Protein Malnutrition

Omnivorous Mankind By MARY PASCOE HUDDLESON 

Editor, Journal of the American Dietetic Association 

Ideal diet neither one-sided nor weird, despite proponents of various “fads”, expert contends. ... Menu for adequate amounts of all “protective” Meat is held essential for providing . . How explorers lived five years in the Arctic on exclusive diet of foods. readily convertible proteins. meat and returned in good health. . finds that “man is an omnivorous animal and subsists on the most extraordinary food combination”’. 

Let us consider meat from the point of view of its place in the diet of so-called normal or healthy persons. Meat is a tasty, agreeable food to many, and constitutes an important source of protein, an essential substance in the building and repairing of body tissue. Further than this, the proteins of meat, fish and other animal foods such as eggs, milk and cheese, are of high quality and can be readily converted into body tissue. 

An overwhelming array of evidence has been offered to show the ill effects of a diet too low in protein. We all know the type (usually female) who boasts of taking nothing but coffee, a slice of toast and fruit juice for breakfast, and selects a luncheon or dinner similar to this: fruit cup; vegetable plate consisting of three or four vegetables; a large green salad with French dressing; a fruit ice; and then more coffee. These foods are eaten with a virtuous feeling that such edibles are good for you. And so they are, in sensible amounts and when combined with sufficient of the animal sources of protein —meat, eggs, cheese. 

Man, while a mammal, is neither a rabbit nor a cow. It is difficult for him, yet comparatively easy for the cow, to get sufficient protein from vegetable food. The rabbit-like eater may go on for months without showing serious evidences of any lack. But probably many a languid, listless lady might perk up and change her mental outlook if she would only let herself go with a goodly cut of rare roast beef or a juicy steak. Not only is the non-meat eater apt to be short of protein (particularly if no milk, cheese or eggs enter into the diet), but listlessness and susceptibility to fatigue, suggestive of secondary anemia, can result when a diet is deficient in iron. Meat, as well as being a valuable source of protein, is a good source of iron. 

 Of all the dietetically inspired battles that have raged above the rattle of the tea cups, probably the one with the vegetarians on the one side and the meat-eaters on the other, has been the most heated. At times the disturbance raised reminds us of what the diet-faddist claims will happen if these two types of foods (carbohydrate rich and protein rich) get mixed up in the human stomach—an explosion! Writing m the Journal of the American Medical Association some time ago, Dr. Martin E. Rehfuss said: ‘Man is an omnivorous animal. He subsists equally well on the high-protein dietary (meat— fish) of the arctics, the high-carbohydrates regimen of the tropics, and the most extraordinary food combinations of the temperate zones.” On the surface this is true. Man seems to be more ‘adaptable than any other animal to a variety of situations. 

Perhaps the strongest argument in favor of an exclusive diet was presented in the observations of Dr. Eugene F. Du Bois of Bellevue Hospital on the explorers Stefansson and Anderson. Mr. Stefansson gave in Harpers Magazine a popular account of his adventures in diet. After living in the Arctic for a total of more than five years, exclusively on meat (fish and water), Mr. Stefansson returned to so-called civilization to tell of his good physical condition on such a diet. His views were looked upon with some skepticism. 

Finally a series of experiments were conducted upon Stefansson and Anderson at Bellevue Hospital, New York City. The men lived upon an exclusive meat diet for a little over a year. The meat consisted of beef, lamb, veal, pork and chicken and the portions of the animal used included the muscle, liver, kidney, brain, bone marrow, bacon and fat. The meat was taken for the most part only lightly cooked, except for the bone marrow which was eaten raw. At the end of the year the physical condition of both men was as good as at the beginning. There was no rise in their blood pressure; there was no evidence of kidney irritation or damage; no constipation developed nor any other obvious ill effects from the prolonged use of an exclusive meat diet. It is significant, however, that an exclusive meat diet, in order to be complete or adequate consists not only of flesh meat with a goodly portion of fat, but includes portions of the glandular structures such as kidney and liver as well. Furthermore, some of the meat eaten should be very lightly cooked, or practically raw. In the case of Stefansson and Anderson, the bone marrow was eaten raw, and they followed the Eskimo habit of eating fish bones and chewing rib ends, thus doubtless securing a fair amount of calcium. 

* * * 

The chief importance of this experiment was not to encourage people to live on an exclusive meat diet, since this would be economically expensive and socially inconvenient. It did serve, however, to show that meat is probably not the cause of all the evil effects that have been ascribed to it. In his series of articles, Stefansson himself concludes that “you could live on meat if you wanted to but there is no driving reason that you should”. 

But in the amounts usually taken in the American diet, meat serves its purpose as a valuable food; and in the light of reputable evidence there is little to be said against its place in the diet of normal people. Further than this, much that has been said against meat, to the effect that it causes or aggravates certain diseased conditions, seems to be open to question. Chief among the sins chalked up against meat have been the accusation that it is a disturbing or promoting factor in rheumatoid arthritis, kidney disease, Bright’s disease and high blood pressure. This sentiment is gradually being dispelled. 

Recent and authoritative medical writers now place little reliance on a low protein (or low meat) diet in arthritis. In contrast to the supposition that a high protein diet is productive of kidney damage, it is believed by many that a diet low in protein may damage practically all the body tissue, since protein food is essential for building and repairing body tissue. The dietary treatment, today, of chronic Bright’s disease of the kidney, includes sufficient protein food of good quality. If the diet in this disease is too low in protein foods, for example meat, it is said that the anemia so commonly associated with it comes on more rapidly. 

