Convincing family to go vegan

[Debrah]

Originally Posted by Gem

Essential nutrients such as V B12 only occur in significant quantities in animal products. Now days we can extract V B12 from fermentation processes (I guess bacteria produce it?) and use it as a supplement or to fortify vegan foods.

[[[Those animals don't natural grow B12 in their tissue. It comes about as a result of eating off the ground or drinking dirty water. So meat eaters are only supplementing with animal bodies. What's more, if animals aren't allowed access to the outdoors, then they have to be supplemented with B12 so that they won't 'fail to thrive' and die.]]]



(Quoted:They will have qualified dietitions to ensure the proper nutrient profile of such diets).

[[[That hospital teaches anyone who wants to sign up for the classes they provide, how to change their cooking and eating habits and it's highly unlikely that they are sending dieticians home with everyone. Learning to cook this way isn't hard. Once you have the basics down (a handful of good recipes to use with lentils/beans/legumes and nuts) you can add to your repertoire easily. There are so many websites and recipes available and even alternative foods now, that it's a slam dunk that it can be accomplished easily. Unless one is going to insist on filling up on junk and Oreo's of course.]]]



(Yes, higher rates of MS, and a number of other conditions, are correlated with 'traditional North American Diets', high in animal fats. I'm not sure if that applies to lean meat.

)

If higher consumption of (lean) meat isn't correlated with MS and the other big killers, why is it that when people quit eating all meat(including lean meat), the incidence of those diseases drops back/disappears? I do think Dr. Roy Swank (reference the article about his research that was linked earlier) will have adjusted in his research for all kinds of factors, including how much 'lean meat' was consumed by his patients over 34 years? https://nutritionfacts.org/2014/07/2...sis-with-diet/

[Debrah]

Originally Posted by T.L.M.

Regardless of health benefits there is one thing I noticed with putting anything in my body:

As long as you appreciate it, don't take it for granted and appreciate the meal itself, your interneal energies will transmute anything that is negative within it. sustenance is sustenance regardless. I know GOD does not care about that, more at steak then that. haha.

The weakness in that philosophy is the number of people who A. eat very badly and have terrible health and B. who once ate badly (with resulting bad health) and then go plant based, become very healthy.

I belong to a couple of WFPB groups and almost unanimously, the people who are part of it report significant improvements in their health when they begin eating only plants. Including a couple, who between them, turned around diagnoses of diabetes, fatty liver disease and one of them HAD Multiple sclerosis. And the only change was what they were putting in their bodies. So it does matter.

I contend that our bodies are like organic machines. And just like a fine tuned, high tech sports car needs the best gasoline and lubricants to operate at its optimum level, so too do our bodies need the best available and that they reward us in return, for that care.

[Debrah]

Originally Posted by markings

There is ample evidence from the medical profession that a high-fat - low-carb diet has astonishing beneficial effects on people who suffer from insulin resistance.
These include a massive reduction in blood pressure, hugely reduced if not complete eradication of diabetes, better sleep, vastly increased energy levels and overall well-being. All backed up by clinical data.

And that same diet can be leading to a continual cascade of inflammation which ultimately leads to a host of sicknesses including heart disease, arthritis, cancer, MS....... https://nutritionfacts.org/2012/09/2...-inflammation/

I think one of the big problems when people talk about 'carbs' and diabetes is that they equate all carbs as being bad/the same. But it's a no-brainer that if you cut out the potatoes, cakes, cookies and too much fruit or fruit juices, it's going to change how much sugar is in your bloodstream.

And it's my guess, that because most people are phobic about a non-meat diet still, the change that they would go for for the needed calories would be to drop those 'goodies' and replace with more meat. So the simple act of dropping the above, is going to result in an improvement. BUT it's been proven over and over again, that going plant based and raw can result in Type 2 diabetics being able to throw out their meds after a month or two.

I watched the following on television a few years ago. A fascinating documentary about a group of diabetics who participated in a one month clinic where they relearned how to eat, prepare their food and the importance of exercise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pjkC71exKU. With a couple exceptions, they were all able to quit using their diabetes meds by the end of that month.

Of the two who couldn't quit, one guy was a Type 1 diabetic (but I think he was able to cut back on how much insulin he needed to inject) and a man who refused to try and he went back home half way (where I think his doctor had already warned him that he faced a foot amputation because of his diabetes).

