beforewisdom Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I've seen articles from Jack Norris RD of Vegan Outreach that have said pretty much the same thing. While many vegans arrogantly snort about protein being a false worry, many are not getting nearly enough calcium http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/painter/2009-08-09-yourhealth10_N.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offense74 Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 There's no causation between high intake of calcium and and lower incidence of bone fractures.Whenever I hear oversimplifications like this I just ask the question: "What don't we know about this issue?" instead of making assumptions about about a subject with perhaps only 5% of the information. The Homo Sapiens Neofrontal Cortex will try to find patterns with the information it has regardless of if the information is vital to the subject or not. If there is knowingly vital information the brain tends to ignore what it doesn't know when making decisions. Also, most decisions are made unconsciously and are only afterwords justified by the conscious part of the brain.If there are cases of calcium deficiency in adequately fed humans I know Dr McDougall wants to know about them since he then will be the first in the world to see this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beforewisdom Posted August 12, 2009 Author Share Posted August 12, 2009 I've read Dr. McDougal's books since the early 90s. The people saying that vegans who eat less than 500 mg of calcium a day are showing up with broken bones are vegan Registered Dieticians like Jack Norris of Vegan Outreach and Virginia Messina who cowrote the ADA Position Paper On Vegetarism. Messina also cowrote "Becoming Vegan" -- the most thorough vegan nutrition book to date. I think the US DVs *may* be inflated. Many government RDs have stated they pad it to fit all different kinds of people. Then the dairy industry wants to sell milk. Cows milk only has a 30% calcium absorbability while some vegetables have a much higher rate --- possibly requiring that a person take in a lot less calcium (http://beforewisdom.com/blog/?p=490) STILL, I'm not a degreed expert, you aren't either and such experts who are also vegan are saying American vegans are showing up with small and broken bones. My non-expert intuition is that is about everybody TALKING about vegetables that have decent amounts of calcium, but NOT ACTUALLY eating them on a regular basis. People, salad greens like lettuce and spinach do shit for calcium intakes. Even broccoli and kale are kind of wimpy compared to what we need and how much people actually eat them:http://beforewisdom.com/blog/?p=490) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Couture547 Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 So what your basically saying is Humans thrive on Animal products? I've asked this question before to the people that say humans need animal products for optimal protein, enough calcium ect. What's wrong with using the products that are DNA says we need? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beforewisdom Posted August 12, 2009 Author Share Posted August 12, 2009 So what your basically saying is Humans thrive on Animal products? I don't understand how you got the idea I was saying that form the content of my post. I suggest you read it again. I've asked this question before to the people that say humans need animal products for optimal protein, enough calcium ect. I don't understand how you got the idea I was saying that form the content of my post. I suggest you read it again. What's wrong with using the products that are DNA says we need? I don't think medical science has that knowledge nor do I think a scientist would put in those terms if that knowledge is possessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Couture547 Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 So what your basically saying is Humans thrive on Animal products? I don't understand how you got the idea I was saying that form the content of my post. I suggest you read it again. I've asked this question before to the people that say humans need animal products for optimal protein, enough calcium ect. I don't understand how you got the idea I was saying that form the content of my post. I suggest you read it again. What's wrong with using the products that are DNA says we need? I don't think medical science has that knowledge nor do I think a scientist would put in those terms if that knowledge is possessed. I just hear alot of Anti Vegan stuff nutritionally from you and a couple others and pro vegan from a ethical prospective. You show what the so called experts claim is the best most usable protein for humans and then show this article of some woman saying vegans have bad bone health. The funny thing about these experts is that a good portion of them look like shit and have many common problems that are considered normal. I think that the animal product propaganda is so deeply instilled in us that even when we're against something we still buy alot of stuff from that industry.The vegan diet like the omni diet is such a broad diet. IMO a compete junk food omni diet is healthier then a complete junk vegan diet. But the best vegan diet is better then the best omni diet imo. The reason i say that is because the worst stuff on SAD is not the animal products, it's the White flower, the white sugar, the Oils, the additives and so on all of which are vegan. So of course your going to have protein issues, calcium issues ect when you remove the only part of sad that has