Dr. Clifford J. Barborka in “Treatment by Diet,” lists foods useful for their blood-building qualities as follows: meats (liver, kidney, beef, chicken gizzard, lamb); eggs, fruits (apricot, peach, prune, raisin) ; and vegeta- bles (spinach, beet greens, letuce). Cereals, dairy products and breadstuffs, according to Drs. Whipple and Robsheit-Robbins, have the minimum value, while liver is the most potent factor in hemoglobin production. .. . 

While the average American diet is believed not to be deficient in iron or protein, yet the many vague symptoms commonly attributed to the Spring, if it happens to be that time of the year, may be due to insufficient protein of good quality, or to insufficient iron. 

The ideal diet is one that contains adequate amounts of all the protective foods — milk and its products, eggs, leafy vegetables, fresh fruits, and meat. It is neither one-sided nor weird, and best of all it can be one which may be eaten with enjoyment as well as benefit to health. 

—Permission, This Week—N. Y. Herald-Tribune

Vegetarianism has taken on a "political correctness" comparable to the respectability it had in the last century, when many social and scientific progressives advocated it. Today, crusaders extol meatless eating not only as healthful but also as a solution to world hunger and as a safeguard of "Mother Earth." The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) aggressively attacks the use of animal foods and has proposed its own food-groups model, which excludes all animal products.

I disclaimed vegetarianism after many years of observance. Although the arguments in favor of it appear compelling, I have learned to be suspicious, and to search for hidden agendas, when I evaluate claims of the benefits of vegetarianism. Vegetarianism is riddled with delusional thinking from which even scientists and medical professionals are not immune.

Don't get me wrong: I know that meatless diets can be healthful, even desirable, for some people. For example: (a) Men with an iron-loading gene are better off without red meat, because it contains heme iron, which is highly absorbable and can increase their risk of heart disease. (b) Because vegetarian diets are likely to contain less saturated fat than nonvegetarian diets, they may be preferable for persons with familial hypercholesterolemia. (c) Vegetables contain phytochemicals that appear protective against colorectal cancer. (d) Homocysteinemia (elevated plasma homocysteine) approximately doubles the risk of coronary artery disease. Several congenital and nutritional disorders, including deficiencies of vitamins B6 and B12 and folic acid, can cause this condition. Since folic acid occurs mostly in vegetables, low intakes of the vitamin are less likely among vegetarians than among nonvegetarians. (e) Some people find that being a vegetarian helps to control their weight. Vegetarianism tends to facilitate weight control because it is a form of food restriction; and in our overfed society, food restriction is a plus unless it entails a deficit of some essential nutrient.

However, one need not eliminate meat from one's diet for any of the foregoing reasons. Apparently, it is ample consumption of fruits and vegetables, not the exclusion of meat, that makes vegetarianism healthful.

Dog Day Afternoon?

The term "vegetarian" is misleading, for it is not a name for people who favor vegetable consumption, but a code word for those who disfavor or protest the consumption of animal foods. The neologism anticarnivorist better characterizes the majority of those who call themselves vegetarians. I call myself a "vegetable enthusiast," because I strongly encourage eating lots of vegetables, including legumes, whole grains, and fruits. I believe that these foods are desirable not only because of their high nutrient density and low caloric density, but also because of aesthetic and gustatory factors. Being a vegetable enthusiast doesn't entail rejecting the use of meat or animal products.

Most people who categorize vegetarians identify at least five different kinds, based on which types of animal food they consume: Semivegetarians consume dairy products, eggs, fish, and chicken; pesco-vegetarians consume dairy products, eggs, and fish; lacto-ovo-vegetarians, dairy products and eggs; ovo-vegetarians, eggs; and vegans, no animal foods. From a behavioral standpoint, I categorize vegetarians as either pragmatic or ideologic. A pragmatic vegetarian is one whose dietary behavior stems from objective health considerations (e.g., hypercholesterolemia or obesity). Pragmatic vegetarians are rational, rather than emotional, in their approach to making lifestyle decisions. In contrast, vegetarianism is a "matter of principle" for ideologic vegetarians; its appropriateness is a given.

One can spot ideologic vegetarians by their exaggerations of the benefits of vegetarianism, their lack of skepticism, and their failure to recognize (or their glossing over of) the potential risks even of extreme vegetarian diets. Ideologic vegetarians make a pretense of being scientific, but they approach the subject of vegetarianism more like lawyers than scientists. Promoters of vegetarianism gather data selectively and gear their arguments toward discrediting information that is contrary to their dogma. This approach to defending a position is suitable for a debate, but it cannot engender scientific understanding.

Because of the influence of my Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) environment, I practiced vegetarianism for many years. My wife and I even tried to give up consuming all animal products, but this didn't work. We sometimes muse aloud about the morning we put soymilk on our breakfast cereal. We ended up eating the cereal with a fork because we found the mixture repulsive. We had another unforgettable experience when we ate with a group of vegetarian hippies in the Oregon woods. We were there at their request to advise them on vegetarian eating. They had already prepared the worst-looking vegetarian stew I have ever seen or tasted. It consisted of raw peanuts and a variety of half-cooked vegetables. After eating it, I had heartburn for hours. Digestive distress is legendary among SDAs.

Reasons for adopting vegetarianism can be very personal. Some years ago I shared a podium for several days with a vegetarian. It became clear from our informal conversations that he was not religious; so I asked him why he had opted for vegetarianism. He told me a touching story about having been a lonely boy whose closest companion was his pet dog. He said that, peering into the dog's eyes one day, he had come to see the animal as a fellow being. Soon he had applied this view to all animals, and since he could not bear the thought of eating his dog, he could no longer eat other animals.