^ The problem in a case like that would be improper nutrition do to negligence on the vegetarian, not vegetarianism itself. With any diet path you choose, you simply have to be aware of your nutritional intake. As stated already, with any diet (but especially something like vegetarianism and veganism) you have to plan your intake to make sure you are getting everything you need because there are essential things like B-12 or certain fats and proteins that you aren't getting from meat that you need to get from other sources.

In other words, a baby wouldn't suffer from malnutrition because a mom is vegetarian; it would suffer from malnutrition due to not getting enough of the proper nutrients or in this case B-12. The difference is important.

4/24/2012 1:19:43 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/vegans-trial-death-baby-breast-milk

I found that in 2 seconds using google.

^You are right about the difference. My argument is that if a diet requires you to meticulously plan out how to counter an imbalance in nutrients, then it is less optimal than a diet you can eat ad libitum and thrive on.

4/24/2012 1:58:52 PM

The nutritionist at wake heart center actually gave my father great advice on how to manage his diabetes but my dad keeps on eating tons of white bread.

4/24/2012 2:22:53 PM

Quote :

"^ The problem in a case like that would be improper nutrition do to negligence on the vegetarian, not vegetarianism itself. With any diet path you choose, you simply have to be aware of your nutritional intake. As stated already, with any diet (but especially something like vegetarianism and veganism) you have to plan your intake to make sure you are getting everything you need because there are essential things like B-12 or certain fats and proteins that you aren't getting from meat that you need to get from other sources."

You are basically contradicting yourself.

It IS the fault of vegetarianism. If a diet is not providing all the nutrients needed by the human body, and therefore requires supplementation through pills and syrups, that diet is not and can not be the natural diet for humans.

The fact that we need B12 means that any diet devoid of B12 is not the right diet for humans, and is therefore unnatural.

However, in the case of the child, it is not even clear it was the lack of B12 or vit A that caused or even aggravated the condition of the baby.

The baby had BRONCHITIS and was losing weight, and the parents refused medical treatment. She died of pneumonia-related illness.

4/24/2012 6:15:24 PM

Quote :

"The nutritionist at wake heart center actually gave my father great advice on how to manage his diabetes but my dad keeps on eating tons of white bread."

Komrade, surely you know this is the government's approved basis for a "healthy diet". Quiet, they know better than you!







Seriously though...this just might be a better choice.

4/24/2012 9:35:43 PM

^ you realize the food pyramid is officially no more?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/business/03plate.html
has been replaced by this;



The original food pyramid was created due to corruption/cronyism between the corn/agro industry and government.

4/24/2012 10:20:49 PM

^The point is that it was still in effect up until just 7 years ago. An excellent example of why the government can't be trusted for health advice.

4/24/2012 11:04:38 PM

Quote :

"you realize the food pyramid is officially no more?"

Yup, well aware. This one is also good.



http://www.fitbomb.com/2011/06/its-not-that-hard.html

4/25/2012 10:23:06 AM

If you take 1/2 of the animals section and add it to the plants section it might be better.

4/25/2012 10:37:45 AM

Interesting that both the vegetarian cult and the protein cult would probably agree with cutting out the grains from the current recommended food plate.

4/25/2012 10:54:21 AM

No, most vegetarians rely on some kind of grain in their diet.

4/25/2012 12:11:55 PM

I ate a pound of flank steak for dinner last night

4/25/2012 12:27:11 PM

^^^,^^ Certain subgroups of vegetarian/veganism, especially the raw movement. Believe it or not there are even "paleo vegetarians."

However, I don't really see how one could safely reconcile vegetarianism and very low carb.

4/25/2012 2:18:01 PM

it's a misnomer to say "carbs" because vegetables are carbs. But processed carbs vegitarians can remove. People also underestimate the role that beans (and their respective larger category) can play.

4/25/2012 2:50:41 PM

The vegetarians I know get down with tortilla chips, rice, pasta, bread, etc... They might try to eat quinoa, steel cut oats, whole grain bread, or whatever... But, regardless, it's ridiculous to suggest that vegetarians, as a whole group, want grains removed from the nutrition guidelines.

Furthermore, the number of people who actually subsist for long periods of time on raw vegetables/nuts is so minuscule that it doesn't even make sense to acknowledge them.

