Heres another In case you missed it FB note from Stephen originally published Thu, 18 Sep 2014 this-is-pretty-importantMy note yesterday entitled The Jury is IN, prompted a robust discussion, and I am indebted to those who responded with statements of core beliefs and referenced material, vs those who chose to post insults, which are not worthy of reply.I will once again state that the choice to consume a vegan or vegetarian diet because of religious or moral beliefs is not up for debate. I was part of a spiritual community following a vegetarian diet (1972-1980), and am well aware of those issues. I taught vegetarian cooking classes, and have used that training as the basis for what I call a Conscious Omnivore diet, outlined in my book, The Metabolic Makeover. Jonathan Burgess cited a recent report out of the Cleveland Clinic showing remarkable cardiovascular improvements in patients following a vegan diet. I am well aware of Dr. Esselstyn’s book and his study published in the Journal of Family Practice.[1] My wife is board-certified in that medical specialty, and we have identified many of the pitfalls of the all-or-nothing vegan approach inherent in that report. There is good informationin the Esselstyn report: “CAD begins with progressive endothelial injury, inflammatory oxidative stress, diminution of nitric oxide production, foam cell formation, and development of plaques that may rupture to cause a myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.” COMMENT: This is a succinct and accurate view of CVD, as opposed to the previous “cholesterol hypothesis.” It’s rewarding to see how our understanding of CVD has progressed to a process with known preventable stages. We would point to research showing remarkable benefits of plant-based anti-inflammatory compounds and high-potency antioxidant food concentrates, as well as reliable ways to stimulate nitric oxide production. In other words, a vegan diet is not the only way to dramatically improve CVD risk factors. From the Esselstyn report: “This cascade is set in motion in part by, and is exacerbated by, the western diet of added oils, dairy, meat, fowl, fish, sugary foods (sucrose, fructose, and drinks containing those, refined carbohydrates, fruit juices, syrups, and molasses) that injures or impairs endothelial function after each ingestion, making food choices a major, if not the major, cause of CVD.” COMMENT: This is where Esselstyn and colleagues introduce sleight-of-hand that got by the peer review committee. I am sure Esselstyn et al can come up with research showing potential endothelial damage from the consumption of commercial meat, fowl and especially sugary foods. But where is the data regarding added virgin olive oil, cold-pressed hemp oil, cold water fish and fish oil? These dietary components have all been shown to reduce CVD risk, but vegan promoters frequently resort to creating lists of offending foods in order to support their all-or-nothing approach. Participants in the Esselstyn trial received in-depth counseling, some of which was inaccurate. From the Esselstyn report: “The 5-hour [counseling] program profiled plant-based cultures that have virtually no cardiovascular illness.”COMMENT: Exactly where are these cultures? If they are referring to the Tarahumara people of northwestern Mexico (a group cited by most vegan writers), that story was debunked by research showing that these people were historically and are to the present day, herders of cattle, sheep, and goats. Even worse, Esselstyn et al trot out the worn out vegan myth about Norwegians in WWII. How this bit of editorializing got by peer review is a mystery. The Esselstyn report highlights: “the plummeting death rates from strokes and heart attacks in Norway during World War II when the German occupying forces confiscated their livestock, limiting Norwegians to plant-based nutrition.”COMMENT: Yes, records showthat from 1939 to 1945, deaths from cardiovascular disease (CVD) in Norway dropped. But to assume that Norwegians suddenly became vegan is preposterous. What really happened was that they made a number of important dietary adjustments. Published records show that consumption of sugar, butter and margarine dropped dramatically, while (as you would expect) fish consumption doubled! They also became very resourceful, eating wild birds (even seagulls) and processing fish roe to make flour.[2] This, together with a 20% reduction in calories, is the more likely explanation for the reduced rate of cardiovascular disease in that period. Bottom line: I am sure that a vegan diet is healthful and results in a marked reduction in risk for cardiovascular disease. But I find it necessary to point out that promoters of the vegan diet often exaggerate and misrepresent the science in order to create the impression that their dietary choices are the only way to live a long, healthy life. A Conscious Omnivore diet including plant-based anti-inflammatory compounds and a wide range of essential fats, as well as careful avoidance of junk food (especially refined sugars) can produce a medical profile that is equal to or better than the vegan option. Onward! REFERENCES [1] jfponline/fileadmin/qhi/jfp/pdfs/6307/JFP_06307_Article1.pdf [2] Angell-Andersen E, Tretli S, Bjerknesz R, et al. The association between nutritional conditions during World War IIand childhood anthropometric variables in the Nordic countries. Annals of Human Biology May-June 2004, VOL. 31, NO. 3, 342 – 355Accessed on 09/11/14 at: Stephen Cherniske
Posted on: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 14:47:16 +0000