You Want a Piece of Me…at?

Comments: 35

1. 

   William Noel

   04 February 2014 at 7:41 pm

   You may have given up more than chicken without realizing it.  Sometimes the sauces put in a sandwich with the chicken are the worse for you than the meat because of the amount of fat, sugar and salt they contain. 

   Like you, I've gone through a couple periods where I had frequent contact with fanatical vegetarians and health reformers whose gods were their stomach and the various ways they measured their results (I'll let your memory refresh that list).  It didn't take long to see that the church never grew when they were around.  Then there was the time a group of them came to present a healthy living seminar a few weeks after a major evangelistic crusade where more than a hundred were baptized.  I've never seen more new members disappear faster than after their seminar.
   1. 

      Dingdong

      05 February 2014 at 9:38 pm

      Good observations William.
   2. 

      Dingdong

      05 February 2014 at 9:40 pm

      Sorry, something went wrong there….
2. 

   Dingdong

   04 February 2014 at 11:05 pm

   http://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/go/2014-02-04/in-england-parents-whose-baby-died-of-malnutrition-werent-practicing-recommended-adventist-diet/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ANN+Bulletin+February+4+2014&utm_content=ANN+Bulletin+February+4+2014+CID_23d5835f008a4935d80468f409c78b43&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=In%20England%20parents%20whose%20baby%20died%20of%20malnutrition%20werent%20practicing%20recommended%20Adventist%20diet
3. 

   Serge Agafonoff

   05 February 2014 at 2:01 am

   Hi Danny.  Having pondered this for a few hours, I can find no diplomatic way to say this is just wrong, on so many levels.  

   Reliance on 'Grandmother' Ellen is fraught with danger.  'Malarious' isn't even a word, let alone a concept of any medical/health reality.  It can't refer to seasonal pollen allergy, sorry.   If the air were truly 'mala,' Italian for 'bad,' then all would suffer it, not jsut the allergic.  I presume it was a word Ellen used for its similarity in concept to the 'miasma' theory of disease transmission which was one of hte serious contenders in her day.  But we now accept the 'germ theory' as being able to account for certain diseases far more accuratley than the miasma theory.  Eg malaria, yes, the swamps were the source of the illness, but not from the 'air,' rather the mosquito which carried the protozoa from one infected person to the next.

   The view that meat eating accounts for 'all inflammatory disease' is likewise wrong wrong wrong.  Genuine meat allergy is extremely rare.  Allergies to plant foods, strawberries, nuts, gluten, etc are far more common.  Rheumatoid arthritis affects vegans and vegetarians equally with meat eaters.  There are many 'inflammatory' diseases and no known connection to meat eating exists.  Osteoarthritis is almost certainly a metabolic disorder, not 'wear and tear' as is commonly thought, imho, and likely related to sugar imbalances, ie, too much, coupled with too much omega 6 fats.  For 'sugar' read 'starch' which is the biggest component of grain foods.

   Inflammation in the body is exacerbated by the wrong ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 fats/oils.  Vegetable sources, ie veg oils, are high in omega 6 and pro inflammatory.  Animal sources, eg, fish and grass-fed animals are higher in omega 3. (Commercially produced chickens eat grains so don't eat them).  Margarines have the added horror of partial hydrogenation creating nasty trans forms of the fat.  Cold-pressed oils, eg olive and coconut are good alternatives.

   James WHite likely followed the 'health reform diet' fairly meticulously, yet he had a debilitating stroke at about age fifty, and probably died relatively young, about 60, of a second.  I'm not sure of Ellen's cause of death, but reports of stroke or congestive cardiac failure both point in the direction of poor diet, albeit vegetarian.  She should have stuck with her love of seafood. 

   There is now an epidemic of diabetes amongst the native populations of SDAs in the South Pacific who were largely converted to a diet of grains, eg, 'Weet Bix' and Corn flakes as manufactured by Sanitarium 'health foods.'  I am told that these folks are now being urged to return to their fish diets as a way of dealing with the diabetes.

   Can I recommend that you read Dr Hoehn's article in AT last year?   https://atoday.org/article/1724/opinion/hoehn-jack/2013/health-reform-2013-version

   Also, required reading should be 'Wheat Belly' by William Davis MD.  find it on Amazon

   I'm not sure where you live, but it could be Aus?  If so, I would be happy to discuss this further with you.  It sounds as though you would like to change your health status.  I would like to offer you an experiment.  Follow your plan for a time, then we can do some blood analysis.  You agree that the blood is of some significance.  Then, if you wish, follow my advice for a few months, followed by more blood analysis.  This will give you some idea of which approach is likely to give you the outcome you desire.  If you live in the US, then I think Dr Hoehn might be willing to advise you on a similar arrangement, but I apologise to him in advance for taking the liberty to suggest it.  email me-   sfonov@hotmail.com

    
   1. 

      Steve Ferguson

      05 February 2014 at 4:58 am

      Wow Serge – I'm glad I stick to theological topics in discussions with you!  In your opinion though:

      1. Is vegetarianism (if done 'properly' with plenty of replacement dairy, nuts, vegetables etc) a superior diet to eating meat (noting I do eat meat myself)?

      2. Obviously there are aspects of the SDA lifestyle and our 'health message' that are obviously beneficial, by the simple statistical fact that we are one of the longest living groups of people on earth.  Putting aside all sorts of theological arguments, or issues with Ellen White etc, and from a totally scientific point of view, what aspects of the SDA health message do you like and what don't you like? And what aspects do you think, as intimated above, that may have actually lead to ill-health in James White and Ellen White?

      3. To what extent is it not the SDA lifestyle as 'ideal' that is the problem, but rather than people do not live up to it in practice?  For example, I have seen many an Adventist refrain from eating meat but eat that double-helping of mock-something covered in thick fatty cheese deepfried.  To take Danny's example of Chicken, to what extent was his gaining weight more likely to be attributed to how Chicken he ate was prepared (i.e. of the deep-fried KFC variety as opposed to skinless breasts of roasted chicken)?

