You can't as theirs no such thing as a healthy vegan!! All joking aside, their may be a healthy vegan out there, I just haven't seen one myself. For me to claim that healthy vegans don't exists without evidence to prove my statement is as preposterous as someone claiming "animal fat kills." Oh wait Gazza did. We've spent days getting nowhere, with Gazza claiming "animal fat kills", me asking for "statistically significant" evidence that proves his claim. His answer to this can then go down many paths;
Lets turn the original statement on its head and use "Mmmm, meat tastes good" instead. From here I can use the same arguments that Gazza has used. (I wouldn't because it would fail under scrutiny, but for the sake of showing how credible it is without data to back it up).
- He tells me he's 220 lb or that he did 4 hours of extreme exercise yesterday. As we all know size always equates to health doesn't it, oh thats right it doesn't, and neither does strength or endurance. Gazza has told me his has "amazing cardiovascular capability" so surely that is the evidence we need??
- Next he'll name drop Michael Klapper MD, a vegan fanatic whose written and sold books, but I can't find any cridible peer reviewed papers that show any "statistically significant" evidence to back up the claim.
- Then we then ended up down the "China Study" route and sadly when I pointed out that Campbell's full data (yes including the bits he avoided using) showed no 'statistically significant" evidence to prove the statement, yet it did show "statistically significant" data that meat protected against various disease including coronary heart disease. Gazza claimed the article review was biased, its not like Campbell hiding his data could be construed as biased is it? Maybe he just mislaid it!!
- To counter this we went even further down the rabbit hole and Gazza tweeted me this message (it was in a public domain so you can view it if you wish) GazzaisVegan Gazza @billycraig No that huge conglomerates and those in power standing to benefit threatened Campbell..bit like David kelly and the WMD scandal
- You've read that correct, Campbell hid his data after being threatened. So we're onto the conspiracy theories already. Sadly Gazza has confused himself here, what he's actually claiming here is that this whole thing is a cover up and the "huge conglomerates and those in power stand..." to benefit from Campbell's research so they threatened him and made him hide the data (the data which showed meat to have "statistically significant" evidence favoring it) which allowed it to look like veganism was the answer? Who could possibly benefit from that other than the vegan society? Or Campbell's research question which would fall to pieces with all the data added.
- Their have been other dead-end's we've been down, including that I'm "in denial", I'm not quite sure what about as I don't have a magic one size fits all diet like Gazza does, and I haven't claimed that meat is good or bad. All I have done is reply to a message that stated "animal fat kills", saying where is the evidence?
- He tried to knock me down for saying that my recommendations would be based on the physiology of an individual rather than guessing when I said, "if a person had good liver function" then I would include meat in their diet freely. Accusing me of being all "if's and but's." Personally I can't see what's bad about this (unless your clutching at straws). The statement "meat is safe to eat, but you must ensure its good quality, well prepared, digested well...." seems like a good thing to me. Or "one can eat meat if you do not show any signs of raised ureas or altered pH upon testing', also seems like a fair statement as opposed to a blanket statement that means we all have to follow the leader.
Lets turn the original statement on its head and use "Mmmm, meat tastes good" instead. From here I can use the same arguments that Gazza has used. (I wouldn't because it would fail under scrutiny, but for the sake of showing how credible it is without data to back it up).
Mmmm, Meat Tastes Good Craig, B. (2011) Journal of Nutritional Beliefs and Myths 01:1
Let start with the first point, I weigh 220 lb's therefore that is proof that meat tastes good. Mmmmm meat. What's that, your a vegan and you don't think meat tastes good? You my friend are wrong, I weigh 220 lb's what more proof do you need. Ok then, just to back up my claim I did 4 hours of exercise yesterday now I'm sure "you can see it clearly now." Mmmm meat tastes good.
What's that vegan? You don't agree with me? Man your in denial!!!
Right I need to pull out the big guns, I've read about this MD, he thinks meat tastes good as well. And he's worked cutting people up for years, and he's finds fat in their arteries and a smile on their faces, surely thats proof that meat tastes good right? Did the patients just think meat tastes good? Well no, I think they may also have been prone to eating vegetables and fruit. Oh and some of them may of smoked and drank. Oh and a few might of been sedentary. But that means Jack because my guru say meat tastes good and I trust him. I don't need "statistically significant" evidence, I'm 220 lb's and I believe.
Next on the list will have to be the study done by a guy who loves the taste of meat. He did his research but it seems not all of the data agreed him so he ditched that part and used the bits that agreed with him. This kind of makes his research look bad, but we think he was bullied into hiding his data by the vegan society who didn't want anyone knowing that not everyone thinks meat tastes good. Now I know that makes no sense but I've dug myself a big hole here and I've actually just disproved myself. Lets swap tactics;
I can't believe you still don't agree that Mmmm, meat tastes good. Man your in denial. Not to worry, I was there once and I'm sure your time will come.
What do you mean "but you don't like meat?" Man, its all "if and buts" with you. Your just trying to escape the fact that Mmmmm, meat tastes good!!!
Right I need to pull out the big guns, I've read about this MD, he thinks meat tastes good as well. And he's worked cutting people up for years, and he's finds fat in their arteries and a smile on their faces, surely thats proof that meat tastes good right? Did the patients just think meat tastes good? Well no, I think they may also have been prone to eating vegetables and fruit. Oh and some of them may of smoked and drank. Oh and a few might of been sedentary. But that means Jack because my guru say meat tastes good and I trust him. I don't need "statistically significant" evidence, I'm 220 lb's and I believe.
