From: hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Vegetarian diets
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:36:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens


In article <1992Sep21.161307.7960@super.org>, 
wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes...

>     First, a small comment about network "faux pas"'s.  It is usually
>customary to address your comments directly to the poster you
>are responding to.  Repeated uses of the phrase "Mr. Wheeler" can
>sometimes be construed as a rhetorical device meant to demean.
>But, I am sure that was not your intention.

Sorry. I knew, as a beginner, I would err somewhere.

I am distracted by the discovery that, contrary to the header 
information, you did not actually WRITE the article I was responding to.

Is it not also "customary," when posting information written by someone 
else, to indicate who the author or source is?  Did the reference to  
PCRM in your signature indicate that you are a member of that 
organization?  Are you a member?  Are you a physician?

>     Now, before I respond to some of your comments I would like to
>establish an "objective" base that we both accept.  You mentioned
>that you consider Johanna Dwyer to be an objective authority on
>vegetarian nutrition.  You also mentioned the paper "Position of The
>American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian diets -- technical support
>paper" (Journ. of the ADA, March 1988, Vol. 88, No. 3, pp. 352-355)
>as a good source.  Seeing that Johanna Dwyer is one of the co-authors
>of this paper, I will use this paper as our common base.  I will refer
>to it as ADAVPP.

If you will consult the primary literature, you will find that this 
reference actually begins on page 351.  This is where the ADA officially 
STATES its position.  The remainder is a technical document supporting 
the position on page 351.  Why did you omit page 351?

>     In a followup article, I made the offer to email the other (about 
>9 of them) PCRM articles I have on vegetarian nutrition.  I also 
>offered to mail to anyone who sent me their address the ADAVPP and an 
>article giving the scientific rationale for the "New Four Food Groups" 
>released in April 1991.  The "New Four Food Groups" (grains, legumes, 
>fruits, and vegetables; flesh foods and dairy products are in the 
>optional--use sparingly--category) was unveiled by T. Colin Campbell, 
>Ph.D., head of the ground-breaking China Health Study, Oliver 
>Alabaster, M.D., Director of the Institute for Disease Prevention at 
>GWU, Denis Burkitt, M.D., the pioneering physician who discovered the 
>value of fiber in the diet, and Neal D. Barnard, M.D., President of 
>PCRM.  If you wish to claim that these four individuals are biased in 
>some way, then do so.

I am familiar with Drs. Campbell and Barnard.  Dr. Campbell is a 
nutritional biochemist with 88 publications in MEDLINE.  Dr. Barnard is 
a psychiatrist who has NO credentials in nutrition.  Furthermore, Dr. 
Barnard's publication record is, to say the least, less prestigious.  
MEDLINE indicates that he has published only 2 papers *since 1986*.

>[...]
>I found the ADAVPP on a BBS and so I will try to get it posted to 
>sci.med.nutrition so everyone can determine who here is biased.
>Maybe this article will put to rest this continual "he's biased" 
>silliness.

Or perhaps it will confirm my allegations.  I too invite readers to 
compare the tone of the two articles and decide for themselves.  Perhaps 
I should revise my position.  If you did not write the article, I should 
change my position to indicate that the PCRM article was biased.  See 
below.

>> If vegetarian diets are so beneficial, why doesn't a majority of 
>>nutritionists recommend them?

>Because of this question, I had the pleasure of introducing myself to
>Virginia Messina, M.P.H., R.D., the editor of the newsletter for the
>ADA Vegetarian Nutrition Dietetic Practice Group, in order to get her
>comments.  She notes that the VNPG is just over 1 year old, but 
>already has over 1,400 members.  This is a remarkable size for such a 
>short period of time, and it makes the VNPG the fastest growing PG in 
>the ADA.

Considering that the ADA has 64,000 members, I believe that my original 
statement would stand.  You provide no evidence to the contrary.

The propaganda manuver that you attempt is akin to one of PCRM's 
favorites.  PCRM boasts that it has 3,000 members, which sounds 
impressive until you consider that the AMA has 500,000.

>Also, the ADA doesn't recommend specific diets per se, simply ways in
>which individuals can meet the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Yes, the ADA tries to be neutral.  You, on the other hand, do not.  The 
PCRM article stated:

>>>"Science is also on the side of vegetarian foods. A multitude of 
>>>studies have proven the health benefits of a vegetarian diet to be 
>>>remarkable."

This glowing account would suggests that there is universal acceptance 
in the field of nutrition about vegetarianism, and is in sharp contrast 
to the tone of the ADAVPP.