I've developed a pretty easy diet of milk, black beans, peanuts, almonds, cooked eggs, raw broccoli, carrots, and spinach. It's cheap, filling, pretty healthy...but I don't like eating that way for more than 5 days in a row.

4/25/2012 3:19:42 PM

Quote :

"it's a misnomer to say "carbs" because vegetables are carbs."

Who used a misnomer? When I say low carb, that's exactly what I mean: a diet with a low amount of carbohydrates regardless of source or quality. Many people have diets less than 150g carbs/day. Many others 0-50g of carbs/day. I don't think it's inaccurate to call those diets low carb.

It's totally possible to have a low, very low, or zero carb diet while vegan. It's just that it would be insane (e.g. subsist on a cup of olive oil every day)

Paleo, by the way, is completely orthogonal to macro-nutrient ratios.

Robb Wolf's take on this case: http://robbwolf.com/2012/04/25/paleo-diet-rediscovered-2/

Quote :

"“Nutritional science” largely stops at hypothesis generation, yet they are allowed to dictate public nutrition policy. They use epidemiological studies to try to support their case, but this is correlation, not causation. When it comes down to actual, randomized controlled trials we consistently see low-carb interventions trumping the grain centric recommendations of the government. The ADA is not practicing science, this can be proven in a court of law and it could eviscerate the Clergy masquerading as scientists."

[Edited on April 25, 2012 at 4:13 PM. Reason : h]

4/25/2012 4:06:03 PM

Quote :

"This one is also good. "

No, it is not good. It can be good, but it doesn't have to be. Whereas the one broken into 4 sections forces you to eat fruits, vegetables, and grains, one could eat white rice and white bread all day long as per the one you posted, and say they have covered the "Plants" section. Or even if they eat whole grain products, still not good, as it doesn't explicitly mention fruits and vegetables.

[Edited on April 25, 2012 at 4:45 PM. Reason : ]

4/25/2012 4:37:35 PM

I am currently hummin on zero carbs so far today... All I've had is 2 sausage patties, 3 slices of bacon and 3 fried eggs.

Tonight will be 1/2lb of flank steak and about a 1lb of broccoli.

Abz here I come!

4/25/2012 4:38:35 PM

Quote :

"http://robbwolf.com/2012/04/25/paleo-diet-rediscovered-2/"

Brilliant article.

4/25/2012 5:18:56 PM

Quote :

"Who used a misnomer? When I say low carb, that's exactly what I mean: a diet with a low amount of carbohydrates regardless of source or quality. Many people have diets less than 150g carbs/day. Many others 0-50g of carbs/day. I don't think it's inaccurate to call those diets low carb."

Ok, you could eat half of your calories, 1000 calories a day in raw broccoli, spinach, carrots, and tomatoes. You body would be like "yeah, I can do this". I am damned sure it would not result in health problems. The human body is fucking awesome at processing vegetables.

Quote :

"The vegetarians I know get down with tortilla chips, rice, pasta, bread, etc... They might try to eat quinoa, steel cut oats, whole grain bread, or whatever... But, regardless, it's ridiculous to suggest that vegetarians, as a whole group, want grains removed from the nutrition guidelines."

This is entirely my opinion, but they are no better off for the grains.

Quote :

"one could eat white rice and white bread all day long as per the one you posted, and say they have covered the "Plants" section"

High fructose corn syrup is from plant. After a certain point it just doesn't matter whether it comes from plants or petroleum because the substances have been so thoroughly adulterated. I generally think that when someone talks about eating plants, they're referring to foods that identifiably came from plants.

4/25/2012 5:24:29 PM

lol @ 404 error

4/25/2012 5:25:43 PM

Wow...The dairy industry is pretty damn good at protecting their interests.

It appears that we're supposed to have a glass of milk with every meal. Ok, so that could also be a bowl of butter, cheese, yogurt, or a few other things. All things that the body can do just fine without. Cheese gets most of its calories from fat. Butter gets all of its calories from fat. Both are things that most overweight people could use to shave a lot of unnecessary calories out of their diet. Neither provides any necessary vitamins or minerals that can't be easily had elsewhere. It's estimated that over half the world has some level of lactose intolerance, so what gives?

