80/10/10--I'm doing it!

albertabeefy

On what are these value judgements based? Do you have anything credible to substantiate this? The World Health Organization recommends only 3-4% protein.

This is a complete fabrication. Which is common with vegan dogma.

The W.H.O. recommends a MINIMUM of .75g per kg of lean body-weight for average, moderately-active people. MINIMUM. That being said, the W.H.O. protein recommendations have been challenged repeatedly, and almost every country in the world has a higher suggested minimum.

albertabeefy

Even breast milk is only around 5%; babies are able to chunk out just fine.

Wow, so wrong it's not funny. Each 100 mL of mature breast milk (i.e., breast milk produced after 21 days of lactation) yields approximately • 70 calories • 7.4 g carbohydrates (primarily lactose) • 4.2 g fat • 1.3 g protein

Do the math: 4.2 x 9 = 37.8 which is 54% of calories from fat... Where DO you get your information, vegan propaganda sites?

We burn carbohydrates primarily and the body is inefficient at converting fat and protein to glucose.

People who are not keto-adapted burn glucose primarily, NOT necessarily dietary carbohydrate. And no, the body isn't particularly inefficient at converting fat/protein to glucose at all, it happens all the time, even in high-carb dieters. And those on a low-carb diet are using fatty-acids for cellular respiration and ketones for their brain, not "converting" anything.

In virtually everything you've stated, your information is propaganda, and it's wrong.

When asked, hardly anyone knows how much is recommended.

Perhaps when you ask a lay person, or someone that doesn't know how to research. But you don't ask, do you? You just read your propaganda and spout it back at people it seems, with no regard for science or truth.

While its true we need fat and protein, the amount is much lower than one would expect. Look at lean people all over the world, they do fine at levels below 10% (I'm not talking about starving people either). Reference: The China Study.

ROFLMAO. "The China Study" is a book - and it's a work of fiction. The actually 'study' done by Cornell conflicts with the book. The book is vegan propaganda, plain and simple, and has been debunked numerous times. You're just to brainwashed to realize it.

No human does "fine at levels below 10%" of dietary fat intake. It completely messes with hormonal functions and prevents absorption of fat-soluble vitamins. Your ideas, once again, are simply animal-activist propaganda.

It's not science, is not supported by any branch of science, is not supported by any research (including the research of T. Colin Campbell) and -if you THINK it is - you should learn to analyze trial/study data properly.

albertabeefy

... and one last thing before the vegan propagandist returns.

Here's a quick list of critiques/flaws with Campbell's "The China Study" that I gathered in 5 minutes, that I've taken the time to research myself, and find quite credible.

If you care to, please discredit any of these critiques using SCIENCE. Of course, you can't - but please, feel free to try.

Here's the list:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/385/

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-china-study-revisited/

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html

http://freetheanimal.com/2010/07/t-colin-campbells-the-china-study-finally-exhaustively-discredited.html

http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Spotting-Bad-Science-103-The-China-Study.pdf

http://anthonycolpo.com/the-china-study-more-vegan-nonsense/

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-vs-the-china-study/

http://www.westonaprice.org/vegetarianism-and-plant-foods/the-china-study-myth

http://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/

carissar7

You're comparing paleo to raw veganism?

In terms of having a flimsy foundation on junk science, yes.

Why do you think that? I'm really just asking. Unless you are a strict raw meat eating paleo-goer (which would compare in my eyes to extreme raw foodism) I see nothing wrong with wanting to eat less grains and processed carbohydrates. I think there is enough science to at least back up all of the main, common sense points that a 'paleo diet' represents- that we should be eating 'real' food, and less of the processed junk.

holothuroidea

It is hard, when the norm is abnormally high. Even breast milk is only around 5%; babies are able to chunk out just fine. We burn carbohydrates primarily and the body is inefficient at converting fat and protein to glucose. When asked, hardly anyone knows how much is recommended. While its true we need fat and protein, the amount is much lower than one would expect. Look at lean people all over the world, they do fine at levels below 10% (I'm not talking about starving people either). Reference: The China Study.

The difference between babies and adults is that babies consume a huge amount of calories relative to their body weight, so they end up getting enough grams of protein per pound of body weight eating lower protein food.

Adults eat fewer calories per pound of body weight, and so in order to get enough protein (about 0.8g/kg body weight), you need to get a higher percentage of your calories from protein, around 15% for most people and higher for those on calorie restrictive diets.

