Warning: this post contains infographic images

March 27th, 2012 by Kezia

fast payday loans for every one

This cute infographic on calcium is making the vegan rounds lately. At first it seems like an innocuous way to address the “where do you get your calcium” question. Think about it further, and you can see the danger of presenting data like this.

Here’s the thing: 100 grams of raw chopped greens is about a cup and a half. That’s a lot to consume at one sitting. 100 grams of whole almonds is almost a full cup. 100 grams of parsley is about one and two-thirds cups. But 100 grams of liquid (such as milk) is only about a half cup, give or take.
Calcium chart from Kind Diet
Comparing a small volume of fluid to a large volume of plant foods is a losing game – if you want the plants to come out ahead.

(And don’t get me started on the charts that compare nutrients by calorie count; they’re even worse. You’ll be eating two and a half cups of raw kale to get to 100 calories.)

There is a problem looking at nutrition through a reductive process that defines and judges the merits of a food based on its individual nutrients. Milk does in fact contain a number of substances that bodies need in order to function. It is, after all, the ideal food for vulnerable mammal babies. Based solely on these individual nutrients, milk’s “nutritional profile” is overall pretty good, and a couple swallows of milk is an efficient way to deliver those nutrients. Yes, milk also contains many substances that are not nourishing, dangerous in high doses, and frankly disgusting. But if we’re merely looking at the “box scores,” as these infographics encourage us to do, milk would be considered a healthy food.

This seemingly anti-vegan rant helps illustrate why an ethical argument for veganism, not a health argument, works best. People will not be won over based on faulty or misleading nutritional claims (nor should they be). If they are, it won’t be for long. Nutritional science is still an evolving field of study. Research and evidence is scant, difficult to interpret, even contradictory.

Food processing is an evolving industry as well, so we may see a day when cow’s milk is engineered to provide the most calcium per gram of any substance the world has ever seen. The ethics, however, are bulletproof. Consuming milk is cruel and unjust. It is cow slavery. The end.

, , ,

More Green Smoothies for Me!

February 1st, 2012 by Gary Smith

Yesterday, a blogger wrote a piece about green smoothies. Her conclusion was that combining a couple of pieces of fresh fruit with handfuls of leafy greens in a blender is bad for you. Yes, that was her conclusion, and the conclusion of a couple of health gurus, based on specious science such as chewing those same foods would burn 100 calories.

Now, I don’t really care if you take that information and cease making green smoothies. What I do care about is when veganism moves away from ethics and towards some sort of dietary perfection. What I care about is the perception of veganism to the mainstream population. Whether we like it or not, vegan diets are perceived as extremely radical and restrictive, and that vegans only eat salad. When we ask the public to stop eating meat, dairy, eggs and honey, we are asking them to remove foods that have been part of the culture’s diet for thousands of years. We are asking them to go far outside the mainstream.

My concern with the cult of health is that its outspoken advocates are conflating a vegan diet with limited diets that abstain from all oils, sugars/sweeteners, salt, gluten, soy and/or other foods. The same goes for popular “vegan cleanse” products and protocols. At best the public is led to believe these foods are not vegan and cannot be eaten if they choose to try a vegan diet. At worst, it makes it appear like we truly only do eat salads – and makes us look a little crazy.

This is destructive to our goal of converting people to a vegan diet and lifestyle.

The cult of vegan health is very similar to what happened and continues to happen within the raw food community. Gurus emerge, disparage perfectly healthy foods, and confuse the public; raw foodists choose gurus and take sides, while the ethics of eating a vegan diet are lost. The no oil/sugar/salt crowd is getting louder and more strident about their dietary beliefs. It’s an ego- and vanity-driven “my diet is cleaner than yours” competition, and it ultimately hurts veganism.

As an ethical vegan, I don’t really care what you eat – as long as you aren’t eating meat, dairy, eggs and honey. If you want to eat soy and gluten meats, non-dairy milks, oil, vegan sugar and sweeteners, salt, baked goods, dog bless you. The goal is to create vegans and save animals, not create healthy eaters. The goal is to make a vegan diet and lifestyle more mainstream, attainable and practical, not bamboozle people into thinking that they need to achieve dietary perfection. Banning veggie burgers, agave syrup or green smoothies is certainly not helping animals any.

