BarracksSi

Well, to call it an "article" would be selling it short, I think. Writer Michael Moss spent four years on this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/ma...?smid=pl-share

Fourteen pages. If I could distill it into one sentence, I'll say it like this: Rather than creating healthy, fresh foods to put to market, the big purveyors of processed food re-marketed junk food -- or altered decent foods with precisely-researched amounts of salt, sugar, and/or fat -- and called it "healthy".

BarracksSi

BTW -- I posted this in T&R because, well, I think a lot of the stuff that we feel is cycling-related food (energy bars, recov..sugar drinks, etc) falls into the same categories as smartly-labeled, laboratory-refined junk food.

ericm979

It's a good article, for sure. I'll probably buy the book.

But all processed food has an ingredients list. It's not hard to read it and figure out if a food is healthy or not. Start with the assumption that all processed food is unhealthy. If the ingredients list is short and does not contain unfamiliar things, it's more likely to be ok. If it's something that should not have sugar but does (i.e. peanut butter or spagetti sauce), put it back on the shelf and look for one without the added sugar.

chasm54

I agree. Cyclists have become hooked on the idea that they need to ingest high quantities of refined carbs - often fructose - in order to perform. For the most part it simply isn't true, they'd be better off consuming fewer calories and getting the calories they do need from real, more complex and nutritious, food.

Of course there is a place for the readily digestible sugar fix for those who are going hard for longish periods. But in general, it's a con.

mr_pedro

Really? https://health.yahoo.net/experts/dayi...weeteners-milk

The other day I ordered a cup of milk for my daughter in a store, the waitress asked me if I wanted white milk

clemsongirl 

Melanie Warner’s recent ‘Pandora’s Lunchbox’ is another really good book on the subject. She also looks in-depth into how easy it was until 2010 for the food companies to get around any actual government testing or certification for the additives they’ve devised to cause a sensory specific addiction to junk food. Not that the FDA is doing a good enough job even now for how I think about it.

Moss has been doing excellent reporting on the subject for a number of years. Any conversation about personal responsibility or public policy is disingenuous and uninformed if it fails to recognize the reality of the food industries profit above health motives, the biochemistry and neuroscience efforts to create an addictive and heavily marketed demand and strong industry attempts to relax regulations.


Instead of being manipulated by the willful machinations of the big food companies people can learn to prefer healthy and wholesome foods. That’s the best way to fight food industry manipulations on an individual basis! It may take some will power but even more important is learning new nutrition, shopping, cooking and portion skills and for overall health how to fit exercise into your daily routine. It’s not really complicated but with the world, as described by Moss and others, that we live in it can be hard for some. That needs to be recognized. That’s where Moss and others are doing the most good in my mind. That and of course just getting this kind of information out to a greater public.

If I remember correctly it was food journalist Michael Pollan who said ‘Eat real food. Not too much. Mostly plants.’ Good advice in my mind.

ericm979

Clearly that single counter example destroys my entire argument.

This is why I should stop posting to the internet.

BarracksSi

I bought a fruit smoothie package at the store today. Healthy, natural stuff, right? Frozen slices of bananas and strawberries, and when I opened the bag, there was a white packet marked "Fruit smoothie mix" or something like that.

I looked at the ingredients on the main bag, and for the fruit itself, it simply said, bananas and strawberries. It had another ingredient panel for the smoothie mix -- sugar, dried milk, corn syrup solids (a.k.a. sugar), and a bunch of other stuff.

Needless to say, I made my smoothie without the sugar packet.

Machka 

Why not just get real fruit from the produce section, and make the smoothie how you want?

BarracksSi

I've got a bunch of that, too, and I also have other frozen fruits. I like frozen sometimes because the smoothie comes out colder.

My point was, the company that makes this particular ready-to-blend product is using the same sweetened-until-it's-irresistible trick that's described in the article.

digger531

This problem is like many others in our society today. Yes its bad. Yes we all know better. Yes we do it anyway. Should the government make parenting laws....NO. We are responsible for our own well being. No one forces anyone to eat this stuff. If you ask the next 5 obese people you see at McDonalds if they think what they are eating is good for them, they will be mad at you for insulting their intelligence.

Alcohol is far more addictive then any food, and is advertised more. Where is the outrage?

four de trance

I hate to be "that guy," but this is the VERY reason why my family and I became oil-free vegans almost two years ago. Buying whole, natural foods is where it's at and you don't have to worry about getting little surprises in your fruit smoothie package. My wife and I don't get preachy or pushy about it and we never become condescending about other people's choices in foods and I hope I don't anger anyone here with my post.

The crazy thing is that people believe that athletes are somehow immune to death caused by diets, this is not true. Healthy, athletic, fit "looking" individuals often die from heart attacks, strokes, cardiac surgery and aneurysms due to bad diets. The people won't have any warnings signs, risk factors or family history such as hypertension, diabetes, smoking, alcohol abuse, high cholesterol, heart disease, arrhythmia, et al. It all comes down to the food that they're putting into their bodies on a daily basis.

I'll go on group rides and cringe at what I see most of my friends order at the restaurant post-ride because they have this insane, psychotic idea of "I just rode 80 miles so I can eat like ****." I can't say anything because it's not my place, but this is the kind of stuff that messes people up badly.

It truly saddens me to see the majority of our population so confused about diet and foods due to erroneous food information by food companies that are only interested in their bottom line. They don't give a flying flip about what's going to happen to our bodies after eating their garbage. They're lying and tricking people with labels and false statements about how their products are somehow healthy for you.

Since becoming vegan, my health has been awesome and my doctor was literally laughing out loud because he hasn't seen numbers as amazing as mine were in about 10 years. This was at my physical about 2 months ago and he was reading the results of my blood tests. I was a paramedic for about 12 years and I understand the body very well, but I am in no way am I an expert. Please do ask though (in this thread or a PM) if you do have any questions about the vegan lifestyle.

Again, I'm not trying to diminish anyone's choice in diet or lifestyle, so please don't take this post in the wrong way.

hamster

I probably read more nutrition studies in my life than most people here (possibly more than all of them, combined), and I have come to the conclusion that, after decades of ever-bigger and increasingly detailed studies, science knows very little about the effect of nutrition on your health. For the most part, it comes out to, "when it's your time, it's your time."

More importantly, many laypeople know a lot about nutrition and health, but most of what they think they know just happens to be false.

The process goes like this.
* An article gets published in an academic journal, declaring "xxx is good for you" (or "xxx is bad for you").
* Other articles are published, reproducing the result.
* The story gets leaked into mainstream press, and a bunch of laypeople accept it as a proven fact.
* Over time, subsequent articles trying to reproduce the effect report smaller results or fail to find it at all, or even report the opposite.
* Eventually everyone concludes that the original study was either flawed or a statistical fluke. No one tells mainstream press.
* Go to step 1 and repeat.

This happens so often that it was given a name, "the decline effect", and it basically occurs because studies reporting positive results are more likely to get published than studies reporting no results.

Oh, and every once in a while there comes a crackpot that cherry-picks a number of not-yet-completely-disproven facts, disregards everything that does not fit the theory, publishes a bestselling book, makes a million or two, and leaves the society even more misinformed than it was before. (Atkins and Paleo come to mind specifically, but there are other examples.)

So where does this leave us with regard to the situation in nutrition science?

* Human body is remarkably resourceful and can sustain itself on a wide variety of ingredients or diets without long-term damage.
* There's no evidence that total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, meat, HFCS, refined flour, milk, or wheat (just to name most "well known" culprits) are bad for your health. (Unless you have genetic sensitivity to lactose or to wheat.)
* There's no evidence that Western adults eating their conventional diets lack any micronutrients or vitamins.
* The FDA has a quick trigger finger when it comes to new and unusual additives. They can and will ban any substance that has a demonstrable adverse effect on health, sometimes even if that effect can be only demonstrated in rats when fed in quantities far exceeding anything a human could possibly consume. (For example, they've managed to ban saccharin because it was shown to cause cancers in rats when they were fed what would've been about 100 servings per day for a human, for life. Congress had to step in and overrule them.)
* If you control for weight, physical activity and healthy habits, there's no evidence that vegetarians or vegans live longer (or shorter) than adequately matched meat-eaters.
* Sedentary people are susceptible to overeating. Overeating leads to weight gain. Excess body fat is correlated with mortality. In addition, in sedentary people, persistent overeating induces certain changes in skeletal muscle cells which make them resistant to insulin, and over time this leads to type 2 diabetes.
* Whenever X (saturated fat, fructose, etc) is claimed to be bad for your health, two times out of three this occurs because its intake is correlated with the risk of being sedentary, overeating and overweight. Properly disentangling correlations and causations is a mammoth task that is easy to screw up. The third time it occurs when the researcher feeds some hapless rats a diet that is 66% X by weight for life and then extrapolates to humans. (The researcher knows perfectly well that rats are adapted by evolution to a diet that is nearly 100% starch, and that humans are descended from monkeys whose diet was nearly 100% simple sugars and that we have adaptations on top of that, but rats are much cheaper and easier to work with than humans or even chimps.)
* About the only nutrients or foods whose effect on survival has not yet been concluded to be null, are: trans fat (bad); omega-3 polyunsaturated fats (good up to ~500 mg/day EPA+DHA, little to no effect above that); sodium (bad if you get too much of it); processed red meat, e.g. bacon, sausages and jerky (results in mild but statistically significant increase in the risk of colon cancer, therefore, bad); alcohol (bad in excess of ~3 drinks/day.)