any nutrients in it and replace it with processed mock substitues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beforewisdom Posted August 12, 2009 Author Share Posted August 12, 2009 I just hear alot of Anti Vegan stuff nutritionally from you I am a vegan and I have never written anything anti-vegan on this forum. You show what the so called experts claim is the best most usable protein for humans and then show this article of some woman saying vegans have bad bone health. The phrase "so called expert" can be construed that you question the credentials of these experts, possibly claiming that have superior knowledge to those people. In regards to the "so called experts", that "some woman" is Virginia Messina. She is a vegan, she is a registered dietitian, she is the coauthor of several vegan nutrition books and she is the coauthor of the American Dietetic Association Position Paper On Vegetarianism. The other "so called expert" I mentioned in this tread is Jack Norris, also a vegan, also a registered dietitian and cofounder of Vegan Outreach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Couture547 Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I just hear alot of Anti Vegan stuff nutritionally from you I am a vegan and I have never written anything anti-vegan on this forum. You show what the so called experts claim is the best most usable protein for humans and then show this article of some woman saying vegans have bad bone health. The phrase "so called expert" can be construed that you question the credentials of these experts, possibly claiming that have superior knowledge to those people. In regards to the "so called experts", that "some woman" is Virginia Messina. She is a vegan, she is a registered dietitian, she is the coauthor of several vegan nutrition books and she is the coauthor of the American Dietetic Association Position Paper On Vegetarianism. The other "so called expert" I mentioned in this tread is Jack Norris, also a vegan, also a registered dietitian and cofounder of Vegan Outreach. You might not consider it anti vegan nutritionally but i do. Not sure if it was you or someone else that said it's a fact that animal protein is more usable for humans, that sounds pretty anti to me. Like i've said in the past if we listened to ever expert out there we'd eat nothing becasue you can have two experts citing two different studies that are for competely different diets. I don't buy into the RDA numbers becasue i belive that everyone is a individual with unique situations and needs, but it's still possible to get 100 percent rda calcium without supplementing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beforewisdom Posted August 12, 2009 Author Share Posted August 12, 2009 You might not consider it anti vegan nutritionally but i do.Not sure if it was you or someone else that said it's a fact that animal protein is more usable for humans, that sounds pretty anti to me. The animal protein issue is fact. Stating that fact isn't being anti-vegan, it is just stating the fact. Like i've said in the past if we listened to ever expert out there we'd eat nothing becasue you can have two experts citing two different studies that are for competely different diets. That isn't quite true. A large number of contradictory opinions don't come from experts, they come from competing views on people who don't know what they are talking about disagreeing( journalists reporting on nutrition issues, diet book authors, people on the web, etc ). I don't buy into the RDA numbers becasue i belive that everyone is a individual with unique situations and needs, but it's still possible to get 100 percent rda calcium without supplementing Experts and officials responsible for making those definitions stated that is exactly why they set the recommendations high -- since everyone is different they set the numbers high enough so that everyone would get enough of what they need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offense74 Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Wow, this thread has heated up The people saying that vegans who eat less than 500 mg of calcium a day are showing up with broken bones are vegan Registered Dieticians like Jack Norris of Vegan Outreach and Virginia Messina who cowrote the ADA Position Paper On Vegetarism. Messina also cowrote "Becoming Vegan" -- the most thorough vegan nutrition book to date.I know they are intelligent. What I'm saying is, nomatter how smart you are, if you only understand fractions of the problem as a whole and not take into account what you don't know, your brain will still draw conclusions. This is one way that the scientific method gets a bad reputation. The reason I bring this up is because I was at another (meat head) bodybuilding forum where someone slammed epidemiological data because he thought it was worthless. That got me thinking about why I base my knowledge on nutrition more or less only on epidemiological data.As you know, there is a huge difference between working in a field where you consistently get causative results compared to one where you get correlational ones. Every scientist wants to deal with causation although most in fact deal with correlation. This seems to be hard for people (including some scientist) to get their heads around.When it comes to nutrition, here's how I see it:1. First you gather the ballpark overview of the problem. Is there a population that doesn't have heart disease? If so, when compared, what are the basic differences?2. When you know the differences, you try and figure out the mechanism behind it. 1 would be correlation, 2 would be causation. We have a lot of data from 1 today. You could easily say that the more whole plant foods you eat and the less of everything else you eat the better the odds of not getting chronic diseases. When we try 2 and figure out why, the problem becomes complex in a whole new way. We're still learning about heart disease and we still don't have a cure for it, simply because we don't know the mechanisms behind it. However it happens some times that 2 negates 1 in which case the system (according to me) fucks up. Atkins is the perfect example. 500 million Chinese living on rice and veggies are obviously not fat and the don't suffer from Diabetes type 2 either. He finds support for his standpoint in science though and many, because they don't understand how science (or their brain) works, believe him.Bone strength is another perfect example of 1 vs. 2. We have the most bone fractures in the world in the western world. People in Okinawa (or rural China) don't get nearly as many bone fractures as we do even though they eat (almost exclusively) a vegan diet (certainly, there's at least no dairy). But we do know that bones contain calcium and only by this assumption we form a holistic view of the problem with only partial information, namely that if you gulp down Calcium you won't get this problem. Granted, you need Ca to to build bones but it is far from the whole picture.My non-expert intuition is that is about everybody TALKING about vegetables that have decent amounts of calcium, but NOT ACTUALLY eating them on a regular basis.Amen, brother Accusing you of non-vegan propaganda is just plain wrong. I became a vegan because I challenged my views and I continue to this day to find new ways of making others and my own life better through development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Couture547 Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 You might not consider it anti vegan nutritionally but i do.Not sure if it was you or someone else that said it's a fact that animal protein is more usable for humans, that sounds pretty anti to me. The animal protein issue is fact. Stating that fact isn't being anti-vegan, it is just stating the fact. Like i've said in the past if we listened to ever expert out there we'd eat nothing becasue you can have two experts citing two different studies that are for competely different diets. That isn't quite true. A large number of contradictory opinions don't come from experts, they come from competing views on people who don't know what they are talking about disagreeing( journalists reporting on nutrition issues, diet book authors, people on the web, etc ). I don't buy into the RDA numbers becasue i belive that everyone is a individual with unique situations and needs, but it's still possible to get 100 percent rda calcium without supplementing Experts and officials responsible for making those definitions stated that is exactly why they set the recommendations high -- since everyone is different they set the numbers high enough so that everyone would get enough of what they need. How is it a fact? It is a theory. saying beef is a 1.0 soy beans are a .75 and pinto beans are a .3 or whatever the numbers are are based on there requirments. If we we're obvious carnivores then i'd say without a doubt we need meat for ideal protein, but there's nothing to support that other then the fact that humans have been eatting some animal prodcuts for a long time. But guess what humans have eatten anything thoughout history. Find me a person that is protein def and i'll show you someone that is on a stavation program. I was seeing this health pract for a while and when he found out i was Vegan he said you must be def in protein, so he ran full test and every single amino acid came back in the upper ranges. I was not on any powders/ soy or anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beforewisdom Posted August 12, 2009 Author Share Posted August 12, 2009 There are things you don't know, that you don't know that you don't know. There are also things you don't want to hear. Have a good weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Im Your Man Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 (edited) Some people die after eating meat because of indigestion. The others will developp cancers, Parkinson, Alzheimer or Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. If that's your idea or 'superior proteins'... Besides, if you like facts, on nutritiondata.com, beef is deficient with an amino acid score of 94, compared to avocado with protein quality of 129. You will say that beef contains more proteins per gram, but remember, my friend: quality over quantity. It is far better for muscle growth, for health, energy, longevity and vitality of the holistic human body (criterion that scientists never consider when they study nutrition because they dissect the world into useless fragments) to get its amino acids from raw plant-based proteins and living enzymes in sprouts, shoots, fruits and raw organic vegetables rather than from dead flesh and burned carcass, even a ton of it. Edited August 13, 2009 by I'm Your Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damdaman Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 There's no causation between high intake of calcium and and lower incidence of bone fractures. I think this is an important thing to recognize here. It seems to me that the bone health of most people (vegan or not) has more to do with other factors, such as lack of exercise, intake of phosphates (soda pop), and an unbalanced diet that leads to unbalanced pH rather than raw amount