      4. And if the problem is Adventists don't live up to the 'ideal' health message, is that a problem itself – that it is too difficult in practice to follow? Danny mentioned some hardcore vegan diets, which to be honest, would probably send me straight to the golden arches (i.e. MacDonalds) if I had to eat that stuff.

      5. To what extent would it be more beneficial if Danny simply gave up soda rather than meat or anything else as the immediate focus of his personal health reform? I read somewhere that it is actually the massive amounts of empty calories in soda and fruit juices (supposedly healthy but full of sugar) that may in fact be a primary cause behind recent obesity epidemics, especially in children.  I personally stopped drinking soda with sugar a few years back, lost a few kilos and have kept it off ever since.
      1. 

         Serge Agafonoff

         05 February 2014 at 12:00 pm

         Hi Steve…….. wasn't expecting you on this one.  But good questions, so shall attempt them.  All answers my humble opinion only. ( I see it has turned into a very long answer to Steve.  I apologise to Danny and the Editors for breaking the comments rule.)

         1. Vegetarianism is not a superior diet.  It may be inferior, metabolically speaking.  The reason I say this is because the first food required by and sought for by the body is protein.  Pro meaning 'first' here.  So folks will tend to keep eating anything until protein needs are met.  (Noah knew this.  He didnt take extra grains for his post-flood needs).  With flesh foods, this can happen relatively quickly.  With non-animal foods, there is the probability that too many unnecessary calories will be ingested in the search for protein.  We don't synthesise amino acids to any significant degree.  We HAVE TO eat them.  Dairy is a poorer substitute, but it works reasonably well if taken carefully.  Eggs are pretty good, but better to keep your own hens who can scratch and eat grubs and grass.  Grain-fed eggs are lesser quality.

         Nuts must be raw.  Roasting destroys the healthy nut oils.  (Peanuts/ground nuts are not nuts, they are legumes).  Nut 'meats' eg as manufactured by Sanitarium, are made of roasted peanuts/legumes combined with large amounts of gluten.  None of these is high quality food.

         Vegetables are key to a truly healthy diet, vegetarian or with meat, because of the micronutrient content.  The rule for protein quantities is about the size of the palm of your hand.  the rest of the plate should be full of mostly 'above-ground' vegetables.  A small amount of potatoes, yams, root veges is fine, but small amt is key.  Daily Protein requirements are said to equal 2 grams per kilo of body weight.  This should be 'lean' body mass.

         Problems arise for vegetarians who substitute grains as a protein source.  One simply has to eat too much grain to obtain that amount of protein.  Say you weigh 90kg.  Discount 15kg for fat.  Now, 75(kg) x 2(gm)  gives you a daily need of 150gm protein. (Some say you need half that amount, btw). Given that most grains are about 10-13% protein, this means you must eat up to 1.5kg of grains.  This also yields about 6,000 calories.  I hope my arithmetic is reasonably close.  So it is clear that grains as a protein source is wildly inadequate, unless one breaks rocks for a living and can burn those extra calories.  But if vegetarians use grains to some degree, they are at great risk of taking far too many calories.  And from grains, those calories are from starch, ie, long chains of glucose.  

         So whether one uses grains or legumes as protein source, (Ellen recommends both), there is likely to be an oversupply of sugar in the diet.  This will ultimately be converted into triglycerides and from there into cholesterol.  Vegetarian diets are not a guarantee of immunity from coronary heart disease.  You might care to read the work of Steven Gundry, Diet Evolution, cardiothoracic surgeon, who annually travels to India to do bypass surgery on vegetarian Hindus, whose staple diet is rice and legumes.  Last year I travelled to Munich to assist with the return of a small, thin man of fifty, who had a myocardial infarct while travelling in Germany.  They cleared 6 coronary artery blockages with stents, and told him he needed more.  During the return trip he told me that his favourite food was rice.  He ate a little meat, but not a lot of vegetables.  He was Sri Lankan.  These examples merely to illustrate my point.  There is no reason why vegetarian diets should be superior, and some good reasons why they may be inferior.  Keep in mind, Ellen didn't finally ban meat from her table until 1894?  But there was likely a lot of grain food eaten along with it.  But she did advocate fruits and vegetables, after the grains.  Gorillas eat mainly leaves, and get their protein form the leaves and the bugs on them.  And gorillas are balls of muscle.  But they eat their leaves all day long.  We don't generally have time or inclination for lifelong eating of leaves, although i could accept that would be a healthy thing to do.  

         Modern life give us food security, but it also provides for 'over-nutrition.'  Take fruit.  Once this was reasonably limited to a summer time special.  Fruit abounds in fructose, which is handled differently by the body.  It is immediately converted into triglycerides and stored as fat.  In preparation for the winter hard times to come.  But in modern times, there is no winter shortage.  Summer all year round.  So we eat fruit, and then extract teh juice, fructose intact, to drink even more.  One should think of fruit juice as liquid fat, because that is where it goes quick smart.

         2.  Beneficial aspects of the SDA lifestyle?  The Okinawans live as long or longer, and eat mostly seafood. They are also careful to limit total calories.  THe Sardinians live as long or longer and eat their home grown meats and fish.  I admit to not being overly familiar with the studies and the stats which claim that SDAs outlive all others by 5-? years.  I would be most interested in those studies which showed that SDAs long outlive other non-smoking tea-totallers.  Do they outlive Mormons by all that much?  It could be that their 'faith' contributes, perhpas to a fair degree, to their longevity.  Besides that, I am not convinced that the stats will still be the same nowadays.  SDAs in my home town, and they are the majority, appear to be dying of worldly diseases and at similar ages to non-SDAs, but that is only my biased observation.  In other words, I suspect that even SDA diets are changing in favour of much less healthy options.  There is, eg, NOTHING that comes out of a Sanitarium 'health food' factory that I would consider healthy. I have a rule……. if it comes out of a packet, don't eat it.  If its made in a factory, don't eat it.  Adam and Eve didn't have access to a steel roller mill to make their grains easily edible.

