Going Plant-Based is the New Prescription, Says Nation’s Leading Physicians
Options
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »the human body is capable of making cholesterol if the circumstances are right.
Antibiotics may be good in life threatening situations but they carry a down side. As well as eliminating the bacteria which is causing the problem antibiotics will change and reduce the balance of digestive bacteria especially if several courses are taken within a period, I have read many recomendations for digestive microbes to be suplemented when taking a course so as to maintain a good balance.
A totally plant based diet runs the risk of being lower in vitamin b12 than is helpful. It is there but not in the quantities humans are regarded to require so meat eating is often advisable.
There is also another problem with the water soluble vitamin b 12, there is a specific microbe which is required to make the "intrinsic factor" which encapsulates the molecules of b 12 to facilitate their transit through the stomach to a lower stage where it can be easily absorbed.
You don't have to eat meat (or other animal products) to get B12. Supplements are easy to find and affordable and there are also many fortified foods.
Since many people have to wind up supplementing anyway (the largest group of people with B12 deficiencies in the US is people over 65, not vegans), eating animal products solely for B12 doesn't make much sense.
The B12 deficiency for older folks was something I wasn't aware of, but just went for a physical yesterday, and the NP said that since I'm turning 45 this year she would have them test for D and B12 to get a baseline to see if I need to supplement at some point. I already take D because I am just-this-side-of-vampire fair and avoid the sun, but never gave a second thought to B12!
Anyhoo, my two cents is that anyone eating the stereotypical SAD diet would be better off eating more plant-based. I think this news "sounds" more controversial because for some reason people have recently started mis-using the term "plant based" to mean vegetarian, which it's not, necessarily.
Having said that, I think you can also be healthy eating vegetarian or keto or even the SAD diet (to an extent) if you put a little effort into making sure you are getting balanced nutrition.1 -
WendyLeigh1119 wrote: »Eating meat daily is one thing. Eating red meat or pork for 5 of them is definitely unhealthy. If 5 days out of 7 are fish, chicken, and shellfish...huge difference.
I personally could never stomach eating meat more than 3 days per week, but that's because I'm mostly grossed out by it, not because I think it's deadly.
You are leaving out a BUNCH of variables here, not the least of which is preparation. There is nothing inherently wrong with "red meat" and red meat can easily be lower in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol than many types of seafood and poultry. In fact, per USDA & Texas A&M, the 2 meats lowest in saturated fat and cholesterol are longhorn beef and venison and that info has been around for 30 years.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »the human body is capable of making cholesterol if the circumstances are right.
Antibiotics may be good in life threatening situations but they carry a down side. As well as eliminating the bacteria which is causing the problem antibiotics will change and reduce the balance of digestive bacteria especially if several courses are taken within a period, I have read many recomendations for digestive microbes to be suplemented when taking a course so as to maintain a good balance.
A totally plant based diet runs the risk of being lower in vitamin b12 than is helpful. It is there but not in the quantities humans are regarded to require so meat eating is often advisable.
There is also another problem with the water soluble vitamin b 12, there is a specific microbe which is required to make the "intrinsic factor" which encapsulates the molecules of b 12 to facilitate their transit through the stomach to a lower stage where it can be easily absorbed.
You don't have to eat meat (or other animal products) to get B12. Supplements are easy to find and affordable and there are also many fortified foods.
Since many people have to wind up supplementing anyway (the largest group of people with B12 deficiencies in the US is people over 65, not vegans), eating animal products solely for B12 doesn't make much sense.
The B12 deficiency for older folks was something I wasn't aware of, but just went for a physical yesterday, and the NP said that since I'm turning 45 this year she would have them test for D and B12 to get a baseline to see if I need to supplement at some point. I already take D because I am just-this-side-of-vampire fair and avoid the sun, but never gave a second thought to B12!
Anyhoo, my two cents is that anyone eating the stereotypical SAD diet would be better off eating more plant-based. I think this news "sounds" more controversial because for some reason people have recently started mis-using the term "plant based" to mean vegetarian, which it's not, necessarily.
Having said that, I think you can also be healthy eating vegetarian or keto or even the SAD diet (to an extent) if you put a little effort into making sure you are getting balanced nutrition.
I agree -- whether or not you're eliminating meat, many people would do well to add more plants to their diet.
I wouldn't be surprised if many problems with the SAD are actually problems of combining the SAD with obesity. It would be interesting to see more studies around people who eat the SAD, but maintain a healthy body weight. Of course, one issue with the SAD (or at least many variants of it), is that it can make it more challenging for some people to maintain a healthy body weight.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »the human body is capable of making cholesterol if the circumstances are right.
