Going Vegan for 7 days, any tips, tricks? Update: DAY 11 and I'm Still Doin It...kind of

[Methodical Management]

How is that disingenuous? The object of pointing that out was to illustrate the point that nuts, seeds, and many of the foods that you vegans praise have large quantities of nutritional items that are not desirable, as is the case with meat. Yet you people parade around as if they don't. You conveniently left that fact out in order to perpetuate the myth that all nuts, seeds, and legumes are completely and utterly healthy and contain no drawbacks to eating them in quantities that get you the RDAs of various nutrients. [color= rgb(255, 255, 0)]My statement was not typed with the intention of putting one diet above the other (in that sense, any way).[/color]

You're just taking a different, more difficult, and less delicious way to the top of the satiation mountain.
Right, and you're not promoting one diet over another...

Let's talk about portion sizes for a moment.  Again, beef liver is your gold standard in B3, right?  You were the one to say, "If that piece of steak contains 50% of your required fat consumption for the day, cool," correct?

Let's look at beef liver:  http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3470/2  Mmm... pan fried beef liver - with that wonderful 14.2 mg of Niacin in just one slice.  You also get a full 21.5 grams of protein - 43% of your RDA, and only 6% of your saturated fat!  Chew on that, hippies! 

Oh... wait a second... that also provides 103% of your RDA of dietary cholesterol.  So, if that's the only thing you eat all day - you're still OD'ing. 

Chicken has lower cholesterol, but the Vega supplement I mentioned has less fat.  So if your whole point was that beef steak is a healthier source of Niacin, you're wrong, and if your point was that you can't get a "significant" quantity of B3 from a plant source, you're ALSO wrong.  Again that's ONE serving of beef.

Keep in mind, you ALSO said "Just because its made up in a laboratory doesn't mean its "fake" or "unnatural"."  So do NOT come back by saying that there's something wrong with using a vegan dietary supplement.

Split hairs if you like. 

What I care about is this:  you can get all of your vitamins and minerals from a healthy plant based diet. 

I'm going to need links to the studies that allude to these facts. Of course, these studies also have to require subjects that consume meat with "portioning" in mind (which is what I'm arguing), which I doubt they do. Keep in mind that your statement was that the mere consumption of red meat has been linked to cancer, no matter the amount. I'm going to create a study in which I monitor the health of people who consume a large amount of peanuts every single day, for the rest of their lives. What do you suppose the results of that study will be? I'm willing to bet that they won't be in the best of health with all that saturated fat in their systems.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032301626.html  I believe it was on the front page that day.

Those who ate FOUR OUNCES of red meat a day - around one SMALL hamburger - were THIRTY PERCENT more likely to die of heart disease and cancer within ten years. 

Don't tell me four ounces fits outside your definition of a "sensible serving."  Again, the N for that one was 500,000 people.  Big enough sample for you?

When that B3 argument was made, it was made with the notion of serving size in mind. I knew you would come back and list some type of nut and claim that its high in B3 as well, and I exploited the fact that the serving size required to get your RDA was unhealthy. Of course, the meat items that are high in B3 also contain undesirable quantities of nutritional items (liver contains an inordinate amount of cholesterol), however the point was to illustrate the similarities in the flaws of both types of diets. You fell right in to the trap.
You're so proud of yourself - but what did you accomplish? 

You said that you CAN'T get enough Niacin from a plant based source.  I said that you can.  You griped about saturated fats.  No problem.  I linked you to a source that offers all the B3 you need without all the fat. 

Way to go.  You certainly showed me.

If you think factory farming is a great idea because you consider it easy and tasty, that's on you - but you can't sit here, with any background in nutrition, and pretend that a well-planned vegan diet is unhealthy.

Straw man. That is not the point I'm presenting.

Then you shouldn't have presented in that throw-in line about difficulty and flavor in your arrogance. 

If you agree that a well planned vegan diet is unhealthy, then you're only succeeded in traveling the long way around the block to argue a moot point. 

 

[ninjallamafromhell]

Originally Posted by Method Man

It's a matter of choice.  I choose to be vegan.  While it's not currently the case, I earnestly hope that soon everyone will be empowered to choose veganism, too, if they wish. 

Jesus Christ, is this a serious sentence? 

 

[ninjallamafromhell]

Originally Posted by Method Man

It's a matter of choice.  I choose to be vegan.  While it's not currently the case, I earnestly hope that soon everyone will be empowered to choose veganism, too, if they wish. 

Jesus Christ, is this a serious sentence? 

 

[johnnyredstorm]

You always want a wide variety of color when it comes to fruits and vegetables. Red, purple, orange, and green are the basic four colors you want to include in your diet.

 

[johnnyredstorm]

You always want a wide variety of color when it comes to fruits and vegetables. Red, purple, orange, and green are the basic four colors you want to include in your diet.

 

[thebachellor]

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

TheBachellor, nice link on fallacies. I know what I will be reading for the rest of the night.

Ok, question for you. I understand your point of, "Just because you put in a bunch of fruits/veggies into a blender doesn't make it healthy." Can you tell me what I need to be looking for when consuming fruits and veggies in terms of blending them for easy consumption.

Thanks

It's just more of a question of what exactly are you consuming these fruits and veggies for? There can only be 3 reasons you're consuming them:

1. Vitamins and minerals
2. Fiber
3. Taste

If you're consuming them for #1, then you're going to have to know what fruits are rich in what vitamins. Throwing kiwis and oranges in to a blender isn't going to get you far since they're both rich only in Vitamin C. Getting a fruit that's rich in each vitamin is a pain and you'll most likely end up consuming too much of one, if not several vitamins in the process. Not to mention the fact that you'll be adding on to your calorie count for the day without feeling full (since you're blending them). So now you're 500 calories deep in to your 2000 calorie daily requirement (more if you work out and exercise) and all you've had is a fruit drink. You're going to have to get those other 1500 calories throughout the day... keeping in mind that a full "meal" can be as much as 1000 calories. So that's one meal that makes you full, one drink, and another 500 calories that you have to consume. 500 calories is a small amount and most likely will not make you full. So at the end of the day, you'd have had 1 drink, 1 meal full meal, and 1 small meal to satisfy you throughout the day.  Throw vegetables and the minerals they have in to the equation and that's even more calories that you'll consume in that drink, only to get your RDA of a few minerals. You see what I'm saying? It just seems like a waste of calories for compounds you can easily get in a tablet.

Vitamins are organic compounds. So, they have a very specific structure. Vitamins created in a lab and infused in to multi-vitamins are of the same structure as the ones found in nature. So in 1 tablet you've fulfilled both your vitamin and mineral needs, and you have your full 2000 calorie allowance to play around with for the rest of the day. Its all about efficiency; unfortunately people like to trick themselves in to thinking that vitamins from a fruit are better than ones sold in stores; they're not. People refuse to believe that getting vitamins that easily, can be healthy. Fortunately, it is.

If you're consuming them for reason #2, and you're blending them, well then that's completely useless

And if you just like the taste of fruits and veggies, then by all means eat them. Using them for your calorie count is a great idea, only if you can find ones that don't contain other macronutrients in unhealthy amounts (per serving size). 

Its just annoying to hear people talk about fruits and veggies like they contain macronutrients not found in any other foods. You can live a completely healthy life and not consume a fruit a single day on your life. The only reason I didn't include veggies in that statement is because they have fiber. The addage "An apple a day keeps the doctor away" is so false its unbelievable. With the exception of fiber, apples are probably one of the most useless fruits in existence (the highest concentration of vitamin they have is Vitamin C, and that's only 10%)

.

 

[thebachellor]

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

TheBachellor, nice link on fallacies. I know what I will be reading for the rest of the night.

Ok, question for you. I understand your point of, "Just because you put in a bunch of fruits/veggies into a blender doesn't make it healthy." Can you tell me what I need to be looking for when consuming fruits and veggies in terms of blending them for easy consumption.

Thanks

It's just more of a question of what exactly are you consuming these fruits and veggies for? There can only be 3 reasons you're consuming them:

1. Vitamins and minerals
2. Fiber
3. Taste

If you're consuming them for #1, then you're going to have to know what fruits are rich in what vitamins. Throwing kiwis and oranges in to a blender isn't going to get you far since they're both rich only in Vitamin C. Getting a fruit that's rich in each vitamin is a pain and you'll most likely end up consuming too much of one, if not several vitamins in the process. Not to mention the fact that you'll be adding on to your calorie count for the day without feeling full (since you're blending them). So now you're 500 calories deep in to your 2000 calorie daily requirement (more if you work out and exercise) and all you've had is a fruit drink. You're going to have to get those other 1500 calories throughout the day... keeping in mind that a full "meal" can be as much as 1000 calories. So that's one meal that makes you full, one drink, and another 500 calories that you have to consume. 500 calories is a small amount and most likely will not make you full. So at the end of the day, you'd have had 1 drink, 1 meal full meal, and 1 small meal to satisfy you throughout the day.  Throw vegetables and the minerals they have in to the equation and that's even more calories that you'll consume in that drink, only to get your RDA of a few minerals. You see what I'm saying? It just seems like a waste of calories for compounds you can easily get in a tablet.

Vitamins are organic compounds. So, they have a very specific structure. Vitamins created in a lab and infused in to multi-vitamins are of the same structure as the ones found in nature. So in 1 tablet you've fulfilled both your vitamin and mineral needs, and you have your full 2000 calorie allowance to play around with for the rest of the day. Its all about efficiency; unfortunately people like to trick themselves in to thinking that vitamins from a fruit are better than ones sold in stores; they're not. People refuse to believe that getting vitamins that easily, can be healthy. Fortunately, it is.

If you're consuming them for reason #2, and you're blending them, well then that's completely useless

And if you just like the taste of fruits and veggies, then by all means eat them. Using them for your calorie count is a great idea, only if you can find ones that don't contain other macronutrients in unhealthy amounts (per serving size). 

Its just annoying to hear people talk about fruits and veggies like they contain macronutrients not found in any other foods. You can live a completely healthy life and not consume a fruit a single day on your life. The only reason I didn't include veggies in that statement is because they have fiber. The addage "An apple a day keeps the doctor away" is so false its unbelievable. With the exception of fiber, apples are probably one of the most useless fruits in existence (the highest concentration of vitamin they have is Vitamin C, and that's only 10%)

.

 

[thebachellor]

Originally Posted by Method Man

How is that disingenuous? The object of pointing that out was to illustrate the point that nuts, seeds, and many of the foods that you vegans praise have large quantities of nutritional items that are not desirable, as is the case with meat. Yet you people parade around as if they don't. You conveniently left that fact out in order to perpetuate the myth that all nuts, seeds, and legumes are completely and utterly healthy and contain no drawbacks to eating them in quantities that get you the RDAs of various nutrients. [color= rgb(255, 255, 0)]My statement was not typed with the intention of putting one diet above the other (in that sense, any way).[/color]

You're just taking a different, more difficult, and less delicious way to the top of the satiation mountain.
Right, and you're not promoting one diet over another...

Let's talk about portion sizes for a moment.  Again, beef liver is your gold standard in B3, right?  You were the one to say, "If that piece of steak contains 50% of your required fat consumption for the day, cool," correct?

Let's look at beef liver:  http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3470/2  Mmm... pan fried beef liver - with that wonderful 14.2 mg of Niacin in just one slice.  You also get a full 21.5 grams of protein - 43% of your RDA, and only 6% of your saturated fat!  Chew on that, hippies! 

Oh... wait a second... that also provides 103% of your RDA of dietary cholesterol.  So, if that's the only thing you eat all day - you're still OD'ing. 

Chicken has lower cholesterol, but the Vega supplement I mentioned has less fat.  So if your whole point was that beef steak is a healthier source of Niacin, you're wrong, and if your point was that you can't get a "significant" quantity of B3 from a plant source, you're ALSO wrong.  Again that's ONE serving of beef.

Keep in mind, you ALSO said "Just because its made up in a laboratory doesn't mean its "fake" or "unnatural"."  So do NOT come back by saying that there's something wrong with using a vegan dietary supplement.

Split hairs if you like. 

What I care about is this:  you can get all of your vitamins and minerals from a healthy plant based diet. 

I'm going to need links to the studies that allude to these facts. Of course, these studies also have to require subjects that consume meat with "portioning" in mind (which is what I'm arguing), which I doubt they do. Keep in mind that your statement was that the mere consumption of red meat has been linked to cancer, no matter the amount. I'm going to create a study in which I monitor the health of people who consume a large amount of peanuts every single day, for the rest of their lives. What do you suppose the results of that study will be? I'm willing to bet that they won't be in the best of health with all that saturated fat in their systems.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032301626.html  I believe it was on the front page that day.

Those who ate FOUR OUNCES of red meat a day - around one SMALL hamburger - were THIRTY PERCENT more likely to die of heart disease and cancer within ten years. 

Don't tell me four ounces fits outside your definition of a "sensible serving."  Again, the N for that one was 500,000 people.  Big enough sample for you?

When that B3 argument was made, it was made with the notion of serving size in mind. I knew you would come back and list some type of nut and claim that its high in B3 as well, and I exploited the fact that the serving size required to get your RDA was unhealthy. Of course, the meat items that are high in B3 also contain undesirable quantities of nutritional items (liver contains an inordinate amount of cholesterol), however the point was to illustrate the similarities in the flaws of both types of diets. You fell right in to the trap.
You're so proud of yourself - but what did you accomplish? 

You said that you CAN'T get enough Niacin from a plant based source.  I said that you can.  You griped about saturated fats.  No problem.  I linked you to a source that offers all the B3 you need without all the fat. 

Way to go.  You certainly showed me.

If you think factory farming is a great idea because you consider it easy and tasty, that's on you - but you can't sit here, with any background in nutrition, and pretend that a well-planned vegan diet is unhealthy.

Straw man. That is not the point I'm presenting.

Then you shouldn't have presented in that throw-in line about difficulty and flavor in your arrogance. 

If you agree that a well planned vegan diet is unhealthy, then you're only succeeded in traveling the long way around the block to argue a moot point. 




The whole first part of your post I consider null and void because I already addressed it in my reply, in fact... in a section that you quoted later in this very post. I'm curious as to why you would leave that whole section on beef liver in there when I clearly said: 

Of course, the meat items that are high in B3 also contain undesirable quantities of nutritional items (liver contains an inordinate amount of cholesterol), however the point was to illustrate the similarities in the flaws of both types of diets.


Also, 

You said that you CAN'T get enough Niacin from a plant based source.  I said that you can.  You griped about saturated fats.  No problem.  I linked you to a source that offers all the B3 you need without all the fat.

Incorrect.

As I said before, the B3 point was made within the context of serving size (which I called "portioning" in my original post). However, I didn't explicitly state "reasonable serving size" with the intention of baiting you in to listing a source of Niacin from which you could only gain the RDA after consuming a number of serving sizes (I counted on the fact that your ire would blind you from reading between the lines and noticing the introduction of the concept of "portioning" a mere 3-4 lines above the B3 paragraph). I pointed out your error, and you led me to a supplement, which is what I also led to in my original post:

So you're going to take a supplement, right? Ok, so how is that any different from us meat eaters who actually are aware of portioning who take supplements?

Again, the notion of "portioning" is made prominent.

Then you shouldn't have presented in that throw-in line about difficulty and flavor in your arrogance.

Difficulty and flavoring have nothing to do with unhealthiness, so I'm unsure as to what that line has to do with you employing propaganda techniques. 

You seem to be taking the B3 point i've made and assuming that since I said that you can't get it in something without unreasonable serving sizes, that i'm somehow implying that being vegan is inferior to being omnivorous. That is not at all the case. My point was to notify people on the fence that you can have a healthy lifestyle eating meat if you know how about portion sizes. In a sense, you and I are arguing the same thing, but your elitism and vanity (common attributes in a good number of vegans) have warped it in to something else.

.

EDIT: I'll take a look at the study and post my opinions later, possibly tommorow.

 

[thebachellor]

Originally Posted by Method Man

How is that disingenuous? The object of pointing that out was to illustrate the point that nuts, seeds, and many of the foods that you vegans praise have large quantities of nutritional items that are not desirable, as is the case with meat. Yet you people parade around as if they don't. You conveniently left that fact out in order to perpetuate the myth that all nuts, seeds, and legumes are completely and utterly healthy and contain no drawbacks to eating them in quantities that get you the RDAs of various nutrients. [color= rgb(255, 255, 0)]My statement was not typed with the intention of putting one diet above the other (in that sense, any way).[/color]

You're just taking a different, more difficult, and less delicious way to the top of the satiation mountain.
Right, and you're not promoting one diet over another...

Let's talk about portion sizes for a moment.  Again, beef liver is your gold standard in B3, right?  You were the one to say, "If that piece of steak contains 50% of your required fat consumption for the day, cool," correct?

Let's look at beef liver:  http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3470/2  Mmm... pan fried beef liver - with that wonderful 14.2 mg of Niacin in just one slice.  You also get a full 21.5 grams of protein - 43% of your RDA, and only 6% of your saturated fat!  Chew on that, hippies! 

Oh... wait a second... that also provides 103% of your RDA of dietary cholesterol.  So, if that's the only thing you eat all day - you're still OD'ing. 

Chicken has lower cholesterol, but the Vega supplement I mentioned has less fat.  So if your whole point was that beef steak is a healthier source of Niacin, you're wrong, and if your point was that you can't get a "significant" quantity of B3 from a plant source, you're ALSO wrong.  Again that's ONE serving of beef.

Keep in mind, you ALSO said "Just because its made up in a laboratory doesn't mean its "fake" or "unnatural"."  So do NOT come back by saying that there's something wrong with using a vegan dietary supplement.

Split hairs if you like. 

What I care about is this:  you can get all of your vitamins and minerals from a healthy plant based diet. 

I'm going to need links to the studies that allude to these facts. Of course, these studies also have to require subjects that consume meat with "portioning" in mind (which is what I'm arguing), which I doubt they do. Keep in mind that your statement was that the mere consumption of red meat has been linked to cancer, no matter the amount. I'm going to create a study in which I monitor the health of people who consume a large amount of peanuts every single day, for the rest of their lives. What do you suppose the results of that study will be? I'm willing to bet that they won't be in the best of health with all that saturated fat in their systems.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032301626.html  I believe it was on the front page that day.

Those who ate FOUR OUNCES of red meat a day - around one SMALL hamburger - were THIRTY PERCENT more likely to die of heart disease and cancer within ten years. 

Don't tell me four ounces fits outside your definition of a "sensible serving."  Again, the N for that one was 500,000 people.  Big enough sample for you?

When that B3 argument was made, it was made with the notion of serving size in mind. I knew you would come back and list some type of nut and claim that its high in B3 as well, and I exploited the fact that the serving size required to get your RDA was unhealthy. Of course, the meat items that are high in B3 also contain undesirable quantities of nutritional items (liver contains an inordinate amount of cholesterol), however the point was to illustrate the similarities in the flaws of both types of diets. You fell right in to the trap.
You're so proud of yourself - but what did you accomplish? 

You said that you CAN'T get enough Niacin from a plant based source.  I said that you can.  You griped about saturated fats.  No problem.  I linked you to a source that offers all the B3 you need without all the fat. 

Way to go.  You certainly showed me.

If you think factory farming is a great idea because you consider it easy and tasty, that's on you - but you can't sit here, with any background in nutrition, and pretend that a well-planned vegan diet is unhealthy.

Straw man. That is not the point I'm presenting.

Then you shouldn't have presented in that throw-in line about difficulty and flavor in your arrogance. 

If you agree that a well planned vegan diet is unhealthy, then you're only succeeded in traveling the long way around the block to argue a moot point. 




The whole first part of your post I consider null and void because I already addressed it in my reply, in fact... in a section that you quoted later in this very post. I'm curious as to why you would leave that whole section on beef liver in there when I clearly said: 

Of course, the meat items that are high in B3 also contain undesirable quantities of nutritional items (liver contains an inordinate amount of cholesterol), however the point was to illustrate the similarities in the flaws of both types of diets.


Also, 

You said that you CAN'T get enough Niacin from a plant based source.  I said that you can.  You griped about saturated fats.  No problem.  I linked you to a source that offers all the B3 you need without all the fat.

Incorrect.

As I said before, the B3 point was made within the context of serving size (which I called "portioning" in my original post). However, I didn't explicitly state "reasonable serving size" with the intention of baiting you in to listing a source of Niacin from which you could only gain the RDA after consuming a number of serving sizes (I counted on the fact that your ire would blind you from reading between the lines and noticing the introduction of the concept of "portioning" a mere 3-4 lines above the B3 paragraph). I pointed out your error, and you led me to a supplement, which is what I also led to in my original post:

So you're going to take a supplement, right? Ok, so how is that any different from us meat eaters who actually are aware of portioning who take supplements?

Again, the notion of "portioning" is made prominent.

Then you shouldn't have presented in that throw-in line about difficulty and flavor in your arrogance.

Difficulty and flavoring have nothing to do with unhealthiness, so I'm unsure as to what that line has to do with you employing propaganda techniques. 

You seem to be taking the B3 point i've made and assuming that since I said that you can't get it in something without unreasonable serving sizes, that i'm somehow implying that being vegan is inferior to being omnivorous. That is not at all the case. My point was to notify people on the fence that you can have a healthy lifestyle eating meat if you know how about portion sizes. In a sense, you and I are arguing the same thing, but your elitism and vanity (common attributes in a good number of vegans) have warped it in to something else.

.

EDIT: I'll take a look at the study and post my opinions later, possibly tommorow.

 

[Methodical Management]

I'm sure you've struggled with this issue already, but it's a little bit ironic that you run a website called "nike" talk, as I am willing to bet nike is the single largest purchaser of dead animal skins in the world. Considering also that the leather nike uses is of the absolute lowest attainable quality -- squeezing the already razor thin margins of the meat processors and tanners thinner, the standard husbandry practices employed by the factory farms raising the animals for slaughter are macabre.
I don't mind going over this again because I can understand where people perceive the incongruity. 

First of all, I think it's worth pointing out that, unlike most other sites in this sector, we don't have any industry ties.  We don't stand for $hallow ¢onsumerism, $ell ¢opy, or otherwise shill for $neaker ¢ompanies.  We exist for sneaker fans, period.  And there are, believe it or not, vegan sneakers out there.  Nelson C named the site NikeTalk because that's what we were into at the time.  We're not affiliated with Nike.  I don't purchase or even wear Nike shoes these days. 

What we do is offer an online community for people who share similar interests.  We don't sell shoes.  We don't sell feature stories that promote shoes.  We offer an independent, user-generated online community and we run it as a social business.  Our ad revenue, as you know, goes to charity. 

If we didn't exist - if we packed this site up and left - you'd still have sneaker sites.  Would you be having this type of discussion with one of the founders, though?  Would the site be using its influence to try and steer the industry toward manufacturing more ethical products?  Would it be donating its proceeds to nonprofits devoted to education, social justice, or animal rights?

There's a bit of a Robin Hood aspect to this site.  We do what nobody else in this sector does - and if we decided we were "too good" to do it, who would?  Are we better off if competing sites receive our traffic and revenue?  Would you rather those thousands of dollars be spent helping somebody buy their way through a mid-life crisis?  We have a great opportunity here to reach people and make a difference.  Of course I don't like it when companies succeed in using this site to help market unethical products, but that tends to be done in spite of our efforts, not because of them, and we can't afford to make perfect the enemy of good. 

It's about as easy to be a perfect vegan as it is to be a perfect Christian, Muslim, or to be perfectly aligned with whatever your values may be.  That doesn't mean that we shouldn't constantly try to improve and strive to do the very best we can.  Sometimes, people withdraw from challenging situations out of sheer vanity.  It would be far EASIER for me to just turn my back on NikeTalk, set up shop in the country somewhere, and live as ethically and sustainably as I possibly can by extricating myself from society.  Is that where I can make the biggest difference, though? 

Sneaker companies spend billions getting people interested in their products.  When people search for those products online, they may stumble on our site - and, while they're here, perhaps we can learn from one another and do something together that we otherwise wouldn't have the opportunity to achieve.  Every so often I get PMs from people who've told me that they learned about racial inequality, about veganism, or what have you from posts on our forums - and that's really what keeps me going. 


I grew up in a community where there literally were NO vegetarians.  I never even met a vegan until grad school.  Like most people here, I grew up immersed in a culture that celebrated athletic shoes.  Air Jordans were the sidewalk equivalent of luxury coupes and exotic sports cars.  What I did learn, though, is that once you take the elevator up, you always send it back down. 

Too often within the social justice community and, in particular, the animal rights community, people tend to preach to the choir.  They won't deign to interact with people they consider uncouth.  I'm never going to forget my roots.  A lot of the people here represent where I come from and I still belong here just as much as I belong anywhere. 

At heart, this is OUR culture.  We're the ones who shape and control it.  Sneaker culture is about personal expression.  For some of us, it's a way to signify that we're into hip hop and athletics.  There's no reason why we can't also incorporate our social values into the mix.  There are already products out there that distinguish themselves by using union labor, organic cotton instead of leather, vegan and environmentally preferred adhesives, rubber, etc.  Nike's bowed to pressure from environmental activists and, recently, they've made some concessions to animal welfare/rights groups by vowing to end their occasional use of fur.  They're less immoral than amoral.  They'll bend to to the will of consumers.  We're the trendsetters and taste-makers.  It's our responsibility to direct them - not the inverse.  We're one of the few communities that actually seems to get that.  When everyone else is lapping up derivative, tacky retro garbage that dishonors the products we remember from our youth, people here have been among the loudest dissenters.  We can change sneaker culture from within - and it starts by being true to ourselves and our values, by confronting the problem head on rather than running away.