         I can't speculate on the death of James White, or Ellen.  James may ahve had uncontrolled hypertension.  Did Kellogg have a sphygmomanometer?  Even if he did, what treatments were there for high BP?  I don't know.  But I do know that a diet of lean meats/fish and abundant leafy vegetables, healthy oils, avoiding too mcuh fruits and grains will actually reverse atherosclerosis.  Again, Gundry's studies confirm this.  If the SDA health message coincides with these principles, I am in favour of it.

         3.  Adventist practise of their chosen 'lifestyle' has degenerated, it appears to me, into a case of, 'if its "plant-based" one can eat it in almost any form or quantity.'  But it is too poorly understood that the preferred plant based foods, grains, are high in calories, and relatively low in nutrients.  Modern wheat is even more insidious.  It is not the wheat God made.  It is hybridised beyond divine recognition.  It is designed to yield a lot of calories and gluten with good bread-making properties.  The einkorn 'loaves' which the Master fed to the 5,000 jsut wouldn't sell in today's market.  Doesn;t have the 'mouth feel' or texture.

         Your reference to deef-fried KFC vs skinless oven roasted chicken betrays the modern belief that fats are teh problem.  Animal fats from grass-fed critters are not pro-inflammatory.  For that, one needs to feed them on grains.  Do not eat grain fed meats, or fish (farmed).  Further, a lot of 'vegetable' oils as now manufactured, yield a high ratio of Omega 6 fats.  These are the pro-inflammaotry culprits which cause damage to the linings of blood vessels, paving the way for atherosclerosis.  These are the culprits which contribute to a pro-inflammatory environment within the body.  These are the fats which should be cut out.  Cold-pressed vegetable fats such as olive and coconut are reasonable alternatives.

         There is currently, within medical circles, a major revision of teh 'cholesterol hypothesis,' ie, that eating cholesterol causes high blood cholesterol and heart and blood vessel disease.  It is being revised along the lines that I have described.  Sugars/starches are far more dangerous than 'natural' fats, including healthy animal fats.  So the skin of hte chicken is not so much of the problem.  What the chicken ate is more of an issue, I'd suggest.  If Danny ate teh chicken and some veg, it would be better than taking hte deep fried potatoes and the bread that often goes with it.  The other starchy stuff you mention, smothered in cheese to make it palatable just shouldn't be made, or eaten.

         4.  That said, I think it is more of a problem if SDAs 'live up to the ideal.'  It is jsut not that ideal.  Somehow it is connected with theology.  Ellen's statement that the living translated ones will not be flesh eaters.  I don't understand that aspect of it.  I know you are a liberal SDA, but do you understand what that is about?

         5.  Sodas and fruit juices are terrible things to ingest.  Aspartame sweetened drinks are equally bad. The high levels of fructose in sodas and juices are the worst thing.  In the US, high-fructose corn syrup is the sweetener of choice, by manufacturers.  Its cheaper.  See the YouTube called, I think, Sweet Poison.  By UCSF Paediatrician.  Powerful stuff.   Water, green tea, coffee, wine (in great moderation) are better drinks.  Of course, Ellen did not allow any liquids to be drunk with meals.  I grew up drinking milk with meals.  We were lucky.  We had a cow.  I want one again.

         Your success in losing the weight is directly attributable to the reduced fructose intake.  Fructose, from fruit…….. surely its good for you?  Only if eaten in the fruit.  One piece a day.  In summer.

          
         1. 

            Dingdong

            06 February 2014 at 12:14 am

            Where are our Adventist dieticians when we need them?
         2. 

            Ella M

            08 February 2014 at 1:23 am

               Serge,  When I started reading this I groaned–not another church critic!   But you do present some interesting material; some I question.  You are right about the processed ethnic foods in the SDA church that with more knowledge today, probably aren't healthy (though still better than nonorganic and processed meats).  There are innumerable studies of populations showing that the lack of large amounts of animal products such as meat and dairy have a negative result on health. Look at Japan's health history after they started eating the western high-protein diet.
               I also belieive in the ethical treatment of animals which seems to be an ignored part of early church counsel. It's not all about us!
               I think there is enough evidence that the vegan diet, followed with common sense and not as an obsession, is better.  Isn't that what the Loma Linda studies are finding? 
                 The vegan diet involves more than just no animal products but must include large amounts of vegetables, then fruits, nuts, seeds; supplimentation of B12 and more D. So people do need guidance before going completely vegan. (There is a place for fish, if it can be guaranteed free of disease, otherwise supplementation should be done.)
                There are also the studies showing that too much protien can be dangerous.  Dr. Joel Fuhrman explains this from his research.  I suggest you check drfuhrman.com.  He is one of the most well-known researchers on the vegan diet.
         3. 

            Ella M

            08 February 2014 at 2:15 am

              SERGE:   Made a big mistake above: There are innumerable studies of populations showing that the lack of large amounts of animal products such as meat and dairy have a negative result on health.  Take out "the lack."
               Please read correctly as "large amounts of animal products…have a negative result on health."
      2. 

