Vegetarian Myth

Value of a mixed diet. 

The question of a mixed diet versus the vegetarian diet revolves around the amount and kind of protein which most adequately meets body needs. From earliest times man has thrived on a mixed diet. Nature has equipped him to do so. The kind of teeth and the nature of his digestive apparatus clearly indicate the suitability of a mixed diet. Regarding the value of a mixed diet, McCollum says: "In general, a vegetable diet will be markedly improved by the inclusion of muscle tissue meat, and more so by the addition of the glandular organs, but even these features of the subject are not from the standpoint of good nutrition the most important. It is scarcely practicable for man to eat enough leafy foods to enable him to succeed with the strictly vegetable diet. The limiting factor is the amount of leafy food which can be consumed."1 

Vegetarian diet. 

It is possible to live on a strictly vegetarian diet but it is not easy to do so and maintain the body in the highest degree of efficiency. It is often shown that the so-called vegetarian diet is supplemented with animal protein in the form of milk and eggs. McCollum says: "The diet which is strictly vegetarian will practically always be of relatively low protein content. The addition of even small amounts of meat, even of the muscle variety, will be very valuable when such a regimen is adhered to. Eggs, because of their relative richness in fat-soluble A and water-soluble B, will be even more effective supplements, and the same statement will apply to the consumption of small amounts of glandular tissue. Even small amounts of foods of animal origin will tend, therefore, to enhance the diet of one who is forced by economic reasons, rather than by ethical reasons, to subsist in the main upon vegetable foods. In another connection we shall present data showing that a diet too low in protein or in which the proteins are of a poor quality, exerts very deleterious effects upon experimental animals." 2 

The objection of vegetarians to a meat diet are not valid, as one writer points out: "History does not indicate that the eating of meat has the debasing effect, physical or moral as feared by them (vegetarians). The most vigorous, intellectual and highly civilized people the world has known have eaten meat."3

1 MCCOLLUM, E. V., The Newer Knowledge of Nutrition, 2nd edition. 

2  , The Newer Knowledge of Nutrition, 2nd edition.

3 MCLESTER, JAMES S. , Nutrition and Diet in Health and Disease.

The reducing diet. 

A nutrition problem of considerable importance has arisen with the present-day fashion for a slender figure. It is doubly essential that the restricted diet be well balanced. A very important consideration in the reducing diet is the preservation of nitrogen equilibrium. In reducing there should be no loss of body protein. The reducing diet should be low in caloric value but sufficiently high in protein to abundantly equal the body needs. In addition to a liberal supply of protein, the quality of the protein is important. Proteins of high biologic value are necessary. These are the proteins which supply all of the amino-acids in adequate amounts for building the body tissues. Such proteins are found in meat, milk, and eggs as supplements to the cereal grain proteins. Sometimes in planning the reducing diet, the satiety value of the foods included is entirely overlooked. This gives rise to an unsatisfied feeling which is reflected in the disposition of the person on the diet. On this point McLester says: 

"Other things being equal, the patient should be allowed to eat the food which in largest measure allays his hunger and which gives him the greatest degree of satisfaction. Meat has the highest satiety value of all foods; it 'sticks to the ribs' longest. Therefore, the protein that the patient receives should be largely in the form of meat. For the same reason, clear meat soups and broths are also useful; they have high satiety values without carrying much real nourishment."! 

It is obvious that reducing is not to be entered into carelessly and without competent medical advice and direction. The growing girl who chooses a reducing diet neither wisely nor well is taking grave chances with her future health. She runs the risk of so lowering her resistance that she is an easy prey to disease. McLester points out the necessity of viewing the protein intake from a clinical viewpoint. He says: "I have been impressed by the anemia shown by many patients who, from necessity or from a desire to become fashionably thin, have subjected themselves to rigid dietary restrictions. Animal experimentation has proved that a diet which contains liberal amounts of meats is the best blood builder, and one wonders whether an optimum protein intake is not, after all, a good insurance against disease. Clinical experience shows that it is."2 

Overweight may be due to an organic condition which only a physician can diagnose, and a physician's guidance in matters of diet is essential. Where there is no organic cause for overweight, rational diet should still be the rule.

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

North by Northwest

Darla Erhardt, R.D., M.P.H., listed five vegetarian postulates: (1) All forms of life are sacred, and all creatures have a right to live out their natural lives. (2) It is anatomically clear that God did not design humans to eat meat. (3) Slaughter is repugnant and degrading. (4) Raising animals for meat is inefficient and misuses available land. (5) Animal flesh is unhealthful because it contains toxins, virulent bacteria, uric acid, impure fluids, and the wrong kinds of nutrients. 1 I find all of these axioms flawed:

1. The belief that all life is sacred can lead to absurdities such as allowing mosquitoes to spread malaria, or vipers to run loose on one's premises. Inherent in the idea that all life is sacred is the supposition that all forms of life have equal value. The natural world reveals hierarchies in the food chain, the dominance of certain species over others. And most creatures in the wild die (usually the victim of a predator) long before they have reached the genetic limit on their longevity.
2. The multifarious dietary practices of human populations belie the notion that humans are designed to be vegetarians rather than omnivores. For example, Australian aborigines consume insect larvae and reptiles, Eskimos eat raw meat, and traditional Hindus are vegetarians.The first SDA physician, John Harvey Kellogg (1852®¢1943), was a vegetarian zealot. Alonzo Baker, Ph.D., his former private secretary, told me of an incident that occurred circa 1939: Kellogg awakened him in the middle of the night and ordered him to board the morning train for Cleveland. There, Weston Price, D.D.S., who had just returned from the mysterious high north, was to give a report on Eskimo dietary habits. When Baker returned, he informed Kellogg of Price's finding that Eskimos ate raw meat almost exclusively (eskimo literally means "raw meat eater"). Kellogg accused Price of lying.Perhaps Kellogg disbelieved Price partly because it was widely known that the 1898 Yukon gold rushers had suffered extensively from scurvy. People generally believed that Eskimos derived their vitamin C from berries the snow had preserved. In fact, Eskimos derive vitamin C from the raw meat of animals who synthesize ascorbic acid. If they had cooked their meat, they would have developed scurvy like the gold rushers. (When I visited Northwest Territories, Canada, in 1973, a Franciscan monk who raised beautiful vegetables in a greenhouse in Pelly Bay told me that the Inuits, or North American Eskimos, didn't like their taste and wouldn't eat them.)3. Whether something is repugnant is highly individual. Some Hindus who will not eat animal foods readily drink their own urine for the sake of health. And what is repugnant for example, chores such as changing a baby's diaper or caring for sick people is not necessarily wrong. Whether such activities are degrading is a matter of opinion. That most prey are eaten while they are still alive testifies to the heartlessness of nature compared to slaughterhouses, where death is generally quick and painless.
4. The idea that animal-raising is an inefficient way to produce food is half-baked. Animals pull their weight when it comes to land-use and food-production efficiency: They graze on lands unsuitable for crop-growing, eat those portions of plants that are considered inedible (e.g., corn stalks and husks), and provide byproducts and services that ease human burdens. 2 Many nomadic populations survive on lands that lack farming potential by feeding on animals whose nourishment is coarse vegetation humans can't digest.5. The postulate that toxins render meat unfit as food also lacks merit. Plants also contain naturally occurring toxicants, many of which are far more deadly than those of animal flesh. 3 Vegetarian evangelists who revel in portraying animal foods as unhealthful disregard the fact that those societies that consume the most animal products enjoy record longevity. They also overlook the reality that the animals they brand as diseased are herbivores whose diet consists entirely of raw vegetation. These animals develop many diseases "despite" becoming vegans after weaning.

NOW YOU CAN READ the complete 20,000 word-for-word stenographic report of the Timely Informative Stimulating DEBATE ON 

"Is MEAT Essential for HEALTH"

 Two VEGETARIANS say NO! 

DR. JOHN MAXWELL, of Chicago, III. noted octogenarian nutritionist 

DR. CHRISTOPHER GIAN-CURSIO. D.C. of Rochester. N. Y. well-known natural hygienist 

versus Two MEAT EATERS say YES! 

THOMAS GAINES. of Los Angeles, Calif. nationally-known health lecturer 

PROF. FRANK SAUCHELLI. M.C. renowned writer and health crusader 

Foreword by BERNARR MACFADDEN pre-eminent physical culturist Held in New York City, October 13, 1946 PRICE S1.3S POSTPAID 

LEAGUE FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION 

117 West 48th St. New York