The Truth about Soy

Dr. Ellsworth Wareham, 99+ Years Old Vegan

inShare1

As a middle-aged man, Dr. Wareham spent a lot of time in the operating room cutting into one patient after another who had heart problems. There, he noticed something: patients who were vegetarian mostly had much cleaner and smoother arteries than those who ate meat. The arteries of meat-eaters tended to be full of calcium and plaque.
 
So he made a choice. He decided to become a vegan. That decision was not too hard to make given the fact that many of the inhabitants of his southern Californian community were already very health conscious. Consider: there is no meat sold at one of the largest grocery stores in town. In fact, as recently as a generation ago, meat was difficult to find in the grocery stores of Loma Linda, as the New York Times reports. On top of that, smoking is banned in the town; alcohol is scarcely available; and fast food restaurants are hard to come by. ~ – Source.

Dr. Wareham attributes his health at least partly to the fact that he has been a vegan for the last 30 or 40 years (he does not remember precisely). ~ – Source.

Big Industries Influence USDA Food Guidelines

Many people believe that plant-based diets aren't nutritionally sound because cutting out specific food groups eliminates vital nutrients necessary for optimal health. But how are the USDA Food Guidelines designed? You'll be surprised to see how agricultural industries influence these Guidelines. Scientific research is often ignored in favor of the interests of these powerful industries. Read Linda Carney MD's newest article below: 

The majority of disease, disability and premature death seen by medical professionals today originates from a nutrient and fiber-deficient diet, which has led to an epidemic of poor health and astronomical health care costs.  In fact, according to the World Health Organization, 80% of all deaths are caused mostly by poor diet and lifestyle habits.  How did we manage to become such an overweight and sick nation?  How can we reverse this epidemic?  Would changing our USDA Food Guidelines be part of the solution?

The association between disease and the consumption of animal products is very clear.  Review of the best scientific literature establishes beyond reproach that consuming animal products contributes to the top 15 causes of death and disability.  Conclusive scientific evidence supports plant-based nutrition in the prevention, cessation, and even reversal of many of our leading causes of death and disability.  "Clinical studies have shown that the progression of cancer can be slowed.  If 90 percent of heart disease deaths and 75 percent of cancer deaths could be prevented, then 11.83 million lives could potentially have been saved in 2002, about 21 percent of all deaths that year."
Despite all the evidence backing the healthfulness of a plant-based diet, why do the U.S. Food Guidelines continue to recommend animal products that are unnecessary and linked to serious health problems?  If you haven't had a chance to read our previous articles on how the American Dietary Guidelines are formed, you may be surprised to see who sits on the Dietary Guidelines Committee.  At one time, out of 17 members present, 14 of them had worked for the food industry.  "The USDA Dietary Guidelines Committee has been made up of individuals funded by McDonald's, Coca Cola, the Sugar Association, the American Meat Institute, candy bar companies, and the egg and dairy boards." It's imperative for us to know that the members that design our food guidelines are the very same ones associated with the sale of these lucrative products.
"The Dietary Guidelines are developed with the recommendations of a Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, sponsored and appointed jointly by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The judgments of these advisers weigh heavily on the choice of the scientific research that will be considered important for forming the Guidelines.  Guidelines for Americans is a transparently biased review of the scientific literature in favor of the livestock industries, and especially the dairy industry. The collective lack of objectivity of the thirteen advisory members has resulted in conclusions that support the consumption of far too much milk, cheese, red meat, poultry, eggs, and fish. Many members of this committee have declared conflicts of interests by their associations with food and pharmaceutical companies. The advisers' personal eating habits have also affected their decisions about what is good food."  For more information regarding how the USDA Guidelines were established, click here.
Our recent article Everyone Else is Doing It! explains how the "USDA has the responsibility for overseeing food safety. But, it also has an opposing responsibility to promote agricultural businesses."  Nearly 150 years after its creation, the USDA serves the interests of giant food production and distribution corporations. Our article also explains the revolving door policy where "people who work for [the agricultural] industry move to roles as legislators and regulators in the government (and vice versa)." Please take a moment to view who are creating our dietary policies: Members of the USDA have had known associations with the National Cattlemen's Association, the Meat Packer's Association, the National Pork Board, the National Livestock and Meat Board, the American Egg Board, ConAgra Foods, the National Dairy Council, and Dairy Management Inc."
"Relationships with the food and drug industries are commonplace on the Advisory Committee: 3 out of 11 members on the 1995 Committee had past or present industry ties; 7 out of 11 members on the 2000 Committee; ll out of 13 members on the 2005 Committee; and 9 out of 13 members on the 2010 Committee. On the 2000 Committee, members had past or present ties to: two meat associations; four dairy associations and five dairy companies; one egg association; one sugar association; one grain association; five other food companies; six other industry-sponsored associations; two pharmaceutical associations; and 28 pharmaceutical companies."
Would you agree that there's a serious conflict of interest?  As scientists and the government began to realize that the foods they were promoting contributed to an increase in chronic disease, they "began to encourage people to eat less animal fat, cholesterol, salt and sugar. The agricultural industries strongly protested any advice to consume less of their products."  For this reason, instead of providing accurate and impartial dietary advice using the latest scientific research, the Guidelines many times ignores the scientific evidence and instead favors interests from powerful food and drug industries.  Politics, power, and economics affects the lives of every American, "contributing substantially to our current costly epidemics of obesity and sickness."   According to the Food and Drug Law Journal, "Current laws do not protect dietary advice from these conflicts, and thus, Congress should consider making two changes. First, the USDA should not have any role in dietary advice, as its duty to promote and support the agricultural industry is fundamentally inconsistent with promoting health and preventing chronic diseases. Second, Congress should make it more difficult for those with ties to the food and drug industries from serving on the Advisory Committee, as current laws are inadequate to do so. Studies show that the United States is not providing the public the best information available on diet and health." Dr. Michael Greger adds, "Dietary guidelines based on science rather than corporate influence could save millions of lives."
Why are the USDA Food Guidelines so important?  The Guidelines "have a major impact on Americans' diets because federal food polices including standards for schools, and many federal food-assistance programs must comply with them."  They are also heavily "relied upon by nutrition educators, food planners, dietitians, and physicians."  Additionally, the Guidelines must also "be promoted by every federal agency when carrying out a food, nutrition or health program. The Guidelines direct how billions of dollars are spent in programs like the School Lunch Program, The School Breakfast Program, the Food Stamp Program and the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children."
Since the USDA Food Guidelines are revised every five years to reflect the latest scientific data, in January of this year, doctors and dietitians from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) presented to the National Institutes of Health their recommendations to the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.  PCRM's article, "2015 Will Be the Year 4 out of 5 Doctors Agree: Plants Over Pills states that they "made a solid case for the inclusion of plant-based diets in the guidelines" and their recommendations were well received.  PCRM adds: "During the advisory committee's recent meeting, subcommittee members emphasized the importance of reducing meat consumption and switching to plant-based diets for both health and environmental sustainability."
While the Committee's final recommendations won't be revealed until the Fall of 2015, PCRM remains optimistic.  "More doctors around the country are recognizing the importance of plants over pills" PCRM states.  "In 2013, Kaiser Permanente, one of the nation's largest nonprofit health plans, sent out a nutritional update to physicians, urging health care providers to recommend a plant-based diet to their patients. Kim Williams, M.D., the next president of the American College of Cardiology, penned a blog for MedPage Today explaining why he went vegan and how recommending a vegan diet has helped his patients.  Going forward, if the dietary guidelines committee resists the influence of meat and dairy lobbyists and follows the recommendations of health care professionals, then more people may see success like Dr. Williams' patients. In the meantime, let's all keep publicizing the science, sharing vegan recipes, and boosting this public shift toward support for vegan diets. Maybe 2015 will be the year that the government, doctors, and celebrities all find one thing they can agree on: Plant-based is best."
The USDA Guidelines are designed to optimize our health and prevent chronic disease using the latest scientific research.  However, due to ties to powerful agricultural/processed food industries, the latest science research continues to be ignored while rates of chronic disease, obesity, disability and premature death continue to escalate.  "The United States needs to protect its dietary advice by ensuring that those who create it have only the public's best interests in mind. This means eliminating or managing conflicts of interest. The USDA should be removed from its role in dietary advice. The only realistic way to protect the Guidelines from the USDA's conflict is to bar the USDA from having any role in creating U.S. dietary advice and to give the responsibility to a specific health agency whose duties are most consistent with promoting health and preventing chronic disease. Just as many other nations do, the U.S. could put an appropriate health agency in charge of dietary advice." For example, for over 60 years the Centers for Disease Control "has the knowledge, expertise, and resources to develop dietary advice without the conflict of promoting agricultural interests."
Let's not spend the remainder of our lives suffering from chronic, debilitating (and preventable) illness.  Growing old doesn't have to include suffering from heart disease, diabetes, many types of cancer (such as breast and prostate), impotence, dementia, brittle bones, depression, arthritis, and obesity.  Don't rely on governmental officials or the medical community to tell you what's best.  You can change your health simply by changing the food you eat.  Spend your time wisely...invest in your health now so that you won't be spending all of your time, money and engery tending to what ails you later!
Excellent resources:
(1)  "Our Taxes - Are They Making Us Sick?"
(2)  "Big Money, Special Interests, & The American Healthcare Crisis"
(3)  "Everyone Else is Doing It!"
(4)  "Unscrambling the Truth About Eggs"
(5)  "Current Protein Recommendations Flawed"
(6)  "The Empty Medicine Cabinet"
(7)  Food and Drug Law Journal (This is an excellent resource and very easy to understand.  Scroll down to the very bottom of the resource to see which special interest groups are behind the Food Guidelines)
(7)  Dr. Carney's USDA Food Guidelines Pinterest Board

Eating vegan doesn't mean you have to give up bacon!

Are Smoothies Good or Bad?

Are Smoothies Good or Bad?

By Thomas M. Campbell, MD August 26th, 2014

In medical school, when time was shorter than short and I lived alone, I would periodically get concerned that I wasn’t eating enough leafy greens, because I wasn’t. Once or twice (Or maybe more, but I won’t admit to it) I put about 6 cups of raw, cleaned kale tightly packed in a mixer along with a little water and nothing else and made the ultimate green smoothie. I chugged it and didn’t enjoy any part of it. It was like a grassy tasting slime, or perhaps cow cud. It was what I imagined to be like a Campbell version of 1950s cod liver oil, and like a little kid, I approached it with a reluctant, yucky face. But these were times of desperation, and desperate acts were required. At least I felt more green.
It turns out that people less strange than I have also been using green smoothies. In fact, green smoothies are everywhere and drinking them is a major trend in health. I’ve been surprised at how many people I have met recently that have been trying to get healthy by replacing meals with green smoothies. They generally put veggies and fruit in a blender, zap it, and gulp it down. I am positive these drinks are far, far more enjoyable than the problematic recipe I had created. And intuitively, it seems like this might be a great way to get healthy. You get all the stuff in the fruit or vegetable and you get it conveniently, quickly, and enjoyably.
So should you be gulping down a smoothie every morning? I say no.
There is research to show that if you take exactly the same energy as a liquid instead of a solid, you will consume more calories later because the liquefied energy doesn’t satisfy your appetite as well as the solid food^[1]. In addition, you may be changing the rate and effect of nutrient digestion in important ways. We know that for some food, like rice, if you mechanically turn it into a slurry prior to consuming it, your body reacts with a significantly sharper and faster spike in blood sugar^[2]. Lastly, people who consume green smoothies usually use fruit to make it taste palatable. The energy density of the fruit dwarfs the energy density of the greens and these smoothies usually end up being quite high in sugar.
Here is what a ‘healthy’ green smoothie might contain:

• 1 cup spinach, fresh
• 1/4 cup water
• 1/4 cup orange juice
• 3/4 cups strawberries
• 1/2 cup blueberries
• 1 banana

This concoction contains 218 calories^[3]. Even though it may feel like a ‘green’ smoothie with all those leaves in the blender, only about 6% of the calories come from the spinach. The rest is all fruit, with a total of 32 grams of sugar. 59% of the total calories in this smoothie come from sugar.
Now consider that by consuming this in the liquid form you may be less satisfied, less full, and subsequently eat more calories during the day than you otherwise would have if you ate those ingredients as solid foods. Also consider that by taking those foods as liquids instead of solids you may be significantly changing the immediate blood sugar spike and subsequent blood sugar fall you experience (in a bad way).
Considering these factors, I am particularly worried about the hidden harms of regular smoothie consumption on people who are trying to lose weight, have diabetes, or have high triglycerides.
Do I hate all smoothies all the time? Of course not. I know green smoothie consumers who put all the vegetables or fruits they eat for their entire day into the smoothie. Without the smoothie, they likely won’t consume any fruits or vegetables. Replacing the smoothie with a fast food egg and bacon sandwich is a dubious proposition, so I don’t always push hard to get rid of the smoothies.
But the bottom line is this: Use your mouth and your teeth the way nature intended and put the smoothies aside or have them just as treats. Compared to my medical school days, my life is now better in many ways, and I no longer imbibe the gross, green smoothie of old. I strive to eat and chew generous portions of dark green leaves every day, and thus hope the desperate times do not return. I recommend you do the same.

References

1. Mourao DM, Bressan J, Campbell WW, Mattes RD. Effects of food form on appetite and energy intake in lean and obese young adults. Int J Obes (Lond) 2007;31:1688-95.
2. Crapo PA, Henry RR. Postprandial metabolic responses to the influence of food form. Am J Clin Nutr 1988;48:560-4.
3. Calculated using www.myfitnesspal.com.

Cancer ... and what you can do to minimise your risk of getting it

Cancer is one of the most horrific, terrifying, and destructive diseases, stealing the lives of nearly 600K Americans a year. It is the number 2 cause of death and it impacts all of us, as we either know someone who has suffered from it or have done so personally. I have witnessed many loved ones fight for their life and many who have lost the battle over the years and it is a powerful, poorly understood nemesis. Unfortunately, scientists and physicians do not fully have a grasp on prevention or treatment of the multitude of cancers, as there are many different types, with different personalities, and varying responses to treatment modalities, despite the vast resources, time, and money focused on advancing the technology. What we know about diet and lifestyle's effect on cancer is also minimal, but there are some associations that are pretty well-established. I say we do all that is in our power to incorporate those recommendations to prevent cancer to the best of our ability and do our best with what we do know.

*Here is what we know:
--->Obesity is the second largest risk factor for cancer, coming in after smoking.
--->Consuming plenty of fruits and vegetables consistently helps reduce risk for cancer.
--->Soy products may reduce risk for certain cancers.
--->Certain animal products, including red and processed meats, meats cooked at high temperatures, and dairy products promote cancer growth.
--->Alcohol increases risk for cancer.
--->Environmental toxins increase risk for cancer, especially in concentrated doses.

*Here is what we can do about it to minimize risk:
--->Maintain a healthy body weight by eating a nutrient-dense, calorie-poor diet and exercising regularly.
--->Make at least half of your plate/diet/day be filled with colorful fruits and vegetables. Eat a minimum of 7 servings of fruits and vegetables a day.
--->Eat a whole food, plant-based diet to get a continuous flow of cancer-fighting phytochemicals and fiber running through your GI tract and promoting immune health.
--->Avoid meats, fish, dairy, and eggs to decrease toxin load.
--->Limit alcohol intake to no more than one serving a day for women and 2 servings a day for men.
--->Clean up your environment as best as possible by reducing use of chemicals in your home, in your laundry, on your body, and with the tools, equipment, and cookware you use to cook and prepare food in.
--->Practice stress reduction and mindfulness.
--->Quit smoking.

*Resources:
--->New Dietary Guidelines for Cancer Prevention: http://bit.ly/SuZI4g
--->Obesity, Cancer, and a Vegan Diet: http://bit.ly/1kX1bge
--->Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer:http://bit.ly/1jhUcsL
--->American Cancer Society Guidelines on Nutrition and Physical Activity for Cancer Prevention: http://bit.ly/1kMl0pt
--->Detoxing Your Home on Reluctantly Healthy: http://yhoo.it/1u1nVeB
--->Eating Whole Food, Plant-Based: http://bit.ly/1mUCaiX
--->Move More: http://bit.ly/1pfwPaI
--->Adding Mindfulness to Your Day: http://bit.ly/1ikaQaZ

92841598 SharesLike

Some of the infinite reasons to go meatless and eggless and dairy-less everyday

Just some of the infinite reasons to go meatless and eggless and dairy-less on Monday and everyday...here are 5 more:
1. Plant-based diets are associated with lower overall mortality:http://bit.ly/1mMLOXl
2. Crowding out animal products with more fruits and vegetables makes you more attractive: http://bit.ly/1k5yEQv
3. There are more than these 5 non-nutritional benefits of going meatless:http://bit.ly/1m5lkvL
4. There is no such thing as humane meat: http://bit.ly/TJePb1
5. Plant-based diets produce fewer greenhouse gases and increase longevity:http://bit.ly/VzI0Pi
*More Resources:
--->Benefits of a Plant-Based Diet: http://bit.ly/U2nmX7
--->What Would Julieanna Do? Nutrition FAQs: http://bit.ly/So91mE
--->Meatless Monday: http://bit.ly/1mzrdRE
--->Mercy For Animals Choose Veg: http://bit.ly/1mHetcn
--->Vegetarian Nutrition: http://vegetariannutrition.net/
--->Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine's Dr. Neal Barnard and Farm Sanctuary's Gene Baur debating why you shouldn't eat anything with a face:http://bit.ly/1nWw3d2
--->The Complete Idiot's Guide to Plant-Based Nutrition: http://amzn.to/TJfuJy
*Image from: http://bit.ly/1x4yZuI

The stigma of meat being "manly"

The stigma of meat being "manly" is slowly disintegrating as more and more strong, fit vegan men emerge and represent; as animal product consumption shows to promote erectile dysfunction; and as the benefits of a vegan diet include weight loss, lower mortality rate, and the prevention and reversal of cardiovascular disease (plus its risk factors), type 2 diabetes, and certain cancers...

A revolution is slowly, but steadily, underway, shifting the way we see food. Men are discovering that eating a plant-based diet not only reduces their risk of acquiring illnesses/diseases, but that they, in fact, can thrive eating this way. More and more male athletes are demonstrating the monumental success of a plant-based diet in multiple different sports, including strength, bodybuilding, ultra-endurance, and speed. A vegan carried the most weight ever, vegans are winning (gold) medals in the Olympics, and the list goes on and on. Check out all these inspiring men in the links below...

Real men eat plants.

*Vegan Men in the News:
--->PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) 7 Vegan Athletes with More Muscles Than You: http://bit.ly/1tsqfPL
--->NPR's For These Vegans, Masculinity Means Protecting the Planet:http://n.pr/Xewuth
--->Vegan Muscle and Fitness Derek Tresize places FIRST in physique at the Naturally Fit Games: http://bit.ly/UBc4co
--->My interview with Derek on Veria's What Would Julieanna Do?:http://bit.ly/1kmiOqK
--->The Discerning Brute's coverage of the NPR article: http://bit.ly/UBbyuN
--->CNN article about Benji Kurtz who lost 100 pounds, transformed his health and taste buds with a vegan diet (results *are* typical): http://cnn.it/1ob4fkK
--->Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine on Erectile Dysfunction:http://bit.ly/1ob4n3r
--->FORKS OVER KNIVES on Raising the Flag: http://bit.ly/1n2EK4S
--->Vegan NHL Hockey Player Mike Zigomanis interview on What Would Julieanna Do?: http://bit.ly/1qm6q7Z
--->Plant-based diets prevent and reverse cardiovascular disease with Dr. Sanjay Gupta on CNN with Dr. Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr.: http://cnn.it/1o3ogOu

*Image by EVOLVE! Campaigns

Losing weight is a complex, multi-factorial process

Losing weight is a complex, multi-factorial process that involves physical, habitual, environmental, emotional, and mental strategies. Some of the most prevailing issues surrounding effective and sustainable weight loss include:
--->Consciousness of calories. Both quantity and quality of calorie intake matters.
--->Fibre and prioritising low calorie density foods (vegetables, fruits, legumes, and whole grains) to enhance satiety and weight loss (as per the graphic). High calorie density foods, especially oil, cheese, and processed foods, have the opposite effect, promoting weight gain.
--->Exercising consistently is crucial to build and maintain muscle mass and to become an effective user of energy.
--->Habits, such as choosing water over soda and tuning into internal huger/satiety cues, can be made and reframed so as to promote long-lasting success.
--->Environmental cues such as the size of your plate, whom who eat with, and the ambience in which you eat have significant impact on how much and what you eat.
--->Managing stress, finding non-food ways to pamper yourself, and avoiding foods that are triggers for you helps avoid emotional eating.

In the science, vegans tend to have lower BMIs than lacto-ovo vegetarians, who are lower in BMI than meat-eaters, consistently showing that the more plant-based your diet, the leaner you are likely to be. This is because of the higher fibre intake, the better overall nutritional profile, and the likely healthier lifestyle tendency of those who choose a plant-based diet (which usually means they are less likely to smoke and more likely to exercise, etc.).

Overall message is that a whole food, plant-based diet is ideal for sustained weight management, especially when incorporating the other elements mentioned above to make it a holistic approach.

*Resources:
--->Losing Weight on a Vegan Diet: http://bit.ly/1kxibtl
--->Sustainable Weight Loss: http://bit.ly/ZJuIOC
--->The Truth About Weight Loss from a Weight Loss Researcher:http://bit.ly/1jUz8YB
--->Lost Those Last Sticky Pounds: http://bit.ly/1q0GOMr
--->Diet and BMI in 38,000 EPIC-Oxford Meat-Eaters, Fish-Eaters, Vegetarians, and Vegans: http://bit.ly/1uv2C72
--->Beating Your Mindless Eating Habits: http://bit.ly/1nzaiQ3
--->Brian Wansink's Mindless Eating website: http://bit.ly/1r06MpU
--->Mindless Eating: http://amzn.to/1sk1wgp
--->Why Calories Matter by Marion Nestle: http://amzn.to/1uv3IzH

Get Omega-3s with Ease

While many people believe that eating fish is necessary to get omega-3 fatty acids and maintain heart and brain health, there is absolutely nothing healthful about fish.

Recent research has even debunked the age-old myth that Eskimos, who ate diets heavy in fish, had a lower risk for heart disease. Fortunately, there are plenty of plant-based sources of omega-3s.

So what do we know about omega-3s?

Omega-3 fatty acids are necessary nutrients that cannot be synthesized by the body, so we need to get them from our food. Since omega-3s do help with cell function, a deficiency in omega-3 fatty acids can result in negative health consequences such as liver and kidney abnormalities, decreased immune function, or dry skin.

While some studies show that omega-3s might help with aging or brain health, omega-3s from fish or other animal products come with some unwanted side effects.

Fish contains toxic contaminants, and all animal products contain cholesterol and saturated fat—and have no fibre, an essential nutrient for digestion, cancer prevention, and weight loss. In this piece for the Huffington Post, there is a summary of some of the research debunking the health halo of fish oil supplements.  Fast food companies have also jumped in on the popularity of fish during Lent, but don’t take the bait—fish is not a health food.

Even if omega-3s are not the fountain of youth, plant sources of omega-3s are full of fiber and rich in other nutrients. Edamame and walnuts contain omega-3s and also contain protein. Winter squash is packed with omega-3s and is also a great source of vitamin A and vitamin C.

Flaxseeds are easy to incorporate into baked goods, smoothies, and a whole variety of recipes. Research has even shown that women who follow vegan diets have higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids in their blood than those who consume diets rich in fish, meat, and dairy.

Friends or family have questions about omega-3s? Just share the infographic below!

Reprinted from PCRM

2015 Will Be the Year 4 out of 5 Doctors Agree: Plants Over Pills

In January, Physicians Committee doctors and dietitians filled the National Institutes of Health to present recommendations to the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. Staring down representatives from the meat and dairy industries, we made a solid case for the inclusion of plant-based diets in the guidelines. And you know what? They listened.

Susan Levin, M.S., R.D., C.S.S.D., presenting her recommendations to the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.

During the advisory committee’s recent meeting, subcommittee members emphasised the importance of reducing meat consumption and switching to plant-based diets for both health and environmental sustainability.

While we still have to wait till Fall 2015 to learn the advisory committee’s final recommendations, doctors around the country are recognising the importance of plants over pills. In 2013, Kaiser Permanente, one of the nation’s largest nonprofit health plans, sent out a nutritional update to physicians, urging health care providers to recommend a plant-based diet to their patients. Kim Williams, M.D., the next president of the American College of Cardiology, penned a blog for MedPage Today explaining why he went vegan and how recommending a vegan diet has helped his patients.

Individuals have also seen success in seeking out plant-based diets themselves. CNN recently profiled Benji Kurtz, a 37-year-old entrepreneur from Atlanta who lost 100 pounds—while improving his blood pressure and cholesterol levels—by researching and following a plant-based diet. Celebrities like Beyoncé and JLo have tweeted, Instagrammed, and blogged about their meatless meals, providing inspiration to their millions of fans and pushing plant-based diets into the pop culture spotlight.

Going forward, if the dietary guidelines committee resists the influence of meat and dairy lobbyists and follows the recommendations of health care professionals, then more people may see success like Mr. Kurtz or Dr. Williams’ patients. In the meantime, let’s all keep publicising the science, sharing vegan recipes, and boosting this public shift toward support for vegan diets. Maybe 2015 will be the year that the government, doctors, and celebrities all find one thing they can agree on: Plant-based is best.

Reprinted from PCRM

Protein in meat form vs. in plant form...

Protein in meat form vs. in plant form...

One of my all-time favourite, most trailblazing organisations is Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, as they have effectively made significant strides in nutrition policy, scientific data, stopping animal testing, and much, much more. Now they have cleverly displayed their beef with a recent Arby's tweet claiming protein is better in meat form. Here is Neal Barnard, M.D.'s response along with the original tweet: http://bit.ly/VGNI1r

The fact is indisputable that the packaging of plant-based sources of protein are significantly more healthful, disease-fighting, and nutrient-dense than animal-based sources. Plant-based protein sources, such as legumes (lentils, beans, peas, peanuts), nuts, seeds, leafy greens, and soy products contain voluminous fiber and phytochemicals. Animal products contain none/zero/zilch of these two most important nutrients for health. Fibre and phytochemicals are known to significantly reduce risk for major chronic diseases, improve weigh management, stabilize blood sugar levels, and more. And they all the while contain ample doses of protein as well. Further, animal products contain high amounts of saturated fats, carcinogens, cholesterol, IGF-1, heme iron, among other compounds, all of which are know to promote disease.

Picking your packaging for protein and other nutrients may very well be the most crucial element to focus on, instead of simply aiming to consume one specific nutrient. Kudos to PCRM for pointing this out.

*Resources:
--->Protein and a Plant-Based Diet: http://bit.ly/1kEYKcc
--->Magical Beans: http://bit.ly/1kKQMpb
--->7 Reasons Lentils are the New Cauliflower: http://bit.ly/1koXJLX
--->NutritionFacts.org on Legumes: http://bit.ly/1tloYcb
--->Kaiser Permanente Thrive on Plant-Based Diets: http://bit.ly/1ohtK49

Shared from The Plant Based Dietician 

Plant-strong & healthy living: Rip Esselstyn at TEDxFremont

Best Speech You Will Ever Hear - Gary Yourofsky

Compassion for animals

The following piece is the acceptance speech given by Dr. Melanie Joy on October 9, 2013 at the House of Commons in London, where she was presented with the Institute of Jainology’s prestigious Ahimsa Award for her international work on nonviolence. Dr. Joy is the eighth recipient of the award. Former recipients include the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela.

I want to first thank the Institute of Jainology for honoring me, and the cause for which I work, with this award. And I would also like to thank them for their efforts to help create a world in which one day ahimsa will no longer be worthy of such recognition, because nonviolence will simply be the norm.

This award is a step in that direction. For it is often those with the greatest vulnerability to violence who are the most exploited and the least protected, and whose victimization remains invisible. Recognizing my efforts to illuminate the violence inherent in animal agriculture, and the violence in the consciousness that enables this practice, is a powerful statement legitimizing farmed animals as vulnerable others, as victims who are therefore deserving of protection from harm.

I am deeply honored and profoundly grateful to be receiving the Ahimsa Award, but this award does not belong to me alone. The platform on which I stand has been constructed by the tireless animal advocates and activists, the unsung heroes, whose courage and commitment to speak the truth in the face of overwhelming social denial – to demand compassion and justice for all beings – is perhaps the greatest example of ahimsa I know. And in particular I stand here because of the efforts of my team at Carnism Awareness and Action Network, all volunteers whose dedication frankly humbles me. So I accept this award on behalf of those whose work has made mine possible. And I accept this award on behalf of the pigs and chickens and cows and fish and sheep and rabbits and ducks and everyone else who has been or will be an invisible victim of agricultural violence.

Thank you.

And now I’d like to share with you how I came to be here today, the story of how my search for truth and my discovery of love helped teach me the meaning of ahimsa.

*******

From the moment I was weaned, I was taught to both seek and deny the truth. I was taught to apply the Golden Rule – to consider how I would feel were I on the receiving end of my actions – but also to systematically violate others. I was taught to keep an open mind and a caring heart, but also to block my awareness and shut down my empathy. I was taught to practice compassion, but to participate in cruelty. I was taught to love, and I was taught to kill.

And so I learned to be a psychological acrobat, walking the tightrope between denial and truth, juggling facts and fictions in an elaborate – and deadly – act I didn’t even know I was performing. And it was my journey across that precarious mental highwire that led me to where I stand today.

My first memory of what I would later realize was my acrobatic training was from when I was just two years old, and we adopted a puppy who my parents named Fritz. Fritz became my first friend, my best friend. And Fritz and I were inseparable; he would bound by my side across the open expanse of the local golf course, under an impossibly vast, cloud-swept sky; he lay contently at my feet as I chronicled my adventures in my private journal, nestled in our secret fort in the woods; he good-naturedly pulled me across the little frozen pond between the trees that I had declared my personal skating rink; he aided and abetted me when I smuggled my unwanted dinner from my mouth to my napkin and then to him, at his station under the table, my partner in crime.

And Fritz and I understood each other. When he stepped on a shard of glass and sliced his paw, I cringed in pain. When he caught wind of his Christmas bone and wagged his tail so hard it pulled his backside along with it, my heart swelled with joy. When I lay feverish and aching he held vigil by my bedside. And when he died, at the age of 13 of cancer, I wept with grief for the loss of my brother.

I am the person I am today in part because of my relationship – my connection – to the dog with whom I grew up. Indeed, the relationships we form with others, human and nonhuman, shape our hearts and minds in profound and powerful ways, for better or worse. They wound us and they heal us. They teach us how to be givers, takers, leaders, users, performers, abusers, nurturers. My connection with Fritz helped teach me how to love.

My connection with Fritz taught me to identify with others. When we identify with another, we see something of ourselves in them, and something of them in ourselves, even if the only thing we identify with is the desire not to suffer. My connection with Fritz taught me to empathize with others. When we empathize with another, we look at the world thorough the their eyes, so when we make choices that impact them we ask ourselves, what would he or she ask us to do? Indeed, empathy is central to our psychological wellbeing, and to the wellbeing of our planet. It is the antidote to all forms of violence – from judgment to hatred, from domestic abuse to genocide – as it is the seed from which compassion blooms.

My connection with my dog taught me to be a compassionate witness, to look deeply into the truth of another’s experience, and into the truth of my own experience – even when the truth broke my heart. After Fritz was diagnosed with cancer and his dash to greet me after school was replaced by a hobble, his once overactive tail swaying limply and his once bright eyes clouded in pain, I still wanted nothing more than to keep him alive, even if just for another week. But I loved him. And my relationship with him had helped teach me that to love someone is to truly see them, and that loving another means making choices that are in their best interest. Love and denial cannot coexist.

And so my relationship with Fritz taught me to honor the truth.

But my relationship with Fritz also taught me to deny the truth. It taught me how to play my role in the circus of the absurd, teetering atop that perilous tightrope.

Somehow, throughout all those magical childhood years – years of wonder and adventure and best friendship, of sprinting across panoramic meadows, plunging in towering snow banks, burrowing in fragile, sweet-smelling leaf piles – somehow despite the powerful connection I shared with my dog, there was a deep disconnection within me. Beside my awareness and empathy there resided a numbness of mind and heart. Truth and denial lay side by side, uneasy bedfellows.

Indeed, for the first half of my life, I never thought about how bizarre it was that I could pet my dog with one hand, while I ate a pork chop with the other, a pork chop that had once been an animal who was at least as intelligent and sensitive and conscious as my dog and who – like all of us – had a life that mattered to her. The internal disconnection that caused me to unwittingly support extensive – and completely unnecessary – animal suffering was as powerful as the connection that caused me to love my dog enough to break my own heart to end his suffering. But I simply juggled these contradictions like the acrobat that I was, sleepwalking along the fine line of truth and denial.

*******

It wasn’t until a decade after the death of my beloved dog that I woke up. I first awoke to find myself hospitalized, after having eaten what turned out to be my very last piece of meat – a hamburger that had been contaminated with the foodborne bacteria, campylobacter. And then I awoke to the truth. I awoke to the truth about what is perhaps the most entrenched and brutal industry in human history, an industry that permeates virtually every aspect of human and nonhuman existence and whose very survival depends on denial.

The truth is that nonhuman animals are intelligent, sentient beings. Pigs, for instance, are as intelligent as three-year-old humans; and scientists have demonstrated that fish and certain crustaceans have pain receptors, such that some food manufacturers no longer sell live lobsters and crabs on the grounds that boiling them alive is inhumane.

The truth is that approximately 95% of the meat, eggs, and dairy that make it to our plates comes from animals who lived and died in abject misery. (And the other 5%, from so-called organic or humane farms is, I assure you, far from cruelty-free.) For instance, baby animals are routinely castrated and have their horns and beaks cut off without any painkiller whatsoever. They are born and raised in crowded, filthy, dark environments where their existence is one of torment and terror. The females may be hooked up to so-called rape racks, where they are forcibly impregnated, over and over, only to have their offspring taken from them just hours after birth. (There are few sounds as haunting as the wailing of a cow on a dairy farm, as her baby is carried off.). And when it comes time for slaughter, these beings are shackled by their ankles, dragged along a conveyor belt, sliced open, and plunged into boiling water, often while fully conscious.

The truth is that, according to the United Nations, animal agriculture is one of the most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems facing the world today. Consider, for instance, the fact that greenhouse gas emissions caused by so-called livestock exceed that caused by all cars, trucks, ships, buses, and airplanes combined.

The truth is that there is overwhelming evidence linking the consumption of animal products with some of the most prevalent and debilitating diseases in the western world, including cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and obesity.

The truth is that those on the front lines of killing – the meatpackers and slaughterhouse workers – are economically and physically exploited and are often traumatized by an industry whose business is violence. Human Rights Watch states that the working conditions of these individuals are so appalling they violate basic human rights; and not surprisingly, such violence begets violence. For instance, one worker stated (and I apologize in advance for the brief profanity):

“One time I took my knife…and I sliced off the end of a hog’s nose, just like a piece of bologna. The hog went crazy for a few seconds. Then it just sat there looking kind of stupid. So I took a handful of salt brine and ground it into its nose. Now that hog really went nuts, brushing its nose all over the place. I still had a bunch of salt left…and I stuck the salt right up the hog’s ass. The poor hog didn’t know whether to shit or go blind.”1

The truth is that, globally, 124,000 farmed animals are slaughtered…not every day, or even every hour….but every, single, minute. And so I would like to take a moment of silence, to honor the victims on whose behalf I stand here today, and to commemorate the 124,000 of them who will be killed during the next sixty seconds.

(Sixty seconds of silence)

Thank you.

And the truth was that an entire society of rational, caring people – just like myself – had somehow checked their hearts and minds at the door to enable a global atrocity that has caused more bloodshed than all wars, genocides, famines, and natural disasters combined, in what could only be called a collective madness.

We tearfully bury the bodies of deceased dogs, yet we contentedly consume the bodies of dead pigs. We stop in our tracks to return a fallen bird to her nest, while our chicken nuggets await us back home. We laugh beside our children as they reach toward the calf in the petting zoo, though we feed them the very milk that was taken from this baby, milk that was taken along with his mother. We would call it abuse if a happy, healthy golden retriever were slaughtered just because people liked the way her thighs taste, and yet, when the very same thing is done to individuals of other species we call it humane. We don snorkels and masks and fins to stare in awe at the sundry creatures of the sea, balm to our busy minds, yet we may also soothe ourselves by tricking these same beings into impaling themselves to death on the ends of our sharpened hooks. And the methods of mass destruction….How many times had I heedlessly driven past the squat, elongated factories – windowless sheds in remote locations in which hundreds of thousands of individuals were caged and confined, castrated and cauterized and cut open – factories that bore a haunting resemblance to other architectures of the darker chapters of our history? And how many times had I cheerfully hummed to my radio as truckloads of terrified animals passed me on their way to slaughter, the whites of their eyes flashing from behind dark little slats?

Something was horribly wrong.

How on earth had such a glaring truth been so fully eclipsed by denial?

