Going Vegan for at least a week...advice?

bootsie wrote:

Americans eat far too much protein, which stresses the kidneys, and in all likelihood, contributes to the astronomical rates of osteoporosis we have here.

Three incorrect statements right there.

FACTS:

1) Protein intake in humans is POSITIVELY CORRELATED with strong bones and NEGATIVELY ASSOCIATED with osteoporosis.

2) Dietary protein, even in huge amounts, does not harm healthy kidneys.

3) Americans do not eat "too much" protein; certainly they eat less than enough to optimize health and athletic performance.

Animal sources of protein, incidentally, are VASTLY superior to plant sources. The most popular vegan source, btw--soy--is TOXIC to human beings if consumed in any appreciable amounts.

meat is healthy wrote:

Three incorrect statements right there.

FACTS:

1) Protein intake in humans is POSITIVELY CORRELATED with strong bones and NEGATIVELY ASSOCIATED with osteoporosis.

2) Dietary protein, even in huge amounts, does not harm healthy kidneys.

3) Americans do not eat "too much" protein; certainly they eat less than enough to optimize health and athletic performance.

Animal sources of protein, incidentally, are VASTLY superior to plant sources. The most popular vegan source, btw--soy--is TOXIC to human beings if consumed in any appreciable amounts.

Uh. You are wrong.

And please explain why animal proteins are "vastly superior" to plant proteins. You stating in several times doesn't make it true.

bootsie wrote:

Well, I never actually suggested that one eat only carrots... merely that the notion that protein is only found in animal sources is absurd. If anything, Americans eat far too much protein, which stresses the kidneys, and in all likelihood, contributes to the astronomical rates of osteoporosis we have here. You are correct that athletes need more protein than non-athletes, but it's incredibly easy to get a varied number of proteins from non-animal sources. I've been doing it for 20 years, run everything from 800 meters through the marathon.... no major injuries or illnesses. I ain't that fast, but that's not a fault of my diet.

Does the typical American really consume too much protein? Because I would think the typical American also consumes far too many carbohydrates. Then again, with nearly 35% of Americans being obese, I would venture to say the typical American just consumes too much food in general.

In addition, I don't think an educated competitive runner can be considered a "typical" American.

Really, I don't mean to rag on you. But... More from Berardi:

A few original studies demostrated when protein intake was raised to 140-225g/day excess calcium was lost from urine at a faster rate than normal. However, in these studies, calcium and phosphorus intake was restricted and not allowed to increase in proportion to protein intake.

Since whole-food protein sources contain calcium and phosphorus, it only makes since that increases in protein intake are typically accompanied by increased dietary calcium and phosphorus. In this context, the research has demonstrated that consuming additional protein results in a positive calcium balance and there are no adverse affects on bone calcuim content.

Well, I agree with you there... Americans definitely do consume too much food, period. I suppose we could separate this argument between "Americans" and "runners" and have two different discussions. That said, please take a quick look at the link I posted above regarding protein consumption and calcium levels.

bootsie wrote:

Uh. You are wrong.

http://www.nwhealth.edu/healthyU/eatWell/protein_1.html

And please explain why animal proteins are "vastly superior" to plant proteins. You stating in several times doesn't make it true.

The link makes claims that are not supported by evidence. What are you attempting to rebut? If you are going to make claims unsupported by reality, perhaps your next post should include a link to

Re protein. Knock yourself out:

bootsie wrote:

Well, I agree with you there... Americans definitely do consume too much food, period. I suppose we could separate this argument between "Americans" and "runners" and have two different discussions. That said, please take a quick look at the link I posted above regarding protein consumption and calcium levels.

Yes, but you are wrong.

"Protein supplements significantly reduced bone loss in elderly hip-fracture patients in a study in which both the protein and control groups received supplemental calcium. In an observational study, total protein intake was positively associated with favorable 3-y changes in femoral neck and total body bone mineral density in volunteers who received supplemental calcium citrate malate and vitamin D, but not in volunteers taking placebos."

"Of concern are several recent epidemiologic studies that demonstrate reduced bone density and increased rates of bone loss in individuals habitually consuming low-protein diets."

"In conclusion, under controlled conditions, a high meat compared with a low meat diet for 8 wk did not affect calcium retention or biomarkers of bone metabolism in healthy postmenopausal women. Calcium retention is not reduced when subjects consume a high protein diet from common dietary sources such as meat."

meat is healthy wrote:

Re protein. Knock yourself out:

http://www.jssm.org/vol3/n3/2/v3n3-2pdf.pdf

Thanks for posting that. You helped to prove my point. In this article, they clearly state that combined vegetable proteins are an excellent source and have numerous additional health benefits and none of the negative effects that are associated with animal proteins. Additionally, they never state conclusively that high animal proteins DON'T cause calcium loss... they come to the conclusion that there is conflicting evidence. The biggest long-term study that was done on this was the Harvard nurses study, which I suggest you investigate:

You'll note that I never advocated a low-protein diet. I'm of the opinion that roughly 30 percent of your daily intake of calories should be from protein sources, which is consistent with mainstream dietary advice.

Also, an 8 week study is not nearly enough to ascertain long-term effects of a certain diet (unless you go to extremes a la "supersize me." Again, I'd reference the Harvard Nurses Study for a much more scientifically sound long-term study of the effects of animal protein consumption.

bootsie wrote:

meat is healthy wrote:

Re protein. Knock yourself out:

http://www.jssm.org/vol3/n3/2/v3n3-2pdf.pdf

Thanks for posting that. You helped to prove my point. In this article, they clearly state that combined vegetable proteins are an excellent source and have numerous additional health benefits and none of the negative effects that are associated with animal proteins. Additionally, they never state conclusively that high animal proteins DON'T cause calcium loss... they come to the conclusion that there is conflicting evidence. The biggest long-term study that was done on this was the Harvard nurses study, which I suggest you investigate:

http://www.4alw.com/liquid-calcium/nurses.htm

And now I will steer you back to reality.

1) Vegetable proteins remain inferior to animal proteins.

2) The nurses study you cited was an associational study. Association is not causation. The Japanese smoke more than Americans and live longer, but smoking does not increase lifespan. Associations, however, can prompt better studies, which look to see if there is an actual causative mechanism at work. Studies on dietary protein and bone health consistently show that high animal protein intake improves bone health (This is not surprising, as bone is of course partly composed of proteins!). You willfully avoid acknowledging this fact because your dietary beliefs are of a religious, not rational nature. Rebutting your claims with real-world evidence is unlikely to convince you that vegan diets are profoundly unhealthy; only your own experience of being sick, weak, depressed, hungry and tired is likely to eventually prompt a reappraisal after years of damage.

BTW, the dietary protein with the most profound health benefits that we currently know about is whey. The anti-cancer properties and cardiovascular benefits are currently the subject of much study.

Whatever your diet, make sure it as soy-free as possible:

http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/index.html

1) Again, it doesn't matter how many times you state "vegetable proteins remain inferior to animal proteins." Neither the number of repetitions, nor the volume at which they are spoken, have anything to do with whether the assertion is true or not (ref: george bush/weapons of mass destruction). While animal proteins might have certain advantages like complete amino acids, they also have disadvantages, like high levels of saturated fats and cholesterol, no fiber, not to mention traces of antibiotics, growth hormones, steroids, e.coli., mad cow disease, etc. If we are to come to a conclusion about the overall merits of a protein source, we must not just look at the positive benefits, but also take into consideration the negative characteristics as well. If we do this, we find that combined vegetable proteins are superior to animal proteins because they match the positives, but have none of the negatives.

2) This is not the only "associational" study that has been done, but it is the most comprehensive one. There are other listed here:

and you can spare me the ad hominem attacks.. yes, I know it's a PETA site, but I only used the link to provide secondary into to the referenced studies. I would like to see an "associational" study from you that states that increased dairy consumption causes long-term positive benefits in bone density (and by a study, I don't mean something from the American Dairy Coucil... I mean peer-reviewed, legitimate studies). You did give me a good dose of humor though, by insinuating that my diet is due to religious beliefs. Where the hell did you get THAT one? I'm an atheist. My dietary choices evolved after years of studying the negative impact that a meat-centered diet has on our planet, our bodies, and on the animals involved... rational conclusions. What's irrational is buying into the corporate B.S. that comes from these industries (i.e.."milk, it does a body good...etc...). Skepticism is the very bedrock of rational thought, my friend. And as far as being sick, weak, depressed, or hungry... that's got nothing to do with me. I run about 50 miles a week, am pretty damn happy with my life, take in plenty of calories to keep me going, and haven't had any sort of illness (even a cold) in years. In fact, I'm the only person in my house (there's 5 of us) who HASN'T gotten sick this fall.. and they're all meat-eaters. I don't know where you got the notion that all vegans are pasty and sickly, but it's not true... That's like stating that all Republicans are gun-toting, gay hating, war-mongering, greedy money grubbers. Stereotypes, my friend.. stereotypes. I know a lot of meat eaters who are corpulent and sickly, but the herbivores I know are nearly all very healthy.

Go eat at an ethiopean restaurant.

will you find gluten? no

will you find meat? yes in stews, but not as center of attention.

will you find beans? yes

will you find fruits? not sure

will you find green vegetables? yes

will you find dairy? not sure

meat is healthy wrote:

Whatever your diet, make sure it as soy-free as possible:

http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/index.html

Ha ha ha....Weston A. Price *bent over from laughing*..... nice try.

and probably the best debunking:

NTHXC wrote:

Since whole-food protein sources contain calciumand phosphorus, it only makes since that increases in protein intake are typically accompanied by increased dietary calcium and phosphorus. In this context, the research has demonstrated that consuming additional protein results in a positive calcium balance and there are no adverse affects on bone calcuim content.

You are kidding about the calcium, thing, right? Aren't beef, chicken, and turkey "whole-food" protein sources ? Of course. And unless you are consuming the bone, they have no appreciable calcium content. Now of course if you are talking about milk, that is a different story. But milk really is the exception here. Meat has very little calcium.

So if this high protein intake is largely from meat, one will NOT cocomitantly increase calcium intake as your author states. One would be needing to consume a great deal of milk. However, even if consuming milk, one might still be losing calcium.

The below quote supports what I am saying -

(taken from the following article: "Calcium, Dairy Products, and Bone Health in Children and Young Adults: A Reevaluation of the Evidence. Pediatrics 2005;115;736-743. Amy Joy Lanou, Susan E. Berkow and Neal D. Barnard)

" Dietary protein, including that from dairy products,

influences calcium balance. An adequate protein

intake is important for supporting bone growth

in children20 and maintaining bone mass in older

adults.21,22 However, increasing intake of dietary

protein, particularly animal protein, is associated

with increased urinary calcium losses23 that may result in increased bone resorption24 or increased fracture.25 In metabolic studies, doubling protein intake produces an 50% increase in urinary calcium.26 Approximately 6 mg of dietary calcium is theoretically required to offset the urinary calcium loss associated with 1 g of protein.27 "

So to suggest that there is no issue with very high protein intake, especially from meat, and potential calcium loss, is not true. There is indeed a concern there.

bootsie wrote:

[ I would like to see an "associational" study from you that states that increased dairy consumption causes long-term positive benefits in bone density (and by a study, I don't mean something from the American Dairy Coucil... I mean peer-reviewed, legitimate studies). .

Is this peer-reviewed review article good enough for you:

J Am Coll Nutr. 2009 Feb;28 Suppl 1:82S-90S.

Dairy and bone health.

Heaney RP.

Creighton University, 2500 California St, Omaha, NE 68178, USA.

Bone health is the resultant of bone mass, bone architecture, and body mechanics. Nutrition supports all three components, with the principal nutrients concerned being calcium, protein, and vitamin D. Potassium, magnesium, zinc, and several vitamins are also involved to varying extents. Given modern food sources, it is difficult to devise a diet that is "bone healthy" without including three servings of dairy per day, not just because of dairy calcium, but dairy protein and potassium as well.

(look, I don't necessarily completely agree with the authors conclusions, but Dairy has plenty of nutritional benefits. Milk does NOT suck. If you don't want to drink it, fine. And yes, you can get plenty of Ca and protein from vegetarian sources. However, consuming moderate amounts of low-fat milk and meat as part of an otherwise healthy diet full of lots fruits, veggies, whole grains, and healthy fats, is in no way associated with negative health consequences. And in fact, as some are arguing, including these foods could likely improve athletic outcomes. You are being just as much a propagandist as the 'veganism sucks' crowd that you are debating)

Yeah, because cheeses and yogurt aren't whole foods... and don't contain calcium either?

Also your source states, "metabolic studies, doubling protein intake produces an 50% increase in urinary calcium." That would mean consuming a whopping 2.0-2.6g/kg body weight every day. I wouldn't be surprised for that to have negative effects on more than just bone mass. Also, how were the subjects increasing protein intake. Was calcium intake being held constant?

I'm not advocating a "high" protein diet.

More important than what you eat is the quality of what you eat. Yea, meat can be good in small amounts...we get it. Fast food meat is not the same as high quality meet.

The fact is you can get most of the same benefits from eating meat as you can from a good vegan diet. One benefit you can not get is the feeling of eating real animal meat. Some people just love the feeling of eating flesh. Others love the feeling of fruits, veggies, alcohol, etc...

Realize that anything you choose to eat will be based in emotion, not scientific studies. I know some of you are thinking you base your diet on research and studies but you are really just bring emotional.

If people really did base their dietary choices on science nobody would ever drink alcohol again.

Except for the fact that 75 percent of the world's population is lactose-intolerant, thus rendering any of milk's (dubious-at-best) benefits to be entirely moot.

When I said "milk" I basically meant "Dairy." So I was acknowledging the calcium content in dairy sources. Not everyone who consumes a good deal of protein consumes large amounts of dairy. The guy you quoted acted like if one were to consume high amounts of protein they would automatically consume high amounts of calcium from those protein sources. He said: " it only makes since that increases in protein intake are typically accompanied by increased dietary calcium...." This is NOT necessarily true, and that is what I was pointing out, and I was correct in pointing it out.

Where did you come up with 2.0-2.6 ? Who says they were consuming .8 to begin with and ended up at 1.6g/kg? ( I will look that reference up later to determine the details of the study on total protein consumed and calcium, but not everyone consumes 1-1.3 g/kg a day. And not everyone gets their protein from milk. Most american don't consume the recommended Ca/Dairy servings).

I didn't say you were, I was pin-pointing the quote you posted which discussed calcium losses with high protein diets. That author seemed to dismiss this concern (because he felt that everyone who consumes large amount of protein also consumes large amounts of calcium, which was my "bone" of contention..... ha ha), and while it is controversially, there is some evidence to support such a concern. That was all I was targeting in your post.