>Quoting the ADAVPP:
>    "It may be easier, as well as more acceptable, for some individuals 
>    to meet the Dietary Guidelines for Americans by following a
>    vegetarian diet rather than a nonvegetarian diet."
>    "Even though the health benefits of a vegetarian diet make it
>    attractive from a nutrition standpoint, this does not preclude the 
>    possibility of obtaining similar health benefits from a prudent
>    nonvegetarian diet if it can be planned in accordance with the
>    Dietary Guidelines for Americans."

I would not interpret this passage to indicate that "Science is also on 
the side of vegetarian foods" or that "A multitude of studies have 
proven the health benefits of a vegetarian diet to be remarkable."  
Therefore, the PCRM article overstated the advantages and glossed over 
the disadvantages of vegetarianism.

>> Careful observers will note that Mr. Wheeler's "scientific"
>> argument is based on non-scientific references such as Time
>> magazine.  His interpretation of the scientific literature
>> is selective, one-sided and typical of the misinformation
>> promulgated by animal "rights" activists.

>Careful readers will note that Time magazine is nowhere referenced.
>Of the 14 references given in the "Vegetarian Foods" article, one
>references an overview article in the New York Times on the
>linkage of allergies in infants to a mother's diet.

I did err on this point, but the source that was actually cited is of no 
higher quality than the one I mistakenly accused you of citing.

Therefore, I stand behind my original accusations:

1.  The article presumed to make a scientific argument using 
unscientific references.

2.  The article presented a one-sided review of the scientific 
literature.  You cited only the references that supported your position.  

I now add a third accusation:

3.   Within your references, you cited only the findings that supported 
your position. You ignored others within the same reference that did 
not.  See below.

>Johanna Dwyer is sounding more and more like an animal rights activist.
>:-)

If you ignore the cautions she offers about vegetarianism in other 
works, I can see how you would draw that conclusion.  This tendency on 
your part only reinforces my position that you and PCRM are lauding 
possible benefits of vegetarianism and disregarding possible hazards.

>> It is difficult for a reader to verify Mr. Wheeler's claims,
>> because he does not indicate in his text which reference is
>> pertinent to that claim.  Do his references really support
>> his claims?

>The reference keys are given immediately after the sentence or
>paragraph that refers to them, as is customary (just as is done in the 
>ADAVPP).  Did you actually read the "Vegetarian Foods" article?

I apologize here.  I did not recognize your references (lisdexics 
untie!) because they were in a non-standard format.  When I downloaded 
the file, many of the lines were wrapped thus adding to my confusion.

Your references were not "just as is done in the ADAVPP."  Convention 
dictates that embedded references should be set off by parentheses or 
brackets, and appear *within* the sentence to which they pertain.  For 
example:

"Veggie info (1).  More veggie info (2)." not "Veggie info. 1 More 
veggie info. 2"

>> In fairness, I should add that one study did consider
>> covarying levels of fat, and still found that meat
>> consumption increased risks for chronic disease (Willett et
>> al., NEJM 323(2):1664-1672, 1990).  However, these authors
>> did not recommend vegetarianism.  They instead suggested
>> "...to substitute fish and chicken for meats high in fat."

>I, too, can quote Willett:  "If you step back and look at the data,
>the optimum amount of red meat you eat should be zero."

The difference here is that I was quoting Willett's peer-reviewed 
publication, and you are quoting from the popular press (presumably -- 
you don't provide a reference here).  If this claim was supported by 
Willett's data, don't you think that he would have said it WITHIN the 
paper?

Again, the incident with "cold fusion" cautions us to distinguish what 
scientists say about their data from what their peers allow them to 
publish.

Not only do you selectively cite references within the literature, but 
you also selectively cite results WITHIN a paper.  For example, why do 
you overlook the finding in Willett et al. that those who consumed 
skinless chicken had a 2.5 fold LOWER risk for colon cancer?  Why did 
you ignore the fact that women in the LOWEST quintile of risk for colon 
cancer consumed MORE total and saturated fat than that suggested by the 
NAS-NRC dietary guidelines?

>> ... Therefore, the benefits that Wheeler attributes to
>> vegetarian diets may also be achieved by simply reducing the
>> level of fat in one's diet.

>This is being simplistic and you know it.  Who here is being 
>disingenuous?  The benefits the ADA attributes to vegetarian diets are 
>attributable to replacing no fiber foods (animal products) with fiber
>rich foods, replacing low-to-no carbohydrate foods with carbohydrate-
>rich plant foods, decreased intake of saturated fat and total fat, 
>decreased intake of dietary cholesterol, increased intake of beta 
>carotene and other constituents of fruits and vegetables, and other 
>factors.  Currently, the AHA and USDHHS are pushing their "Five a Day" 
>campaign to get people to eat at least 5 fruits and vegetables a day.  
>The NCI is going further suggesting at least 5 vegetables and at least 
>3 fruits a day.  You can not increase the level of these foods without 
>decreasing something, namely, animal products.  They state things like 
>"use meat as a condiment" and focus on vegetables as the main dish.

