PeakOil is You
The R.A.V.E. Diet
Re: The R.A.V.E. Diet
by smallpoxgirl » Sun 23 Aug 2009, 10:32:22
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('virgincrude', 'I') just want to ask why the subject of meat versus vegetarian based diet elicits such a variety of nasty, condescending, offensive and angry responses?
Several reasons.
A: The debate about the ecological implications and health effects of vegetarianism did not start with this thread. The debate has been going on for a long time in the public sector, and there have been numerous, lengthy, and acrimonious threads on PO.com discussing it. There are also a lot of public sector discussions of the topic which are quite vitriolic and demeaning to carnivores. For example, from PETA's website: " Q: Why do you try to force vegetarianism on others? Isn't it a personal choice? A: From a moral standpoint, actions that harm others are not matters of personal choice. For example, murder, child abuse, and cruelty to animals are immoral acts, not matters of choice."
B: The OP starts out with the unsubstantiated claim that vegetarian diets are the path to an "earth friendly" diet and avoiding disease. This obviously references a lot of those a priori discussions, and it makes the unsubstantiated claim that meat causes disease and ecological destruction. I've spent a lot of time studying this issue. I believe that population is at the core of our ecological problems and transitioning to grain based diets allows the population to grow. I believe strongly that consumption of grains, and by implication vegetarianism is dangerous and destructive to health. I've seen huge improvement in my own health when I cut those foods out, and no I'm not very accepting of the demeaning accusations of vegetarians.
C: If you live in India, then I will apologize for calling your diet a fad. The vast majority of the posters on this website are from Europe or the US, and in those countries vegetarianism is a fad. About the only vegetarians here before the 1960's were the Seventh Day Adventists.
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
-
smallpoxgirl - Expert
- Posts: 7258
- Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Re: The R.A.V.E. Diet
by virgincrude » Sun 23 Aug 2009, 11:45:54
I was not aware there had been so many acrimonious discussions on PO over the merits of the ecological and health benefits of vegetarianism. I was simply surprised to see how quickly this thread degenerated into one, where it seemed to me, there was no provocation until you began referring to vegetarians as ding dongs and starch peddlers etc. Thanks for explaining why you take that stance. I didn't find anything in Narz's posts demeaning of meat eaters, but I guess I haven't felt in the position of a 'carnivor under attack' from fundamentalist foodies.
I accept your personal belief that vegetarianism is ultimately dangerous to health, but I can't see what you base that decision on. I think the problem arises because there are many varieties of vegetarianism, not all of which are based solely on whole foods and the 'fad' vegetarianism you refer to, with a history of perhaps 50 years or so in the US, in all probability is as dangerous to health and well being as the daily consumption of pizzas burgers and fries washed down with sodas.
It seems to me that in the US it is quite simply impossible to maintain a balanced and fair discussion on anything, since suporters of both sides immediately resort to personal attack and ridicule, often straying so far off the kernel of the debate that it becomes damaging for both sides. So I'll just have to lump the veggy versus meat eater debate in with the AGW climate changers versus climate change doubters category of impossible arguments boiling down to personal belief and or experience.
Apart from that, I agree completely that the problems the world faces today are in large part due to over population. However, I also believe the problems have been made much worse by the dominance of a social class addicted to the over consumption of everything, and a Western life style based on wasteful excess as a natural and fundamental necessity. A fair starting point might be to teach people and their families to buy and consume only the food they actually need, instead of forcing upon them a particular dietary trend involving an emotionally distressing life style change. (Such as throwing out their milk and cheese in favour of lentils and broccoli, or simply starving.)
I accept your personal belief that vegetarianism is ultimately dangerous to health, but I can't see what you base that decision on. I think the problem arises because there are many varieties of vegetarianism, not all of which are based solely on whole foods and the 'fad' vegetarianism you refer to, with a history of perhaps 50 years or so in the US, in all probability is as dangerous to health and well being as the daily consumption of pizzas burgers and fries washed down with sodas.
It seems to me that in the US it is quite simply impossible to maintain a balanced and fair discussion on anything, since suporters of both sides immediately resort to personal attack and ridicule, often straying so far off the kernel of the debate that it becomes damaging for both sides. So I'll just have to lump the veggy versus meat eater debate in with the AGW climate changers versus climate change doubters category of impossible arguments boiling down to personal belief and or experience.
Apart from that, I agree completely that the problems the world faces today are in large part due to over population. However, I also believe the problems have been made much worse by the dominance of a social class addicted to the over consumption of everything, and a Western life style based on wasteful excess as a natural and fundamental necessity. A fair starting point might be to teach people and their families to buy and consume only the food they actually need, instead of forcing upon them a particular dietary trend involving an emotionally distressing life style change. (Such as throwing out their milk and cheese in favour of lentils and broccoli, or simply starving.)
-
virgincrude - Tar Sands
- Posts: 516
- Joined: Thu 09 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
- Location: Al-Mariyya, Al-Andalus
Re: The R.A.V.E. Diet
by jedrider » Tue 25 Aug 2009, 02:42:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('virgincrude', 'I') just want to ask why the subject of meat versus vegetarian based diet elicits such a variety of nasty, condescending, offensive and angry responses?
Several reasons.
B: The OP starts out with the unsubstantiated claim that vegetarian diets are the path to an "earth friendly" diet and avoiding disease. This obviously references a lot of those a priori discussions, and it makes the unsubstantiated claim that meat causes disease and ecological destruction. I've spent a lot of time studying this issue. I believe that population is at the core of our ecological problems and transitioning to grain based diets allows the population to grow. I believe strongly that consumption of grains, and by implication vegetarianism is dangerous and destructive to health. I've seen huge improvement in my own health when I cut those foods out, and no I'm not very accepting of the demeaning accusations of vegetarians.
I could see the battle lines forming over this, which wasn't my intent, although getting useful information on the benefits/dangers of RAVE specifically was my intent as I thought it was an idea that was, maybe, repressed in the conspiratorial way -- maybe, we are all conspirators, not wanting to change our wasteful and self-destructive habits, often unaware of that aspect of our nature.
Is it just a 'diet'? Or, is it also a lifestyle, seeing and interacting with the world differently? If it is just a 'diet', then my original goal of losing weight are being spectacularly met -- well, progress is slowing down now as temptations are ever present, mostly due to laziness and some affection for mild inebriation.
My primary questions were:
1. Is this guy, Mike Anderson, right, in his assessment of the health risks of a high-protein, high-fat,, high-refined-products diet?
2. What, in fact, are the dangers of vegetarianism that we all seem to be aware of hearing about that, possibly half the world avail themselves of, that doesn't seem to cause them any problems?
-
jedrider - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 10:10:44
Re: The R.A.V.E. Diet
by jedrider » Tue 25 Aug 2009, 02:48:37
As soon as I OP'ed this thread, I found this woman giving voice to the opinion expressed in her book, which I found somewhat unbelievable and sensationalistic, but here it is:
The Vegetarian Myth
https://secure.pmpress.org/index.php?l=product_detail&p=115
The Vegetarian Myth
https://secure.pmpress.org/index.php?l=product_detail&p=115
-
jedrider - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 10:10:44
Re: The R.A.V.E. Diet
by virgincrude » Tue 25 Aug 2009, 03:44:30
Jedrider, the bottom line is whatever you put in your body has an effect on your health. Otherwise why would we all be so willing to swallow the remedies Big Pharma has prepared for us? The vital missing detail is that each person is different, it is therefore essential to work it out for yourself since whatever 'diet' you're considering may simply not work out for you individually.
It seems to me the controversy stems from the extended implications of a plant based diet, as the book you linked to details: the impact of agriculture on the environment. Again, the answer would be eat locally grown produce, themes close to the heart of most people on PO. The subject of food supply, agriculture and environmental impact is enormously complex without getting into human metabolism and individual nutrient requirements.
As for the dangers inherent in a vegetarian diet, firstly one would have to explain or define the term 'vegetarian'; does it include dairy/fish, does it include processed foods with added chemicals, does it include high sugar and refined flour content etc., or is it vegan but also including highly refined sugars and processed ingredients etc. There is plenty of information on the web relating diet with serious illness, but I haven't found any which relates specifically vegetarianism with serious illness.
There are countless examples of human beings who lived to ripe old ages while consuming plant based whole food diets, plenty of world class athletes who also do so, and I am surprised at the vehemence with which people tout the line 'vegetarianism is ultimately dangerous', whereas the overwhelming wheight of science shows that it is the standard American diet with its high saturated fats, refined sugars and processed meat content which is making the nation as a whole, extremely sick.
One should of course bear in mind that no single nutrient in isolation can be blamed for anything since once inside the body it all works in a miraculous symphonic process, ending up as either 'good' or 'bad' over the long term. Which is why studies which last for only a few months and focus on one sole nutrient or supplement, without taking into account the initial health of the subjects involved or their diets, can not be taken as definitive.
It seems to me the controversy stems from the extended implications of a plant based diet, as the book you linked to details: the impact of agriculture on the environment. Again, the answer would be eat locally grown produce, themes close to the heart of most people on PO. The subject of food supply, agriculture and environmental impact is enormously complex without getting into human metabolism and individual nutrient requirements.
As for the dangers inherent in a vegetarian diet, firstly one would have to explain or define the term 'vegetarian'; does it include dairy/fish, does it include processed foods with added chemicals, does it include high sugar and refined flour content etc., or is it vegan but also including highly refined sugars and processed ingredients etc. There is plenty of information on the web relating diet with serious illness, but I haven't found any which relates specifically vegetarianism with serious illness.
There are countless examples of human beings who lived to ripe old ages while consuming plant based whole food diets, plenty of world class athletes who also do so, and I am surprised at the vehemence with which people tout the line 'vegetarianism is ultimately dangerous', whereas the overwhelming wheight of science shows that it is the standard American diet with its high saturated fats, refined sugars and processed meat content which is making the nation as a whole, extremely sick.
One should of course bear in mind that no single nutrient in isolation can be blamed for anything since once inside the body it all works in a miraculous symphonic process, ending up as either 'good' or 'bad' over the long term. Which is why studies which last for only a few months and focus on one sole nutrient or supplement, without taking into account the initial health of the subjects involved or their diets, can not be taken as definitive.
-
virgincrude - Tar Sands
- Posts: 516
- Joined: Thu 09 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
- Location: Al-Mariyya, Al-Andalus
Re: The R.A.V.E. Diet
by smallpoxgirl » Tue 25 Aug 2009, 14:24:29
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('virgincrude', 'I') was not aware there had been so many acrimonious discussions on PO over the merits of the ecological and health benefits of vegetarianism.
At this point, I would say that almost anything that one can have an acrimonious discussion about, we've probably had a few about it here.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') accept your personal belief that vegetarianism is ultimately dangerous to health, but I can't see what you base that decision on.
Like I said, the primary problem, IMHO, with vegetarianism nutritionally is that it's virtually impossible to avoid ending up with most of your calories coming from starch. I suppose, in theory you could exist off of mostly nuts, but then you would end up protein deficient. Typically protein in a vegetarian diet is derived from a mixture of grains and beans, i.e. starches. For 30 years or so, the nutritional dogma in the US has been fat bad, meat bad, starch good. That's where the food pyramid comes from. The government says we're supposed to be getting most of our calories from grain and grain products. During that time our intake of meat has declined significantly, fat as a percentage of calories has declined, intake of starch and sugar have increased and our rates of obesity, diabetes, coronary disease, etc have skyrocketed. The fundamental problem is that there was never science to support the government's recommendations in the first place. It was a knee jerk decision made mostly in reaction to the perception that meat and fat in the diet were the foods of first-world opulence and gluttony. Good Calories/Bad Calories by Gary Taubes is an exhausting look at the science of dietary composition. It's got a 66 page bibliography and cites well over 1000 published studies. As far as I'm concerned, it is the most comprehensive review of nutrition science available today. His conclusion, and mine, is that the problem foods are not meat and fats, but carbohydrates and in particular, refined carbohydrates. It's fairly well accepted science at this point, that we have a cluster of disease conditions: hypertension, coronary disease, polycystic ovarian syndrome, diabetes, and others which all tie together through the central hub of obesity and insulin resistance. There are two numbers which can be calculated for any food: gylcemic index, and glycemic load. Glycemic index measures how fast a food is metabolized and absorbed as blood glucose. Glycemic load is glycemic index multiplied by the carbohydrate content of the food. Foods which have a high glycemic load require large amounts of insulin release from the pancreas in order to store the sugar away and get it out of the blood. Insulin is a profoundly anabolic hormone. It stimulates the body to store and accumulate food stuffs. If you give people insulin, they consistently gain significant amounts of weight. As with any hormone, consistently high levels of insulin lead the body to stop making as many insulin receptors. This is called insulin resistance. Another thing that can contribute to the down regulating of insulin receptors is obesity. When the fat cells are full, they aren't anxious to store more. Once insulin resistance develops, the pancreas has to drive even harder to pump out enough insulin to keep the blood sugar normal. One of the things that happens is that the pancreas takes a while to pump out that much insulin. The blood sugar begins to stay elevated for a longer time after a meal. Then because the insulin level is so high, there's a tendency to overshoot and get low blood sugar. This is accompanied by ravenous hunger and sets up a vicious cycle. Eventually when the pancreas just can't pump out enough insulin to keep the sugar down. That is called type II diabetes.
The predominate theory in this field for a while was that excess dietary fat was making people obese and that was the primary cause of the insulin resistance. The fundamental problem with that is that, compared head to head, high-fat/low-carb diets do better at producing weight loss than low-fat/high-carb diets. So if dietary fat isn't the culprit, you have to go back and look at those foods with high glycemic loads: starches and refined sugars.
As far as how I personally came to be looking at this issue. I was a vegetarian from 1995 to 2003. During that time, I gained about 80 pounds. I developed some connections with the Lakota people during that time. As I was reading the histories of the Lakotas in the 1800's I was struck by their diet. Living wild and free, they ate an almost exclusively animal based diet for much of the year. They killed and dried buffalo, stored it in raw hide bags, and that was their food for the winter. As group after group would get pushed onto the reservations, they would be abruptly transitioned to a diet of government rations. Flour, sugar, etc. Fry bread is sort of archetypal of the government ration diet. Flour, water, a little baking soda. Throw it in a pan of boiling vegetable oil until it's brown. They would all complain that the food was no good for them and was making them sick. Many groups were so miserable that they broke out to hunt at great personal risk. These days if you go to the reservation it's pretty obvious what they were talking about. The people are dirt poor. At times that area of South Dakota has had the lowest per capita income in the US. Their diet is primarily refined carbs, and obesity and diabetes are epidemic. In February of this year, I started doing the Paleo diet. No grains, no beans, no potatoes, no dairy, no refined foods. Since that time, I've lost 110 pounds, so I'm pretty well sold at this point.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')part from that, I agree completely that the problems the world faces today are in large part due to over population. However, I also believe the problems have been made much worse by the dominance of a social class addicted to the over consumption of everything, and a Western life style based on wasteful excess as a natural and fundamental necessity.
That sounds good, but I'm not sure it is very accurate. The people living the western lifestyle are barely reproducing at replacement rates. The countries where everyone is dirt poor and subsist off grain is where all the overpopulation is happening. I'm not necessarily suggesting some genocidal program of dumping all the grain in the ocean so the darkies starve, but I'm not excited about the idea of switching to an unhealthy diet so that some lady in Indonesia can have 20 kids instead of 10.
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