In our 10th anniversary post, I wrote the following:

If you'd told me ten years ago that NikeTalk would eventually surpass NikePark, I'd have been pleased. If you'd told me that we'd be here tenyears later, home to tens of thousands of members from around the world, that we'd be influencing the industry, that some of our members would go on todesign signature shoes, play in the NBA, sign major recording contracts, and that we'd be raising all of this money for charity - I'd have beenimpressed. If you'd told me that in ten years I wouldn't be wearing Air Jordans - I'd have been shocked.

A number of members can honestly claim they've grown up with NikeTalk. I'm one of them. I'll never forget my first pair of Air Jordans: Air JordanV in white, black, and red - size 2 & 1/2. It took over two decades, but I finally grew out of them.

Many people don't understand, at least at first, why it is that I continue to serve this community even though I no longer wear Air Jordans - or any of theshoes that serve as the focal point of our sneaker forums. Most can appreciate the reason why I no longer wear the shoes: I simply can't abide wearing ananimal product (even if the only animal derived component is the adhesive) when more ethically produced, animal-free shoes are readily available. (They justhappen to be far uglier at the moment, and that I can live with.) Why, though, would I stay…. on NikeTalk?

In September of 1999, less than 2 months before we'd found NikeTalk, I wrote a paper about sneakers (sneaker auctions, more specifically) for an introlevel undergraduate course I was taking at the time. Near the conclusion, I wrote:

"At its most superficial level, Item number 11624 is nothing but an aging conglomerate of painted leather, fabric, and rubber. Certainly, $381 is a ludicrous price for such an item. However, who can place a price upon an identity? What is the proper fee for emotions, friends, and memories? In essence, Vintage USA sells us what they do not possess. They sell the embodiment of our own connotations; they send us the key that unlocks what we have denied ourselves in our minds. We purchase the messenger but we create the message. As each bid is placed, Item 11624 transforms. It changes from Air Jordan 9, the shoe produced during Jordan's brief sabbatical from the NBA to the shoe someone wore when their team won the county championship. From leather and rubber to flesh and blood, an intangible feeling, an electrical impulse, a piece in a collection, a twinkle in an eye."
A little over a week ago, CIDMAN911 wrote on my profile page to thank me for serving as an inspiration - terribly generous words that I could onlyhope to eventually live up to. In responding to his comments, I wrote:

"When we were sick as children, those who cared for us didn't offer us chicken soup because they wanted to teach us to support cruelty. They wanted to be kind. When I latched on to Air Jordans, it wasn't wearing another creature's flesh that so captured my imagination. When I first listened to hip hop, it wasn't because I wanted to celebrate stick up kids. Culture is living and it's up to all of us to move it forward, to find new and more just forms and expressions for the underlying sentiments that drive us to be like Mike, grip a mic like Rakim, or offer comfort foods to someone we care about. NikeTalk, to me, is about sharing with and learning from others and working together to help our culture evolve into a more just and equitable form that better expresses who we truly are as people - and that helps us better prepare ourselves and our young to become the people we all aspire toward."
Virtually all of us, merely by dint of our presence here, are privileged. We have the extreme luxury of choosing which sneakers we'd like towear - even though for many of us, myself included, that first pair of Air Jordans seemed unattainable. Why did we choose the ones we did? Why, more generally,do we care about sneakers? What do they mean to us?

Air Jordans, for me, represent the greatest who ever played the sport I love most of all. They represent where I come from. They represent a part of myculture. They represent my friends. They are sports. They are style. They are hip hop. They were a label I affixed to myself that I felt spoke loudly about whoI am. They identified me to like kinds. They elicited knowing nods and opened enthusiastic conversations between people who only remained strangers until twosets of eyes met… each other's shoes.

I don't need Nikes to do any of these things for me anymore. NikeTALK does them better. NikeTALK is a truer expression of who I am and what I value.NikeTALK is something that more accurately represents me than a cheaply made covering of skin, connective tissue, petroleum, polyurethane, rubber, and allmanner of other materials both organic and inorganic. It's a way to give back. It's an opportunity to move forward.

 

[Methodical Management]

I'm sure you've struggled with this issue already, but it's a little bit ironic that you run a website called "nike" talk, as I am willing to bet nike is the single largest purchaser of dead animal skins in the world. Considering also that the leather nike uses is of the absolute lowest attainable quality -- squeezing the already razor thin margins of the meat processors and tanners thinner, the standard husbandry practices employed by the factory farms raising the animals for slaughter are macabre.
I don't mind going over this again because I can understand where people perceive the incongruity. 

First of all, I think it's worth pointing out that, unlike most other sites in this sector, we don't have any industry ties.  We don't stand for $hallow ¢onsumerism, $ell ¢opy, or otherwise shill for $neaker ¢ompanies.  We exist for sneaker fans, period.  And there are, believe it or not, vegan sneakers out there.  Nelson C named the site NikeTalk because that's what we were into at the time.  We're not affiliated with Nike.  I don't purchase or even wear Nike shoes these days. 

What we do is offer an online community for people who share similar interests.  We don't sell shoes.  We don't sell feature stories that promote shoes.  We offer an independent, user-generated online community and we run it as a social business.  Our ad revenue, as you know, goes to charity. 

If we didn't exist - if we packed this site up and left - you'd still have sneaker sites.  Would you be having this type of discussion with one of the founders, though?  Would the site be using its influence to try and steer the industry toward manufacturing more ethical products?  Would it be donating its proceeds to nonprofits devoted to education, social justice, or animal rights?

There's a bit of a Robin Hood aspect to this site.  We do what nobody else in this sector does - and if we decided we were "too good" to do it, who would?  Are we better off if competing sites receive our traffic and revenue?  Would you rather those thousands of dollars be spent helping somebody buy their way through a mid-life crisis?  We have a great opportunity here to reach people and make a difference.  Of course I don't like it when companies succeed in using this site to help market unethical products, but that tends to be done in spite of our efforts, not because of them, and we can't afford to make perfect the enemy of good. 

It's about as easy to be a perfect vegan as it is to be a perfect Christian, Muslim, or to be perfectly aligned with whatever your values may be.  That doesn't mean that we shouldn't constantly try to improve and strive to do the very best we can.  Sometimes, people withdraw from challenging situations out of sheer vanity.  It would be far EASIER for me to just turn my back on NikeTalk, set up shop in the country somewhere, and live as ethically and sustainably as I possibly can by extricating myself from society.  Is that where I can make the biggest difference, though? 