(note: I have no problem with milk...I try to drink around 6-10 oz per day of a good organic. I just don't see any reason for dairy to need it's own section other than to pander to the dairy industry.)

[Edited on April 25, 2012 at 5:38 PM. Reason : s]

4/25/2012 5:30:35 PM

Quote :

"Neither provides any necessary vitamins or minerals that can't be easily had elsewhere."

Agreed on all points, but hey man. Don't hate on butter.

http://chriskresser.com/vitamin-k2-the-missing-nutrient

4/25/2012 5:35:25 PM

I wouldn't say I hate on it. It's just not something I think our government should advise people to include in every meal; especially for people who need to lose weight.

Interesting point on K2 though.

Quote :

"Foods high in vitamin K2 Natto Hard cheese Soft cheese Egg yolk Butter Chicken liver Salami Chicken breast Ground beef"

[Edited on April 25, 2012 at 5:45 PM. Reason : s]

4/25/2012 5:42:42 PM

It's worth pointing out that all of those foods are animal products, with the exception of natto, which may be the most disgusting food on the planet.

4/25/2012 5:54:11 PM

Quote :

"It appears that we're supposed to have a glass of milk with every meal. Ok, so that could also be a bowl of butter, cheese, yogurt, or a few other things. All things that the body can do just fine without. Cheese gets most of its calories from fat. Butter gets all of its calories from fat. Both are things that most overweight people could use to shave a lot of unnecessary calories out of their diet. Neither provides any necessary vitamins or minerals that can't be easily had elsewhere. It's estimated that over half the world has some level of lactose intolerance, so what gives?"

I don't know, milk just has a lot of different stuff in it.

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/dairy-and-egg-products/69/2

I think there are a lot of really bad dairy products out there because companies have basically stripped everything good out of them, but milk and eggs are foods that, importantly, Americans will eat and could be worse.

Also, to make the dumb but obviously point... nature made milk for the purpose of being consumed. Many of the things we eat not only weren't in a symbiosis with an animal that eats it, but many of them
a) humans never ate in their natural environment and
b) other actively evolved mechanisms to make it slightly toxic so it wouldn't be eaten
Some people make the case that (b) is true for grains, in fact. Meaning, nature put gluten there hoping that we wouldn't eat it anymore.

4/25/2012 5:55:35 PM

Quote :

"b) other actively evolved mechanisms to make it slightly toxic so it wouldn't be eaten Some people make the case that (b) is true for grains, in fact. Meaning, nature put gluten there hoping that we wouldn't eat it anymore."

http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2009/6/23/the-argument-against-cereal-grains.html
http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2010/3/12/the-argument-against-cereal-grains-ii.html

4/25/2012 6:02:51 PM

Wonder what the state would say about podcast 035 from this site?


http://www.growingagreenerworld.com/category/all-podcasts/podcast/

[Edited on April 25, 2012 at 6:04 PM. Reason : 35]

4/25/2012 6:03:02 PM

^^ lol, not often someone finds a reference for something I say

4/25/2012 6:20:21 PM

Quote :

"Also, to make the dumb but obviously point... nature made milk for the purpose of being consumed."

Yes, nature made milk for the infant animals of the species producing the milk. I'm not totally against dairy, but this this logic isn't going to fly when you're an adult consuming milk produced by and designed for another species. All the processing beyond that is just icing on the cake.

Also, can someone PLEASE tell me where this eggs == dairy concept comes from. EGGS ARE NOT A PRODUCT MADE FROM MILK. If we're making an argument against dairy, it has jackshit to do with eggs.

4/25/2012 7:54:02 PM

Please stop saying "nature made", it connotes that nature is a conscious, decision making entity; when evolution (i.e. nature) is simply random traits that stick around due positive affects on survival/reproduction.

4/25/2012 9:37:12 PM

Quote :

"Please stop saying "nature made", it connotes that nature is a conscious, decision making entity; when evolution (i.e. nature) is simply random traits that stick around due positive affects on survival/reproduction."

It depends on the way that you use it. You'll surely agree that the fact that poison ivy makes us itch has to do with keeping us away, and the venom of many animals have compositions that are more than an arbitrary recipe, and actually specifically designed to make a group of animals hurt. Flowers wouldn't exist if not for pollinating organisms.