         Dingdong

         06 February 2014 at 12:18 am

         Found this on the web………Research suggests that people who eat even modest amounts of red meat have a higher risk of developing colon cancer, heart disease, and diabetes, and a higher risk of dying from heart disease, cancer, or any cause. (3–7) There’s also substantial evidence that replacing red meat with fish, poultry, beans, or nuts, could help prevent heart disease and diabetes—and could lower the risk of early death. Additionally, recent research shows that red meat consumption may increase risk of type 2 diabetes:

         • People who started eating more red meat than usual were found to have a 50% increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes during the next four years.
         • Researchers also found that those who reduced red meat consumption lowered their type 2 diabetes risk by 14% over a 10-year follow-up period.
   2. 

      Dingdong

      05 February 2014 at 9:56 pm

      Serge: Having pondered this for a few hours, I can find no diplomatic way to say this is just wrong, on so many levels.

      I have deliberately been non-dogmatic in my article so as to open up the idea I am proposing. I would not be so sure about the idea being wrong. 

      Reliance on 'Grandmother' Ellen is fraught with danger.  – I have found the opposite to be true and in fact find her more relevant today than I have ever before and I am not a neo conservative.

      'Malarious' isn't even a word, let alone a concept of any medical/health reality – http://www.thefreedictionary.com/malarious

      If the air were truly 'mala,' Italian for 'bad,' then all would suffer it, not jsut the allergic. – I think this is where pre-judgements about EGW come into play and not fully undersanding what she is saying. Is she saying that the air is bad or is she saying that there are times and places where disease and allergies can easily be exacerbated? I dont find anything directly related to the air in her comments in this instance.

      The view that meat eating accounts for 'all inflammatory disease' is likewise wrong wrong wrong.  Genuine meat allergy is extremely rare.  Allergies to plant foods, strawberries, nuts, gluten, etc are far more common. – again I think you misunderstand the text. I dont belive that meat causes allergies and I dont think EGW did either.  What I was saying is that meat consumption compromises the system so as to allow other impacts on our system to get a better foothold. So dirty/bad blood if I was to be simplistic about it. 

      Rheumatoid arthritis affects vegans and vegetarians equally with meat eaters – http://www.livestrong.com/article/476509-the-effects-of-eating-meat-on-arthritis/

      Will be back to reply to your further observations…..
   3. 

      Dingdong

      06 February 2014 at 12:05 am

      Continuing my answer to Serge….

      Inflammation in the body is exacerbated by the wrong ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 fats/oils. It is my understanding that not just fats and oils can cause inflamation but it can come from a wide range of stuff like poisons, toxins and chemicals, irritants etc.  http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/248423.php

      James WHite likely followed the 'health reform diet' fairly meticulously, yet he had a debilitating stroke at about age fifty, and probably died relatively young, about 60, of a second.  I'm not sure of Ellen's cause of death, but reports of stroke or congestive cardiac failure both point in the direction of poor diet, albeit vegetarian.  She should have stuck with her love of seafood. 

       

      I think this is conjecture. We know stress can cause stroke and heart attacks. The tremendous pressure both were under and was continuously commented upon by EGW is an indicator they were more likely worn out: http://www.webmd.com/balance/stress-management/news/20120830/stress-linked-to-stroke

      There is now an epidemic of diabetes amongst the native populations of SDAs in the South Pacific who were largely converted to a diet of grains, eg, 'Weet Bix' and Corn flakes as manufactured by Sanitarium 'health foods.'  I am told that these folks are now being urged to return to their fish diets as a way of dealing with the diabetes.

      Again I am not sure of your sources? I live in the SPD and know alot of Islanders who come to Australia – belive me they are neither restrained in their red meat eating, let alone fish – most of who I also know dont use hardly any Sanitarium products and in fact live a very greasy western fair. I would say its to do with too many calories and not carbs that cause diabetes: http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/it-true-eating-too-many-carbohydrates-can-cause-diabetes

      I read the article in your link. I am not a vegan and am not at the stage where I can cross over but it is my goal. He talks about Vitamin B12 but it is not alot is needed from my research and it is made a bigger isue than needs to be. EGW was a vegetarian, not vegan. As such she still said that there will come a time when animal products will have to be avoided and at such a time God will guide us – unless you feel God has not been guiding her at all?
       
      1. 

         Ella M

         08 February 2014 at 2:09 am

         Ding,  Glad to see that you note some of the inconsisties of these broad statements on here when you see them.  You are there on the front line. 
            there are so many theories out there and they change every day. It's best to simplify and live by what you know about healthy nutrition (the Eden diet modified by today's accessibility). I find trying to be too focused on eating right can backfire and make it harder. It can also become an obsession (as Danny noted).  There are many "new agers" out there who are fighting the same battles.
4. 

   Joe Erwin

   05 February 2014 at 12:10 pm

   "Moderation in all things" is a concept with merit.

   There is a kind of brittle "all or none" pattern of thinking that appeals to some people. "If too
   too much of something is harmful, BAN IT!"

   I grew up as an adventist eating the semi-Kosher diet that included wild caught fish and our own
   home-raised free range chickens, occasional sheep and cattle, more often deer or grouse
   obtained through careful and skillful subsistence hunting.

   When we moved to town, we found that bringing any sort of meat or fish sandwich to school was frowned upon if not prohibibited. Yet, if we went to the homes of other adventists for a vegetarian Sabbath dinner, there often was meat in the refrigerator. There were social sanctions against admitting that one sometimes
   ate meat. It seemed shallow and dishonest.

   When I went to Europe in the army as a young man, I found no such pretense in Germany,
   Denmark, Austria, or Switzerland. The diet among adventists very much resembled the one
   with which I grew up on the ranch. I should also mention, though, that I found regional
   differences within the US as well. 

   My "pagan" wife and I eat a broad spectrum of foods, but we are health conscious and are
   moderate in use of red meat and pork, and we favor roasted foods over fried foods,
   avoid excessive carbs, etc. We grow our own vegetables and berries. There is always
   a bit of a battle to avoid overeating, but I think that is one of the places where emphasis
   is most appropriate. 

