From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Mon Jun 04 2001 - 18:44:03 MDT
Robert E. Lee wrote,
> diets appropriate for intelligent people interested in life extension may
not be appropriate for the average person
Definitely! Life extension diets are experimental and dangerous. I
wouldn't recommend anybody made a radical change to diet (such as
vegetarianism) without really figuring out where all their nutrients are
going to come from.
> while I agree a plant-based diet is healthful it isn't necessary
I would be the first one to admit that my vegetarian diet is a hold-over
from the 1980's. I have been a vegetarian for so long, that I stick with
it. We now know to watch cholesterol, lower fat and increase fiber.
Instead of statistically figuring out that vegetarians live longer than meat
eaters, we now can isolate the exact substances that make this so. We even
have the technology to produce low-fat meat and high-fat veggie foods if we
want.
> As for iron absorption, heme iron clearly gets absorbed more readily.
Maybe. But it is hard to measure what is "easier" on the body. Studies
that show one form of nutrient to be more bioavailable than another form
frequently contradict each other or cause the standard belief to flip flop
back and forth. I don't have enough information to prove that heme iron is
not easier to absorb than plant sources, but I don't think there is enough
evidence to discount plants as a source of iron either.
> 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.
True. I merely listed the USDA food measurements for calcium and read down
the list in order until I got to meat sources. There were plenty of veggie
sources, although some are not feasible. I agree that I wouldn't try to eat
pounds of rhubarb as a calcium supplement.
> The levels of cholesterol, triglycerides, etc. in serum do not directly
correlate to the animal flesh we eat. They are governed, among other ways,
by fatty acid composition of the diet, macronutrients consumed, etc.
Yes, there are a lot of factors, but it still is safe to say that eating
cholesterol isn't good for you.
> Also, most meat, and almost all inspected meat is safe to eat.
The meat inspection system in the U.S. is a whole 'nother topic....
> In terms of vitamins, I don't have the benefit of your book (which looks
interesting) but just in terms of the water soluble the following are more
available in animal sources than plants: B1, B2, B6, B12, Panothenic acid.
Not that they don't exist in plentiful quantities in some plant foods, but
not as much as in animal products.
Agreed. That is why I listed all the other nutrients as examples where
plants had higher values than meats. I didn't mean to imply that all
nutrients were more plentiful in plants. That's why I listed meat and milk
showing what they were best for. But for other nutrients, plants are better
sources. I was disputing the implication that meat was best for most
nutrients.
> I hope I didn't sound rude in my previous message -- I didn't intend any
offence.
I don't take offense easily. I've been on this list too long.
Also, I wasn't really trying to promote vegetarianism. I was answering some
questions about vegetarianism and what motives causes other vegetarians to
choose their diet. In fact, I will admit that I cheat when it comes to
vitamin supplements. Although I don't eat meat-derived supplements, it is
quite probably that the gelatin capsules are made from beef gelatin. I
simply don't care. I prefer to eat my low-fat, high protein fake meat, but
I really don't object to anybody eating whatever they want to.
-- Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> <http://Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:57 MST