Welcome statement


Parting Words from Moristotle” (07/31/2023)
tells how to access our archives
of art, poems, stories, serials, travelogues,
essays, reviews, interviews, correspondence….

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Does eating (or not eating) animals have health implications?

At the request of Jim the Directrix, who has been discussing various issues of diets that don't include animal flesh in comments on "Temple Grandin's rationale for eating animals," I'm here opening a discussion on diet from the point of view of health (rather than of morality).
    It starts with an interchange begun on the Grandin post having to do with vitamin B12. Ken had commented:
Felt an obligation to do some extra research on the vitamin B12 question. I was mistaken to write that its absence would quickly cause a problem. However, predicting the point at which a problem will arise is difficult. It can be less or more than 3 years, depending on genetic factors, how much is secreted daily, and how much is absorbed. It varies from person to person. The danger is greater in a vegetarian family because the onset of vitamin B12 deficiency in children is much faster.
Jim the Directrix replied in an email directly to Ken and me:
Thanks for your response and especially for looking more into the B12 issue. Pundits for eating meat have blown the B12 issue way out of proportion to defend their position. Listening to these pundits gives the false impression that vegans are a great risk of B12 deficiency. Here's what my guru Dr. John McDougall says about the issue:
Vitamin B12 Deficiency—the Meat-eaters’ Last Stand
    Defending eating habits seems to be a primal instinct for people. These days Westerners are running out of excuses for their gluttony. Well-read people no longer believe meat is necessary to meet our protein needs or that milk is the favored source of calcium. With the crumbling of these two time-honored battle fronts, the vitamin B12 issue has become the trendy topic whenever a strict vegetarian (vegan) diet is discussed. Since the usual dietary source of vitamin B12 for omnivores is the flesh of other animals, the obvious conclusion is that those who choose to avoid eating meat are destined to become B12 deficient. There is a grain of truth in this concern, but in reality an otherwise healthy strict vegetarian’s risk of developing a disease from B12 deficiency by following a sensible diet is extremely rare—less than one chance in a million." complete article
Thanks, Ken and Jim, for getting this discussion started. I hope the neutral title I've given it meets with your approval.
    I'll return in a separate post to the question of the morality of eating animals.

32 comments:

  1. Jim, you may want to anoint another guru. Please see http://www.marksdailyapple.com/vegan-island/.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Before I will able to anoint a new guru, I would like to know who I will be anointing. May I ask who is the author of the aforementioned "Vegan Island" piece. Is it Mark Sisson author of "Primal Blueprint" or someone else?

    ReplyDelete
  3. This has been a genuinely interesting and informative discussion. Have never encountered another blog with such detailed, educational and civil discourse. I have been a vegan for nearly 20 years and a vegetarian for @ 30. When I was a newbie I tried to keep up with supplements and struggled with all sorts of issues. After a couple of years as a vegan I settled into a healthy if repetitive diet, my health, fitness and energy levels increased, and I have not taken a supplement of any kind for more than 18 years. I am only one laboratory and test sample, but my vote is the concern over B-12 and everything else we are supposedly deprived of in a vegan diet is greatly overblown.

    As a career carb counter for workout purposes I am still confused, however, about the starch issue. How does one find out how much starch to eat and how much starch is in different size servings of different foods?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jim, if you want to know who the author is you have to look at the site. You should probably throw caution to the wind and read what's there. I'm not going to abet someone who is prepared to close his mind so readily.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ken,

    Why should we consider anointing a new guru on the basis of the escape from vegan island web post? Most people go through life trying to justify their beliefs and block out anything that challenges their preconceptions and prejudices. All I see in the vegan island piece is someone going in with a closed mind and using murky conjecture to attempt to make a vague point based in opinion rather than fact. What enlightening news and factual information did you find that makes the writer a nominee for guru status?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Moto, you've misunderstood. I'm not interested in anointing the writer of the Vegan Island article. I'm not interested in anointing anyone. I only want to show that McDougall is a false god.

    I think you've misread the article as well. It's an eye witness account, not a theoretical piece with "murky conjectures." The writer sees overweight, unhealthy people piling their plates with pounds of bread, pasta, rice, potatoes, beans, desert cake, etc. He sees the triathlete who looks like hell and has no muscle tone. If you want to reject the article, then you have to accuse the writer of lying, not of making "a vague point based on opinion."

    ReplyDelete
  7. A guy goes on a vegan retreat and in his opinion some of the people there are overweight, and that is scientific proof a vegan diet is unhealthy? So if I sit in front of a steak house and document the people waddling out as being fat and having trouble walking I have scientifically proven eating meat is unhealthy?

    Sorry, but I don't see how either observation proves anything. To me they both fall into the realm of murky conjecture.

    There are healthy meat eaters; there are healthy vegetarians. Some meat-laden diets will kill or cripple you; some vegetarian diets will kill or cripple you.

    To justify one over the other it seems to me the moral and collateral damage issues MUST be part of the equation. Humans can live without meat, so when they are eating meat they are killing something unnecessarily. A huge amount of space and fossil fuel is wasted raising animals to supply that meat. The by-products of that effort create an immense amount of water, soil and air pollution. Aren't all of those worthy of consideration?

    My grandmother on my mother's side ate meat her whole life, lived to 100, walked with a cane, and did the New York Times Sunday crossword puzzle until the last two weeks of her life. A vegetarian friend of mine lived to 102, wrote a book in his 90s, and practiced Tai Chi until the last two weeks of his life. Neither proves anything other than the fact that either diet can work. Science has proven that eating meat is not essential for humans to live healthy lives. So to me the real question has to be how do we justify the unnecessary collateral damage caused by eating meat?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Geez, Moto. You really need to focus. The vegan retreat was sponsored by Dr. McDougall. The buffet was provided by Dr. McDougall. Everything was done under his auspices. Of course this isn't proof that a vegan diet is unhealthy. You really had to reach for that straw man. It is evidence that McDougall is negligent at best and a dangerous windbag at worst.

    Morris has set aside the moral question for a later discussion, so I expect we'll get to it in due time.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I never even heard of the guy until this week, but McDougall apparently does have a resume and a fairly long list of people who say he helped them. What exactly is the factual evidence of him being negligent or dangerous?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Vegan Island Exposed

    I have enjoyed the sparing between Ken and motomynd over the article Vegan Island. I have delayed my two cents worth hoping that moristotle would weigh in on the article, however not wanting the issue to get too cold here are my thoughts:

    1) The author of Vegan Island does not identify himself so there is no way to examine his credentials (as motomynd has done with McDougall). Maybe the author is a genius but then again maybe he’s a clown?

    2) The article appears on Mark Sisson’s webpage which is clearly designed to promote his book Primal Blueprint which is an Atkin’s type diet, i.e. pro-meat anti-carbohydrate (starch) which is the antithesis of McDougall.

    3) In the second paragraph the anonymous author states “after what I witnessed during my stay, I can assure you that I have never been so certain that the Primal Blueprint way of eating – which I have embraced for over 30 years now – is the best way to achieve and maintain excellent health.” Then after bashing McDougall’s vegan retreat with biased observations and anecdotal conclusions devoid of any discernable science, “Anonymous” ends Vegan Island with “I was left with a confidence that following Primal Blueprint path is exactly what humans were designed to do.”

    4) Yes “Anonymous” is biased by his own admission, ”But here I am giving you my opinion again and it’s only based on studies that my filters have shown align with my own beliefs”! Filters = biases, no?

    So isn’t it obvious that Vegan Island is nothing more than advertisement under the guise of an objective critique of McDougall’s retreat?

    PS For what it’s worth, I have attended one of McDougall’s retreats. Not only did I observe fat people stuffing their face with all the McDougall fare they wanted, I was one of them. And guess what? I lost 7 pounds in 10 days and I felt great! Go figure…

    ReplyDelete
  11. Spot on with your comments, Directrix. I'm not sold on McDougall and starch as the dietary end all be all, but could find no science and therefore no merit in the vegan island piece. Devoid of anything other than slanted opinion, tripe seemed an apt description.

    That said, back to McDougall. In 30 years of dietary experimentation and serious carb loading for endurance events, I have never heard of such emphasis on starch. Since I'm always game to try something with a sound basis, where do I go to get details on how much starch per serving of carbs from say, brown rice versus corn? And while I know at my weight I am supposed to eat 154 grams of high-glycemic carbs immediately after a long workout, where do I find how much starch is recommended? And is starch rated low, medium or high glycemic as are carbs?

    Sorry to be such a pest for details but I am training for a trail marathon and need all the help I can get.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sorry, guys, for not having "weighed in" on this interchange. I hope to contribute a useful quotation on vegetarian diet from the American Dietetic Association later this morning (or sometime today; I've been unusually busy this week).
        Perhaps the more critical among you can prepare the others to be on guard against ADA propaganda?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jim the Directrix, before I quote the ADA, I would like to sort of follow up on Motomynd's query about starch. As you already know, I've lately increased my starch intake significantly, on the principle that your advice may be right and I may as well try it and see what happens. I just finished my third bowl of brown rice for lunch this week, and my wife and I had brown rice and beans for dinner night before last.
        Can you provide any scientific or anecdotal evidence that indicates how long a person would need to be on a very-high starch diet (instead of including a small portion of meat in a meal three or four times a week, which is probably about what I was averaging prior to lately) in order to notice any improvement in energy or feeling of well-being?
        I seem to have had more energy the last few days, and I felt much better than usual immediately upon arising from bed this morning. I felt spry, light on my feet, and, probably, closer to 150 than 155 (I've routinely weighed in that range for months); I didn't think to weigh. I might even have weighed 149. I'll weigh tomorrow morning.
        In your own case, after that McDougall event you attended (during which you lost seven pounds in ten days, I believe you said), do you remember whether you had any similar improvement in energy and sense of well-being?
        Another thing I've noticed is that my appetite for things like a candy bar (or dessert generally) has decreased—not that I have had a large appetite for those things anyway (that I've indulged anyway). I've just felt content, good, in no need to eat further than the very satisfying starchy meal I've just had.

    ReplyDelete
  14. For Ken and Motomynd's briefing on my recent diet, I should have mentioned that, prior switching to (mainly) brown rice for lunch, I'd typically had peanut butter mixed with honey and spread on multi-grain crackers four to six times a week. (High-fat and, I guess, sugar.)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Okay, now the ADA quotes. In Jonathan Safron Foer's book, Eating Animals, after giving a brief history of the founding of the American Dietetic Association, he reports its findings on a vegetarian diet, noting as preamble that "the ADA takes a conservative stand, leaving out many well-documented health benefits attributable to reducing the consumption of animal products:"
        First quote: "Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for all individuals [emphasis mine] during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."
        Second quote: "Vegetarian diets tend to be lower in saturated fat and cholesterol, and have higher levels of dietary fiber, magnesium, and potassium, vitamins C and E, folate, carotenoids, flavonoids, and other phytochemicals."
        He then injects the comment: "Elsewhere the paper [he's quoting from] notes that vegetarians and vegans (including athletes) 'meet and exceed requirements' for protein...other data suggests [sic] that excess animal protein intake is linked with osteoporosis, kidney disease, calcium stones in the urinary tract, and some cancers."
        Third quote: "Vegetarian diets are often associated with a number of health advantages, including lower blood cholesterol levels, lower risk of heart disease [which alone accounts for more than 25 percent of all annual deaths in the nation--his interjection], lower blood pressure levels, and lower risk of hypertension and type 2 diabetes. Vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index (BMI) [that is, they are not as fat] and lower overall cancer rates [cancers account for nearly another 25 percent of all annual deaths in the nation]."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sorry, I forgot to say where those excerpts are taken from the book: pp. 143-145.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Motomynd try this link for starch content of foods:

    http://www.kickas.org/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=143543

    "starch" is really nothing new and is often used interchangeably with "complex carbohydrate"

    ReplyDelete
  18. moristotle

    benefits from going to a starch based are immediate as you are experiencing. KEEP IT UP...

    ReplyDelete
  19. Good on the quotes from Foer. Although I've heard them all before from McDougall.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jim, thanks for the confirmation that one need not wait for the beneficial effects of starch to kick in. I wasn't sure what was happening.
        And thanks for the link to the starch information. But I think Motomynd was asking for a bit more, namely why the "emphasis on starch" and "where do I find how much starch is recommended?" [emphasis mine]
        I seem to remember that McDougall's next book will focus on starch. Can you summarize what he would be likely to say in response to those two points?
        I think you answered Motomynd's question about starch's rating "low, medium, or high glycemic" by pointing out that "starch" is synonymous with "complex carbohydrate."

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thank you for the detailed information and starch stats. Now that I know starch is basically the complex carbs that endurance athletes have burned for fuel for eons it all makes much more sense.

    Please allow me a bit of a detour here. I'm a vegan, but I lived typical American meat and potatoes the first 24 years of my life, so I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment. Going back to where you launched this topic you asked "does eating (or not eating) animals have health implications? What implications are we talking about? It has been proven that too much animal protein can be harmful; it has been proven that not enough protein can be harmful. And too much fruit sugar or junk food sugar can be harmful. Any diet has implications -- are we trying to address whether one diet or the other will help you live longer, help you be more healthy to a certain age, have more energy, or something else?

    And, btw, why did you choose to remove the morality issue? As I mentioned in a previous post, my grandmother ate meat and was in very good health to age 100, so I am hard pressed to say meat in moderation is unhealthy for you. I have to get in another healthy 40 years plus just to prove my diet and lifestyle can compete with hers. Trying to be a better runner motivated me to try a vegetarian diet, what keeps me on it is I can't justify killing animals for food when I know I can live without killing them. To me the morality issue really needs to be part of the equation for choosing one diet over the other.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Motomynd, I phrased the title the way I did more to do the separation from morality than to focus on a particular "health issue" (other than that the issues pertain to the question of eating meat [animals] or not. [In reflecting on Foer's title, "eating animals," I've come to think that "eating meat" is like dropping bombs from an airplane—you're not seeing the faces of the victims.]
        Separating the health question from the moral question was requested by, I think, both Ken and Jim (or maybe it was only Jim, who doesn't seem to share your or my or Foer's moral sensitivity; I get the impression that Ken doesn't either). I repeat, as I think I've said on this blog and know that I've said to Jim: for me, the moral issue far outweighs the health issue. I'm with you there.
        That said, though, I appreciate the health focus, especially as I'm seeing in actual experience some significant benefits for me personally, and I'm realizing that I should put more emphasis on health in my dietary choices.

    ReplyDelete
  23. See TIME Magazine: The Morality of Mealtime

    http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2062252,00.html?artId=2062252?contType=article?chn=sciHealth

    I believe discussing morality before health consequences of eating meat is putting the cart before the horse. If meat is necessary and healthy in the human diet then morality is moot is it not?

    Nowhere in this article does it mention in any detail possible health issues to us humans of eating meat in general. That is, is meat/dairy from happy animals fed on organic grains free of added chemicals (pesticides, growth hormones, etc) good for us humans? Or does consuming pristine animal products in itself have health consequences?

    Motomynd has said, “It has been proven that too much animal protein can be harmful; it has been proven that not enough protein can be harmful.” I agree. But I claim that short of starvation, protein deficiency is impossible in humans! Humans who get enough calories from starchy foods also get sufficient protein. Does everyone agree? Discussion? Or shall we move on to identify, as motomynd introduced, the possible harms of eating too much [pristine] animal protein?

    Final Food for Thought

    The above mentioned article ended with writer Michael Pollan's basic dictum: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

    But what think of The Directrix’s basic dictum: “Eat only plant food. As much as you want. Mostly starch”?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Jim, I'm sorry that I only just moments ago noticed that Blogger had trapped your comment as possible spam. I untrapped it. Been swamped today, as I already indicated.
        If meat were necessary, then you might have a point about its coming before moral considerations, the way that killing someone might be necessary to preserve one's own life (or the life of a friend), so that one would not be blamed for murder.
        But as it is, we don't need to eat meat; we have a free choice. Not everyone thinks about it (a point well-made by the Time article—for which, thanks), but doing so can raise the question, for those who recognize that animals have rights (and perhaps as much right to live on the planet as we other animals think we do): Do I want to contribute to the profit of factory farms by purchasing their animal products?
        I believe that the moral question is unavoidable, however much people avoid it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Moristotle, kudos for the comparison of dropping bombs from an airplane on a faceless enemy to eating meat.

    Speaking as a person who grew up helping on a farm and who killed and butchered more cows, hogs and especially chickens than I could begin to remember, I will wager that if more people had to kill and butcher the meat they mindlessly eat, they would eat much less of it.

    And speaking as a journalist and photographer who has seen conflict at painfully close quarters, I will wager that if more people had to stick a knife in someone or risk having one stuck in them before they sent others off to fight their battles, we would have less war as well.