All of these relationships in nature had precursor stages when something was just by happenstance harmful or helpful and then over time it intensified due to the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the organisms. It's also wrong to claim that science can't discover new such relationships, although our knowledge if imperfect of course.

Quote :

"Yes, nature made milk for the infant animals of the species producing the milk. I'm not totally against dairy, but this this logic isn't going to fly when you're an adult consuming milk produced by and designed for another species. All the processing beyond that is just icing on the cake."

And you think you can make this argument from a nutritional standpoint? Human milk is better for baby humans that cow's milk, but exactly how relevant is that? What is it, the Vitamin A and D ratios? Please, your body's minimum tolerance is orders of magnitude less than your maximum tolerance for both of these. What possible kind of witchcraft could you hope to come up with to argue that such differences should matter to a grown adult?

In a world of overeating, the argument against milk is the same as everything else.

4/25/2012 10:07:07 PM

Quote :

"All of these relationships in nature had precursor stages when something was just by happenstance harmful or helpful and then over time it intensified due to the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the organisms. It's also wrong to claim that science can't discover new such relationships, although our knowledge if imperfect of course."

Why do you assume that naturally evolved relationships are better than scientifically discovered ones? It's often the other way around.

[Edited on April 25, 2012 at 10:23 PM. Reason : .]

4/25/2012 10:22:10 PM

Quote :

"^The point is that it was still in effect up until just 7 years ago. An excellent example of why the government can't be trusted for health advice."

*less than 1 year

4/25/2012 10:36:02 PM

I meant the 1992 food pyramid. The 2005 was pretty much exactly the same as the current plate, just a hell of a lot more confusing.

The 1992 pyramid is the one that suggested it was perfectly OK to eat 11 servings of white bread per day. Yea, that one.

4/25/2012 10:43:09 PM

^^^ i'm lost. perhaps you're referring to unnatural relationships, like humans drinking cow's milk.

[Edited on April 25, 2012 at 10:43 PM. Reason : ]

4/25/2012 10:43:38 PM

Quote :

"Why do you assume that naturally evolved relationships are better than scientifically discovered ones? It's often the other way around."

"Evolution is clever than you are." -Leslie Orgel

4/25/2012 10:44:24 PM

when you refer to a "scientifically discovered" relationship in this context... you're still talking about a natural relationship. The discussion so far has been about obvious relationships (like poisonous plants and those they defend against) versus non-obvious relationships that we actually require science to observe (such as that of grains and animals that eat them).

4/25/2012 10:47:34 PM

Quote :

""Evolution is clever than you are." -Leslie Orgel"

Science has solved many, many problems that evolution has not (eyeglasses are just one example). Evolution is far from perfect.

4/25/2012 10:59:12 PM

Sure, no one is saying evolution is perfect; that's a rather nonsensical claim anyway.

Eyeglasses are a rather silly example though. Evolution wouldn't even attempt (excuse the figurative language) to solve a problem that doesn't exist in nature. Evolution didn't produce bulletproof vests or bomb shelters either.

The point is evolution creates adaptations to an animal's environment (the animal being us), adaptations that we are largely unable to change, override, or surpass even with our best advancements. For instance, space travel is one of humanity's greatest technological achievements. However, it's a relatively simple thing to fling ourselves into low earth orbit compared to keeping ourselves healthy once we get there. We're adapted to arbitrary amounts of gravity, radiation, etc. and completed fucked when we go outside these ranges.

That concept is especially important in nutrition. How many artificial foods have we invented that are healthier than natural foods? Precisely zero to my knowledge.

4/26/2012 10:39:44 AM

Quote :

"Evolution wouldn't even attempt (excuse the figurative language) to solve a problem that doesn't exist in nature."

But it does exist in nature. Our evolution has been taken over by our development of tools. Doesn't mean it's not "natural". We have different lifestyles and longer lifespans, along with new diseases, disorders, allergies, etc. We've changed as a species since our hunter-gatherer days, so it doesn't make sense, personally, to choose paleo based on what earlier humans did.

4/26/2012 10:59:42 AM

Do we really have to go back to the completely useless and meaningless definition of nature == the universe?

