Health Man Blog

Seems a month does not go by, these days, that I find a book that causes me to re-arrange my world view. It might seem a little disorienting to contemplate monthly changes in one’s belief about life, the universe and everything, but it sure keeps things interesting.

The most recent shaker-upper is a truly fascinating book by Lierre Keith (its like Pierre, only with an ‘L’ and, no, there’s no relation ): The Vegetarian Myth. The book is part memoir, part manifesto, part introduction to the study of metabolism and all just paradigm-shattering.

The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability

While one might dismiss the title off-hand (especially if one is committed to a veg*an diet/lifestyle), it is noteworthy that Ms. Keith was a highly-observant vegan for 20 years. You can start by reading an excerpt from the book. If you’re not headed to the bookstore or following the above link to buy the book after reading the intro, I’d truly be interested in understanding why not.

From her perspective, she’s is as credible a source as you could imagine to probe these issues with integrity and depth. She identifies major categories of choices that lead many people to choose being vegetarian: Moral Vegetarians, Political Vegetarians and Nutritional Vegetarians.

On the Moral front, she uses detailed, in depth, information to counter the broadly-held assumption that eating only agriculturally-grown foods is morally superior than eating animal protein. For starters, she makes the bold statement that agriculture itself is, without qualification, the most destructive thing humans have done to the planet. Further, she broadens the ‘circle of life’ narrative to make it abundantly clear that no form of life can be sustained without the death of another form of life. To assert otherwise is to show your lack of knowledge (ok, ignorance) of the way nature truly works. The most striking example of this thinking is to acknowledge that any crop one may eat relies on nitrogen for its sustenance. The only truly abundant source of this nitrogen is the decayed organisms in the animal kingdom. That’s right. Plants survive because animals die.

On the Politics front (which is where I have the most trouble following all her assertions), she notes that the practice of agriculture itself was the pre-cursor to imperialism. She goes so far to say that without agriculture, there is no empire (no concentrated political power, no armies, etc.). Here’s where I will diverge in that many of the elements she deems to be endemic to Neolithic (pre-agricultural) societies, occurred in hunter-gatherer societies as well. That said, she truly cracked open the political/economic implications of corporate controlled agriculture which is inherently imperialistic and leaves less-developed countries in a perpetual state of dependence on industrialized countries.

On the Nutritional front, she uses her own very sad and painful story (massive endocrine dysfunction, depression, skeletal problems, etc.) to open your eyes, then she uses some of my favorites (the Eades, Codrain, Taubes) to educate her dear readers on the optimal diet for humans (clue – it’s not only veggies). The one big takeaway that the veg*ians appear not to understand that we are not ruminants (i.e. not able to digest cellulose), that we are ‘from our teeth to our rectums’ designed to eat meat.

Lest you think she has totally abandoned all the ideals that typically lead one to make a veg*an choice, she is unequivocal about her passionate work in favor of a more just and sustainable world. She is in major opposition to factory farming (which, by the way, is not in any way sustainable) and all it’s down-stream negative effects.

I cannot think of anyone who would not be able to benefit greatly from this one. The memoir part of the book was a little bit more than what I’d signed up for, and I would take exception to many of her political views, but please do not let the style get in the way of the content. There is much to learn here for all of us.

I’m sure you’ve seen it by now, in dozens of places. There’s a new study out there saying meat (especially red meat) is gonna kill you. I’ve stopped responding to these kinds of reports directly now that I’ve got a great source who just nails it every time. Once again, kudos to Dr. Michael Eades – he of Protein Power fame (he might have a thought or two about meat)

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/fast-food/meat-and-mortality/

Just a few tidbits to get you going:

The study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine (free full text here) is a typical epidemiological or observational study.  The reports have it tarted up with a lot of fancy clothes, but it is really nothing but an observational study.  And, as we’ve gone over ad nauseum in these pages, observational studies can’t be used to prove causation.

…

What I found more interesting than this study (which isn’t interesting or important at all) was the press coverage of it.  And I found especially interesting that which the press didn’t report.

…

At the same time that this paper appeared, showing increased red meat consumption to be tied to a slight increased risk of death (and showing that those subjects eating white meat had less risk), a couple of other papers came out in the online pre-publication section of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN), arguably the world’s most prestigious nutritional scientific journal.  These two AJCN papers saw the light of day at around the same time as this highly-publicized study on meat and mortality, but demonstrated the opposite results.  They got no press coverage whatsoever.  Which proves what I’ve been saying all along: the press is biased against meat in general, and especially against red meat.  Knowing this, careful readers should take anything negative thing the media reports about red meat with an enormous grain of salt.

The whole post is well worth at read.