"Microorganisms, primarily bacteria, are the only known organisms that manufacture B12. These bacteria often live in bodies of water and soil. Animals get B12 by eating food and soil contaminated with these microorganisms." The reason we don't get B12 from soil and water is because we don't eat soil regularly (we wash our produce) and we don't drink untreated water directly from lakes and ponds. In a natural world we'd get our B12 the same way the cow, pig, bird and fish do. Who ever stated that small amounts of lean meat and fish in a whole foods diet results in greater morbidity and mortality? The problem is the Standard American Diet that we've been exposed to (and probably consumed) most of our lives has damaged our health. To reverse the damage, a very strict cleansing diet is required. The only diet that's been proven in several studies (not funded by food industries) to reverse heart disease and type 2 diabetes, and prevent/reverse progression of cancer is a whole foods plant-based diet with calories from fat kept below 15% (10% being ideal). I had cancer, so I'm very strict in my diet. If I had heart disease or type 2 diabetes, I'd be just as strict. If your cholesterol is regularly above 150 or your blood pressure is regularly above 140/90, there's a strong chance you have heart disease. 35% of heart attacks occur in people whose cholesterol levels are between 150 and 200. In the decades-long Framingham Heart Study no one has yet had a heart attack with levels below 150. If you have no heart disease, diabetes, cancer or other chronic lifestyle-induced diseases, then you can eat small amounts of meats/fish (though if I did, I'd only eat wild cold water fish and free range meats ordered in advance from a small organic farm). But if you've eaten significant quantities of refined sugars, refined flour, fried foods, factory farmed meats, fish high on the food chain, and dairy products for more than a decade of your life, you have internal damage that needs to be reversed for optimal health, and reversal is not as easy as prevention (hence the saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."). Moderation won't do it. The milk of other mammals is not designed for consumption by their own young past a certain age, much less for consumption by children or adults of other species. We don't drink human breast milk after a certain age, yet we somehow think it's healthy to drink the milk of another species and to create addictive high fat products from it. With enough $$$ and insidious USDA influence, corporate America can sell the sheeple just about anything. The long-lived Okinawans traditional diet was calorie-restricted (proven in study after study on mammals, including primates, to increase longevity in and of itself) and consisted mainly of vegetables (70% sweet potatoes). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17986602 The recent generations of Okinawans eating a Western-style diet of nutritionally-void calorie bombs are developing the same chronic diseases that plague the majority of people who eat such a diet. http://www.helium.com/items/1830610-dietary-influences-on-longevity-in-okinawa Nutritionist Jeff Novick puts vegan/healthy in perspective in this blog post: "Yes, there are no vegan populations. Most all long lived populations live on a plant based diet and the animal products are more like a condiment, usually only a small % of total calories. No long lived population lives on an animal based diet. But, I don't see the hang up with this though it seems to get much attention. Clearly, a small amount of animal protein/products has not killed anyone. We know that. If someone includes it or not is not an issue in regard to long life and health. Maybe in regard to their "philosophy" but not in regard to what we known from science. I never argue against that or even see that as an issue or the issue. But as I stated, veganism is a philosophy that includes some dietary restrictions but veganism is not a guide to dietary excellence. Veganism tells you what someone does not eat, not what they do eat. However, those who are trying to follow an optimal diet can choose to be vegans. To me, that is a philosophical choice. While I can not speak directly for anyone else, Dr McDougall (and Dr Fuhrman, Dr Ornish, Pritikin, etc) do not promote a vegan diet, but variations of a plant based diet. I do not think any of them will tell you that being vegan (in regard to this above discussion) is more important that following their overall guidelines. Dr Mcd's promotes a starch based diet with the addition of colored vegetables and fruits. But, that is not the question. The question is, do people "benefit" from animal products. Benefiting is different than just "including" or "getting away with". Clearly, people can include some small amount of animal products and not be hurt by it and/or get away with it, but that does not prove in anyway that they benefit from it. I do agree with you in regard to casein and dairy products, but I would not separate out the casein. I would easily say dairy products are the one food I would eliminate from the food supply, if I could. The implications of dairy are far reaching and effect many if not most all people who consume it. However, I do not see the same implication for intact whole grains, though clearly, for those who are gluten intolerant, it is an issue, but only for the gluten containing grains."
Find out why ex-vegetarians outnumber current vegetarians three to one? â... [T]he latest form of animal activism is ... only eating ethical, sustainable meat ... Sustainable meat-eating is particularly suitable for those who return to omnivorism because of health problemsâ. http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/06/30...-lapsed-vegetarians-become-ethical-omnivores/ Veganism is unsupported by science. Prudent omnivorism is the healthy alternative.
You've posted a lot of good information on this thread, NoDoji. But beyond this point you are probably just feeding the troll that is macho grande!
wow get your nose out of her crack. her vegan philosophy is wrong and unsupported by science. she makes assumptions and jumps to conclusions on little evidence. beyond that she's right
NoDoji has, demonstrating impressive patience, given you explanations and links to solid research backing her position. Meanwhile you can't even correctly name the diet she advocates.
