Foods to Avoid

[Gumby]

They are also a rich source of insoluble fiber which basically acts like a wire brush on your intestines (corporations, and their scientists, who push insoluble fiber actually say that intestinal damage is good for the gut.). Soluble fiber is better.

Now this is also new to me.  I've read that insoluble and soluble fiber are both beneficial.  Where did you read that insoluble fiber damages the intestines?

Most of the conversations we've been having on this topic are highlighted in The Perfect Health Diet, by Paul Jaminet, Ph. D. and Shou-Ching Jaminet, Ph. D.

Grain consumption has long been known to damage vitamin D status and bone health. Indeed, it is difficult to induce bone frailty in laboratory animals without feeding them grain. In Edward Mellanby’s original experiments leading to the discovery of vitamin D, he induced rickets by feeding dogs a diet of oats or wheat bread. [3] In human infants, wheat bran induces rickets. [4] In addition to interfering with vitamin D, grains also contain high levels of phytic acid, which interferes with bone mineralization by blocking absorption of calcium and magnesium.

[3] Mellanby E. (March 15 1919) An experimental investigation on rickets. The Lancet 193(4985):407-412.

[4] Zoppi G et al. Potential complications in the use of wheat bran for constipation in infancy. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1982; 1(1): 91-5. http://pmid.us/6310074.

Source: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2010/06/gw ... aily-mail/

In Edward Mellanby’s pioneering experiments, he induced the disease by feeding dogs a diet of oats or wheat bread, and then cured it by adding cod liver oil (which contains vitamin D). Either dietary fats or sunlight cured rickets; a cereal-based diet combined with confinement indoors caused rickets. [19]

Grain consumption remains the leading risk factor for rickets in the world today. Today, rickets is mainly found in sunny countries such as Nigeria, South Africa, and Bangladesh, where it is the result of “cereal-based diets with limited variety.”? [20]

In recent decades, more progress has been made in understanding how wheat and other grains induce rickets. First, wheat consumption leads to rapid loss of vitamin D. Eating just 20 g (0.7 ounces) per day of wheat bran causes vitamin D to be depleted 43% faster. [21] Second, wheat germ agglutinin, a wheat toxin, can block activation of the Vitamin D Receptor. [22]

[19] Mellanby E. (March 15 1919) An experimental investigation on rickets. The Lancet 193(4985):407-412. Reprinted in Nutrition. 1989 Mar-Apr; 5(2): 81-6; discussion 87. http://pmid.us/2520279.

[20] Pettifor JM. Nutritional rickets: deficiency of vitamin D, calcium, or both? Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Dec;80(6 Suppl):1725S-9S. http://pmid.us/15585795.

[21] Batchelor AJ, Compston JE. Reduced plasma half-life of radio-labelled 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 in subjects receiving a high-fibre diet. Br J Nutr. 1983 Mar;49(2):213-6. http://pmid.us/6299329. 

[22] Miyauchi Y et al. Importin 4 Is Responsible for Ligand-independent Nuclear Translocation of Vitamin D Receptor. J Biol Chem. 2005 Dec 9;280(49):40901-8. http://pmid.us/16207705.

Source: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2010/10/th ... ormations/

Grasses became the staple foods of agriculture because of their rich yields:  a single plant may generate tens of thousands of seeds annually.

Yet this prolific seed production has always made grasses attractive to herbivores, and caused seeds to evolve high levels of toxins designed to poison mammalian digestive tracts, thus enabling their seeds to pass through herbivore guts undigested.  It is these toxins that make the cereal grains so dangerous to human health.

The effectiveness of grain toxins at sabotaging human digestion is illustrated by the increase in fecal mass they produce:

For every gram of wheat bran eaten, fecal weight increases by 5.7 grams. [5]

By inhibiting human digestion, wheat toxins dramatically increase the amount of undigested starch reaching the colon. This increased food supply substantially increases the bacterial population – and the presence of starch, which is ordinarily unavailable in the colon, favors the growth of pathogenic species.

Unfortunately wheat toxins do much more than inhibit digestion of food.  They also damage the gut itself.

[5] Cummings JH. The effect of dietary fibre on fecal weight and composition. Pp 547–73 in: Spiller GA, ed. Handbook of dietary fibre in human nutrition. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1993.

Source: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2010/07/bo ... od-toxins/

Most people think that fiber is indigestible, and that it comes out in their stool. This is not true. Fiber is indigestible to humans, but not to bacteria.  Fiber is bacterial food that enables gut bacteria to multiply. Bacteria, not undigested food, make up most of the dry weight of stool. [22]

Doctors often recommend fiber to bowel disease patients. While not wholly without merit, this advice usually backfires.

There are three problems: helping bacteria feed and multiply may be undesirable; fiber, such as the brans of cereal grains, often contains toxic proteins; and, finally, whole grain fibers and other “roughage”? scrape and injure the intestinal wall.  Dr. Paul L. McNeil explains that:

"When you eat high-fiber foods, they bang up against the cells lining the gastrointestinal tract, rupturing their outer covering." [23]

That can’t be a good thing.

And it isn’t. In the Diet and Reinfarction Trial (DART), published in 1989, 2,033 British men were divided into a high-fiber group and a control group.  The high-fiber group ate whole grains and doubled their grain fiber intake from 9 to 17 grams per day. The result?  Deaths in the high fiber group were 22% higher over the course of the study – 9.9% of the control group died versus 12.1% of the high-fiber group. [24]

Softer soluble fibers from fruits and some vegetables are much more likely to help than wheat bran, but even they may be a good thing only in moderation, or only in a healthy bowel. Fiber feeds pathogenic bacteria as well as probiotic bacteria, and increases the populations of both. When the gut is damaged and leaky, more bacteria mean more bacterial toxins and more pathogens infiltrating the body. A low-fiber diet, leading to reduced bacterial populations in the gut, may be desirable for bowel disease patients.

Yes, it is possible to get too much fiber!

[22] Stephen AM et al. Effect of changing transit time on colonic microbial metabolism in man. Gut. 1987 May;28(5):601-9. http://pmid.us/3596341.

