In case you needed another reason

why Atkins and similar high protein/low carb diets are not good for you, here's a new study suggesting that there could be a link between Alzheimer's and such a diet. The results are tentative, but interesting:

Unexpectedly, mice fed a high protein/low carbohydrate diet had brains five percent lighter that all the others, and regions of their hippocampus* were less developed. This result was a surprise, and, until researchers test this effect on non-transgenic mice, it is unclear whether the loss of brain mass is associated with AD-type plaque. But some studies in the published literature led the authors to put forward a tentative theory that a high protein diet may leave neurones more vulnerable to AD plaque.

Aside from thinking about Alzheimer's, which is admittedly a disease that terrifies me, this article also made me think about issues that bother me every time I read a new story that uses mice or other animals to study the impact of diets. First of all, there is the ethical quandary of using data from a process to which I am opposed. That deserves a blog post all of it's own, I would say, so it's going on the list of future blog posts. Second, as the article points out, I'm not so sure that study findings like this will always translate to the same results in humans. Unfortunately, however, I have the same trepidations about all of the nutrition research I read, as even the "gold standard" of nutrition research involving humans relies on memory recall of the food they have eaten (and accurate judgments of portion sizes...and accurate answers). I have enough experience in social research to know just how bad people's memories are, and just how common socially desirable responses are.

What do you think? How reliable are studies like this? And can the use of findings from animal experiments be justified if you are opposed to the use of these methods?

* The hippocampus is the part of the brain in which autobiographical and factual memories are formed. It is also involved in emotion. Disruption of the hippocampus is one of the earliest signs of Alzheimer's. It can also be damaged by heart attack, respiratory failure, sleep apnea, carbon monoxide poisoning, near-drowning and chronic seizures, such as in those with epilepsy. It is so-named because it is shaped like a seahorse.

For more information, check out this website. Better yet, learn more about the brain by reading Accidental Mind by David Linden.

CSIRO does a 180, nay a complete 360?

I love it when expressions are misused, and I found it appropriate in this instance, given the brilliant comments on this recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald. (No, no one misused the cliche, but it was something that I expected to find lurking in there somewhere...)

CSIRO, the government agency with a grand reputation, has just released the CSIRO Home Energy Saving Handbook. This, some might say, is 'a complete 360' (yes, I know it's 180, but people don't always remember their geometry) from their Total Wellbeing Diet, which encourages you to stuff yourself with meat to achieve "total wellbeing". That book, not surprisingly, received a lot of criticism not only for its recommendations. I mean, it suggested Australians can achieve wellbeing by eating just as they do now - shockingly bad, particularly if you consider this:

"The diet is being promoted as being beneficial for everyone, whereas the published research indicates that it is superior to a high carbohydrate diet only for a sub-population of overweight women with symptoms of metabolic dysfunction."

It also received criticism for its funding and apparent bias:

The CSIRO's research was partly funded by the Meat and Livestock Industry and Dairy Australia. So it is no surprise the sponsors' products figure so highly in the recommended meals and weekly meal plans: beef, lamb and dairy products.

The CSIRO's endorsement of a high-meat diet is perhaps an indication of the extent to which our scientists have taken on the role of consultants to industry in their bid to raise funds, and their willingness to deliver research findings that industry finds agreeable.

How responsible is it, though, to be recommending such a high-meat diet in the context of concerns over the ecological sustainability and health problems associated with high meat consumption?

This is, of course, what happens when government decides to stop funding research and CSIRO is subsequently forced to seek industry funding. It's why things like this happen because of "cooperation" like this. It's just the same dilemma university researchers face again and again. And it's why industries are so eager to support nutrition research and universities are so eager to take it, despite the disadvantages:

There are a number of disadvantages to corporate funding:
• biased research
• innovation instead of research
• lack of coincident results
• lack of guaranteed results
• lack of freedom
• decreasing quantity of research

And the single advantage:

There is only one advantage, which is money. This single advantage may be a greater motivation that all the above limiting factors together.

So my question is, why is the Sydney Morning Herald so confused by the turn-around? Funding is coming from climate change now, so they have changed their answer. I happen to agree with the outcome this time around, but that doesn't make me believe that they have truly done a complete 180 in their thinking about food. They are just receiving funding from a different source, and are therefore focused on another goal besides weight loss alone (though I still fail to see how the Total Wellbeing Diet and its standard Western diet is the way to achieve optimum health). Their science this time is probably stronger, given that it is well known and acknowledged that a meat-based diet has a much higher carbon footprint, but that doesn't take away from the skepticism of the public when this agency of scientists publishes such conflicting information.

As I said, even though I support eliminating meat from your diet, I cannot help but be uneasy about this research. I can easily see a new position coming out of the agency in a few years time when the funding focus changes. Combined with the questions about CSIROs gagging of dissenters, tabling of panel advice, and funding from questionable sources.

I'll leave you with a few words of 'wisdom' from the liberal MP in the SMH article:

Meanwhile, Victorian state Liberal MP John Vogels, who represents the grazing-rich lands of western Victoria, is first off the blocks on behalf of farmers.

"CSIRO should be forced to apologise to Australian livestock and diary farmers for publishing a flawed climate change handbook urging people to eat less red meat and adopt vegetarian diets," he hollered yesterday.

The Home Energy Saving Handbook was "thinly veiled propaganda advocating Australians change to a vegetarian lifestyle in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions".

“If the populace took this book seriously our beef, sheepmeat, pork, poultry and dairy industries would be at risk because the authors want everyone to move to vegetable diets to reduce personal carbon footprints,”

he roared.

Even better, this comment from a reader:

Farmers needn't worry, we won't take any notice whatsoever of the new CSIRO diet, it's unAustralian, a fate worse than death.

I would suggest that you, dear reader cited above, get a bit of perspective and start thinking about whether cutting out meat to curb climate change is really that big of a sacrifice - or just hyperbole on the part of someone who wants to eat meat because s/he likes it.

ADA Releases Updated Position Statement

I am quite late in reporting this (so much for the advantage of blogs as an immediate source of information), but this statement isn't going anywhere and it's worth a mention.

The American Dietetic Association (ADA) has released an updated position paper on vegetarian (and vegan) diets. The position statement is really nothing new. It says,

POSITION STATEMENT
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the lifecycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.

Although many government bodies are greeted with skepticism by vegetarians, vegans and others who have low opinions of the standard western diet, it is still good to hear them say something that isn't promoting the meat industry. It should be noted that they have held this position for over 20 years (since 1987), but there are a few new notable parts of the document.
It includes new topics and additional information on key nutrients for vegetarians, vegetarian diets in the life cycle and the use of vegetarian diets in prevention and treatment of chronic diseases. It also offers vegetarians some hope:

"There are many reasons for the rising interest in vegetarian diets. The number of vegetarians in the United States is expected to increase over the next decade."

AND

Vegetarian diets are often associated with health advantages including lower blood cholesterol levels, lower risk of heart disease, lower blood pressure levels and lower risk of hypertension and type 2 diabetes, according to ADA's position. "Vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates. Vegetarian diets tend to be lower in saturated fat and cholesterol and have higher levels of dietary fiber, magnesium and potassium, vitamins C and E, folate, carotenoids, flavonoids and other phytochemicals. These nutritional differences may explain some of the health advantages of those following a varied, balanced vegetarian diet."

I just look forward to a time when it is common knowledge that a vegan diet can be healthy (and yes, we all know that there are vegans out there who live primarily on junk and processed food - no one is suggesting that's a healthy vegetarian diet). We have found 20 years to be the lag time for ecological knowledge, so perhaps the same rule will apply here and more people will throw away their pre-conceptions about the pasty, skinny, sickly vegan. (Vegan zombie? Well that's okay because it's just plain funny.)

Food Trends?

Every once in a while, I choose to take a peak into parts of popular culture that I tend to avoid. (I like to see what 'the kids' are up to these days, you know, since even at the age of 27 I am 'out of touch'!) Sometimes that means picking up a popular magazine at the gym, reading it for about five minutes, and tossing it off the exercise machine in disgust. Other times it means looking at what people are calling "trends". Little did I know though, until I stumbled upon this beauty, that people actually identify food trends to guide those people who apparently just can't decide what to eat without professional guidance.

First of all, I have a problem with the idea of food trends as a concept. As much as the media makes it appear that nutrition is constantly changing what's "good" and "bad", and as little as we actually know about nutrition, the fact is that there are plenty of foods which will always be considered healthy. These include fruits, vegetables and whole, unprocessed grains. Simple. We don't need new food products or food trends. What we need to do is throw away trends altogether and consistently eat whole foods. But then, they couldn't very well identify trends like "eat your veggies", could they? How boring.

