How much would vegetarianism benefit humanity?

[Lonewulf]

Funnily enough I often find that the overly sensitive ones, are vegans/vegetarians.
Must have something to do with DHA and IQ or the lack of desire to hunt.
They should just be thankful for supplements and that us meat eaters/providers put up with them

I'm not a vegan/vegetarian. I advocate cutting down on meat. I'm also a skeptic. As such, as I don't lack DHA, maybe I'm no less sensitive than you guys are, who have an equal amount of DHA, especially since I actually take fish oil pills as a sort of self-remedy for ADD. In fact, maybe I have more DHA than all of you, and this is the sign of a superior mind.

And considering that I was rated with an IQ of 130 as a child, and I doubt that's gone down as I'm not a vegan (and vegetarians were graded as having a much higher IQ in general), something tells me that I'm not the inferior mind here. In fact, because I do take fish oil pills, my IQ must be even higher! Maybe, say, 135 to 140.

Also, I'd just like to add that according to one study I read, the average amount of meat eaten by the average individual in the United States is 123 kilograms, compared to an average of 70 kilograms in Europe (and 80 kilograms in Germany); this was measuring the consumption of pork, chicken, and beef. Fish and the like weren't factored. Japan had about 40 kilograms a year, and I think China was about 53 or so. This has nothing to do with being vegan or not, but I find the figures intriguing.

Of course, as India ate only about 3 kilograms average per year, they must be true idiots down there. Or maybe that's just because they're Indian, I dunno.

 

[icerat]

I drink chocolate soy milk. For all I know, many vegans in this area to do the same thing. Just by drinking that milk, they drink supplements; just like I do. And normal milk is often fortified with some other ingredient, to add yet more supplements into your diet.

Good for you. I just checked all the soy milk products in my local supermarket. None had DHA.

Furthermore, cereal (not just for vegans or vegetarians) also contain supplements. For instance, limestone is very often added to cereal to give a boost to calcium. Ingesting supplements is not in any way comparable to "wearing head to toe body armour", and if you truly think so, then I'm not the one with the lower IQ here.

Supplementation (a) does not change the fact of nutrients lacking in a diet and (b) is generally not as effective as real food, particularly with synthetic isolates.

So assuming that vegans never take supplements is a lot like assuming skeptics do not drive cars. It's equally moronic.

I never made any such assumption. However your argument that DHA deficiency is not a problem for vegans/vegetarians because of supplements is dependent on all of them supplementing. That seems to me a quite extraordinary position.

Or is it that hard to buy such ingredients in the UK (I assume so because of the spelling of "armor")?

Aussie in Sweden actually. Without even going into the issues around supplementation, which is another whole kettle of fish so to speak, yes in many parts of the world finding appropriately fortified foods is difficult.

Okay. Show us the research. So far, all you have that's definitive is some study with a poorly represented group; how much IQ would I lose, definitively, if I went off DHA for 1 year? 5 years? 10 years?

Only definitive way to answer that for you is to try it.

For all the words in your post, you haven't addressed my similar question.

Which? That DHA isn't needed past developmental stages? Spending 30 milliseconds in some self research. It's like your asking me to provide evidence water is necessary. Why do you think your soy is DHA fortified, just marketing?

 

[icerat]

This has nothing to do with being vegan or not, but I find the figures intriguing.

And you used them in a multitude of non sequiturs. IQ is age specific you know.

 

[Lonewulf]

And you used them in a multitude of non sequiturs. IQ is age specific you know.

Cool.

Well, I could always retake the IQ test, I suppose, but I don't want to embarrass you all with how awesome I am.

 

[Lonewulf]

Good for you. I just checked all the soy milk products in my local supermarket. None had DHA.

Weird.

I have Silk soymilk right here. Right on the back, it says that it has 190 milligrams of Omega 3's

"Every creamy, delicious serving of Silk Chocolate delivers calcium for your bones, 11 essential vitamins and minerals, antioxidants, ALA omega-3's and beneficial soy protein".

Oh well, I guess San Antonio, Texas is just ahead of the game here.

And you're absolutely right! Buying soymilk, then drinking it, is totally as expensive and uncomfortable as wearing body-length ballistic armor!

Also, I did buy at a special vegan/vegetarian store, called the Wal-Mart Supercenter. They're especially popular for carrying vegan-only products.

Supplementation (a) does not change the fact of nutrients lacking in a diet and (b) is generally not as effective as real food, particularly with synthetic isolates.

You know, everyone talks about "not as effective", yet they cannot define that term. It seems to be just a BS way of saying, "Well, uhm, okay, but it's not as good, you know?", without having to define what that means; it's a cop out. How much fortified soymilk do I have to drink, then, to prevent my brain from decaying?

I never made any such assumption. However your argument that DHA deficiency is not a problem for vegans/vegetarians because of supplements is dependent on all of them supplementing. That seems to me a quite extraordinary position.

Yeah, Silk Soymilk isn't available anywhere besides San Antonio, Texas.

Aussie in Sweden actually.

Weird, I guess the U.S. is better at DHA than they are up there, given that we have it in our milk and soymilk.

Without even going into the issues around supplementation, which is another whole kettle of fish so to speak, yes in many parts of the world finding appropriately fortified foods is difficult.

Including in the United States, Canada, Western Europe (well, apparently Sweden is quite behind!)?

Only definitive way to answer that for you is to try it.

So you cannot tell me how much DHA affects IQ. Okay, noted.

Which? That DHA isn't needed past developmental stages? Spending 30 milliseconds in some self research. It's like your asking me to provide evidence water is necessary.

Well, you're the expert, after all.

You're the one with lots of studies that vegans are dumb, even if you only provided one questionable one.

Why do you think your soy is DHA fortified, just marketing?

Yeap. It's clearly labeled. We have something called the FDA, and have similar organizations that prevent companies from falsely labeling our products. I don't know how bad it is in Australia or Sweden, though; from the sounds of it, I wouldn't trust any product up there, if they're clearly labeled but have absolutely nothing they're labeled with in the product.

From wikipedia (Yeah, I know, I'm sure they're lying too):

The Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition is the branch of the FDA which is responsible for ensuring the safety and accurate labeling of nearly all food products in the United States.[7] One exception is meat products derived from traditional domesticated animals, such as cattle and chickens, which fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service. Products which contain minimal amounts of meat are regulated by FDA, and the exact boundaries are listed in a memorandum of understanding between the two agencies. However, medicines and other products given to all domesticated animals are regulated by the FDA through a different branch, the Center for Veterinary Medicine. Other consumables which are not regulated by the FDA include beverages containing more than 7% alcohol (regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in the Department of Justice), and non-bottled drinking water (regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)).

[...]

The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 mandated that the FDA regulate dietary supplements as foods, rather than as drugs. Therefore, dietary supplements are not subject to safety and efficacy testing and there are no approval requirements. The FDA can take action against dietary supplements only after they are proven to be unsafe. Manufacturers of dietary supplements are permitted to make specific claims of health benefits, referred to as "structure or function claims" on the labels of these products. They may not claim to treat, diagnose, cure, or prevent disease and must include a disclaimer on the label.[8]

Meanwhile, the vegetarians are totally ahead of the game than you and and your friend here, according to nearly the only study you've cited on the subject. I wonder why that is? I mean, if DHA was the only consideration, then how are vegetarians consuming more DHA than you are?

I find your argument interesting. You claim that supplementation isn't available for everyone, so it isn't significant enough to consider when talking about veganism. Well, not everyone can afford a car either, and not everyone has a computer, but that doesn't mean that computers and cars aren't significant.

Yeah, sure, in certain countries they don't have access to fortified foods and drinks, and don't have access to supplements; I'm sure that there really are a majority of stupid people in India, given their very low intake of meat products. But that does not mean that I'm not in the United States, and don't have access to the commissary in Germany. If I were to go vegan, I'd still have access to these products (soy milk, mainly), and so measuring my IQ without factoring this into the statistics would result in a flawed summary if you were to assume that Vegan = No DHA

 

[icerat]

"Every creamy, delicious serving of Silk Chocolate delivers calcium for your bones, 11 essential vitamins and minerals, antioxidants, ALA omega-3's and beneficial soy protein".

Oh well, I guess San Antonio, Texas is just ahead of the game here.

Umm ... no ... you are behind the game. We're discussing DHA, not ALA.

You know, everyone talks about "not as effective", yet they cannot define that term.

Of course it be defined - doesn't work as well. The reasons for this are varied depending on the nutrient, ranging from a lack of co-factors that aid absorption through to the simple issue of marketing, for example "vitamin E" on a packet refers to a synthetic form of alpha-tocopherol, which is about 50% less bioavailable than the natural form, which is one of 8 varieties of what's called Vitamin E. The different forms don't all do the same thing.

Weird, I guess the U.S. is better at DHA than they are up there, given that we have it in our milk and soymilk.

DHA is also extremely important in the retina. Perhaps with more you'd be able to discern the differences in the letters ALA and DHA.

The rest of your post can be safely ignored until you sort out that little problem.

 

[Lonewulf]

Perhaps with more you'd be able to discern the differences in the letters ALA and DHA.

Well, since you're calling me a liar as I've said several times I'm not a vegan, I'm not sure I'm ready to debate with you at all anymore. But oh well, I'll just attribute it to your lack of literacy.

It's amusing how often these "skeptics" leap into ad hominem arguments. "Oh, you just disagree with me because you have a lack of DHA!" Of course, they have no evidence that I lack DHA, but what matters to a skeptic? "Skepticism" is defined as "leaping to assumptions that justify your bias", after all. And I must be lying about my not being a vegan, since I disagree with icerat.

And yes, I suppose I made a mistake. I thought DHA was more dependent on Omega 3s, I didn't realize there were different forms of Omega 3 and ALA didn't function at all.

I was going to kill myself anyways, what's one more excuse?

EDIT:

Huh, whaddya know?

http://daytodayvegan.blogspot.com/2007/07/silk-soy-milk-plus-with-omega-3-dha.html

I guess it does exist! The holy grail does exist! And it managed to evade icerat's 1337 googling skills. Apparently, "soymilk DHA" was too difficult for him.

Another product:

http://www.alibaba.com/product-free/215119105/Organic_Soy_Milk_Plus_DHA.html

And this is just soy milk alone. It's not like other vegan foods cannot be fortified.


And icerat is still incapable of explaining how vegetarians are smarter! But I can see why icerat would want to "safely ignore" the one thing that throws his entire study in his face. According to the links I'm viewing, it's perfectly viable to assume that vegetarians in general can assume to have a lower DHA count than non-vegetarians. So what is it?

Of course it be defined - doesn't work as well. The reasons for this are varied depending on the nutrient, ranging from a lack of co-factors that aid absorption through to the simple issue of marketing, for example "vitamin E" on a packet refers to a synthetic form of alpha-tocopherol, which is about 50% less bioavailable than the natural form, which is one of 8 varieties of what's called Vitamin E. The different forms don't all do the same thing.

Okay, so how much DHA fortified soymilk should I drink daily? What if I had other sources of DHA? How much DHA should I ingest before I become as brilliant as vegetarians?

 

[Lonewulf]

You know, as this whole argument is just one big Ad Hominem, I think I'm fed up with it.

I'm unsubscribing from this thread.

 

[icerat]

Well, since you're calling me a liar as I've said several times I'm not a vegan, I'm not sure I'm ready to debate with you at all anymore. But oh well, I'll just attribute it to your lack of literacy.

I never called you a liar. The only thing I've done is point out itäs difficult to get DHA in a vegetarian diet. You disputed this not by addressing diet, but supplements or fortifications, and then provided "evidence" by an ingredience list of ALA, not DHA

It's amusing how often these "skeptics" leap into ad hominem arguments. "Oh, you just disagree with me because you have a lack of DHA!"

That was a joke dude. If you took offence, my apologies.

I guess it does exist! The holy grail does exist! And it managed to evade icerat's 1337 googling skills. Apparently, "soymilk DHA" was too difficult for him.

Nope, I never even tried looking. I assumed DHA fortified soymilk did exist. Doesn't change my point.

And icerat is still incapable of explaining how vegetarians are smarter! But I can see why icerat would want to "safely ignore" the one thing that throws his entire study in his face. According to the links I'm viewing, it's perfectly viable to assume that vegetarians in general can assume to have a lower DHA count than non-vegetarians. So what is it?

I actually addressed this in my initial comments, you must have missed it. It seems possible that smarter people elect to be vegetarians. That doesn't mean individually they wouldn't cognitively perform better with additional DHA.

Okay, so how much DHA fortified soymilk should I drink daily? What if I had other sources of DHA? How much DHA should I ingest before I become as brilliant as vegetarians?

We still don't know how much DHA is optimal, but recommendations from a 2000 NIH workshop are at least 220mg per day in a 2000 calorie diet, and probably as much as 500mg, assuming omega-6 levels are also controlled.

 

[Prometheus]

My understanding is that normal, healthy adults convert ALA to both EPA and DHA. Direct EPA/DHA supplementation is only necessary for infants and those with an illness or disorder that prevents conversion.

 

[icerat]

My understanding is that normal, healthy adults convert ALA to both EPA and DHA. Direct EPA/DHA supplementation is only necessary for infants and those with an illness or disorder that prevents conversion.

Unfortunately not quite true. Adults can convert ALA to DHA, however we know now it's very inefficient and does not produce significant enough amounts, particularly in men.

 

[Prometheus]

Unfortunately not quite true. Adults can convert ALA to DHA, however we know now it's very inefficient and does not produce significant enough amounts, particularly in men.

Significant enough for what, though? Isn't the only good natural food source of DHA from cold water fish? What's been going on with all the millions of people who've lived in places where fish can't be a regular part of their diet through human history?

 

[!Kaggen]

Isn't the only good natural food source of DHA from cold water fish?

No, "In Australia and New Zealand food can be labeled as a source if it contains 30mg of EPA/DHA per serving (FSANZ 2002). Except for one ground beef sample, all grass-fed meat reviewed in this report would meet this standard." from http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/greener-pastures.pdf

What's been going on with all the millions of people who've lived in places where fish can't be a regular part of their diet through human history?

Good question.
All I know is that I would rather eat sustainably raised grass-fed meat for my EPA/DHA requirements than fish from unsustainably harvested dwindling sources.

 

[icerat]

Significant enough for what, though? Isn't the only good natural food source of DHA from cold water fish? What's been going on with all the millions of people who've lived in places where fish can't be a regular part of their diet through human history?

DHA is not necessary for survival and reproduction, though it likely provides a a selective advantage. I'd be fascinated to do a geographic study on DHA consumption and IQ or even technical innovation.Here's a recent study on teenage boys, IQ, and fish consumption

No, "In Australia and New Zealand food can be labeled as a source if it contains 30mg of EPA/DHA per serving (FSANZ 2002). Except for one ground beef sample, all grass-fed meat reviewed in this report would meet this standard." from http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/greener-pastures.pdf

Well ... I suspect there's a reason why that report groups EPA and DHA together! Wild or "freerange" meat can be a good source of EPA, but not DHA. They are not the same thing.

All I know is that I would rather eat sustainably raised grass-fed meat for my EPA/DHA requirements than fish from unsustainably harvested dwindling sources.

And you can for EPA, but alas, not so good for DHA. I refer you to the following graph comparing grain fed vs grass fed cattle -



source: Strategies for Optimising the Fatty Acid Composition of Beef (p.43)

DHA is C22:6n-3. As you can see, while grass fed beef is better than grain fed, it's still not a good source. Note that brains and liver can be a good source as that's where DHA concentrates.