I happen to eat a very clean diet because I didn’t get the vegan superpowers that many claim to get by eating a vegan diet. This is fine, since I did it for ethics. I don’t write about what foods I omit from my diet because I see that as being harmful to my message, which is that it is unethical to eat and use individuals. Period. What vegan foods I eat or don’t eat is immaterial to that message.

Registered dietician and animal rights activist Ginny Kisch Messina wrote on her blog The Vegan RD, “Ten billion (land) animals live and die under the most horrible conditions imaginable in the United States every year. So obviously, our efforts should focus on getting people to consume less…olive oil?” For more of her wisdom on the flawed “health argument” for veganism, see our interview last year here.

So, please be cognizant in your outreach about what a vegan diet and lifestyle are, and if you wish to follow a guru or decide to eat a highly restrictive diet, keep it to yourself.

, , , ,

Interview with “Vegan For Life” author Ginny Kisch Messina

October 22nd, 2011 by Gary Smith

Vegan For Life is the most comprehensive book on vegan diets that I’ve read yet. The subtitle, “Everything you need to know to be healthy and fit on a plant-based diet” is really true. The book literally covers every possible topic: nutrient needs, pregnancy, breastfeeding, raising vegan children and teens, transitioning to a vegan diet, needs for 50+, as well as meeting the needs of vegan athletes. The book is perfect for someone curious about transitioning to a vegan diet as well as seasoned vegans. Everything you ever wanted to know about the science behind eating a vegan diet is found in this book.

I spoke to coathor Ginny Kisch Messina, whose excellent blog The Vegan RD I also recommend.

Many of the readers of The Thinking Vegan are ethical vegans. Why should they care about their health and understanding nutritional science?

The unfortunate truth is that we vegans need to prove that our diet is a healthy choice. Anyone on any type of diet can get sick if they make bad food choices, but when vegans get sick, people blame veganism.

It can be tempting to promote the “no worries” approach to vegan nutrition, which suggests that as long as you eat a variety of whole plant foods, with an occasional B12 supplement, you’ll automatically meet nutrient needs. But the evidence suggests otherwise, and if vegans have suboptimal nutrition or develop outright deficiencies, then the animals lose in the end (as do the vegans, obviously). That’s why we’re very specific in Vegan for Life with our nutrition recommendations. Staying healthy is an essential part of activism.

I was pleasantly surprised that you included an entire chapter to the ethical question of veganism. Can you talk about why you decided to include the chapter and your thoughts on the ethical issue?

I think animals should always be part of the discussion when we talk about veganism. And while we assumed that our book would appeal mostly to those who were already vegan, we hoped that some who were kind of on the fence about veganism might pick it up. So we wanted to write a book that made a compelling case for veganism while also providing the tools for making an easy and healthy transition.

Though you are a registered dietician, you have written in the past that the best argument for veganism is the ethical/animal argument. Why don’t you believe that the health argument should be the driver?

I think it’s great if people want to talk about the health benefits of eating more plant foods and fewer animal foods. Unfortunately, though, we have no data to show that you need to go 100 percent animal-free in order to be healthy. So there really isn’t a “health argument” for vegan diet, let alone vegan lifestyle.

This means that if we want to promote veganism for personal gain or health benefits, we need to overstate the findings and tweak the science. And what does it say about our movement if we’re advocating for animals by using a not-quite-honest or not-quite-scientifically-supportable message?

Some might say that we should appeal to every possible motivation in getting people to stop eating animals, and that’s a tempting argument. I’d probably buy it if I thought it would work. But I don’t see that advocacy built on a shaky factual foundation or on precepts that are ever-changing can prevail in the long run.

No one knows what the exact “ideal” diet for humans is, or if there is any single diet that fits that definition. I talk with my colleagues frequently about new research and whether we need to reassess some of our recommendations or advice based on the latest findings – because ideas about the best way to eat are forever changing. Who knows what the research will be showing 40 years from now? But an ethic of justice doesn’t change. The argument in favor of animal rights today will be the same in 40 years. So why not stick with the argument that is 100 percent unassailable, the one that we never have to scramble to defend in light of new findings?

In addition, I think there is a real problem in shifting the focus of veganism away from an ethic of justice for animals toward more anthropocentric concerns. It actually reinforces the idea that our food and lifestyle choices should be all about us – a belief that lies at the center of animal exploitation.

How long have you been vegan and how did you come to that decision?

I’ve been vegan for about 20 years. It was a gradual process for me, and I was a dietitian before I was even a vegetarian. I have always cared a great deal about animals but somehow never made the connection between those feelings/emotions and the way I lived, aside from rescuing dogs and cats, and injured birds.

I had an absolute epiphany in 1984 when I was perusing a vegetarian cookbook – Laurel’s Kitchen – and read the dedication to “a glossy black calf on his way to the slaughterhouse many years ago, whose eyes met those of someone who could understand their appeal and inspire us, and thousands of others like us, to give the gift of life.”

Wow – the little light bulb clicked on and I thought “what am I doing eating these creatures.” And this was before I knew anything about factory farming or the way animals were treated. None of that was even on my radar when I first went vegetarian. But I took a job working for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine five years later, and found myself immersed in a little community of vegans and animal rights activists. That was really the beginning of my education. I started reading about factory farming and began a transition to a vegan diet and then to other vegan choices. I also started learning more about issues regarding animal rights and a vegan ethic.

You cover some of the key nutrients that vegans should concern themselves with. You also recommend supplements for people with greater needs or who may not be able to meet their nutrient needs strictly through diet. Some of the leading medical doctors who promote a vegan diet are adamantly against the use of supplements. Can you speak to this?

This speaks to what I mentioned in response to your first question – which is that some advocates would like to portray veganism as the “perfect” way of eating, and the idea of taking supplements challenges that perception. Unfortunately, this can end up jeopardizing the health of vegans. We owe it to those we are attracting to this movement to be 100 percent honest about the potential pitfalls of a vegan diet.

Yes, it’s always best to get nutrition from whole foods, but that’s not always possible—certainly not in the cases of iodine and vitamins B12 and D. For various reasons, some vegans may fall short on other nutrients and find it difficult to meet needs from foods alone. Taking supplements to make up the difference seems way smarter to me than trying to explain the problem away.

You have a comprehensive chapter about soy in the book. There are so many misperceptions and down right lies regarding soy. Could you touch on soy briefly?

It’s hard to be brief about soy – it’s a huge topic! Not to mention a very scientifically complex one. There are literally thousands of papers published on different health aspects of soy, so it’s not surprising that people can find a few studies here and there that will support whatever viewpoint they like.

Concerns about safety of soy have generally focused on studies in rodents, which are of questionable relevance to humans,and have not been supported by human studies. They also arise from some pretty big misunderstandings about how soy isoflavones act in the body. For an in-depth discussion of these issues, I recommend Jack Norris’ article: http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/soy_harm

In terms of health benefits of soy, not everything has panned out as anticipated, though. For example, contrary to early expectations, research does not suggest that women who consume soy have a lower risk for breast cancer. And the role of soy in protecting bone health has turned out to be pretty disappointing, too.

We do have evidence that young girls who eat soy have a lower risk for breast cancer later in life, though. Isoflavones also help alleviate hot flashes and possibly reduce prostate cancer. Some preliminary research points to cosmetic benefits, too, specifically in decreasing wrinkles.

But to me, the main advantage is that soy is a nutritious food – or group of foods – that make for some pretty fantastic vegan choices. Soyfoods are among the items that make it so easy to be vegan. I eat tofu every single day and sometimes some tempeh, and soy or gluten-based veggie meats several times a week. My soy intake is at the high end of what Japanese people consume; they average about 1 to 1 ½ servings per day, but about 25 percent of older Japanese people – those who eat more traditional diets – eat 2 to 3 servings per day. I usually eat 2, but sometimes 3.

In the book, you advocate the use of healthy oils, such as olive and canola. Many medical doctors advocate against oil. Would you mind sharing your thoughts?

Actually, I don’t think it’s true at all that many medical doctors advocate against all vegetable oils. That may have been true 25 years ago, but perspectives have changed with evolving research.

The research shows that the type of fat in your diet is far more important than the amount – up to a point, of course. And, I think most medical and health experts who follow nutrition research are on board with the idea that moderate consumption of healthy oils is safe and compatible with healthy eating. It’s too bad that the vegan community has lagged behind the science in this regard. It makes us look out of touch with current nutrition research.

I’m not for pouring buckets of oil over salads or slathering heaps of Earth Balance on bread, of course. But some higher fat foods are associated with decreased risk for chronic disease; at the very least, they are harmless in moderation. And unfortunately, efforts to define veganism as a diet that shuns all added fats – and sometimes higher fat foods – can end up turning veganism into a sort of ultra-restrictive fad diet.

The impression that vegan diets are limited and difficult is a huge deterrent toward adopting this way of eating for many people. If we want to counter that perception, the last thing we want to do is layer on more restrictions that have never been shown to be beneficial. And, with 10 billion animals slaughtered for food every year, do we really want to expend energy railing against harmless plant foods like olive oil?

 

 

, , , ,

Are we omnivores or herbivores?

September 4th, 2011 by Gary Smith

I’ve read quite a few articles and discussions on the internet (and in books) debating whether human beings are naturally omnivores or herbivores. I’m sure you’ve seen the debate; humans don’t have claws, sharp teeth, the stomach acidity nor intestinal tracts to digest meat. True omnivores don’t need to cook animal flesh, if you put a baby in a crib with an apple and a bunny, the baby won’t eat the bunny (he won’t eat the apple either since he has no teeth, by that’s a different discussion).

On the other side of the debate, they say humans evolved because we ate meat, how can we be herbivores if we need to take a B12 supplement, our species would never have survived had we subsisted strictly on plants.

These arguments and debates are distractions, and a waste of time.

“Many of us are tempted to strain credulity and torture the evidence to ‘prove’ humans are ‘naturally’ vegan,” PaleoVeganology blogger Robert Mason says in the new book Vegan for Life by Virginia Messina, MPH, RD and Jack Norris, RD. “This is a trap, and one into which carnists (specially paleo dieters) would love us to fail; the evidence isn’t on our side. There is no doubt that hominids ate meat…The argument for veganism has always been primarily ethical, and ought to remain that way. It’s based on a concern for the future, not an obsession about the past.”

Why does it matter if we are scientifically omnivores or herbivores? What matters is that in 2011, we do not need to eat meat, dairy or eggs to survive nor in fact thrive. We can subsist by strictly eating plants (and avoiding using individuals for clothing, entertainment and laboratory testing). Since this is the case, we can make an ethical argument against both eating and using nonhuman animals. If we do not need to breed, confine, torture and ultimately murder nonhuman animals for survival, then we are making a selfish choice, a speciesist choice to exploit others for our gain and enjoyment.

By keeping the focus where it should be, on the ethics, we don’t get pulled down the road of yet another distracting debate, where ultimately there is no winner, and the loser is animals. Next time you are tempted to go down that road, pull back for a minute and bring the focus back to the ethics.

 

, , , , , ,

The vegan doctor is in…interview with Dr. Holly Wilson

August 6th, 2011 by Gary Smith

 

Holly Wilson MD is board certified in Emergency Medicine and practices in south Florida. In the Emergency Department, she educates her patients as well as staff members about the benefits of a vegan diet. She is an outspoken, dedicated activist, involved in multiple projects. She has established her own vegan education table which displays Mercy For Animals’ ‘Farm to Fridge’ and she distributes their literature. During sea turtle nesting season, she volunteers with Sea Turtle Oversight Protection (SeaTurtleOP.org) in Fort Lauderdale. When the rodeo and circus come to town, she protests in full costume and hands out leaflets. She also carries literature where ever she goes, and is always ready to discuss veganism.

 

, ,

RSS Feed