Antibiotics may be good in life threatening situations but they carry a down side. As well as eliminating the bacteria which is causing the problem antibiotics will change and reduce the balance of digestive bacteria especially if several courses are taken within a period, I have read many recomendations for digestive microbes to be suplemented when taking a course so as to maintain a good balance.
A totally plant based diet runs the risk of being lower in vitamin b12 than is helpful. It is there but not in the quantities humans are regarded to require so meat eating is often advisable.
There is also another problem with the water soluble vitamin b 12, there is a specific microbe which is required to make the "intrinsic factor" which encapsulates the molecules of b 12 to facilitate their transit through the stomach to a lower stage where it can be easily absorbed.
You don't have to eat meat (or other animal products) to get B12. Supplements are easy to find and affordable and there are also many fortified foods.
Since many people have to wind up supplementing anyway (the largest group of people with B12 deficiencies in the US is people over 65, not vegans), eating animal products solely for B12 doesn't make much sense.
The B12 deficiency for older folks was something I wasn't aware of, but just went for a physical yesterday, and the NP said that since I'm turning 45 this year she would have them test for D and B12 to get a baseline to see if I need to supplement at some point. I already take D because I am just-this-side-of-vampire fair and avoid the sun, but never gave a second thought to B12!
Anyhoo, my two cents is that anyone eating the stereotypical SAD diet would be better off eating more plant-based. I think this news "sounds" more controversial because for some reason people have recently started mis-using the term "plant based" to mean vegetarian, which it's not, necessarily.
Having said that, I think you can also be healthy eating vegetarian or keto or even the SAD diet (to an extent) if you put a little effort into making sure you are getting balanced nutrition.
I agree -- whether or not you're eliminating meat, many people would do well to add more plants to their diet.
I wouldn't be surprised if many problems with the SAD are actually problems of combining the SAD with obesity. It would be interesting to see more studies around people who eat the SAD, but maintain a healthy body weight. Of course, one issue with the SAD (or at least many variants of it), is that it can make it more challenging for some people to maintain a healthy body weight.
There are a lot of people who have lived a long time and ate diets full of whole eggs full of cholesterol, steak, hamburgers, bbq, fried chicken, bacon, sausage gravy, etc. What there aren't is lots of obese people who live equally as long. That isn't just coincidence.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »the human body is capable of making cholesterol if the circumstances are right.
Antibiotics may be good in life threatening situations but they carry a down side. As well as eliminating the bacteria which is causing the problem antibiotics will change and reduce the balance of digestive bacteria especially if several courses are taken within a period, I have read many recomendations for digestive microbes to be suplemented when taking a course so as to maintain a good balance.
A totally plant based diet runs the risk of being lower in vitamin b12 than is helpful. It is there but not in the quantities humans are regarded to require so meat eating is often advisable.
There is also another problem with the water soluble vitamin b 12, there is a specific microbe which is required to make the "intrinsic factor" which encapsulates the molecules of b 12 to facilitate their transit through the stomach to a lower stage where it can be easily absorbed.
You don't have to eat meat (or other animal products) to get B12. Supplements are easy to find and affordable and there are also many fortified foods.
Since many people have to wind up supplementing anyway (the largest group of people with B12 deficiencies in the US is people over 65, not vegans), eating animal products solely for B12 doesn't make much sense.
The B12 deficiency for older folks was something I wasn't aware of, but just went for a physical yesterday, and the NP said that since I'm turning 45 this year she would have them test for D and B12 to get a baseline to see if I need to supplement at some point. I already take D because I am just-this-side-of-vampire fair and avoid the sun, but never gave a second thought to B12!
Anyhoo, my two cents is that anyone eating the stereotypical SAD diet would be better off eating more plant-based. I think this news "sounds" more controversial because for some reason people have recently started mis-using the term "plant based" to mean vegetarian, which it's not, necessarily.
Having said that, I think you can also be healthy eating vegetarian or keto or even the SAD diet (to an extent) if you put a little effort into making sure you are getting balanced nutrition.
I agree -- whether or not you're eliminating meat, many people would do well to add more plants to their diet.
I wouldn't be surprised if many problems with the SAD are actually problems of combining the SAD with obesity. It would be interesting to see more studies around people who eat the SAD, but maintain a healthy body weight. Of course, one issue with the SAD (or at least many variants of it), is that it can make it more challenging for some people to maintain a healthy body weight.
There are a lot of people who have lived a long time and ate diets full of whole eggs full of cholesterol, steak, hamburgers, bbq, fried chicken, bacon, sausage gravy, etc. What there aren't is lots of obese people who live equally as long. That isn't just coincidence.
Exactly. I think of my grandparents (who fit into that group), I'm sure many other people can think of similar people in their lives. While it's true that anecdotes like that aren't necessarily proof of anything (we all know the story of the smoker who lived to be 90), it's hard to escape the feeling that we need to better understand how the SAD works in the context of someone who maintains a healthy body weight, we may be blaming the wrong thing here.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »Modern medicine has not much to do with longer life spans....hygiene and processed water did. I am near 50 but was never treated medically
Most of modern medicine are required to process illness by bad habits anyway (most of heart, diabete and possibly cancer conditions are).
Meat eater here... (but not much)
Never had a vaccine? Never lived in a community with herd immunity because of widespread vaccination? Your mother gave birth to you in a cave or field with no medical assistance? She received no prenatal care? Never had a tetanus shot? Never used a topical antibiotic or antiseptic on a cut?
Since when is a vaccine a treatment? I would rather rank those preventive measures otherwise than a treatment, but I'll give you that.
It's preventative treatment that saves lives...I mean really?
People used to die all the time from things we now are vaccinated for...
Have you never been given an antibiotic? Those save countless lives too...
You are getting it wrong. Antibiotics came late in the game (since late 40s-50s), so does large scale vaccination.
The dramatic increase of lifespan started before.
I am not against modern medicine or anything (my dad was a doctor), but I believe that, since thousands of year and particularly in the last 200 years, increasing the lifespan has more to do with basic hygiene and drinkable [treated] water.
Penicillin came into play in 1928.
In 1900 the average life expectancy for a white male was 47 years...in 2000 it was 75...but sure, advancements in medicine have nothing to do with that...
herp derp....
In 1930, average life expectancy for a white male was 60 yo, that was BEFORE vaccins and penicillin. So from 47 (your number) to 60, that is a drastic improvement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin
"Penicillin was discovered in 1928 by Scottish scientist Alexander Fleming.[3] People began using it to treat infections in 1942."
Two different things.
Sulfonomide drugs were the first wave of antibiotics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfonamide_(medicine)0 -
WendyLeigh1119 wrote: »Eating meat daily is one thing. Eating red meat or pork for 5 of them is definitely unhealthy. If 5 days out of 7 are fish, chicken, and shellfish...huge difference.
I personally could never stomach eating meat more than 3 days per week, but that's because I'm mostly grossed out by it, not because I think it's deadly.
Yes, and if you eat fish more than 2 times a week you're going to lean towards a mercury problem more so than the problems red meat offers. None are very appealing.
About the b12 deficiency: B12 actually comes from soil. Meat used to have this naturally, but since most cows (and other lifestock) don't get to eat natural grass anymore and are mostly fed with modified soybeans they get it injected nowadays. vegan/vegetarian or not, you're getting your b12 from supplements.0 -
If you actually look at the recommendations, the diet that is being recommended contains meat, dairy, shellfish and other animal products. This is a case of a click bait article that is misrepresenting the facts.2
-
inkpoisonedsoul wrote: »If you actually look at the recommendations, the diet that is being recommended contains meat, dairy, shellfish and other animal products. This is a case of a click bait article that is misrepresenting the facts.
No *puppy* way - that never happens!
/sarcasm, in case it was missed2 -
GoldenEye_ wrote: »WendyLeigh1119 wrote: »Eating meat daily is one thing. Eating red meat or pork for 5 of them is definitely unhealthy. If 5 days out of 7 are fish, chicken, and shellfish...huge difference.
I personally could never stomach eating meat more than 3 days per week, but that's because I'm mostly grossed out by it, not because I think it's deadly.
Yes, and if you eat fish more than 2 times a week you're going to lean towards a mercury problem more so than the problems red meat offers. None are very appealing.
About the b12 deficiency: B12 actually comes from soil. Meat used to have this naturally, but since most cows (and other lifestock) don't get to eat natural grass anymore and are mostly fed with modified soybeans they get it injected nowadays. vegan/vegetarian or not, you're getting your b12 from supplements.
Untrue. B12 is only made by microorganisms. In ruminants, the B12 comes from the microflora in their guts and is dependent on cobalt in their diet.
http://www.agriking.com/importance-of-cobalt-to-beef-dairy-cattle1 -
inkpoisonedsoul wrote: »If you actually look at the recommendations, the diet that is being recommended contains meat, dairy, shellfish and other animal products. This is a case of a click bait article that is misrepresenting the facts.
So your telling me an article from a place calling itself "Organic Authority" is misrepresenting data and recommendations? I'm shocked. Shock I say.4 -
GoldenEye_ wrote: »WendyLeigh1119 wrote: »Eating meat daily is one thing. Eating red meat or pork for 5 of them is definitely unhealthy. If 5 days out of 7 are fish, chicken, and shellfish...huge difference.
I personally could never stomach eating meat more than 3 days per week, but that's because I'm mostly grossed out by it, not because I think it's deadly.
Yes, and if you eat fish more than 2 times a week you're going to lean towards a mercury problem more so than the problems red meat offers. None are very appealing.
About the b12 deficiency: B12 actually comes from soil. Meat used to have this naturally, but since most cows (and other lifestock) don't get to eat natural grass anymore and are mostly fed with modified soybeans they get it injected nowadays. vegan/vegetarian or not, you're getting your b12 from supplements.
Not necessarily...depends on the fish. I eat a lot of wild Alaskan salmon and wild Alaskan cod...both are pretty low mercury fish.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »GoldenEye_ wrote: »WendyLeigh1119 wrote: »Eating meat daily is one thing. Eating red meat or pork for 5 of them is definitely unhealthy. If 5 days out of 7 are fish, chicken, and shellfish...huge difference.
I personally could never stomach eating meat more than 3 days per week, but that's because I'm mostly grossed out by it, not because I think it's deadly.
Yes, and if you eat fish more than 2 times a week you're going to lean towards a mercury problem more so than the problems red meat offers. None are very appealing.
About the b12 deficiency: B12 actually comes from soil. Meat used to have this naturally, but since most cows (and other lifestock) don't get to eat natural grass anymore and are mostly fed with modified soybeans they get it injected nowadays. vegan/vegetarian or not, you're getting your b12 from supplements.
Not necessarily...depends on the fish. I eat a lot of wild Alaskan salmon and wild Alaskan cod...both are pretty low mercury fish.
Preach!2 -
GoldenEye_ wrote: »WendyLeigh1119 wrote: »Eating meat daily is one thing. Eating red meat or pork for 5 of them is definitely unhealthy. If 5 days out of 7 are fish, chicken, and shellfish...huge difference.
I personally could never stomach eating meat more than 3 days per week, but that's because I'm mostly grossed out by it, not because I think it's deadly.
Yes, and if you eat fish more than 2 times a week you're going to lean towards a mercury problem more so than the problems red meat offers. None are very appealing.
About the b12 deficiency: B12 actually comes from soil. Meat used to have this naturally, but since most cows (and other lifestock) don't get to eat natural grass anymore and are mostly fed with modified soybeans they get it injected nowadays. vegan/vegetarian or not, you're getting your b12 from supplements.
My understanding (at least for US cattle) is that many of them are raised on grazing (and forage) either in cow/calf operations or on land that is specifically dedicated to weaned animals. This will take up a good portion of their (rather short) life, maybe a year or so. Once they reach a certain weight (about 700 pounds), they then go to the feedlot for quick weight gain (6-8 months) prior to slaughter.
I don't know the exact percentages (perhaps there is someone with more expertise in this thread who can help with that), but a good portion of cows used for beef, at least in the US, are getting grass for a good portion of their lives.
Obviously everyone isn't from the US, I don't know how it works in other countries.1 -
[quote/]No *puppy* way - that never happens!
/sarcasm, in case it was missed[/quote]
Lol just wanted to make sure that people realize that the recommendations don't actually line up with the article's claim.
For a woman my age, I am recommended to have 5.5 oz of protein foods (including meat), 2.5 cups veggies, 2 cups fruit, 6 oz grains, 3 cups dairy, and 6 teaspoons oil. This is far from a plant based diet
0 -
So many experts in this thread; doctors, evolutionary biologists, archaeologists, nutritional historians, time travellers...
Who needs scientific journals when we have MFP forums, right?!2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GoldenEye_ wrote: »WendyLeigh1119 wrote: »Eating meat daily is one thing. Eating red meat or pork for 5 of them is definitely unhealthy. If 5 days out of 7 are fish, chicken, and shellfish...huge difference.
I personally could never stomach eating meat more than 3 days per week, but that's because I'm mostly grossed out by it, not because I think it's deadly.
Yes, and if you eat fish more than 2 times a week you're going to lean towards a mercury problem more so than the problems red meat offers. None are very appealing.
About the b12 deficiency: B12 actually comes from soil. Meat used to have this naturally, but since most cows (and other lifestock) don't get to eat natural grass anymore and are mostly fed with modified soybeans they get it injected nowadays. vegan/vegetarian or not, you're getting your b12 from supplements.
My understanding (at least for US cattle) is that many of them are raised on grazing (and forage) either in cow/calf operations or on land that is specifically dedicated to weaned animals. This will take up a good portion of their (rather short) life, maybe a year or so. Once they reach a certain weight (about 700 pounds), they then go to the feedlot for quick weight gain (6-8 months) prior to slaughter.
I don't know the exact percentages (perhaps there is someone with more expertise in this thread who can help with that), but a good portion of cows used for beef, at least in the US, are getting grass for a good portion of their lives.
Obviously everyone isn't from the US, I don't know how it works in other countries.
You aren't wrong. I have raised cattle and have family that still does and know lots of ranchers. Nobody raises cattle in a feed lot and many never see a feed lot. Feed lots are just to fatten them up before slaughter. The idea of raising cattle solely on feed is laughable to me. They eat a LOT. Even show stock are raised on pasture and feed is a supplement.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GoldenEye_ wrote: »WendyLeigh1119 wrote: »Eating meat daily is one thing. Eating red meat or pork for 5 of them is definitely unhealthy. If 5 days out of 7 are fish, chicken, and shellfish...huge difference.
I personally could never stomach eating meat more than 3 days per week, but that's because I'm mostly grossed out by it, not because I think it's deadly.
Yes, and if you eat fish more than 2 times a week you're going to lean towards a mercury problem more so than the problems red meat offers. None are very appealing.
About the b12 deficiency: B12 actually comes from soil. Meat used to have this naturally, but since most cows (and other lifestock) don't get to eat natural grass anymore and are mostly fed with modified soybeans they get it injected nowadays. vegan/vegetarian or not, you're getting your b12 from supplements.
My understanding (at least for US cattle) is that many of them are raised on grazing (and forage) either in cow/calf operations or on land that is specifically dedicated to weaned animals. This will take up a good portion of their (rather short) life, maybe a year or so. Once they reach a certain weight (about 700 pounds), they then go to the feedlot for quick weight gain (6-8 months) prior to slaughter.
I don't know the exact percentages (perhaps there is someone with more expertise in this thread who can help with that), but a good portion of cows used for beef, at least in the US, are getting grass for a good portion of their lives.
Obviously everyone isn't from the US, I don't know how it works in other countries.
I have raised cattle and have family that still does and know lots of ranchers. Nobody raises cattle in a feed lot and many never see a feed lot. Feed lots are just to fatten them up before slaughter. The idea of raising cattle solely on feed is laughable to me. They eat a LOT. Even show stock are raised on pasture and feed is a supplement.
That was what I thought, I appreciate you confirming it with your real world experience.1 -
So many experts in this thread; doctors, evolutionary biologists, archaeologists, nutritional historians, time travellers...
Who needs scientific journals when we have MFP forums, right?!
While I think that people should always clarify when they aren't a professional or expect, one of the things I enjoy about this place is that we have so many people here who are passionate about subjects and educating themselves on them. While it doesn't replace professional knowledge, a lot of people here *do* research the science and history behind things.2 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »GoldenEye_ wrote: »WendyLeigh1119 wrote: »Eating meat daily is one thing. Eating red meat or pork for 5 of them is definitely unhealthy. If 5 days out of 7 are fish, chicken, and shellfish...huge difference.
I personally could never stomach eating meat more than 3 days per week, but that's because I'm mostly grossed out by it, not because I think it's deadly.
Yes, and if you eat fish more than 2 times a week you're going to lean towards a mercury problem more so than the problems red meat offers. None are very appealing.
About the b12 deficiency: B12 actually comes from soil. Meat used to have this naturally, but since most cows (and other lifestock) don't get to eat natural grass anymore and are mostly fed with modified soybeans they get it injected nowadays. vegan/vegetarian or not, you're getting your b12 from supplements.
Untrue. B12 is only made by microorganisms. In ruminants, the B12 comes from the microflora in their guts and is dependent on cobalt in their diet.
http://www.agriking.com/importance-of-cobalt-to-beef-dairy-cattle
Not untrue. B12 is made by microorganisms that are mostly found, there you have it: in soil. High concentrations in the soil leads to high concentrations in, you guess it: cobalt in the plants that grow on this soil. In the article you yourself linked it says:
" Most forages and feedstuffs fed to dairy and beef animals do not contain adequate quantities of cobalt to support the rumen and animal requirements. Consequently supplemental cobalt must be added to beef and dairy rations."
What is cobalt? A necessary component in Vitamin B12.
So yes, it is a little more complicated than what I might have made it seem. Sorry for that.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions