Carroll wrote:first of all I was very clear in that this particular family wasn't even vegan, so I didn't understand why they were used as an example of unhealthy vegans,
Because that is what the media does. It is how they sell their stories and make money. It is a highly competitive cut-throat market.
Carroll wrote:secondly, rather than make any assumptions at all I asked for details. Without knowing the details, all anyone can get from that story is that it's possible to think you are eating a very healthy diet and end up having children severely deficient... and that's fairly troubling, especially without even being able to know how they went wrong.
While I can see how you "got that" from the story, that is not at all what I got from the story, even before I knew the details. And that is my point, we always see things from our own framework and point of references.
Anyway, the details were not public and I was not at liberty to discuss them. However, i assured you they were following a very nutritionally inadequate diet, regardless of whether or not it was vegan and that was the issue. You will just have to trust me on that one.
However, it is not really asking too much to trust me on it because it is the exact same issue with the famous legal case down in S FL that I was also involved with. The story was that a baby died because its parents were vegan and the baby was being fed a vegan diet. This is what made all the news and headlines. 'Death by Veganism"
Again, this was not the case and is only the result of inaccurate media reporting. The baby was malnourished. The parents failed to provide adequate and enough nourishment, regardless of whether the food being supplied was vegan or not.
And, again, it is the exact same thing that happened with the report of the vegan who went blind from B12 deficiency that Dr McDougall discussed. That case was in the medical literature so the details were public. Again, it had nothing to do with veganism.
Therefore, it was just another example of the same thing that has happened many times and to ask you to trust me on that one example, with so many others available making the same point, was not asking a lot.
Carroll wrote:JeffN wrote:I think part of the problem here Caroll is that you and I both come from a time when being a vegan meant that most everything available for us to eat was healthy foods. Just think of the difference between what was available in a health food store in the early 70's that was vegan, and what is available in a health food store than is vegan, today.
![smile :)](./images/smilies/smile.gif)
f
Well, I don't know if that's entirely true... I mean white flour, soda, and potato chips (and cereals! -which btw, was shredded wheat always not vegan?) have been around a long time.... and skippy... but certainly there's a lot more junk 'health food' ...
Yes, they have been around for a long time but they were not sold in health food stores. In the early 70's there was virtually no packaged and/or processed foods sold in health food stores. Most all the food was sold in bulk bins and was whole grains, legumes, etc. That is what I am discussing.
Carroll wrote: I mean I am aware that there really are people eating morningstar farms thinking because it's labeled 'natural' that they are on a healthy diet,
Today.
But again, that was not possible 40 years ago and it was the rare exception when a product like that did exist 40 years ago. Today the regular food stores and the health food stores are flooded with these products and they are marketed and/or advertised as healthy to the general public like never before.
In addition, all the guidelines on what can be called healthy and promoted as healthy have changed and are much more lenient than they were 40 years ago.
Carroll wrote:but if people are sticking to unpackaged foods, which is what for the most part what people had to do 30 years ago,
Right. That is my point. We had to stick to whole natural foods as that was all that was available to us, for those of us in the natural food/living group and shopping at health food stories, co-ops and farmers markets. But that situation no longer exists for most people.
Carroll wrote:I just really don't see what the challenge or confusion could be...?? It just doesn't seem that difficult to me to recognize if you are eating whole foods or not.
Again, this is the inherent problem. It may be difficult for you to see but look out in the world and stop and talk to people. They are not eating whole foods.
Many Americans actually believe they are eating healthy and healthy natural (whole) foods, yet their shopping carts, homes and bodies are filled with junk food that has been cleverly marketed to convince them it is healthy, whole and good for them.
The FDA even changed the guidelines and the definitions of the word "Whole" and now lots of packaged processed foods can actually be labeled and marketed as a "whole" food.
In addition to Americans buying packaged and processed foods under the illusion they are whole foods, they are also buying supplements and are convinced that these supplements are actually "whole foods." There is a whole movement of whole foods supplements.
These people really believe they are consuming whole foods. To you and me it may be hard to believe but not for them and the environment they grew up in and are now in.
Carroll wrote:And if it really is that difficult then that is troubling in and of itself
Now you see the problem, which is reflected very often here on these boards and in these discussions
Without a doubt, over the last 15 years, the single biggest response I get to my lecture on Label Reading is, "OMG, I did not realize all the packaged processed food I was eating was so bad for me and just junk. I though I was doing the right thing and eating healthy, whole foods. It even said so on the box!"
All of this reminds me of the famous quote from The Wizard of Oz...
"Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas any more."
In the world of health and health foods, we left Kansas a long time ago.
![smile :)](./images/smilies/smile.gif)
Carroll wrote:No, I really don't assume that... but I also don't assume they must be being dishonest or not accurately following the program. Instead, I am curious as to exactly what aspect of their diet it is that may be preventing them from achieving perfect health or why they seem to have a greater challenge than others... and if it is really some misunderstanding that is reassuring on some level,
Yes. In most cases.
Look at my Favorite Threads thread above and the Discussions on the 10 reasons for failure. These are consistently the same reasons over and over that I see.
Carroll wrote:JeffN wrote:Remember, it doesn't mean someone is not following the plan. What it means is that because of their own personal concerns, they may have to adjust the plan to meet their individual specific needs.
I mean how often is that the case,
As I said in the other post recently, in my case, 100% of the time. Otherwise why would they come to me? They come to me because they are trying to follow the program and not reaching their goals. But that is not a bad thing or a statement against the effectiveness of the program.
Carroll wrote:is it really just the odd person that needs to be so strict and in that case, what is it about that person that makes them so much more sensitive than the average?
No one is average and we are all "odd" in our own ways.
You have to understand numbers and statistics. When they say the average cholesterol is 180, then does not mean there is anyone who has a cholesterol of 180, it just means the average out of the group was 180.
We are all individual with different pasts. Very few walk into these "rooms" because they have stellar health. People come here because they are not well and have in many ways lived through years of dietary and lifestyle abuses. These varies from person to person, along with their own sensitivities, individuality, etc etc.
Remember, medicine, nutrition and health is an science and an art. The science is the data. The art is how you apply the data to the individual (or how they apply it to themselves)
It has always been this way, and will always be this way.
Carroll wrote: JeffN wrote:Carroll wrote: Like I know I've wondered about those that have come here reporting their cholesterol has increased... they may have room for improvement, but shouldn't just getting the meat and dairy and oils out be enough?
Depends on what they replace it with and/or what else they are doing.
So there are no oil vegan foods that could actually increase cholesterol? I mean it's not just an issue of someone's makeup or prior health causing this to happen?
See, there is one of those assumptions
You are first assuming they are vegan and second assuming they are consuming "no oil" vegan foods or consuming a "no oil" vegan diet.
First, when someone comes here and says they are following the program and the cholesterol is too high, it does not mean they are consuming "no oil" vegan foods or a "no oil" vegan diet.
Second, There are plant foods that are high in saturated fats, hydrogenated fats and trans fats which can all increase cholesterol. While the hydrogenated and trans fats would be in processed foods, the saturated foods can be in naturally occurring vegan foods. There are naturally occurring plant foods that are high in saturated fat.
In addition, there are vegan foods that are calorie dense and are easy to overeat on and can increase someones weight. Increased weight can raise cholesterol.
In Health
Jeff