The "lean" people eating below 10%, are extremely active and eat a crap ton of calories. American lifestyles are just not active enough to sustain that.

People on raw diets can get enough protein if they eat enough calories, but then it wouldn't be a good diet for weight loss would it?

Why do you think that? I'm really just asking. Unless you are a strict raw meat eating paleo-goer (which would compare in my eyes to extreme raw foodism) I see nothing wrong with wanting to eat less grains and processed carbohydrates. I think there is enough science to at least back up all of the main, common sense points that a 'paleo diet' represents- that we should be eating 'real' food, and less of the processed junk.

The "main, common sense points" of paleo and raw food diets are the same. The only difference is that raw foodists consider cooking a from of processing (which it technically is).

No, there's nothing wrong with eating fewer grains, legumes and processed carbohydrates. There's also nothing wrong with eating fewer animal products and more raw fruits and vegetables (note that raw foodists also don't eat grains, legumes or processed carbohydrates).

The problem is that there is no evidence that removing those foods from a person's diet will make them healthier. It is very possible to have a healthy and nutritious diet and maintain a healthy weight without cutting out any foods. Both diet philosophies rely on bad interpretations of data and faulty reasoning to substantiate their bogus claims that you have to remove entire types of food from your diet in order to be healthy.

holothuroidea

I appreciate the "debunking" of The China Study, but you've linked to a bunch of highly biased sources (and WAPF, seriously... no) and called it SCIENCE.

No.

You're responding to "vegan" propaganda with "anti-vegan" propaganda. That's not science. That's bull****.

Here's some vegan facts for you:

If people eat fewer animals, there will be less violence towards them.
People with access to a variety of plant foods year round don't need to eat animals to be healthy.

HappyElizabeth

Sorry guys, I have been a raw vegan for 2 years (except for a brief time last month) and can't imagine ever eating at 80-10-10!!! I am extremely athletic and that just wouldn't work for me at all.
Also, for those of you making moronic blanket statements that raw veganism leads to malnutrition - take a look at the Williams sisters. I liken that line of thinking to idiots who say that the Paleo diet leads to high cholesterol. No diet is healthy if a person doesn't make healthy choices and follow a balanced approach.

albertabeefy

You're responding to "vegan" propaganda with "anti-vegan" propaganda. That's not science. That's bull****.

Here's some vegan facts for you:

If people eat fewer animals, there will be less violence towards them.
People with access to a variety of plant foods year round don't need to eat animals to be healthy.

No, it's not bull... Every single article I linked to basis their critique on analysis of study data. Period. Calling a thorough analysis "propaganda" without using any scientific rebuttal shows YOUR bias, not the articles, sorry to say.

As for your vegan "facts" ... Facts are supported by science, not by dogma. None of what you said has any basis in the scientific method.

albertabeefy

Sorry guys, I have been a raw vegan for 2 years (except for a brief time last month) and can't imagine ever eating at 80-10-10!!! I am extremely athletic and that just wouldn't work for me at all.
Also, for those of you making moronic blanket statements that raw veganism leads to malnutrition - take a look at the Williams sisters. I liken that line of thinking to idiots who say that the Paleo diet leads to high cholesterol. No diet is healthy if a person doesn't make healthy choices and follow a balanced approach.

Bear in mind that raw veganism WITHOUT (at least) supplemental B12 and possibly other supplements depending on the diet, will absolutely lead to malnutrition. Every vegan MD and RD states unequivocally that you MUST supplement B12.

Logically, if you MUST supplement B12, that means the diet is NOT a natural one for humans, BTW.

As for the Williams sisters, only ONE chose veganism. The other regularly eats meat, as she's mentioned in interview... and the first only recently chose raw vegansim and built their physique without it.

Pointing to people that became fit and healthy long before choosing raw veganism is not a good argument in support of it...

Edit: Quick mention - as of 2013 Serena has never adopted veganism, and Venus admits to being what she calls "cheagan" ... meaning she isn't remotely strict about it.

"If it's on your plate, I might get to cheat. If you're sitting next to me, good luck. You turn your head once and your food might be gone," Williams said, in good spirits after starting her Australian Open campaign Monday with a quick 6-1, 6-0 win over Galina Voskoboeva.

"I think it's pretty well known I'm a cheagan, "the seven-time Grand Slam winner said, laughing.

thisismeraw

Sorry guys, I have been a raw vegan for 2 years (except for a brief time last month) and can't imagine ever eating at 80-10-10!!! I am extremely athletic and that just wouldn't work for me at all.
Also, for those of you making moronic blanket statements that raw veganism leads to malnutrition - take a look at the Williams sisters. I liken that line of thinking to idiots who say that the Paleo diet leads to high cholesterol. No diet is healthy if a person doesn't make healthy choices and follow a balanced approach.

Bear in mind that raw veganism WITHOUT (at least) supplemental B12 and possibly other supplements depending on the diet, will absolutely lead to malnutrition. Every vegan MD and RD states unequivocally that you MUST supplement B12.

Logically, if you MUST supplement B12, that means the diet is NOT a natural one for humans, BTW.

As for the Williams sisters, only ONE chose veganism. The other regularly eats meat, as she's mentioned in interview... and the first only recently chose raw vegansim and built their physique without it.

Pointing to people that became fit and healthy long before choosing raw veganism is not a good argument in support of it...

I don't suppliement with a B12 pill or another pharmacy suppliement yet I have proper levels of it. I'm not about to show my medical records online though to show the proof. I don't follow a 100% raw vegan (more so around 90%) diet nor is my diet anywhere close to 80/10/10 in macros so I do get some B12 from the rare egg I eat or milk/yogurt I consume. I also regularly consume nutritional yeast which does contain it as well.

Due to my diet choices I pay close attention to my macros, micros and all my vitamins and minerals to ensure I am getting what my body needs.

iLoveMyAR15

wow that's waaaaaaaaaay too many carbs for me. If its working for you then great. Good luck.

cacleghorn

Off-topic, but: People who eat virtually no cholesterol still produce 100% of what they need, hahaha.
Yes, consuming unsaturated, good fats is important. Cholesterol isn't a good dietary fat, even though it can act as a good fat in the body.

Here is a really simple publication confirming that:
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Understanding_Cholesterol.htm

rduhlir

All this anti-vegan/pro-vegan, PETA talk is making me hungry for Bambi.

cwolfman13

Why do people keep resurrecting this stupid *kitten* thread. Stupid *kitten* thread is stupid...let it die please.

holothuroidea

You're responding to "vegan" propaganda with "anti-vegan" propaganda. That's not science. That's bull****.

Here's some vegan facts for you:

If people eat fewer animals, there will be less violence towards them.
People with access to a variety of plant foods year round don't need to eat animals to be healthy.

No, it's not bull... Every single article I linked to basis their critique on analysis of study data. Period. Calling a thorough analysis "propaganda" without using any scientific rebuttal shows YOUR bias, not the articles, sorry to say.

As for your vegan "facts" ... Facts are supported by science, not by dogma. None of what you said has any basis in the scientific method.

What passes for science on the internet is absurd, and I think our criteria for rigorous analysis of data are different.

My bias is an anti-BS bias. I do NOT advocate veganism for health reasons, because it would be false to. I know the vegan BS that is out there, I've spent months and months in the vegan community on the internet trying to get people to see sense (it's a fruitless endeavor, by the way).

I'm also well aware of the paleo BS, the WAPF BS, the Atkins BS, the cleanse/detox BS. You know what all of these BS-promoters have in common? They claim "science" is on their side. Science doesn't take sides. Science doesn't DO anything, it's just a tool humans use to answer questions, a tool often misused.

And please go ahead and use "TEH SCIENCE" to show me how eating fewer animals would cause more violence towards them, and why I (and many many many others over the course of many many many years) have not suffered ill health from not eating animals if it's required for health.

sweetNsassy2584

-SMH-

holothuroidea

Sorry guys, I have been a raw vegan for 2 years (except for a brief time last month) and can't imagine ever eating at 80-10-10!!! I am extremely athletic and that just wouldn't work for me at all.
Also, for those of you making moronic blanket statements that raw veganism leads to malnutrition - take a look at the Williams sisters. I liken that line of thinking to idiots who say that the Paleo diet leads to high cholesterol. No diet is healthy if a person doesn't make healthy choices and follow a balanced approach.

