I've been recently thinking how to better respond to inquisitive and open minded people that ask me about my diet, and I figure instead of trying to explain the whole raw thing, since it might be too much of a mental leap, a good stepping stone is to explain the benefits of a wholefood vegetarian diet. I recently bought this book, The China Study, and have a really good opinion of it, quite thorough and fun to read. It is supposed to be the most comprehensive nutritional study ever conducted, and it basically recommends a whole food, somewhat cooked vegetarian diet.

For those that have heard about it, what did you think?

Any suggestions on how to change paradigms in people that ask you about health and diet?

cheers,
J

i just say

I eat what i like

that's it

little do they know that i favor parsley best ( ha ha!!)

sometimes i just keep my mouth shut and strangely enough
a LOT of people have ordered salads at restaurants just after i've ordered a salad
and i know that ain't their typical fare

if they say "why do u eat that way"

i just say " I LIKE IT"

gotta admit

its prettty hard to argue with

hee heee

its true

i like it
i like it
i likes it
me luvvvs it!!!

wanna argue with me?

huh?

heh hehhhhh!!

I am 5 months into raw so I have been asked about it a lot. Everyone I know is curious. I have found if I start by saying I eat uncooked food and nothing from an animal then focus on how much better I feel and all the benefits of eating this way. If they are really interested they will ask questions. I will then tell them more about what I don't eat. I think unless someone has searched for and made some steps toward a healthy lifestyle already, they seem overwhelmed by raw. Most people say 'I could never do that.' I usually do say back to them "never say never.'

I borrowed it from the library but there was so much to read, didn't have enough time and it was on hold by several others so I couldn't renew.

I ended up buying my own copy. It really should be on every vegatarian/vegan/raw fooder's bookshelf.

The China Study shows a large percentage plant food diet is superior to a large percentage animal food diet but it doesn't show a vegetarian diet is superior to a diet with say 1-5% animal products.

Therefore it's not particularly useful for promoting veganism.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2007 11:36PM by Narz.

Campbell has been criticized for misrepresenting the data. I think it would be better to look at the data and see which measures did and did not reach statistical significance rather than to rely on what he says about it (or worse, what his son wrote in a popular book).

You can find the data here:

Chen, Campbell, Li, Peto, Diet, life-style and mortality in China. A study of the characteristics of 65 Chinese counties, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990.

I haven't read it so I can't respond to the criticisms. But I did read some of his other works, including this one, which is free online:

Am J Clin Nutr. 1994 May;59(5 Suppl):1153S-1161S.

Diet and chronic degenerative diseases: perspectives from China.

* Campbell TC,
* Junshi C.

Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.

A comprehensive ecologic survey of dietary, life-style, and mortality characteristics of 65 counties in rural China showed that diets are substantially richer in foods of plant origin when compared with diets consumed in the more industrialized, Western societies. Mean intakes of animal protein (about one-tenth of the mean intake in the United States as energy percent), total fat (14.5% of energy), and dietary fiber (33.3 g/d) reflected a substantial preference for foods of plant origin. Mean plasma cholesterol concentration, at approximately 3.23-3.49 mmol/L, corresponds to this dietary life-style. The principal hypothesis under investigation in this paper is that chronic degenerative diseases are prevented by an aggregate effect of nutrients and nutrient-intake amounts that are commonly supplied by foods of plant origin. The breadth and consistency of evidence for this hypothesis was investigated with multiple intake-biomarker-disease associations, which were appropriately adjusted. There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn, with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality rates.

PMID: 8172116 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

I did read his China Study book, and I'd rather read real data than popular diet books is about all I can say about that.

Regarding people's paradigms, I think it's easier to change a person's religion than his or her diet. People think my diet habits are strange but I find their choices repulsive. Intelligent discourse is a possibility when others are at least somewhat informed but if they are completely ignorant, it is impossible.

The people we CAN change we WILL change and those that we CAN'T change we WON'T change - and we don't get to decide who is who. At least that's been my experience.

I've always tried to keep it very simple. I have a neice, son, cousin, 2 friends that have all become either veg. or vegan because of my influence. But my influence wouldn't have meant a thing if they hadn't been open minded, reasonable, self honest, strong enough to look at the truth, etc. I don't set out to "get" anyone to change - I just don't hide who I am and what I believe. Sometime's there's a fine line between being "out there - honest and open & being overly "in your face". I try really hard to walk that line. My experience has been that while I was talking to one person, someone else on the sidelines was listening to what I was saying. Usually the person on the sidelines was the one to become veg. or vegan.

I believe that our example is more important than anything we say. Angry people don't inspire others so well. Our feelings toward animals is part of a larger peace movement and it's hard to have any moral authority when we're angry. Happy, joyous and free is very attractive! Be vegan, be raw, be healthy and be mighty darn happy about it all! That wins people.

Life Is Good!

alive!

1-5% animal product is still better than >5% animal product, I would imagine.
I know plenty of people who probably eat too much meat.

ThomasLantern Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1-5% animal product is still better than >5%
> animal product, I would imagine.
> I know plenty of people who probably eat too much
> meat.


I agree, but whether 0% animal products is superior to 1-5% animal products is still up for debate.

I think it's better in some ways (more efficient, less exposure to fat-solubles that bioaccumulate with successive trophic levels, less exposure to animal flesh/bone/blood/marrow-borne diseases, less body odor) and worse in others (one must supplement, do we really know what all is required, etc.).

Since there isn't any definitive answer, you go by what is in your heart, your mind, and how you feel. But don't go thinking that 5% is deadly poison, far from it. You choose 0 because you want to, not because you need it for optimal health.

Too late to edit the message above, but I would also add one other advantage to veganism: reduced intake of methionine. Methionine is one of the essential sulfur amino acids. Animal proteins tend to be high in methionine, while plant proteins tend to be lower in methionine.

Many studies have shown life extension and protection from cancers with methionine restriction in lab animals. One reason why might be because methionine is very prone to oxidation (damage). Methionine restriction also decreases mitochondrial oxygen radical generation and leak as well as oxidative damage to mitochondrial DNA and proteins.

We aren't sure how (or if) this will also work in humans. My guess is that it does. But nobody knows the best way to implement it. Another guess of mine: get an adequate (according to WHO/FAO) but not excessive intake. A prudent raw vegan diet would get enough methionine, but not too much. Most flesh, egg, and/or dairy eaters would get a lot more.

It is an interesting question: how does one get enough B12, DHA, D, and retinol without getting too much methionine?

I think in the end, we pick our poison. Nothing is perfect and we are all taking gambles in one way or another.

I think that "The China Study" does a great job of explaining why veganism is healthiest for humans. I've given several copies to people.

I recently heard about a DVD called "Eating" (www.ravediet.com) that supposedly does a great job of promoting veganism. I haven't seen it yet, but it looks really good. I purchased a copy since I am always looking for great products to help promote veganism to mainstream folks. After I watch it, I'll report back and let everyone here know.

All the best,

Audrey
www.rawhealing.com

Hey, thanks for the feedback everyone. I agree that being positive and generally happy will make a big impression on people, which they might relate to diet. I remember when I first started looking into raw foods (and I still do!), vegetarianism, etc... I was interested in knowing more techinical details about how it works out, all the good reasons to do it, making sensible eating choices, etc... I think for me it took a certain amount of scientific argument to convince myself of things that had been somehow programmed into me growing up, as someone living in todays society will generally tend to be.

I do think it is important to check things out first hand, and not just read what someone else writes about it, but of course there is always a compromise to be made in all walks of life. I think I read somewhere that the original china study technical paper is 896 pages or something, and most people probably aren't prepared or technically educated enough to read it for themselves, so these kind of books are really useful for general purposes I think.

As to what percentage of animal foods is "optimal" for health purposes, I'm not sure exactly how that will ever be determined. However, Campbell himself says in the abstract of the above listed paper that "There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn, with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality rates."

Of course, there are many nutrients which have yet to be discovered, and some might worry that not consuming animal products might make them miss out, but perhaps there are just as equally undiscovered human physiological systems that can accomodate and in fact work optimally without these "nutrients". What seems to be true to me is this idea of acid:alkaline balance and the whole philosophy of looking at "disease" as being caused more by internal environmental factors rather than inherent characteristics of genes, bacteria and/or viruses.

I think it's important, for the time being, for someone who is totally vegan to take a modest amount of B12, a little sunshine and a good variety of food so to meet RDAs.

Cheers,
J

I'd like to add that I really appreciated his insights on the flaws of the Nurses' Health study and the Womens' Health Trial with regards to scientific reductionism gone mad. I think his ratio of plant protein to animal protein in a diet as an indicator of disease makes a lot of sense, and agree that modifying the intake of one nutrient at a time, without questioning whole dietary patterns, does not confer significant health benefits. He also seems to be very much against supplements, and judges them ineffective at best, which I would agree with. I also found very insightful his revelations regarding the inner workings of industry, government and science with regards to nutrition research, and how it is as corrupt as one can imagine. It is sad to see how science is being manipulated by some special interest groups.

Hope we all do our best to spread the vital information we know to those around us.

Cheers,
J

There is a great debate called "The Protein Debate" with T. Colin Campbell PhD and Loren Cordain, PhD, discussing particularly Campbell's "The China Study" claims. You can easily find it on the web.

Blissed be, Annie

Anne Kaspar
BodyByBliss.com
bodybybliss@gmail.com
505.690.0169

Narz: You are SOooo BAD! , With the.. Wanna argue thing... :0)

I Love it

Debate.. A little bit like a statistics. If conducted right can prove ANYTHING..

So as far as: 1-5% is it better/healthy etc, so on..
I say: Give me poison and i will find a proportions and set proportions at which intake of it Will NOT KILL YOU.. but possibly make you sick and give me a LOTS of causes to heal.(..)

Now, in whose interest is to recommend a certain amount of "poison" telling that it is healthy, in order to be able to sell anti poison..?

Certainly IF EVER that book will become main stream, and change RDA levels, and Diary/ meat recommendations, than who will loose: the one will strive hardest to oppose it, that's obvious. It's that simple.

And WILL 1-5% meat or Milk Improve in ANY WAY My Health..???

Obviously that will NEVER be proved, as opposite had already been done(ad confirmed). does it make ANY sense to You, that: if large quantities of milk cause osteoporosis small amounts will CURE it..? As LIFE SHOWS IT. USA HAS greatest problem with osteoporosis amongst citizens, and BIGGEST food businesses are: Diary/Meat..

Do You see there.., anywhere Apple Business.. ?

It's NOT Quantity it's QUALITY that counts.
WE(humans) Have small stomach, and absorbing of Quantity is NOT POSSIBLE! Without damage elsewhere being done, Therefore it's QUALITY That should count as well in health, as energy departament..not to mention LIFE CHOICES..

The debate is quite educational, not meant to be THE ANSWER. Think we all know there is NO ANSWER. There is only that which WORKS FOR EACH OF US PERSONALLY. After all, each person's DNA is VERY different, so how could there be ONE answer?

"The Protein Debate" is important if you are reading "The China Study."


Blissed be, Annie

Anne Kaspar
BodyByBliss.com
bodybybliss@gmail.com
505.690.0169

Great book. Loved it. However, I love to give away pay-it-forward copies of The Rave Diet. This is a great dvd from [www.ravediet.com]. If you watch it it will tell you what you already know. That is that a plant-based diet is not only healing but the best diet in the world. After they get finished pointing out how you're poisoning yourself, which is done gently, they get around to factory farming, fish farms, rivers and oceans being polluted by runoff from factory farms and everything most people don't want to know about where their foods came from. Virtually everyone I have given this video to has either gone vegetarian, vegan or atleast started to look at their food differently. The good thing is that they never tease me about my diet after watching this movie. It's that incredible!

Marcos

Go Vegan for your life, your health, the planet and, most importantly, the animals that we share this wonderful world with!