Extremism vs. Moderation (was Re: Insulin resistance etc)

[Guest guest]

>> " () says that all protein should be from plant

sources " .............

I have made this comment before and I think it was to the same person

and will repost it here...

>>Do I misunderstand you?

Maybe

" No lower limit " to me means that within the levels of animal product

consumption, those who ate the least animal protein were the healthiest,

when comparing the differing levels, no exception.

I would rather use the exact numbers, but I don?t have them handy right

now, so, I will try to explain this way...

for example, if he split the 6500 people into 5 groups based on animal

protein consumption, with group one being the lowest and group 5 being

the highest, and that group 4 did better than 5 and 3 better than 4, and

2 better than 3, and 1 better than 2, you get his conclusion. The lower

the better with no lower limit.

But, remember there was no group representing " 0 " consumption. So, he

may assume it is would be better, and may state that it may be better,

but there is no proof of it being better And while it may seem logical,

it still isn't proven.

As other have said, what if there is a nutrient (or two) that you do get

from animal protein, that is often missed by poorly planned vegan diets

(EPA, DHA, B12, Zinc, to name a few). Too much animal protein equates

to too much saturated fat, and or cholesterol and maybe displaces other

healthier foods, so, too much is clearly no good, and less is better.

But maybe there is a threshold that while he (and others) may " assume "

no lower limit, maybe there is one. Other data (and quite a bit of it

much of it has been posted here) often suggests that those who include a

small amount of fish, do better than does who don?t.

Also, often times in studies, you see a " j " curve, as in BMI, where

below a certain limit, things change. So, I joked about BMI, but in

reality, it is true. Less is better but too little is dangerous.

Clearly too much animal protein is unhealthy and less is better. But,

where is the evidence that none is best.

So, the comment is just a comment, and, may actually not exist in the

published papers, but is often stated by him. So, it may just be his

interpretation.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

>>In fact *fish*, in study after study, and time and time again, has

been shown to be just about the best source of protein that one can

ingest. IIRC both Ornish and Pritikin have put fish into their diets.

One additional note..

Ornish originally only allowed some non fat dairy in his program. He

has now added in " fish oil " for most everyone. Pritikin has always

" allowed " 3.5 oz of animal protein a day and recommends fish as the

better choice.

Part of the problem with " vegan " science, is there are no vegan

populations to study other than those who self select the diet. There

has never been a " vegan " population throught out time that I know of.

When you look at differing surveys of these 'self selected " groups, many

people " say " there are vegetarian or vegan and the numbers have risen,

but when you look at actual food intakes, very few consume no animal

products, much less than " claim " to be vegetarian or vegan. As a

former VP of one of the larger vegan groups, we did a survey once and

found that very few admitted to eating " no " animal products ever.

If we are in this for health (and sanity and science and logic), than we

need to find the diet that is the healthiest. And, if it means

abandoning limiting belief systems, that so be it.

So, if you are vegan, and there is the " possible " issue of B12 and than

the " possible " issue of zinc, and the " possible " issue of protein, and

the " possible " issue of Vit D, and the " possible " issue of EPA and DHA

and the " possible " issue of...........

.....Is this natural? Is it healthy? And, either way,... if eating a

small piece of fish a few times a week solves them all, well than.......

Jeff

You also recently posted this:

/message/19047

which was quite alarming.

In response, Tony posted this:

/message/19056

And Rodney posted this:

/message/19055

We do not advocate extremism or semi-starvation here. It's dangerous.

on 6/14/2005 5:21 PM, drsusanforshey at drsusanforshey@... wrote:

> Francesca, Tony and I have been communicating off-list on this, and I

> wouldn't call his comments " refutations " , they are more " concerns "

> than anything.

>

> I've read everything Dr. Walford has published but this is a work in

> progress is it not?

>

> As I said the big picture starting to emerge for me is less animal,

> less protein, less fat and more complex carbs (leafy greens ala Jeff

> Novick). That's what is coming into focus for me. Do you disagree?

[Guest guest]

>>Why is fish one of the best sources of protein?

I dont think it is nor do I know of any evidence that it is.

>How is the protein in fish better than say spinach or lima beans, or even

better yet a large

salad of mixed greens and lugumes?

It isnt and I covered that last october on this list in detail. My

recommendation for including fish was not about the protein but, as I said,

about the EPA and DHA, which, there are virtually no known plant sources of.

>>Jeff's advice of only a small piece of fish (3.5 ounces) several times

per week is almost a vegan diet.

Almost only counts in horseshoes!

A vegan diet includes no animal protein. It may be semantics, but that was also

my point in my last post... dont get hung up in " tittles " like " vegan " ,

" vegetarian " or whatever, make the choices that are the healthiest and help you

achieve your goal, regardless of the tittle.

If your goal is optimal health than optimal health should be the criteria you

evaluate food choices on. If your goal is to be a vegan and have optimal

health, and you come to a crossroads where you realize you have to make

food/dietary choose between being a vegan and optimal health,

than...............

>Jeff's advice seems to be consistent with 's research, unless I've

missed something, and with my comments that less animal products and more plant

sources of nutrition

is better.

Right, so the problems isnt s research or the other research, its how he

interprets it and promotes it and how you interpret it and promote it.

There is " no " research on long lived vegan populations nor did campbells

reseacrh include any " vegan " groups.

They are assumptions.

Rgeards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

You yourself posted this 2 weeks ago extolling the virtues of fish :

/message/18840

If you don't want to heed the advice of our more esteemed members (who try

to back up their statements with solid scientific evidence), of course

that's your call. But when you post to a public forum, and your evidence is

called into question, we expect you to take that into consideration in

future posts.

And when you post to the group with troubling information such as your

alarming stats, you leave yourself open to comments.

We have an entire file devoted to why your path sounds dangerous.

on 6/15/2005 7:47 AM, drsusanforshey at drsusanforshey@... wrote:

> Why is fish one of the best sources of protein? How is the protein in

> fish better than say spinach or lima beans, or even better yet a large

> salad of mixed greens and lugumes?

>

> Jeff's advice of only a small piece of fish (3.5 ounces) several times

> per week is almost a vegan diet. Jeff's advice seems to be consistent

> with 's research, unless I've missed something, and with my

> comments that less animal products and more plant sources of nutrition

> is better.

>

> With regard to the comments by the others, I disagree with Tony's

> lower limit of 14% bodyfat for women. I think it may be too high, too

> " safe " so personally I'm going lower. I'm not telling you too.

>

> Rodney's analysis is also inaccurate; I have no clue where he came up

> with the figure 5'6 " for my height? Never have I mentioned or posted

> my height on this list, which by the way is a tad over 6 foot. I'm

> very long and lanky and small boned.

>

> But this has no relevance to 's research which was the point

> of my post so I have no idea why it was mentioned in the first place.

>

>

>>

>>> Francesca, Tony and I have been communicating off-list on this, and I

>>> wouldn't call his comments " refutations " , they are more " concerns "

>>> than anything.

>>>

>>> I've read everything Dr. Walford has published but this is a work in

>>> progress is it not?

>>>

>>> As I said the big picture starting to emerge for me is less animal,

>>> less protein, less fat and more complex carbs (leafy greens ala Jeff

>>> Novick). That's what is coming into focus for me. Do you disagree?

[Guest guest]

Hi :

> Why is fish one of the best sources of protein?

ANSWER: Principally because of the OTHER things it contains, which

are difficult to get enough of from other sources.

-------------

> Jeff's advice of only a small piece of fish (3.5 ounces) several

> times per week is almost a vegan diet.

ANSWER: That is like being almost pregnant or almost unique.

Either you are pregant or you aren't. Either something is unique or

it isn't. Either you are a vegan or you are not. This is not just a

trivial definitional issue. It is a major health concern. If you

are a vegan then getting the appropriate amount of a variety of

nutrients becomes a very much more difficult task. But whether you

become a vegan or not is, of course, your call.

--------------------

> Jeff's advice seems to be consistent with 's research,

> unless I've missed something, and with my comments that less

> animal products and more plant sources of nutrition is better.

ANSWER: What you appear to have missed is the archives here. This

is an issue (vegetable consumption) that has been endlessly discussed

on this page for years, and about which there is very general

agreement.

----------------------------

> With regard to the comments by the others, I disagree with Tony's

> lower limit of 14% bodyfat for women. I think it may be too high,

> too " safe " so personally I'm going lower. I'm not telling you too.

ANSWER: I disagree with your apparently cavalier attitude to the

risk that you may do irreversible damage to your health by going to

extremes - in total caloric intake; in the proportion of it supplied

by protein; in getting all the micronutrients you need; and no doubt

in other respects also about which I am unaware. But of course it is

your call.

----------------------------

> Rodney's analysis is also inaccurate; I have no clue where he came

> up with the figure 5'6 " for my height?

ANSWER: I didn't say your height is 5' 6 " . I noted that " here are

some numbers for a person who is 5' 6 " in height " . They were given

as an example of what a WC/H of 0.33 means in practical terms. Now

that I know your height I can definitively tell you that for you a

WC/H of 0.33 implies a waist diameter of 7.6 inches - just 0.6 inches

more than the 7 inches I quoted to you in that post for someone 5' 6 "

tall. A seven point six inch waist diameter still seems incredibly

small (dangerous?) to me. But of course it is your call.

-----------------------------

With regard to Dr. I am stunned that you can read one book

by someone hardly anyone has ever heard of (I had once seen a

reference to him previously), who as far as I know has no credentials

in caloric restriction (THE issue here), fall for it hook line and

sinker, and on the strength of it decide you probably should: A)

become a vegan; drop your waist diameter to 7.6 " ; and C) drop

your protein intake to perhaps 7% of calories, AND AT THE SAME TIME

dismiss Roy Walford, the individual widely acknowledged to be

probably THE world's leading expert in caloric restriction with a

remark to the effect that " his stuff is a work in progress " .

ALL nutrition research is a work in progress. There is very little

that is settled in nutrition science beyond the sources of calories

and the identity of many of the essential micronutrients.

But look, it is good to have you here. We need more canaries as

leading indicators. Or, using an aviation metaphor, pilots who are

prepared to fly towards the boundary of the envelope having no clear

idea where the boundary lies, and, at least in the case of aviation,

with death lurking immediately on the other side of the boundary.

Please keep us updated about your WC/H, and the percent of calories

you are getting from protein, and the type of protein also. And

whether or not you are eating any animal-based foods. And keep us up

to date with your general state of health - not the details, just

excellent; good; OK; not so good; or poor. It will be very valuable

to us here.

And who knows it may turn out that you are the trail blazer who gets

it all right and lives to be 160.

Sincerely, I wish you success in your nutrition endeavors, but I

personally think you should be more careful.

Rodney.