Jeff Novick, MS, RD
Recently, in a discussion in the lounge on what to call this "way of eating" and whether or not the term "vegan" was adequate to describe this diet,
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=33542
I made the following comments...
JeffN wrote:As an FYI...
.... about a year and a half ago, I was speaking at an event along with Dr Campbell, Dr Diehl, Dr Esselstyn, Rip, Dr John Kelley, Dr Roger Greenlaw, Dr Demas and several other notables and at the end of the event, we had a panel discussion with all the speakers.
The question was asked about the word vegan and its appropriateness in describing this way of life and diet and the person asking the question asked if everyone on the panel could respond to how they felt about it.
As the microphone went down the line from one speaker to the next, everyone, no exception said they did not want to be associated with either the vegan word or the vegan movement as they felt it did more to distract from their main focus and to confuse people then it did to help them as by using the word it associated them with a movement that does not have the same specific focus, goals or details and is often heavily involved in other areas (ie, animal rights) that are not related at all to their specific focus.
In Health
Jeff
and
JeffN wrote:To clarify my comments...veggylvr wrote: I can certainly understand why the doctors or other plant-based advocates wouldn't use the term. They have a larger responsibility to deliver a health message, and any inconsistencies would be critiqued and ridiculed.
The same holds true for those of us, who in describing what we eat or what we want to eat, do not want to be seen as inconsistent, even if it is just in our daily lives, even if we are just describing our diet. Many have commented in this thread about the inconsistencies it raises for them. I agree with them. As did the panel, which was speaking in regard to much more than just their professional health message.veggylvr wrote:Most of us, however, aren't delivering any message except what we need to eat.
In many cases, such as when ordering at a restaurant or when explaining to someone who invited you over for dinner, this is true. However, in addition, for many people, there is more to the picture because each time they describe their diet to someone else, they are also sharing (or wanting to share) in their own little way, a little bit of this WOE and this WOL and the message of health and hope that it carries with it.
Therefore, in both cases, describing it accurately is important and while it is true that for many people following this WOE, their diets will be able to be classified vegan, the term vegan falls way short of describing many of the most important aspects.
Because of my unique position, many of the people who come to me are already vegan and/or plant based/strong/perfect, yet they are not well. And, one of their main frustrations they have is that they have been doing the vegan and/or plant based/strong/perfect for some time and it does not seem to be working for them in the same way they hear it does for so many others. There have even been many such discussion in these very forums.
In fact, one of the biggest problems I see in helping people improve their diet is their use of the term vegan to describe their diet or their food choices. So much so, that I ask people not to use the term when discussing what they eat with me.
At the last 10 day program, in one of the classes, we had a long discussion on why the use of the thought process, "well at least it was vegan" can do more harm than good especially for those who are on the path of improving their health, as by using that phrase, they are mixing up two concepts. Too many times, I hear people say that they were out to a restaurant and/or at an event or party and there was not any healthy food to eat so they ate "so and so" food, and then they say to me, "but at least it was vegan!" This tells me absolutely nothing about the food other than it had not animal products in it. And, sadly, most of the time, the food they choose may have been high in fat, sat fat, oil, salt, sugar, refined/processed grains and low in fiber, etc etc (or all of the above) and was nothing more than pure junk food.
The worst part is not that such a food on a rare occasion may hurt them, but that they believe it was OK or "more" OK, because it was "vegan." However, I am not promoting veganism or vegan food but health and healthy food and so an unhealthy choice should not be rationalized in a discussion of health as being a healthy choice just because it is vegan. Label it what is it. Don't say, "at least it was vegan, say "I ate some pure unhealthy junk food that was vegan."
Best of all, make a healthy choice, and/or do the best you can in regard to making a healthy choice and keep that the focus. And, for most of us, it will be vegan too.
I travel about 60% of the time and so am on the road and eating out often. I have found that some of the worst restaurants for me are ones that promote themselves as serving vegan and/or vegetarian options, with those promoting the concept of "raw" being the worse. I rarely if ever can find anything to eat at these restaurants that is healthy. And, if I have to go through the same process of special ordering to get something healthy, then why did I even have to go to a veg/vegan/raw restaurant to begin with as they usually charge more. At our local (and famous) vegan restaurant (at which I can not eat), you are charged extra if you want your food made with whole grains. The most popular item on their menu is their fried cauliflower.