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Debrah

)

If higher consumption of (lean) meat isn't correlated with MS and the other big killers, why is it that when people quit eating all meat(including lean meat), the incidence of those diseases drops back/disappears? I do think Dr. Roy Swank (reference the article about his research that was linked earlier) will have adjusted in his research for all kinds of factors, including how much 'lean meat' was consumed by his patients over 34 years? https://nutritionfacts.org/2014/07/2...sis-with-diet/

As far as I can tell, Swank links MS to saturated fats, not lean meat. I'm not supporting lean meat or other animal product consumption on a vegan thread, and I'm sure Swank is right that there are untold health benefits in plant diets. I talk to Markings about meat and fat because it's relevant to him and his health - and he's very unlikely to adopt a plant diet.

I wonder if the OP's parents will realistically adopt a fully plant diet, too, and consider that probability to be quite low, so I talk nutrition in this non-vegan context because I would like to see optimum outcomes.

I'm really only talking nutrition, and the reason I talk of b12 and other supplimentation is so vegans can live by their convictions and enjoy their health benefits without being deficient in essential nutrients which are only, or primarily, found in animal products. Vegan nutritionists will advise the same thing, because they are qualified, and that's what science says.

I'm with Swank, basically, so more power to the vege healing approach. As Hippocrates put it, "Let food be thy medicine and medicine be your food" (To bad that isn't included in the Hippocratic oath, ay).

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Debrah

The researchers at Harvard would disagree apparently with your first sentence. '....Researchers at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital followed more than 130,000 people for 36 years, monitoring their diet, lifestyle, illness and mortality.

They found that switching between 15g and 19g of animal protein – the equivalent of a single sausage – for the likes of nuts, pulses or legumes significantly cuts the risk of early death. Substituting plant protein for eggs also leads to a 19 per cent reduction in death risk.

The research also found a 10 per cent higher intake of meat was associated with a two per cent higher mortality rate and an eight per cent higher chance of cardiovascular death...' http://www.goingveganhealthbenefits....ossible-terms/

And in Canada, our government keeps stats on the Inuit of the north, and they've found that population dies on average, 13 years sooner than the rest of the Canadian population (which would include native peoples who live further south and closer to urban/town centres). Also, the Canadian government found that while the rest of Canada's mortality rates went up by two years, the Inuit actually fell back a year or two. And one thing that is different is that there is more historically, subsistence hunting among the Inuit. More meat. Fewer plants. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19800772

I don;t think the statistics reported in these studies are accurate, and there are a number of caveats. For example, processed meat, bacon and 'sausage' (as cited) and franks, almost certainly increase cancers along with high intake of saturated fats are associated with all sorts of health issues. So when they say 'eat meat', there is a difference between a moderate consumer of clean lean meat and a consumer of highly processed, high fat meats.

Now if we study a group of Seventh Day Adventists (who are mostly vegetarians), we find they have significantly longer life expectancy, but these are people who don't drink, smoke, do drugs, but do consume a significant amount of animal products like dairy. They are encouraged to exercise and the church explicitly recommends "a source of B12".

Your examples did not show that vegans have a longer life expectancy. It did point out some issues with over consumption of 'meat' (which seemingly includes 'sausage'). However, I'm sure vegans would live longer than anyone else if they ensured they took adequate B12 and other suppliments, were smoke and intoxicant free, and exercised regularly - Just like the SDA's do.

The early deaths of first nations peoples is the same as early deaths among Australian Aboriginal peoples. It is of course diet related, but it is complex social problem stemming from colonisation which results in all nature of excessive intoxication, infant mortality, suicide and so forth.

[Debrah]

Originally Posted by Gem

I don;t think the statistics reported in these studies are accurate, and there are a number of caveats. For example, processed meat, bacon and 'sausage' (as cited) and franks, almost certainly increase cancers along with high intake of saturated fats are associated with all sorts of health issues. So when they say 'eat meat', there is a difference between a moderate consumer of clean lean meat and a consumer of highly processed, high fat meats.

Now if we study a group of Seventh Day Adventists (who are mostly vegetarians), we find they have significantly longer life expectancy, but these are people who don't drink, smoke, do drugs, but do consume a significant amount of animal products like dairy. They are encouraged to exercise and the church explicitly recommends "a source of B12".