Next on the list will have to be the study done by a guy who loves the taste of meat. He did his research but it seems not all of the data agreed him so he ditched that part and used the bits that agreed with him. This kind of makes his research look bad, but we think he was bullied into hiding his data by the vegan society who didn't want anyone knowing that not everyone thinks meat tastes good. Now I know that makes no sense but I've dug myself a big hole here and I've actually just disproved myself. Lets swap tactics;
I can't believe you still don't agree that Mmmm, meat tastes good. Man your in denial. Not to worry, I was there once and I'm sure your time will come.
What do you mean "but you don't like meat?" Man, its all "if and buts" with you. Your just trying to escape the fact that Mmmmm, meat tastes good!!!
And back to normal... (ish)
And finally, you may remember me stating in previous posts that I recommend plant based foods to complement the meat that tastes so good. You may also remember me stating (it was one of my "if's and but's"), that I make personal recommendations based on each individual. Some clients may have eaten too much protein in the past which will show up in their test results, others may have gone years without any significant protein (the english do love to live on bread, potato and pasta). Its all about knowing what will help a person, at times I have to recommend that clients cook their veg to within an inch of its life (yes veg does live as well) and this upsets all the "your loosing all the best bits" fanatics. I'd agree, yes we are, but do I allow someone with a compromised digestive system to miss out on any nutrients at all, just because they are too weak to do it themselves?
Diet is not about one man's belief that he is on the right path because he can wakeboard for 4 hours. Nor is it the right path because Mmmm meat smells good. Nutrition is highly individual, we all need a broad varied diet. Animal fat does not kill, and unless we seperate out all the variables and get disease free subjects that don't smoke, all do the same amount of exercise, all drink the same, never eat any processed foods and are prepared to be split in to categories of meat eaters;
Processed meats (spam, Corned Beef etc) group
Pasture raised meats group
Placebo (not sure how we'd do this)
then we can't even begin to test Gazza's belief. Until then I think we can do the same as Gazza has and gradually distance ourself from the statement "animal fat kills." Bit worrying though as it seems not everyone has the same response to the beloved vegetable. Hmmm!!!
Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 May;89(5):1553S-1557S. Epub 2009 Mar 18.Inter-individual differences in response to plant-based diets: implications for cancer risk.Lampe JW.SourceFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and Nutritional Sciences Program, Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. jlampe@fhcrc.org
AbstractGenetic differences in taste preference, food tolerance, and phytochemical absorption and metabolism all potentially influence the effect of plant-based diets on cancer risk. Diet is a mixture of carcinogens, mutagens, and protective agents, many of which are metabolized by biotransformation enzymes. Genetic polymorphisms that alter protein expression or enzyme function can modify risk. Genotypes associated with more favorable handling of carcinogens may be associated with less favorable handling of phytochemicals. For example, glutathione S-transferases detoxify polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and metabolize isothiocyanates, which are chemopreventive compounds in cruciferous vegetables. A polymorphism in the GSTM1 gene results in lack of GSTM1-1 protein. Pharmacokinetic studies suggest that lack of GSTM1 enzyme is associated with more rapid excretion of the isothiocyanate sulforaphane; therefore, individuals who have this genetic variation may derive less benefit from consuming cruciferous vegetables. Flavonoids are conjugated with glucuronide and sulfate and are excreted in urine and bile. Polymorphisms in UDP-glucuronosyltransferases and sulfotransferases may contribute to variability in phytochemical clearance and efficacy. Genetic polymorphisms in enzymes that metabolize phytochemicals may account in part for variation in disease risk and also have to be considered in the context of other aspects of human genetics, gut bacterial genetics, and environmental exposures.
Diet is not about one man's belief that he is on the right path because he can wakeboard for 4 hours. Nor is it the right path because Mmmm meat smells good. Nutrition is highly individual, we all need a broad varied diet. Animal fat does not kill, and unless we seperate out all the variables and get disease free subjects that don't smoke, all do the same amount of exercise, all drink the same, never eat any processed foods and are prepared to be split in to categories of meat eaters;
Processed meats (spam, Corned Beef etc) group
Pasture raised meats group
Placebo (not sure how we'd do this)
then we can't even begin to test Gazza's belief. Until then I think we can do the same as Gazza has and gradually distance ourself from the statement "animal fat kills." Bit worrying though as it seems not everyone has the same response to the beloved vegetable. Hmmm!!!
Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 May;89(5):1553S-1557S. Epub 2009 Mar 18.Inter-individual differences in response to plant-based diets: implications for cancer risk.Lampe JW.SourceFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and Nutritional Sciences Program, Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. jlampe@fhcrc.org
AbstractGenetic differences in taste preference, food tolerance, and phytochemical absorption and metabolism all potentially influence the effect of plant-based diets on cancer risk. Diet is a mixture of carcinogens, mutagens, and protective agents, many of which are metabolized by biotransformation enzymes. Genetic polymorphisms that alter protein expression or enzyme function can modify risk. Genotypes associated with more favorable handling of carcinogens may be associated with less favorable handling of phytochemicals. For example, glutathione S-transferases detoxify polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and metabolize isothiocyanates, which are chemopreventive compounds in cruciferous vegetables. A polymorphism in the GSTM1 gene results in lack of GSTM1-1 protein. Pharmacokinetic studies suggest that lack of GSTM1 enzyme is associated with more rapid excretion of the isothiocyanate sulforaphane; therefore, individuals who have this genetic variation may derive less benefit from consuming cruciferous vegetables. Flavonoids are conjugated with glucuronide and sulfate and are excreted in urine and bile. Polymorphisms in UDP-glucuronosyltransferases and sulfotransferases may contribute to variability in phytochemical clearance and efficacy. Genetic polymorphisms in enzymes that metabolize phytochemicals may account in part for variation in disease risk and also have to be considered in the context of other aspects of human genetics, gut bacterial genetics, and environmental exposures.
RSS Feed