Forks Over Knives

[WildRose]

hey pstarr....you say that humans must eat meat. Perhaps SOME humans must eat meat, but there are healthy, active, strong vegans out there. Do you consider these latter folk anomalies...?

Not anomalies, just not useful data points. I am not aware that the vegan diet has been studied adequately.

But I am pretty confident it will prove inadequate for long-term health. See above comment on GLA, vitamin B, saturated fats, omega-3. And I am sure that it is an inappropriate insufficient answer to our environmental/ecologic dilemma. And in no way an alternative to our corrupt industrial food system

I'm also not sure how the vegan diet will measure up in the long term, but which diet can we be absolutely sure will provide us with the best health? A meat diet, especially high in red meat, is associated with much higher cholesterol levels, and consequently leads to higher risk of heart disease. Opinions regarding individual dietary components seem to change every couple of years (think margarine vs. butter). Can a diet high in fruits and vegetables, whole grains and plant proteins affect our bodies negatively to the degree that a diet high in animal fats can? In what ways?

Another consideration - if the economy goes to hell, and oil is not readily available for all the animal product farms, how much meat will the average Joe be able to purchase on payday? Maybe it would be wise for us to learn how to prepare more meals with plant proteins?

[pstarr]

I'm also not sure how the vegan diet will measure up in the long term, but which diet can we be absolutely sure will provide us with the best health? A meat diet, especially high in red meat, is associated with much higher cholesterol levels, and consequently leads to higher risk of heart disease.

That, my dear, is a big fat misconception foisted upon us by the ADM, Cargill, General Foods, USDA, and a multitude of others. There will always be a deficit of high quality meat and a over-abundance of starchy material to unload on the unsuspecting American public.

Google "Framingham Heart Study controversy" which was designed (and failed) to correlate saturated fats with heart disease. The largest most comprehensive and respective study ever done of dietary behavior showed that (contrary to expectation) there is zero correlation or causation between heart disease and saturated fat consumption. Or check recent works and meta-study published in the highly respected Journal of Clinical Nutrition

--Saturated fat prevents coronary artery disease? An American paradox or the more recent;

--Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease.

A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.

Then google "trans fats," made from vegetable oils and foisted on us for decades. Turns out that is the real poison. worse than axle grease. HORRID

Opinions regarding individual dietary components seem to change every couple of years (think margarine vs. butter). Can a diet high in fruits and vegetables, whole grains and plant proteins affect our bodies negatively to the degree that a diet high in animal fats can? In what ways?

yes. study the Metabolic Syndrome.

Another consideration - if the economy goes to hell, and oil is not readily available for all the animal product farms, how much meat will the average Joe be able to purchase on payday? Maybe it would be wise for us to learn how to prepare more meals with plant proteins?

that is a very serious concern. From my personal experience it is a lot easier to run some chickens in the yard then grow and harvest wheat.

[Pops]

Another consideration - if the economy goes to hell, and oil is not readily available for all the animal product farms, how much meat will the average Joe be able to purchase on payday? Maybe it would be wise for us to learn how to prepare more meals with plant proteins?

The reason we traditionally eat ruminant meat is because they eat grass and we can't.

Feeding large amounts of grains to beef cattle only came along the last 40 years or so with really cheap grain. Even today most of the weight on most beef cattle comes from grass, sure, some are grown on feedlots from weaning but most are grown on grass and finished on grain. I have 600# of beef in the freezer that only saw grain as a treat. He is almost as tender as grain fed because I let him hang an extra few days, the taste isn't quite as good but not bad for 58¢ a pound.

Grazing is the best use of a good amount of land.

[pstarr]

yup a common misconception is that cattle diet is grain-based. Some of the largest dairy regions in California are largely grassfed all year. Here in Humbolt the entire cattle industry (meat and dairy) is grass fed, with individuals feeding grain to meat steers for the last two weeks to add some marbling. The amount of grain often depends on frozen winters and scorched summers.

[Pretorian]

Although I was aware of the inhumane and disgusting treatment of animals by humans, I had not seen it portrayed so completely and poignantly as in Earthlings.

There's a hint of religious fervor in the way you speak -- humans treat animals "digustingly." By whose measure though? Yours? What is your source for animal rights??? Aren't you anthropomorphizing animals?

Where do you draw the line? Maybe Wildrose is ok with humane farms, maybe you'd find that disgusting. How do you guys decide this, what is it based on, what gives you the right.

I know the official PETA / vegan position is animals can't be used for anything -- that means half the world's people would starve because they need animal labor to farm. That means blind folks wouldn't be allowed a guide dog. See how silly this gets? I'm not sure how hardcore vegan you are, but if you're towing the Vegan Society line then basically you want to take away other peoples' right to use animals. What gives you that right, to take my rights away?

Homo sapiens has been eating and using other species for hundreds of thousands of years. The cows you see on the farm, they don't even exist in the nature, those were bred by people for that purpose. There is no Elsie the Cow in the wild. I just don't see the moral problem here, we have simbiotic relationships with other species on what do you base your moral objection to that? Again, "vegans" are not for humane farms they are for ceasing all use of animals. Including service dogs for the handicapped, including rats and fruit flies used in research.

Maybe you aren't actually a vegan -- I should back up and ask you, can you eat honey? Would you eat an egg, or a slice of cheesecake? If eaten in moderation there's no health reason why you can't have an egg or a bit of honey. If you are a strict vegan, and you won't touch honey or eggs and you won't wear leather then essentially this is a moral philosophy for you. So explain that to me, how does eating an egg violate a chicken's rights, and also where do chickens derive rights from and who who decides what rights chickens have. I know the answer, of course -- animals only have whatever rights human society gives to them, since rights only exist in the mind of homo sapiens. There are no "rights" in nature.

In the West, we already have laws against animal cruelty -- but if you want to shut down ALL ranches and even organic "humane" farms, if you want to take away my right to eat honey or wear leather shoes or a blind person to have a guide dog -- you need to explain WHY.

EDIT: just to clarify, I'm arguing against he extremes of veganisn -- if you say you're a "vegan" then that's a particular term and there is a Vegan Society and they're against all use of animals. But actually I do care about animals, I recongize it's not rational, but still I care. I hate it that they eat dogs in Asia. To me that's digusting. To those cultures, it's not. Horse meat is taboo for me, just plain wrong, but I think they still eat it in France.

I hate it that they eat primates in Africa, but to them that's their culture. I don't like hunting marine mammals for any reason, but I recognize I have no rational reason to dislike that if they're not endangered -- this is all cultural, what's ok and what's not. So basically vegans want to drag us to the extreme end of animal rights -- no meat eating at all, no eggs, no dairy, no leather, no service dogs, no ox to pull a poor 3rd world farmer's plow, no scientific research on animals.

You have to give me RATIONAL reasons for such an extreme philosophy, not emotional / religious / ascetic reasons.

Wow, you know so many hard words already, Six. No need to anthropomorphize animals. It is not a possible thing to do anyway, since humans are animals.
Obviously those farm animals don't have any rights ( neither do you, but it is a different topic altogether ) however torturing them for 1% off wholesale is not acceptable. I have no problems with killing for food but an animal must have a more or less normal life-- see the damn sky, run around, play, all that. Debeaking , all those factory farms, overcrowding, etc, with organic feed or not, are not acceptable. If somebody will have to go vegan ( or cannibal ) because they won't be able to buy proper meat , well it sucks to be you then.

[Loki]

Ha, look at that, Pretorian has a heart after all. I thoroughly agree, well said.

Pstarr, humans don’t have to eat meat, though I agree that the healthiest diet probably includes some animal products. But these can be limited to dairy and eggs, hopefully humanely raised. Of course, dairy and egg production is almost always done in conjunction with meat production, so ovo-lacto vegetarianism is admittedly a bit of a cop out. I have heard of people letting their spent laying hens die of old age, though

Another consideration - if the economy goes to hell, and oil is not readily available for all the animal product farms, how much meat will the average Joe be able to purchase on payday? Maybe it would be wise for us to learn how to prepare more meals with plant proteins?

I think this is the key point to be taken from this thread. Vegan vs. carnivore is a subject that brings out an irrational militancy that prevents mutual understanding. But if the US standard of living continues its trajectory, the subject may very well be moot for most of us. Poverty means a narrowing of choices. And in most parts of the world, poverty also means fewer animal products.