Your examples did not show that vegans have a longer life expectancy. It did point out some issues with over consumption of 'meat' (which seemingly includes 'sausage'). However, I'm sure vegans would live longer than anyone else if they ensured they took adequate B12 and other suppliments, were smoke and intoxicant free, and exercised regularly - Just like the SDA's do.

The early deaths of first nations peoples is the same as early deaths among Australian Aboriginal peoples. It is of course diet related, but it is complex social problem stemming from colonisation which results in all nature of excessive intoxication, infant mortality, suicide and so forth.

****

According to a 30 year study being done by scientists at Massachusetts General Hospital, a vegan diet nets a longer life. And apparently they took into account other lifestyle/risk factors.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-a7168036.html

This PubMed document looks at a variety of healthy studies re: meat vs. Veg’n diets and the conclusion is that a vegetarian diet has lower risk of heart disease and some cancers and the vegan diet goes a little further in providing benefit against obesity, hypertension, T2diabetes and heart disease. All of that is sure to equate with longer life span and feeling better while living those years. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/

It’s also been reported in a 2003 paper done by the National Institute of Public Health in Greenland and in conjunction with Canadian collegues, in looking at autopsy studies and clinical observations of the Inuit…that death from heart disease is high among the Inuit as is significant bone loss. An earlier 1974 study found that while aging bone loss is common in most populations, among the northern indigenous (Eskimos), nutrition factors were implicated, ie high protein, high nitrogen, high phosphorus and low calcium intakes being the likely cause (and the source would have been the additional meat consumed and lower plant intake, compared to other populations). http://nutritionstudies.org/masai-an...a-closer-look/


So given that we KNOW that Inuit live 13 years less than the average Canadian and we KNOW that they have high incidences of heart disease and bone loss and we KNOW that they eat more meat than the average Canadian, seems pretty obvious that meat is causing them some major problems. To argue that? Gotta ask, to what end?

As to your comments about the SDA dietary habits, having been in the church for 15 years, I will agree on the points you made, while at the same time, assuring you that there were a lot of fat SDA members in the various churches we visited and were members of. That would suggest that the continued use/over use of dairy and eggs was not helping them as has been supported in one of the pages linked above . The second I think, where it was suggested that the vegan diet provides additional benefit against obesity and diabetes.

Whether you want to accept the statistics or not, doesn't invalidate the findings of researchers who've actually looked at the facts. The adage, KISS seems to apply and simply put, researchers find that meat consumption 'does not do a body good' but plants do. It's kind of like the difference between drinking polluted water and pure, clean water. Initially even the polluted water will keep you alive, but what are the long term outcomes going to be on your health....compared to drinking the fresh, clean water.

The possibility of eating 'grass fed' beef for better health comes is also frequently touted. However, an interesting video that Dr. Greger did on the question of 'wild' animals vs. what is routinely found in the supermarket could be considered here. He cites a study that looked at conventional animals vs. wild caught kangaroo. While the inflammation levels of the kangaroo tissue (with lower saturated fat levels) was lower than with supermarket purchases, there is still an inflammation spike after consuming it. Considering that most people feel like their days meals are not satisfactory without meat at every meal (spike, spike SPIKE), it's pretty easy to see that most humans live in a continual state of bodily inflammation, thereby setting them up for heart attacks, etc.https://nutritionfacts.org/video/mod...d-of-the-game/

[markings]

Originally Posted by Debrah

So given that we KNOW that Inuit live 13 years less than the average Canadian and we KNOW that they have high incidences of heart disease and bone loss and we KNOW that they eat more meat than the average Canadian, seems pretty obvious that meat is causing them some major problems. To argue that? Gotta ask, to what end?

One could argue that. Why do they eat so differently? Maybe they have little choice, the environment. I assume there aren't too many ordinary Canadians who adopt a true Inuit lifestyle. The data, the study method may be flawed and and comparative data nonexistent.