   Perhaps some here are knowledgable about the possible influence of infant feeding
   style on development of early and persistent obesity. If so, may we have comments on
   that? I'll hold mine until hearing what others may say.  
    
5. 

   Dingdong

   05 February 2014 at 9:40 pm

   Thanks for your responses to carnivores online – I mean adventists online…..adventists online….

    
6. 

   Roger Trubey

   07 February 2014 at 9:52 pm

   When will we ever understand that the flesh of a cow given grass to eat, as it was ordained by its Creator, given no growth hormones or antbiotics to fatten it up (50 to 70% of all antibiotics in the US are given to animals), allowed plenty of fresh air and abundant sunshine, is completely different then the cow raised in a confined feeding operation, loaded up with antibiotics, fed corn and grains (to fatten it upeven more – and the corn is genetically modified so it is encumbered with heavy amounts of pesticides) and then commonly fed the flesh of other animals and pharmaceutical drugs.  Is the difference too hard to see.  Perhaps if this were undestood as it should have been the feature article would never have been written. 

   Sick cows are often given veterinary drugs to keep them alive and rushed to the slaughter house to be killed before they die.  And we are comparing this animal with the grass-fed animal I described above?  Really?

   I maintain that the reason for our gross minunderstanding of these differences is our obsession with vegetarianism in our churches.  The majority of SDAs are not vegetarians, so why don't we do anything to attempt to educate members who choose not to abstain from flesh, how to select healthy meats, poulty and fish.  Perhaps others have, but I have yet to see in any union paper a cooking school that does this.  It is always about vegetarian cooking classes and how we must get away from eating meat.  Were it not for our vegetarian obsession, we might be "allowed" to actually be of significant help to the carnivores among us, rather than pointing bony fingers at their "dietary mistakes". 
7. 

   Ella M

   08 February 2014 at 1:54 am

    Attn: Serge and Danny

   Roger:  I disagree with you.  Though I don't think meateating is a sin for most people, it is the source of much disease from heart to head.  I think the jury is in on that. Whether it is mostly due to the state of meat today or overeating of it, I can't say. We definitely see changes in those who give it up. Cooking schools are an excellent way to meet our community.  This is the one connection we have with many secular people who tend toward the eastern philosophies. They are ignored by our church evangelists most of the time.

      So I don't come across as an absolutist, I do eat fish on occasion, but no dairy. I eat eggs at least once a week on Sabbath morning as a treat.

       I do not like the fact that I occasionally eat roasted chicken prepared by my husband. Chickens are diseased in the way they are raised and fed. As far as their lives are concerned, it has been discovered that they actually think and have a form of communication among themselves–they are not just dumb chickens.  And so it goes with all animals, they suffer, and they feel.  It is unfortunate that our church has ignored this aspect of meateating as related by White in her writings.

      Concerning White, there were times meat was eaten by the group while traveling when it was the healthiest or only food available. White was not an absolutist, but she spoke in the broad terms of her age. An example is the use of the term "insane".  Neurotic, depressed, and other less extreme terms were not used or understood.
8. 

   Inge Anderson

   08 February 2014 at 6:33 am

   I appreciate Danny's honest post and his subsequent comments. But I'm really surprised at some of the other comments.

   I thought the benefits of a plant-based diet, being so well documented, were more widely known. (Perhaps they are better known among those outside the church?) And it's been a long time since I've seen anyone claim that the body's main need is for protein. (Yes, there are websites advocating heavy meat eating, as well as "diets" advocating the same, but none of these have credence among reasonably well educated people.) It is reasonably well-known that most people in first-world countries get too much protein in their diets and that diets based on a wide variety of plant foods provide adequate and good-quality protein.

   As a matter of fact, the most basic need of the body is for carbohydrates – complex carbohydrates as close to grow as possible, that is. The refined carbohydrates such as white flour and sugar are responsible for the bad rap that carbohydrates have earned in popular literature. In reality, carbohydrates are the primary fuel foods for the body. Unrefined carbohydrates include the necessary minerals and vitamins for digestion and absorption. They are digested into sugars that fuel the brain, nerves and muscles of the body. Fats are also fuel foods, but it takes more to break them down. More often they are stored as body fat. In real emergencies, the body will use protein for fuel, but eating too much protein and not enough carbohydrates (such as in the so-called Atkins diet) is dangerous to health.

   As for the "wheat belly" notion, that appears to be a fad precipitated by advertising designed to sell books and programs. (Click on some of the ads that come up on a great many websites, and you'll find out what I mean.) Whole-grain wheat is a healthy food source, along with other whole grains such as rye, oats, barley and rice.

   Several truths are scattered in the comments: Yes, most people, including vegetarians, nowadays consume too much in the way of Omega-6 fats – the fats advertised as "healthy" years ago – such as all so-called "unsaturated" oils. And most people need to consume more foods rich in Omega-3 fatty acids. These occur naturally in abundance in fish. But the downside to fish consumption is that bothe wild fish and farmed fish are full of all sorts of diseases, as are other meats purchased in the supermarkets. By contrast, a great many vegetables contain small amounts of Omega-3 fatty acids, and Flax seed is rich in a substance that the body converts to Omega-3 fatty acids. Walnuts are an excellent source as well. On a plant-based diet consisting of natural foods as close to grown as possible, a shortage of Omega-3 fatty acids is unlikely, unless people consume poly-unsaturated oil.

   So here's a bit about oils: Avoid all so-called "poly-unsaturated" oils. Avoid most margarines. They actually promote arterial disease. Instead, extra-virgin olive oil (make sure it's genuine) is a good oil. So is unrefined coconut oil (smells and tastes a bit like coconut) which is a healthy stand-in for shortening. Flax seed oil is great as an addition to olive oil in making salad dressings.

   It is also true that naturally raised chickens (allowed to run outside and eat grains and worms) and naturally raised beef (again, allowed to run outside and eat grass) are much healthier than what is available in stores. A diet including naturally raised, organic chicken and beef can also be a great deal healthier than a "vegetarian" diet that includes a lot of fake meats, fats and sugars. But there's really no excuse for that nowadays. Healthy plant-based recipes are abundant on the internet. Eating vegan is culturally popular. Many people want to know how to live "vegan," which explains the popularity of our cooking schools.

   While it is possible to eat a reasonably healthy diet which includes chicken and beef,  chicken and beef are second-hand foods. The meat consists of new cells, middle-aged cells and nearly dead cells, which are largely waste material that the human body has to expel. Chickens and cows get their protein and their energy from plants. Human bodies are perfectly capable to get their protein and energy from plants first-hand instead of second-hand from dead animals. That's how God designed us. And that's why you haven't seen advice on selecting healthy meats in union papers. Healthy plant foods are much easier to find than "healthy" meats, for which you had best find the actual farmers who raise their meat organically. (Why would anyone want to live on second-hand foods, other than for acquired taste?)

   And, yes, it is possible to pre-dispose children to obesity by putting them on a fat-cell-producing diets. Studies demonstrate that God knew best when he designed babies to grow on mother's milk. Breast-fed babies grow into healthier children with more robust immune systems. Children who were breast-fed also score higher on intelligence in a statistically significant manner. Babies should not be put on solid foods too soon, and children grow best on a varied diet of plant foods. Ours are a great example. (When we raised our first three boys, little was known about a plant-based diet. Doctors tried to tell me that they would not grow well – especially without dairy products. But the boys perversely persisted in being the biggest, healthiest kids in the neighborhood, to the puzzlement of the dietary "experts." 😉 )

   Why anyone would bash the health message given to us through Ellen White is a mystery to me, since nearly everything we were told 150+ years ago has now been abundantly verified by science.

   God wants us to be happy, healthy, and holy. And He gave us instructions to facilitate this.

   But since Danny started out his post with a confession, I am moved to make a confession of my own. My battle is with chocolate. <sigh> Not the occasional nibble, that is. But full-out chocolate binging on Caballero chocolate ostensibly bought for baking purposes. Now I know that's not good – even if I eat a plant-based diet. 😉

   We each struggle with our own food issues. But let's not dignify our preferences with designating them as superior diets. (Chocolate diet, anyone? Hey, it's dark chocolate, without milk, after all – or so I try to tell myself. But I know I'm not telling myself the truth. 😉 ) H'mm … I could probably drop some of those extra pounds by cutting out chocolate. Thanks for the inspiration, Danny. 🙂 And, dear God, please help me to WANT to cut out chocolate! (That's the rub, really.)

   PS Because I wasn't trying to write a scientific treatise, I haven't given you the scientific basis for what I wrote. You can find it yourself with  Google. 🙂
    
   1. 

      Roger Trubey

      08 February 2014 at 3:23 pm

      Inge, when you write:  "Why would anyone want to live on second-hand foods, other than for acquired taste", you betray your ignorance or misinformation.  I will tell you why for my self.  Except for a brief stint while in the US army when I felt I did not have much choice, I was a vegetarian.   I was born into a family that did not eat meat.  And I continued to be a vegetarian before, during or after several years of education at LLU to receive my doctorate in Health Science and Masters in Nutrition.  It was at LLU School of Health that I was thoroughly trained in the dangers of meat and other animal foods, including eggs and thoroughly indoctrinated in the basis of a plant-based diet.  For years afterwards I followed my training to the letter and encouraged my patients to do the same. ( I give you my education background not for any other purpose but to tell you that ignorance of how to eat a plant based diet was not a problem for me) 

      But afterward about 20 years of eating only whole wheat bread, avoidance of sugars, sodas, meats etc., but eating lots of greens, vegetables, fruits, legumes and all the good plant-based proteins, I couldn't figure out why I felt so weak, almost emaciated at times.  After I checked my blood I found a major reason – I was anemic.  So I reluctantly began to add in meat into my diet.  Believe me, It was not because I wanted to or because I had an aquired taste, neither was true.  But it made  a big difference and I did feel a major improvement.   It was not the outcome I wanted or expected.  But as a scientist would do, I went with the evidence on me – and yes I can find evidence on Google to support a vegetarian diet but unless you are doing selective reading there is abundant evidence on some significant problems with a plant diet only in some individuals.  I will share one relating to myself.

      A few years back I did a test to DNA test to evaluate Gluten – I found I am genetically intolerant to Gluten (HLA DQ1, HLADQ2 and HLADQ8).  This provided another reaon for anemia.  Every enemic individual without any known cause should be evaluated for a genetic intolerance to gluten. And gluten intolerance has been found, inthe medical literature to dozens of health conditions.   Avoiding all grains except rice and quiona has provided even more benefit to me and I felt further improvement.

      Recently, I listened to several world renowned experts, from the US and other countries on the problems with gluten grains, their conclusions, based on studying multiple hundreds of individuals, was  that at least a 1/3 of individuals in the western world will be intolerant to gluten and many also with foods cross-reacting with gluten.

      So I give you your desire to be a vegetarian and I am happy that you can be, but I will state my emphatic position that not everyone can or should be a vegetarian.  I am enphatic about how I feel because I have also seen the difference it made in many of my patients who did begin to add in the "flesh of dead animals", but also in the many who just could not or would not make the change inspite of persistent health problems.

      We are not all made the same so why think everyone should be in the same box. As I say to some of my patients, "go ahead and eat your meat and potatoes… but you may have to pay a price for that".  And to others I will say "You can be a vegetarian (or vegan)… but you may have to pay a price for that". 
      1. 

