Going Plant-Based is the New Prescription, Says Nation’s Leading Physicians
Replies
-
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.
It's dependend on the level you're comfortable eating. More than 2 portions of low mercury fish a week isn't recommended for pregnant or lactating women or children. For a healthy man or woman it can be more, but yeah.. Like I said, it's what you're comfortable with.0 -
I think you missed the part where I mentioned time travellers... Always seems to be a tough crowd here. Ah well.janejellyroll wrote: »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.
On a serious note, though, I would like to emphasise the difference between 'doing research' and doing actual scientific research in controlled laboratory conditions. I am sure you meant the latter, but it's a clarification I do always try to make where I can.1 -
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 would like to read more about this. Watching this thread in case someone does come with more information.0 -
I am one of those who cant be bothered with researching this. I believe (totally my own preconceptions) that the difference in age expectancy between someone who eats a totally plant based diet and someone who its the typical SAD diet would be negligible if all other factors are equal. Meaning genetics, environment, lifestyle and activity(exercise).2
-
I think you missed the part where I mentioned time travellers... Always seems to be a tough crowd here. Ah well.janejellyroll wrote: »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.
On a serious note, though, I would like to emphasise the difference between 'doing research' and doing actual scientific research in controlled laboratory conditions. I am sure you meant the latter, but it's a clarification I do always try to make where I can.
And you realize the linked story we're discussing is not a "scientific journal", just a non-scientific article published by "Organic Authority" citing cherry-picked research, some of which has been debunked (like the China Study)? This hasn't been a bunch of randos saying they know better than the accumulated knowledge of science. We are nitpicking a click-bait article skewed to a specific agenda. These forums are actually a pretty science-forward community.3 -
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.
They're assuredly "modern medicine", and the distinction between "lives saved" and "deaths prevented (OK,deferred)" is quite narrow, especially when it applies to one's own mortality.2 -
GoldenEye_ wrote: »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.
Yes, but B12≠cobalt, and supplementing the diet of animals with essential minerals is not the same as injecting animals with B12. B12 can be made my microbes in the soil, but ruminants get their B12 through the microbes in their digestive system. Humans also have B12 produced by the bacteria in their gut, but it's too late in the digestive system to be absorbed, so they must obtain it through dietary intake of B12 in some way.
0 -
I think you missed the part where I mentioned time travellers... Always seems to be a tough crowd here. Ah well.janejellyroll wrote: »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.
On a serious note, though, I would like to emphasise the difference between 'doing research' and doing actual scientific research in controlled laboratory conditions. I am sure you meant the latter, but it's a clarification I do always try to make where I can.
There is a difference, I was speaking in the more informal sense of "doing research on a topic" (usually consisting of reviewing the research of others).1 -
I know guys are busy arguing about whether or not you're gonna die for the disgusting amount of meat you eat, but I hear these guidelines and recall from recent reports that our American food system will not currently support these guidelines if more people were to suddenly start following them. Any thoughts on that?
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/09/19/441494432/the-u-s-doesnt-have-enough-of-the-vegetables-were-supposed-to-eat1 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »I know guys are busy arguing about whether or not you're gonna die for the disgusting amount of meat you eat, but I hear these guidelines and recall from recent reports that our American food system will not currently support these guidelines if more people were to suddenly start following them. Any thoughts on that?
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/09/19/441494432/the-u-s-doesnt-have-enough-of-the-vegetables-were-supposed-to-eat
My thought is that if Americans began buying more vegetables instead of meat, then some of the land currently dedicated to growing crops for livestock could be converted to vegetables. We have a huge amount of land dedicated to soybean and corn, much of this going to feed animals. And if Americans began buying more vegetables other than potatoes, tomatoes, and lettuce, some of the land for these crops would be converted over as well.
Generally, farmers want to grow what sells (I realize agricultural subsidies complicate that).1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »I know guys are busy arguing about whether or not you're gonna die for the disgusting amount of meat you eat, but I hear these guidelines and recall from recent reports that our American food system will not currently support these guidelines if more people were to suddenly start following them. Any thoughts on that?
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/09/19/441494432/the-u-s-doesnt-have-enough-of-the-vegetables-were-supposed-to-eat
My thought is that if Americans began buying more vegetables instead of meat, then some of the land currently dedicated to growing crops for livestock could be converted to vegetables. We have a huge amount of land dedicated to soybean and corn, much of this going to feed animals. And if Americans began buying more vegetables other than potatoes, tomatoes, and lettuce, some of the land for these crops would be converted over as well.
Generally, farmers want to grow what sells (I realize agricultural subsidies complicate that).
that's likely the case, but that would take a LIFETIME... and currently 87% of Americans arent eating enough vegetables. So I think we would be really hard pressed to feed everyone, if even a small percentage started shifting habits0 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »I know guys are busy arguing about whether or not you're gonna die for the disgusting amount of meat you eat, but I hear these guidelines and recall from recent reports that our American food system will not currently support these guidelines if more people were to suddenly start following them. Any thoughts on that?
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/09/19/441494432/the-u-s-doesnt-have-enough-of-the-vegetables-were-supposed-to-eat
My thought is that if Americans began buying more vegetables instead of meat, then some of the land currently dedicated to growing crops for livestock could be converted to vegetables. We have a huge amount of land dedicated to soybean and corn, much of this going to feed animals. And if Americans began buying more vegetables other than potatoes, tomatoes, and lettuce, some of the land for these crops would be converted over as well.
Generally, farmers want to grow what sells (I realize agricultural subsidies complicate that).
that's likely the case, but that would take a LIFETIME... and currently 87% of Americans arent eating enough vegetables. So I think we would be really hard pressed to feed everyone, if even a small percentage started shifting habits
I'm not a farmer, but why would it take a lifetime to convert some of the land currently used for soybeans or corn to other plants?
All 87% of Americans aren't going to switch all at once or at the same rate, so it's not like the change would have to be made all at once.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »I know guys are busy arguing about whether or not you're gonna die for the disgusting amount of meat you eat, but I hear these guidelines and recall from recent reports that our American food system will not currently support these guidelines if more people were to suddenly start following them. Any thoughts on that?
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/09/19/441494432/the-u-s-doesnt-have-enough-of-the-vegetables-were-supposed-to-eat
My thought is that if Americans began buying more vegetables instead of meat, then some of the land currently dedicated to growing crops for livestock could be converted to vegetables. We have a huge amount of land dedicated to soybean and corn, much of this going to feed animals. And if Americans began buying more vegetables other than potatoes, tomatoes, and lettuce, some of the land for these crops would be converted over as well.
Generally, farmers want to grow what sells (I realize agricultural subsidies complicate that).
that's likely the case, but that would take a LIFETIME... and currently 87% of Americans arent eating enough vegetables. So I think we would be really hard pressed to feed everyone, if even a small percentage started shifting habits
I'm not a farmer, but why would it take a lifetime to convert some of the land currently used for soybeans or corn to other plants?
All 87% of Americans aren't going to switch all at once or at the same rate, so it's not like the change would have to be made all at once.
Because the economic drivers that would precipitate such a change won't happen overnight and massive business transformations take a significant amount of time0 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »I know guys are busy arguing about whether or not you're gonna die for the disgusting amount of meat you eat, but I hear these guidelines and recall from recent reports that our American food system will not currently support these guidelines if more people were to suddenly start following them. Any thoughts on that?
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/09/19/441494432/the-u-s-doesnt-have-enough-of-the-vegetables-were-supposed-to-eat
My thought is that if Americans began buying more vegetables instead of meat, then some of the land currently dedicated to growing crops for livestock could be converted to vegetables. We have a huge amount of land dedicated to soybean and corn, much of this going to feed animals. And if Americans began buying more vegetables other than potatoes, tomatoes, and lettuce, some of the land for these crops would be converted over as well.
Generally, farmers want to grow what sells (I realize agricultural subsidies complicate that).
that's likely the case, but that would take a LIFETIME... and currently 87% of Americans arent eating enough vegetables. So I think we would be really hard pressed to feed everyone, if even a small percentage started shifting habits
I'm not a farmer, but why would it take a lifetime to convert some of the land currently used for soybeans or corn to other plants?
All 87% of Americans aren't going to switch all at once or at the same rate, so it's not like the change would have to be made all at once.
Because the economic drivers that would precipitate such a change won't happen overnight and massive business transformations take a significant amount of time
Exactly, because it would be happening gradually, we would never have a situation where 87% of Americans began eating the recommended amount of vegetables all at once. Agricultural decision-makers would have time to observe the market trends and make gradual adjustments. It wouldn't necessarily be a "massive" transformation all at once.
It would be a lot like the organic movement in agriculture, where decision-makers observe the increased profit opportunity and begin shifting their focus. If people in the 1970s had to consider supporting current organic sales with the land/animals currently in use, it would have been overwhelming. But it didn't happen like that, organic sales grew at a steady pace, to be sure, but it was a pace that could be sustained by making some changes each year.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »I know guys are busy arguing about whether or not you're gonna die for the disgusting amount of meat you eat, but I hear these guidelines and recall from recent reports that our American food system will not currently support these guidelines if more people were to suddenly start following them. Any thoughts on that?
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/09/19/441494432/the-u-s-doesnt-have-enough-of-the-vegetables-were-supposed-to-eat
My thought is that if Americans began buying more vegetables instead of meat, then some of the land currently dedicated to growing crops for livestock could be converted to vegetables. We have a huge amount of land dedicated to soybean and corn, much of this going to feed animals. And if Americans began buying more vegetables other than potatoes, tomatoes, and lettuce, some of the land for these crops would be converted over as well.
Generally, farmers want to grow what sells (I realize agricultural subsidies complicate that).
This seems right to me, as well as your points about it not taking that long and people not all changing at once.
There are a HUGE number of acres in rural Illinois and Iowa, for example (to just use states I know a little about), that are devoted to endless fields of soybeans and corn, soybeans and corn, that could be switched IF doing so were profitable.
This is interesting: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/
"Although U.S. corn is a highly productive crop, with typical yields between 140 and 160 bushels per acre, the resulting delivery of food by the corn system is far lower. Today’s corn crop is mainly used for biofuels (roughly 40 percent of U.S. corn is used for ethanol) and as animal feed (roughly 36 percent of U.S. corn, plus distillers grains left over from ethanol production, is fed to cattle, pigs and chickens). Much of the rest is exported. Only a tiny fraction of the national corn crop is directly used for food for Americans, much of that for high-fructose corn syrup."
and
"Between 2006 and 2011, the amount of cropland devoted to growing corn in America increased by more than 13 million acres, mainly in response to rising corn prices and the increasing demand for ethanol. Most of these new corn acres came from farms, including those that were growing wheat (which lost 2.9 million acres), oats (1.7 million acres lost), sorghum (1 million acres lost), barley, alfalfa, sunflower and other crops...."1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »I know guys are busy arguing about whether or not you're gonna die for the disgusting amount of meat you eat, but I hear these guidelines and recall from recent reports that our American food system will not currently support these guidelines if more people were to suddenly start following them. Any thoughts on that?
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/09/19/441494432/the-u-s-doesnt-have-enough-of-the-vegetables-were-supposed-to-eat
My thought is that if Americans began buying more vegetables instead of meat, then some of the land currently dedicated to growing crops for livestock could be converted to vegetables. We have a huge amount of land dedicated to soybean and corn, much of this going to feed animals. And if Americans began buying more vegetables other than potatoes, tomatoes, and lettuce, some of the land for these crops would be converted over as well.
Generally, farmers want to grow what sells (I realize agricultural subsidies complicate that).
This seems right to me, as well as your points about it not taking that long and people not all changing at once.
There are a HUGE number of acres in rural Illinois and Iowa, for example (to just use states I know a little about), that are devoted to endless fields of soybeans and corn, soybeans and corn, that could be switched IF doing so were profitable.
This is interesting: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/
"Although U.S. corn is a highly productive crop, with typical yields between 140 and 160 bushels per acre, the resulting delivery of food by the corn system is far lower. Today’s corn crop is mainly used for biofuels (roughly 40 percent of U.S. corn is used for ethanol) and as animal feed (roughly 36 percent of U.S. corn, plus distillers grains left over from ethanol production, is fed to cattle, pigs and chickens). Much of the rest is exported. Only a tiny fraction of the national corn crop is directly used for food for Americans, much of that for high-fructose corn syrup."
and
"Between 2006 and 2011, the amount of cropland devoted to growing corn in America increased by more than 13 million acres, mainly in response to rising corn prices and the increasing demand for ethanol. Most of these new corn acres came from farms, including those that were growing wheat (which lost 2.9 million acres), oats (1.7 million acres lost), sorghum (1 million acres lost), barley, alfalfa, sunflower and other crops...."
Yep, we switched it all to corn (relatively) quickly. We were not growing that much corn 100 years ago or even 50 years ago. We could, if we wanted to, switch some of it back.
2 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »GoldenEye_ wrote: »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.
Yes, but B12≠cobalt, and supplementing the diet of animals with essential minerals is not the same as injecting animals with B12. B12 can be made my microbes in the soil, but ruminants get their B12 through the microbes in their digestive system. Humans also have B12 produced by the bacteria in their gut, but it's too late in the digestive system to be absorbed, so they must obtain it through dietary intake of B12 in some way.
I know it isn't. It seems to be different in different countries and places. Some will be injected and some will be supplemented. Although I was talking about the first I went with your article because it also said lifestock doesn't get enough of the foods they would need to get what they need in a natural way; instead they need to be supplemented just like humans who don't eat meat or older people who do. It's not a bad thing per se in either case, it's just that they're both from sources that would not naturally occur. Not that it's a real issue anyway when you look at what kinds of unnatural stuff we put in our bodies with the 'as much and as quickly as possible' economy we live in today. It was just the topic at hand.0 -
Really? If not for medical procedures and medicine, sickness and illness would have easily reduced the population. I guarantee if vaccines were discontinued, we'd see a much higher death toll.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)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Lol, well someone needs to tell prison inmates that all the garbage they eat should be killing them off faster. For some reason, they don't have obesity issues and are out living their double digit incarceration sentences.I don't think that it is true for heart disease.
It doesn't matter what you think; it's a fact. http://www.health.com/health/condition-article/0,,20188499,00.html http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/HeartAttack/UnderstandYourRiskstoPreventaHeartAttack/Understand-Your-Risks-to-Prevent-a-Heart-Attack_UCM_002040_Article.jsp#.WUsYrnp1HRE
My grandmother is my n=1 example. She died of heart failure at 88 years old, with no other risk factors applying.
Bad interpretation.
People with bad habits will maintain their total cholesterol high, above 150 and damage their vascular system as they age.
If they did the right thing, it wouldn't be so.
Meet centenarian and retired heart surgeon Ellsworth Wareham, a vegan of 102yo.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2015/04/08/exp-human-factor-dr-ellsworth-wareham.cnn
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Really? If not for medical procedures and medicine, sickness and illness would have easily reduced the population. I guarantee if vaccines were discontinued, we'd see a much higher death toll.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)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
*This has been answered above.* Re-read.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions