From: arctic.fox@ukgateway.net
Date: Mon Jun 04 2001 - 15:50:36 MDT
At 20:25 04/06/01, Robert Lee wrote:
>Not to get carried away from the list topic, I wanted to make a quick
>reply to Paul and Harvey. As I said before I'm a vegetarian and I was a
>vegan for about 6 years, so I have read the propaganda before. I'm also a
>medical student, so while I may not have extensive biochemistry I'm not
>completely lost. The two points I wanted to make were that: diets
>appropriate for intelligent people interested in life extension may not be
>appropriate for the average person; and, while I agree a plant-based diet
>is healthful it isn't necessary (and may be less excellent than a mixed
>diet). As I wrote before, many people get turned off when you say
>"vegetarian" and think automatically "crackpot" because of the lack of
>empiricism behind some of the claims commonly made even by those with
>science backgrounds and associated with the more reputable vegetarian
>advocacy groups.
I'll make this my last post on the subject so as not to get too off topic.
For the record my background is studying biochemistry and biology at
university and trained as a chef along with 10 years of vegetarianism and a
little veganism.
There are loads of anti meat web sites out there - most fairly rational but
some more than a little emotional. What I'm looking for is some pro meat
web resources. My google skills are usually OK but after a lot of tries I
only found one site that was basically saying that meat wasn't too bad.
Even though there is a huge amount of pro meat marketing, when it comes
down to detailed debate I can't find a thing. No wonder there are crackpots
if there is nothing to keep them in check. The scientific side of my mind
wants to get both sides of the story.
>As for iron absorption, heme iron clearly gets absorbed more readily. For
>one thing, it doesn't need to undergo reduction at the brush border of the
>intestine, and it enters without a transporter. You can get iron from
>plant sources, I don't question that. I wouldn't recommend the average
>person attempt to do so because of nutrient and phytochemical interactions.
The biggest aid to uptake from plant sources is vitamin C, and two
inhibitors are tea and coffee. So I guess you do have to get into the whole
veggie thing and have fresh vegetables and a glass of orange juice for
example rather than fries and cup of java. Therefore, sadly, you are right
about the "average" person.
> And you are correct that iron deficiency anemia is the most common
> nutrient related disorder worldwide, including among (especially female)
> meat eaters. I won't get into the calcium problem, but I think Harvey
> wouldn't get very far if he tried to use rhubarb as his calcium
> source. I would be happy to go into this more off-list if you really
> find this unsubstantiated.
OK, I know I shouldn't take this on-list after your comment but I couldn't
resist this from the Vegan Society web site:
A high protein diet, especially derived from animal foods, causes calcium
loss in the body. The higher sulphur-to-calcium ratio of meat increases
calcium excretion, and a diet rich in meat can cause bone demineralisation.
A report published in 1988 (1) comparing the amounts of calcium excreted in
the urine of 15 subjects showed that the animal-protein diet caused greater
loss of bone calcium in the urine (150mg/day) than the all-vegetable
protein diet (103mg/day). These findings suggest that diets providing
vegetable rather than animal protein may actually protect against bone loss
and hence osteoporosis. In one study adults on a low-protein diet were in
calcium balance regardless of whether calcium intake was 500mg, 800mg or
1400mg a day. (2) Interestingly The American Dietetic Association, in its
1993 policy statement on vegetable diets, pointed out that the calcium
intakes recommended in the USA were increased specifically to offset
calcium losses caused by the typically high protein consumption in that
country.
>
>I hope I didn't sound rude in my previous message -- I didn't intend any
>offence.
>
>Robert
>
I didn't detect any rudeness so no offence taken :)
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:57 MST