Vegetarian Myth

As we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association), it is a good time to reflect on our Academy’s rich history.

It is a time to honor and recognize the visionary women who started our professional organization. One such woman was the Academy’s co-founder Lenna Frances Cooper. In describing her character and dedication to the dietetic profession, the July 1965 Journal of The American Dietetic Association states, “This woman who accomplished so much in the field of applied nutrition and dietetics was slight of stature, quiet in voice, and gentle in manner, but she had the true spirit and courage of the pioneers. She had vision, steadfastness of purpose, high integrity, and a thirst for knowledge which she shared freely with her students and staff. Her warm personality and deep understanding of others made her an ideal teacher and dietitian and won friends wherever she went.” (1).

Lenna achieved much in her nutrition and dietetics career. To give structure and professionalism to the field of dietetics, she was the first to propose the formation of the American Dietetic Association (now known as the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics), which she co-founded in 1917. She became the Academy’s first vice president and later served as the fourteenth president in 1937. During World War I, she was the first Supervising Dietitian for the U.S. Army (1918- 1919). Lenna saw the need to economize food during the war and in 1917 wrote the book, How to Cut Food Costs. In 1929, as a charter member, she became the first president of the Michigan Dietetic Association. Lenna served on the staff of the U.S. Surgeon General and created the Department of Dietetics at the National Institutes of Health. Her greatest renown came as senior author of Nutrition in Health and Disease, used as a textbook for 30 years in dietetic and nursing programs throughout the world.

Each year at the Food & Nutrition Conference & Expo™ (FNCE®), the Academy recognizes and honors Lenna’s legacy of leadership in nutrition and dietetics through the presentation of the Lenna Frances Cooper Memorial Lecture Award. This highly esteemed award is presented to a dedicated Academy member, notable and inspiring speaker, and a role model who has made significant contributions to the profession of nutrition and dietetics. Yet, few Academy members are aware of Lenna’s personal career background and history as a pioneer in the field of vegetarian nutrition and dietetics. Her study and career in food and nutrition began with a focus and specialization in vegetarian nutrition.

https://www.vndpg.org/vn/about/vn-history/academy-co-founder-lenna-frances-cooper-a-pioneer-in-vegetarian-nutrition-and-dietetics

John Harvey Kellogg sought to prove that vegetarians were physically superior by fielding a Battle Creek College football team, which he personally coached. According to a former player, "Brother" Wright, whenever Kellogg's players lost, he railed at them for cheating on their diets and held them captive until one would say he had broken training rules and eaten meat. Wright stated that sometimes a player would eventually lie that he had eaten meat just to get the team released. He described Kellogg's efforts as "a crusade to prove the superiority of vegetarianism." Ellen G. White's condemnation of this approach to proving SDA superiority led to a policy restricting interscholastic sports by Adventist schools.

The 1932 Cauldron reports that after a single win in 1926, “football was found to be unsuccessful at Battle Creek College and was discontinued the next year.” https://www.lostcolleges.com/battle-creek-college

THE INTREPID FOOD CRUSADER REFORMERS ARE A HARD-DYING LOT.  Among the most persistent of the species is the dietary zealot. The man who conceives it to be his sacred mission to improve the eating or drinking habits of his fellow-beings will not accept defeat. Beaten at one end of the line, he immediately returns to the assault at the other. 

A couple of years ago an experiment was conducted in New York City for the purpose of testing the effects of an all-meat diet on the human system under conditions as found in the temperate zone. The laboratory material was the explorers Stefansson and Andersen, who had lived in the Arctics for long periods on the food of the native Eskimos, which is practically nothing but meat, and thrived on it. After a year’s time, during which the twain were subjected to rigid scientific control, the most painstaking examination failed to reveal the faintest trace of injury, physical or mental. 

Naturally, this did not “set well” with our food faddists. A number of alibis were at once forthcoming: The two men were exceptional specimens, of extraordinary toughness, inured to hardships and all manner of dietary irregularities; the period of trial had not been nearly long enough; anyway, what apparently had proved harmless in their case would not do at all for the average individual; etc., etc. 

To this chorus of denunciation is now added a note that we have not heard before. In Glendale, near Los Angeles, is a sanitarium which publishes a little magazine called Glendale Sanitarium Health Exponent, “devoted to the interests of better and finer living,” as stated on the title-page. The “summer number” of this periodical contains an article from the pen of P. Martin Keller, M.D., entitled “Does an Exclusive Meat Diet Insure Health?” In this we read: 

Recently in Los Angeles there could be found on the various large bill-posting boards the following statement: “Meat is the only single food which will sustain life for an unlimited time.” This, I suppose, was placed on the boards by the meat interests as a result of recent experiments of Dr. Lieb’s. He took as subjects Stefansson and Andersen, who have had experiences in the Arctic region. 

