This is a rather fruitless debate I've read many times. The problem is: humans are NOT all the same.
Some are allergic to some substances, others not. Some can well digest raw vegetables, others not. Some do well on a meat-only diet, others not. That's why every diet in the world works well for some people, but does not work at all for others. As for adapted medication we'll need to consider people's individualistic metabolisms more for dietary recommendations. There is no one-pill-for-all solution. Just my two cents. Kindly, Dirk -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Nancy E. Karraker Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. September 2009 04:23 An: [email protected] Betreff: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are ecologists the problem? Yes, I read a lot of background info when I was younger and know that it makes biological sense. The truth is that I don't manage anything. I eat some tofu, lots of beans, and lots of fruits, vegetables, and root crops. I will challenge any of the HCB editors to a game of one-on-one basketball to demonstrate how healthy I am. :) Of course the biology of what you say makes sense, but it practicality the fact that I don't get all the amino acids seems not to matter much. Not sure why. I think other vegetarians would agree. N. Quoting malcolm McCallum <[email protected]>: > here is a quick article that briefly discusses amino acid deficiencies > in plants. Of course, you must manage your diet very carefully, but > lys, trp, and met are the key AA of importance here. > http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/full/147/3/954 > > I tried to find further references, but simply do not have the time. > > M > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Lesley Campbell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > While I'm more than happy to agree that the amount that ecologists travel > > (relative to the average earth resident) is an outrageous disaster, and > I'm > > happy to agree that curbing travel has a far larger impact on one's > > ecological footprint than curbing the consumption of animal products, the > > statement that humans cannot survive on a plant based diet is clearly > false. > > Humans do not require any animal-derived amino acids (although they are > > certainly tasty!). If it is not proof enough that there are entire > cultures > > (with reasonable life-spans) that eat strictly vegetarian diets, just > survey > > the academic literature on vegetarian (vs non-vegetarian) health. > Vegetarian > > diets do require humans to consume foods differently than non-vegetarians > > but they are not impossible, nor unhealthy. Unfortunately, most people > > switch to a vegan diet with little education in nutrition and end up > rapidly > > depleting essential nutrients that come from food the normal North > American > > doesn't use regularly. > > > > Here's an abstract of a the first comparative study of vegetarians and > > non-vegetarians I pulled up on Web of science. It looks as if Buddhist > > vegetarian nuns are just as healthy (if not more) as non-vegetarian > > omnivores. > > > > Body composition and nutrient intake of Buddhist vegetarians (2009) > > Lee, Yujin, Krawinkel, Michael. > > ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION    18(2): 265-271 > > Abstract: We described the body composition and nutrient intake of > Buddhist > > vegetarians and compared the data with that of omnivores in South Korea. > > Vegetarian subjects were 54 Buddhist nuns, who adhered to a vegetarian > diet > > in accordance with Buddhist teachings. We compared these finding with a > > group of 31 omnivore Catholic nuns who shared a similar lifestyle but > > different dietary pattern than those of the Buddhist nuns. All subjects > > completed the estimated three-day dietary record. Body composition was > > determined by a segmental multi-frequency-bioelectrical impedance analysis > > method. No height difference between the dietary groups existed but the > > vegetarians had a significantly higher body weight, fat free mass, body > fat > > and body mass index (BMI, kg/m(2)) than the omnivores. The median BMI of > > both vegetarians and omnivores fell in the normal range (22.6 vs. 20.7 > > kg/m(2)). In vegetarians, body fat was inversely correlated with the > > duration of vegetarianism (p for trend = 0.043). The long duration group > of > > the vegetarians had lower body fat than the short duration group (12.1 vs. > > 15.0 kg, p = 0.032). The status of the nutrient intake of Korean Buddhist > > vegetarians was comparable to that of omnivores, and the intake of some > > nutrients in vegetarians was more favorable than in the omnivores. > > > > And the most highly cited, manipulative study I could find, revealed that > a > > vegetarian diet (including dairy products) has beneficial consequences for > > blood pressure. > > > > A clinical trial of the effects of dietary patterns on blood pressure > (1997) > > Appel LJ, Moore TJ, Obarzanek E, Vollmer WM, Svetkey LP, Sacks FM, Bray > GA, > > Vogt TM, Cutler JA, Windhauser MM, Lin PH, Karanja N > > NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE  336 (16): 1117-1124 > > > > Abstract: Background It is known that obesity, sodium intake, and alcohol > > consumption influence blood pressure. In this clinical trial, Dietary > > Approaches to Stop Hypertension, we assessed the effects of dietary > patterns > > on blood pressure. > > Methods We enrolled 459 adults with systolic blood pressures of less than > > 160 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressures of 80 to 95 mm Hg. For three > weeks, > > the subjects were fed a control diet that was low in fruits, vegetables, > and > > dairy products, with a fat content typical of the average diet in the > United > > States. They were then randomly assigned to receive for eight weeks the > > control diet, a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, or a ''combination'' > > diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy products and with > reduced > > saturated and total fat. Sodium intake and body weight were maintained at > > constant levels. > > > > Results At base line, the mean (+/-SD) systolic and diastolic blood > > pressures were 131.3+/-10.8 mm Hg and 84.+/-4.7 mm Hg, respectively. The > > combination diet reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure by 5.5 and > > 3.0 mm Hg more, respectively, than the control diet (P<0.001 for each); > the > > fruits-and-vegetables diet reduced systolic blood pressure by 2.8 mm Hg > more > > (P<0.001) and diastolic blood pressure by 1.1 mm Hg more (P=0.07) than the > > control diet. Among the 133 subjects with hypertension (systolic pressure, > > greater than or equal to 140 mm Hg; diastolic pressure, greater than or > > equal to 90 mm Hg; or both), the combination diet reduced systolic and > > diastolic blood pressure by 11.4 and 5.5 mm Hg more, respectively, than > the > > control diet (P<0.001 for each); among the 326 subjects without > > hypertension, the corresponding reductions were 3.5 mm Hg (P<0.001) and > 2.1 > > mm Hg (P=0.003). > > > > Conclusions A diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy foods and > > with reduced saturated and total fat can substantially lower blood > pressure. > > This diet offers an additional nutritional approach to preventing and > > treating hypertension. (C) 1997, Massachusetts Medical Society. > > > > > > On Sep 8, 2009, at 10:50 PM, malcolm McCallum wrote: > > > >> I tend to believe that any absolute answer that is declared an end all > >> answer > >> is probably not the answer. 啫or example, I'm not convinced that everyone > >> jumping into a vegetarian diet is going to suddenly or even slowly > >> save the world. > >> Especially, considering that some of these stats are based on unrealistic > >> estimates. > >> > >> For example, suggesting that x acres of corn would feed x number of cows > >> and > >> that would feed x number of people whereas the x acres of corn would feed > >> way > >> more people is flawed. 㗎umans cannot survive on a corn diet. 啲ven if > >> we expanded > >> this to grains and soybeans, humans cannot survive on a corn-soybean > diet. > >> Why? 毪ecause vegetables in general are low in two or three essential > >> amino acids > >> that humans must get in their diet. 濳hose amino acids are produced by > >> animals > >> and so you must ultimately get them from animals or artificially > >> produced products. > >> > >> Furthermore, even if the plant has x amount of lysine for example, the > >> amount in > >> the plant is not completely biologically available to the human > >> because we simply > >> do not have the enzymes for breaking these products down. > >> > >> Also, outside of feedlots where high-concentrate diets are fed, if you > >> look at > >> grass fed cattle/sheep/goats you are going to find that these animals > >> are raised > >> on lands that are not very suitable for food crop production AND that > much > >> of > >> what they are fed is not human food but rather grasses. 㗎owever, most > >> beef is fed out in feedlots and relatively little is raised on grass. > >> Sheep and > >> goats, however, are virtually entirely fed using areas that would not be > >> used > >> for any kind of crop farming. > >> > >> Now, growing row crops such as corn and soybeans is not a one-to-one > >> conversion > >> to growing horticultural food crops. 㗎orticultural food crops require > >> more intensive > >> care in order for them to have shelf life and for other technical > >> reasons. 糍he seeds > >> are planted further apart, the rows further apart and the necessary > >> irrigation and > >> pest control much more extreme than row crops. 嘢ther crops such as > fruits > >> waste tons of land in comparison. 啱t takes a good 5 years before a fruit > >> tree > >> reaches maturity (semi dwarf) and closer to two years for a dwarf. > 孭gain, > >> high use of pesticides is the norm. 孭nd what about nuts? 孭ren't > >> these one of the > >> wonder foods that will supplant meat in our diet??? 咗ell, a pecan tree > >> takes a > >> good 15-30 years to reach maturity depending on the hybrid!!!! now that > >> tree > >> will produce for a good long time, but do you really think a pecan > orchard > >> is > >> all that productive? > >> > >> Overall, we would do well to lower our meat intake for both environmental > >> and > >> health reasons. 㗎owever, if we wanted to really do this right, we > >> would all buy > >> a goat for milk, have it eat our grass and weeds for milk, then eat the > >> kids. > >> > >> In fact, goat meat is much more in line with human nutrition than lamb > and > >> lamb > >> more in line than beef or pork. > >> > >> My wife and I have our own flock of chickens we use for eggs. 咗e raise a > >> couple of pigs each year, and do raise a few meat goats each year. 啱 > >> still > >> like to eat a nice juicy steak once in a while. 咗e raise most of our > >> vegetables > >> from the garden, although the weather in East Texas has been anti-garden > >> for > >> three years strait...luckily, we put away a lot three years ago. > >> > >> I don't know if what I am doing is making any great contribution to the > >> earth's > >> environment. 啱 certainly can't say that I'm setting some great example, > >> as > >> who the heck sees what I'm doing anyway? 㗎owever, I have always had this > >> idea that pseudohomesteading (my term I invented comparing what we do to > >> the > >> movement from the 1970s) would be fun. 嚒o, we are doing it because we > >> like to live this > >> way. 啱f it wasn't for a pile of student loans and medical bills, I > >> might just go off the > >> grid and give the world the proverbial phalange, except for the > >> occassional journal > >> article I publish, letter to the editor, and maybe even a listserv > >> post if I kept the > >> internet for contact with the real world. 啱 also enjoy watching TV, > >> so it can't go > >> either. 孭nd then there is central air and heat. 嘢h, and running water. > >> 嘞adio, > >> music, damn....I'm back on the grid and almost hit yupeeville :( > >> > >> If everyone pics ONE CAUSE and stuck with it, the world would be a better > >> place. > >> If your cause is recycling, and you do it religiously, and a bunch of > >> other people also do it, > >> it will have an impact. > >> > >> But the real problem is that there are a lot of people who do > >> absolutely nothing, have > >> absolutely no interest in the health of the environment, and a mess of > >> people who are > >> actually at war with environmental causes. If even most people tried > >> to do something, > >> I think you would see an environmental revolution. 吚nfortunately, most > >> people > >> are consumed by other things and even if they are concerned about the > >> environment, > >> they really are not engaged in anything of environmental importance. > >> > >> How's that for a completely bleak outlook. > >> Ask me tomorrow and I may have a more positive slant! > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Kevin McCluney<[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> I recently attended the 2009 annual meeting of the Ecological Society of > >>> America (ESA). 糍he theme of this year旧 meeting was sustainability. > >>> 糍here > >>> were many great talks on this subject and a few truly pessimistic ones. > >>> 嘢ne > >>> speaker proposed that human beings are, by our very nature, destined to > >>> consume and reproduce as much as possible, and despite our best efforts, > >>> this will lead to our own demise. 餸uring the same talk the speaker also > >>> asked, 聴ho is responsible?� 㗎e answered his question by saying that we > >>> at > >>> this conference are just as much a part of the problem as anyone else. > >>> > >>> Is this true? 啱 know I myself have taken many steps to lower my > >>> footprint > >>> and many other ecologists have as well. > >>> > >>> For instance, at last year旧 ESA meeting in Milwaukee there was an > >>> interesting occurrence at local restaurants. 糍he first night of the > >>> conference I had a really good veggie burger at one restaurant. 啱 went > >>> back > >>> later in the week for another. 糍he waitress apologized� they were all > >>> out. > >>> She went on to explain that the manager had heard our conference was > >>> coming > >>> to town, so bought extra ahead of time, but ran out of those quickly > >>> anyway. > >>> The manager then went to the local grocery store and bought more. 脷ut > >>> alas, > >>> by the time I returned, they had run out of those as well. 啫urther, > when > >>> I > >>> dine with friends at ESA meetings, I often find that more than half the > >>> table orders vegetarian entrees. > >>> > >>> Why does eating vegetarian matter so much? 嗰odern, industrialized > >>> livestock > >>> production is one of the more environmentally destructive human > >>> endeavors. > >>> It contributes roughly one fifth of all our greenhouse gas emissions, > >>> more > >>> than all cars, and these gases are major contributors to the rapid > >>> climate > >>> change we虐e experiencing. 㗒ivestock production also may, in certain > >>> cases, > >>> be leading to deforestation and destruction of important ecosystems, as > >>> well > >>> as to pollution of rivers, lakes, and even oceans. 啱n addition, we all > >>> know > >>> that basic ecological principles hold that it takes less resources to > >>> raise > >>> plant based food sources than meat based, since energy is lost as you > >>> move > >>> up the food chain. 