That clearly demonstrates that either you don't believe nodoji had cancer or that her recovery was due to some other factors than her diet. Personally I believe her. Nodoji , would you be so kind to show us, at least those of us who are interested, your weekly menu if its not too much trouble? Thanks a lot for you contribution anyways
another reason why fats are needed: Vitamin A. http://www.westonaprice.org/abcs-of-nutrition/167-vitamin-a-saga http://www.westonaprice.org/mens-health/254-vitamin-a-forgotten-bodybuilding-nutrient You need butter and cod liver oil to supply plenty of it. plus 80% of americans and europeans are severly defiicient in Vitamin D. the best food source of Vitamin D? again, cod liver oil. Norwegians consume a lot of this oil. Both vitamins are extremely important for eyes, bones, teeth, testosterone, muscles. compare that to what carbs offer.
You make many assumptions here are a few.. You intimate that meat/fish/eggs/milk per se is a cause of cancer, diabetes and wjatever..no evidence for this claim. On the contrary meat/fish complement the diet providing adequate amounts of those nutrients that are deficient in a plants-only diet, ie VEGAN' after all, THIS iss the diet YOU are championing;the meat/fish/dairy-LESS diet, you are a vegan and you eschew all form of animal product and that is not based in the scientific evidence. Because the science does not support this. Meat/fish/dairy/eggs enhance the amino acid profile of those found in plants, essentially "completing" it and forming a "whole" protein. Also Ca, Zn, iron, K2, essential fats, and of course B12. (and who knows what other essential or helpful nutrients that are undiscovered as yet) I know I know you "claim" that dirt would provide B12 and enough of it to reach the DRI's...but that's just another of your unsubstantiated claims. And I notice you don't eat dirt but rather rely on fortified refined food products for your B12. hmmm. You don't eat a plant-BASED diet because a plant-based diet includes at least one but not limited to meat/fish/dairy/eggs. YOU eat a plant-ONLY diet and that is a VEGAN diet. So stop using the term "plant-based" to describe your meal structure, your meals are not based in plant food. They are exclusive of animal product. That's VEGAN. There you have it; you avoid all animal product in any amount on vague spec that any amount is harmful. You ignore evidence of the healthful benefits of meat and fish and low-fat dairy (in proper amounts) and the complementary nature of those foods. You rightly noted that there are NO vegan centenarians and no vegan populations. The longest lived pops include animal products.
MG, I make no assumptions; I simply studied the scientific evidence following my cancer diagnosis and have continued to study it ever since (I'm a nutritional mentor for clients of a certified nutritionist). The overwhelming evidence points to a whole-foods plant based diet with 15% or less calories from fat as a powerful method of preventing, arresting and frequently reversing many chronic illnesses linked to diets high in saturated fats and refined/highly processed foods. I never once intimated that meat/fish/eggs/milk per se is a cause of cancer, diabetes. VEGAN is a lifestyle. I'm not "vegan", though I have to use that term with people because if you say "I'm vegetarian", most people assume you eat eggs, dairy, and even chicken and fish. I own a leather motorcycle jacket, leather boots, leather belts, silk clothing (calm down, boys...). I even sometimes eat food with honey in it (gasp!). A plants-only diet is VEGETARIAN. "Lacto vegetarian", "lacto-ovo" vegetarian, lacto-ovo-chicko-fisho vegetarian", are all misnomers. They're terms invented to help people feel good about not eating red meat. Well, in fact, red meat is the least toxic factory farmed meat you can eat, not that it's healthy. Meat/fish are not necessary for a nutritionally complete diet and a plant-only provides complete protein at the levels needed for good health as long as you're eating from each of the food groups daily (grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables) The "complete" protein concept is a myth, dismissed years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_combining http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/vsk/protein_myth.html (As an aside, at the time in their lives when humans require more protein than at any other time (early infancy), the ideal food (breast milk) contains less than 7% calories from protein.) As for "healthful benefits of meat and fish and low-fat dairy (in proper amounts)" that can't be obtained from a plants-only diet, provide evidence of this. Please, no studies funded, designed by, or conducted by those related to food/pharmaceutical industries. (P.S. How you know I don't eat dirt?) DT-waw, yes, fats are needed, but no more than 10% of calories need to come from fat and there is ample fat in corn, beans, seeds, grains, berries, and vegetables, to fill those needs. Vinc, Dr. McDougall's site provides a good daily meal plan that's similar to what I eat: http://www.drmcdougall.com/free_5a.html A couple powerful reads with many recipes included are: Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease The Engine 2 Diet Atticus, it was BC, stage 2 ductal infiltrating, poorly-differentiated, ER positive. I got the hard-sell on chemo from every angle, but stood my ground against it after reading Ruth Heidrich's story while awaiting my biopsy results: http://www.drmcdougall.com/stars/star07_ruth-heidrich.html Many years ago I had a tiny cyst that was checked with a mammogram and found to be nothing more than a tiny cyst. It remained as such for years. The cancer grew at the location of the cyst during a period of time following a switch to a high protein/high fat/low carb diet (Atkins/Sears). When I read The China Study about 7 months after I went plant-based, it was a real eye opener and it served as an evidence-based explanation for why the cancer grew so rapidly in just a few years following a diet that Campbell had demonstrated in the lab to turn on tumor promotion like a light switch.