of calcium intake. In fact, recently there was a study I read (I believe linked to on this site) that found that a group of vegan women studied, while consuming less calcium than their typical omni counterparts, still had equal or greater bone density. There are an estimated 75 million osteoporosis patients in the USA, Europe and Japan. How many of them are vegan? How many of them probably consume large amounts of calcium at the behest of their doctors, or drank milk their whole lives? I also think it's folly to assume that someone is more or less right simply because they have letters after their names or hold a degree. Being "educated" doesn't make you right, being right makes you right. Many "experts" in literally every field of science have been wrong. I think we should all think for ourselves and not arrogantly suggest that because someone is an "expert" or "has a degree" that they're automatically right. That goes for doctors and experts and dieticians and nutritionists that are anti-vegan, and those who are vegan. Even well-intentioned "experts" can be wrong. I've been vegan for 7 years. I do not supplement with calcium, magnesium or vitamin D. I eat broccoli, spinach and tofu nearly every day. My bones are strong, and I've been to the doctor to have this confirmed. In fact, when I did break a bone (I train martial arts, broken bones in my school are not uncommon), it healed faster than the orthopedic surgeon expected - he was constantly commenting on the unexpected progress. I'll trust my own experiences and common sense on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Couture547 Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 There are things you don't know, that you don't know that you don't know. There are also things you don't want to hear. Have a good weekend. The fact of the matter is i had the protein professionally tested by a guy that would've bet his house i was protein def, yet i was high on every amino acid tested. High not by my standards, but high based on what your supposed to be according to "experts" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Couture547 Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 There's no causation between high intake of calcium and and lower incidence of bone fractures. I think this is an important thing to recognize here. It seems to me that the bone health of most people (vegan or not) has more to do with other factors, such as lack of exercise, intake of phosphates (soda pop), and an unbalanced diet that leads to unbalanced pH rather than raw amount of calcium intake. In fact, recently there was a study I read (I believe linked to on this site) that found that a group of vegan women studied, while consuming less calcium than their typical omni counterparts, still had equal or greater bone density. There are an estimated 75 million osteoporosis patients in the USA, Europe and Japan. How many of them are vegan? How many of them probably consume large amounts of calcium at the behest of their doctors, or drank milk their whole lives? I also think it's folly to assume that someone is more or less right simply because they have letters after their names or hold a degree. Being "educated" doesn't make you right, being right makes you right. Many "experts" in literally every field of science have been wrong. I think we should all think for ourselves and not arrogantly suggest that because someone is an "expert" or "has a degree" that they're automatically right. That goes for doctors and experts and dieticians and nutritionists that are anti-vegan, and those who are vegan. Even well-intentioned "experts" can be wrong. I've been vegan for 7 years. I do not supplement with calcium, magnesium or vitamin D. I eat broccoli, spinach and tofu nearly every day. My bones are strong, and I've been to the doctor to have this confirmed. In fact, when I did break a bone (I train martial arts, broken bones in my school are not uncommon), it healed faster than the orthopedic surgeon expected - he was constantly commenting on the unexpected progress. I'll trust my own experiences and common sense on this one. Your spot on, this is what i've been talking about. There's so many people that have osteoporosis yet the overwelming majority arn't vegans and like you said there are many factors other then the amount of calcium in the diet. Eating a ton of calcium on a sad diet or any other bad diet is like trying to fill a bucket with water that has a large hole in it. There's so many things that people do on a daily basis that leaches calcium and other alkaline minerals from the bones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damdaman Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Here is the study that found that nuns who had been strict vegans their whole life and consumed roughly 37% of the "recommended" level of calcium had just as strong bones as omni women who ate large amounts of calcium. Not surprisingly, their protein intake was also lower, which may account for less calcium loss. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=17510&p=194755 Vegetarians have been delivered some "very good news" in an Australian study of a group of strict vegan Buddhist nuns. Bone density among the 105 nuns, who live in temples and monasteries across Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh City, was found to be the same as non-vegetarian women matched in every physical respect. ........ The study found the nun's calcium intake was very low, only about 370mg a day while the recommended level was 1,000 mg. Their protein intake was also very low at around 35g a day, compared with the non-vegetarian group, which was 65g. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damdaman Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Here is the study that found that nuns who had been strict vegans their whole life and consumed roughly 37% of the "recommended" level of calcium had just as strong bones as omni women who ate large amounts of calcium. Not surprisingly, their protein intake was also lower, which may account for less calcium loss. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=17510&p=194755 Vegetarians have been delivered some "very good news" in an Australian study of a group of strict vegan Buddhist nuns. Bone density among the 105 nuns, who live in temples and monasteries across Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh City, was found to be the same as non-vegetarian women matched in every physical respect. ........ The study found the nun's calcium intake was very low, only about 370mg a day while the recommended level was 1,000 mg. Their protein intake was also very low at around 35g a day, compared with the non-vegetarian group, which was 65g. In fact, looking over both the article used to start this thread and the article I just linked to, it would appear that both are based on the same study. How is this possible when the USA Today article claims the study found that "vegans had less dense bones than omnivores." and the original AP article said "Bone density among [vegan women] was found to be the same as non-vegetarian women"...? Maybe the next sentence of the original article, "...matched in every physical respect." has something to do with it? Is the USA Today article not taking into account all the other factors relating to bone health, and making a broad claim based on bad methodology? The AP article goes on to quote the actual researchers involved, while this USA Today piece simply states their interpretation of the study without providing any backup. They go on to quote some random vegan dietician not involved in the study at all, while the researcher who was actually involved in the study was quoted in the AP article as saying... "We showed that although the vegans studied do indeed have lower protein and calcium intakes, their bone density is virtually identical to that of people who eat a wide variety of foods, including animal protein," Professor Nguyen says. ...so assuming that both of these articles are based on the same study (assumed based on the USA Today's and the AP's reference to Australian and Vietnamese researchers), one is vaguely anti-vegan and doesn't provide much information other than a particular interpretation of the results, and the other provides a lot of information about the study and actually quotes one of the authors of the study and claims that the study shows that the vegans had the same bone density as omnis. Just goes to show you how easily studies can be twisted to fit an agenda, and how easily people buy into a particular line of thought just because it appears in a mainstream publication and there are some random experts quoted in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegan Joe Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 There are things you don't know, that you don't know that you don't know. There are also things you don't want to hear. Have a good weekend.Spot on Dude!LOL You'll never convince him of that. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Couture547 Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Yeah i shouldn't look at actually lab work, but should go by your and his animal product dogma. How do you stay on a diet you know is inferior and isn't the diet your meant to be on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegan Joe Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Yeah i shouldn't look at actually lab work, but should go by your and his animal product dogma. How do you stay on a diet you know is inferior and isn't the diet your meant to be on? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJE2GpF9Ohc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzPBUGUM7KQ I've haven't a clue about what you're saying, what you mean, or what your perception of what you think I mean, or have said in the past.What is my animal dogma? I doubt you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Couture547 Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Yeah i shouldn't look at actually lab work, but should go by your and his animal product dogma. How do you stay on a diet you know is inferior and isn't the diet your meant to be on? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJE2GpF9Ohc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzPBUGUM7KQ I've haven't a clue about what you're saying, what you mean, or what your perception of what you think I mean, or have said in the past.What is my animal dogma? I doubt you know. Read the previous posts on this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegan Joe Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Yeah i shouldn't look at actually lab work, but should go by your and his animal product dogma. How do you stay on a diet you know is inferior and isn't the diet your meant to be on?This statement is very problematic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Couture547 Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Yeah i shouldn't look at actually lab work, but should go by your and his animal product dogma. How do you stay on a diet you know is inferior and isn't the diet your meant to be on?This statement is very problematic. yes it is for u Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now