The other meaning is actually useful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

Quote :

"For example, manufactured objects and human interaction generally are not considered part of nature, unless qualified as, for example, "human nature" or "the whole of nature". This more traditional concept of natural things which can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the artificial being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind."

Quote :

"But it does exist in nature."

So then: No. I'm not aware that myopia is a significant problem for wild animals.

Quote :

"We have different lifestyles and longer lifespans, along with new diseases, disorders, allergies, etc. We've changed as a species since our hunter-gatherer days, so it doesn't make sense, personally, to choose paleo based on what earlier humans did."

This is my favorite logic. Living a different lifestyle doesn't free you from your genetics, nor does it grant you magical powers. You can't decide to suddenly start eating grass and thrive off of grass. You can't decide to go live at the bottom of the ocean one day just because that's your preferred lifestyle.

4/26/2012 11:26:44 AM

Quote :

"So then: No. I'm not aware that myopia is a significant problem for wild animals."

We're not wild animals. We can argue about what's natural all day, but the fact of the matter is that we are now a technological species. It's an inseparable part of our evolution.

Quote :

"Living a different lifestyle doesn't free you from your genetics"

I was referring to the fact that we don't spend all our time foraging for food and hunting anymore, and live a much more sedentary lifestyle in general. Sure, we thrived in those environments, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's optimal for our nutrition.

Also, I can point to sickle cell anemia in the US vs. Africa as an example of how quickly our genetics are capable of changing. Why are you so sure that genetics affecting our diet haven't changed?



[Edited on April 26, 2012 at 11:53 AM. Reason : BTW, I'm not claiming to be an expert on any of this. Just bringing up points.]

4/26/2012 11:48:03 AM

Quote :

"We're not wild animals. We can argue about what's natural all day, but the fact of the matter is that we are now a technological species. It's an inseparable part of our evolution. "

You're trying to downplay the power of evolution by pointing out that evolution hasn't fixed myopia, a problem we invented in the last few thousand years and for which there is little selection pressure. Ummm... OK.

Quote :

"I was referring to the fact that we don't spend all our time foraging for food and hunting anymore, and live a much more sedentary lifestyle in general. Sure, we thrived in those environments, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's optimal for our nutrition."

Sedentary behavior is highly detrimental, another clue about the consequences of disregarding our ancestral environment.... sitting on your ass doesn't grant you magical powers to eat new things and tolerate them.

Quote :

"Also, I can point to sickle cell anemia in the US vs. Africa as an example of how quickly our genetics are capable of changing. Why are you so sure that genetics affecting our diet haven't changed?"

If you think a point mutation is going to completely change our dietary abilities and requirements.... sure, proceed with that argument.

4/26/2012 12:03:07 PM

I've always wondered how long it would take for humans to adapt to the SAD diet but I ain't gonna be a part of that.

4/26/2012 12:25:02 PM

I'm not advocating any diet in particular, I'm just questioning the claim that basing your diet on what we ate 5000 years ago is the best choice.

As usual, it's very hard to have a legitimate discussion when you're talking about someone's personal choices.

Quote :

"You're trying to downplay the power of evolution by pointing out that evolution hasn't fixed myopia, a problem we invented in the last few thousand years and for which there is little selection pressure. Ummm... OK."

There are tons and tons of examples of imperfections in evolution, which science has improved upon. I just pointed out one. With that in mind, how can you say that our evolved diet can't be improved upon?

Quote :

"If you think a point mutation is going to completely change our dietary abilities and requirements.... sure, proceed with that argument."

Again, not a biologist or dietician, but surely a combination of mutations could change some of our dietary requirements.

[Edited on April 26, 2012 at 1:02 PM. Reason : .]

4/26/2012 1:01:31 PM

4/27/2012 8:33:06 AM

5/8/2012 9:02:44 AM

^My friend, a pediatrician and emergency room physician, wanted to start a child advocacy program at the poor hospital where she worked. She had to pay hundreds of dollars to take this test, and she studied her butt off.

She didn't pass the test...so LOL for her and the hospital.

[Edited on May 9, 2012 at 8:48 PM. Reason : Never mind the children...]

5/9/2012 8:47:17 PM

So the first lady can tell me what I should and shouldn't be eating. Is she a licensed nutritionist? Why isn't someone forcing her to shut her mouth on the topic?

5/9/2012 8:55:52 PM