I was at a recent health conference put on by a traditional group. For dinner there was a choice of fish, chicken or vegan. I asked what was the vegan choice and they said a lasagna dish made with vegan cheese, etc. No sides of veggies (as they were supposed to be in the lasagna). So, I asked what was the chicken dish. They said, grilled chicken, with sides of steamed vegetables and sweet potato. I ordered the chicken dish and traded my piece of chicken with the person next to me for their steamed veggies and sweet potato. The non vegan choice was the better choice.
This is why I often say that steak houses are my favorite healthy restaurants. I can get a large plain baked (or sweet) potato, a large salad and some plain steamed veggies without any problems and the fancier the place, the easier it is.
I am currently traveling on vacation and last week I stopped in to a new restaurant featuring local, organic, fresh, healthy, vegetarian food. However, there was nothing I will eat. One item they have is a "Warm Kale Salad" which is finished w/Braggs and it says .. A healthy alternative to soy sauce. So i asked the server, what is Braggs and she said its a healthy alternative to soy as it has much less sodium.
It has the same amount!
And if they are promoting themselves as veg and healthy, they need to know this. Everything is marked veg, or gluten free, organic etc but its all white flour and some of the veg stuff has eggs & milk and the vegan is full of oil.
We spoke to the owner who said, come in for dinner and their chef will make me whatever I want. So, I did. I ordered a large version of an appetizer salad that was ok and got me about 100 calories at most (for about $10). Then we special ordered a plate of quinoa, and steamed vegetables. We reviewed this with the manager several times, emphasizing that I wanted just plain steamed veggies and a starch, either quinoa, brown rice or a sweet potato. Our plate come out and it was a little salad on 1/3 the plate, which I did not need as I already paid $10 for a salad, a small pile of quinoa and a small pile of mixed vegetables DRIPPING in oil and full of salt. It may have been vegan but I would not eat it.
So we got up and left (leaving a few bucks to cover the costs) and ate next door at the Thai place and got nice size salads, steamed edamame without any salt, and a plate full of steamed veggies & steamed brown rice. All for half the price
This is what happens to many who go out to eat and describe their diet as vegan. They may think it is easier, but it does not work and they are often left with unhealthy options that they rationalize as healthy because they are vegan.
Your perspective may be different, but mine is as a healthy person and as a health professional who works with unhealthy people (many of them already vegan) to help them get well, and from that perspective, the word vegan simply does not work.
In Health
Jeff
Recently Norman, added this story which highlights the importance of my comments.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=36547
Norman wrote:In 2004 I had a triple bypass. After this I tried to maintain a lower fat diet with chicken and fish with lots of vegetables and with many meals with no meat at all. In 2009 my wife and I decided to adopt a vegan diet for health reasons. Knowing that my discipline was poor at times I researched how animals are treated in our food system. I was appalled by the great suffering the animals we eat had to endure and became an ethical vegan as well.
Influenced by the writings of John McDougall, Caldwell Esselstyn, Neal Bernard, T Colin Campbell and others, my intention was eat mostly whole unprocessed foods and to eliminate refined oils from my vegan diet. For brief stints I was very successful. Inevitably I would make exceptions and allow more and more exceptions while staying on a vegan diet. Eating out was one place I started to slip with vegan Thai curries, pasta with oily sauce, vegan restaurants that use a lot of oil, ect. I would look at a box of crackers or Microwave popcorn that listed only 1.5 grams of fat a serving. Of course I would eat 8 servings. In cooking without oil, liberal use of Tahini would add a lot of fat. Guacamole seemed so good. Often a diet coke addiction would flair up of fueling my desire for sweets I would get when I went to Gas stations or grocery stores. Paul Neuman's low fat dressing seemed harmless as it had so little fat per serving. You get the picture.
I had fooled myself in believing that because I ate better than many in the US with a vegan diet with many vegetables and some meals cooked without oil that I would be ok. Denial!
I had been dismissing chest pains in hiking and having to stop as being out of shape. On April 20th (2013) in a period of my life with a lot of stress in sorting out some close to hang up I experienced chest pains and light headed and needed to lie down. My wife and I decided we needed to go to the emergency room to check it out.
