RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Here is some great information by The Vegetarian Resource Group:
http://www.vrg.org/blog/2011/12/05/how-many-adults-are-vegan-in-the-u-s/
Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Everyday Chit Chat
Your First Day as a Vegan?
[553 posts] [61 contributors]
Topic Rating:
(Total Ratings: 2)
Rate this topic:
Rate this topic:
-
Red Sun Rising
Login to Send PM
Posted 1 year ago # -
rus
Login to Send PM
Mercurius said:
Bill Clinton is a vegan. Just FYI.Not entirely.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/0911/Bill_Clinton_isnt_a_perfect_vegan.html
Posted 1 year ago # -
Coremodels
Really close to Explorer's Club.
Login to Send PM
Vegan hell, he's not even a vegetarian.
"so I maybe have fish a little bit, once or twice a month"
Posted 1 year ago # -
Red Sun Rising
Login to Send PM
rus said:
Not entirely.http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/0911/Bill_Clinton_isnt_a_perfect_vegan.html
Oh my GAWD. The misinformation is rampant for this short piece.
1) Vegans eat oil, unless it is derived from an animal, so in that sense, we are indeed careful about what kind we eat. It is not a health food, and anyone who has been diagnosed with cardiovascular disease, or heart disease, or has a family history of it, should not consume it orally. It can be used topically without harm.
excerpt:complete:Get the Flash Video Get the Flash Video 2) Processed breads are not healthy, but some are vegan, so, yes, we do eat processed breads. It just isn't healthy.
3) Bummer about his daughter beating up on him to eat fish. That is the WORST source of omega fatty acids and protein one can consume. Take a pass on the bio-magnification of toxins/chemicals, antioxidants, mercury, cholesterol, carcinogens, cruelty and species collapse, and try these tasty, robust, sustainable, nutrient dense, non-violently procured little morsels:
Savi seeds: http://www.foodprocessing.com/vendors/products/2011/073.html
or these
chia or salba seeds: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/nut-and-seed-products/3061/2
walnuts
flax seeds
Walnuts
Brazil Nuts
Hazelnuts
Pecans
leafy greens
garbonzo beans / chick peas http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/legumes-and-legume-products/4325/2
just to name a few. They are abundant and easily bio-available.
4) Vegans eat delicious omelets: http://vegandad.blogspot.com/2008/03/susans-vegan-omelette-sort-of.html5) The claim about craving "protein" or hunger for "protein", is cultural programming and food addiction. All whole foods, have protein. Thanks to the "livestock" industry referring to farmed individuals as protein production units, people think their products are synonymous with protein. American's on average exceed the RDA by 200% and suffer diseases of excess. Vegans do not suffer protein deficiency. The average American is deficient in 7 essential nutrients, the average vegan is deficient in 3.
Page 91 of The World Peace Diet: "It's ironic that the burden of justifying possible nutritional deficiencies rests on vegans ("where do you get your protein/vitamin B12/etc.?"), because research shows that vegans typically have twice the fruit and vegetable intake of people eating the standard American diet. In recent studies, vegans had higher intakes of sixteen out of the nineteen nutrients studied, including three times more vitamin C, vitamin E, and fiber, twice the folate, magnesium, copper, and manganese, and more calcium and plenty of protein. Vegans also had half the saturated fat intake, one-sixth the rate of being overweight, and, while vegans were shown to be at risk for deficiencies in three nutrients (calcium, iodine, and vitamin B-12), people eating the standard American diet were at risk for deficiencies in seven nutrients (calcium, iodine, vitamin C, vitamin E, fiber, folate, and magnesium." European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, August 2,003
Here is a document on the protein myth: http://www.pcrm.org/search/?cid=251 and while nutritiondata.com is good tool for determining the nutrient breakdown in any food just for your own edification, you DON'T have to “plan” per se a whole foods vegan diet by looking at the nutrient contents of everything you eat and trying to make sure you get enough. You will discover that all, yes ALL whole foods have proteins, even fruits, and vegetables. They also have adequate if not abundant essential amino acids, omega 3 and omega 6 fatty acids. The one caveat I have about the Self Magazine nutrition data site is that it still promotes food combining, which was debunked well over 20 years ago but still plagues society and evidently, Self Magazine didn’t get the memo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_combining (a google on Protein Combining Myth will reveal physician blogs galore confirming this Wikipedia entry)
If you have concerns with Anemia, you may find this useful:
http://www.ehow.com/how_2301619_eat-anemia-as-vegan.htmlAnd here is some important info on B12:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2000/000802.htmPosted 1 year ago # -
Red Sun Rising
Login to Send PM
The most comprehensive source I've seen on information regarding our herbivorous characteristics:
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html
just one excerpt:
"But haven't humans always eaten meat?In a word, no, which we'll discuss in a moment, but first there's something more important: Even if they did, it doesn't matter. That's because people act by idea rather than by instinct. Other animals are programmed to know what food is. We are not. For us, it's learned behavior. Or in some cases, guessed behavior. We can make choices about what we should eat even if that's contrary to good health, as millions prove every day when they eat at McDonald's. If our ancestors ate meat, they were simply being human and making choices rather than acting on instinct. Think about it: Do you really believe that cavemen were true experts about nutrition? If so, what other major decisions about your life would you like to put in the hands of a caveman?
