish in your post. The man is at the front of the vegan movment. He is a doctor that works with patients that have suffered heart attacks and other illnesses and has been able to REVERSE all damage in EVERY patient by putting patients on a vegan diet with moderate exersice. If you want a backed up study on why being vegan is a good diet read The Food Revolution by John Hoppkins. If offers over 30 pages of refrences from studies done on diet and nutrition. Read that book, because my guess is you really haven't heard the vegan argument. What you have heard probally come from people like myself who are far from specialists and crazy Peta people who try to push the subject on you. I've done my reaseach, but I'm far from an expert. And for the record I never said lots of protien is bad, it's just not needed for endurance athletes. If you are a power lifter that is a whole other thing.

Hmmm, you didn't read that link, did you?

That 'Ornish' link is an article by Anthony Colpo, who questions most of Ornish's claims. The quote is of Anthony Colpo

I'll edit it.

anyway, these arguments are mostly pointless because there are studies that seem to support everything.

Agreed, you could probally find a study to support, eatting, dirt in large quanities is good for your immune system.

Ya i didn't read the link, sorry for the assumption.

yeah, the "super mineral diet" :)

I am a vegan. For me its not a lack of meat thing so much as it is eating nutrient dense whole foods. I also feel better now that I don't consume dairy and so do others I know who have given up dairy - but that's a slightly different point. For me, I live by a simple set of rules - only whole foods (which I define as fruits, veggies, beans, nuts and whole grains with at least 4 grams of fiber per serving).

At my office today it is someone's birthday so everyone brought in food. There is a huge cookie cake, cupcakes, krispy kreme's, a big pastry pie, a coffee cake and twizlers. I brought grapes and stawberries. I will only munch on the grapes and strawberries. My co-workers will eat all the other stuff. I am of a normal height and weight. Most of my co-workers are fat. I will have a lower risk of heart disease, diabetes and cancer than they will because of the food choices they make everyday. But, its that they eat meat. Its that they eat everything.

Of course, as I've pointed out here before, its tough to do a study to show that merely being a vegan will make you healthier because vegans are more likely to have advanced degrees, make above average incomes and do all sort of lifestyle things that keeps their weight down and is healthy. While my krispy kreme eating co-workers were asleep this morning I was up and on my bike riding hill intervals. How does that factor in?

If you are so obsessed with your health that you don't consume meat and diary because you think it is bad for you (whether you are right or wrong about that), you are probably making other healthy decisions. I can tell you that every vegan I know (only about 7 of them) would not eat any of the krispy kreme's in my office today and would also forego all the other junk food. Of course, there are probably a lot of meat eaters that would avoid the junk food too. Its just that the sample size of meat eaters is so big.

jennings780,

very well put. I eat meat. Rarely is it red meat, but I do eat poultry and fish. However I, like you, wouldn't touch the cookie cake or krispy kremes. That stuff just doesn't do it for me because I know how bad it is for me and I know I would just feel guilty eating it. However I don't think the occasional drifting from my usual "diet" is that harmful either. What I mean is that one day last week I went out to celebrate the sale of my house with my mom. We went to Cheesecake Factory. Well, instead of just saying to hell with it and eating whatever I wanted I had grilled fish with asparagus and broccoli. However I had enough of a calorie deficit to also have a piece of cheesecake. Yes it's loaded with fat and sugar but it was a once in a long while deal. I'm sure your co-workers don't have a krispy kreme once in a long while :) We have to make choices and we have to realize what goes into our bodies. The occasional straying isn't going to kill us but we can't make it a habit

You can have a healthy diet regardless of animal products.

Healthy diet <> healthy lifestyle.

PETA is no more a representative of vegetarians as Ronald McDonald is of meat eaters.

Resolving the Coronary Artery Disease Epidemic through Plant-Based Nutrition
Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., MD
The Cleveland Clinic
Preventive Cardiology
2001; 4: 171-177
Summary (Abstract)
The world's advanced countries have easy access to plentiful high fat food; ironically, it is this rich diet that produces atherosclerosis. In the world's poorer nations, many people subsist on a primarily plant-based diet, which is far healthier, especially in terms of heart disease. To treat coronary heart disease, a century of scientific investigation has produced a device-driven, risk factor-oriented strategy. Nevertheless, many patients treated with this approach experience progressive disability and death. This strategy is a rear-guard defensive. In contrast, compelling data from nutritional studies, population surveys, and interventional studies supports the effectiveness of a plant-based diet and aggressive lipid-lowering to arrest, prevent, and selectively reverse heart disease. In essence, this is an offensive strategy. The single biggest step toward adopting this strategy would be to have United States dietary guidelines support a plant-based diet. An expert committee purged of industrial and political influence is required to assure that science is the basis for dietary recommendations.
Introduction
I have drawn two compelling observations from my service as the program director of 2 national cholesterol conferences and my participation in 3 others over the past decade. First, a great deal is known about what factors are responsible for causing coronary artery disease and what populations are vulnerable. Second, the present emphasis of identifying risk factors and those who are particularly vulnerable to atherosclerotic disease will not resolve the cardiovascular epidemic, which presently threatens 1 of 2 Americans and is predicted to become the number one global disease burden by the year 2020. 1
Autopsy data from the conflicts in Korea 2 and Vietnam 3 the Bogalusa study,4 and the PDAY5 study all testify to the ubiquitous nature of the disease in young Americans. Recently, intra-arterial ultrasonography confirmed that "normal" segments in patients with coronary artery disease also have diffuse symmetrical atherosclerosis, which is not yet disfiguring the intra-luminal diameter and thus is invisible to angiography.6 This work is further confirmation of the Roberts autopsy data, which demonstrates that essentially all patients with ischemic heart disease have triple vessel involvement.7
However, coronary artery disease is virtually absent in cultures that eat plant-based diets, such as the Tarahumara Indians of northern Mexico,8 the Papua highlanders of New Guinea,9 and the inhabitants of rural China10 and central Africa.11 Hundreds of thousands of rural Chinese go for years without a single documented myocardial infarction.10
Modern North America and Europe pride themselves on having the world's most advanced medical care. What are these health-care systems doing about coronary artery disease?
Present Heart Disease Management Strategies

The present strategy focuses on interventional procedures and risk-factor modification. This approach is strictly a defensive strategy. It is pressing the limit of what society can afford. Our present cardiology budget exceeds one-quarter of a trillion dollars per year.1 Millions of symptomatic patients - generally those with arterial stenosis of more than 70% - have had interventions such as bypass, angioplasty, stenting, or atherectomy.13 Unfortunately, these interventions are accompanied by significant morbidity, mortality, and expense, provide only temporary benefit, and do nothing for patients at greatest risk for myocardial infarction, those with juvenile plaques of 30% to 50% stenosis, which are the ones most prone to rupture.14 As Forrester states, "angiography does not identify and interventional strategies don't treat those lesions most likely to cause a heart attack."15
Therapies involving diet and lipid-lowering medication are not ignored by our health-care leaders, but sadly, their recommendations are clearly inadequate. The American Heart Association and the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) recommend consumption of not more than 30% dietary fat and cholesterol levels below 200 mg/dL; numerous studies confirm that people who adhere to these recommendations experience not arrest and reversal of their heart disease, but rather continued disease progression.16 A question arises whether these recommendations expose millions to disease development and progression. However, because of the general respect commanded by these organizations, many doctors and patients perhaps are misled, trusting that following their recommendations will protect against heart disease. The newer NCEP clinical guidelines, known as the Adult Treatment Panel 111, suggest broadening the identification of those at risk. This will mandate that millions of Americans take cholesterol-reducing drugs as well as make some dietary and physical activity adjustments. This is a rear-guard, after-the fact approach. It tacitly acknowledges that our food environment is so toxic that millions will become at risk and develop disease. As will be discussed, it is preferable to advise the public too avoid the categories of food that cause atherosclerotic disease.37
The National Research Council, in its 1989 report "Diet and Health," 17 recommended an upper limit of total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL and 30% dietary fat, even though "a number of the scientists felt that a greater reduction would confer additional health benefits."17 However, the committee felt that setting the cut-off too low would merely frustrate the public. The council also surmised, incorrectly, that if the upper level were set at 200 mg/dL, most Americans would achieve a total cholesterol level of 150 mg/dL or less.17 That has not happened. Most Americans and their physicians feel "safe" with a cholesterol total of up to 200 mg/dL. They are not. In the Framingham study, 35% of ischemic heart disease occurred in patients with total cholesterol levels between 150 and 200 mg/dL.18 In the CARE study, the average total cholesterol level in patients with a history of heart attack was 209 mg/dL.19 In contrast, the American Cancer Society recommends no more than 20% dietary fat,20 while the World Health Organization prefers no more than 15%.21

Figure 3-- Coronary angiograms of the proximal left anterior descending artery before (left) and showing 10% improvement (right) following approximately 60 months of a plant-based diet with cholesterol-lowering medication.