To be continued next post........
and
Norman wrote:A Vegan diet fails to prevent heart disease! Part 2
The chest pain was gone when I arrived at the hospital and I just wanted to have it checked out. They rushed me in. As I had had a bypass in 2004 they took it very seriously. They hooked me up to a EKG machine. They took my blood pressure which was now up to 160/100. My home readings had been generally 135/85 or less. They stuck needles in two hands and started a nitro drip. Later they came me treadmill stress test along with a EKG. I was able to complete the test with minor chest pain at the end. They also gave me an echo cardiogram (I must have good insurance) They determined I had not had a heart heart attack but had a blockage. They insisted that I be transported by ambulance to a hospital an hour and a half where they did cardiac catheterizations.
I found myself being swept up into the same system that cut open my chest and grafted 3 veins to my heart, offered no alternatives and failed to tell me that they eventually become clogged again with scar tissue.
I tried to talked to nurses and the doctor about diet. They rolled their eyes with deep concern and essentially implied I would be a fool not to get a catheterization. I thought maybe knowing what blockages were there I could make an informed decision on how to proceed. The hospital room was dark and the nurses were very busy to give much attention. Fortunately it was the weekend and they only did catherizations in the weekend on people with resting chest pain which had none. I found out that they did not want to do the procedure without the go ahead to put a stent or stents, if they thought they were needed. This is where I dug in and decided not to do it. Why put pieces of metal in my body they damage the artery walls and often clog up again in time anyway. The physicians assistant talked with me along time urging me to get a stent. I countered with the suggestion diet could work better. She almost had me convinced it was too late for diet for the blockage. When the cardiologist came in to follow up. (kind of like tag team wrestling) When I asked the cardiologist about risk factors and outcomes he admitted a stent would not extend my life. It was about quality of life. He told me that the risk of death was 1% for the procedure and another 1% if a stent was put in. I would have a 1 in 50 chance of dying for something that would not extend my life! That did it. They released me with the agreement that I would take 50mg of Toperal and 40mgs of Zocor. I also agreed to stress test with and echocardiogram in 1 month.
My Ldl is 115. I am confident I can get that down fast and in ashort time get off the Zocar. The also wanted me to go on Metaform for diabetes as I my Ac1 was 6.6 I refused. My home tests after I got back on my new diet have ranged from 101 to 120. I have lost 9 lbs in 20 days.
I will continue to drop weight. so I expect to get better numbers in the future. (Weight entering hospital 215 today 209- Goal weight 160)
I am totally committed to follow Dr Esselstyns and Mcdougalls diet for life. I will never submit to a bypass again.
My blood pressure on medications was at 135/83 but started dropping with a great diet. After 10 days it hit 110/60. I immediately decided to cut the dose in half. Now it is averaging 127/80. I will cut the dose in half again if I have another significant drop. My stress test is coming up on May 22. I have been training for it on the treadmill. I am determined to surprise the cardiologists. Yesterday I was able to walk one hr at 3.4 mph without chest pain. Dr Esselstyn reports increased blood flow in weeks with his diet. My experience seems to bear this out.
Wish me luck on the stress test and dealing with cardiologists.
That's all for now.
Norman
I am sorry to hear of Normans situation and have PM'd him to offer my help in getting him back on track.
However, his story is one I hear all to frequently and truly highlights the importance of the comments I made above, which I will repeat here...
JeffN wrote:
This is what happens to many who go out to eat and describe their diet as vegan. They may think it is easier, but it does not work and they are often left with unhealthy options that they rationalize as healthy because they are vegan.
Your perspective may be different, but mine is as a healthy person and as a health professional who works with unhealthy people (many of them already vegan) to help them get well, and from that perspective, the word vegan simply does not work.
When it comes to health and especially to the prevention and therapeutic intervention of serious health conditions, the term vegan is not enough.
In Health
Jeff
PS: We can also substitute the words plant-based, plant-strong, unprocessed, WFPB, etc etc. (or any label), for the word vegan. While a healthy therapeutic diet will include little to any animal products, it is much more than a diet that has little to any animal products in it. It is also a diet that is low in fat, sat fat, omega 6's, cholesterol, added sugars, added salt/sodium, added oil, and refined grains and processed foods. It is also a diet that is high in unrefined and minimally processed foods that are rich in naturally occurring fiber and nutrients, all in the proper amounts and ratio's.