From: artemis@netcom.com (Michelle Dick)
Subject: Re: China Study
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 10:26:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <scznmn-.strnlght@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>As Michelle Dick must know if she were being straight, there is quite
>a difference between a low fat, high complex carbohydrate diet,
>and a diet free of meat and dairy. 

Well, I disagree that there is "quite" a difference.  Generally
speaking, a diet free of meat and dairy will be a low fat, high
complex carbohydrate diet.  The converse need not be true.  Studies
that compare the American diet to other countries are not comparing
low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets to vegetarian ones, but rather
high-fat, high-protein to vegetarian.  Thus, the China study, like
others can not be used to conclude that, nutritionally, veganism is
best (moral, ethical, and economic considerations are other issues
altogether, and I'll leave those to the r.f.v. crowd).  Studies within
the US have compared omnivorous diets with varying quantities of fat,
etc and have found that low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets do promote
good health.  One must be careful to conclude prematurely that the
general individual will continue to derive benefit as the the
saturated fat intake approaches zero (which it would on a vegan diet
that restricted intake of tropical foods).  And there is no basis to
conclude that vegan diets and omnivorous diets that are equivalent in
almost all basic nutrients will have differing impact on health.

>If one takes the trouble to call
>up the National Research Council and asks them where the MDR of protein
>came from, one will discover that they have no scientific basis for their
>minimums.

I do hope that before you made your calls you checked out the 10th
Edition of the RDA put out by the National Research Council, where
their rationales on each dietary component are clearly spelled out.
With references.  You might also want to read the sections on the
intended application of the guideline (i.e. they are intended
primarily as group figures and not individual) and on how each
nutrient figure is derived (it is chosen as 2 standard deviations
*above* the mean requirement).  I can get you the bibliographic
information if you need it.

That's not to say that the NRC is devoid of political influence, or
philosophical infighting.  We won't get into why the 10th edition,
completed in 1985, was not released until 1989.

>There is a lot of nonsense pushed by many mainstream nutritionists that
>they have had to recede from, most recently the notion of "complete
>protein."

True enough (if you call, oh, 1986 recent).  Though, to be fair, I
think it was more an issue of wishing to be conservative where peoples
health is at stake.  There were no studies for some time that
demonstrated that protein deficiency was not a problem for those of
european descent on vegan diets.

>This nonsense was another bit of self-serving propaganda
>induced by the meat and dairy industries (you couldn't, supposedly,
>get it on a vegetarian diet).

I don't disagree that the meat and dairy industries will do their
best to prop up consumption, even if it is at the detriment of proper
diet.  But you implicated mainstream health and nutritionists in this
conspiracy as well, and I think that's just wishful thinking.

>The China Study suggests that no dairy or meat is necessary and that
>the health consequences of such a diet are very attractive. This is
>quite a radical departure from "eat small portions of meat and trim
>the fat" and other nonsense pushed by many nutritionists.

We already knew your first assertion.  The second (about this being a
radical departure), is untrue.  The chinese diet is low in fat, high
in complex carbohydrates.  If you eat small portions of meat and trim
fat you will be eating a diet low in fat and high in complex
carbohydrates.  Thus the study results and current guidelines are quite
congruent.

>That's
>like saying one should eat smaller portions of cyanide for better
>health.

Get me a study that compares low fat, high carbohydrate omnivorous
diets (say with fat levels of 15-20 en%) to a vegan diet and shows
major health benefits and I'll reconsider.  Since high levels of
vitamin A are toxic and the higher they are the worse, then saying we
should eat smaller portions of carrots also fits your "analogy".
Neither carrots, nor meat, are required in a healthy diet, too much is
bad, even deadly, yet in the proper amount both can be a component of
a good diet.

>It is also a far cry from the "drink milk" campaigns we are still
>being bombarded with.

By the milk industry, whom I did not praise nor support.

>Common sense
>tells us that the only animals that drink cow's milk are baby
>calves. If adult cows don't drink cow's milk, why in the name of
>heaven should anyone think adult people should.

Thanks for the laugh.  You should write a book.

I think it's time for a quote from Jack Yetiv's book _Popular
Nutritional Practices_ quoting Diamond:

===
The FFL authors use many ridiculous examples from the animal kingdom
in support of their food-combining ideas.  For instance, pointing out
that tigers do not have potatoes with their meat meals, they ask,
"Have you ever seen a fat tiger?"

My response, referring to the Diamond's exhortation that one should be
eating lots of fruits and vegetables, is, "When is the last time you
saw a tiger at a salad bar?"
===

--
Michelle Dick
artemis@netcom.com
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,rec.food.veg