Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by veggymeggy

  1. I have no idea what group it may be or how organized it even is. I'd just go by there on a weekend and stop and talk to the people. There's plenty of parking at the Capital Center right next door, just park and go chat 'em up, that's about all I can recommend. Their signs don't visiblly list any organizations.
  2. There are people out protesting the Primate Center on 185th and Walker frequently. Usually small groups, 5-10 people, a couple times a month, usually on Saturdays. Is that the Primate Center you're referring to?
  3. Um, BREASTMILK???? Yeah, they deserve their sentence. The ONLY natural food source for an infant is human breastmilk (which is not to say they won't survive on formula, obviously. I'm talking about what nature intended),. Anyway, vegan or not, these people either have the combined IQ of a peanut, or did it intentionally.
  4. I know about mercola and weston price as I think most people in here do. I do think it's educatonal to see how they get to their standpoint so that I don't make the same mistakes myself. Medical science is tricky, there is a huge amount of traps to fall into and one always have to be on ones toes. Two of the most common mistakes seems to be: 1. The person claims something and found 15 studies to back his position up. Most people will fall for it especially if the person is a good sales person (like mercola). The mistake is to disregard from all the other studies (which might be thousands). This way you can convince people that anything is good for them. The tobacco industry has used this method as have Atkins, mercola and weston price. People swallow it hook and bait. 2. Claiming something and then letting others disprove it. If they don't succeed than the statement must be right. This one is all over the place when it comes to health. The enzyme theory is one good example of this. It might be true, but then again it might not be. To disprove it someone have to raise money to refute a claim that someone else have done. When they disprove it, the person will come up with something new. There aren't enough money in the world to keep this race up. In medical science, if you have a theory, you back it up with studies. That's how we know the stuff we do today, not by making shit up. Offense, I'm glad you have the energy to type out some replies that actually make sense! I've refrained from posting in several threads around here lately, because by the time I read them they're so full of crap (mostly due to one apparently batshiat crazy poster) it's not even worth trying to enter the discusion. Just wanted to say I appreciate someone bringing some logic to the table!
  5. I'm going to go ahead and be in the minority again..... most of these things NEED regulating. The market is overflowing with all sorts of supplements, many of which are useless and some of which are dangerous, with virtually no supervision. The current state of affairs is ridiculous. They're not saying these products will be pulled from the market, but some accountability is in order. A significant number of vitamin and mineral supplements don't even have what they say they have in them, there are no standards of purity for supplements right now, etc. I don't see how regulating these products is bad.
  6. Re: Diabetes - I really don't know. I have only a general education about diabetes, and a physician or CDE would be a better source of information. The sugar content thing is only my "off the top of my head" hypothesis. Certainly diabetics should still be eating fruit and vegetables, I was just thinking that in his specific example, carrots would affect blood sugar more rapidly than fish.
  7. I've taken drugs in this group both recreationally and for prescribed medical need. For me personally, I had no withdrawal issues or addiction issues. I'd recommend monitoring yourself though until you know how you handle them. Be honest with yourself if you' start to develop a dependency.
  8. B-12 has nothing to do with animals--it's derived rather from algal/bacterial sources. Yeah, bacteria creates the b-12, but you don't go out and eat bacteria. The reason most of the world doesn't have a B12 deficiency is because most people get it in the meat that they eat. Good effort on obfuscating the point though.
  9. I agree with you. Science has lost focus here. And so are many people who believe in scientific studies representing the truth or being able to "proof" the beneficial effects of isolated nutrients. That is why I stated that current science as you call it is not able to really study the absorbtion of calcium because of reduction. So I do. They are not only ineffective but also unhealthy and unnecessary. The problem with this statement is that you still believe that calcium from milk can be good and other parts of milk are bad for humans. "Food" (even calves-food) should be consumed and studied as a whole. Whole foods that humans can properly digest are good sources of calcium. Milk is a good source of calcium for calves. My quoting skills are weak, so I can't break up your statements like you did, so bare with me.... I think perhaps we're down to semantics at this point. I understand where you're coming from, but I think it is unwise to make blanket statements such as " They are not only ineffective but also unhealthy and unnecessary." is foolish. Isolated calcium salts have shown to be absorbed as well as food sources of calcium, and if you are calcium deficient, and particularly if you have a medical condition that limits your ability to eat, calcium supplements have a place. Again, I would never recommend them over whole foods to your average, healthy person, but they DO have a time and a place. Simple statements such as "Supplementation won't prevent osteoporosis" too narrowly define what the benefit of supplementation may be. Calcium has more roles than JUST bone health, and you need it in your blood stream every day. Regarding milk - again, science is inconclusive if its additives are harmful, I was stating a personal hunch. I think for a healthy individual who is not lactose intolerant, hormone-free and anti-biotic free (organic) milk is a safe and easy nutrition source, of more than just calcium. If you want to talk animal rights and cruelty etc, that's a different topic, about which I am not going to disagree. BUT - unadulterated milk is a good source of nutrition, and like anything else, in moderation presents no harm.
