quote:<HR>Originally posted by spidergirl:

Reboot, not all vegetarians are college women with eating disorders. What about Buddhist monks, for example? And my male friends who are vegetarian? You can?t discredit their dietary choices based on that logic.<HR>

The next time I encounter a Buddhist running monk on this forum, I will make a point of telling him his contemporaries were excluded from the research.

Perhaps if the young vegetarian females typical of those in this study practised vegetarian eating behaviours more typical of Buddhist monks and your male friends, there would be fare less ED problems amongst them. The cold facts are however, a large proportion of young females who practise vegetarianism have a significant dysfunctional eating pattern.

Many people practise known risky behaviours without suffering the problems associated with the risk. That is true of every risky behaviour including those like smoking, drunk driving, and unsafe sex. The simple fact that some escape consequences does not reduce the risk and the anecdotal stories of a single individual certainly does nothing to suggest the risk is minimal.

------------------
gotta run...

quote:<HR>Originally posted by iceman14:
you have no reason to internalize it.
<HR>

Speaking for myself, I don't internalize any negative comments - I know myself to be an extremely bright, sensible, and thorough person and I don't take the criticism of complete strangers seriously. However, what bothers me is that people spread alarmist misinformation about a variety of dietary choices that negatively impacts mostly people who are considering making that choice (again, the whole vegetarians are all anorexics line of argument, among others). People who are already set in their ways and have been going along happily in their eating habits for many, many years are the only ones who have the arms to retaliate to this kind of ****. I don't know if it's really more effective to respond or to be the bigger person, but it's very hard not to respond.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ariann:
Speaking for myself, I don't internalize any negative comments - I know myself to be an extremely bright, sensible, and thorough person and I don't take the criticism of complete strangers seriously. However, what bothers me is that people spread alarmist misinformation about a variety of dietary choices that negatively impacts mostly people who are considering making that choice (again, the whole vegetarians are all anorexics line of argument, among others). People who are already set in their ways and have been going along happily in their eating habits for many, many years are the only ones who have the arms to retaliate to this kind of ****. I don't know if it's really more effective to respond or to be the bigger person, but it's very hard not to respond. <HR>

good points.

Another point of view about the China Study: http://www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/chinastudy.html[/URL" target="_blank">

-mds

quote:<HR>Originally posted by sk8ingtorun:
The vegan diet is unlikely to be healthier, is likely to be more unhealthy, and is both inconvenient and expensive. Perhaps the greatest disadvantage is the widespread association of the various forms of a vegetarian diet to facilitate disordered eating.

I have something to rebuttal this line of thinking from the Huffington post. It is rather long.

Once you start paying attention, you just can't avoid the bad news about meat consumption. From Reuters comes the news that "Women who received the most calories from animal protein had twice the risk of endometrial cancer compared to those who took in the fewest calories from animal sources."

And then I read this morning in Chemical & Engineering News (O.K., so I don't subscribe; a friend forwarded it to me) some truly scary news about eating chickens: About 70 percent of chickens in the U.S. are fed arsenic (to promote growth, stave off disease, etc.), a practice banned in the EU; that's right--arsenic!?

As in, poison. As in that wonderful play, "Arsenic and Old Lace," about the clever old gals who use it to kill their gentlemen callers!
Arsenic & Young Chickens
In fact, according to the piece, the average U.S. chicken has about 390 parts per billion of arsenic, "which is three to four times greater than arsenic levels in other types of poultry and meat from other animals."

I need to just quote from the story directly about the possible impact of this:


"According to the Environmental Protection Agency, long-term exposure to inorganic arsenic can cause bladder, lung, skin, kidney, and colon cancer, as well as deleterious immunological, neurological, and endocrine effects. Low-level exposures can lead to partial paralysis and diabetes...
"Even though the drinking water standard for arsenic has been strengthened, the standards for arsenic residues in poultry-2,000 ppb for liver and 500 ppb for muscle-have remained unchanged for decades. Furthermore, neither the Food & Drug Administration nor the Department of Agriculture has actually measured the level of arsenic in the poultry meat that most people consume..."

But actually, it's not just the poison that's being fed to chickens and concentrating in their flesh that is causing meat-eaters to get sick. No, apparently the real problem with chicken and other meats isn't some scary additive--it's actually the animal protein itself, which both causes and fuels cancer cells, and which will exist in chicken meat even if the U.S. poultry industry stops feeding animals arsenic (though it sure sounds like the chicken industry has no interest in stopping; they feed 2.2. million pounds of arsenic to chickens right now).