糍hus we can feed more people and use fewer resources > >>> on > >>> a plant-based diet. 孭ll this caused the chairman of the > >>> Intergovernmental > >>> Panel on Climate Change recently to proclaim that the best thing a > person > >>> could do to reduce their impact on climate change was to eat a more > >>> plant- > >>> based diet. > >>> > >>> My wife and I haven急 stopped at eating low on the food chain. 咗e挙e > >>> also > >>> joined community supported agriculture, where we buy a share of produce > >>> from > >>> a local farm. 糍he farmer gets upfront economic security and we get very > >>> affordable, local, fresh organic produce. 咗e pay just $18 per week for > a > >>> large bag of food. 孭t this price we can afford to supplement our diet > >>> with > >>> additional organic items from the grocery store. > >>> > >>> We挙e also taken a variety of other steps, from riding my bike to work, > >>> to > >>> offsetting car and air travel through renewable energy from an > >>> independently > >>> certified company, to buying 100% of our electricity from renewable > >>> sources > >>> through our local utility for as little as $15 per month. > >>> > >>> While we may not be reaching the small ecological footprint of those in > >>> many > >>> third world countries, we挙e done our best to come in line with our > >>> planet旧 > >>> limits while maintaining a decent quality of life. > >>> > >>> So, are ecologists just as much a part of the problem as everyone else? > >>> 孭re > >>> all ecologists the same? 咗hat are the variety of lifestyle choices made > >>> by > >>> ecologists? 嘅ot only would the answers to these questions provide a > >>> response to the ESA presenter, but I think the answer would be > >>> interesting > >>> to a wide audience. 啱 propose that ESA conduct a poll of members, > asking > >>> questions about lifestyle choices and demographics, comparing ours to > >>> that > >>> of the general public. 啱f we are not different, this would be a bit of > a > >>> wake-up call. 㗎owever, if we are different, then perhaps some of our > >>> lifestyle choices would be informative to understanding how to achieve a > >>> more sustainable society. > >>> > >>> If there is one thing I learned from a cultural anthropology course I > >>> once > >>> took, it was that there isn急 just one right way to live. 㗎uman > cultures > >>> throughout the world are very diverse. 脷ut, from the inside of one > >>> culture > >>> it is often very hard to see other ways to live. 㗒et us not be trapped > >>> in > >>> our culture, but seek a better understanding of all the ways of living, > >>> so > >>> that we might find a more sustainable path. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Kevin E. McCluney > >>> Graduate Student > >>> School of Life Sciences > >>> Arizona State University > >>> Tempe, AZ 85287-4601 > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Malcolm L. McCallum > >> Associate Professor of Biology > >> Managing Editor, > >> Herpetological Conservation and Biology > >> Texas A&M University-Texarkana > >> Fall Teaching Schedule: > >> Vertebrate Biology - TR 10-11:40; General Ecology - MW 1-2:40pm; > >> Forensic Science - 咗 6-9:40pm > >> Office Hourse- TBA > >> > >> 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" 咗.S. Gilbert > >> 1990's: 嗰any fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, > >>           and pollution. > >> 2000: 嗰arine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction > >>         MAY help restore populations. > >> 2022: Soylent Green is People! > >> > >> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > >> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > >> contain confidential and privileged information. 孭ny unauthorized > >> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. 啱f you are not > >> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > >> destroy all copies of the original message. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS > >> ------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 931782601) is spam: > >> Spam:       > 温ttps://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?i=931782601&m=974a7b4b1780&c=s > >> Not spam:   > 温ttps://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?i=931782601&m=974a7b4b1780&c=n > >> Forget vote: > https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?i=931782601&m=974a7b4b1780&c=f > >> ------------------------------------------------------ > >> END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > Malcolm L. McCallum > Associate Professor of Biology > Managing Editor, > Herpetological Conservation and Biology > Texas A&M University-Texarkana > Fall Teaching Schedule: > Vertebrate Biology - TR 10-11:40; General Ecology - MW 1-2:40pm; > Forensic Science - W 6-9:40pm > Office Hourse- TBA > > 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert > 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, > and pollution. > 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction > MAY help restore populations. > 2022: Soylent Green is People! > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not > the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > destroy all copies of the original message. >