four de trance

There's so much to respond to, say, one discussion about fat and the hundreds of primary sources of peer-reviewed journals that point directly to fat and cholesterol causing heart disease from the damage of the vascular endothelial lining that gives off nitric oxide (a vasodialtor) which results in swelling, blockage, rupturing and ultimately a heart attack due to the lack of oxygen reaching the heart muscle. The lack of oxygen to the heart ends in muscle death, or myopathy. This is not coming from some NY Times or Cycling World nutrition study, this is real-world experience from being a paramedic of 12 years. Read "The China Study" by Dr. T. Colin Campbell for a primary source, peer-reviewed study of the effects of animal protein on the human body and then tell me that there's no difference between the longevity between vegans and meat eaters.

I've had many, many years of medical training at the university level cardiopulmonary sciences and working on ambulances for almost the entire 12 years. I've worked more actual cardiac cases than I can remember and didn't just read thousands of nutrition studies in my lifetime. I'm not here to argue about what we believe in, but I can say whether you or I believe it's true or not, it happened for real.

Again, I'm very passionate about this and I don't want to get into a heated debate about this subject as stated in my aforementioned post. I appreciate your response and I respect your opinions about the nutrition studies you have read. I'm not here to make any enemies and I love cycling just as much as you do. Thank you for your time and I'll see you around the forums!

MEversbergII

The China Study has been pretty solidly refuted by equally peer reviewed works, I'm afraid.

M.

four de trance

Interesting! Fair enough and thanks for the info!

clemsongirl 

I wouldn’t say the “The FDA has a quick trigger finger when it comes to new and unusual additives” considering for a period of time the FDA allowed the food industry to do their own additive studies, in some cases the industry was not even required to show the FDA their reasoning and only if health issues emerged later could the FDA see the research and investigate. The FDA also still allows additives that are banned in countries that do have stronger safety standards though: food coloring made from coal tar, brominated vegetable oil (mountain dew, gatorade and powerade) and potassium bromate, arsenic in chicken feed to make the flesh “pinker”, synthetic hormones rBGH and rBST injected into cows for a larger milk production and azcodicabonamide used to bleach flour to name just a few. If you don’t see any problem with those ingredients or saccharin, acesulfame-K or olestra etc. then have at it and my hope is you can some how still have a healthy long life! Some of Monsanto’s genetically modified foods would be good to add to those foods too!!!

Just because people have been led carefully through additives and marketing to want to ingest those foods and some people don't want any regulations that impinge on profits doesn’t mean it’s not a public policy need to address the issue of safety and make consumers aware. Like I wrote in my first post that’s where people like Moss have made a worthwhile contribution to the conversation. Perhaps it’s been more damaging to our health to see the FDA as a industry profit killer, as controlling politics saw it up until a few years ago, instead of a true food and drug safety agency. Personally I don’t feel Monsanto, Proctor & Gamble, Nabisco etc. have our health as their priority.

clemsongirl 

Perhaps the Dairy and Beef industries didn’t take well to the popularity of the China Study.
I do agree that Campbell shouldn't have been the one to bring the message but along with some of the questionable points there are some good points and well peer reviewed research from some earlier work on the biochemical fundamentals of the casein effect in the book.

We all have to figure out what works for us and be as informed as possible. A vegetarian diet works well for my body. My skin in clear, my nails strong, my hair healthy, I’m energetic, my cycles are less painful, my mood stays steady, my immune system is strong, I feel good before and after a meal and like four de trance my overall health is excellent. That's all I need.

four de trance

I'm not trying to change the diets of people already set in their ways and are NOT looking for an alternate method for nutrition! The adage "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" sums it up best. I explain my experiences and education in hopes of helping people in search of a different way, but I usually get a few naysayers that just won't concur and rightfully so, it's their God given opinions.

It seems that we all feel this intrinsic need to defend and justify what's on our plate at meal time and what's the use of trying to change *your* mind? I'm definitely not (refer to adage), but if there are other people out there looking for another way, I'm giving them the option.

I used to love the opportunity to go back and forth on forums about nutrition and spend countless hours citing scholarly articles and studies, but why? I'm not going to change my diet, so why would other people that are set in their ways change their diets? I won't and you won't, but my posts aren't aimed at you and yes, these threads are meant for everyone to post as much as they desire, but I'm not trying to argue here. I'd actually rather ride my bike perhaps or go for a run!

If I do post more information about nutrition on the bike forums (and I will), I'm not aiming at discrediting the meat eaters or lashing out as a hater, but my posts will of course be vegan biased! Feel free to write rebuttals, but I've moved passed the back and forth internet arguments that used to consume so much of my time and cause me to become upset for some odd reason. :-) It's difficult not to become upset when other folks keep denying something that I feel so passionately about.

As clemsongirl beautifully stated, this lifestyle works well for my body and also everyone else that I have seen switch to the vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. I'm not going to stop posting my findings and many experiences as a paramedic in regards to health and nutrition. As a side note, I'm now a choir teacher and compose classical and pop music, any other composers/ musicians in here? *crickets, crickets*... Hope you all have a beautiful day! Looks like the weather will lend itself to a wonderful ride down here in Austin, TX.

hamster

The China Study is one example of what I was talking about: showing an effect where subsequent, bigger studies find little or none.

Some more recent studies:

This is Europe:

https://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1613S.full.pdf
" The standardized mortality ratio for all causes of death was 52% (95% CI: 50%, 54%) and was identical in vegetarians and in nonvegetarians. Comparing vegetarians with meat eaters among the 47,254 participants who had no prevalent cardiovascular disease or malignant cancer at recruitment, the death rate ratios adjusted for age, sex, smoking, and alcohol consumption were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.57, 1.16) for ischemic heart disease and 1.03 (95% CI: 0.90, 1.16) for all causes of death."

https://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/63/
"After correction for measurement error, higher all-cause mortality remained significant only for processed meat (HR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.25, per 50 g/d). We estimated that 3.3% (95% CI 1.5% to 5.0%) of deaths could be prevented if all participants had a processed meat consumption of less than 20 g/day. Significant associations with processed meat intake were observed for cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and 'other causes of death'. The consumption of poultry was not related to all-cause mortality."

This is the U.S. Here the results are more favorable to vegetarians, but even here people in the highest quintile by red meat consumption have mortality rates increased at most 40% compared to the lowest quintile:

https://archinte.jamanetwork.com/arti...ticleid=414881

"Men and women in the highest vs lowest quintile of red and processed meat intakes had elevated risks for overall mortality. Regarding cause-specific mortality, men and women had elevated risks for cancer mortality for red and processed meat intakes. Furthermore, cardiovascular disease risk was elevated for men and women in the highest quintile of red and processed meat intakes. When comparing the highest with the lowest quintile of white meat intake, there was an inverse association for total mortality and cancer mortality, as well as all other deaths for both men and women."

This is China. At first sight, these results defy logic, and the best explanation is that we're looking at some combination of lifestyle factors, compounded by statistical noise. And this is the best you can do after tracking ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND people for ten years:

https://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0056963

" Red meat intake was associated with increased total mortality among men, but not among women; the HR (95% CI) comparing the highest with the lowest quintiles were 1.18 (1.02–1.35) and 0.92 (0.82–1.03), respectively. This sex difference was statistically significant (P = 0.01). Red meat intake was associated with increased risk of ischemic heart disease mortality (HR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.05–1.89) and with decreased risk of hemorrhagic stroke mortality (HR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.45–0.87). There were suggestive inverse associations of poultry intake with risk of total and all-CVD mortality among men, but not among women. "

Notice the common thread here: red meat may or may not be a hazard, studies are divided, but none show any negative effect from eating white meat.

Here's the general difficulty.

It is easy to establish, and it has been verified over and over (particularly in the U.S.), that individuals with the highest intakes of red meat and/or saturated fat are more likely to be sedentary, fat and sick. In the U.S. study above, individuals in the lowest red meat quintile have the average BMI of 25.8, and 27% report exercising at least 5 times a week. Individuals in the highest red meat quintile have the average BMI of 28.4, and 14% report frequent exercising.

The hard part is to explain what exactly is happening.

* Maybe animal protein, animal fat and/or saturated fat makes you prone to overeat, that's why it makes people fat. Being fat by itself puts you at a higher risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This is not totally improbable, but we have a numbers problem. Since your average American consumes about 200 calories worth of saturated fat per day, if those calories weren't at least partially compensated by reducing food intake elsewhere, that American would be gaining weight at the rate of 20 lbs/year for life. We obviously don't see that.
* Maybe, on top of making you overeat, animal protein and/or saturated fat directly clogs your arteries and makes you more likely to have a heart attack. That is hard to prove, because it's a second order effect: you take the meat consumption vs. heart attack relationship and correct for BMI. That hugely increases errors and statistical noise. For starters, all these studies are usually based on diet questionnaires (asking people what they eat), and it is known that recollections are fairly unreliable, sometimes biased. People have been trying and they've been coming up with smaller and smaller effects: https://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/535.short "During 5–23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD."
* Maybe people who eat a lot of red meat also happen to eat a lot of something else (maybe soda?) that does make them fat and/or sick.
* Maybe there is a certain group of lazy, uneducated people in the society, they are least likely to exercise or to cook, and most likely to eat junk food (which is where a lot of red meat and saturated fat comes from), and they are most likely to get fat and sick because they don't exercise and don't practice restraint when eating.
* Maybe junk food itself is a problem. If it is designed to be very attractive, consumers are more likely to overeat and to get fat.

In the end, we really don't know which of these explanations is correct. Maybe two or more of them are partially correct. We do know that it's not as simple as "saturated fat is junk that is clogging your arteries". It seems likely that there is a combination of factors in play. Some of the recent research (ok, not so recent, past 15 to 20 years or so?) is focusing on psychology: the idea is that your body tries to maintain a weight setpoint, but your brain sometimes messes up and that's why people get fat. We know that fat is less satiating than carbohydrates; that fat and sugar combined can make a nuclear mix that overwhelms your defenses against overeating; that caloric density seems to be important, and that's where junk food tends to shine; and that being sedentary is an additional risk factor. Here's a good recent overview of the facts: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1....2001.124/full

Finally, I am not trying to discourage anyone from eating any particular diet. If vegan works for you, fine! The ultimate problem, as I see it, is that we live in a society where it is very easy to overeat. Like the original NY Times article says, billions of dollars are spent on figuring out how to make the most desirable food, and to make you eat as much of it as possible. If you have a diet and a lifestyle that keeps you in check, that's all you can really ask for. If you don't, try new things, try vegan, try paleo, keep looking.

Carbonfiberboy 

In Europe, red meat is more likely to be prepared in small traditional restaurants or at home. I also wonder about differences in the provenance of meat in the US and Europe. I'm happy to be an ovo/lacto/pisco "vegetarian" in the US, but I eat meat in Europe.

I'm not sure, but it seems to me that the positive affect of eating white meat might be that it replaces red meat in the US diet.

springs

Couple comments.

1. There is more to good health than longevity.

2. It's interesting that we don't have studies that show decreased longevity or more disease in vegans. We do have studies that show these problems in (processed or not) meat eaters.

3. Hamster must not be familiar with Gary Taubes work. Taubes is pretty convincing in showing that refined carbs cause obesity, and that meat has nothing to do with obesity.

4. Frankly, with so much contention among the professionals who do this for a living, it's hard to take forum speculation seriously. All I can do is look at myself, even as a data sample of one. Vegan (plus some fish) and my HDL is 126, LDL 28, trigs 34. I don't plan to go back to red meat any time soon.

four de trance

I'm going to get personal here because I want to show how the oil-free vegan diet has helped me, my wife, my mom and many other people that became vegan because of my improved physical and medical situation, but first of all--- Wow! Thanks for posting the amazing amount of information and I hope that your post helps people weigh the pros and cons of eating this diet over that diet… that’s if they are trying to find a better quality of life through diet/lifestyle change. I also hope that the following stories help them in their journey as well.