One reason I like rural poverty. Peasantry doesn’t pay much, but I’ve never eaten so good in my life. Had some of Lola the pig last night and she was delicious---she lived a good life, too, despite being the runt. Homemade mozzarella made from Daisy the cow’s milk was also tasty. And the Russian kale is fantastic this time of year, multiple frosts make it sweet as sugar---and yes, no worries, all our kale is free range.

[pstarr]

Ha, look at that, Pretorian has a heart after all. I thoroughly agree, well said.

Pstarr, humans don’t have to eat meat, though I agree that the healthiest diet probably includes some animal products. But these can be limited to dairy and eggs, hopefully humanely raised. Of course, dairy and egg production is almost always done in conjunction with meat production, so ovo-lacto vegetarianism is admittedly a bit of a cop out. I have heard of people letting their spent laying hens die of old age, though

I don't believe it's possible to get vitamin B and GLA from anywhere else and these are necessary. And like you said lacto/ovo makes no sense unless you believe meat is unhealthy--which it isn't if it is raised naturally without antibiotics, hormones, not in feed lots, etc.

Another consideration - if the economy goes to hell, and oil is not readily available for all the animal product farms, how much meat will the average Joe be able to purchase on payday? Maybe it would be wise for us to learn how to prepare more meals with plant proteins?

I think this is the key point to be taken from this thread. Vegan vs. carnivore is a subject that brings out an irrational militancy that prevents mutual understanding. But if the US standard of living continues its trajectory, the subject may very well be moot for most of us. Poverty means a narrowing of choices. And in most parts of the world, poverty also means fewer animal products.

One reason I like rural poverty. Peasantry doesn’t pay much, but I’ve never eaten so good in my life. Had some of Lola the pig last night and she was delicious---she lived a good life, too, despite being the runt. Homemade mozzarella made from Daisy the cow’s milk was also tasty. And the Russian kale is fantastic this time of year, multiple frosts make it sweet as sugar---and yes, no worries, all our kale is free range.

that is what i am saying. country folk eat well. a little bit of meat. a lot of veggies. and some white bread and sugar to celebrate it all.

[WildRose]

So, on preliminary study of the metabolic syndrome (thanks for that, pstarr, I found it useful and relevant, especially as I am a postmenopausal woman and need to keep this in check), I ran across this description of the Mediterranean diet, which is supposed to be a healthy one. Note, though, that there is an emphasis on fruits and veggies, nuts, grains, beans and seeds, and little red meat is eaten. Wine is good, though

"Mediterranean diet: A diet traditionally followed in Greece, Crete, southern France, and parts of Italy that emphasizes fruits and vegetables, nuts, grains, olive oil (as opposed to butter) and grilled or steamed chicken and seafood (as opposed to red meat). Plus a glass or two of red wine.

To be exact, there is not merely one Mediterranean diet. What is eaten varies significantly from one Mediterranean country to another. There also are major differences in diet between some regions within a country, as in Italy. However, the shared features of what is usually spoken of as the Mediterranean-style diet are as follows:

High consumption of fruits, vegetables, bread and other cereals, potatoes, beans, nuts and seeds;
Olive oil is the key monounsaturated fat source;
Dairy products, fish and poultry are consumed in low to moderate amounts;
Little red meat is eaten;
Eggs are eaten zero to four times a week; and
Wine is drunk in moderate (or low) amounts.

Many studies indicate that a Mediterranean diet may play an important role in the prevention of coronary artery heart disease. A Mediterranean-style diet also appears to help avoid the metabolic syndrome (prediabetes) and reduce the chances that a person will die sooner rather than later."


I would need to eat more fish and olive oil to bring my diet in line with this, and I'm assuming it's very low in sugar, which I could stand to cut down on. And I could have more wine.

I'll stick to my guns about the mistreatment of animals, though. I was still a kid living with my parents when vegetarianism first became popular, and I was raised on meat. I was taught that people are more important than animals and that we should use them as we see fit. It's only been in the last several years that I've become more aware of the animal farm practices (thanks in large part to my dear daughter, who is an advocate for those who cannot stick up for themselves).

Again, anyone interested in learning more, watch the documentary Earthlings and/or Food Inc. Food Inc. does present some people who farm animals in a humane way.

Link re: Mediterranean diet below:

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art ... ekey=39284

[BasilBoy]

...though I agree that the healthiest diet probably includes some animal products.

May I ask why you (and others) have drawn such a conclusion?