More specifically, I have a problem with the trends they identify, three of which are about meat:

4. Less protein: Stretching meat with more vegetables. Meat is expensive. Eggs are not, so eggs are in. {The Flexitarian Diet by dietitian Dawn Jackson Blatner just had its premiere in the U.K., so I’m sure this trend will get even bigger across the pond.}

5. Head to tail: Eating all parts of our meat and fish, reducing waste.

6. Sustainable varieties of meat and fish: Rock fish, gurnard, flounder, mahi mahi.

Wait, eating animals goes in and out of fashion? So just as easily, in a few months fois gras could be back in? Or veal? Or the marketers dream, the Atkins diet? Apparently so. A lot of people think "part-time veganism" is a trend. So this perpetuates the myth that not eating meat is in some way "trendy" and encourages complete misuse of the term vegan (which is, by the way, not a diet - it is a lifestyle, and therefore it doesn't even make sense to be a 'part time vegan'). It also connects the life of animals to passing "fads" such as a poor economy (e.g. "recession flexitarians") and the empty concept of "sustainability".

I am not denying that some people who adopt veganism or vegetarianism (and particularly "part time" vegetarianism) are motivated by trends. But I think Krista Houston puts it simply her article, Vegan Lifestyle is More than a Liberal Trend:

Vegetarianism and veganism may be trendy for some, but for most it is a necessity derived from a bigger-picture reflection.

Ultimately, my initial question when reading this "food trends" blog shouldn't have been "why?" but "Why not?". The fact is that a lot of people do, unfortunately, see food as trends - within the pages of those magazines I toss away at the gym there is plenty of proof of that.

Lists like these also make it easier for marketers to identify their consumers and latch onto trends related to vegetarianism. Food is a profitable business, and I shouldn't be surprised when it is treated the same as any other business. Apparently "ethical marketing" is worth £29.3 billion in the UK alone. Vegans are a "market share" just like any other group in the eyes of marketers. They are simply capitalising on the pervasive notion that we can buy our way to a better future. That's not exactly a monumental piece of news.

It's just a shame that it's more than our wallets that are targeted with marketing such "trends". It's our health. And these trends imply that modelling our diets on passing crazes is the popular (and therefore sensible?) thing to do. They also completely miss the motivations of most vegans, which are rooted in ethics. Ethical motivations that will, I might add, live far beyond the days when Mark Bittman's books are shamelessly promoted all over the web and Skinny Bitch is being carted around by Victoria Beckham.

Not eating dairy isn't 'natural'?

One of the things people are fond of telling vegans is that their veganism isn't 'natural'. The fact that the Western diet is in most senses 'not natural' (depending on how you define the word, which is a problem in and of itself) aside, there is the glaringly obvious issue that it is not 'natural' to drink the milk of another animal. Other animals don't do it, so why do we? Well, there are a lot of theories out there, which is why I found these articles so interesting:

Milk Drinking Started Around 7,500 Years Ago In Central Europe

In contrast to the assertion by many people that you "need" things like dairy, our ability to drink animal milk has only evolved relatively recently, and required selection for 'lactase persistance':

Most adults worldwide do not produce the enzyme lactase and so are unable to digest the milk sugar lactose. However, most Europeans continue to produce lactase throughout their life, a characteristic known as lactase persistence.

I find it surprising that many people I speak to about dairy have no idea that so many people can't digest milk. Although the article spends a lot of time extolling the virtues of milk, I think two very important things can be gained from it: 1) we need to rethink our idea of what it means for a diet to be 'natural', and 2) we need to bear in mind that the modern Western diet has only been around for a relatively short period of time, in the grand scheme of things. This includes milk drinking.

From "Early Europeans Unable to Stomach Milk":

Scientists have known for decades that at some point in the past all humans were lactose intolerant. What was not known was just how recently lactose tolerance evolved.

Dr Thomas said: "To go from lactose tolerance being rare or absent seven to eight thousand years ago to the commonality we see today in central and northern Europeans just cannot be explained by anything except strong natural selection. Our study confirms that the variant of the lactase gene appeared very recently in evolutionary terms and that it became common because it gave its carriers a massive survival advantage.

Perhaps it did give them a 'massive survival advantage' at the time, but how necessary is it now? We may have developed tolerance, but haven't evolved to require milk in our diets. And that's one of the other flaws in the "it's not natural to not eat dairy" type arguments. Even today, the majority of the population is lactose intolerant. I don't know exactly what people mean when they claim a vegan diet 'isn't natural', but I am pretty sure that eating dairy doesn't live up to that standard either.

Buzz Words and Vegan-Haters

The good thing about a lot of the vegan-haters on the web is that they often seem quite insane. Hopefully others who read their sites feel the same, though I am not all that confident that people read these things with a critical eye if they are already strongly opposed to veganism. We all do it of course (read things that reinforce our worldviews), but I really have to wonder how people can believe some of this stuff.

One of the recent gems I found was the Beyond Vegetarianism website. Considering my disdain for post-modernism, I always enjoy a new "post-" term that describes a nonsensical school of thought, such as post-vegetarianism*, a term coined by Sandor Katz, a source of much frustration for vegans and the inspiration for this song.

At any rate, the site intrigued me because I thought about this term 'post-vegetarianism' a lot when I was reading In Defense of Food. This is not because he talks about it a lot, but because I know that Michael Pollan would probably agree with Katz. It was actually in researching one of Pollan's favourite words, orthorexia, that I came across the Beyond Veg website. This term, coined by Stephen Bratman, is defined as "a fixation on righteous eating". Not exactly an anti-vegan term, but I just read an article last week that made it seem that way:

Sufferers can eliminate sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, wheat, gluten, yeast, soya, corn and dairy foods from their diet.

Apparently, eliminating the unhealthy foods in your diet is a big problem in this society. (I know I've really noticed the rampant health food craze in the Western world...) Those crazy orthorexics will event spurn these foods:

Foods tainted by pesticides or that contain additives such as MSG can also be ditched.

What? Pesticides and MSG off the list? That's just crazy talk.

Okay, really this article got the disorder wrong - orthorexia and eliminating dairy from your diet are not synonymous. Still, everywhere you look, and even on Bratman's own site, it appears that veganism is a form of orthorexia, completely ignoring the ethical element of veganism.

However misguided I think Katz and Bratman are, they aren't really aggressive or seething with hatred towards vegans. Even so, it was Bratman's website that linked me to the Beyond Veg website in the first place. This is because he referenced a woman who died from orthorexia (she died from starvation, yet he insists she didn't have anorexia...) who gave a 'testimonial' on the site.

The sole purpose of this site, it seems to me, is to argue that humans were "meant" to eat meat based on our paleolithic ancestors, that veg*ns are simply misguided creatures who don't understand science, are psychologically imbalanced and disordered in our eating patterns, are moral supremacists and extremists, and are even outright dishonest in saying that they are vegan.

A few quotes (none of which, I might add, are backed up by ANY evidence):

Dietary racism. There are two major forms of this. One, claiming that a raw/vegan diet will make you "superior" to others whose diet is different, coupled with hatred (which may be subtle or blatant) of those whose diet is different. A second form practiced by some crank science promoters is to claim that (legitimate) science that contradicts their bogus theories is done by people with "damaged brains," or is invalid because it is "cooked science" (recall Hitler denouncing "Jewish science," for the obvious analogy to racism).

To summarize: plagiarism (lying and stealing), denial of reality, crank science, dietary racism, and hostility/threats are the unfortunate current state of affairs among numerous promoters in the raw vegan movement. In other words: a significant part of the leadership of the raw movement is intellectually and morally bankrupt. However, the good news here is that one can simply choose to avoid the raw vegan diet gurus who are corrupt, and one might benefit from a raw diet anyway, even if only in the short run. (Please note here that some raw vegan promoters are sincere and are not corrupt.) [Note: this implies the honest ones are the exception, not the rule.]

"Cheating" and dietary "exceptions" as a potential confounding variable to vegan research. It would be remiss at this juncture not to mention another important and potential "confounding variable" that faces those who would study the effects of diets such as veg*nism (particularly strict veganism) that restrict or eliminate an entire food class (animal foods) the body has been genetically programmed to expect by evolution.

Anyone who has ongoing access to personal conversations with a wide range of individuals practicing vegan diets, and who has had the chance to gain their confidence and cross-examine them in a friendly, sympathetic way, and is honest, will tell you that "cheating" on vegan diets (making occasional "exceptions" or eating foods not strictly "allowed") is not that unheard of, depending on the individual. Not that any given individual(s) may not be a perfect adherent. However, in some instances these dietary "exceptions" can be fairly regular and significant (anywhere from weekly to monthly "exceptions," perhaps) such that they add up over time. Despite the best of intentions, then, some individuals find themselves craving non-veg*n foods and cannot stick as faithfully to the diet as they might wish.

There's also their attempt at a humorous "anorexia creed" on the site, which, I must admit, I didn't find all that humorous.

Of course, I am probably just being too critical. I mean, we vegans are supposedly known for lacking a sense of humor. And this site has such an admirable goal:

We hope the range of views presented here will encourage-- perhaps even force--you to think for yourself and go beyond the need for reliance on any single authority in evaluating the worth and workability of a diet. Especially if you have experienced problems yourself, you will know how crucial it is to remove the proverbial rose-colored glasses and face the issues discussed here openly, rationally, and realistically.

Wow, okay. Yeah, I dig that. But wait. In a few paragraphs they contradict this goal:

We are also interested in expanding our section of case histories of people who have had significant problems on raw, vegetarian, vegan, or other alternative or "natural" diets, and how they solved them, whether by modifying the diet in some "unapproved" way while remaining vegetarian, or by moving on to a non-vegetarian one.

Oh, okay, I get it. You are into alternative viewpoints. So long as they involve moving away from vegetarianism/veganism. Got it. I would also like to add that the site prides itself on being scientific, but most of it has no credible academic research whatsoever. Of course, they accuse veg*ns of being too reliant on studies, so there I go again fitting into their stereotype and wanting evidence.

Even better than Beyond Veg is vegetariansareevil.com. On this site, vegetarianism is compared to fanatical religion and vegetarians are called moral crusaders, accused of mass murders and fascism, accused of child abuse, and called out for militancy and violence. I won't say much more about this site because I am hoping that it is all somebody making a joke, but it actually feels more like a person who was spurned by a veg*n lover and has since made bashing vegetarians their mission in life. The problem is that someone, somewhere, will run into that site and believe it. And I am going to go out on a limb here and say that there's more than just one person, which scares me. I mean, they even cite a high-ranking member of the Catholic church who says the anti-Christ is among us and is a vegetarian.

Wait. And we're the crazy ones?

* Side note - This is the kind of stuff post-vegetarians say:

As I ate the chips, I thought about the potatoes too, and how they had once been alive, gathering and storing energy in the darkness of the earth. They had saved the energy for themselves, and now I was taking it. The potatoes too were an amazing gift, a death. I usually do not have this level of awareness and gratitude while eating vegetables, and this confirmed for me the spiritual necessity and benefit of eating fish. Eating the fish today made me feel joy and connection, a deeper awareness and appreciation for my own life and for the web of life that constantly sustains me.

Um....what???

Mixed messages

One of the excellent blogs I read is Dave Dempsey's Great Lakes Blogger. It keeps me in touch with some of things going on in my home state of Michigan. The other day, he posted about this article, noting the quote from the fisherman saying Great Lakes are so big they can't really be contaminated (the old solution to pollution is dilution argument). Not only is this article depressing to me because of the contamination of the Great Lakes that is affecting both aquatic species and humans alike, but also because of their apparent concern that they avoid sending "mixed messages" [emphasis added]:

That population is mostly low-income and minority. She says about half are overweight or obese. From a nutrition point of view, those are exactly the people you’d want to be eating a lean, healthy protein like fish. So Duperval is concerned about sending mixed messages.

DUPERVAL: I do think it is confusing. And it’s in part I think how we communicate crisis in this country, especially when it comes to food safety. They miss the overall preventative message, that fish is good food, and it actually provides a lot of important nutrients that are lacking in their diets.

Yes, I agree that telling people to eat contaminated fish because it's good for you is sending a mixed message. But I don't think this issue is confusing at all.

I also think the solution to the communication issue is simple. You can get the nutrients you get from fish from other sources, so why not tell people about them? Now, I have a decent understanding of risk, and I know that the risks of eating fish to your health versus their purported benefits are up for great debate. But I think that you can achieve some real gains for both the environment and for human health - and be quite consistent - by telling people who are eating these fish not only about the risks, but about their real alternatives that are not contaminated with DDE and actually help treat diabetes. Doing so also sends a strong message about how important it is to keep the waters clean. The message couldn't be simpler.