From: artemis@netcom.com (Michelle Dick)
Subject: Re: China Study
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 03:09:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <jxzn+xa.strnlght@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>First, since she's so amused by the Cows Don't Drink Milk comment, let
>me enliven her day further by telling her that another reason for
>vegetarianism is that it's a lot easier to sneak up on a plant.

The amusement comes from realizing that you apparently felt the animal
analogies bolstered your argument.  They don't.  I dare say that
almost any claim could find an animal analogy to use.  Except cooking
food, I don't think there's any animal other than humans that cook
their food.  Murder, cannibalism, washing food, simple tool-making,
yes, cooking, no.  Heck, we've got a bird out back that eats our dog's
dry food.  *After* dropping it temporarily in the water dish and then
fishing it out.  Must like it, the bird drops by everyday.  I,
however, do not intend to take up the practice.  And yeah, tigers are
carnivores and we're not.  Cows are ruminants and we're not.

>1. It's not true that things are equal to the same thing in comparing
>fat and carbohydrate content and thus concluding that a no-meat,
>no-dairy diet is just the same sort of thing nutritionists have been
>advising already, only writ slightly larger. Meat and dairy products
>have a lot more than their fat and carbohydrate content, and if the
>China Study shows that people who don't eat meat and dairy have lower
>disease incidence and longer lives compared to us or compared to the
>Chinese control group, that is a statement about no meat and no dairy,
>not a statement about lowering fat a bit more.

No, since we already know there are health benefits to lowering fat,
this study only adds more evidence to that hypothesis.  This theory
which has additional evidence as well as the beginnings of
understanding as to the mechanism, stands.  I understand that you've
had problems grasping the scientific method and on whose shoulders the
burden of proof or evidence lies.

Listen, you'll get much better reception if you limit your promotion
of veganism to that which can be well supported.  Such as:

1. It's easier to eat a low-fat, high carb diet if you eliminate meat.
2. It's cheaper.
3. It's easier on the environment.
....

But implying that it's impossible to get the health benefits that
vegans usually see if you eat any milk and dairy, you subjectively
invalidate any correct arguments that you do make (not to mention that
this argument parallels that which you knocked the meat industry for
making about protein).

And the food combining stuff is certifiably looney.  If I were you I'd
say something like "*I* like it, it works for me, and yeah, I realize
that it has no scientific basis" and leave it at that.  If reading
Diamond prompted you to switch to a low-fat, high carb diet then
that's great.  Just don't swallow everything he says hook, line, and
sinker.  And if you go around spouting some of the wackier ideas of
Mr. "I bought my diploma at the dime-store" Diamond, as fact, you'll
look like a fool.

Here, I'll give you another quote from Yetiv's book that'll please you
(if I keep this up I'll have reprinted his whole book in no time).  I
also hope it will serve as a guide to what IS good about Fit for
Laughs, I mean, Fit for Life:

===
Is there anything good in _Fit for Life_?  Yes, I think there is.  The
emphasis on a high-carbohydrate, high-fiber, low-fat diet is very
reasonable and, in fact is the same nutritional recommendation that
the American Heart Association and other groups have been making to
the American public.  But this high-carbohydrate diet can be followed
easily without all the misinformation and unscientific restrictions of
the FFL book, and without wasting one's money on that book.  ....

Another positive aspect of FFL is the appropriate emphasis on the
concept that weight loss and improved health should not be achieved by
dieting alone, but rather should occur via a *lifestyle modification
program*. This health-promoting plan would include widely recommended
aspects such as cessation of smoking, initiation of a regular exercise
program, evaluation and reduction of stress-inducing circumstances, as
well as a balanced low-fat, high carbohydrate diet.  The FFL focus on
*prevention* rather than *cure* is welcome, and entirely appropriate.
===

--
Michelle Dick
artemis@netcom.com
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition