Are your bones too dense and strong? Adopt a Raw Food Vege Diet!

......that'll fix it!


Low Bone Mass in Subjects on a Long-term Raw Vegetarian Diet

Results The RF vegetarians had a mean ± SD body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters) of 20.5 ± 2.3, compared with 25.4 ± 3.3 in the control subjects. The mean bone mineral content and density of the lumbar spine (P= .003 and P

One of the things I am most conscious about is my food choices; I try to pick foods that is available to me even in a survival situation. And in that lies my peeve with vegan diets. I mean, that salad and tofu is cool you know, but put in a survival situation they would fall behind rather quick, without resorting to killing animals for meat.
Also, I have trouble visualizing a strict vegan making it through a harsh, nordic winter.

The article made me laugh, because just recently I was reading a thread debating whether vegan diets were healthier than the "standard" human diet.

I don't know how raw vegtarians/vegans can call their diets natural when they need to consume unnatural artificial supplements and fortified foods to help maintain adequate nutrient levels. Just like for vitamin D and calcium, vegetarians and vegans need to consume supplements and fortified foods containing these nutrients to keep their bones strong.

Even a vegetarian web site points this out: vegetarian-issues.suite101.com...

eating meat is only unhealthy if your a lazy ass

It seems to me that this study was to do with people who only eat RAW food, as in un-cooked. Vegans and vegetarians both cook their food, and provided they balance their diet well they will be just as healthy, if not more so, than your average meat eater. (Just for the record, I eat meat.)

Got to agree about the survival situation, obviously without meat you would struggle!

I've never got the whole Raw food thing. I watched a documentary about it a while ago, and just from looking at the family you could tell it wasn't healthy. All skin and bone! It's nice to see some sound looking research on the subject, but I can almost hear the retorts from them about how this is what THEY want us to think..

Context: raw food vegetarians have lower bone mass
This study wouldn't include sushi eaters, steak tartare or any other raw food omnivores - or any eaters of cooked foods - in the target group, nor filter the control group in any way. So my point is that the target of the study was severely restricted by design to eliminate inference of the results to a larger population. Being ATS, we could infer "proof" of evolution right before our very eyes!

gj

Well, I think the study abstract clearly states that little is known about the effects of raw food vegetarian diets on bone health.

This is directly from the full text:

The RF vegetarians ate a variety of raw vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, sprouted grains, and cereals, dressed with olive oil (1285-2432 kcal/d; approximately 9.1% of calories from protein, 43.2% from fat, and 47.7% from complex carbohydrates). All of them strictly avoided cooked and processed foods containing trans-fatty acids, highly glycemic foods, and foods of animal origin. Their mean daily dietary intakes of calcium and vitamin D (calciferol) were low, 579 ± 260 mg/d and 16 ± 36 U/d, respectively. The control group ate usual American diets containing foods of plant and animal origin (1976-3537 kcal/d; approximately 17.9% of calories from protein, 32.1% from fat, and 50.0% from carbohydrates). Their mean daily dietary intakes of calcium and vitamin D were 1093 ± 394 mg/d and 348 ± 192 U/d, respectively.

Why raw food vegetarians and not omnivores? Because omnivores aren't as strongly associated with low bone mass as vegetarians. The question comes about, I assume, to see if raw vegetarian foods provide different absorption/bioavailability rates that would affect bone mass.

-Dev

I'm curious.....I'd like to add another cohort to the study design. Another target group. One that consumes a restricted carbohydrate/high-fat diet. I'm pretty sure the results would be compelling, in support of the carbohydrate restricted individuals.

-Dev

does this study take into account increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, cancer,stroke, parasite infestation, and high cholesterol in the meat eating segments of society.
becasue quite frankly, those are far more detrminetal to ones health that low bone density.
what made you hate vegetarians so much btw?

reply to post by Ong Bak


I don't think anyone hates vegetarians, just hate the scientifically inaccurate nonsense they spew. And the other poster is correct, a vegetarian diet is not natural. We are naturally omnivores. I agree with some vegetarians on let's say factory farming and the overall way we treat animals, i think it's a travesty which is why i don't eat fast food or cheap meat. Some would say that's a luxury only rich folks can have when in actual fact im quite poor, so simply don't eat as much meat and use it more efficiently when cooking meals. There really is no excuse, other than not giving a damn of course! Oh and while i can understand the vegetarian position to a certain extent...the Raw food diet just has me stumped.

[edit on 14-4-2010 by Solomons]

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by Ong Bak

 

I don't think anyone hates vegetarians

[edit on 14-4-2010 by Solomons]

based on other threads that the OP has commented in i would disagree.
and how can you say foraging for green, fruits, and vegetables is unnatural, then go on to describe how you include the rotting corpse of another creature in your meal plan ? is the natural way of things to murder and consume flesh for you?

Originally posted by Ong Bak
does this study take into account increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, cancer,stroke, parasite infestation, and high cholesterol in the meat eating segments of society.
becasue quite frankly, those are far more detrminetal to ones health that low bone density.
what made you hate vegetarians so much btw?

Why, exactly, would a study account for false science? I mean, there is definitely an association, but correlation does not imply causation.

The truth is, there is no hard evidence (besides epidemiology) connecting "meat" consumption with heart disease, diabetes, cancer, stroke or dyslipidemia. You can pull up all the health blogs, books and government health sites claiming there is......but I've read the literature and I've reviewed the history, there's none.

You should also be aware that osteoporosis (and low bone density) is strongly associated with the aforementioned diseases of civilization, which would suggest that there is a common cause. One that is likely to be caused dietarily by foods that have been recently introduced to/consumed by humans. Evolutionarily speaking, we haven't been consuming grains and other high carbohydrate foods until very recently. So.....based on anthropology and paleontology we can draw a correlation. Add every recent study to come about in support of low-carbohydrate diets....and voila.

Edit to add: Exactly how do you figure I hate vegetarians? I don't like "holier than thou", know-it-all vegetarians, omnivores, vegans, etc....who don't/haven't read the literature and have no idea what they're talking about; who've never cracked open a biochemistry book.

Please....keep the personal attacks to yourself.

-Dev

[edit on 14-4-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd]

A raw vegetarian diet contains high Phytic Acid concentrations.

Phytic Acid is known to leech out minerals important to humans, such as Iron and Calcium.

For Iron, it might be good, because Iron boosts oxidation. Calcium not so good.

Did you notice though this part at the end?

The mean serum C-reactive protein (P = .03), insulinlike growth factor 1 (P = .002), and leptin (P = .005) were lower in the RF group.

Weighing all out, the good and bad

Bad:

-Reduces bone density

-Increased hunger, by lowered leptin

Good:

-Less inflammation, by lowered c reactive protein

-A possible reduction of cancer, due to lowered IGF-1 growth factor

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Originally posted by Ong Bak
does this study take into account increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, cancer,stroke, parasite infestation, and high cholesterol in the meat eating segments of society.
becasue quite frankly, those are far more detrminetal to ones health that low bone density.
what made you hate vegetarians so much btw?

Why, exactly, would a study account for false science? I mean, there is definitely an association, but correlation does not imply causation.

The truth is, there is no hard evidence (besides epidemiology) connecting "meat" consumption with heart disease, diabetes, cancer, stroke or dyslipidemia. You can pull up all the health blogs, books and government health sites claiming there is......but I've read the literature and I've reviewed the history, there's none.

You should also be aware that osteoporosis (and low bone density) is strongly associated with the aforementioned diseases of civilization, which would suggest that there is a common cause. One that is likely to be caused dietarily by foods that have been recently introduced to/consumed by humans. Evolutionarily speaking, we haven't been consuming grains and other high carbohydrate foods until very recently. So.....based on anthropology and paleontology we can draw a correlation. Add every recent study to come about in support of low-carbohydrate diets....and voila.

Edit to add: Exactly how do you figure I hate vegetarians? I don't like "holier than thou", know-it-all vegetarians, omnivores, vegans, etc....who don't/haven't read the literature and have no idea what they're talking about; who've never cracked open a biochemistry book.

Please....keep the personal attacks to yourself.

-Dev

[edit on 14-4-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd]

no need to get angry friend. maybe you should cut down on that red meat intake and you wont get upset so easily.

Right but still the bones of animals are dense -- yet easily crushed:

video.google.com...#

Earthlings is a great expose on where meat comes from.

I'm not against eating meat but corn-fed factory meat just is sick.

Seriously it's not just bad for animal rights reasons -- but for health reasons and for environmental reasons.

I agree that meat gives you concentrated calories.

That calcium is not processed as easily with the other nutrients in certain plants -- like calcium in spinach is hard to absorb.

So I can see why vegans would have lower bone density.

reply to post by jjjtir


Excellent post! Thanks!

reply to post by Ong Bak


Angry? Hardly. But I certainly won't be discussing this issue with you any longer.

-Dev

reply to post by drew hempel


Yes, good thing mentioning spinach.

The 2 most common deterrents are phytic acid and oxalic acid.

Spinach have high oxalic acid, creating oxalates, like calcium oxalate.

Boiling, and to a lesser degree, steaming, reduce both phytic acid and oxalic acid.

A top plant source of calcium is Sesame Seeds, and the associated "butter", Tahini.

But it has to be whole/unhulled, with the hull intact.

Like Spinach, Sesame have high oxalic acid and phytic acid too.

The toasted/roasted seeds to make Tahini could reduce that.

raw vendges are good - enzymes

meat is bad - acidic

enzymes is better to have in the body than acidic waste

Originally posted by angelx666

raw vendges are good - enzymes

meat is bad - acidic

enzymes is better to have in the body than acidic waste

Meat is packed with high amounts of proteins and other nutrients I would hardly call it bad.

So the message we should really try to get through is -


make sure all your meals are at least 51% raw for starters...





And know that the main concern of bone loss/density is a sedentary lifestyle, which is highly common in our society. Non-active individuals; most commonly the elderly and bed ridden, suffer the highest levels of bone loss - That is except the astronauts who live without gravity and the benefits of bearing any weight on their skeletons.

Astronauts that spend long months aboard the International Space Station lose bone strength faster than previously thought and have a higher risk of breaking their hips later in life, a new study reports.

A survey of 13 space station astronauts found that their bone strength dipped by at least 14 percent on the average during their half-year stays aboard the orbiting laboratory.

Three of the astronauts lost up to 30 percent of their bone strength during their long-duration spaceflights, putting them on par with the bone strength of older women with osteoporosis on Earth, the study reported.

www.space.com...

I'm sure astronauts aren't bulking up on the meat to compensate or making sure their diet isn't too veggie and raw.