Dr. Scott Grundy, chairman of the NCEP, proclaimed approximately 14 years ago22 that 90% of heart attacks could be prevented if the population's cholesterol was 150 mg/dL or less - a figure identical to that hoped for by the National Research Council in 1989. However, neither the NRC, the American Heart Association, or the NCEP is on record to show precisely what diet will achieve the goal of cholesterol of 150 mg/dL. The basic diet favored by these groups contains not only grains, legumes, vegetables, and fruit, but also oil, low-fat milk and milk products, butter, cheese, poultry, lean meat, and fish. I am unaware of any research proving that by eating such a diet one can achieve a cholesterol level of 150 mg/dL or avoid coronary artery disease.
The Mediterranean diet and monounsaturated oils have become unjustifiably popular because of the Lyon Diet Heart Study.23 This approach is difficult to accept. No studies of monounsaturated oils have shown them to arrest and reverse coronary disease. The Lyon study did show a slower rate of progression, but this is hardly an acceptable goal. In a study of patients with coronary disease, Blankenhorn actually showed the reverse, that disease progressed as rapidly in patients on a monounsaturated diet as it did in those on a saturated fat diet.24 Rudel demonstrated a similar result in African green monkeys over a 5-year period.25 Particularly compelling was his finding that disease in the two groups was equivalent, even though the monounsaturated group had higher HDL, lower LDL, and more favorable LDL-to-HDL ratio. He recently replicated the results in rodents.26
The number of heart attacks continues to increase every year.27 Although the age-adjusted death rate for heart disease has declined, the decline may be artifactual.12 Stamler found deaths from cardiovascular disease approached 40% of those dying in a group of 80,000 young men with follow-up ranging from 16-34 years. The data confirmed a continuous graded relationship of serum cholesterol level to long term risk of coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, and all cause mortality. They also demonstrated substantial absolute risk and increased excess risk of coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease death for younger men with elevated cholesterol levels and conversely a longer estimated life expectancy for younger men with favorable lipids.35 Our stop-gap, device-driven, risk factor-oriented approach is not working. Why? Because it fails to address our toxic food environment, which is responsible for the disease. It is focused only on those who are already ill or whose elevated lipids reflect an inability to detoxify their American diet. What are the other alternatives?
Taking the Offensive