         Dingdong

         08 February 2014 at 11:30 pm

         But Roger, why would you go onto meat and not just include animal products like eggs and cheese? Vegetarian seems to impy vegan here when its not?
         1. 

            Roger Trubey

            09 February 2014 at 12:15 am

            Well I did use these foods, Dingdong.  I was in no way vegan and did not mean to convey that if I did.  So meat was then next option for which to go.  Now later I learned that 50% of gluten sensitive individuals are also sensitive to dairy products.  That may explain why they were apparently not helping but meat, poultry and fish were.  Testing for allergies over the years confirmed very strong reactions to dairy and egg proteins in my body. 

            Further, having tested hundreds of patients during the last 30 plus years, I found grains and dairy to be the most common of allergens and sensitivities.  We just can't put everyone in the vegetarian box.  Say what you will about carnivores, but having been on both sides of the fence I find vegetarians and especially vegans to be far more pushy and defensive about their  beliefs.  I don't crave meat in the least and would have been happy to remain a vegetarian all my life.  I eat it and leave off the grains because it has been a huge blessing to me and I thank God that I was open to the need to change and the information to change came my way.
            1. 

               Dingdong

               09 February 2014 at 1:58 am

               So back to my theory – are the reactions to vegtable based protiens a symptom of meat consumption both in early childhood or later adolescence? 
            2. 

               Roger Trubey

               09 February 2014 at 2:19 am

               Now you fit my perspective of the defensive vegetarian, Dingdong.  If you read my earlier comment you should have noted how late in life my consumption of meat started.   My consumption of meat did not occur until I was almost 50 years of age.  And it was before then that I had already tested positive to wheat and dairy.  I just did not want to believe it and would avoid them for awhile, hoping they would go away and then go back to eating them again.  If you understood the science that is involved and the human variability you would not be so determined to make the science fit your theories, but let the unfolding of science allow you to accept or reject your suppositions and preconceived opinions.   At least for me that is what I had to do, even if I did not like the outcome.
            3. 

               Dingdong

               09 February 2014 at 3:55 am

               Was it dairy then?

               Just throwing out questions….have not go all the answers but I do know my research which has led me to my hypothesis in which I am in good company.

               defensive?, I dont know if I would go that far………..amazed?…….yes.
            4. 

               Serge Agafonoff

               09 February 2014 at 2:35 am

               Danny, you may have to accept that teh theory doesn't fly.  Coeliac disease, the most severe form of gluten allergy/sensitivity is often diagnosed in childhood, as the infant takes its first feeds of grains, and long before any exposure to meat.  Likewise, gluten sensitivity is frequently found later in life-long vegetarians also.  Roger's personal experience is quite typical.

               I do recommend the reading of Wheat Belly by WIlliam Davis MD.  He documents the change in genetic structure of wheat, after hybridisation, to its complex protein structures we have today.  Gluten is not the only protein product of modern wheat which causes sensitivity.  Besides that, the starch component is significantly higher and so too many glucose calories are taken in with modern flours/.breads.

               Just to return to the role of Ellen's words in shaping your theory, keep in mind that she predicted that meat and eggs would 'soon' be too diseased to eat, and so eating grain sources of wheat (her first recommendations, milk, eggs were secondary) would become mandatory.  It would appear, over 100 years later, that the very opposite has occurred.  Wheat has become so hybridised that it should now be considered inedible, whereas Grass-fed meats/fish (ie not farmed fish) remain healthy and eggs remain good sources of protein.

               The main point of your article, if I understood correctly, was that a healthy immune system is necessary to fight off disease.  I submit to you that the first requirement for a robust immune system is the full range of amino acids in ample supply.  The immune sytem is built out of protein.  That is but one reason why protein is the body's most basic food requirement.  Plant-based sources might be adequate, if eaten in sufficiently large, nay, huge quantities.  Risk then is taking in far too many calories, with resultant insulin-resistance issues.  Modern 'plant sources,' eg wheat and soy, are not good foods.  Soy as used in teh west is not fermented, hence the xeno-estrogens and anti-nutirents create their own set of problems.  

               These are among some of the problems wich vegetarians and vegans have to confront as they seek to build a healthy immune system.   A mistaken 'theology' of vegetarianism is of no help here.
            5. 

               Dingdong

               09 February 2014 at 4:11 am

               Could it be through the mothers diet, blood influence on the immune system of the baby while in womb?
               I am not saying all allergies are related to eating meat but my theory is that the immune system is compromosed by it…..

               My understanding is that Allergies are usually from a weakened immune stytem/bodys' innability to deal with substances that may otherwise not cause a reaction in another person…

               There could be something in your argument that genetically modified vegatable products cause this but I have always felt that unless its toxic, how can a dose of vegetable matter change my immune system?
   2. 

      Dingdong

      08 February 2014 at 11:34 pm

      Thanks Inge, I knew there was an Adventist out there who belives in our message yet to comment and like you am surprised at the amount of defensiveness around eating meat.

      Giving up meat is like quitting smoking – it has a very strong pull and I fear many try to justify their cravings for it and hide behind slogansd and impied data to continue the habit. After all these years I can honestly say meat tastes better than alternate vegetarian products but the further I go away from meat the less I crave it.
       
9. 

   Inge Anderson

   08 February 2014 at 7:08 am

   H'mm … I actually agree with much of Serge's second comment that promotes the consumption of an abundance of vegetables. And for many people eating vegan, eating less fruit and more leafy vegetables is probably a good idea. But to limit the intake of fruit to one serving of fruit a day, in summer, is extreme and thus unlikely to be the healthiest choice. And I rather doubt that that was typical of South Sea Islanders in their healthier days. (While many of them are grossly overweight nowadays, pictures of the "old day" show men and women looking healthy and athletic, if scantily (comfortably) dressed. 😉 Their diet likely consisted of fish and more locally available fruit than vegetables.)

   I think we need to look at balance in the diet and probably eating more "local" is a good idea, without going to extremes, such as avoiding bananas in Canada. (They're the least expensive fruit available here in the winter.)

   I disagree on the emphasis on the necessity of meat for protein. (And I agree with pretty much everything Ella wrote.) Almost all plant foods contain protein, even apples (2% with skin). And leafy vegetables are a source of every high-quality proteins. Faux meats are not necessary. Neither is the eating of dead animals required for a healthy diet.

   What is necessary is a varied diet of (usually) locally available, naturally grown plant foods, including legumes and nuts. In areas of the world where few plant foods are available locally (such as in the Canadian North), the aboriginal diet relied heavily on fish and other animal life. And life spans were very short. I would think that there should be a way around this – and I'm sure that eating the refined carbohydrates and other "civilized" foods in the supermarket is not the way.
10. 

    Joe Erwin

    08 February 2014 at 2:50 pm

    Inge, you seem to be a nutritionist, dietician, nurse, or physician–anyway, knowledgeable on nutrition.

    I wonder if you would elaborate a little more on the consequences of breast feeding vs. bottle feeding infants. 

    I got sort of interested in this some years ago while I was a zoological curator. We were concerned about obesity in some nonhuman primates, notably orangutans–apes a little less like humans than bonobos, chimpanzees, and gorillas are. We found that the orangutans that were hand reared/bottle fed were much more prone to obesity and adult-onset diabetes than those who were mother reared and breast fed.

    I think there is evidence that the same is true for humans, but I suspect that you are more familiar than I with the literature on that issue. We might also want to think about how the early nutrition that is human dairy relates to later use of nonhuman dairy products.

    Thanks for bringing your expertise to this forum.
    1. 

       William Noel

       08 February 2014 at 6:51 pm

       Joe,

       A close friend of mine teaches maternal nursing at a local university and completed her PhD a year or so ago.  I knew she was working on her doctoral degree but did not know the subject until a few nights before graduation when she traveled with several of us to a meeting.  We were congratulating her and I wanted to inquire about the subject until she revealed the focus of her study: breastfeeding!  So I shut my mouth and just listened.  She gave us a quick summary of her findings that included documenting why babies who are bottle-fed are more prone to obesity.  The reason she gave was the concentration of the nutrients in the formula.  As I recall, she said some baby formulas are so concentrated that they can be diluted significantly and still deliver sufficient nourishment.  
11. 

    Roger Trubey

    08 February 2014 at 7:44 pm

    Joe, you might also be interested to know that breast milk is high in total fat, high in saturated fat and cholesterol.  The human brain is loaded with cholesteol and saturated fats.  Much of the structural fats needed like DHA primarily come through animal sources with many individuals having difficulty converting plant sources of Omega 3 fats into EPA and DHA fats.  Only recently has the pharmeceutical companies which produces baby formula felt the need to increase the fat in the formulas, especially DHA.  Previously they were following the dictum of low-fat everything.    
12. 

    Joe Erwin

    08 February 2014 at 8:30 pm

    Thank you, Roger. Please email me at agingapes AT gmail DOT com for a private conversation.

    I am looking for input from health scientists/nutritionists with deep understanding of individual health,
    including relevant genomics and proteomics.

     
13. 

    David

    08 February 2014 at 10:08 pm

    Hi Joe… long time since we interchanged ideas in AT.  Lately I dedicated significant amount of time updating my concepts in epigenetics and applying in the line of my research.  I crossed couples of papers that may interest you.
    Breastfeeding for the first nine months of live decreases the risk of obesity by 30 to 40% in adulthood.  The mechanisms or not very well understood but in part appear to related to the influence of epigenetics.  The microbiota of breastfeed (BF) infants is different from the ones feed by formula milk (FF).  While the microbiota of the BF produces folic acid that affects the methylation of the DNA, the microbiota of the FF produces propionic acid that affects acetylation of the histones. 
14. 

    Jack Hoehn

    09 February 2014 at 10:22 pm

    There are 34 comments here, and many just as confusing as the daily health news from your newspaper that reports one thing today and another completely contrary thing tomorrow.  So this SDA Family Doctor just adds this.
    1.) Listen to Inge Anderson above.
    2.) Try it yourself.  Experiment with 10 days of no meat, then decide for you.  Do the same with wheat, do the same with sugar, soda, eggs.  Then remember that your results are true only for you, and not necessarily for everyone in your church.
    3.) Vegan (CHIPS programs) is good for a treatment for a few weeks or months, but difficult to sustain as a life style unless you are very obsessive and compulsive, and does seem unsustainable for most ordinary people.  Eat this way if it works for you, but it is bad for your spiritual health to think this brings you closer to heaven.
    4.) Animal products made without death of the animal are made to share, starting with your mother's generous milk, eggs, goat-sheep-yak-bufula-cow milk and their cheeses; honey.  But they should be enhancements to your plant based diet, not the main diet.  Lacto-0vo vegetarians maintain a moral high ground as long as their animal products are not made with  suffering and pain for the animals.  It does make a difference where you get your milk and eggs from. Pay more for the better quality, ethical products.
    5.) Children should enjoy a liberal diet for sure, including lots of good fats, eggs from free range fowl.  Be sure they get a taste for nuts, olives, avocado, unless they have specific allergies.
    6.) On the other hand there is little health reason for anyone to eat second hand food involving the death of the animal.  Nothing with a face, nothing with a mother, is still a very defensible ethical and health rule. 
    7.) If you do need meat, it is consensus, and has nothing to do with Ellen White or Adventism, that fish and fowl are healthier for your heart and brain than cows, pigs, and lambs.
    8.) I don't think high fructose corn syrup sweeteners are good for you.
    There, you are welcome!

Comments are closed.