From: young@sasquatch.serum.kodak.com (Rich Young (x37176))
Subject: Re: Vegetarians and Missionaries
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 14:28:14 GMT

altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:

>>  Another poster wrote:
>>
>>     "I think this is particularly ironic because diabetes is more aggravated
>>     (and caused) by fat intake (particularly animal fat intake), than sugar
>>     intake.  A vegetarian (vegan) diet is probably the best thing for a
>>     diabetic or person interested in not getting diabetes in the future."
>
>I don't know if I do disagree.  You have already been presented with
>citations for this view, yet you have not bothered to address those original
>papers.  Indeed, some diabetic organization are recommending the reduction
>not only of fat, but even of meat.  Our local branch strongly advices the
>reduction of fat, and even to completely abstain from meat for at least
>one day a week.  Of course, this does not address the cause, but the
>above passage only refers to "aggravating" the condition. [...]

  You will, of course note the phrase, "...aggravated (and caused) by fat..."
                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^
  This makes it clear that the poster was most emphatically NOT referring
  simply to control of an already existing disease condition.  In addition,
  in the statement, "...not getting diabetes in the future," it is clear that
  a vegetarian diet is being recommended as prevention, a position which has
  possible merit for only Type II diabetes, and which ignores Type I entirely.

  I dare say there is NO evidence which shows that diabetes is CAUSED by fat
  intake (regardless of source), except insofar as obesity contributes to
  the "adult onset", or Type II, variety, and excess fat intake contributes
  to obesity.  Even here, however, "fat" is not "the Cause".  The first
  statement in the above quote is wrong, and the second is unjustified by
  available evidence.

[...]

>Again, I didn't reject your info, I simply said that it was uninteresting
>for our purposes here in furthering our interest in vegetarianism.
>This is not your "lets talk to the doctor" conference.  To repeat, the 
>interest here is in vegetarianism.  Research relevant to that interest
>would be appreciated. 

  If, by attempting to impugn the source, you were not rejecting the
  information, then my definition of rejection is far, far awry.  I never
  have claimed the Merck Manual to be the ultimate source of data, but it is
  certainly adequate for THIS task.  In addition, I would think that the
  relevance to vegetarianism would be obvious: the original poster was
  claiming detrimental effects of animal product consumption and benefits
  of vegetarianism which simply have not been proven, and which may well
  not exist.  The information presented was in error.  A correction from
  an informed source was presented.  The information presented was not simply
  the opinion of a layman, it was the reviewed and edited knowledge of
  eleven editors, nine consultants, and an unknown number of contributors,
  all of whom have respectable medical credentials, and none of whom had
  direct ties to the publisher of the reference work.

  I ask again: if you have a more reliable, less biased source with
  contradictory information, please present it, with the appropriate data.
  Regardless of dietary preferance, we ARE all after accurate information.

-Rich (young@serum.kodak.com)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are MY opinions, don't blame them on my employer.

Don't get angry, get accurate information.
Newsgroups: um.general,dc.general,rec.food.veg,talk.politics.animals