Sneaker companies spend billions getting people interested in their products.  When people search for those products online, they may stumble on our site - and, while they're here, perhaps we can learn from one another and do something together that we otherwise wouldn't have the opportunity to achieve.  Every so often I get PMs from people who've told me that they learned about racial inequality, about veganism, or what have you from posts on our forums - and that's really what keeps me going. 


I grew up in a community where there literally were NO vegetarians.  I never even met a vegan until grad school.  Like most people here, I grew up immersed in a culture that celebrated athletic shoes.  Air Jordans were the sidewalk equivalent of luxury coupes and exotic sports cars.  What I did learn, though, is that once you take the elevator up, you always send it back down. 

Too often within the social justice community and, in particular, the animal rights community, people tend to preach to the choir.  They won't deign to interact with people they consider uncouth.  I'm never going to forget my roots.  A lot of the people here represent where I come from and I still belong here just as much as I belong anywhere. 

At heart, this is OUR culture.  We're the ones who shape and control it.  Sneaker culture is about personal expression.  For some of us, it's a way to signify that we're into hip hop and athletics.  There's no reason why we can't also incorporate our social values into the mix.  There are already products out there that distinguish themselves by using union labor, organic cotton instead of leather, vegan and environmentally preferred adhesives, rubber, etc.  Nike's bowed to pressure from environmental activists and, recently, they've made some concessions to animal welfare/rights groups by vowing to end their occasional use of fur.  They're less immoral than amoral.  They'll bend to to the will of consumers.  We're the trendsetters and taste-makers.  It's our responsibility to direct them - not the inverse.  We're one of the few communities that actually seems to get that.  When everyone else is lapping up derivative, tacky retro garbage that dishonors the products we remember from our youth, people here have been among the loudest dissenters.  We can change sneaker culture from within - and it starts by being true to ourselves and our values, by confronting the problem head on rather than running away.


In our 10th anniversary post, I wrote the following:

If you'd told me ten years ago that NikeTalk would eventually surpass NikePark, I'd have been pleased. If you'd told me that we'd be here tenyears later, home to tens of thousands of members from around the world, that we'd be influencing the industry, that some of our members would go on todesign signature shoes, play in the NBA, sign major recording contracts, and that we'd be raising all of this money for charity - I'd have beenimpressed. If you'd told me that in ten years I wouldn't be wearing Air Jordans - I'd have been shocked.

A number of members can honestly claim they've grown up with NikeTalk. I'm one of them. I'll never forget my first pair of Air Jordans: Air JordanV in white, black, and red - size 2 & 1/2. It took over two decades, but I finally grew out of them.

Many people don't understand, at least at first, why it is that I continue to serve this community even though I no longer wear Air Jordans - or any of theshoes that serve as the focal point of our sneaker forums. Most can appreciate the reason why I no longer wear the shoes: I simply can't abide wearing ananimal product (even if the only animal derived component is the adhesive) when more ethically produced, animal-free shoes are readily available. (They justhappen to be far uglier at the moment, and that I can live with.) Why, though, would I stay…. on NikeTalk?

In September of 1999, less than 2 months before we'd found NikeTalk, I wrote a paper about sneakers (sneaker auctions, more specifically) for an introlevel undergraduate course I was taking at the time. Near the conclusion, I wrote:

"At its most superficial level, Item number 11624 is nothing but an aging conglomerate of painted leather, fabric, and rubber. Certainly, $381 is a ludicrous price for such an item. However, who can place a price upon an identity? What is the proper fee for emotions, friends, and memories? In essence, Vintage USA sells us what they do not possess. They sell the embodiment of our own connotations; they send us the key that unlocks what we have denied ourselves in our minds. We purchase the messenger but we create the message. As each bid is placed, Item 11624 transforms. It changes from Air Jordan 9, the shoe produced during Jordan's brief sabbatical from the NBA to the shoe someone wore when their team won the county championship. From leather and rubber to flesh and blood, an intangible feeling, an electrical impulse, a piece in a collection, a twinkle in an eye."
A little over a week ago, CIDMAN911 wrote on my profile page to thank me for serving as an inspiration - terribly generous words that I could onlyhope to eventually live up to. In responding to his comments, I wrote:

"When we were sick as children, those who cared for us didn't offer us chicken soup because they wanted to teach us to support cruelty. They wanted to be kind. When I latched on to Air Jordans, it wasn't wearing another creature's flesh that so captured my imagination. When I first listened to hip hop, it wasn't because I wanted to celebrate stick up kids. Culture is living and it's up to all of us to move it forward, to find new and more just forms and expressions for the underlying sentiments that drive us to be like Mike, grip a mic like Rakim, or offer comfort foods to someone we care about. NikeTalk, to me, is about sharing with and learning from others and working together to help our culture evolve into a more just and equitable form that better expresses who we truly are as people - and that helps us better prepare ourselves and our young to become the people we all aspire toward."
Virtually all of us, merely by dint of our presence here, are privileged. We have the extreme luxury of choosing which sneakers we'd like towear - even though for many of us, myself included, that first pair of Air Jordans seemed unattainable. Why did we choose the ones we did? Why, more generally,do we care about sneakers? What do they mean to us?

Air Jordans, for me, represent the greatest who ever played the sport I love most of all. They represent where I come from. They represent a part of myculture. They represent my friends. They are sports. They are style. They are hip hop. They were a label I affixed to myself that I felt spoke loudly about whoI am. They identified me to like kinds. They elicited knowing nods and opened enthusiastic conversations between people who only remained strangers until twosets of eyes met… each other's shoes.

I don't need Nikes to do any of these things for me anymore. NikeTALK does them better. NikeTALK is a truer expression of who I am and what I value.NikeTALK is something that more accurately represents me than a cheaply made covering of skin, connective tissue, petroleum, polyurethane, rubber, and allmanner of other materials both organic and inorganic. It's a way to give back. It's an opportunity to move forward.

 

[nooera]

Method Man

 

[nooera]

Method Man

 

[south sole]

I'm learning about this vegan diet. Recently started shopping at Whole Foods Market, to see what the deal is. 
Picked up a book entitled "The Engine 2 Diet," which also has a section refuting all myths that have been passed around. 

It provides facts and examples to back up their claim. 

I consider myself a Nutritarian for the moment...but pretty soon I will be looking into the vegan diet. 

Meth the info is appreciated 

I would like to hear your thoughts on this growing trend promoted at Whole Foods store everywhere. 

http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx

I think is a moderate way to eat/stay healthy. It makes it simple for starters looking to improve their health. 

 

[south sole]

I'm learning about this vegan diet. Recently started shopping at Whole Foods Market, to see what the deal is. 
Picked up a book entitled "The Engine 2 Diet," which also has a section refuting all myths that have been passed around. 

It provides facts and examples to back up their claim. 

I consider myself a Nutritarian for the moment...but pretty soon I will be looking into the vegan diet. 

Meth the info is appreciated 

I would like to hear your thoughts on this growing trend promoted at Whole Foods store everywhere. 

http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx

I think is a moderate way to eat/stay healthy. It makes it simple for starters looking to improve their health. 

 

[al audi]

i gotta get caught up on this thread.

 

[al audi]

i gotta get caught up on this thread.

 

[Methodical Management]

Meth the info is appreciated 

I would like to hear your thoughts on this growing trend promoted at Whole Foods store everywhere. 

http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx

I think is a moderate way to eat/stay healthy. It makes it simple for starters looking to improve their health.


If the only concern is health, those are reasonable guidelines and represent a substantial improvement over the average North American diet. 

Diet design is, by nature, a balancing act in more ways than one.  If you're creating a plan for others to adopt, raising the bar too high can make it easier for people to quit than succeed.  If you set the bar too low, you're selling people short.  I suppose your evaluation of this particular diet will come down to your level of pessimism with respect to the average person's commitment and self-discipline. 

Personally, I think it's a little loose.  The percentages involved fluctuate wildly.  By many accounts, leafy green vegetables should account for roughly half of what you consume on any given day.  Here, vegetables can occupy as little as 30% of your caloric intake, yet fruits and nuts can occupy as much as 40% each.  That makes it easy to stay within the guidelines, but you can also settle into some habit that are less than optimal.  This, in and of itself, isn't going to ensure that you're able to meet all of your dietary needs.  If you are going vegan, for example, you need to make sure that you're getting enough B12, for example, or Vitamin D.  You may recall that Gwenyth Paltrow, who's vegan, was recently diagnosed with a severe Vitamin D deficiency, for example.  The word "vitamin" is something of a misnomer.  What we call Vitamin D is actually a hormone naturally produced by our bodies while exposed to direct sunlight.  The problem is that the darker your skin, the more exposure you need in order to produce sufficient quantities of Vitamin D.  Although there are few sources of Vitamin D in the vegan diet, statistically speaking vegans are no more likely to be deficient than omnivores.  It's best to take a supplement, and again I think the Vega product is a very convenient way to ensure that your body's getting all the vitamins and minerals it needs. 

Unfortunately, you can't get all of the information you need from product labels.  "The Bachellor" can no longer speak to this, since he managed to get himself banned the other day for getting into an ugly flame war with Manglor in another thread (I know, it's hard to believe given how respectfully he handled himself here), but the problem with saying "it's fine if one serving of steak contains 50% of your fats as long as you don't exceed your RDA" is that, as the study I linked to shows, the nutrition information level tells you nothing about its digestibility, the presence of growth hormones like rGBH, its potentially carcinogenic effects, or even how that food interacts with your body's pH level.  If the foods you eat have highly acidifying effects on your body's pH level, in order to maintain the proper balance your body's going to tap into the most alkaline substance available:  your bones.  Many experts now believe that this, at least in part, accounts for the disparities noted in The China Study and elsewhere.  Contrary to the unverified claims marketed by the dairy lobby, in areas where dairy products are the most frequently consumed, indicators of bone health (like fracture rates and the incidence of osteoporosis and other degenerative diseases) are far worse than in places like China where lactose intolerance rates are extremely high and dairy products have been traditionally absent from people's diets. 

Form matters.  It's healthier to get your calcium from collard greens than from cow's milk - period.   The hormones in dairy products alone are leading to early sexual maturity in girls and elevated risk of breast cancer.

To say "well, as long as it's less than 10% of your daily caloric intake" is a bit like saying "well, it's okay to drop a little acid - but only rarely and in small doses."  If you don't need it, and it's potentially harmful, why include it in the pyramid at all?  Even if you use the word "rarely" or "less than 10%," which can, by definition, mean that these products may be omitted entirely, the fact that they're present in the pyramid only serves to validate their inclusion within our diets. 

Have you ever seen a commercial for a really sugary cereal - you know, the kind you probably wanted your mom to buy you when you were 5 - that said "part of a balanced breakfast?"  Did you ever stop to think about what that actually means?  It means nothing.  Cardboard can be "part of a balanced breakfast."  All you need to add is the balanced breakfast.  In that sense, you may as well put a picture of marshmallows, Snickers bars, or Triple Whoppers within the top section of the pyramid.  Can you survive while occasionally conceding to such indulgences?  Sure - but I wouldn't present that as a goal. 

I also don't think it's particularly realistic.  Many junk foods are literally designed to be addictive.  It's a bit like saying "you can smoke one third of a cigarette per week and still be healthy."  If you tell people that, what do you think their actual over/under would be?  More likely, you're either smoking nothing or you're sucking down whole packs per week.  It takes smokers MORE willpower to smoke 1/3rd of a cigarette and leave it at that than to stop smoking entirely. 

For me, I have no problems in that area because I never smoke, never drink, and totally abstain from consuming animal products.  That actually helps me stay on the path, because I won't suffer from the same cravings as someone who's hooked.  The image of a greasy cheeseburger literally disgusts me now. 

I'm not the type to use extreme and misleading scare tactics to convince people that eating any amount of meat will prove fatal.  I do, however, think it's far easier to be healthy as a vegan than to be healthy as an omnivore - and for this exact reason.  I believe it's easier to abstain from meat and dairy entirely than to be abstemious about it. 

If you stay within the boundaries of a vegan diet and you plan it properly, you'll be getting all of what your body needs while minimizing your exposure to potentially hazardous and unhealthy foods. 
That, to me, makes the most sense - but, again, I'm strongly motivated by ethical and environmental concerns as well, so I'm not at all interested in how much I can "get away with" and still remain healthy.  Strict veganism helps me do the best I can on all of those fronts simultaneously.  It's the single best change we can make for our health, the single best change we can make to reduce cruelty to non-human animals, and the single best change we can make to reduce our carbon footprints. 