I'm sorry if you find me moronic, but can we talk anyway? :P

There's nothing wrong with eating high-raw like you, what I am saying is dangerous is the promotion of 100% raw veganism and eating 80/10/10 for extended periods of time, which is what the OP seemed to advocate for.

There are paleo diets that are healthful (generally, they are based more in veggies and less in meats/eggs, and include moderate amounts of carbs from root and starchy veggies/fruits) , and it's possible to have a healthful high-raw diet (that include more than 10% calories from protein and supplement with legumes and/or some meat products).

However, it's still dangerous and unnecessary to promote the extremes of these diets. People have this tendency to think that if X food is healthy, eating nothing but X food is the healthiest way to eat, and we've proven time and time again that that is just not true.

I don't have any beef (pun intended) with anyone who chooses a moderate approach.

downinaggieland98

80/10/10 is a raw vegan diet fad...I will just politely say that setting percentages for macros doesn't work and that this diet highly ignores the fact that protein and fat are ESSENTIAL nutrients whereas carbohydrates are non-essential and should be determined based on physical activity.

These type of dieters do ridiculous things like eating nothing but fruit in ridiculous amounts all day and often these people have serious fears (orthorexics) about fat and consumption of animal products as being "toxic"

Consumption of animal products IS toxic. That is the ONLY place Cholesterol is found. And, what is the number one cause of death in the US right now? Heart disease. What causes heart disease, you ask? Cholesterol.

SO MUCH WRONG and FALLACY here. I would correct you but dang...

This made me laugh, and I'm right there with you.

albertabeefy

Science doesn't take sides. Science doesn't DO anything, it's just a tool humans use to answer questions, a tool often misused.

The 'tool' of science, however, does not now and never has supported veganism. That's what I'm saying. Never. Ever. Not clinical trials and not epidemiological studies.

And please go ahead and use "TEH SCIENCE" to show me how eating fewer animals would cause more violence towards them...

Um what? I'm not making the claim, regarding eating animals and violence, you are. Please prove YOUR "vegan fact" lol.

... and why I (and many many many others over the course of many many many years) have not suffered ill health from not eating animals if it's required for health.

First, i never said that "not eating animals" is required for health, did I? However those that eat no animal products for any length of time do need an external source of B12.

I've presented several articles based in the studies, and the science, you've presented an "anti-BS" arguments, which is completely nonsensical. If you dispute the science or anything I've said, please show me logically and/or scientifically - with sources/facts to back it up - where I'm wrong.

Although from your posts so far I'm quite certain you do not have the ability to do so.

downinaggieland98

"Not really. Most of us are just compassionate people who advocate for nonviolence. People who are doing plant-based diets or advocate for it for (misguided) health reasons seriously need to stop hijacking the word "vegan.""

I can completely see vegetarians as compassionate and nonviolent but I don't understand vegan. One thing that has always bothered me is eggs, what does it hurt to eat eggs? Hens lay eggs, they always will, the ones shipped to stores are unfertilized, which is just part of the hen's natural life cycle... how does it hurt any animal to eat them?

thisismeraw

"Not really. Most of us are just compassionate people who advocate for nonviolence. People who are doing plant-based diets or advocate for it for (misguided) health reasons seriously need to stop hijacking the word "vegan.""

I can completely see vegetarians as compassionate and nonviolent but I don't understand vegan. One thing that has always bothered me is eggs, what does it hurt to eat eggs? Hens lay eggs, they always will, the ones shipped to stores are unfertilized, which is just part of the hen's natural life cycle... how does it hurt any animal to eat them?

I think the egg thing is due to the chicken being at a farm, there to lay eggs for sale and consumption. I could be wrong or vegans may have another view of it.

holothuroidea

The 'tool' of science, however, does not now and never has supported veganism. That's what I'm saying. Never. Ever. Not clinical trials and not epidemiological studies.

I don't really understand what you're getting at here. What about veganism do you believe needs to be supported by clinical trials/epidemiological studies?

Um what? I'm not making the claim, regarding eating animals and violence, you are. Please prove YOUR "vegan fact" lol.

You have a choice. You can eat something that requires you to kill an animal, or you can eat the same amount and quality of nutrients from plant sources. (Barring, of course, some magical mystery meat vitamin... which has never been proven to exist).

If you choose to kill animals instead of eating plants, that's an act of violence. If you've ever killed an animal yourself (I have), you'll understand that.

This is not something we need to use science to prove.

First, i never said that "not eating animals" is required for health, did I? However those that eat no animal products for any length of time do need an external source of B12.

B12 is made by bacteria, not animals. It's very possible to get natural sources of B12 on a vegan diet. However, having to supplement with B12 does not mean that a vegan diet cannot be healthy.

Veganism is decidedly unnatural, humans are behaviorally omnivores. It's unnatural for us to refuse any valid food source. Your appeals to nature are going to fall on deaf ears with me. I don't care if veganism isn't natural, that doesn't negate why I do it.

I've presented several articles based in the studies, and the science, you've presented an "anti-BS" arguments, which is completely nonsensical. If you dispute the science or anything I've said, please show me logically and/or scientifically - with facts to back it up - where I'm wrong.

I already said I appreciated the debunking of The China Study, the articles you linked to have good points. Good points swimming in a sea of misinformation that needs debunking in and of itself.

What exactly is it that you want me to show you? That WAPF is biased and full of misinformation? Do you want me to go through all your sources and tell you all the things on THOSE websites that stand to be debunked?

I never challenged what you said. I just stated that your sources were biased and full of crap. That doesn't make the The China Study any less debunked.

runner_gurl76

80/10/10 is a raw vegan diet fad...I will just politely say that setting percentages for macros doesn't work and that this diet highly ignores the fact that protein and fat are ESSENTIAL nutrients whereas carbohydrates are non-essential and should be determined based on physical activity.

These type of dieters do ridiculous things like eating nothing but fruit in ridiculous amounts all day and often these people have serious fears (orthorexics) about fat and consumption of animal products as being "toxic"

Consumption of animal products IS toxic. That is the ONLY place Cholesterol is found. And, what is the number one cause of death in the US right now? Heart disease. What causes heart disease, you ask? Cholesterol.

OMG - THIS IS SO WRONG I CAN'T EVEN BELIEVE IT!!
Educate yourself on cholesterol before spouting this nonsense. Geesh!

Jonesie1984

yeah... that sounds like balanced nutrition.. I'm an extremist in the fact that I'm not extreme at all. This is dumb.

dp1228

Stop it.

Qarol

so this diet is...EAT ALL THE CARBS!!!

:huh:

jsimler1

http://www.uneda.org/what-does-80-10-10-mean/

magerum

Unknown

This content has been removed.

holothuroidea

"Not really. Most of us are just compassionate people who advocate for nonviolence. People who are doing plant-based diets or advocate for it for (misguided) health reasons seriously need to stop hijacking the word "vegan.""

I can completely see vegetarians as compassionate and nonviolent but I don't understand vegan. One thing that has always bothered me is eggs, what does it hurt to eat eggs? Hens lay eggs, they always will, the ones shipped to stores are unfertilized, which is just part of the hen's natural life cycle... how does it hurt any animal to eat them?

A couple of points about eggs:

-Domestic chickens lay extra eggs because we have bred them to do so. It is not part of the natural life cycle of birds to lay unnecessary eggs. It's actually a big strain on their bodies. Domestic chickens are healthier when they're permitted to eat back their unfertilized eggs (which is what they're naturally inclined to do).

-In order to farm their eggs we have to keep the hens captive, and regardless of the conditions in which the hens are kept it is still captivity. You might not believe this is cruel, I do.

-In order to produce eggs in the quantity that Americans eat them, we need to do very terrible things to the chickens. Feeding them unnatural diets, keeping them in spaces where they can't stretch their wings, manipulating their fertility by starving them and keeping them in the dark, killing them when they're 12 months old (their natural life span is 5-8 years), keeping them in their own filth and depriving them of veterinary care, etc, etc. Even if you'd be okay taking eggs from a random chicken, abstaining and promoting veganism will reduce the demand for eggs and hopefully reduce the number of chickens who have to suffer.

-Even backyard hens and "happy chickens" have to be hatched somewhere. These chickens come from hatcheries where the male chicks are killed at birth. This amounts to 200 million "useless" male chicks ground alive or let to suffocate in trash bags every year. A backyard operation that breeds chickens for eggs cannot sustain itself if they allow the male chickens to grow too (it's a huge strain on resources- space, food water- for animals who don't give any resources in return unless you kill them and eat them, in which case you need to kill them).

-Nobody with adequate access to plant foods needs to eat eggs to live.