My statement might be simplistic, but it is TRUE.  My statement is 
supported by the ADAVPP as well as other peer-reviewed references I have 
already given.  The ideal omnivorous diet would indeed be rich with 
vegetables, and would contain a smaller proportion of high fat foods of 
animal AND plant origin.

Again, advice to lower fat in the diet means just that.  It does not 
provide support for vegetarianism.

>> I applaud Wheeler for admitting that vegan regimens are lacking in B-
>>12.

>The article (and I) said no such thing.  My wife, my infant son and I 
>are vegans.  We cannot avoid the stuff.  Its everywhere.  It is in my 
>cereal in the morning.  It is in my soymilk.  It is in my nutritional 
>yeast that I love to sprinkle on steamed vegetables or popcorn (much 
>better than salt and butter or margarine).

I have a reference pertinent to your infant son:

AU Jacobs-C.  Dwyer-J-T.
TI Vegetarian children: appropriate and inappropriate diets.
SO Am-J-Clin-Nutr.  1988 Sep.  48(3 Suppl).  P 811-8.
AB Acceptable and appropriate vegetarian diets fulfill the Recommended 
Dietary Allowances and other authoritative dietary guidelines dealing 
with balance, variety, moderation, and developmental appropriateness of 
diets for children.  Vegetarian regimes currently fed to infants and 
children are evaluated using these criteria.  Vegan-like diets, fed 
early in infancy and childhood, pose special problems with respect to 
sufficiency of certain nutrients, energy, and bulk, especially if they 
are unplanned and unaccompanied by ongoing health supervision.  
Lactovegetarian, lactoovovegetarian, and semivegetarian patterns are 
more likely to be satisfactory.  They conform closely with the pediatric 
recommendations for promoting health and reducing risks of chronic 
degenerative diseases, are sufficient without being excessive in 
nutrients, are low in bulk, and are developmentally appropriate.  
Author-abstract. 61 Refs.

You have no reason to believe that your son will share your extreme 
ethical and dietary beliefs.  Why do you, therefore, risk compromising 
his growth and development by imposing a dietary regimen that, according 
to our mutual heroine, poses "special problems?"

With respect to B-12, you are not doing yourself or your family any good 
by consuming so-called "nutritional yeast."  This is yet another example 
of the hazards of vegetarian folklore.  Such folklore is partly 
responsible for the "special problems" that Dwyer acknowledges.

So-called "nutritional yeast" contain B-12 only if the growth medium is 
consumed along with the yeast (Dwyer, Ann. Rev. Nutr. 11:61-91, 1991).  
Yeast do not synthesize B-12, but they do synthesize corrinoids that 
compete with B-12 for binding sites of Intrinsic Factor (Herbert, Am. J. 
Clin. Nutr. 48:852-58, 1988).

Therefore, consumption of yeast, algae, and fermented soy products does 
not provide B-12, and may interfere with the absorption of B-12 from 
other sources.

>[...]
>And, after the talk the FDA spokeswoman was so impressed with Barnard 
>she talked with him afterwards and ended up buying his book _Power of 
>Your Plate_.  (Note, he did not plug or mention his book during the 
>talk at our request.)

Barnard does not have to plug the book himself.  You, PCRM and PETA take 
care of that.

As Steve Dyer noted, anyone can write a book and them proclaim to be an 
expert in nutrition.

I have not read the book, but the title "Power of your Plate" implies an 
emphasis on the ethical consequences of dietary choices at the expense 
of health consequences.

>[...]
>Lastly, if or when I learn that Barnard, Havala, Messina, Eisman, 
>Klaper, etc. care deeply about the suffering of others including 
>nonhuman animals raised in factory farming conditions, then my respect 
>only increases for these people.  I find it sad that we hold up people 
>like Gandhi and Schweitzer as examples of the finest individuals our 
>species has produced, yet we denigrate those who follow in their 
>footsteps by advocating compassionate lifestyles.

I do not denigrate anyone's ethics.  I have contempt for those people 
and organizations that would subvert the science of nutrition so that 
they may advance their ethical agenda.

Emotional arguments about ethical and ecological concerns might 
influence an individual's dietary choices, but they do not modify the 
dietary requirements for optimal human nutrition.

Martin G. Hulsey (mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu)
Dept. Foods & Nutrition          Support animal research.
University of Georgia            Your life may depend on it.
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition