Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
No! I won't!
In as much as we evolved from omnivores, and in as much as all souls
are eternal (so killing animals is not an ethical problem), I see no reason to be vegan, other than to reduce one's sexual lust. And, personally, I have no desire to reduce my sexual lust. By being a vegan, you miss out on the best proteins (whey) and the best fats (fish oil). No. I won't help you be a vegan, or a healthier vegan. |
|
|||
|
|||
No! I won't!
In article >,
DappleAndWasser > wrote: >In as much as we evolved from omnivores, and in as much as all souls >are eternal (so killing animals is not an ethical problem), I see no >reason to be vegan, other than to reduce one's sexual lust. And, >personally, I have no desire to reduce my sexual lust. > >By being a vegan, you miss out on the best proteins (whey) and the >best fats (fish oil). "No whey!" (vegan motto) >No. I won't help you be a vegan, or a healthier vegan. Aw, c'mon. Help just a little bit. You can do it. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT) |
|
|||
|
|||
No! I won't!
dec wrote:
> "DappleAndWasser" > wrote in message om... > >>In as much as we evolved from omnivores, and in as much as all souls >>are eternal (so killing animals is not an ethical problem), I see no >>reason to be vegan, other than to reduce one's sexual lust. > > > Environmental impact--each successive trophic level in the > food chain is approximately an order of magnitude more > destructive than the one below it, but some are several > orders of magnitude more destructive. What a big steaming load of crap! You've written dogma, not science. Yesterday on a golf course, I saw the head of a squirrel, the only remains of a meal for a hawk or owl. I invite you to "prove" how hawks are *any* more environmentally destructive than squirrels, LET ALONE "orders of magnitude" (pshaw - you don't even know what that means) more destructive. In fact, with the exception of man, the higher up the trophic levels you go, the LESS destructive species appear to be. > > >>By being a vegan, you miss out on the best proteins (whey) and the >>best fats (fish oil). > > > One can put together a completely plant-based meal > with an EAA profile similar to whey. Feel free. > > One can also buy algae-based DHA sources. Ari Simopoulos > reports that wild purslane, a terrestial plant, is a source > of EPA. Also, we will have soon have precursors to DHA > and EPA that convert more easily than ALA in our > vegetable oils in the supermarket. > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
No! I won't!
|
|
|||
|
|||
No! I won't!
David Wright wrote:
>>By being a vegan, you miss out on the best proteins Protien complementation actually results in higher quality protien >>best fats (fish oil). Fish get their omega 3's from algae oil, which you can now buy in vegetarian capusles, its called "Omega 3 Zen DHA". Doh! Steve http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/ "The great American thought trap: It is not real unless it can be seen on television or bought in a shopping mall" |
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, I might
Steve > wrote in message >...
> > Fish get their omega 3's from algae oil, which you can now buy in > vegetarian capusles, its called "Omega 3 Zen DHA". > Thanks for the info. I will look into it. Roger |
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, I might
It wasn't a dark and stormy night when DappleAndWasser wrote:
> Steve > wrote in message > >... > > > > > Fish get their omega 3's from algae oil, which you can now buy in > > vegetarian capusles, its called "Omega 3 Zen DHA". > > > > Thanks for the info. I will look into it. I found it cheaper to use flax(linseed) oil. Vashti |
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, I might
Vashti > wrote in message >...
> It wasn't a dark and stormy night when DappleAndWasser wrote: > > > Steve > wrote in message > > >... > > > > > > > > Fish get their omega 3's from algae oil, which you can now buy in > > > vegetarian capusles, its called "Omega 3 Zen DHA". > > > > > > > Thanks for the info. I will look into it. > > I found it cheaper to use flax(linseed) oil. > > > Vashti The conversion of flaxseed oil to DHA and EPA is terrible. You won't get much DHA and EPA out that strategy. http://www.oilofpisces.com/generalhealtheffects.html "Editor's Note: According to this new data a tablespoon of flax oil would only result in the synthesis of about 30 mg of EPA – far less than the recommended daily intake of 220 mg." |
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, I might
"Vashti" > wrote in message ... > It wasn't a dark and stormy night when DappleAndWasser wrote: > > > Steve > wrote in message > > >... > > > > > > > > Fish get their omega 3's from algae oil, which you can now buy in > > > vegetarian capusles, its called "Omega 3 Zen DHA". > > > > > > > Thanks for the info. I will look into it. > > I found it cheaper to use flax(linseed) oil. > i find flax oil to be a little bit nasty tasting. i use this 'ultimate oil blend' stuff called 'udo's oil.' it's got flax oil in it, but also sunflower and other stuff, apparently to give the proper omega ratio. i read somewhere that the ratio of omegas 3 to 6 is more important than just dosing with omega 3s. sounds like a good idea. anyhow, i find it tastes much more agreeable, although i always use it in stuff (like smoothies and salad dressing). my dad takes it straight on a spoon each morning. that man has a gullet of steel. ick. > > Vashti |
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, I might
It wasn't a dark and stormy night when katie wrote:
> i find flax oil to be a little bit nasty tasting. i use this > 'ultimate oil blend' stuff called 'udo's oil.' it's got flax oil in > it, but also sunflower and other stuff, apparently to give the proper > omega ratio. i read somewhere that the ratio of omegas 3 to 6 is more > important than just dosing with omega 3s. sounds like a good idea. > anyhow, i find it tastes much more agreeable, although i always use it > in stuff (like smoothies and salad dressing). my dad takes it > straight on a spoon each morning. that man has a gullet of steel. > ick. I use it in salad dressing: with garlic, onion, herbs and some orange juice to balance the nasty flavour of the oil it's great. I like it with a salad of various leafy greens(especially the bitter ones). I've tried to find other oils and even though my ex runs a health food store he says he can't order anything else, not even vegetarian Omega 3 supplements but my guess is he's hardly trying though availability may be different here in the Netherlands. Of all things today I found I've a folic acid deficiency on top of the inability to absorb B12 despite eating all all the foods that should provide it so I think I need to add more stuff containing vitamin C. Vashti |
|
|||
|
|||
No! I won't!
Steve > wrote in message >...
> David Wright wrote: > >>By being a vegan, you miss out on the best proteins > > Protien complementation actually results in higher quality protien > > > >>best fats (fish oil). > > Fish get their omega 3's from algae oil, which you can now buy in > vegetarian capusles, its called "Omega 3 Zen DHA". > > Doh! > Doesn't cooking the fish convert the omega oils to trans fats? > Steve > http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/ > > "The great American thought trap: It is not real unless it can be seen > on television or bought in a shopping mall" |
|
|||
|
|||
No! I won't!
Ron wrote:
<..> > Doesn't cooking the fish convert the omega oils to trans fats? No. Stupid. |
|
|||
|
|||
No! I won't!
dec wrote:
>>> Doesn't cooking the fish convert the omega oils to trans fats? >> >>No. Stupid. > > Yes. No. > Smart. STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPID. > PUFAs are prone to such conversion on exposure > to heat, light, pressure, etc... with the omega3 series being > more sensitive than the omega6s and the longer chain FAs > (EPA, DHA) more sensitive than the shorter chain FAs (ALA). Ipse dixit. Your sources, as I will kindly show you, do not support this statement. > But, the amount of destruction depends on the cooking method > and duration. Frying appears to be the most destructive cooking > method. You're misstating the claims of the studies you erroneously cited. Frying isn't "destructive," it is counterproductive: it contributes *other* lipids to those found in the fish. It's especially self-defeating if one fries one's salmon in shortening or another transfat as Dr Kris-Etherton notes in another study of fish oils and cardiac health: "Commercially prepared fried fish (eg, from restaurants and fast food establishments, as well as many frozen, convenience-type fried fish products) should be avoided because they are low in omega-3 and high in trans-fatty acids." http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/cont...ll/106/21/2747 Dr Kris-Etherton, et al, concluded: Collectively, these data are supportive of the recommendation made by the AHA Dietary Guidelines to include at least two servings of fish per week (particularly fatty fish). In addition, the data support inclusion of vegetable oils (eg, soybean, canola, walnut, flaxseed) and food sources (eg, walnuts, flaxseeds) high in -linolenic acid in a healthy diet for the general population (Table 5). The fish recommendation must be balanced with concerns about environmental pollutants, in particular PCB and methylmercury, described in state and federal advisories. Consumption of a variety of fish is recommended to minimize any potentially adverse effects due to environmental pollutants and, at the same time, achieve desired CVD health outcomes. Op. cit. > Most destruction occurs around the skin. BS. > refs: > > Davis BC, Kris-Etherton PM. Achieving optimal essential fatty acid status > in vegetarians: current knowledge and practical implications. Am J Clin Nutr > 2003; 78 (Suppl): 640S-646S The abstract of the above cited study says: Although vegetarian diets are generally lower in total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol than are nonvegetarian diets, they provide comparable levels of essential fatty acids. Vegetarian, especially vegan, diets are relatively low in alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) compared with linoleic acid (LA) and provide little, if any, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Clinical studies suggest that tissue levels of long-chain n-3 fatty acids are depressed in vegetarians, particularly in vegans. n-3 Fatty acids have numerous physiologic benefits, including potent cardioprotective effects. These effects have been demonstrated for ALA as well as EPA and DHA, although the response is generally less for ALA than for EPA and DHA. Conversion of ALA by the body to the more active longer-chain metabolites is inefficient: < 5-10% for EPA and 2-5% for DHA. Thus, total n-3 requirements may be higher for vegetarians than for nonvegetarians, as vegetarians must rely on conversion of ALA to EPA and DHA. Because of the beneficial effects of n-3 fatty acids, it is recommended that vegetarians make dietary changes to optimize n-3 fatty acid status. http://snipurl.com/722a It says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about conversion of essential fatty acids into transfats through cooking. > Mozaffarian D, Lemaitre RN, Kuller LH, Burke GL, Tracy RP, Siscovick DS; > Cardiovascular Health Study. Cardiac benefits of fish consumption may > depend on the type of fish meal consumed: the Cardiovascular Health > Study. Circulation 2003; 107: 1372-1377 Again, you're missing or just plain ****ing up the issue at hand. A summary of that study says: It may seem like common sense, but the species of fish you eat and the way it is prepared makes a difference to its health-protecting properties. It is widely accepted that the benefits associated with fish consumption relate largely to their long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 LC-PUFAs), which are found in few other foods. Few studies, however, have described or analyzed their findings according the type of fish consumed. In particular, U.S. studies, where the consumption of fish is low, seldom have the ability to make this type of distinction. But Mozaffarian and coworkers have shown that fish is not simply "fish." They compared the effects on cardiac mortality of eating tuna, fried fish or fish sandwiches, and other broiled or baked fish species in adults aged 65 or older, who were free of CVD at baseline. Subjects were monitored for 9.3 years. Because they were related, the consumption of tuna and "other fish" was combined. Eating tuna or other broiled/baked fish reduced the risk of cardiac death, particularly those from cardiac arrhythmia, by nearly half compared with the fried fish eaters. Those who ate tuna or other fish three times/week or more had a 49% lower chance of fatal heart disease and a 58% reduced likelihood of fatal cardiac arrhythmia compared with those eating tuna or other fish less than once/month. Eating fried fish or fish sandwiches not only failed to guard against cardiac fatality, it tended to make it more likely. Several differences between the two types of fish consumption can be suggested. Fried fish and commercially prepared fish sandwiches are *HIGH IN FAT BECAUE OF THE FAT ADDED DURING PREPARATION AND COOKING*. Fish sandwiches are usually made with lean white fish, the kind with the *LEAST N-3 LC-PUFAs*. In addition, the KIND OF FAT ADDED is likely to contain SATURATED and partially hydrogenated fat with TRANS FATty acids. Neither of these help the heart. So, choose fatty fish species for the most n-3 LC-PUFAs and prepare them with as little additional fat of any kind. http://www.fatsoflife.com/article.asp?i=a&id=64 My emphasis in the above. There is not *one word* of warning about conversion into trans fat, but rather that trans fats used to cook lean white fish which is already low in beneficial oils doesn't contribute to heart health (quite the opposite. Just as the summary starts, it's COMMON SENSE. Too bad you have none of that and instead misinform others either intentionally or through your own incompetence. |
|
|||
|
|||
No! I won't!
dec wrote:
> You don't understand the meaning of *unstable* > where it relates to a carbon-carbon bond in a > polyunsatuated fatty acid. Actually, I do. > You don't understand > all that the cis-configuration implies, or even some > of it. You irrationally insist that they are indestructable. That is not my claim. > You are incorrect, I am not. > and there is no shame in that, You should know. <...> >>Ipse dixit. Your sources, as I will kindly show you, do not support this statement. > > Full articles do, No, they don't. > not necessarily abstracts. The abstracts indicate something entirely incongruent with what you claim the studies showed. >>You're misstating the claims of the studies you erroneously cited. Frying isn't >>"destructive," > > No, I am not. Yes, you are. > I did not claim that the full explanation > was in any abstract. The abstracts are entirely incongruent with your claims. > Exposure to heat, light, temperature, pressure, etc. > are all destructive. Longer exposures to higher > extremes are most destructive. The destruction of > long-chain omega3s in fish, or any other substance > containing omega3s, for that matter, begins at the > surface of the object that is cooking and works its > way inward towards the center with increasing time, > temperature, and/or pressure. Note your snips next time. RESTO You're misstating the claims of the studies you erroneously cited. Frying isn't "destructive," it is counterproductive: it contributes *other* lipids to those found in the fish. It's especially self-defeating if one fries one's salmon in shortening or another transfat as Dr Kris-Etherton notes in another study of fish oils and cardiac health: "Commercially prepared fried fish (eg, from restaurants and fast food establishments, as well as many frozen, convenience-type fried fish products) should be avoided because they are low in omega-3 and high in trans-fatty acids." http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/cont...ll/106/21/2747 Dr Kris-Etherton, et al, concluded: Collectively, these data are supportive of the recommendation made by the AHA Dietary Guidelines to include at least two servings of fish per week (particularly fatty fish). In addition, the data support inclusion of vegetable oils (eg, soybean, canola, walnut, flaxseed) and food sources (eg, walnuts, flaxseeds) high in -linolenic acid in a healthy diet for the general population (Table 5). The fish recommendation must be balanced with concerns about environmental pollutants, in particular PCB and methylmercury, described in state and federal advisories. Consumption of a variety of fish is recommended to minimize any potentially adverse effects due to environmental pollutants and, at the same time, achieve desired CVD health outcomes. Op. cit. > Most destruction occurs around the skin. BS. > refs: > > Davis BC, Kris-Etherton PM. Achieving optimal essential fatty acid status > in vegetarians: current knowledge and practical implications. Am J Clin Nutr > 2003; 78 (Suppl): 640S-646S The abstract of the above cited study says: Although vegetarian diets are generally lower in total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol than are nonvegetarian diets, they provide comparable levels of essential fatty acids. Vegetarian, especially vegan, diets are relatively low in alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) compared with linoleic acid (LA) and provide little, if any, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Clinical studies suggest that tissue levels of long-chain n-3 fatty acids are depressed in vegetarians, particularly in vegans. n-3 Fatty acids have numerous physiologic benefits, including potent cardioprotective effects. These effects have been demonstrated for ALA as well as EPA and DHA, although the response is generally less for ALA than for EPA and DHA. Conversion of ALA by the body to the more active longer-chain metabolites is inefficient: < 5-10% for EPA and 2-5% for DHA. Thus, total n-3 requirements may be higher for vegetarians than for nonvegetarians, as vegetarians must rely on conversion of ALA to EPA and DHA. Because of the beneficial effects of n-3 fatty acids, it is recommended that vegetarians make dietary changes to optimize n-3 fatty acid status. http://snipurl.com/722a It says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about conversion of essential fatty acids into transfats through cooking. > Mozaffarian D, Lemaitre RN, Kuller LH, Burke GL, Tracy RP, Siscovick DS; > Cardiovascular Health Study. Cardiac benefits of fish consumption may > depend on the type of fish meal consumed: the Cardiovascular Health > Study. Circulation 2003; 107: 1372-1377 Again, you're missing or just plain ****ing up the issue at hand. A summary of that study says: It may seem like common sense, but the species of fish you eat and the way it is prepared makes a difference to its health-protecting properties. It is widely accepted that the benefits associated with fish consumption relate largely to their long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 LC-PUFAs), which are found in few other foods. Few studies, however, have described or analyzed their findings according the type of fish consumed. In particular, U.S. studies, where the consumption of fish is low, seldom have the ability to make this type of distinction. But Mozaffarian and coworkers have shown that fish is not simply "fish." They compared the effects on cardiac mortality of eating tuna, fried fish or fish sandwiches, and other broiled or baked fish species in adults aged 65 or older, who were free of CVD at baseline. Subjects were monitored for 9.3 years. Because they were related, the consumption of tuna and "other fish" was combined. Eating tuna or other broiled/baked fish reduced the risk of cardiac death, particularly those from cardiac arrhythmia, by nearly half compared with the fried fish eaters. Those who ate tuna or other fish three times/week or more had a 49% lower chance of fatal heart disease and a 58% reduced likelihood of fatal cardiac arrhythmia compared with those eating tuna or other fish less than once/month. Eating fried fish or fish sandwiches not only failed to guard against cardiac fatality, it tended to make it more likely. Several differences between the two types of fish consumption can be suggested. Fried fish and commercially prepared fish sandwiches are *HIGH IN FAT BECAUE OF THE FAT ADDED DURING PREPARATION AND COOKING*. Fish sandwiches are usually made with lean white fish, the kind with the *LEAST N-3 LC-PUFAs*. In addition, the KIND OF FAT ADDED is likely to contain SATURATED and partially hydrogenated fat with TRANS FATty acids. Neither of these help the heart. So, choose fatty fish species for the most n-3 LC-PUFAs and prepare them with as little additional fat of any kind. http://www.fatsoflife.com/article.asp?i=a&id=64 My emphasis in the above. There is not *one word* of warning about conversion into trans fat, but rather that trans fats used to cook lean white fish which is already low in beneficial oils doesn't contribute to heart health (quite the opposite. Just as the summary starts, it's COMMON SENSE. Too bad you have none of that and instead misinform others either intentionally or through your own incompetence. END RESTORE The studies you cited had nothing whatsoever to do with your claims. QED. |
|
|||
|
|||
No! I won't!
Hey folks, take alt.food.vegan off the newsgroups that this thread is going to.
Thanks, Fritz |
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, I might
"Vashti" > wrote in message ... > It wasn't a dark and stormy night when katie wrote: > > > i find flax oil to be a little bit nasty tasting. i use this > > 'ultimate oil blend' stuff called 'udo's oil.' it's got flax oil in > > it, but also sunflower and other stuff, apparently to give the proper > > omega ratio. i read somewhere that the ratio of omegas 3 to 6 is more > > important than just dosing with omega 3s. sounds like a good idea. > > anyhow, i find it tastes much more agreeable, although i always use it > > in stuff (like smoothies and salad dressing). my dad takes it > > straight on a spoon each morning. that man has a gullet of steel. > > ick. > > I use it in salad dressing: with garlic, onion, herbs and some orange > juice to balance the nasty flavour of the oil it's great. I like it with > a salad of various leafy greens(especially the bitter ones). > > I've tried to find other oils and even though my ex runs a health food > store he says he can't order anything else, not even vegetarian Omega 3 > supplements but my guess is he's hardly trying though availability may > be different here in the Netherlands. > > Of all things today I found I've a folic acid deficiency on top of the > inability to absorb B12 despite eating all all the foods that should > provide it so I think I need to add more stuff containing vitamin C. > that sucks. i guess everyone's absorbency is different, no matter what they eat. i'm lucky, in that i seem to be able to absorb everything fine and don't need to supplement anything. my iron is always good, which is great, considering how people always harp at me about that one () i do take a half-dose iron-free multi sometimes just to be sure, but i like to try to force myself to eat well in order to get everything from my diet, so i won't be like 'i'm taking vitamins so i can live off of soy icecream and white bread.' uuuughhh...anyhow, i hope you can sort out your absorbancy thing. have you tried taking sublingual b12 tablets? i've always heard those recommended for those folks with b12 absorption problems. although i think you need shots if you really really can't absorb your b12. that would suck. anyhow, best of luck getting your nutrients acting all good n' proper! |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|