But, says the author, the two gentlemen “did not live entirely on a meat diet—they lived chiefly on fat (!): One-half pound of tallow and a few ounces of meat was their daily ration.” Stefansson, who had been placed on “an exclusive meat diet,” was compelled to give it up after a while and mix it with fat, as the lean ‘meat created “digestive disturbances.” Consequently, argues the writer, the contention that “an exclusive meat diet” insures health was not proved. 

Furthermore, Dr. Keller goes on, examinations have shown that the “intestinal contents of animals that live almost exclusively upon raw meat” harbor “large quantities of putrefactive bacteria” which, injected into guinea-pigs, kill. Not only that, but “a purely meat diet increases the work upon the heart.” This has been demonstrated by experiments on—cats. After a meal of meat, there was a rise in the rate of feline heart-beats “above the fasting level.” 

Just what it is sought to prove by this sort of stuff is not clear. Is it the doctor’s thesis that man, in order to insure health and long life, must not forget to mix his fat with his lean? Or that lions and tigers could get rid of the obnoxious bacteria which inhabit their intestines by having their meat well cooked? Or that cats do not know what is good for them, and could reduce their pulse-rate to the “fasting level,” thus insuring their “better and finer living,” by turning vegetarians? 

Effusions such as these could be ignored, or laughed out of court, were it not for the fact that too many people, in matters of diet, are in the habit of listening to, and being influenced by, anything, no matter how absurd or easily refutable, put out by quasi-experts in the name of science—especially if these have an M.D. handle to their names. 

It should not need restatement that no sane person has ever recommended a diet for human beings consisting wholly of raw meat, lean meat, meat mixed with fat, or meat in any other shape or combination. To intimate that stockmen, or anybody else connected with the “meat interests,” hold an exclusive meat diet to be a guarantee of good health is too absurd for a moment’s consideration. To ordinary logic the food fanatic seems as impervious as he is devoid of a sense of fair play. Either he concocts his arguments out of thin air, or he attempts to twist a laboratory demonstration of an isolated phenomenon into a law of universal application. Having set up a dummy to shoot at, nothing is too grotesque to serve as pellets for his little popgun. 

What live-stock men do stress is that meat, in the cold and temperate zones, is a natural, wholesome, and necessary food for man; that for the average healthy, active, human being, meat in even liberal quantities is an indispensable part of the daily diet, if full efficiency is to be maintained; that, under normal conditions, an ideal menu is one in which dairy products, vegetables, and fruits, in the right proportions (which everybody must determine for himself accord- ing to his individual needs) are grouped around meat as the central item; that, as an appetizing, tissue- building, strength-imparting food, meat has no equal; that the meat-eating nations throughout the centuries have been the nations of achievement; that among men noted for their accomplishments in war and peace, in art and science, in literature and music, the great majority in all ages have been meat-eaters; that in sanatoria for those of depleted systems—for those, for example, suffering from tuberculosis, diabetes, anemia, and other insidious diseases—chief reliance is placed in meat, meat and gland extracts, and other foods of high protein content, as an aid in building up the patient’s strength; that physicians, with few exceptions, testify to the faith that is in them by being generous partakers of meat themselves. 

These are facts, easily verifiable. But if further proof is needed of the effect of a meat diet, as compared with one of nothing but fruit and vegetables, visit a convention of vegetarians, or go to one of their restaurants, and then attend a meeting of stockmen, or sit down with a bunch of cow-punchers around the chuck-wagon, and notice the difference! 

Dr. Keller ends his discourse by painting a blood-curdling picture of the procession of innocent animals marching to the shambles to satisfy man’s cannibal appetite for flesh. The answer to this is that the sacrifice of lower forms in the interest of higher has always been, and always will be, a concomitant of organic life. As long as the destruction is not wanton, purposeless, unnecessarily painful, or likely to exterminate beneficial species, it is justifiable. Would the doctor extend his protecting hand of fellowship to the fly that drags its filthy legs over his Shredded Wheat biscuit, to the cockroach that devours his cracker, or to the mosquito that sucks his bacterium-free vegetarian blood? In his opinion, would it be less reprehensible to turn our herds of cattle out to die of cold or starvation, or to permit them to propagate their kind without check, until their numbers multiplied to such an extent as to spell wreck and ruin for every grain-and truck-farmer in the land? In that case, where would our vegetarians be?

East of Eden

It is possible to provide all essential nutrients except vitamin B12 without using animal foods. On the other hand, it is possible to provide all essential nutrients with a diet composed only of meat. Personal dietary appropriateness including the value of a diet as a source of essential nutrients and its value as a preventative for oneself and one's significant others is the foremost dietary consideration of pragmatic vegetarians. In contrast, the overriding dietary consideration of ideologic vegetarians varies with the particular ideology. Typically, their motivation is a blend of physical, psychosocial, societal, and moral, often religious, concerns.

A continual problem for SDAs who espouse the "back to Eden" ideology is the absence of a non-animal food source of vitamin B12. A vegetarian Registered Dietitian who wrote a column for a church periodical asked me if I thought vegans could derive vitamin B12 from organic vegetables that were unwashed before ingestion. I opined that it would be better to eat animal foods than fecal residues. She agreed.

A perennial assumption among vegetarians is that vegetarianism increases longevity. In the last century, Grahamites devotees of the Christian "hygienic" philosophy of Sylvester Graham (1794-1851) taught that adherence to the Garden of Eden lifestyle would eventuate in humankind's reclamation of the potential for superlongevity, such as that attributed to Adam (930 years) or Methuselah (969 years). I discussed this matter 25 years ago with an SDA physician who was dean of the Loma Linda University (LLU) School of Health. Although he admitted that lifelong SDA vegetarians had not exhibited spectacular longevity, he professed that longevity of the antediluvian sort might become possible over several generations of vegetarianism. SDA periodicals publicize centenarians and often attribute their longevity to the SDA lifestyle. However, of 1200 people who reached the century mark between 1932 and 1952, only four were vegetarians. 10 I continue to ask: Where on Earth is there an exceptionally longevous population of vegetarians? Hindus have practiced vegetarianism for many generations but have not set longevity records. At best, the whole of scientific data from nutrition-related research supports vegetarianism only tentatively. The incidence of colorectal cancer among nonvegetarian Mormons is lower than that of SDAs. 11 A review of populations at low risk for cancer showed that World War I veterans who never smoked had the lowest risk of all. 12 As data accumulate, optimism that diet is a significant factor in cancer appears to be diminishing. An analysis of 13 case-control studies of colorectal cancer and dietary fiber showed that, for the studies with the best research methods, risk estimates for dietary fiber and colorectal cancer were closer to zero.13 A pooled analysis of studies of fat intake and the risk of breast cancer that included SDA data showed no association. 14

A meatless diet can facilitate weight control because it is a form of food restriction. But one need not eliminate meat to maintain a healthy weight, and there are many overweight vegetarians. Surely prudence and selectivity overshadow mere abstention from consuming animal products.

Meat as a Food 

Meat is one of the most important foods. It is usually the item around which the balanced meal is built. In studying the composition and the chemical constituents of meat, the role it plays in the diet will be understood. 

Protein. 

Meat is undoubtedly the most widely used of all animal proteins. This use of meat as a source of protein is scientifically sound because of the high biological value of its protein. The belief is no longer held that proteins from whatever source are of equal value in the diet. 

Dr. H. H. Mitchell makes this point clear in the following statement: "Even vegetable foods such as dried (navy) beans and cocoa, which are relatively rich in crude protein are unimportant as sources of protein in nutrition because of the enormous losses of nitrogen in the course of their utilization in digestion, or in metabolism, or both. Their high content of protein is deceptive and the conclusion that such foods are 'meat substitutes/ though frequently stated, must be considered erroneous. "Among the animal foods it is evident that meats and meat products are preeminent as sources of protein. Although the biological value of animal tissue proteins (nitrogen) is appreciably lower than those of eggs or of milk, the higher content of protein in animal tissues, either on the fresh or dry basis, offsets or more than offsets their greater losses in metabolism.''1

McCollum and Simmonds emphasize the same point: "It is surprising that proteins of all peas and beans are of low biological value. This means that they are not well utilized when they form the sole source of protein in the diet. This fact compels a revision of views formerly held concerning the importance of seeds of the leguminous plants. A few years ago it was generally taught that peas and beans were excellent substitutes for meats. . . . Proteins from one source, rich in certain digestion products which were furnished in but small amounts by proteins from another source might be combined, and each protein would enhance the value of the other. Unfortunately, the proteins of peas, beans and soy beans do not enhance to any marked degree the quality of the cereal grain proteins. In this respect these proteins are distinctly inferior to meat proteins."2 

Dr. Casimer Funk and Dr. Benjamin Harrow make the following statement about the use of meat as protein food: "Meat is the most popular protein food, but at the same time contains other food constituents. We find proteins in peas, beans, and cereals, though as a rule the proteins found in the plant world are not as 'complete' as those found in the animal world. This is a strong argument against the adoption of a strictly vegetarian diet."3

A survey of Table 3 will disclose the marked superiority of animal foods over vegetable foods as sources of protein. Another angle from which protein study is approached is the supplementary relations which exist between proteins from different sources. Proteins with the same amino-acid deficiencies will not supplement each other. Proteins from meats are decidedly valuable in enhancing the proteins of the cereal grains. This is due not only to the fact that meats and cereal grains do not have the same amino-acid deficiencies but also to the fact that the proteins from both of these sources are highly assimilable. 

Fat. 

Fat is a valuable constituent of food. It is used in the body to form fatty tissue and to furnish energy. Fat has a greater fuel value than any other food constituent. One pound of fat will yield two and one-fourth times as much heat as do proteins or carbohydrates. Meats, especially the fat meats, such as bacon and salt pork, are splendid energy foods.