The Nazis confiscated Norway's animal stock around 1940 and Norwegians were forced to eat a plant-based diet. During that time, cardiovascular disease dropped rather dramatically. When the war ended, meat and dairy consumption returned to what it was and cardiovascular disease went back up.

I'd like to suggest to everyone who has posted here to actually watch the movie and read The China Study. You may have different thoughts about nutrition afterwards. I'm not easily sold, but I was sold...

[pstarr]

...though I agree that the healthiest diet probably includes some animal products.

May I ask why you (and others) have drawn such a conclusion?

The Nazis confiscated Norway's animal stock around 1940 and Norwegians were forced to eat a plant-based diet. During that time, cardiovascular disease dropped rather dramatically. When the war ended, meat and dairy consumption returned to what it was and cardiovascular disease went back up.

I'd like to suggest to everyone who has posted here to actually watch the movie and read The China Study. You may have different thoughts about nutrition afterwards. I'm not easily sold, but I was sold...

Here is a review of the Forks Over Knives by Denise Minger

She also considers Colin Campbell's China Study analysis to be bogus. (Notice I said his analysis. The data is good but he spins it.) I couldn't agree more.

Who are you going to believe? The bitter old vegan or;

China Study Debunked

[BasilBoy]

Colin Campbell's China Study analysis is bogus. (Notice I said his analysis. The data is good but he spins it.)

He may have spun the data, but it doesn't make his analysis bogus.

Denise Minger, are you serious? She was afraid of robots. She referenced Judge Judy (who is one of the biggest %^#% on the air waves). She likely had a hard time resisting societal norms and was looking for a way out. We're now giving anyone who can make a youtube video the same credibility as an accredited biochemist? The money is behind the meat and dairy industries, not the vegan industries. Many here seem to ignore where the money is...

How do you guys actually arrive at your conclusions? I mean, are you just guessing, or do you have actual data to support what you are saying?

[BasilBoy]

We're now giving anyone who can make a youtube video the same credibility as an accredited biochemist?

hey pstarr, it looks like you edited your post. I did not see the blog article, which has actual data. I only had listened to the YouTube interview and was not impressed. The blog is better, but I have a very difficult time with such a writing style, so I have yet to read the whole thing. However, it seems she did her homework. I would have to spend more time on her work and Campbell's rebuttal to figure it all out in detail. I will admit that I'm biased, almost always against the money...

But I also believe this type of diet achieves some of its success by accident, and that the perks of eliminating processed junk are inaccurately attributed to eliminating all animal foods.

...she acknowledges the diet achieves some success. What many seem to miss, is that there is another element to the claim in the OP...whole foods. When trying to eat a vegan, whole food diet...you are just forced to eat healthier than a mainstream American diet. Once you are eating as such but want some meat, you are probably likely to eat healthier meat (eg. wild fish over frankenpork).

[pstarr]

Basilboy, I appreciate your open-mind. I am sorry I buried the second link at the bottom. It is the important one. I read through her critique of the "China Study" analysis quite a while ago and it blew me away. Very technical dense method analysis, but worth wading through. I am still looking for a summation of her ten major points.

I have become quite passionate regarding my own and others diets, and what I consider intentional misinformation, mostly from the mainstream food industry.

A little personal history is in order. I worked with my wife in the organic/natural food industry for ten years or more and developed a fear of the processed food industry (including what I referred to as "infected" or "pus" meat). At the same time I grew a keen skeptical attitude toward dozens of strange "alternative" prescriptions and diets I regularly wrote about. Zillions of gimmicks programs cures advice new supplements that would stave off aging, improve the complexion, lose weight, save the world.

I settled finally settled on what I thought was a traditional healthy diet--the Mediterranean (see Wildrose's post above) plenty of olive oil, fruits, whole grains, brown rice veggies, a little 'good' meat (free of hormones, antibiotics, cruelty). It worked fine for me. Until I started gaining weight and then got high blood pressure. It wasn't the diet but my lax interpretation of the diet that was causing me problems. It was time to change. Which brings me to the present. But that will have to wait until the next installment of Pete's personal diet adventure.

[BasilBoy]

pstarr, you strike me as one of the more rational, intelligent posters here, so I appreciate your participation.