 

[!Kaggen]

DHA is not necessary for survival and reproduction, though it likely provides a a selective advantage. I'd be fascinated to do a geographic study on DHA consumption and IQ or even technical innovation.Here's a recent study on teenage boys, IQ, and fish consumption



Well ... I suspect there's a reason why that report groups EPA and DHA together! Wild or "freerange" meat can be a good source of EPA, but not DHA. They are not the same thing.



And you can for EPA, but alas, not so good for DHA. I refer you to the following graph comparing grain fed vs grass fed cattle -

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_248274aa4e1e70bd33.png[/qimg]

source: Strategies for Optimising the Fatty Acid Composition of Beef (p.43)

DHA is C22:6n-3. As you can see, while grass fed beef is better than grain fed, it's still not a good source. Note that brains and liver can be a good source as that's where DHA concentrates.

The above study Strategies for Optimising the Fatty Acid Composition of Beef does say that "beef contributes significantly to man's intake of the important fatty acids EPA and DHA". Also the table above does not give absolute values of DHA, but as a % of total fatty acids. This still does not really show that the actual amount of DHA from a serving of grass fed beef cannot be regarded as a "source" or "good source" of DHA.

This review: http://www.issfal.org.uk/images/stories/pdfs/PUFAIntakeReccomdFinalReport.pdf also does not differentiate between EPA and DHA when it comes to the minimum recommended daily intakes for cardiovascular health.

 

[icerat]

This review: http://www.issfal.org.uk/images/stories/pdfs/PUFAIntakeReccomdFinalReport.pdf also does not differentiate between EPA and DHA when it comes to the minimum recommended daily intakes for cardiovascular health.

Current RDI recommendations for cardiovascular health are 250mg-500mg/day. Both EPA and DHA have influences there.

I'm however talking more about cognitive performance, for which DHA plays a significant role, from an experimental perspective we're still unsure how much is optimal, however this study indicates intake of around 460mg of DHA per day may be needed for optimal brain function.

EPA in the graph is C20:5n-3. As you can see, even in grass fed beef the proportion of EPA to DHA is about 4:1, in otherwords about 6-10mg of DHA per 100g of beef based on the reference you gave earlier. So to get 460mg of DHA you'd need to eat at least 4.6kg of grass fed beef a day.

This article has a nice section (from DHA and the adult brain down) on the day to day brain processes using DHA.

 

[!Kaggen]

Current RDI recommendations for cardiovascular health are 250mg-500mg/day. Both EPA and DHA have influences there.

I'm however talking more about cognitive performance, for which DHA plays a significant role, from an experimental perspective we're still unsure how much is optimal, however this study indicates intake of around 460mg of DHA per day may be needed for optimal brain function.

EPA in the graph is C20:5n-3. As you can see, even in grass fed beef the proportion of EPA to DHA is about 4:1, in otherwords about 6-10mg of DHA per 100g of beef based on the reference you gave earlier. So to get 460mg of DHA you'd need to eat at least 4.6kg of grass fed beef a day.

This article has a nice section (from DHA and the adult brain down) on the day to day brain processes using DHA.

Great info thanks.

I knew there was a good reason to take 925mg pharmaceutical grade DHA a day

apart from eating grass fed beef .

 

[icerat]

Great info thanks.

I knew there was a good reason to take 925mg pharmaceutical grade DHA a day

apart from eating grass fed beef .

As a related aside, one of the major benefits, health wise, of the grass fed beef is that it will dramatically decrease your omega-6 intake compared with eating grain feed beef. This means your body may actually get a chance to use the DHA supplements!

 

[Prometheus]

<snip> So to get 460mg of DHA you'd need to eat at least 4.6kg of grass fed beef a day.<snip>

To which I greedily respond: "Oh well, a man's gotta do, what a man's gotta do! Yum!"

Seriously, though, thanks for all the info--this is quite helpful!

 

[Perpetual Student]

All of mankind's problems that are supposed to be "solved" through vegetarianism are clearly caused by overpopulation. If the human race were to manage its population in a rational manner, the bizarre doctrine of vegetarianism would be relegated to the realm of religious taboos, which is where it belongs.