If one lives in an inhospital place one would expect life expectancy to suffer.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Debrah

****

According to a 30 year study being done by scientists at Massachusetts General Hospital, a vegan diet nets a longer life. And apparently they took into account other lifestyle/risk factors.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-a7168036.html

This PubMed document looks at a variety of healthy studies re: meat vs. Veg’n diets and the conclusion is that a vegetarian diet has lower risk of heart disease and some cancers and the vegan diet goes a little further in providing benefit against obesity, hypertension, T2diabetes and heart disease. All of that is sure to equate with longer life span and feeling better while living those years. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/

It’s also been reported in a 2003 paper done by the National Institute of Public Health in Greenland and in conjunction with Canadian collegues, in looking at autopsy studies and clinical observations of the Inuit…that death from heart disease is high among the Inuit as is significant bone loss. An earlier 1974 study found that while aging bone loss is common in most populations, among the northern indigenous (Eskimos), nutrition factors were implicated, ie high protein, high nitrogen, high phosphorus and low calcium intakes being the likely cause (and the source would have been the additional meat consumed and lower plant intake, compared to other populations). http://nutritionstudies.org/masai-an...a-closer-look/


So given that we KNOW that Inuit live 13 years less than the average Canadian and we KNOW that they have high incidences of heart disease and bone loss and we KNOW that they eat more meat than the average Canadian, seems pretty obvious that meat is causing them some major problems. To argue that? Gotta ask, to what end?

It's the same sort of statistics regarding Australian Aboriginals, but it's actually a social issue surrounding colonisation.

As to your comments about the SDA dietary habits, having been in the church for 15 years, I will agree on the points you made, while at the same time, assuring you that there were a lot of fat SDA members in the various churches we visited and were members of. That would suggest that the continued use/over use of dairy and eggs was not helping them as has been supported in one of the pages linked above .

Excess body fat is due to more calories consumed than expended. Vegans who eat excessive calories get fat, too.

The second I think, where it was suggested that the vegan diet provides additional benefit against obesity and diabetes.

Not necessarily. Obesity is just too many calories, and excess body fat reduces insulin sensitivity. Fat is very high in calories (9cals/gram) compared to protein or carbs (4cals per gram), so we typically find reducing fat equates to a reduction in calories.

Whether you want to accept the statistics or not, doesn't invalidate the findings of researchers who've actually looked at the facts. The adage, KISS seems to apply and simply put, researchers find that meat consumption 'does not do a body good' but plants do. It's kind of like the difference between drinking polluted water and pure, clean water. Initially even the polluted water will keep you alive, but what are the long term outcomes going to be on your health....compared to drinking the fresh, clean water.

The possibility of eating 'grass fed' beef for better health comes is also frequently touted. However, an interesting video that Dr. Greger did on the question of 'wild' animals vs. what is routinely found in the supermarket could be considered here. He cites a study that looked at conventional animals vs. wild caught kangaroo. While the inflammation levels of the kangaroo tissue (with lower saturated fat levels) was lower than with supermarket purchases, there is still an inflammation spike after consuming it. Considering that most people feel like their days meals are not satisfactory without meat at every meal (spike, spike SPIKE), it's pretty easy to see that most humans live in a continual state of bodily inflammation, thereby setting them up for heart attacks, etc.https://nutritionfacts.org/video/mod...d-of-the-game/

Yes, only problem being, some essential nutrients are only found in animal products, so as I repeatedly say, a vegan diet is optimal for many given the right supplementation. I'm sure nutritionists who promote a vegan diet say the same thing.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by markings

One could argue that. Why do they eat so differently? Maybe they have little choice, the environment. I assume there aren't too many ordinary Canadians who adopt a true Inuit lifestyle. The data, the study method may be flawed and and comparative data nonexistent.

If one lives in an inhospital place one would expect life expectancy to suffer.

The likelihood that the lifestyle is 'traditional' is very low. More likely a fairly impoverished existence with diets including high carbs and processed foodstuff. There are certainly problems with the statistical comparison. I mean the life expectancy on Sydney's affluent northern beaches is 85 compared to 77 in remote areas. Very remote areas only 67. So the diet is certainly a huge contributor, but due to underpinning demographic and socioeconomic concerns in so many ways. If you see the quality, availability and price of veges in remote locations, and the low socio-economic status of the residents, well, it's just math innit. Basically the richer live longer, and since the Aboriginal population is disadvantaged more that any other demographic, they come bottom of the life expectancy list - and all the other lists for that matter.

[Alice_1]

You can start cooking for them your food and they may like it as well. Once they know it is completely healthy and efficient for them , they may change their lifestyle as well. But don't push on them, this has to be a grownup choise