The "China Project"
Indeed, I think that the most compelling evidence against eating animal products comes from China, and shows that the carcinogenic nutrient in meat is protein, rather than fat. In one of my favorite books on the subject of health, The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-Term Health, author T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D., a Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University, explains that animal protein is the most carcinogenic substance we consume ( even worse than the arsenic in chicken) and presents powerful data showing that animal products both cause and fuel cancer and other deadly diseases.

Dr. Campbell's study is the most comprehensive survey of the connection between diet and disease in medical history, and he has looked at all of the clinical, epidemiological, and other evidence, and it all backs up what he documented in China. His final statement on what we should all be eating?

Here's how he explains it in "Why China Holds the Key to Your Health": "The data from the China Project suggest that what we have come to consider as 'normal' illnesses of aging are really not normal. In fact, these findings indicate that the vast majority perhaps 80 to 90% of all cancers, cardiovascular diseases, and other forms of degenerative illness can be prevented, at least until very old age, simply by adopting a plant-based diet."

These are strong words from a man who was raised on a dairy farm, got his Ph.D. in animal nutrition, and worked on a project to produce animal protein more efficiently.

The Deadly Connection Between Animal Protein, Blood Cholesterol, and Carcinogens:
Dr. Campbell now believes it best to avoid animal protein altogether. According to Campbell, blood cholesterol levels can be reduced by eating plant protein instead. "Some of the plant proteins, particularly soy," he says, "have an impressive ability to reduce blood cholesterol." This might explain a finding released a few months back that "eating tofu can slash ovarian cancer risk."

"At the outset of the China Study," writes Dr. Campbell in his book, "no one could or would have ever predicted the relationship between cholesterol and any of the disease rates. What a surprise we got." Dr. Campbell and his team found that as blood cholesterol levels decrease, a slew of cancers decreases as well, including "cancers of the liver, rectum, colon, male lung, female lung, breast, childhood leukemia, adult leukemia, childhood brain, adult brain, stomach and esophagus (throat)."

According to Campbell, in addition to animal protein causing cancer, it also fuels cancer that exists. So you can have a carcinogen in your body, but it doesn't get "turned on" until you ingest animal flesh. Animal protein causes the carcinogen to grow and spread. Even so-called lean cuts of meat, as well as fish and chicken, are high in fat and protein, and as Dr. Campbell says, animal protein only causes "mischief."

Choose Health: Choose Vegetarian From animal products doubling your risk of endometrial, to soy foods lowering your risk of contracting ovarian cancer, to carcinogenic arsenic in your chicken (and other meat, though in lower levels), to the news that animal protein is the big cause of dietary cancer (and remember, the American Cancer Society says that about 30 percent of cancer comes from what you eat!), it sure is looking like the "vegan thing" is making a lot more sense in a lot of different ways.

I highly recommend checking out The China Study to get the full scoop, which is full of fascinating information and gripping statistics. I give it out so much that I think I should be getting a commission. The book also gives tips on making the transition to a vegetarian diet, as does my last column, "One Bite at a Time: A Beginner's Guide to Conscious Eating."

<HR>

quote:<HR>Originally posted by YogaBug:
Right, and the study you posted was about attitudes surrounding food, not about whether vegetarians have an actual eating disorder or not. Of course people are going to perceive excluding a food group (meat) as an attitude that differs from the norm, which will increase your score on the test used in the study. That's certainly a "duh" factor.

We're not talking about giving advice on how to restrict food intake or how to mask disordered behavior with vegetarianism as an excuse, so I'm really not sure why we have to talk about this in every single thread about vegetarianism (and you bring it up in every thread NOT about vegetarianism...the water thread for example), so it makes me wonder if YOU are the one with the problem. I'm not sure why you feel the need to take a swipe at vegetarianism every single time you post something.<HR>

Right, the study does not make a causal connection between vegetarianism and eating disorders. That fact should be obvious and I have often recognized it myself. It should also be every bit as obvious that there is no causal relationship between realistic consumption of meat and all the many health problems so many vegetarians are so anxious to attribute to meat eating. I do not criticize vegetarianism as a dietary choice (in most cases) nor do I do so at every opportunity.

I do criticize the many false presumptions from just about every vegetarian on this forum that meat eating is intrinsically unhealthy or that vegetarianism is intrinsically more healthy. I do criticize the unrestricted and unquestioning assertion that vegetarianism is without problems. I do criticize the almost universal encouragement, by the vegetarians on this forum, to any and all to fully engage in vegetarianism despite known, serious and very obvious risks. I do criticize the blind refusal to recognize obvious danger signs in people using vegetarianism as a mask for disordered eating.

The fact that this forum (supposedly for "discussion about sports nutrition, diet and weight issues directly relating to sports, but not for eating disorders") is populated by young female vegetarian runners (all the risk factors for ED) who spend almost zero time discussing sports nutrition and huge amount of time obsessing about food (see all the threads like "What's your favourite vegetarian whatever dish") is ample evidence that my concerns about vegetarianism and ED on this forum are well justified.

We are indeed talking about "giving advice on how to restrict food intake or how to mask disordered behavior with vegetarianism as an excuse". It is never stated so openly however. It is always thinly disguised as 'offering nutritional advice'. When a young female teenager is encouraged to pursue veganism in defiance of her family habits and when she is clearly at risk, I have to conclude those on this forum who should know better are abdicating their responsibilities. When they argue they are simply offering nutritional advice and that veganism is always appropriate, I have to assume they are more interested in the radical promotion of vegetarianism than the health of a fellow runner.

The vegetarians here are so adamant in their refusal to acknowledge any possible risks to vegetarianism that they openly dispute the validity of professional scientific studies. Sometimes with unjustified criticisms of the study methodology while in other cases with irrational rejection of the results because they don't believe them.

Perhaps if this forum didn't pander to the anorexic crowd so much and offered more discussion on sports nutrition I would not be so tempted to speak up when no one else will.

------------------
gotta run...

quote:<HR>Originally posted by reboot:
Right, <HR>

Oh, where to start!

quote:<HR>I do not criticize vegetarianism as a dietary choice (in most cases) nor do I do so at every opportunity. <HR>

Yes, you do:

quote:<HR>Originally posted by reboot:
despite known, serious and very obvious risks.<HR>

quote:<HR>this forum is populated by young female vegetarian runners<HR>

But it's not. Have an objective look at the front page - peanut butter, runner's trots, gels, the interminable Beer thread, oatmeal, summer dessert recipes, and many of them started by men. There is one notable exception: there is one ED thread - but it was posted by a male, and I note that you did not contribute to it, in spite of your self-professed fascination with the topic.

quote:<HR>It is always thinly disguised as 'offering nutritional advice'.<HR>

What rot - the first question is always "Tell us what you eat in a day", and the most frequent response is "Good lord, woman, eat more", followed by suggestions for how to do it.

quote:<HR>Perhaps if this forum didn't pander to the anorexic crowd so much and offered more discussion on sports nutrition I would not be so tempted to speak up when no one else will.<HR>

When one of "the anorexic crowd" did ask for advice, you didn't speak up. Instead, you fling around accusations of mental illness at (exclusively) young women, on no evidence at all other than your prejudices. It's got old - since you're clearly making no headway, why don't you give it a rest?

Unless you actually like attacking young women in a silly internet forum, that is.


Edited, it will come as no surprise, for enfeebled UBB.

http://This message has been edited by Iontach (edited May-23-2007).

In my opinion, you seem to pontificate your views by attacking vegetarians. If you were to re-read your posts, then you would see that it's not a conversation, but you tend to force with your beliefs on this subject. I think your response here is infantile at best and comparing vegans to alcohloic, smokers that are foolish, cultish and take part in inconvenient unhealthy diets is outlandish. Us runners are kooky though. Maybe foolish cultish and very unhealthy running 100 miles in 90 degree heat. I once heard that if you are right, but rude then you are wrong. Have a nice day.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by reboot:
I am drawing a comparison between those who are so foolish as to minimize known risks based on the irrational conclusion that the risks must be 'unrealistic' because someone (usually the individual or an acquaintance) is known to escape all consequences.

These unreal (and lengthy) discussions always get started whenever anyone says anything that can be remotely construed as reflecting negatively on vegetarianism. Vegetarianism is not without problems but the almost cultish adherence to the idea that it must be ideal for any person under any and all circumstances results an almost fanatical rise to defend and promote it regardless.

<HR>