  10. It's too early in the morning for me to feel like searching for sources, but to toss in my two cents re:B12, the current consensus among dieticians is that plant sourced B12 is not bio-available. If enough evidence comes out saying the oppositie, opinion will swing, but at the moment the majority of studies suggest that seaweed, etc will not provide B12 in forms humans can use, and if one does not have an animal source of dietary B12, then supplements may be in order.
  11. True, I just edited to try and sound less pretentious. There is tons of experience on this forum in a wide array of subjects, I just get frustrated because the science doesn't back a lot of it up, when it comes to nutrition.I agree with you on that. However: There are in my experience a few things that are known, and have been known for quite a while, when it comes to nutrition. When comparing whole-foods, plant-based diet to other diets it's to my understanding that the research is pretty strong towards the plant-diet, when it comes to health. We don't know exactly why though. It might be the phytonutrients, it might be the fibre, the smaller amount of fat (or saturated fat) or something else or a combination. So, do dieticians know about this not so secret secret? If so why isn't it seen in the dietary guidelines delivered by R.D's, M.D's and PhD's to the public? Why is it when my friends at work come back from the R.D. and tell me that they should eat more fish and less carrots to ease the diabetes? People who live on unrefined plants don't get diabetes2 to the extents that meat eating people do. It's not the plants that's the problem. The reason why I'm pissed off is because I believe that they (the R.D's) are actually contributing to the early, slow and painful death of the poor suckers who gets caught in their net. It's just a murderer with a fancy title. Since they have this fancy title people listen to their advise about low-fat cheese and stake and ignore my rants about spinach. I know there are R.D's who realise that one should eat more unrefined plants. But for every such R.D. there will be 5 dairy pimps. It's noting personal, I like you and your posts, it's just frustrating to hear people come back from the R.D. with this message of early death. I, at least in part, agree with you. I know that in my studies, meat and dairy are largely just accepted as part of the diet, so examing diets without them is not emphasized, not because they're not healthy, but because the vast majority of people we see are omnis. However, in my experience, the one thing that is repeated again and again and again is EAT MORE PLANTS. Sadly, on a national level, there is a lot of lobbying. Meat and dairy are very powerful and very well funded, so there's not likely to be any upper level condemnation of their products. Individuals? I don't know a single RD or almost RD that doesn't recommend more veg, more fruits, more veg, more fruits. Again, thinking of our general audience, a message of ALL plants isn't feasible. Most Americans won't even consider it. We do what we can to help people make healthier choices working in parameter they can accept. Perhaps to a vegan, that message comes across as promoting unhealthy lifestyles...however, to your standard SAD diet, eat no meat isn't reasonable, eat more fish can be done. Specifically regarding fish and carrots and diabetes btw, that does make some sense. Carrots = very high sugar content, fish = none. When you're talking about controlling blood sugar, that's important. I'm tired and rambling....but perhaps this makes sense and you can see where RD's are coming from. What may seem like "murder" to a vegan is STILL better than the typical American diet, and the typical American won't even consider vegan.
  12. I marked the sentence that is important in red. It is scientific nonsence to test the effect of isolated nutrients/minerals/vitamins because they do not exist isolated. Of course modern science goes the way of reduction for good reasons. Life (even clearly defined parts like digestion of calcium) is just to complex to study. The problem is that people searching that studies are likely to be overwhelmed with contradicting statements. IMHO you should take a critical look at the study design of the studies you cite and ask yourself if these studies are able to explain the complex issue of human digestion. You should really try to look on food as a whole. Maybe calcium from milk is well absorbed (calves need calcium to build strong bones) - but for what price? It is loaded with hormons, animal protein and animal fat. It usually is highly processed. I never stated it is solely linked to it. As the above mentioned this also is a complex issue. Perhaps we've lost focus here, but my purpose in posting that was to refute your statement that supplements are poorly absorbed....they're about the same as any other source of calcium. Also, that current science does indicate decreased absorption from plant sources. I am NOT arguing in favor of either supplements or dairy, but I value full disclosure. In this setting, dairy and supplements aren't popular, but that doesn't make them ineffective. Devil's advocate, if you will. The science is as yet inconclusive, but I personally think it's likely that hormones in milk have had detrimental effects in humans, as well as all the antibiotics the cows are given. Personally, I find milk repulsive. But a good source of calcium? Yeah, it is. So are supplements.