 

[Methodical Management]

Meth the info is appreciated 

I would like to hear your thoughts on this growing trend promoted at Whole Foods store everywhere. 

http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx

I think is a moderate way to eat/stay healthy. It makes it simple for starters looking to improve their health.


If the only concern is health, those are reasonable guidelines and represent a substantial improvement over the average North American diet. 

Diet design is, by nature, a balancing act in more ways than one.  If you're creating a plan for others to adopt, raising the bar too high can make it easier for people to quit than succeed.  If you set the bar too low, you're selling people short.  I suppose your evaluation of this particular diet will come down to your level of pessimism with respect to the average person's commitment and self-discipline. 

Personally, I think it's a little loose.  The percentages involved fluctuate wildly.  By many accounts, leafy green vegetables should account for roughly half of what you consume on any given day.  Here, vegetables can occupy as little as 30% of your caloric intake, yet fruits and nuts can occupy as much as 40% each.  That makes it easy to stay within the guidelines, but you can also settle into some habit that are less than optimal.  This, in and of itself, isn't going to ensure that you're able to meet all of your dietary needs.  If you are going vegan, for example, you need to make sure that you're getting enough B12, for example, or Vitamin D.  You may recall that Gwenyth Paltrow, who's vegan, was recently diagnosed with a severe Vitamin D deficiency, for example.  The word "vitamin" is something of a misnomer.  What we call Vitamin D is actually a hormone naturally produced by our bodies while exposed to direct sunlight.  The problem is that the darker your skin, the more exposure you need in order to produce sufficient quantities of Vitamin D.  Although there are few sources of Vitamin D in the vegan diet, statistically speaking vegans are no more likely to be deficient than omnivores.  It's best to take a supplement, and again I think the Vega product is a very convenient way to ensure that your body's getting all the vitamins and minerals it needs. 

Unfortunately, you can't get all of the information you need from product labels.  "The Bachellor" can no longer speak to this, since he managed to get himself banned the other day for getting into an ugly flame war with Manglor in another thread (I know, it's hard to believe given how respectfully he handled himself here), but the problem with saying "it's fine if one serving of steak contains 50% of your fats as long as you don't exceed your RDA" is that, as the study I linked to shows, the nutrition information level tells you nothing about its digestibility, the presence of growth hormones like rGBH, its potentially carcinogenic effects, or even how that food interacts with your body's pH level.  If the foods you eat have highly acidifying effects on your body's pH level, in order to maintain the proper balance your body's going to tap into the most alkaline substance available:  your bones.  Many experts now believe that this, at least in part, accounts for the disparities noted in The China Study and elsewhere.  Contrary to the unverified claims marketed by the dairy lobby, in areas where dairy products are the most frequently consumed, indicators of bone health (like fracture rates and the incidence of osteoporosis and other degenerative diseases) are far worse than in places like China where lactose intolerance rates are extremely high and dairy products have been traditionally absent from people's diets. 

Form matters.  It's healthier to get your calcium from collard greens than from cow's milk - period.   The hormones in dairy products alone are leading to early sexual maturity in girls and elevated risk of breast cancer.

To say "well, as long as it's less than 10% of your daily caloric intake" is a bit like saying "well, it's okay to drop a little acid - but only rarely and in small doses."  If you don't need it, and it's potentially harmful, why include it in the pyramid at all?  Even if you use the word "rarely" or "less than 10%," which can, by definition, mean that these products may be omitted entirely, the fact that they're present in the pyramid only serves to validate their inclusion within our diets. 

Have you ever seen a commercial for a really sugary cereal - you know, the kind you probably wanted your mom to buy you when you were 5 - that said "part of a balanced breakfast?"  Did you ever stop to think about what that actually means?  It means nothing.  Cardboard can be "part of a balanced breakfast."  All you need to add is the balanced breakfast.  In that sense, you may as well put a picture of marshmallows, Snickers bars, or Triple Whoppers within the top section of the pyramid.  Can you survive while occasionally conceding to such indulgences?  Sure - but I wouldn't present that as a goal. 

I also don't think it's particularly realistic.  Many junk foods are literally designed to be addictive.  It's a bit like saying "you can smoke one third of a cigarette per week and still be healthy."  If you tell people that, what do you think their actual over/under would be?  More likely, you're either smoking nothing or you're sucking down whole packs per week.  It takes smokers MORE willpower to smoke 1/3rd of a cigarette and leave it at that than to stop smoking entirely. 

For me, I have no problems in that area because I never smoke, never drink, and totally abstain from consuming animal products.  That actually helps me stay on the path, because I won't suffer from the same cravings as someone who's hooked.  The image of a greasy cheeseburger literally disgusts me now. 

I'm not the type to use extreme and misleading scare tactics to convince people that eating any amount of meat will prove fatal.  I do, however, think it's far easier to be healthy as a vegan than to be healthy as an omnivore - and for this exact reason.  I believe it's easier to abstain from meat and dairy entirely than to be abstemious about it. 

If you stay within the boundaries of a vegan diet and you plan it properly, you'll be getting all of what your body needs while minimizing your exposure to potentially hazardous and unhealthy foods. 
That, to me, makes the most sense - but, again, I'm strongly motivated by ethical and environmental concerns as well, so I'm not at all interested in how much I can "get away with" and still remain healthy.  Strict veganism helps me do the best I can on all of those fronts simultaneously.  It's the single best change we can make for our health, the single best change we can make to reduce cruelty to non-human animals, and the single best change we can make to reduce our carbon footprints. 

 

[vanillafreak13]

While the validity of this ad is in question amongst many I think it is eye opening when you consider that so many ethnic groups are widely lactose intolerant yet they don't "break" anymore than regular people.

I myself gave up milk and many cheeses years ago and have never suffered a broken bone (I know one man doesn't make an entire sample). I think the importance of calcium and vitamins provided by many dairy products are negated by their fat content and overall impact on your digestive health. This may seem odd since I don't necessarily agree with the idea that dairy is an evil because of the way its produced, so long as it is produced in an ethical and respectful way to the animal.

 

[vanillafreak13]

While the validity of this ad is in question amongst many I think it is eye opening when you consider that so many ethnic groups are widely lactose intolerant yet they don't "break" anymore than regular people.

I myself gave up milk and many cheeses years ago and have never suffered a broken bone (I know one man doesn't make an entire sample). I think the importance of calcium and vitamins provided by many dairy products are negated by their fat content and overall impact on your digestive health. This may seem odd since I don't necessarily agree with the idea that dairy is an evil because of the way its produced, so long as it is produced in an ethical and respectful way to the animal.