My wife was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis about 6 years ago, I was diagnosed with essential hypertension, tachycardia and palpitations (supposedly genetics) and was medicated with multiple medications at the young age of 20 years and my mother had type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, clinical depression, was in end stage kidney failure (10% function bilaterally) and was VERY obese.

Let's begin with my wife and multiple sclerosis at the age of 25. She was diagnosed after I brought her into the ER one night because she was vomiting due to being extremely dizzy/ vertigo to the point of not being able to standup or walk. I practically had to fight her to get her up and into the car to go to the hospital. She was diagnosed and was placed on daily injections of a nasty, terrible class of drugs called interferon beta-1a (Rebif). Ridiculous side effects and the drugs were about $2,500 per month! They told my wife that she would become disabled within a year and she actually lost her ability to walk a few times and had to pushed around in a wheelchair at the age of 26. Her MRIs were getting worse, she was having symptoms that were becoming incapacitating until she switched her diet…

We began the oil-free vegan diet and the MS is COMPLETELY GONE. She has been off of medications, has had **NO** symptoms to this day. She cycles and runs with me and she is pregnant with our second baby right now. She is more active than most young people I know. Her neurologist took MRIs on her and saw NO EVIDANCE of ever having MS and her numbers are always amazing. She has no residual signs of having the disease except for the small cysts left behind from those ridiculous injections. Her neurologist is always floored at how good she is doing and he told us that he has NEVER seen anything like it. My wife is living an amazing disease and drug free life due to being an oil-free vegan.

My case is the exact same thing, but different ailment. I was diagnosed with hypertension, tachycardia and palpitations at the age of 20 years old. I was an extremely fit, Navy Fleet Marine Force Combat Hospital Corpsman. I was ripped, thin and I was a distance runner. My blood pressure readings were averaging at 160/100. I had EVERY cardiac test known to man done on me and they couldn’t find anything that was causing all of that nonsense. I saw numerous doctors and specialists and all they could tell me was that it was genetics and the only cure was medication. One doctor, only one, mentioned diet and all it was about low-sodium. I ate like **** at that time…

I gained a lot of weight while I was in college after the military and ended up at a whopping 210lbs and my cholesterol was 210 mg/dL. I’m 5’8” and 210lbs is totally unnecessary. I switched to the oil-free vegan diet and I’m almost done coming off of my hypertension medications as per my doctor’s orders. My blood pressure is now averaging 100/60 and my cholesterol came down from 210 mg/dL to 136 mg/dL (and I’m sure is even lower now) and I feel great. I’m now 36 years old now and coming off of multiple medications (beta-blockers and ACE-inhibitors) that I’ve been taking since I was 20 BECAUSE OF A DIET!!!!!!!!

My mom came to live with us, began to eat our oil-free vegan diet and her doctors took her off of most of her medications and she is currently tapering off of the rest that she was taking for: diabetes, high cholesterol, hypertension, lost 70lbs and her kidneys are now FULLY FUNCTIONING again. She was told that her kidneys were never going to be normal again by multiple doctors and that she would need a transplant or die. She is better now and isn’t sick any longer. This all happened from eating an oil-free vegan diet.

People always come up to me and ask me why I’m so fit and how I lost so much weight and I turn them on to the oil-free vegan diet with the EXACT same amazing results: they come off of medications, they have beautiful physical exams, blood tests that are amazing, I’ve heard of diseases reversed and I’ve seen weight loss that gives me chills every time I think about it.

At my job, coworkers see the others lose weight and have better health due to the diet I turned them on to and I’ve literally had so many people ask me how to do it , I have a template email that I send out to avoid typing out the lengthy explanations and list of books and authors, et al. This lifestyle works me and for many, many other people that I’ve known. I can’t doubt what I’ve seen in terms of how badass this diet works. How can this be denied?

No amount scientific nutritional studies will EVER change my mind about how amazing the oil-free vegan diet is. This is real-life stuff right here, thanks!

four de trance

I would've written about more "cases" that I've personally experienced with this lifestyle, but I'm strapped for time right now. I also apologize for any typos/ grammar errors that I may have made, but I'm sure you get the point!

MEversbergII

If you are oil free and vegan, I have questions.

1) The usual issue of B-12.
2) Where do you get your fats, especially saturated fats?
3) Was your wife's overall refined salt intake reduced as a result of her dietary change? As late, a link between refined salt and MS has become a thing.

M.