Again, the best evidence is to look at our own bodies. But let's return to the assumption that our ancestors ate meat. I can't think of a better example of a case in which people believe something to be true just because they assume it is. We all grew up thinking that our predecessors were meat-eaters, but where did we get that idea? Is it true just because it's part of our collective consciousness? More importantly, what does the evidence say?
John A. McDougall, M.D., perhaps the most knowledgable expert on the relationship between diet and disease, asserts that our early ancestors from at least four million years ago followed diets almost exclusively of plant foods. (source, article #5) Many other scientists believe that early humans were largely vegetarian. (See articles by Grande & Leckie and Derek Wall.) Then there's the newest research:
Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., professor anthropology in Arts & Sciences, spoke at a press briefing, "Early Humans on the Menu," during the American Association for the Advancement of the Science's Annual Meeting....[E]arly man was not an aggressive killer, Sussman argues. He poses a new theory, based on the fossil record and living primate species, that primates have been prey for millions of years, a fact that greatly influenced the evolution of early man.
"Our intelligence, cooperation and many other features we have as modern humans developed from our attempts to out-smart the predator," says Sussman.... The idea of "Man the Hunter" is the generally accepted paradigm of human evolution, says Sussman, "It developed from a basic Judeo-Christian ideology of man being inherently evil, aggressive and a natural killer. In fact, when you really examine the fossil and living non-human primate evidence, that is just not the case."
Sussman's research is based on studying the fossil evidence dating back nearly seven million years. "Most theories on Man the Hunter fail to incorporate this key fossil evidence," Sussman says. "We wanted evidence, not just theory. We thoroughly examined literature available on the skulls, bones, footprints and on environmental evidence, both of our hominid ancestors and the predators that coexisted with them." ...
But what Sussman and Hart discovered is that Australopithecus afarensis was not dentally pre-adapted to eat meat. "It didn't have the sharp shearing blades necessary to retain and cut such foods," Sussman says. "These early humans simply couldn't eat meat. If they couldn't eat meat, why would they hunt?"
It was not possible for early humans to consume a large amount of meat until fire was controlled and cooking was possible. Sussman points out that the first tools didn't appear until two million years ago. And there wasn't good evidence of fire until after 800,000 years ago.
Bio-Medicine.org, 2006
While some prehistoric peoples hunted animals, that is still a relatively recent development in the long period of human existence. Certainly not long enough for our bodies to have adapted to it from evolution. Here's some evidence: The Maasai in Kenya, who still eat a diet high in wild hunted meats, have the worst life expectancy in the world. (Fuhrman)
In any event, the idea that our ancestors might have decided to mimic other animals and eat meat isn't a particularly compelling argument that it's natural for us to do so. Given that humans act outside of instinct, looking at historical behavior isn't as convincing as looking at anatomy and health effects -- as we'll do in a moment.
Considering the other primates
Our closest animal relatives are, of course, the other primates. They provide clues about our ideal diet since our anatomy is so similar. Very few of them eat any significant amount of animals, and those who do typically mostly stick to things like insects, not cows, pigs, and chickens. Jane Goodall, famous for her extensive study of apes while living with them, found that it was very rare for the primates she saw to eat other animals. Critics lunge all over the fact that Goodall discovered that primates occasionally eat meat. But the key word here is occasionally. If we ate meat is infrequently as the other primates did, our health would certainly be a lot better. Goodall herself apparently wasn't impressed by primates' occasional eating of meat: Jane Goodall herself is a vegetarian.
Chimpanzee: Eats 95-99% plants, and most of the rest is termites (not meat). (Source: Creative Commons)
How slight is the other primates' animal consumption? This article on primate eating habits from Harvard has a bar graph of all the things that chimps and monkeys eat (Fig. 3), and meat isn't even in the chart. What they do eat is fruit, seeds, leaves, flowers, and pith. There is a category called "Miscellaneous", which for most species amounts to less than 5% of their diet, and for chimps and redtail monkeys less than 1%. The Honolulu Zoo gives a slighty higher figure, saying that non-plant consumption is 5% of a chimp's diet, but this includes their main non-plant food, termites. (Termites are a good source of vitamin B12, by the way). Craig B. Stanford, Ph.D says, "Chimpanzees are largely fruit eaters, and meat composes only about 3% of the time they spent eating overall, less than in nearly all human societies." (source) Any way you slice it, their diet is at least 95-99% plants.Which brings up another point: The people who hysterically scream at me that chimps are omnivores, besides ignoring that chimps' meat consumption is so small as to be virtually non-existent, never acknowledge that the non-plant foods chimps eat are not the same things humans eat. Chimps do not eat cattle and chickens. And humans don't eat termites. The idea that the meat-laden American diet can be justified because chimps may eat a whopping 5% of non-plant foods, none of it cattle or chickens, and much of it termites, is rather silly.
Let's use the Harvard article's figure for chimps and round it up to a generous 1%. If that were beef -- which it is not -- how much beef would that be? For an adult human, a mere 8 grams a day (about 1/3 of an ounce, or just 0.02 pounds). That's about 1/9th of a medium carrot. Get a carrot, cut it into nine pieces, and each piece then represents the amount of meat you could eat every day to have your diet match that of a chimp. Yes, there you have chimps' overwhelming "omnivorism".
Here's how another writer put it:
"Meat makes up only 1.4% of [chimps'] diet which in any statistical study or analysis would be considered as quantitatively unimportant. In longitudinal studies it has been found that 90% of all kills were by males and as the females rarely hunt they receive a share in return by begging only after she allows him to mate with her.... On rare occasions chimps do eat and kill a baby chimp. So if you follow this argument to its conclusion, humans should kill and eat their babies, meat should only make up 1.4% of the human diet, [and] females should only receive meat by begging for it and allowing the giver to mate with her!" (source)
Consider also that even though primates eat meat sparingly, there again it's likely because they're intelligent and like humans are able to make choices to act outside of instinct. As other writers put it, "While chimpanzees are known to kill, this behaviour is not necessarily dietary but ritualistic." In 2006 the journal Nature published research about how chimpanzees have culture -- behaviors copied from peers rather than being genetic. (See "Case Closed: Apes Got Culture".)
Eugene Khutoryansky who does believe that eating meat is natural, still cautions that the implications of chimps' killing should give us pause:
Eating meat is indeed natural in the sense that other animals do it as well. In fact, it is even done on occasion by our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees. However, there are many other things which are also natural. For example, chimpanzee males sometimes rape the females in their tribe. Chimpanzees sometimes engage in organized warfare against other tribes with which they compete for territory. A chimpanzee male, in a moment of rage, sometimes picks up a nearby infant, and crushes his skull against a rock. And chimpanzees do on occasion eat meat, and they do on occasion engage in cannibalism, in spite of the fact that there is a plentiful supply of food from other sources.
So eating meat is indeed absolutely natural. However, the fact that it is natural does not imply that it is ethically permissible. If we believed that eating meat was ethically permissible simply because other animals did it as well, then this would imply that there is nothing wrong with rape, cannibalism, or infanticide, all of which routinely occurs throughout the animal kingdom. (source)
What it means to be an omnivore
There is no question that humans are capable of digesting meat. But just because we can digest animals does not mean we're supposed to, or that it will be good for us. We can digest cardboard. But that doesn't mean we should. As I mentioned earlier, commercial cat foods typically contain rice, corn, and wheat. But of course, cats are true carnivores. We don't call them omnivores just because they'll eat things contrary to what nature intended. That would be silly. No one makes that argument for cats. But they make it for humans, enthusiastically.
McDougall explains how the ability to digest animal foods didn't hurt our survival as a race, although it takes a toll on our lifespan:
"Undoubtedly, all of these [meat-containing] diets were adequate to support growth and life to an age of successful reproduction. To bear and raise offspring you only need to live for 20 to 30 years, and fortuitously, the average life expectancy for these people was just that. The few populations of hunter-gatherers surviving into the 21st Century are confined to the most remote regions of our planet—like the Arctic and the jungles of South America and Africa—some of the most challenging places to manage to survive. Their life expectancy is also limited to 25 to 30 years and infant mortality is 40% to 50%. Hunter-gatherer societies fortunately did survive, but considering their arduous struggle and short lifespan, I would not rank them among successful societies."
The problem with the term "omnivore" is that it's used in different ways. Many folks assert that if a primate ever eats any meat at all, no matter how small or insignificant, then bam! -- they're an omnivore. But cats eat copious amounts of rice, corn, and wheat in commercial cat food, and have far more plants in their diet than meat in primates' diets. So why do these people insist that the piddling, insignificant amount of animal foods consumed by primates makes them omnivores, while cats are carnivores no matter how much plant food they eat?
And once they (think) they've shown that primates are omnivores, they then use this "fact" to justify the huge amount of meat that people eat today. This of course is ridiculous.
A more reasonable definition would be that a true omnivore would routinely eat large quantities of both plants and animals. A creature consuming less than 5% of its calories from animals just doesn't seem very omnivorous to me. (This includes other primates, our ancestors, and traditional Okinawans.) But for the record, if you insist that such creatures are omnivores, then I'll agree with you -- as long as you agree that humans should also eat less than 5% of our calories from animals, just like the other creatures you're basing our "omnivorism" on. And that cats are omnivores, too."
Posted 1 year ago # -
James
Upper Arlington
Login to Send PM
Interesting that for some observers, the presence of *any*meat consumption qualifies you as a carnivore whereas the total absence of any animal protein is required before you can be vegetarian or vegan. It fails to take into account the level of animal protein in one's diet, and allows true, 100% meat and dairy free people to be identified as a very small minority - a true 'fringe' - so that the choice to be vegan appears extreme. When in fact when you apply some flexibility to the definition, the proportion of people in the " low to no" animal protein category is much higher. That would remove a talking point from some people who push meat and dairy, especially if the "vegan and near vegetarian" category where to exceed 10%.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Coremodels
Really close to Explorer's Club.
Login to Send PM
James said:
Interesting that for some observers, the presence of *any*meat consumption qualifies you as a carnivore whereas the total absence of any animal protein is required before you can be vegetarian or vegan. It fails to take into account the level of animal protein in one's diet, and allows true, 100% meat and dairy free people to be identified as a very small minority - a true 'fringe' - so that the choice to be vegan appears extreme. When in fact when you apply some flexibility to the definition, the proportion of people in the " low to no" animal protein category is much higher. That would remove a talking point from some people who push meat and dairy, especially if the "vegan and near vegetarian" category where to exceed 10%.lol...so you're thinking the omnivores and carnivores are the ones who put vegans and vegetarians in a small corner of identification?
Yeah, because vegans are probably super cool with people who are "mostly vegan, except for that little bit of dead animal they eat".
Posted 1 year ago # -
James
Upper Arlington
Login to Send PM
Coremodels said:
lol...so you're thinking the omnivores and carnivores are the ones who put vegans and vegetarians in a small corner of identification?I think most omnivores and carnivores could care less if vegan/ vegetarians are segregated to a fringe. I think meat and dairy industries, however, may find it useful.
Posted 1 year ago # -
rus
Login to Send PM
James said:
I think most omnivores and carnivores could care less if vegan/ vegetarians are segregated to a fringe. I think meat and dairy industries, however, may find it useful.I don't think any such segregation comes from industry.
Red Sun Rising said:
Yes, living vegan is not just being a picky eater; it is a life philosophy and discipline encompassing nonviolence towards all sentient beings, including humans and non human animals, and including all ways in which they have been currently incorporated into our culture (food, entertainment, clothes and consumable products, experimentation etc.). Excluding the use of animals in all the aforementioned ways makes one vegan. To only be concerned with diet, would technically fall under being considered a pure vegetarian; since dairy, eggs, honey, gelatin and fish a don't come from plants.
I'd suggest that the number of people who are willing do that ^^^ is miniscule. No conspiracy required.
For instance, how many people refuse vaccinations because they're made using chicken eggs?
http://www.livestrong.com/article/57098-flu-vaccine-made/
Typically, the flu vaccine is made and replicated in other animals. Most of the time the virus is made in chicken egg embryos, where the vaccine is in an ideal environment to grow and replicate. These chicken eggs come from specially certified farms with strict veterinary control. Once the virus has replicated in the eggs, scientists then isolate it and package it into carefully measured doses that can then be shipped out to health clinics and physicians for administration to patients.
Or avoid all the products made from pigs?
Get the Flash Video Posted 1 year ago # -
James
Upper Arlington
Login to Send PM
rus said:
I don't think any such segregation comes from industry.I'm not so sure -
http://www.beltwaybeef.com/2012/02/whats-wrong-with-meatless-monday.htmlFrom the lobbying arm of the beef industry, 'vegan' seems to be a convenient wedge to separate beef consumers from a path of reduced meat consumption.
Posted 1 year ago # -
rus
Login to Send PM
James said:
I'm not so sure -
http://www.beltwaybeef.com/2012/02/whats-wrong-with-meatless-monday.htmlFrom the lobbying arm of the beef industry, 'vegan' seems to be a convenient wedge to separate beef consumers from a path of reduced meat consumption.
Yet reduced meat consumption does not make a vegan, per RSR's definition ( which would require total absence not only of animals as food, but as any product ).
That there is no flexibility in the definition comes not from industry ( which, no doubt, wants to increase sales of their product ) but from activists.
I'm sure the cattle industry would be perfectly happy to define vegan as "eats beef" if it increased sales. Why wouldn't they?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Red Sun Rising
Login to Send PM
Here is a good write up on the history of vegans:
http://www.candidhominid.com/p/vegan-history.htmlI know lots of vegans who have avoided vaccinations to avoid the egg in them. I've received vaccinations at times as a vegan because they were required for working in a health care setting. Frankly, this is a learning process, there isn't a standard briefing all vegans go through that tells them where every possible ingredient is, or every single process that was done for every thing ever produced. I didn't know eggs were part of the immunization contents for many years, since I don't have any allergies that I am aware of. If there isn't another option, and one must have an immunization, then it is what it is. No vegan police is going to pop up and strip someone's vegan badge off because they got an immunization. It's not like they had other options: "with or without egg?". To me, it is like taking a sidewalk to my destination, if I have to get there, I'm going to take it, even if it is likely pig bone pavement, I'm sure I'm doing less harm walking on the sidewalk than walking on the grass. This is not some ridiculous exercise in purity. It is a practical way to make a political statement of nonviolence.
Veganism isn't about being a martyr in an impossible system. It is about the empowerment of making a conscious effort within the parameters of practicality. Frankly, if you take the definition above to the furthest possible end, NO ONE would be vegan. Every product in a modern home (carpet, flooring, walls, insulation etc) has glue, paint, or some other chemical in it that has been tested on animals to create an MSDS. It is a whole lot easier to just look for vegan products and stick with them. The important thing to remember, is one could make their self crazy if they chose to discover and avoid every single possible animal product everywhere. In a system where animal products and animal testing is foundational, ubiquitous, and testing is mandated by law, clearly it is impossible, as demonstrated by the TED video above on pig parts. Thank you for bringing this up, because, I thought I had spoken about this before, but it is probably elsewhere on this board or deep within this thread.
With a little learning,it is quite simple and practical to avoid consuming products that contain meat, dairy, eggs, gelatin, leather, fur, wool, feathers, cosmetics and body care products in obviously labeled ingredients and textiles lists. It is easy to find something else to spend your time and money doing in supporting things other than circuses, rodeos, marine parks or other ventures that obviously involve breeding and capturing animals for human exploits. While longtime vegans are beginning to address the more hidden, impractical, tertiary processes and negotiations of vast fundamental animal usury, while those efforts have merit in raising awareness for change, the foundational use will be addressed when the consumption of the practical is extinguished, because the hidden/unlabeled uses were probably only just pragmatic and capitalistic opportunities in coping with the waste products of the primary industry, in most cases. There is a plant or mineral solution to virtually every animal ingredient in any product presently produced. Worrying about that is not the job of a person just trying to go vegan and focusing on the minutia can only cause people to walk away from a great way to live. In the present system, boycotting all possible non vegan products or processes is like boycotting the fed by no longer using money. Get real.
Example: One can decide to be the vegan who abstains from anything made of sugar, because, OMG, if it was cane sugar, it might POSSIBLY have been made with a bone char processing method. (face palm) I refuse to be "that" vegan. That is not a vegan; that is anal retentive in my opinion. That doesn't do anything positive for the cause. Sugar is a vegan ingredient. It is not healthy. I get that one would avoid sugar when it has to do with health considering studies have shown that a single teaspoon of sugar can disable the function of T1 cancer fighting cells for up to 5 hours. Sugar is vegan because it was not created fundamentally based on the exploitation of animals. That is what is meant by being a vegan. If animal products aren't on the label or obviously being exploited and used for consumable products or entertainment, that qualifies as vegan by practical definition. No one can be expected to know the processes of every possible item, and clearly, there are things you have no control over that are just part of the world we live in, presently. This will change. And it will change soon, at least in progressive cultures. Those who are paying attention to this issue will move to eliminate animal products/usury from their methods as rapidly as possible. They will be highly successful and on the leading edge of advancing civilization.
When I read something like the article I'm about to post below, which was generated after a survey of what vegans in this individual's sphere of influence wrote to them when questioned something to the effect of "What do you do that you didn't used to do before you were vegan that is as a result of going vegan that you think describe best characteristics of being a vegan?" (or something to that effect.) I understand what their intent was, to provide some sort of guideline of what is ideal or what the "perfect" vegan would look like, but as I read this, I just felt....like it was too..I quite can't articulate it, except to say it was an annoying, off putting and weird article to me that really could have been done differently, if done at all. While I can appreciate the perspective of someone with the longevity this person has been living as a vegan, I don't necessarily agree with the way they move the message (too preachy- I know- I can hear the bellowing laughter at that), I don't care for their style of even making this into a "perfect" issue. It is about doing the best we can prevent unnecessary suffering. I'm sure that as it has been made clear by others here, that they don't necessarily approve of my methods either, so, it just goes to show how different we are in everything we do, even those of us on the same path.
http://thevegantruth.blogspot.com/search/label/A%20model%20of%20the%20perfect%20vegan
The person who wrote it is a 30 year vegan and lives in a veganic farming intentional community in New Zealand, so, they are living in a completely different reality than those they seek to influence. I've deliberated on whether or not to even post this blog article because of how people might perceive vegans, but I generally approach this effort with as grounded and hopefully balanced review as I can (I recognize my bias of loving animals enough to believe they deserve equal consideration in the moral community).
Posted 1 year ago # -
Red Sun Rising
Login to Send PM
Know thy Rick Berman astroturfers:
Posted 1 year ago # -
Red Sun Rising
Login to Send PM
-
Red Sun Rising
Login to Send PM
"Seasoned Advice" on vegan cooking
Posted 1 year ago # -
Red Sun Rising
Login to Send PM
Thanks Snarf-
That is exactly my point. Their use is pervasive in so many ways we often are unaware of. It doesn't mean one is not a vegan because of this fact. The good news is that there are alternatives out there for a lot of the items listed above. :-)
Posted 1 year ago # -
Red Sun Rising
Login to Send PM
Helpful Vegan Starter Nutrition and Resources:
Acid vs. Alkaline
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7ceJI2Cnz1wPlant Based Nutrition Primer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6bvmzsRodK4The Vegan RD
http://www.theveganrd.com/resourcesThe Position Paper of the American Dietetic Association
http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/2009_ADA_position_paper.pdfForks Over Knives
http://www.forksoverknives.com/NutritionData.com
http://nutritiondata.self.com/Five Major Poisons Inherent in Animal Proteins
http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2010nl/jan/poison.htmThe Starch Solution
Get the Flash Video Posted 1 year ago # -
rus
Login to Send PM
An alternate view on carbs.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2012/02/23/carbs-are-killing-you-or-are-they-infographic/
Posted 1 year ago #
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.