  13. I strongly disagree with you about your statement. The fact that calcium supplements - regardsless how high the dosis is - are not able to prevent osteoporosis (look at the china study) supports my negative attitude towards calcium supplementation. It is far more important and effective to prevent calcium loss (caused by a high-protein diet) than supplementing it. And to enhance the absorbtion of calcium: eat fruits and veggies rhich in vitamin C. It is a myth that oxalic acid from vegetable sources reduces calcium absorbtion. When such hypothesis are tested the substances are usually given isolated although you will not ever find them isolated in nature. These studies serve only one purpose: to make people buy supplements. I agree, I think part of this is also that those same healthy sources are good sources of potassium which I have been researching lately due to my high intake of bananas. Potassium reduces the calcium loss in the body, so you get a double whammy. Better absorption, less loss. Ideal Sources for Calcium For an individual trying to improve calcium balance, fruits and vegetables are the best foods, as they are rich in potassium, which reduces calcium loss. For example, 100 grams each of red peppers, bananas, oranges, and leafy greens will boost retained calcium by about 40 milligrams per day—enough to reverse a one percent loss of bone calcium per year. A daily pint of cow’s milk would have a similar effect for the average person, but only about half the benefit for individuals with low calcium absorption—those who are at particular risk of osteoporosis. The ideal foods for bone health are those that are not only high in calcium but also reduce calcium loss. Low oxalate (oxalates are natural substances that bind strongly to calcium) and calcium-rich dark green leafy vegetables such as kale, collard and turnip greens, and spring greens are the best example. Some vegetables such as spinach, purslane and rhubarb are also high in oxalate, which hinders absorption of their calcium. Dark green leafy vegetables provide about 150 milligrams of calcium per 100 grams in raw weight. While many modern cultivated foods are sadly much less rich in calcium than the wild plants with which we evolved, green leafy vegetables are an exception and therefore of particular importance for modern humans. Human use of dairy products is a recent and unnecessary development: a diet low in salt and rich in vegetables, fruits and root crops provides the best path to healthy bones. Dairy foods increase calcium loss as well as provide calcium. For example, cheddar cheese causes a net calcium loss in high-risk individuals, and cottage cheese causes calcium loss for most people in general. Foods such as meat, fish and eggs have a strong adverse effect because they are low in calcium and also cause high loss; foods that are low in calcium but also reduce losses, such as peppers, bananas and oranges, provide everyone with at least a modest boost. Almonds, carob and molasses each provide about 250 milligrams of calcium per 100 grams. While these foods are too concentrated in either calories or pungency to consume in large amounts, they can make a useful contribution. They will also provide alkali to boost blood pH. Source, please.
  14. I strongly disagree with you about your statement. The fact that calcium supplements - regardsless how high the dosis is - are not able to prevent osteoporosis (look at the china study) supports my negative attitude towards calcium supplementation. Fiber as well as phytate may decrease calcium absorption and retention... Calcium absorption in the intestine may also be inhibited by the presence of oxalate which chelates the calcium and increases fecal excretion... Divalent cations, along with other minerals, can compete with calcium for intestinal absorption. .. Calcium absorption from calcium supplements varies depending on the calcium salt. Calcium (250mg) absorption was 39% +3% from calcium carbonate, 32% +4% from calcium lactate, 30%+ 3% from calcium citrate, and 27%+ 3% from calcium gluconate....Overall calcium absorption in adults averages about 30%, the estimate used in deriving recommendations for intakes for adults. Studies report calcium absorption in the range of 20% to 50% from the diet, with most absorption in the 20% to 35% for dairy products. Gropper SS, Smith JL, Groff JL. Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism. 4th ed. Belmont City, CA: Thomson and Wadworth; 2005:382-383 I can pull up the studies cited in the text as well, if you'd like more info. I just grabbed a few relevant bits. Also - osteoporosis is by no means solely linked to calcium intake.
