Stop the Presses! Mark Bittman's Become Protein-Deficient!

Someone kindly sent me a link earlier to a Mark Bittman piece from yesterday's New York Times. In Tara Parker-Pope's "Well" column in the health section of the paper, Bittman explains how while training for the New York City Marathon, he was informed that he's not eating enough "'complete' proteins". In fact, it seems that he just hasn't been getting enough protein at all. He lists the credentials of nutritionist and Today TV show regular Madelyn Fernstrom, and states:

We met, she heard me out, then immediately declared my diet to be on the “low end” protein-wise – which, she said, “would certainly cause fatigue,” especially since I eat mostly vegetables and don’t typically consume “complete” proteins (code-word for animal products).

So what's an omni foodie trying to pass himself off as a supposed "part-time vegan" to do?

I started eating a “concentrated protein,” usually tofu, a can of sardines, an egg thrown onto whatever else I’m eating, or something equally simple, right after six-miles-or-longer runs.

So here's the scoop: Bittman's obviously not an abolitionist or any sort of animal rights advocate. He's not a vegan. He's not even a vegetarian. He's a trendy food writer who's tried to cash in on the rising popularity of veganism, attempting to co-opt the term to sell his book. I certainly don't expect him to defend a plant-based diet any more than he already has for the limited reasons he has (e.g. personal health, the environment). However, the reference to needing "complete" proteins (or of the supposed need to combine proteins), whether or not for "athletes", has long-since been dismissed by even the most mainstream of non-vegan-friendly bodies as completely unnecessary. Plus, the whole idea (his token reference to tofu aside) of needing to consume "concentrated" sources of animal-based protein to not "often run out of energy halfway through even four-mile runs" had me rolling my eyes more than a little. Some of the comments were especially annoying, especially one where Tara Parker-Pope added a note describing Bittman as "mostly-vegan" and attributing his protein deficiency to that fact. Mostly vegan? Really?

I would certainly never try to encourage someone to go vegan for health-based reasons, since it's not about personal health: It's about our usage of animals for our own selfish and trivial purposes. On the other hand, it really ticks me off to see someone who's getting so much attention as a purported food expert now trying to spread the word that anyone exerting themselves physically needs to eat animal flesh to stay healthy. I really hope that someone takes him to task concerning this soon.

Oh My Poor Bones!

So yesterday, the results of yet another study into "vegetarianism" and its impact on bone density were released. This one is apparently a bit more comprehensive, involving the results of several studies. According to a piece about it on the Australian Science Alert website called "Vegan Bones a Bit Less Dense":

Researchers in Australia and Vietnam searched all peer-reviewed literature on the subject, selecting nine studies for analysis. The nine studies compared bone mineral density (BMD) of meat eaters and vegetarians from around the world, including 2749 men and women.

Their results showed that people on vegetarian diets have BMD roughly 5 per cent lower than non-vegetarians.

The article quotes one of the leaders of the study, Professor Tuan Nguyen, as reassuring people that

"Many studies tell us, for example, that countries with a high rate of vegetable consumption have a low risk of hip fracture. This implies that vegetable consumption is good for bone health.”

“Other studies have highlighted lower BMD measurements among vegetarians and have come to the opposite conclusion.”

“The truth, of course, encompasses many dietary and lifestyle factors. While BMD is important, it is not the only thing that contributes to fracture risk.”

Now, although the piece on the study is called "Vegan Bones a Bit Less Dense", the piece goes on to use the term "vegetarian" in describing the subjects of the mere 9 out of 922 peer-reviewed journal articles on the topic that Professor Nguyen's group found worth of including in their own results--less than 10 per cent of previous studies done on the topic. His group ended up looking at results for subjects who followed a number of supposed types of vegetarianism, including in their definition of the term those popular "vegetarians" who eat animals:

The term ‘vegetarian diet’ included 4 types of vegetarian diet: semi-vegetarian (excluding meat); lactoovovegetarian (excluding meat and seafood); lactovegetarian (excluding meat, seafood and eggs but not milk and dairy products); and vegan (excluding all foods of animal origin).

In conclusion, Nguyen emphasized that the difference in bone density between meat eaters and vegans is "small" and that "whether the difference translates into increased fracture risk has yet to be resolved".

Another story about this study, again out of Australia, quotes Nguyen as stating outright that "the study found vegans were no more likely to be treated for bone fractures than non-vegans" and that vegans tend to be healthier, living longer and with lower rates of hypertension and heart disease. So basically, a vegan's bones may be 5% less dense than those of an omni, but there's no conclusive evidence that this means anything whatsoever in terms of a higher incidence of breaking said bones (in fact, the opposite may be true) or of the development of osteoporosis, and furthermore, vegans tend to live longer by avoiding one of the major killers in Western society--heart disease.

Five bucks says that by this time next week, the US media will have jumped on this, regardless, with milk industry types and their public relations people (think Center for Consumer Freedom) reinterpreting the results for their own agenda and praising the benefits of dairy, while warning people of the dire consequences of following an animal-free diet. Five bucks, I tell ya.