kyberneticist
Is it true that you need to take vitamins to suppliment your diet if you are a vegetarian? If so what vitamins do you lack?
I just heard that Japanese men over a certain age have a brain disorder linked to tofu.I just heard this tonight and don’t remember the show I was watching.
I’m not aware of any brain disorders linked to eating tofu. I do know that vitamin B-12 is an easy one for vegetarians to miss. Lack of it can lead to neural damage. A biologist grad student friend of mine claims you can OD on vitamin B12, but I can find no support for this.
The only Japanese/elderly connections I can find are that elderly people sometimes need more B12 and have to take injections/supplements and that fermented miso soup or tempeh is a good source of B12. Not that you really need that much B12 anyway.
There aren’t many other vitamins I can think of. Some vegetarians have problems getting protein, but they probably don’t eat enough nuts and legumes. (I love peanut butter, and a couple of PB&J sandwiches covers a large part of my RDA)
I pop a multi-vitamin from time to time (the cheap, SuperG bulk kind with exactly 100% in all categories, no massive doses) so I can’t imagine having any problems anyway.
Sources of B12, if you’re interested:
10+mcg (you only need about 3mcg a day)
clams/oysters, organ meats
3-10mcg
Sardines, trout, salmon (seafood, another Japanese fav!), egg yolks, non-fat dry milk
1-3mcg
lamb, beef, lobster, scallops, haddock, flounder, swordfish, halibut, perch, tuna, Brie, Camembert and Limburger cheeses
<1mcg
milk/milk products, poultry
Now that I think about it, that MUST be your connection.
The elderly require more B12. A study of Japanese elderly men may have noted that those eating fermented soy products (miso, tempeh) were suffering less loss of reflexes or somesuch then those who weren’t.
Justwannano
I think the vitamin you might be thinking of, or at least one of them, is B12. As far as I know, this exists chiefly in animal products, and it’s vital for human health. Take this with a grain of salt - I learned it in a freshman college class and my memory was fuzzy and the instructor was kind of a kook. Anyway, the lack of vitamin B12 in vegies could present a problem for vegetarians, but there are many ways around it. First, there ova- and lacto- both have sources for it. Second, vegan cultures are often low-pesticide cultures, so little six-legged friends are present, in ground-up and/or cooked form, and cause the meal to be simultaneously (a) sinful and (b) adequate in this vitamin. Third, I believe lentils (a staple of some vegan diets) often have vitamin B12 because of something (bad memory … bacteria? fungus?) which grow on them.
xelakann
I think you are quite right to be a vegetarian if you want to. There are serious health risks associated with being an ignorant vegetarian - I’ve known people whose idea of a vegetarian was eating what they usually eat with no meat, i.e. no protein. Naturally, these folks are so sporadic in their diets that it never effects them, so I guess they’re not real vegetarians anyway. There’s obviously plenty of information on diet-balancing out there, which is how vegetarians get the vitamins and protein they need (mix legumes and grains, etc.)
On the subject of hormones, I really can’t assess this problem. Most of the horror stories about hormone use come from Europe, where hormones are commonly banned rather than regulated. So unscrupulous cattlemen (cousins of the guys who put anti-freeze in the wine) will inject hormones directly into Bessie’s muscle tissue. Unmetabolized hormones make it into the food. Nahsty. If I were diligent, I would look it up, and find out the regulation method in the States … for beef I think it is pellets that you stick in the calf’s ear. I think they work more or less like contraceptive patches or chewing tobacco.
Lance Turbo
Nitrates are fairly common in all Earth biosystems. A diverse array of systems (lightning, bacteria in alfalfa nodules, internal combustion engines) will fix nitrogen (convert it from nearly inert diatomic molecular form to nitric acid or another compound). Any criticism of nitrates in fertilizer will have to specify exactly what the problem is. They are nothing like a pesticide; fixed nitrogen is a simple, basic component of all life as we know it. Naturally, dousing a huge concentration of the stuff in an area is no good; you can drown in water, you can drown in nitate. But in order to make any criticism of nitrate fertilization stick, at least in my book, you’ve got to explain why a quantity that would be good for agricultural product X would be bad for background species Y, and not everybody gives it a shot.
So you’re right to be skeptical. It’s not immediately obvious why nitrates introduced in the form of cow piss are any worse than nitrates introduced by nitro-rich rain in the wake of a thunderstorm.
I still remember the public relations snafu when they got James Garner to be in the Beef: Real Food for Real People commercials.
Shortly thereafter, he had to have a triple bypass operation.
I have seen many reports that tell us not to worry about pesticide residue in our food. Then, as in the case just this last week, the government bans a common pesticide because it is supposedly too dangerous to continue to use. Guess the reports were wrong.
Many of us are who concerned about hormones in meat feel that not enough study has been done to prove the safety of human consumption of the treated meat. We’ve seen the government and profit-driven organizations time and time again approve products and food as safe, only to have alarming news surface later. (Health food store manager speaking from numerous customer contacts for 13 years) Most of us are not asking to ban these hormones, just label the meat so that consumers can make their own judgements.
Finally, could anyone using the argument that organic growing requires more land and water to produce crops please cite an independant report or two to back-up this often repeated claim? Thank you.
The TV show I was referring to was 20-20
IIRC one doctor found that brain scans of older japanese men showed brain loss.
Somehow he traced it to eating tofu.
I didn’t see the whole segment so my recollection is sketchy.
What I’m saying is, given how sketchy your recollection and cite is, is it possible that while brain loss was traced to the activity tofu eating, it was the lack of tofu eating that was the cause of brain damage, and eating tofu high in B12 which prevented it?
Kyber,
Interesting study, but in this case it doesn’t seem to be soy that’s at fault, but aluminum cookware. Makes me glad of the teflon coating in mine, but still…
Oh, forgot. Thanks for digging up the straight dope, Horseloverfat.
Don’t want to sound ungrateful. 
I attended high school in the seventies, and let me say that breasts were not unknown to us. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that breasts are on average larger now, because of all the reports I’ve read about the greater incidence of obesity in children (up something like 30%). If you’re proposing we believe that breasts are larger now due to hormones, let’s see some data to back it up.
Or the EPA is much more political now. The EPA is now ignoring evidence that the pesticide is safe for humans (when used according to the label), because it’s uncomfortable with how the data was obtained. See EPA ‘Ethics,’ Not Science, Sink Pesticide.
What about this statement which I quoted before?
“The amount of hormones in meat from treated animals is only slightly higher than that naturally present in meat from untreated animals. Some other foods, such as milk, naturally contain far larger quantities of hormones.”
Silo said
I’m gonna agree with Curt C here, b/c meat has nothing to do with breasts. Girls chests might be bigger now b/c people are getting fatter, as a result of more fast food restaurants, soda, inactivity, etc.
Maybe you mean hormones, Silo. Hormones, not steroids, might have had a greater effect on breast growth. Although steroids are known to cause weight gain, which may in turn cause bigger breasts.
Back the OP, I have never heard that the hormones given to livestock has a detrimental effect on people, but then, I haven’t fully reseached the topic. I can say I never learned about that in any nutrition class I took or from any dietitian I ever worked with. We dietitians tend to promote a mixed, balanced diet, with low fat meats and dairy, whole grains and fruits and vegetables.
On a side note, I can say that I have watched a program (20/20), which has made me think twice about organic produce. The show made a point that many people mistakenly believe that organic produce is more nutritious for you than non-organic. I would agree with this b/c organic doesn’t mean it affects the vitamin/mineral/calorie/etc. composition of the food, organic is just a term designating that the food was not grown with pesticides. The show also pointed out that many times people never know whether or not they are actually getting organically grown food-it might be labeled organic, and may cost more, but the customer may be getting ripped off (as the show proved on a few accounts)
Hormones, steroids (artificial hormones) whatever. They pump tons of this shit into cattle, steer, poultry.
That is a valid explanation why girls’ butts are bigger these days but not chests IMHO (glandular tissue and fat are different things). I think my explanation is much closer to the truth, but i’ll try and find ya some proof k. People just don’t realize what’s in their meat. And the resulting effects…(well they say ignorance is bliss)
Silo, boobs are not made entirely of glandular tissue. Theyre made of fat too. Fat is what gives them shape. I have a big chest, and they got bigger once I gained some weight. When I lost weight, they got smaller. It was common knowledge among us dancers (back when I was competing and performing) that if you lost weight, you lost your boobs.
I’m not contributing my chest size to the fact that I eat meat, b/c that is just silly.
Sorry for the off topic post. Resume regular, on-topic posting now.
Miss Monica: perhaps if you posted some pictures we could understand wht you mean better? 
Seriously, it might be time for this to go to GD. Oh moderator!
Sorry daniel, when the sdmb women page gets up, then you might be able see
Silo says… "Well one thing the hormones in the meat do is give girls bigger breasts nowadays. "
Hell, if that is remotely true, being as that I am not as gifted in that area, maybe I should reconsider becoming a vegetarian and start eating Meat morning, noon and night… anything to help (since implants are not an option I’m willing to undergo)
I am starting to think that my co-worker (whom I was having the orginal debate with) may be correct saying there is no proof that hormones cause harm-- but at least I feel more educated… Thanks for everyones input!
I’ll admit I didn’t have the patience to read through all the replies. But I have some points to make.
Steroids are hormones–they are cholesterol based. Other hormones are proteins.
A protein hormone added to a farm animal will cause effects in that animal, but when you eat the meat or whatever product from that animal, your stomach will most likely degrade that protein. Think of why a predator like an African lion doesn’t have its metabolism upset by the ingestion of its prey’s endogenous protein hormones. They are other mechanisms for the prey’s steroid hormones that are ingested. Of course, adding exogenous hormones in such an amount that the human body might not be able to compensate could be a problem, but I’d like to see the journal articles on this.
Growth hormones are not given to poultry to increase their breast size; increases in breast sizes are due to breeding-i.e. genetic selection. I would be interested in any citations to the contrary (legitimate sources, please).
Antibiotics are given to farm animals. Ruminants, such as the ubiquitous cow, depend on microorganisms for their digestion. Something akin to termites and their protozoa. Grass is not very digestible. Antibiotics are abused, because although they don’t affect protozoa, they do wipe out the less than beneficial species of rumen bacteria that don’t maximize a cow’s growth-the bacteria that don’t help break down grass. Bacteria that help liberate nutrients for the cow are maximized due to lack of competition.
Is this a bad thing? Time will tell, but I can’t imagine anything that increases microbial resistance to antibiotics as good.
Agricultural research should focus on making the nutrients in the feed more available to the animal-and therefore decrease the use of antibiotics. And promote the maximization of the limited monetary resources of the producer. Who feeds us all, vegans included, whether they would like to admit it or not. Ideas for the next inevitable thread.