Figure 4--Coronary angiograms of right coronary artery before (left) and showing 30% improvement (right) following approximately 60 months of a plant-based diet and cholesterol-lowering medication.
As I have reported earlier,28,29 a plant-based diet in conjunction with cholesterol-reducing medication eliminated progression of coronary artery disease over a 12-year period in patients with triple-vessel disease. Most of the 18 patients had experienced an earlier failed intervention of bypass surgery or angioplasty. All patients who maintained the diet achieved the cholesterol goal of less than 150 mg/dL and had no recurrent coronary events during the 12 years. At 5 years, angiography was repeated in most cases. By analysis of the stenosis percentage none had progression of disease, and 70% had selective regression.28 These data are compelling when one considers that the same group had experienced more than 49 coronary events during the 8 years before this study.28
The recent case of a colleague is particularly telling. During September and October of 1996, a 44-year-old surgical colleague experienced occasional chest discomfort, yet neither electrocardiogram, stress echocardiography, or thallium scanning found evidence of disease. While eating the typical American diet, he had a total cholesterol of 156 mg/dL and an LDL of 97 mg/dL. He was lean, non-diabetic, and normotensive, did not smoke, and had no family history of coronary disease. His lipoprotein (a) and homocysteine levels were normal. On November 18, 1996, after his surgical duties, he became acutely ill with pain in the left arm, jaw, and chest. Immediate coronary catheterization found all vessels to be normal except for the left anterior descending artery, the distal third of which was diseased. Enzymes confirmed a myocardial infarction. However, no intervention was deemed appropriate.
This patient was aware of my ongoing study and was curious for more information. He and his wife consulted me for an in-depth review of the plant-based diet and techniques of this arrest and reversal study. He became the personification of commitment to the plant-based diet. Over the next 32 months, without cholesterol-lowering drugs, he maintained a mean total cholesterol of 89 mg/dL and an LDL of 38 mg/dL. The repeat angiogram 32 months after his infarction showed that the disease was completely reversed. (Fig.1)
Even though many people might find a plant-based diet initially difficult to follow, every patient with the diagnosis of coronary artery disease should at the least be offered the option of this potentially curative arrest and reversal approach. As this young surgeon's case illustrates, our plant-based diet approach can achieve total disease arrest and selective regression even in advanced cases. This approach is particularly compelling because patients can take control over the disease that was destroying them. If traditional interventional cardiology is a rear-guard action, our arrest and reversal therapy can be likened to a military offensive against atherosclerosis.
Limitations of this study are its modest number of participants and lack of comparable controls. Nevertheless, its size permitted the caregiver an opportunity for frequent patient encounters. These interactions enabled 75% of participants to achieve profound lipid reduction, dietary goals, and relief of symptoms which continued to improve throughout the study's 12-year duration. Patients essentially served as their own controls often achieving profound angiographic reversal of disease as reviewed in the angiographic core laboratory. Fig. 1-4
New recommendations for a healthy diet
The expert faculty at the First National Conference on the Elimination and Prevention of Coronary Artery Disease have issued a new set of recommendations:30
1) Present nutritional guidelines of government and national health organizations do not provide a maximal opportunity either to arrest or to prevent coronary artery disease.
2) The optimal diet consists of grains, legumes, vegetables, and fruit, with <10%-15% of its calories coming from fat.
This diet minimizes the likelihood of stroke, obesity, hypertension, type II diabetes, and cancers of the breast, prostate, colon, rectum, uterus, and ovary. There are no known adverse effects of such a diet when mineral and vitamin contents are adequate.
3) Children and adolescents require major attention to develop early habits of optimal nutrition. Schools should assume a significant leadership role in achieving this goal.
4) Speculation about the degree of public compliance with a low-fat diet must not alter the accuracy of the recommendations.
At the 1999 national cholesterol summit meeting, Dr. William Castelli was asked what he would do to reverse the coronary artery disease epidemic if he were omnipotent. His answer: "Have the public eat the diet of the rural Chinese as described by Dr. T. Colin Campbell," author of the Cornell China study (personal communication, William Castelli, Sept. 2-3, 1999). A recent prospective study of diet quality and mortality in more than 40,000 women confirms the benefits of consuming a diet high in fruits, vegetables, and grains.31
At a recent national meeting on hypertension, the original DASH study32 was updated.33 It was found that a diet emphasizing grains, vegetables, and fruit (and including low fat dairy and lean meat), with particular attention to reducing sodium intake, resulted in blood pressure reductions equivalent to those produced by hypertension drugs. 33
In addition, Dr. Dean Ornish has reported both 1- and 5-year data that support a plant-based approach to control coronary artery disease.16
Replace the "Food Pyramid"
An integral part of this offensive must be to eliminate the toxic food environment. Look at the so-called Food Guide Pyramid, the familiar geometric symbol used to promote the recommendations by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services. It is laden with dairy products, animal products, and oils, which are the essential building blocks for coronary artery disease. In addition, from a design standpoint, the choice of a pyramid is potentially confusing and misleading. Some viewers may be led to believe that the foods at the top (meats, sweets, and fatty foods) are the most helpful, when in fact they are the most harmful. To avoid such sources of confusion, we should eliminate geometric figures and promote 3 simple food categories: safe, condiments, and unsafe.
Safe: grains, legumes, lentils, vegetables, and fruits
Condiments: nuts and seeds
Unsafe: oils, dairy foods, meat, poultry, and fish (not regulated by inspection, and frequently contain unacceptable levels of PCB's, dioxin, and mercury
In addition, we should recommend dietary supplementation with a daily multivitamin, and, for those over 50 years old, an additional 1,000-1,200 mg calcium and 600 to 800 IU of Vitamin D. These recommendations are in concert with those of the expert faculty from the First National Conference on the Elimination of Coronary Artery Disease.30
Why are the current recommendations so weak?
When dietary recommendations are issued with the stamp of approval of the U.S. government, the public should be able to trust that these recommendations accurately guide them to foods that are unlikely to cause disease and away from those that are known to cause harm. Thus, any group promoting dietary guidelines for the public should make its decisions based on science. However, the USDA has been subjected to intensive industry lobbying, which compromises its capacity to be fair and objective.34 At the least, neither the experts who testify before the committee nor the committee members themselves should have relationships, financial or otherwise, to the food industry. These same rules regarding conflict of interest should apply to scientists who lead or are members of the National Cholesterol Education Program and the Food and Nutrition Section of the American Heart Association.
As recently as October, 2000, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine successfully litigated the USDA to ascertain the compensation sources of the US Dietary Guidelines Committee. Six of the eleven committee members, including the chairman, had relationships to the meat, dairy, or egg industry. 36 Such conflict insures a perception that the American public and school children will not receive an unbiased recommendation of what constitutes the healthiest food choices. The USDA, by definition, a protector of the agriculture industry should disqualify itself from this responsibility, which more correctly may belong in the Centers for Disease Control.
SUMMARY
The present device-driven, risk factor-identification, rear-guard strategy diagnoses disease after the fact and offers no promise of preventing disease or controlling its progression. We are fortunate to possess the knowledge of how to prevent, arrest, and selectively reverse this disease. However, we are not fortunate in the capacity of our institutions to share this information with the public. The collective conscience and will of our profession is being tested as never before. Ties to industry and politics result in conflict within our private and governmental health institutions, compromising the accuracy of their public message. This is in total violation of the moral imperative of our profession. The time is now for us to have the courage for legendary work. Science and not the messenger must dictate the recommendations.

