They don’t turn it upside down. They just choose to replace the breads/cereals/grains section with more of the good stuff.
So they actually eat more dairy and meat servings than are suggested?
But they are “replacing” the grains section with more of the “good stuff”. I take “good stuff” to mean dairy and meat products. So if they’re “replacing” the grains section with more of the “good stuff” (as you say), isn’t that the same as turning The Food Guide Pyramid upside down?
Sheri, the Food Guide Pyramid that you see on most nutrition labeled foods are out of date. Plus, it’s not an accurate guide for some people. Not only have I been told this by nutritionists, but the USDA is working on adjusting the information in reference to the food guide again, as they have for nearly a century. This link contains information on the background, development and history of the food guide, according to the USDA.
Either way, there are conflicts with the results of some ethincities to following the exact guideline of the food pyramid. Some have lactose intolerance, while others develop diabetes from the proportion of their food intake and the carbohydrates within. Some people just function better with the food balance that their ancestors were brought up with; this often means that plant matter in the diet is restricted, or meat is eliminated in certain forms, or dairy products are reduced. The food pyramid guidelines don’t apply to everybody.
Also, don’t assume I’m stupid if I don’t follow it strictly. It’s stupid to try and apply an American system to one’s diet if it’s already proven in personal experience that a diet more closely to that of my ethnic origin leaves me healthier.
Thank you. Now I see that it’s not just vegetarians or vegans who do not strictly follow The Food Guide Pyramid.
So they’re changing it again, eh? I remember learning in grade school about the 4 food groups. Remember, it was just 4 groups all in a square? Then they changed it to The Food Guide Pyramid to specify servings of each group. Now, from what Mirrored Indigo Shadows says, they’re changing it yet again. Could it be that science is not infallible after all?
No one claimed that science is infallible. Science is simply a way of studying the world around us; since the studying is done by us imperfect humans, it will always be fallible.
Any other subjects you’d like to hi-jack your own thread with?
:rolleyes: Yes Sheri, the fact that the Food Pyramid is being revised is clear evidence that the entire scientific method has been turned on its head. Anarchy will ensue. Destabilization of society will follow. We’re all doomed!
Seriously, science is perpetually evolving, and nobody ever claimed it was infallible. We progress with the best evidence we have and make the best of it. When our evidence changes, so do our scientific beliefs. This is the way it’s always been, which is why people didn’t declare science a failure when the scientific world shifted its belief in a flat earth to a round one.
Now, you’ve been spouting the virtues of a videotape (whose benefits I may only reap by throwing money at a doctor whose credentials in this field I am severely suspicious of) and urging me to switch to a vegan diet based on your experience – and then ignoring all evidence to the contrary that has been graciously provided by others here because “you can’t know until you’ve tried both.”
I tried being a vegetarian. I felt constantly weak. And it made me gassy. So I quit. Steak has never tasted so good. Now, my personal experience has led me to this belief. How are you going to tell me what is good for me? Using your debating techniques, we are at a bit of an impasse.
I propose that we just accept the fact that what works for some doesn’t work for others…
Exactly! And that’s why I take everything here with a grain of salt and am, in the end, left to my own conclusions/opinions, no matter what any expert has to say about the issue - yes, this includes both Dr. Klaper and Dr. Atkins. Which one am I to believe when science is fallible? That’s why it’s necessary to put things to the test if we really want to KNOW for ourselves. Very few, who have posted here in this thread, have put veganism or vegetarianism to the test in their own lives, so the majority do not KNOW for themselves. They’re just taking some scientists, or doctor’s fallible word for it. As for myself, I KNOW that veganism works for me. But for those who have never tried it and just, off the bat, decide that it must be quackery, they will never KNOW for themselves because they have not put it to the test.
That’s sort of what I said in my previous post. Different diets (diets as in “way of eating” not necessarily “weight-loss diets”) for different people is only common sense. When I was eating lots of grains and sugars and a carb-heavy diet, I felt like crap, and had terrible migraines. Now that I’m following the Atkins diet, and have gotten all the refined sugar and high-carb foods out of my diet, I feel much better. I have tons of energy and my migraines have all but disappeared.
I eat lots of chicken and turkey and seafood, a little bit of beef, lots of green veggies, cheese, nuts, lots of water, and black tea.
What I don’t eat is pasta, commercial cereals, white breads, high-carb veggies like corn or potatoes and refined sugar of any kind.
I couldn’t live on a vegan diet. If someone else wants to follow a vegan/vegetarian diet, that’s fine - it’s none of my business what someone else eats. All the protein in my diet would probably make them sick, but it works for me.
HEAR, HEAR!!!
So those who have called veganism “quackery” cannot do so anymore because “what works for some…” I think the reason it’s referred to as “quackery” is because it’s not the main-stream. When someone refers to something that they do not agree with or understand as “quackery”, to me it shows more ignorance than anything.
Once again Sherri, you are making false claims about the posters on this board. No one hear claimed that veganism was quackery. What people hear are trying to tell you here is using dubious claims, such as your intestine length reasoning for veganism, is bad science.
There are lots of things I may not know for sure unless I test it on myself. I may be able to smoke cigarettes until I’m 100 with no ill effects, but I’m not willing to try it. It may make me feel better while I’m doing it, and you may feel better not eating meat, but that doesn’t mean either is necessarily better for us in the long run.
I must repeat myself. NO ONE HERE CALLED VEGANISM QUACKERY!!!
Don’t patronize me.
As x-ray vision has pointed out, you are using an argumentative tactic we call “making crap up.” I would like to do him one better and ask you to please find a specific example where anyone here has been dismissive of vegetarianism due to “quackery”. We may call this doctor a quack, due to the fact that he may be making broad dietary prescriptions despite a general lack of knowledge in the area of science, but overall, I think everyone has been exceedingly open-minded in approaching vegetarianism.
Would that be infallible or fallible science?
The fallible kind. The only kind. You need to stop with this snide non-argument. Because science occasionally fails does not mean that everything it says is wrong.
Hey, try comparing the track record of science to, say, voodoo, or astrology. It looks like this I would think–
Science: 8934987123648167253478612354817236498712634
Voodoo: 100 (placebo effect)
Astrology: 53 (random variation dictates it must be correct occasionally)
I strongly disagree. When someone refers to Dr. Klaper as a “dyed in the wool crazy quack” (see post 13 as just one example), I take that to mean that this same person is also attacking what Dr. Klaper stands for - veganism.
So - how are we to know what is wrong and what is correct? Or do we just hope for the best?
No, what Dr. Klaper is supposed to be standing for is sound medical science. Some people are taking issue with that. It is wholly separate from his beliefs with regard to nutrition.
For example, our president is supposed to be an effective, charismatic, and compassionate leader. He also stands for Mars exploration. Now, because I think he is a complete ass does not mean that I am attacking Mars exploration. I, in fact, think it is a good idea. I am attacking him on other grounds. So are the other posters here attacking Dr. Klaper on grounds other than veganism.
Yes, that sound medical “fallible” science.