  15. No, that's not right. This myth is being perpetuated by those trying to create a disinformation campaign against viable sources of vegetarian based bioavailable B-12. From the Kushi Institute in The Netherlands: Seaweeds and Vitamin B-12 - In a study of the vitamin B-12 status of long-time vegans, Finnish nutritionists reported that vegans who ate nori and/or chlorella seaweeds had B-12 concentrations in their blood twice as high as those not eating seaweeds. "We conclude that some seaweeds consumed in large amounts can supply adequate amounts of bioavailable vitamin B-12," the researchers stated. Source: A. L. Rauma et al., "Vitamin B-12 Status of Long-Term Adherents of a Strict Uncooked Vegan Diet," Journal of Nutrition 125(10)2511-5, 1995. Holy crap, a citation...I almost wet myself. Way to be.
  16. Why do you say that? Maybe he wants to point out that it is way better to eat whole foods which contain calcium rather than eating isolated minerals that are absorbed very poorly. Ah, ok. I agree 100% that whole foods are a FAR better route. I do want to point out though that across the board, absorption rates don't differ very much. On average, you'll get around 30% (usually slightly under) regardless of your method of ingestion. Supplements are absorbed almost exactly at the same rate rate as dairy. Absorption can be reduced in vegetable sources due to the presence of oxalic acid - emphasis on can, because it is not necessarily significant - depends on the diet. To reiterate though, I'm definitely on the whole foods boat
  17. veggymeggy, are you asking me or Brett?Brett. You listed the credentials of the person you saw, and it sounds like you had a far more positive experience - which is what it should be when you see someone with those credentials Of course, as I mentioned, it is possible to see an RD and not be satisfied - Just like you'd see a different doctor if he or she made treatment recommendations you don't like, you may have to see a different RD if the first one you come across can't work with your dietary standards.
  18. True, I just edited to try and sound less pretentious. There is tons of experience on this forum in a wide array of subjects, I just get frustrated because the science doesn't back a lot of it up, when it comes to nutrition.
  19. Did you see a nutritionist or a registered dietician? There is a HUGE difference. ANYONE can call themself a nutritionist, it's an utterly meaningless term. An RD may use the term to help describe their work, because some people don't recognize RD. However, RD's have a minimum of a B.S. in dietetics, an internship involving supervised work in 4 areas of dietetics, and has pass the ADA's national RD examined. They may or may not also be licensed within the state (OR requires licensing). Anyway- of course, as with any profession, there are professionals of varying competency and professionalism. However, as someone with only 6 weeks remaining until I receive my own B.S Nutrition, dietetics (Oregon State University, go Beavs) I assure you that we get intensive study over all aspects of food and digestion. Furthermore, the amount of misinformation on this website alone, not to mention lay "knowledge" passed around in many other mediums, is utterly astonishing. This is one reason I rarely post anymore, because it is so very frustrating to read half-truths, assumptions, and sometimes blatantly wrong statements that are accepted as truth, posted by people without credentials or legitimate sources. Anyway- I apologize for the rant, but please don't condemn an entire profession based on one experience. You may find an RD more open minded and willing to work with your lifestyle who can be of help to you. *Edited to sound less snobby
  20. That, and neurological damage. Cardiac damage can be hidden (or delayed, if you will) for a long time by folate, which most vegans wil get plenty of... The neurological damage of a severe B12 deficiency is a whole other ball game on top of that!
  21. My new favorite thing in the world are the Cliff Nectar bars...they have like, 5 ingredients. All nuts and fruits, no added stuff. The dark chocolate walnut is amazing. Just organic dark chocolate, organic dates, organic walnuts...and vanilla I think. Don't have one in front of me, but it's SO good. There's other flavors that are all fruit, equally as good. They have around 160 kcal in them...I have them for snacks at school.
  22. The problem is actually that things like lead show up.... And yeah, the mega-doses at one time make for some expensive pee.
  23. i *think* it can be synthesized, but to be honest I'm not sure. The vitamin I take is 100% beta carotene. Beta carotene is only converted to A at a 1/6 efficiency rate, (which is why vit A is also listed as RAE - retinol activity equivalents) so usually it's a mix...my husband take a men's formula that is only 13% beta carotene, and that is actually the reason I'm going to switch him to something else - he doesn't need that much preformed A. "Toxicity" refers to the point at which negative effects are seen....including what you've described. Too much vit A is indeed bad, it's just that most people don't really need to worry about it. Just don't take lots of vitamin A (not beta carotene) and don't eat lots of liver. Take home message: look carefully at your vitamin labels!
  • Create New...