citations omitted.

I suppose I could go to PETA's web site and give you a dozen or more articles written by authors which have at least as many credential which would point to information completely oposite of what you've given.

No thanks. I have no interest in reading anything from any web site which has an obvious bias towards pro-vegan or anti-vegan. I prefer to get my information from objective sources.


I'm not a vegan and never have been.

BGH does not cause mastitis in cows. Dairy production increases the instance of mastitis in cows because the process is more difficult on the animals than if they were providing milk naturally. BGH increases milk production, so naturally cows treated with BGH have more instances of mastitis. To imply that non-BGH treated cows don't get mastitis is not accurate. Any dairy cow that has an infection of any type is removed from the production cycle. Any diary which is caught by the FDA of using infected cows would have to destroy all of their milk supplies and recall all of their stock. It's in the best financial interest of dairy farmers to remove such cows from production and they do so routinely.

BGH is not used for a lot of the milk which is produced because many large grocery chains won't buy it. If anyone has a concern with BGH, all they have to do is buy organic milk. I buy organic milk exclusively. I'm not concerned about BGH, but it just so happens that organic milk is the only one I can still get in paper cartons. I buy milk in paper cartons because about 50% of the vitamin D is destroyed by the light that plastic cartons let in.

Yogurt is one of the best things for people at risk for colon cancer. To say that non-obese people need to give up dairy for colon health is simply not true.

Hey Jennings780,

After reading your many plugs for the Eat to Live book, I bought a copy and am about halfway through. A lot of the book is common sense (fibre and vitamins are better for you than refined processed crap)...some of it I already knew, some of it was news to me. It's a good read so far.

The thing I liked most was he said that if there was ONE thing you should take from the book it's to eat tonnes of salad and fruit, and that the good stuff in the fruit and salad will help counterbalance any bad stuff from the animal products, wheras most Americans eat something like 3 servings of veggies a week, and have major nutrient deficiencies. I am all for stuffing myself on veggies and fruit, so that's no problem for me.

The only thing that I can't quite see myself doing is giving up my glorious steak and baked potato after a long (50+ miles) ride. I really find myself craving it while I'm riding. Somehow coming home to a plate of beans doesn't cut it! LOL!

For now I am going to try to eat as much vegetation as possible and eat some meat (maybe twice a week) and some dairy and maybe eventually I can pare it back. As he said in the book, he'd rather see people eating tonnes of veggies and some meat and dairy than a total vegetarian or vegan who just eats pasta, manufactured veggie meals and refined carbs.

Anyway....carry on! :)