I work very hard to keep an open mind, but as with everyone, we all have biases. However, I did not set out to find data to support my way of thinking or diet. Instead, I came across compelling information that caused me to change. After reading The China Study, I did not come away from it thinking that I could not eat meat. Rather, I saw information that told me that if I kept eating as I was, my risks of heart disease and cancer would go up. At the age of 43, I figured it was a good time to take my diet more seriously.

Regarding Denise's work, I am impressed that a lay person took all that time to sift through the data. However, as Campbell states at the bottom of his rebuttal:

I should conclude by noting the suggestion of the professional epidemiologist, cited above, who suggested that ultimately Denise may wish to publish her findings in a peer-reviewed journal but who presently felt strongly that the current version would not be accepted. I concur.

It is this process that helps define science and gives it credibility. I am not prepared to analyze all the data for I do not have the time or the credentials. I have my own process for trying to determine which information to rely on. I generally follow the money and the motive behind the information (Tainted Truth is a good book on this matter), as well as the credentials of the person or group giving the information. In this case, I have to side with T. Colin Campbell until an independent, peer-reviewed study confirms he's wrong. If that's already out there, I would be very interested in reading it...

[Shaved Monkey]

I have my own process for trying to determine which information to rely on. I generally follow the money and the motive behind the information

Good profits in yuppy chow ....just sayin

[misterno]

Can someone explain why beef consumption in the US is in constant decline?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/ ... MI20111222

USDA estimates 2011 U.S. per capita beef consumption at 57.4 lbs, down 13 percent from 10 years ago and down about 25 percent from 1980. In 2012, USDA predicts, Americans will eat 54.1 lbs of beef on average.

[WildRose]

Can someone explain why beef consumption in the US is in constant decline?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/ ... MI20111222

USDA estimates 2011 U.S. per capita beef consumption at 57.4 lbs, down 13 percent from 10 years ago and down about 25 percent from 1980. In 2012, USDA predicts, Americans will eat 54.1 lbs of beef on average.

From the article, it looks like better-quality cuts of beef are being priced out of lots of people's budgets, both in supermarkets and in restaurants.

I'm guessing, too, that if people turn to fast food restaurants for beef they can afford, that would decrease the amount of American beef consumed because the fast-food places import beef from Australia and Panama, and maybe other countries as well.

[vtsnowedin]

Can someone explain why beef consumption in the US is in constant decline?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/ ... MI20111222

USDA estimates 2011 U.S. per capita beef consumption at 57.4 lbs, down 13 percent from 10 years ago and down about 25 percent from 1980. In 2012, USDA predicts, Americans will eat 54.1 lbs of beef on average.

The flip answer is that good steak cost $6.00 a pound and even hot dogs go for $3.50 and after you have filled the family cars tank at $4.00 per gallon gas you are eating mac and cheese. But the popularity of vegan ism and vegetarianism probably has as much to do with it as anything. After all in 1980 Americans were eating themselves into cardiovascular and diabetic hades. If we have changed for the better it is a good thing.

[careinke]

. Even today most of the weight on most beef cattle comes from grass, sure, some are grown on feedlots from weaning but most are grown on grass and finished on grain. I have 600# of beef in the freezer that only saw grain as a treat. He is almost as tender as grain fed because I let him hang an extra few days, the taste isn't quite as good but not bad for 58¢ a pound.

Sweet, did you butcher it yourself? How hard was it? I butchered my own pigs for the first time last year. I will never send my animals off to the butcher again. Saved a lot of money and somehow got more meat.

I'm thinking of doing a cow, (for meat not milk), this year. I would "pasture" it in my woods.

[vtsnowedin]

. Even today most of the weight on most beef cattle comes from grass, sure, some are grown on feedlots from weaning but most are grown on grass and finished on grain. I have 600# of beef in the freezer that only saw grain as a treat. He is almost as tender as grain fed because I let him hang an extra few days, the taste isn't quite as good but not bad for 58¢ a pound.

Sweet, did you butcher it yourself? How hard was it? I butchered my own pigs for the first time last year. I will never send my animals off to the butcher again. Saved a lot of money and somehow got more meat.

I'm thinking of doing a cow, (for meat not milk), this year. I would "pasture" it in my woods.

A cow or beef steer needs about an acre of good grass to do well. They will eat all the leaves within their reach in a woodland but the trees keep most of the foliage higher then that. If all you have is woods then you will have to haul feed to them.