    War may look as clean and disconnected from the seat of a jet as meat does in the grocery cooler, but neither seems that way when you're on the ground and up to your elbows in it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Yes, Motomynd, I thought my air-bombing metaphor was apt. Indeed, being "on the ground" changes things. People can "avoid the unavoidable" only by remaining "in the air," unaware of the realities of industrial animal farming. (I think that people's image of animal farming tends to be the traditional one of a beautiful pasture of happy animals, without any reference to slaughter days.) Awareness affects the conscience.
        I was just reading in Foer, though, of the willful torture of pigs and poultry by factory workers (with the tacit approval of their supervisors, their company refusing to investigate reports, even ones documented by clandestine video recordings). The only way I can make sense of this is that the workers are so upset by the way the animals are treated, they treat them even worse in a pathological attempt to convince themselves that the animals are merely inert objects.
        It sickened me to listen to the reader's descriptions of the acts of torture; I had to turn the player off for a break. (I was driving on an interstate highway as I listened, and I feared that my normal sense of road awareness was being adversely affected, to the extent that I might even have an accident.) The more I read of Eating Animals, the more my respect for Jonathan Safron Foer grows, that he had the stomach and fortitude to spend three years researching the topic and writing his book. He could only have been motivated by the terrible need to get the information out.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Morstotole:

    You have said that “we don't need to eat meat; we have a free choice”.

    And you have raised the moral question, “Do animals have as much right to live on the planet as we other animals think we do?”

    If your answer to this question is “Yes” then can you explain why you are still eating meat and dairy?

    You have also asked yourself, “Do I want to contribute to the profit of factory farms by purchasing their animal products?”

    If your answer to this question is “No” then can you explain why you are still eating meat and dairy?

    And you are enjoying reading “Eating Animals” and admire Foer for writing it, so why are still eating meat and dairy?

    Or am I wrong in assuming that you are?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Jim, I still eat some meat and use some dairy products because I live with (and love and cherish and wish to live amicably with) a meat-eater. I bear a weight of guilt for continuing to vote (with dollars) for factory farming.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Jim, a couple of comments ago you wrote: "But what think of The Directrix’s basic dictum: 'Eat only plant food. As much as you want. Mostly starch'?"
        I'm wondering about that "as much as you want," for I have started to feel as though I might be gaining weight. I need to monitor my weight to try to confirm this.
        Can't people react differently to starch intake when it comes to weight gain? My fat intake lately has been significantly less (because I'm eating brown rice or quinoa for lunch instead of peanut butter and honey). But I've been eating a lot more brown rice or quinoa than I used to eat PB/honey on multi-grain crackers.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Saturday morning I heard a National Public Radio interview with 75-year-old former golfing great Gary Player from South Africa. While this anecdote doesn't prove a vegetarian diet is healthier it sure proves it doesn't hurt.

    According to the interview, 50 years ago Player was the first foreigner to win the Masters golf tournament. Today he still plays exhibition matches and still works just as hard to stay fit as he did when he was a young pro. When asked about his health and fitness today Player said "I still treat my body like a temple...I'm a vegetarian...and when I'm not traveling I still do 1,000 sit-ups a day."

    Yes, he is a 75-year-old vegetarian and he still does 1,000 sit-ups a day. Like I said, not conclusive proof the meat-free diet helps, but proof that it sure doesn't hurt.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Motomynd, forgive me, but I was tardy in discovering that once again, vigilant Blogger had hesitated in posting a comment, in this case yours.
        Gosh, 1,000 sit-ups in one day (and every day). I wonder how many I could do?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Motomynd wrote me aside to ask, "How many sit-ups do you do now?" "Sit-ups!" I exclaimed to myself. I had completely mis-read his comment as referring to Player's 1,000 push-ups! In fact, before I logged on just now, I got down on the floor and did as many push-ups as I could, which turned out to be 25. I'm not sure how long I'd have to rest to do another 25, or whether I could even do 25 the second time, but I suspect that it would take me several days (or weeks?) to do 1,000 push-ups.
        Sit-ups, forget it. As Motomynd also wrote aside, "I have heard the allegations from modern personal trainers about possible back injuries from sit-ups."
        I too highly suspect sit-ups—for my back anyway. I've been using an abs machine at the gym, but even it seems to be having an adverse effect on my back. The physical therapist who treated me a couple of years ago was big on my simply lying on my back with knees bent and alternately lifting each leg and holding it up for a count of ten (while tucking my "transverse abdominus" in, or whatever it's called).

    I just now got down on the floor again and tried another set of push-ups. I did 29, just barely...Maybe I could do a couple of hundred in a day.
        But sit-ups? As I said, forget it.

    ReplyDelete