[23] Quoted in Science Daily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 093156.htm. Hat tip Dr. Michael Eades.

[24] Burr ML et al. Effects of changes in fat, fish, and fibre intakes on death and myocardial reinfarction: diet and reinfarction trial (DART). Lancet. 1989 Sep 30;2(8666):757-61. http://pmid.us/2571009. Hat tip Stephan Guyenet.

Source: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2010/07/bo ... od-toxins/

There's a reason ancestral grain-eating cultures went through so much trouble to neutralize those toxins and remove/soak the outer hulls/brans. Grains really aren't that great for you. But, they are cheap!

If you are going to eat grains, it's probably best to use the ancestral techniques for soaking and fermenting those grains to minimize the damage they can cause.

[Gumby]

On another topic, all this talk of grassfed beef has whet my appetite a bit and Im curious if you have looked at the topic of Mad Cow disease. There was a big scare a few years back and then the topic just kind of disappeared. Me thinks if there were an issue, there is a lot of money trying to squelch it or sweep it under the carpet. What do you know regarding this topic?

Let's just say it's a very complex topic. And nobody really knows the true cause of Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis (BSE). So, we are left with competing hypotheses as to what causes it. I really don't know much about it — as it really is/was a regional problem — but, here's a four-part series from Mark Purdy, published in the Weston A. Price Foundation's seasonal journal that tries to examine the issue...

Myths & Truths About Mad Cow Disease, Part 1
Myths & Truths About Mad Cow Disease, Part 2
Myths & Truths About Mad Cow Disease, Part 3
Myths & Truths About Mad Cow Disease, Part 4

Again, I really don't know much about it, so I won't really comment about it.

[rickb]

On another topic, all this talk of grassfed beef has whet my appetite a bit and Im curious if you have looked at the topic of Mad Cow disease. There was a big scare a few years back and then the topic just kind of disappeared. Me thinks if there were an issue, there is a lot of money trying to squelch it or sweep it under the carpet. What do you know regarding this topic?

Let's just say it's a very complex topic. And nobody really knows the true cause of Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis (BSE). So, we are left with competing hypotheses as to what causes it. I really don't know much about it — as it really is/was a regional problem — but, here's a four-part series from Mark Purdy, published in the Weston A. Price Foundation's seasonal journal that tries to examine the issue...

Myths & Truths About Mad Cow Disease, Part 1
Myths & Truths About Mad Cow Disease, Part 2
Myths & Truths About Mad Cow Disease, Part 3
Myths & Truths About Mad Cow Disease, Part 4

Again, I really don't know much about it, so I won't really comment about it.

The Wikipedia article appears to be fairly thorough - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_cow

[doodle]

Gumby,

Do all animal meats contain the same essential nutrients? In other words, if you only consumed chicken vs. a range of different meats would you miss out on certain nutrients?

Also, how do eggs rank compared to meat? Do lacto-ovo vegetarians have access to all of the essential nutrients that meat eaters do?

Also, another thing I don't understand is the healthy lifestyle effect that you talk about. If I have met vegans in their 50's who are very fit and strong wouldn't the fact that their bodies are so healthy mean that their diet is sufficient. In other words, if you are stressing your body with exercise and not giving it nutrients to replenish itself, I would think that this would have a deleterious effect on ones health, not a positive one. Shouldn't they be more prone to injury, fatigue etc?

[Gumby]

Do all animal meats contain the same essential nutrients? In other words, if you only consumed chicken vs. a range of different meats would you miss out on certain nutrients?

Smurff may know the answer to your question better than I. But, I believe most animals have generally different nutrient profiles — particularly when you compare grass-fed ruminants with poultry, or pigs, for instance. However, keep in mind that muscle meat isn't as nutrient-dense as organ meats are. So it's organ meats where the nutrients are really concentrated.

[align=center][/align]

It's worth pointing out that the nutrients in Kale are wrapped in cellulose — which we cannot digest. So many of the nutrients in plants such as Kale are just pooped out. Meats dissolve quite nicely in our acid/pepsin-based stomachs, so the nutrients in meats and fats are more bioavailable.

You also have to keep in mind that all of the vitamins and minerals we need are found throughout the body of an animal — again, the muscle meat is just one piece of the puzzle. Skins, bones, fats, organ meats, hooves, glands, cartilage, etc. should all make their way into your stews, broths and foods if you truly want access to all of the nutrients.

...The interplay between all these nutrients as well as some other amino acids is one reason we don't want to load up on lean muscle meats.  Rather, we should balance muscle meats with skin, bones, organs, and leafy vegetables.

Source: http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/ ... rgans.html

I totally get that that's difficult to achieve in today's modern lifestyle, but my point is that it's not just about eating meat. It's about eating a variety of meats, and organ meats, and stews, and pâtés, and artisanal sausages, and vegetables, and eggs, etc. etc. Remember, our ancestors did not waste any part of the animal — and that's part of how they were able to nourish themselves without supplements.

As far as fats are concerned, the diet and the lifestyle of the animal greatly affect the fat profile. For instance, the fats from poultry and pigs tend to be high in Omega-6 — since even well-raised ones tend to be fed grain. Though, access to pasture can help improve those fat profiles a bit. In other words, you probably don't want to eat tons of chicken and pork as your staple meats.

Also, how do eggs rank compared to meat?

Eggs are fantastic (particularly pastured eggs). But, they are different from meat (also, most people don't eat the same quantity of eggs vs. meat):

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Egg_Yolk.html

Do lacto-ovo vegetarians have access to all of the essential nutrients that meat eaters do?

Generally, yes, but they would have a bit of a disadvantage. For instance, some people need more Zinc and B12 than others, and
if it were not for supplements, they would need to get those nutrients from richer sources, such as organ meats.

Also, I suspect the big problem with any vegetarianism is that you might eat more of the wrong things — more grains, soy, flax, industrial seed oils, etc.

Also, another thing I don't understand is the healthy lifestyle effect that you talk about. If I have met vegans in their 50's who are very fit and strong wouldn't the fact that their bodies are so healthy mean that their diet is sufficient. In other words, if you are stressing your body with exercise and not giving it nutrients to replenish itself, I would think that this would have a deleterious effect on ones health, not a positive one. Shouldn't they be more prone to injury, fatigue etc?

It's hard for me to speculate on these super-fit vegans you speak of. Vegans can be deficient in some fat soluble vitamins, choline, B12 and zinc, Omega-3s, among other nutrients. You can still be "strong" and be malnourished. People who are deficient in these vitamins may have bad teeth, or smaller brains, or impaired memory, or sexual disfunction, or fatty liver disease. You wouldn't always know just by looking at someone. And I suspect many vegans are supplementing a fair amount.

[Benko]

For instance, the fats from poultry and pigs tend to be high in Omega-6 — since even well-raised ones tend to be fed grain. Though, access to pasture can help improve those fat profiles a bit. In other words, you probably don't want to eat tons of chicken and pork as your staple meats.

Still trying to wrap my brain around this diferent way of looking at things. So for skinless chicken breast, thigh vs beef:

skinless Chicken breast (per fitday)

Fat 23.9 g 37 %
Saturated Fat 6.0 g 30 %
Polyunsaturated Fat 6.5 g 
Monounsaturated Fat 9.2 g

Vs skinless CHicken THigh:

Fat 11.6 g 18 %
Saturated Fat 2.9 g 15 %
Polyunsaturated Fat 3.2 g 
Monounsaturated Fat 4.4 g


75% of skinless chicken breast fat is mono or saturated (leaving only 25% for omega 6)  or
70% of skinless chciken thigh fat is mono or saturated leaving only 30% for omega 6

FItday lists beefsteak as:
Fat 13.9 g 21 %
Saturated Fat 5.2 g 26 %
Polyunsaturated Fat 0.51 g 
Monounsaturated Fat 5.6 g

or 95% mono or saturated fat with 5% (at most) omega 6.

[Gumby]

For instance, the fats from poultry and pigs tend to be high in Omega-6 — since even well-raised ones tend to be fed grain. Though, access to pasture can help improve those fat profiles a bit. In other words, you probably don't want to eat tons of chicken and pork as your staple meats.

Still trying to wrap my brain around this diferent way of looking at things. So for skinless chicken breast, thigh vs beef:

skinless Chicken breast (per fitday)

Fat 23.9 g 37 %
Saturated Fat 6.0 g 30 %
Polyunsaturated Fat 6.5 g 
Monounsaturated Fat 9.2 g

Vs skinless CHicken THigh:

Fat 11.6 g 18 %
Saturated Fat 2.9 g 15 %
Polyunsaturated Fat 3.2 g 
Monounsaturated Fat 4.4 g


75% of skinless chicken breast fat is mono or saturated (leaving only 25% for omega 6)  or
70% of skinless chciken thigh fat is mono or saturated leaving only 30% for omega 6

Well, 25% - 30% PUFA is quite high from my point of view. We just don't need that much PUFA.

As for an opinion on chicken in general, see: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2013/01/ch ... -mediocre/

Having said that, I usually eat half a pastured chicken and about a pound of pastured pork once a week — using the drippings as part of a pan sauce — and my Omega-3/6 ratio was still excellent on my recent test.

FItday lists beefsteak as:
Fat 13.9 g 21 %
Saturated Fat 5.2 g 26 %
Polyunsaturated Fat 0.51 g 
Monounsaturated Fat 5.6 g

or 95% mono or saturated fat with 5% (at most) omega 6.

Right. So, the low level of PUFA is a good thing. Again, we don't need very much PUFA. Pretty much all animals need very little PUFA in their diet. I'm aware that some short term studies show a benefit for people who consume large quantities of Omega-3s (i.e. fish oil) but those appear to be short term therapeutic effects and are not based on long term findings.

See: Chris Kresser: When it comes to fish oil, more is not better

Kresser often relies on Chris Masterjohn when it comes to PUFA research.

[Gumby]

It's also worth noting that "Schmaltz" (rendered chicken fat) was prized by European Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmaltz

And I'm sure they did just fine on it. But, I suspect that those chickens tended to eat omnivorously — less grain and likely got a lot of table scraps, bugs and worms — that improved their Omega 3/6 ratio. Still, I personally just wouldn't eat chicken every single day. Even if the omega 3/6 ratio was decent, too much PUFA can contribute to oxidative stress. But it's probably nothing to worry about if you only eat two or three servings of chicken per week.

[Benko]

"It's about eating a variety of meats, and organ meats, and stews, and pâtés, and artisanal sausages, and vegetables, and eggs, etc. etc."

"I usually eat half a pastured chicken and about a pound of pastured pork once a week"

Aside from organ meats, (and alas eggs don't work for me), if we limit, chicken and pork, are you suggesting eating beef and organ meats 18+ meals per week? (I eat animal protein, typically 4-6 oz with each meal). 

[Gumby]

"It's about eating a variety of meats, and organ meats, and stews, and pâtés, and artisanal sausages, and vegetables, and eggs, etc. etc."

"I usually eat half a pastured chicken and about a pound of pastured pork once a week"

Aside from organ meats, (and alas eggs don't work for me), if we limit, chicken and pork, are you suggesting eating beef and organ meats 18+ meals per week? (I eat animal protein, typically 4-6 oz with each meal).

No. Organ meats are so nutrient dense that you only need to eat 1/4 pound of liver or kidney. I probably wouldn't eat more than a 1/2 pound of organ meats per week. Chicken hearts, by the way, are excellent and actually taste like steak.

I tend to favor grass-fed beef, but I also eat lamb, duck, fish and sometimes rabbit throughout the week. Sometimes I'll even have some goat if I can find it. It also helps to find a butcher who is adventurous with his sausage recipes. I eat bacon a few times a week, but it just doesn't weigh that much.

I wouldn't worry about eating chicken or pork more than a few times a week. It's not going to make a huge difference. I was just saying that it's difficult to improve upon grass-fed beef, so I tend to favor it.

Really, everything you need to know is in The Perfect Health Diet. And normally I just agree with Kresser to follow the 80/20 rule (eat whatever you want 20% of the time unless you have health issues).


EDIT: For what it's worth, Kresser is a big fan of the PHD:

http://chriskresser.com/the-new-perfect-health-diet

[smurff]

 

doodle said:

Do all animal meats contain the same essential nutrients? In other words, if you only consumed chicken vs. a range of different meats would you miss out on certain nutrients?

It's not that you would miss out on nutrients, it's just that some animals have much more omega three, for example, than others.  Some produce lots of vitamin D compared to others.

Gumby said:

Smurff may know the answer to your question better than I. But, I believe most animals have generally different nutrient profiles — particularly when you compare grass-fed ruminants with poultry, or pigs, for instance. However, keep in mind that muscle meat isn't as nutrient-dense as organ meats are. So it's organ meats where the nutrients are really concentrated.

Actually, Gumby, you did such a great job explaining things.
And that's a great chart!

The only thing I would add is that chicken skin is an organ meat, too, loaded with nutrients.  In many animals the skin is the largest organ in the body.  If you're eating pastured chickens, eat the skin with the meat.  It makes great stock and broth, too.

Much of the admonitions about removing the skin and tossing it are from the same misguided forces that brought us low-fat or fat- free diets for everyone.  A variety of nutrition experts have taught us the uselessness of such diets.

Other animal skin is tasty, too.  Pork skin, turkey skin, and salmon skin immediately come to mind.

[rocketdog]

Thank you Mr. Mathematics.

Glad to be of service!  I didn't get 740 on my math SAT for nothing. 

The MK-4 version is the super expensive one — and it has much better research backing its benefits — is usually dosed at 450mcg up to 15mg per day.

Is that the RDA?  Are there studies indicating the "optimum" intake of MK-4?  I can find none. 

For instance, Life Extension's Vitamin K supplement contains 1000 mcg K2 as MK-4, and 100 mcg K2 as MK-7.

Let me guess: they're in the business of selling vitamins?  Nothing better than getting your RDA of vitamins from a company that's selling you the vitamins. 

And colostrum is particularly rich in MK-4.

Ew.  Please don't tell me that's how you're supplementing. 

There is no known toxicity for Vitamin K2 as MK-4 and the research is now suggesting the more K2 the better (again, only found in animal products). Anyone who knows anything about Vitamin K2 (though, apparently not you) knows that.

That link simply parrots the Weston Price Foundation, and we've already established their ties to the meat and dairy industry and the questionable nature of their "studies". 

More importantly, MK-4 is not found only in animal products.  In fact, it is a by-product of bacterial fermentation, which is why cheese - specifically gouda and brie - and natto are the richest sources.  In fact, my internet search for food sources of MK-4 repeatedly turns up statements like this:

"The MK-4 form of K2 is often found in relatively small quantities in meat and eggs."

As for humans, some of our tissues convert vitamin K1 to MK-4, and bacteria in our gut converts it to MK-7. 

Maybe you can calculate how much MK-4 you're not getting in your diet/supplements?

I'm sure I'm getting plenty, since I eat a variety of cheeses and fermented soy products (like tempeh, although I have yet to find natto in my local grocery store -- I guess a trip to the Asian market is in order because now I've got to try that stuff!) 

[rocketdog]

Alright then...  Let's summarize my points so far...

- Industrial seed oils (i.e. vegetable oils) are rancid and contribute to oxidation in the body and blood.

Not true.  If vegetable oils are stored properly, they do not turn rancid.  Animal fats turn rancid too... if they're not stored properly.  So what's your point?

- There is no proof that saturated fat, especially from grass-fed animals, is bad for you (grass-fed fats have beneficial properties and nutrients).

Eating too much saturated fat can contribute to:

Breast Cancer

Coronary Heart Disease

Diabetes

- There is no proof that low cholesterol improves longevity (the data shows the reverse is true).

Plenty of proof, like this and this.

- Flax (ALA) is a poor source of Omega-3 (most people can only convert about 0.5% into DHA/EPA).

Tell that to these researches:

Flaxseed - a miraculous defense against some critical maladies.

Nutritional value and functional properties of flaxseed

The cardiovascular effects of flaxseed and its omega-3 fatty acid, alpha-linolenic acid.

Since you missed all of those points the first time around, care to address them all now? Looks like you have a lot of explaining to do.

I'll get to your points one-by-one (I didn't miss them all the first time around, incidentally).  I'm slammed at work so my time is tight, but the above is a good start for now.  More to come so stay tuned...

[rocketdog]

Picking up where I last left off...

- Most grains, seeds and nuts are a high source of inflammatory Omega-6.

Also containing Omega-6: chicken, eggs, fish, and beef.

In any event, Omega-6 is an essential fatty acid, so we need it in our diet... assuming we keep it reasonable and in balance with Omega-3. 

Moderation in all things is the key.  Because too much Omega-3 can create its own set of health problems. 

- Vegetarianism and grain consumption has only been practiced for a minuscule amount of the human timeline.

Vaccination, teeth brushing, and frequent bathing has only been practiced for a miniscule amount of the human timeline too.  And your point is...?

- TMAO appears to be highest in individuals with Prevotella bacteria — typically found in those who eat lots of whole grains.

Apparently not as much as eating red meat and eggs. 

- Studies are often funded by corporations with agendas (low fat, low sodium, artificial food replacements).

No argument there.  But it also applies to foundations like Weston Price. 

- Vegetarianism hasn't been tested in very many large populations. Most data you cited seems to be derived from the Seventh Day Adventist study.

You're forgetting the China Study, which was a 20-year partnership of Cornell University, Oxford University and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine that showed high consumption of animal-based foods is associated with more chronic disease, while those who ate primarily a plant-based diet were the healthiest.

All for now... more to come...

[Gumby]

That link simply parrots the Weston Price Foundation, and we've already established their ties to the meat and dairy industry and the questionable nature of their "studies". 

You definitely didn't establish that. WAPF opposes the beef and dairy industry. WAPF supports local and community grass-fed cattle farming — which is the opposite of "industry". The factory- farming industry opposes WAPF's advocating of grass-fed, pastured, animals.

Do you not understand the difference between a corporation and a local farm?

More importantly, MK-4 is not found only in animal products.  In fact, it is a by-product of bacterial fermentation, which is why cheese - specifically gouda and brie - and natto are the richest sources.

You are confusing your sources. Natto is 100% MK-7. There is ZERO MK-4 in natto and soy fermented products. Cheese, by the way, if you never realized it, comes from animals. So, MK-4 is only found from animal sources (such as cheese), with the exception of the minuscule amounts found in some fermented vegetables.

In fact, my internet search for food sources of MK-4 repeatedly turns up statements like this:

"The MK-4 form of K2 is often found in relatively small quantities in meat and eggs."

Fact: The richest source of Vitamin K2 MK-4 is Goose liver pâté (369.0 micrograms per 100g). Sauerkraut is one of the only plant-based food that generates any MK-4 that I'm aware of, but it only has 4.8 micrograms of MK-4 per 100g.

As for humans, some of our tissues convert vitamin K1 to MK-4, and bacteria in our gut converts it to MK-7.

Humans are extremely poor converters of K1 to MK-4. Therefore, we require preformed K2 (particularly MK-4) in our diets.

Maybe you can calculate how much MK-4 you're not getting in your diet/supplements?

I'm sure I'm getting plenty, since I eat a variety of cheeses and fermented soy products (like tempeh, although I have yet to find natto in my local grocery store -- I guess a trip to the Asian market is in order because now I've got to try that stuff!)

Again, natto and tempeh have no MK-4 — only MK-7. Secondly, I find it strange that now you are proud of your cheese consumption when just a few pages ago you were telling us how unappetizing it is to consume the dairy from another mammal. Which is it?

[moda0306]

I think we all need to take a moment to appreciate how epic this discussion/argument/battle is.

This is like watching a dietary version of the battle at the end of Avatar.

[doodle]

Im learning a lot for sure...So thanks to Gumby and Rocketdog for putting in the time. I have already made a few adjustments to my diet.

But, if I could make one comment regarding something that has been a personal development project of mine for a bit...Everyone is striving towards the truth and there is no need to turn this into a personal battle. It is more productive I feel to detach your personal identity from the position you are taking and try to approach the topic in a less confrontational way. I think this is a skill (although difficult to implement at times) that would benefit humanity greatly. Attack the argument in a respectful manner and not the person. I think this creates a much better and open environment for learning. Of course, I state this as an ideal as the ego is a wickedly powerful force to tamp down.

Statements like...you have no idea what you are talking about....or using a persons unintentional contradictions to take cheap shots at them dont create a friendly atmosphere.

As I have started to do a lot more inner work over the last year I have noticed that not only is it extremely difficult (the exterior work of staying in shape or eating right are a breeze by comparison) but that the benefits to your overall health and happiness from each little step forward are larger than I had ever fathomed. I try to imagine how wonderful it would be to be able to face the incredible ups and downs of the world from an equanimous and centered state of stability. As much as the health of our body needs to be looked after with diet and exercise, its really the mind that deserves 90% of our attention.

[Pointedstick]

As I have started to do a lot more inner work over the last year I have noticed that not only is it extremely difficult (the exterior work of staying in shape or eating right are a breeze by comparison) but that the benefits to your overall health and happiness from each little step forward are larger than I had ever fathomed. I try to imagine how wonderful it would be to be able to face the incredible ups and downs of the world from an equanimous and centered state of stability. As much as the health of our body needs to be looked after with diet and exercise, its really the mind that deserves 90% of our attention.

+100!

[Gumby]

Alright then...  Let's summarize my points so far...

- Industrial seed oils (i.e. vegetable oils) are rancid and contribute to oxidation in the body and blood.

Not true.  If vegetable oils are stored properly, they do not turn rancid.  Animal fats turn rancid too... if they're not stored properly.  So what's your point?

My point is that vegetable oils are highly unstable in manufacturing, highly unstable on the shelf, highly unstable when exposed to heat, and highly unstable in your stomach and 98º body.

If you have ever walked into a NYC subway elevator, and thought it smelled like a hobo died inside the elevator, that's really just the small of the rancid canola oil that has broken down on on the rails of the elevator shaft. It's not a pleasant smell. The modern oil you buy at the supermarket is the same thing, except that it has been further processed to remove the odor and foul taste.

Here is a diagram of the production process for modern refined vegetable oils...

[align=center][/align]

Notice the large deodorization phase? Notice the bleaching phase? These oils are rancid before they ever go into their bottles.

Fish oil is a polyunsaturated oil. Flax oil is a polyunsaturated oil. We all know that fish oil and flax oil are highly unstable — that's why fish oil and flax oil are kept cold and refrigerated and in dark bottles.

Most of the processing for modern vegetable oils involves heat. It's very difficult to extract oil from a bunch of seeds without lots of heat. Heat destroys the oil and breaks the molecules apart. The broken pieces of the molecules become free radicals (unpaired electrons) in your body. By the end of the manufacturing process, the oil must be deodorized and processed to remove the evidence of rancidity.

The food processing empire is built on industrial fats and oils, extracted from corn, soybeans and other seeds. Crude vegetable oil--which is dark, sticky and smelly--is subjected to horrendous processing to produce clean-looking cooking oils, margarine, shortening and spreads. The steps involved in processing usually include degumming, bleaching, deodorizing, filtering and removing saturates to make the oils more liquid.[17] In the process, the nutrients and antioxidants disappear--but not the pesticides. Most processors also add a hexane solvent in order to squeeze the very last drop of oil out of the seeds. Caustic refining, the most widely used process for oil refining, involves adding very alkaline, chemicals to the oil.

In order to make a solid fat out of liquid oil, manufacturers subject the oils to a process called partial hydrogenation. The oil is extracted under high temperature and pressure, and the remaining fraction of oil is removed with hexane solvents. Manufacturers then steam clean the oils, a process that removes all the vitamins and all the antioxidants—but, of course, the solvents and the pesticides remain. These oils are mixed with a nickel catalyst and then, under high temperature and pressure, they are flooded with hydrogen gas. What goes into the reactor is a liquid oil; what comes out of that reactor is a smelly mass resembling grey cottage cheese. Emulsifiers are mixed in to smooth out the lumps, and the oil is then steam cleaned once more, to get rid of the horrible smell. The next step is bleaching, to get rid of the grey color. At this point, the product can be called "pure vegetable shortening." To make margarines and spreads, artificial flavors and synthetic vitamins are added. But the government does not allow the industry to add synthetic color to margarine--they must add a natural color, such as annatto--a comforting thought. The margarine or spread is then packaged in blocks and tubs and advertised as a health food.

[17] Fats and Oils: Formulating and Processing for Applications, Richard D. O’Brien 1998.

Source: http://www.westonaprice.org/modern-food ... g-industry

Rancidity is a sign that the molecules have degraded and started to release free radicals. If you heat that unstable oil even more — or expose it to more air or light — it just causes even more degradation.

Here is what the different fat molecules look like:

[align=center][/align]

When an oil breaks down, bits and pieces of its molecules break off and become unpaired electrons (i.e. free radicals) in your body (and your bloodstream). Saturated fat molecules are very straight chains of carbon — allowing the molecules to pack up against each other at room temperature — which is why they appear solid at room temperature. They are very strong and can withstand breakdown better than monounsaturated fats, which have a large bend in the middle of their molecules. Polyunsaturated molecules are so complex that the molecules can barely get close together, so they are liquid at room temperature. These complex molecules are much more fragile and the unpaired electrons are easily released — particularly during the high-heat, highly-oxidized manufacturing process outlined above.

Note that trans-fatty acids are non-saturated fats where a hydrogen atom has been flipped to the other side of the molecule to make them appear straighter. While strong in appearance, these molecules are very unstable and promote free radicals in your body. Not to mention that your body doesn't know what to do with unnatural trans-fat molecules...

Saturated fat is the type of fat found in such foods as lard, butter and coconut oil. Saturated fat molecules are straight, so they pack together easily. That is why saturated fats are solid at room temperature. Unsaturated fats have a little bend at each double bond, with two hydrogen atoms sticking out on the same side. And when that molecule gets incorporated into your cells, the body wants those two hydrogen atoms to be on the same side of the carbon chain, forming an electron cloud; that is where controlled chemical interactions take place.

During the process of partial hydrogenation, one of those hydrogen atoms is moved to the other side, causing the molecule to straighten out so that it behaves chemically like a saturate—although biochemically it behaves very differently. The original, unsaturated molecule is called a “cis”? fatty acid, because the two hydrogens are together, and then it becomes a trans fatty acid, because the two hydrogens are across from each other ("trans" means "across"). Your body doesn’t know that this new molecule is something that has never existed in nature before, and when you eat one of these trans fatty acids, it gets built into your cell membranes. Because of the chemical rearrangement, the reactions that should happen can’t take place. Enzymes and receptors don't work anymore. The more trans fatty acids that you eat, the more partially hydrogenated your cells become and the more chaos that you are going to have on the cellular level.

[align=center][/align]

All of the margarines, shortenings and even low-trans-fat spreads are made with these harmful ingredients. They're used in chips and crackers, and most restaurants use them for cooking fries. Until the early 1980s, fast food outlets and restaurants cooked the fries in tallow, which is a very safe fat, but now they use partially hydrogenated soybean oil.

In the past, when you made desserts for your kids, at least the sugar they contained came with butter, eggs, cream and nuts—all good wholesome foods. Now manufacturers can imitate the butter, eggs, cream and nuts, so all you have is sugar, industrial oils and artificial ingredients in these instant puddings, pastries and other artificial desserts.

Many diseases have been associated with the consumption of trans fatty acids—heart disease, cancer, and degeneration of joints and tendons. The only reason that we are eating this stuff is because we have been told that the competing saturated fats and oils—butter, lard, coconut oil, palm oil, tallow and suet—are bad for us and cause heart disease. Such assertions are nothing but industry propaganda.
Source: http://www.westonaprice.org/modern-food ... g-industry

Rocketdog, you can continue to ignore the evidence presented by the Weston A. Price foundation if you want to. But, they are correct. Polyunsaturated fat (PUFA) is highly unstable. And this has been corroborated over and over again in the medical literature.

In fact, here is a peer-reviewed study that was published last month that says exactly that!

http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/3/294.full

I would also point out that most of the well-known vegetarian-diet doctors tell their patients and readers to avoid vegetable oils. Dean Ornish tells his followers to avoid vegetable oils, Caldwell Esselstyn forbids vegetable oils, John McDougall tells his followers to limit vegetable oils, Neal Barnard forbids vegetable oils. These doctors tend to encourage olive oil (a monounsaturated fat) which is more stable than vegetable oils, but less stable than saturated fat.

The "smart" vegetarians have switched to coconut oil (a pure saturated fat) which is highly stable, and just proves my point.

[Gumby]

Eating too much saturated fat can contribute to:

Breast Cancer

Coronary Heart Disease

Diabetes

Correlation does not equal causation. Also, these studies confuse saturated fats and trans fats.

- There is no proof that low cholesterol improves longevity (the data shows the reverse is true).

Plenty of proof, like this and this.

Looks like you didn't read the studies. Those studies do not examine cholesterol levels and longevity. Try again. All those studies do is prove that high cholesterol can be a marker of a health problem (which I would agree with). Meat consumption in these studies only look at processed and grain-fed meats (both high in Omega-6). Hardly surprising.

- Flax (ALA) is a poor source of Omega-3 (most people can only convert about 0.5% into DHA/EPA).

Tell that to these researches:

Flaxseed - a miraculous defense against some critical maladies.

Nutritional value and functional properties of flaxseed

The cardiovascular effects of flaxseed and its omega-3 fatty acid, alpha-linolenic acid.

Correlation does not equal causation. And you only found research that appears to further the sales of flaxseed (likely financed by flax suppliers from the "miraculous" conclusions). You didn't find any evidence that any significant amount of flax is actually converted to EPA/DHA. Try again.

It will help if you actually read what these studies are about — rather than just copying and pasting whatever study headlines you find on veggie websites.

[Gumby]

- Most grains, seeds and nuts are a high source of inflammatory Omega-6.

Also containing Omega-6: chicken, eggs, fish, and beef.

Ah... but grass-fed meat has a near-perfect balance of omega-3/6. Here's a great chart that compares the 3/6 ratio of grain fed vs. grass fed meats (see last column):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... /table/T2/

Notice how favorable the Omega 3/6 ratio is in grass-fed meat? Notice how bad it is in most grain-fed meats? For instance, the difference between grass-fed Angus and grain fed Angus is staggering. They might as well be completely different foods.

That's why it's so difficult to take any of the studies you present, condemning meat, seriously. The nutritional difference between grain-fed meat and grass-fed meat are enormous.

In any event, Omega-6 is an essential fatty acid, so we need it in our diet... assuming we keep it reasonable and in balance with Omega-3.

Correct. And grass-fed meat achieves that "balance". But, I can assure you, that most people have no trouble obtaining Omega-6 from diet — it's in everything. Having said that, I'm still not sure where you are getting your long-chain Omega-3s from, since flax does not easily convert into EPA/DHA.

Moderation in all things is the key.  Because too much Omega-3 can create its own set of health problems.

Correct. Remember, fish oil is a polyunsaturated oil (PUFA). And PUFAs are highly unstable (as I have been arguing). Therefore, I agree that is better to lower Omega-6 than to raise one's Omega-3 consumption in an attempt to even out one's Omega 3/6 ratio.

- Vegetarianism and grain consumption has only been practiced for a minuscule amount of the human timeline.

Vaccination, teeth brushing, and frequent bathing has only been practiced for a miniscule amount of the human timeline too.  And your point is...?

My point is that it hasn't been well tested and their is no evolutionary evidence to support it.

Interesting that you should bring up teeth. Cavities were more rare in hominid fossils before grain consumption (as Mellanby also helped nutritionally explain). And indigenous cultures observed by Mellanby and Price showed that these cultures who all consumed high quantities of fat soluble vitamins and little grain did not need to brush their teeth to maintain perfect dental health.

- TMAO appears to be highest in individuals with Prevotella bacteria — typically found in those who eat lots of whole grains.

Apparently not as much as eating red meat and eggs. 

And if you read the study, you would have seen that the article overlooked the fact that TMAO was highest in individuals with the most Prevotella bacteria in their guts — regardless of whether they were vegan, vegetarian or omnivores. Health tip: don't get your health advice from newspaper reporters who don't know how to question the available data.

- Studies are often funded by corporations with agendas (low fat, low sodium, artificial food replacements).

No argument there.  But it also applies to foundations like Weston Price. 

That article was just an opinion — and lacked evidence. You seem to have this mistaken idea that WAPF funds lots of studies. It really doesn't do very many studies. It barely has enough money to send out brochures, let alone fund much research. Virtually all of their evidence is pulled from actual research.

- Vegetarianism hasn't been tested in very many large populations. Most data you cited seems to be derived from the Seventh Day Adventist study.

You're forgetting the China Study

T. Colin Campbell's interpretation of The China Study was easily debunked.

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
http://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/

When you read their critique of Campbell's work, you'll see just how misguided he was. For instance, he claimed that he could induce cancer in animals by feeding them casein — and then used this as "proof" that casein in animal products causes cancer. Unfortunately for Campbell's theories, people don't eat isolated casein. They eat casein along with whey, which has properties that naturally cancels out the effects of casein.

This is why most vegetarians get into trouble with their epidemiological studies. They think that taking an isolated ingredient (casein powder, oxidized cholesterol, fractionated protein powders, isolated amino acids, etc. etc.) and using it to induce a disease is somehow proof of something. But, in nature, there is a synergy to the components and co-factors of natural foods that tends to bring balance to the body — along with millions of years of evolutionary adaptation to these foods.

[Gumby]

Keep in mind that most vegetarians have an agenda to protect animal welfare. While it's a very noble cause — and one that I support (as I, too, hate factory farming) — they tend to distort findings in order to further that agenda. Most carnivores have better things to do with their time.

And with that, I think I will bow out of this conversation, as I have better things to do with my own time. It's been fun.

Rocketdog, if you really want to eat the way you do, I won't stop you. Really. More meat for me — just like the millions and millions of meat-eating, saturated fat-eating ancestors before me.

But, do yourself a favor, and take the time to explore and learn about the contrarian evidence that appears to solidly debunk your lifestyle. Simply reading opininated critiques from Joel Fuhrman and Dean Ornish is not a way to learn both sides of the story. All that will do is cement your biases.

You claimed to be initially skeptical when you were first exposed to vegetarianism. Why not, as an exercise, explore that skepticism again? If you can honestly read The Vegetarian Myth and still believe that you should be a vegetarian, I applaud you.

[doodle]

I will probably check the Vegetarian Myth out of the library and read it, but I think this particular review on Amazon points to some flaws in taking Lierre Keiths conclusions as some definitive answer on these topics.

I want to be clear about a few things:

1) I am a female.
2) I give the idea of this book 5 stars, but its execution 1.
3) I have been a radical vegan, a rabid meat-eater and everything in between (currently in the in-between)
4) I am working on an archaeological PhD on hunter-gatherer diets, subsistence, hunting and transition to agriculture.

I picked this book up after reading Jonathan Safran Foer's "Eating Animals". I thought it would be interesting to read a different perspective on the vegetarian debate. I found Safran Foer's book to be much more geared towards the inhumane practices of meat while Keith's book is geared more towards diet/health.

I admit that it took a very long time for me to get through this book, for several reasons. I purchased this book hoping to get something out of it. I am not an upset vegan who wants to hate it and I am not someone who bought it knowing Id love it. I was just neutral. There were two main reasons for my disappointment with the book. One minor, one major. First, I found the second agendas (specifically the radical feminism) distracting and unnecessary. I have nothing against the feminist agenda, but this wasnt the place to put it. Second, I found the book absolutely riddled with bad information, faulty facts and just plain lazy research (if you can call it 'research'). As someone who intensively researches these issues on a daily basis, I found myself underlining items on nearly every page that I knew were just plain untrue or were 'cherry-picked' facts slanted to give a certain perception. This is such a disappointment as a really great case could be made for the author's view if she had only put the real work into researching the book properly. Once you lose the reader's trust that you are providing factual information what do you have? Ill provide examples:

1) pg. 140: The author states that "Carbon-13 is a stable isotope present in two places: grasses and the bodies of animals that eat grasses". She goes on to suggest that since there is no evidence of grass "scratch marks" on the human teeth found, that they must have been eating animals. There are many flaws in this thought process. First, I cant even begin to explain the preservation and degradation issues present in examining three million year old teeth for 'scratch marks'. Second, carbon-13 is an isotope found in ALL terrestrial and marine plants, not just grass. Finding high levels of C3 or C4 (which are what carbon-13 breaks down into) in human teeth only means that that human was eating large amounts of SOME plant, seed, nut, etc. (not JUST grass) or the animal that ate those. It is not as simple as GRASS OR COW.

2) pg. 142: The author states that there are no bacteria in the human stomach. This is simply untrue. In 2005 Barry Marshall and Robin Warren won a Nobel Prize in Medicine for discovering a stomach bacteria that causes gastritis and ulcer disease. There are currently over 130 known stomach bacteria.

3) pg. 146: The author states a "rumor" authored by RB Lee about hunter-gatherers getting 65% of their calories from plants and 35% from meat. She states that this "simply isnt true". First, this rumor-spreader is one of the most well-respected anthropological/archaeological researchers in hunter-gatherer studies who edited what is considered THE tome on hunter-gatherer theory, 'Man the Hunter'. He isnt some random hack. Second, saying those numbers 'simply arent true' is simply not true. Hunter-gatherers did and do inhabit a huge range of environments and likewise their diets cover a wide range. Some do follow the 65/35% number. Some eat much more meat. Some eat much less.

These are only three examples from a span of six pages. This pattern continues throughout the entire book. Fact is the authors 'facts' just arent believable (which, again, is a shame because a factual book on this topic could be powerful). She writes as if the anthropological and archaeological evidence she quotes is written in stone, when in fact many of these topics are constantly under revision or not well understood yet. Most importantly, I just believe that writing a book and promoting it as a factual, scientific account of a subject when it is not is doing a great disservice to your (mostly) unknowing readers. If you are not willing to put in the real research effort, write a book that is touted as a personal account and nothing more. Selling flubbed facts to people who are truly searching for answers, inspiration or (insert what you are looking for here) is just bad journalism.

Ill end this review with some facts and encourage any readers (whether you liked the book, hated the book or havent read the book) to always question whether what you are reading is true and to do some research of your own.

The author cites 207 references in this book.
62 of those references are websites (~30%)
18 are newspapers and magazines (~7%)
32 are journals (~15%)
95 are other books (~46%)

First of all, think about that. 30% of the references in this book come from website information. Five of those 62 website references were Wikipedia. Wikipedia! One was Google Answers. I wont let my freshmen students use Wikipedia as a reference in their papers, why would it be acceptable for a book? Like websites, newspaper and magazine information needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Of the 32 journals less than half come from well known, peer-reviewed sources. The remaining 46% are books, which can truly say anything the author cares to print (as this one does) and only show that the author is getting her information from another source (and another opinion) aside from the primary one. The point of this is to make clear that this is a book that is sold as (and which many positive reviews hype as) providing scientific, factual, intellectual knowledge on the vegetarian/diet/health debate. In reality less than 8% of the book is coming from peer-reviewed, fact-checked sources which can provide unbiased, neutral information.

If anything I hope this review encourages people to get away from the bias on either side, find factual scientific sources instead of second-third-fourth hand knowledge, check information for yourself instead of blindly believing an author, and to question published material and push for it to actually be factual if it presented as such.

[Gumby]

I will probably check the Vegetarian Myth out of the library and read it, but I think this particular review on Amazon points to some flaws in taking Lierre Keiths conclusions as some definitive answer on these topics.

Agreed. The book is not perfect, by far. But, I have no more time to explain every aspect of ancestral meat-eating to someone who does not really want to listen. So, I recommended the book, despite its obvious flaws. Perhaps there are better pieces of literature out there that would do a better job.

My overall point is that it's a good idea for him to expose himself to the reality of how our species evolved — digesting meat and fat and plants for millions of years (as true "Omnivores" at the top of the food chain). I'm personally not aware of any carnivores or omnivores in the animal kingdom that gets lots of chronic diseases by eating their evolutionary diets.

If he doesn't want to eat meat, so be it. More for me. I had some locally house-cured guanciale tossed into a salad today and it was fantastic.

Rocketdog, I wish you the best of health. Godspeed. Do check out my recommendation to avoid industrial seed vegetable oils. That advice may very well save your life. (You're welcome!) As I said, even the vegetarian doctors say those oils are bad and should be avoided — which should tell you something.

[doodle]

Ultimately as cliche as it might sound, moderation and diversification seem to work best in most aspects of life whether that be investing or diet and exercise.

I have personally decided to add grassfed red meat in limited quantities back into my diet as well as to continue to eat meat in general for the time being. My primary objection to meat is actually not that it is unhealthy, but I have a serious ethical problem with how these animals are so inhumanely treated and slaughtered. I have found a couple farms online that address this issue and take care of their animals in a respectful way and I will try to live with that for now. I strongly believe that if you have enough disposable income, you should pay up the little extra that it costs to ensure that you are not supporting a meat industry that turns living sentient creatures into pure commodities.

Secondly, I have cut the vegetable oils way back in my diet. There are a lot of oil choices out there that are less controversial so I will just stick with those and continue to research. I have also cut back a lot on the wheat and sugar that I consume and save it for special treats. When making traditonal wheat based recipes I now look for substitutes. For example, I made some pancakes the other day with zuchinni, summer squash, kale and buckwheat ground up as the base. They cooked up just like regular pancakes almost and best of all didnt give me tht blood sugar spike that I usually get.

Thanks again to everyone for all the info!