From: schwae@barh1a.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Vegetarian diets
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:30:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep21.220458.16793@ccu.umanitoba.ca> jester@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jonathan Esterhazy) writes:
>
>Further, all the same public health org's recommend that people increase
>their consumption of dietary fibre. I'm sure that there is no need
>to mention that meat, fish, poultry, eggs, and dairy products all lack
>any fibre content whatsoever.
>
One of the most effective sources of fiber is finely ground polyethylene.
Perhaps we should convert to a synthetic diet?

>There is also the cholesterol issue. Humans produce internally 100%
>of the cholesterol their bodies require, so any chol. they consume
>as food is excess. The dangers of cholesterol are not controversial.
>
There are no dangers of cholesterol.  The body can both make and
remove any amount of cholesterol.  The problem is that some people
lack the proper genetic code to produce protein channels to remove
excess cholesterol from the smooth muscle surrounding blood vessels.
A healthy person can eat raw bacon without trouble.
An unhealthy one will make enough cholesterol to kill himself 
regardless of diet.

>Exactly my point--if you twist and tinker and otherwise
>wrestle with a meat-based diet, you can have a healthy diet.
>BUT, if you're vegetarian (esp. vegan) no "manipulations"
>are required. You start with a healthier diet from square one,
>and if you want to tinker with it from there, then you're
>that much further ahead.
>
You mean if you start with a carefully balanced and widely varied
vegan diet.  Try eating nothing but brussels sprouts for a few
years and see if you survive.  You are comparing apples and oranges
(or pork rinds and filet mignons  :-)  Of course a diet that is 
pre-balanced because it was designed that way will be superior to 
a traditional diet that has to be re-balanced given modern food 
choices.


>> would be particularly true during pregnancy or lactation.
>> If a dietary regimen *requires* supplementation to overcome
>> fundamental deficiencies, 
>
>Why do meat-eaters take vitamin C? Fibre? B-complex vitamins? Iron?
>
Many of us don't.

>My diet doesn't require supplementation at all.
>
Nor does mine.

>> A study of Georgia centenarians, octagenarians and
>> sexagenarians (Johnson et al., Int. J. Aging and Hum. Dev.
>> 34(1):57-76, 1992) produced results that contradict the
>> study of Seventh-Day Adventists.  None of the 125
>> participants in this study were vegetarians.  
>
>On the other hand, on any given day in North America, only 5%
>of the total deaths are vegetarians. So meat-eaters are 
>twenty times more likely to die at any given moment. What
>bullshit statistics you offer us! Most of the growth in the
>numbers of vegetarians in the US has occured in the last 20 years,
>and has been in the 40 and under age group. That none of the people
>in the study were vegetarians says only that the movement has not yet
>been successful at reaching the elderly, not that vegetarians die 
>sooner than carnivores.
>
You contradicted yourself.  You say that only 5% of deaths are vegetarians,
yet you say that most vegetarians are young.  That adds up to well over
5% of vegetarians die young.

E.S.
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition