Veganism Drives It Home.

Here is Cordain’s Campbell's (wow, am I tired) final argument, a masterstroke against the Paleo diet argument.

    1. Non-genetic changes to the body can take place too. Just because our distant ancestors needed to hunt to survive does not mean we cannot get the proper nutrition and sustenance from a solely plant based diet.

   

    2.A holistic approach to nutrition study makes more sense than a reductionist approach because nutrition is about how foods work together to sustain us, not how each individual nutrient effects each individual aspect of the body.

    3. DIET BASED ON INSTINCT DOESN'T OPTIMIZE HEALTH. It optimizes pleasure. Bam.

   4. Both Cordain and Campbell have research supporting that milk (casein) has negative health effects, not positive, despite what corporate tells you. Soy ice cream tastes good. So does sorbet.

Read The China Study by T. Collin Campbell. I highly recommend it.

Protein debate series concluded. If you’re just tuning in now, start at the beginning and find out the protein based argument for Veganism.

Bean’ Vegan. 

What does Campbell have to say?

Continuing from my last post, here are Professor Campbell’s main points about why vegan is better than paleo. Firstly, it is important to note that Campbell is the author of The China Study, the most comprehensive nutritional study ever conducted. Its formulation involved twenty years of research and supplication from other nutritional studies conducted before it. I highly recommend renting it from the library or purchasing it for your own collection. It’s a tough read, but it’s fantastic.

Moving on; here are some main points from Campbell’s argument. The first thing he asserts is, of course, that a vegan diet leads to better health. Campbell states that ingesting animal products such as meat and dairy have been shown to lead to steroid and growth hormone imbalances in the human body. As a matter of fact, both Campbell and Cordain agree that consuming dairy products in unnatural and unhealthy for humans. Thinking about it logically, the only animals to consume dairy after infancy are humans, and other animals certainly don’t drink the milk of other species. It’s kind of bizarre and disturbing, when you think about it.

Another point Campbell scores for the vegans relates to the actual method of experimentation and research each debater subscribes to. Cordain supports the reductionist approach, studying each nutrient individually, whereas Campbell takes a holistic approach, studying how all of the nutrients work and react together. Need I say more?

The final major point Campbell makes is that the consumption of animal protein has been positively correlated with higher rates of cancer such as breast, prostate, kidney, colon, and ovarian cancer. It has also been correlated in the same manner with cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, hypertension, osteoporosis, multiple sclerosis, and kidney stones.

Next time, I will post Cordain’s rebuttal to Campbell’s points.

Bean out.

What is the “Paleo” argument?

As I mentioned in my last post, Professor Loren Cordain is the man responsible for the nutritional theory known as “The Paleo Diet.” The Paleo Diet recommends that people eat like our evolutionary ancestors did: a non-processed balance of meats, vegetables, and few whole grains.

In “The Protein Debate,” Cordain reports benefits such as reduced gut size and metabolic activity, as well as an expansion in brain size for those who eat as he recommends. He also reports that the Paleo Diet allows for a better blood lipid profile, lower blood pressure, insulin sensitivity and glycemic control.

Another mainstay of Cordain’s argument is that meats have more of everything (different proteins and nutrients) packed into them whereas a vegetarian diet requires many different foods to provide the same nutritional content as one piece of meat.

Another interesting tidbit to consider about Cordain’s Paleo Diet is that Cordain supports the reductionist approach to studying diet. This means he supports the method of dietary study where the scientist studies one nutrient at a time as opposed to studying diet holistically and observing how everything works together an affects the human system.

So what is Campbell’s argument? And why do I subscribe to the vegan approach, even though Cordain makes some interesting points? Read on this week to find out more.

Bean out.

For your own research purposes, check out the full debate: http://www.catalystathletics.com/articles/downloads/proteinDebate.pdf

Analyzing “The Protein Debate”

Protein. Calcium. Evolution. These are buzz words of nutrition. One needs protein for energy and muscle growth. One needs calcium for bone and cartilage strength. Evolution dictates diet. In a way, all of these statements are true. But they are oversimplified statements, and they need to be studied and expounded upon to produce any beneficial and reliable knowledge. For that purpose I will turn the spotlight over to Professors Cordain and Campbell.

These two men have very different approaches to nutrition. Professor Loren Cordain champions the “paleo diet”: a way of eating that promotes the study evolutionary biology in order to deduce the proper nutrition requirements from the history told in the chemistry of fossils. Campbell subscribes to the vegan approach: an all-natural, all-plant diet that he has been studying and advocating for well over two decades.

“The Protein Debate” http://www.catalystathletics.com/articles/downloads/proteinDebate.pdf is a compilation of their arguments and rebuttals to each other’s views on diet and nutrition.

This marks the beginning of my week long blog report on the two very different and well supported arguments concerning diet and the reasons as to why you should subscribe to the vegan approach.

Bean’ healthy. 

Nature's Retribution: How Killing Animals Could Kill You.

So I just read a TED blog post about nutrition and its link to diabetes (http://blog.ted.com/2013/06/25/why-our-understanding-of-obesity-and-diabetes-may-be-wrong-a-qa-with-surgeon-peter-attia/) and posted a comment linking to my blog because although there was a faint mention of nutrition being a significant factor in the reduction of obesity and type 2 diabetes, there was no information as to where to research further nor exactly what a change in your diet and therefore nutrition could do for you.

The following information in this post I give full credit to The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted: The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Wright Loss and Long-Term Health (I must have a thing for wordy titles or something) by T. Colin Campbell, PhD and Thomas M. Campbell II, MD. Forward by John Robbins, Author, Diet for a New America. I will cite page numbers, which hopefully will not vary from the hard copy version of this book because I have one of those nifty, virtual book devices.  

Keep in mind; I am taking these quotes out of the full context of the book to provide to you tidbits of information that may promote your interest in the concept of vegan nutrition. If you’re interested, get the book. Most libraries and bookstores carry it. My blog serves to promote discussion and interest in research; it is not a source of irrefutable factual information.

1.      “We spend far more, per capita, on health care than any other society in the world, and yet two thirds of Americans are overweight, and over 15 million Americans have diabetes, a number that has been rising rapidly” (pg.3).

Holy crap. That is terrifying information all on its own. Think about it, if we’re making such great leaps and bounds in medical science, why are we all so ill? How many people do you know with high cholesterol? High risk of heart disease? Cancer? Osteoporosis? Diabetes? How many of these people are on medications? How many of these medications are actually reversing the effects of the disease and not just alleviating the symptoms. If evidence was presented that a whole foods, plant based diet could reverse your disease, improve the quality of your life, or lengthen the life of your loved ones, would you make the switch?

2.      “What made this project especially remarkable is that, among the many associations that are relevant to diet and disease, so many pointed to the same finding: people who ate the most animal-based food got the most chronic disease. Even relatively small intakes of animal-based food were associated with adverse effects. People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease” (pg.6).

‘Nuff said folks. READ THE BOOK.

3.      “We initiated more studies using several different nutrients, including fish protein, dietary fats and the antioxidants known as carotenoids. A couple of excellent graduate students of mine, Tom O’Connor and Youping He, measured the ability of these nutrients to affect liver and pancreatic cancer. The results of these, and many other studies, showed nutrition to be far more important in controlling cancer promotion than the dose of the initiating carcinogen” (pg.66).  

The argument presented in The China Study is that although the carcinogen is the initiator of cancer within the body, it’s the nutritional environment within the body that promotes the development of cancer. Evidence is presented that a plant based, whole foods diet can prevent the development and spread of cancerous cells. Dude. It’s worth a try, right?

       4.      “It is extremely puzzling that these new government-sponsored 2002 FNB recommendations now say that we should be able to consume protein up to the extraordinary level of 35% as a means of minimizing chronic diseases like cancer and heart disease. This is an unbelievable travesty, considering the scientific evidence. The evidence presented in this book shows that increasing dietary protein within the range of about 10-20 % is associated with a broad array of health problems, especially when most of the protein is from animal sources” (pg. 308).

Some of the most common questions I face as a vegan are “what about protein?” or “how are you healthy?” or “don’t you need to eat animal products to survive due to the evolution of humans to eat animal products?”

I get plenty of protein. I am healthy because I attempt to vary my diet. No, you don’t need animal products to survive and be healthy. There’s plenty of evidence out in the world that shows that vegans are healthy, often healthier than omnivores, as long as we’re not junk-food vegans (which, honestly, I started out as before learning how to sauté vegetables and grill eggplant burgers. I ate two packs of Oreos in one month. That’s gross.)

Seriously, read this book. What I have provided are only the summary passages after a crap-ton of evidence on why a whole foods, plant based diet is the best way to go. There’s also plenty of evidence as to why we all think large amounts of protein are so important, how the only vitamin D you need is 15 minutes in the sun every three days (although I highly recommend getting outside a LOT more that than), and how big corporations are in cahoots with the government regarding nutrition education and guidelines for purely fiscal reasons, and not for the much more important reason of protecting the health of the American citizens.

Once again, read the book if you want the facts. Do not make nutritional decisions based off of this one blog post. I am not a professional. I am just a concerned college student.

Bean out.

Citation:

1.      Campbell, Thomas Colin, and Thomas M. Campbell. The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health. Dallas, TX: Benbella, 2006. Print.

Judgement face.

So I finished reading Vegan Freak: Being Vegan in a Non-Vegan World Version 2.0: Revised, Expanded & Updated by Jenna and Bob Torres just now. I never did find that “Vegan Freak” forum that people were talking about. However, I have concluded that these authors were definitely spreading the right message about how to communicate veganism to others in their book. Negatively impassioned endorsement of one’s beliefs is not recommended. It is stated to be counterproductive. I’d like to expound on that.

San read my last post on the blog and told me that she was surprised I had never heard of the online “vegan culture” that involved ethical vegans tagging pictures of food on Tumblr with words such as “murder” or “corpse” or “dead flesh.” While I would not necessarily disagree with these tags or wish to euphemize the issue of animal cruelty, making harsh public judgments on others using only trigger words and using these trigger words within posts not related to animal rights seems wrong to me and counterproductive.

We all have different beliefs. We all think that we’re right. Telling someone they are wrong without circumstantial and factual evidence and a clear understanding of that person’s world view will not change their mind. In fact, it may make them want to rebel against your argument further. I’ll update this later with a citation containing text evidence from a psychological study relevant research (assuming Blondie can find the sheet for me). Later the next day...

Blondie found it. The article is titled:

How facts backfire

Researchers discover a surprising threat to democracy: our brains Here's the link. Check it out: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

That copied and pasted a lot bigger than I expected...

Anyway, Vegan Freak is a good book to read and it provides some great advice to vegan peeps. I’m still working on finding a time to post the excerpts from The China Study along with my own summary and commentary. Presently, I’m trying to read all of my library books before I return them on Wednesday.

Bean out.

Oxymoronic.

I was going to post another "in the rain" story, but this takes precedence.

So, I am a vegan. And now I am a confused vegan. I am a confused and alone vegan who hits my six month mark in about four days. I started reading this book about Veganism called Vegan Freak: Being Vegan in a Non-Vegan World Version 2.0: Revised, Expanded & Updated (dude that is a long title) by Jenna and Bob Torres. In the book, they mention a vegan freak forum. I guess the site got shut down because I can't find it. I'm also astonished because it appears that this site is (or was?) some sort of hardcore, clandestine community by invite only that had a lot of issues with judgmental members.

This really makes me sad.

We're not going to be able to help one another and convince others of our mission and morals if we're too busy making others who are trying it out feel bad about themselves. I think criticism at that level only makes people want to give up more because who wants to be part of an isolationist community that doesn't wish to accept others who are not quite at the same level of hardcoreness as they are.

Obviously, I am not blaming the forum or jumping to any conclusions (because I have no flipping idea where the forum is), and I am enjoying the book very much, but I do think it needs to be put out there that not everyone can just change what they were raised doing and eating at the drop of a hat. I recommend reading the book The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business by Charles Duhigg. It's enlightening, and it will make anyone think twice before judging another who has trouble breaking a habit. I used to judge people about stuff like that too, so now I really understand both sides of being a habit-breaker and being someone judgmental of people who cannot break habits.

 Anyway, back to the forum. Does anyone know where this thing went? Also, it'd be interesting to hear both sides as to whether an "invite only" social-issues forum would be helpful because it keeps out spammers, or harmful because it can leave out people who want to be part of the community but are having trouble succeeding or finding someone who can invite them in.

Veganism is hard, even if you understand all the humanitarian and nutritional reasons to quit. Animal products are DEEPLY ingrained in our culture, but it is not as difficult to quit as one would think.

 My next entry will probably expand upon veganism. I've pulled a lot of passages from The China Study by T. Colin Campbell PhD and Thomas M. Campbell II, MD backing up the nutritional argument for veganism. I'll just turn it into a series because there are a LOT of medical reasons to drop animal products. I am an ethical vegan too. Actually, I am an ethical vegan first and foremost. But I'll get into that later. I don't want to alienate anyone from the blog, and I'll post disclaimers up before sharing any particularly disturbing ethical reasons to be vegan.

 Hoping to hear feedback. Bean me up, Scottie.

Bean out.