*******

It was after awakening but before understanding that I was compelled to seek what I would discover was an even deeper truth. And so, to make sense out of the atrocities and absurdities and acrobatics I could no longer un-see, I immersed myself in the study of violence and nonviolence, ultimately writing my doctoral dissertation on the psychology of eating animals.

And what I discovered made everything suddenly clear. There was in fact a rational explanation for the pandemic insanity that had laid claim to an otherwise sound populace.

What I discovered was that there is an invisible belief system that conditions us to eat certain animals. This belief system is woven through the very fabric of society to shape all social institutions and it is therefore internalized, shaping the very way we think and feel – or, more accurately, don’t think and feel – about eating animals. It is a system of oppression that requires us to act against our core values, our own interests, and the interests of others. The system must therefore use a set of social and psychological defense mechanisms so that rational, humane people participate in irrational, inhumane practices without fully realizing what they are doing. And the core of the system is denial.

Carnism, the name I gave to this system of denial, is constructed around an elaborate narrative that presents fiction as fact and distorts our perceptions so that we fail to see the contradictions that are right in front of us. Carnism is the ringmaster that keeps us ungrounded.

Carnism teaches us to deny the fact that eating animals is based on a mythology, on what I call the Three Ns of Justification – eating animals is normal, natural, and necessary – a mythology that has been used to justify violent practices throughout human history, from slavery to male dominance.

Carnism teaches us to deny the fact that in much of the world today, many of us eat animals not because we need to, but because we choose to. And ironically, carnism robs of us of our ability to make such crucial choices freely – because without awareness, there is no free choice.

Carnism teaches us to deny the fact that animals are individuals, with their own personalities and preferences, and to instead to see them as abstract members of a group: a pig is a pig and all pigs are the same. And as with other victims of violent ideologies, we give them numbers rather than names.

And carnism teaches us to deny the fact that eating animals is not merely a matter of personal ethics, but rather it is the inevitable end result of a deeply entrenched oppressive system. So we fail to see that eating animals is in fact a social justice issue.

*******

So there it was. Nearly two decades after the death of my cherished canine companion, I had finally come to understand the very strange – and very dire – nature of the circus act I had been performing. And I knew that if I didn’t share what I had learned I would be colluding in carnistic denial rather than speaking my truth.

So I wrote a book based on my research – entitled “Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism” – which sold tens of thousands of copies and whose content has been translated and disseminated around the world, and which eventually formed the basis of my organization, Carnism Awareness and Action Network, now a hub of global carnism awareness activity. I have witnessed the spread of carnism awareness across nearly every continent, as more and more individuals are adopting the cause as their own and as I continue on what is now the third year of my international speaking tour.

And along this most recent phase of my journey, as I travel the world meeting thousands of people from an array of backgrounds, whose lifestyles fall all along the carnistic continuum, I have learned what is perhaps the deepest of truths. Yet unlike the tragic truth about animal agriculture, or the unnerving truth about carnism, this truth is inspiring, for it is the very reason the other truths must remain shrouded within the protective cloak of denial.

The truth is that we care. We care about animals, we care about justice, and we care about the truth. And carnism depends on our not caring, and the system is built on deception. Carnism is a vulnerable system that needs a strong fortress to protect itself from its very own proponents – us. Why else would we need to go through all the psychological acrobatics if not because we care?

The truth is that there is a way off the tightrope. Awareness sweeps out the fictions that clutter our inner worlds, creating space for truth to emerge. We can thus reclaim our authentic thoughts and feelings, and with them, our freedom of choice. With awareness we can choose to be conscientious objectors to the violent system that is carnism, and we can choose to become active witnesses in the transformation of this system.

The truth is that more and more people are waking up. The vegan movement, which is the counterpoint to carnism, is in fact thriving; it is burgeoning in cultures around the world. And the movement is growing precisely because its principles are our principles, its mission is what we all wish for. Veganism is centered on justice, and compassion, and above all it demands an end to the carnistic game of Let’s Pretend.

Veganism, of course, is not the solution to global violence and injustice, but no true solution will be possible without it. For when it comes to systems of oppression, although they can never be equated, as the experiences of each set of victims will always be somewhat unique, they can and must be compared. Because all oppressive systems are structurally similar – the consciousness that enables such oppressions is the same. It is the mentality of domination and subjugation, the mentality that causes us to turn beings into things, lives into units of production. It is the might-makes-right mentality that makes us feel entitled to wield complete control over the lives and deaths of those with less power, just because we can. And to feel justified in our actions because they’re only: savages, women, animals. It is the mentality of meat, the carnistic consciousness.

And so the truth is that, as a powerful man – Hitler – once sad, “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”2

But the truth is also that, as a more powerful man – Gandhi – once said, “all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall – think of it, always.3

So it was the love of a dog that taught me the true meaning of ahimsa. My relationship with Fritz taught me that love is not merely a feeling, but a practice, a practice that – like all practices – reflects our state of consciousness. It taught me that love should not be limited by arbitrary boundaries such as species; indeed, whenever we place limits on our compassion, we diminish ourselves and damage our world. And so it was the love of a dog that led me to my life’s work, to transform the violent system that is carnism. For transforming carnism is not simply about changing behavior, but about shifting consciousness. It is about shifting from ignorance to awareness, from apathy to empathy, from callousness to compassion, from denial to truth – and from violence, to ahimsa.

Thank you.

1 Gail Eisnitz, Slaughterhouse: The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, and Inhumane Treatment Inside the US Meat Industry (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1997), 102-104.
2 I recognize that there is some debate around the attribution of this statement, and that the issue is as of yet unresolved.
3 Ibid.