Puppy Forum and Dog Forums banner

61 - 80 of 89 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,842 Posts
Discussion Starter #61
If you've seen what goes on in the commercial meat industry and are comfortable with it for your own diet, super. But you can't understand at all how someone else can see the same thing and NOT be comfortable with it in their diet and may choose to "chastise" it? People can have varying opinions and if you are comfortable with your choices it shouldn't matter to you what other people say.

I do hope you've had your well tested for antibiotic runoff and e.coli.
for your information, we had a professionally tested by a certified inspector, it was clear of any contaminants, only the water was very hard and recommended a water softener. we had the water tested in the first place was because there has been a lot of oil drilling in the area and we were more concerned about that affecting our water then the feed lots down the road (they aren't that close ... but we also don't know how long the aquifer that supplies our well runs for). perhaps the regulations that govern feedlots in your area are not as strict as they are here.

but to insinuate that ALL feedlots, dairies, and chicken farms are the same if not an accurate statement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,766 Posts
There is an industry standard for commercial selling so almost all are run the same way. It is veryvery hard for a farmer to sell his/her product if they don't stick to those standards. They can only do things differently if they have an alternative market for their product. Although, yes, some states have stricter environmental standards than others. But guess what? They only enacted those stricter standards because the customers/local residents demanded it. Same for antibiotic-free chicken. You don't get improvements by accepting the status quo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,058 Posts
Rather than going vegetarian or vegan in the sense of animal activism, I've chosen to use care when purchasing my meats, eggs, milk, etc. and purchase grass-fed, free range, organic (when possible). This of course doesn't take away the fact that the animals are still, in some cases, butchered for their products....but at least leading up to that they had a life outside of a dirty, cramped cage or crowded pen. I also buy local whenever possible.

I do believe that for a healthful diet, we should limit animal products. We eat animal products in moderation, and always antibiotic/nitrate-free. I spend a lot more this way on groceries, but it's worth it. We also eat a lot of plants and do a lot of juicing too.
This so much.

It costs more but it gives me peace of mind. I'll be moving back into farm country when I go back to university in the summer. I expect to be able to buy eggs off of the small, local chicken keepers no problem. Mmmm... Merlin and I love eggs! He eats his raw of course. I enjoy mine with whatever leftovers I've got.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,865 Posts
There is an industry standard for commercial selling so almost all are run the same way. It is veryvery hard for a farmer to sell his/her product if they don't stick to those standards. They can only do things differently if they have an alternative market for their product. Although, yes, some states have stricter environmental standards than others. But guess what? They only enacted those stricter standards because the customers/local residents demanded it. Same for antibiotic-free chicken. You don't get improvements by accepting the status quo.
Well the industries..... Beef, pork, chicken, turkey, lamb, veal are each so different that you really cannot speak of them in the same discussion.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,865 Posts
And here are a few things vegans cannot get without supplimentation



Animal protein contains all the essential amino acids in the right ratios. It is important for muscle mass and bone health, to name a few. Vegans don’t get any animal protein, which can have negative effects on body composition (2, 3, 4, 5).

Creatine helps form an energy reservoir in cells. Studies show that vegetarians are deficient in creatine, which has harmful effects on muscle and brain function (6, 7, 8).

Carnosine is protective against various degenerative processes in the body and may protect against aging. It is found only in animal foods (9, 10, 11).

Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) is the most active form of Omega-3 fatty acids in the body and primarily found in animal foods. The plant form of Omega-3s, ALA, is inefficiently converted to DHA in the body (12, 13, 14).

Two other nutrients that have been demonized by vegan proponents are saturated fat and cholesterol.

Cholesterol is a crucial molecule in the body and is part of every cell membrane. It is also used to make steroid hormones like testosterone. Studies show that saturated fat intake correlates with increased testosterone levels (15).

Not surprisingly, vegans and vegetarians have much lower testosterone levels than meat eaters (16, 17, 18, 19).

Bottom Line: Vegans are deficient in many important nutrients, including Vitamin B12 and Creatine. Studies show that vegans have much lower testosterone levels than their meat-eating counterparts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,761 Posts
Bottom Line: Vegans are deficient in many important nutrients, including Vitamin B12 and Creatine. Studies show that vegans have much lower testosterone levels than their meat-eating counterparts.
Much of those deficiencies can be accounted for by variety, and if some supplementation is necessary, well, that's better than the higher rate of cardiovascular disease found amongst meat-eaters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,674 Posts
And here are a few things vegans cannot get without supplimentation....
So you take a couple supplements, big deal? Omni diets are often lacking nutrients too. If everyone ate so well that they were receiving all the nutrients they needed from foods alone, then we wouldn't have fortified EVERYTHING. Flour is fortified with B-vitamins, Milk is fortified with Vitamin-D, Salt is fortified with Iodine, etc...

Algae is an efficient plant form of Omega-3 fatty acids. It's where the fish get it from. One can cut out the middle man and take algae based supplements.

Cholesterol is made in the liver. One's own body generates cholesterol. One does not need an outside source of cholesterol. There are plant based foods that contain saturated fats, like coconut.

In conclusion -- who cares? We live in a modern society that has allowed us the luxury of taking supplements when necessary to maintain ideal health. Many people benefit from supplements in their diet, including omnis, vegetarians, and vegans. No one has a perfect diet, none of our food sources are without fault. After 20 years of vegetarianism, and 10 years of veganism, all my blood test results are perfect, I have the highest good cholesterol and best HDL/LDL ratio my doctor has ever seen, and the lowest A1C my doctor has ever seen. I've been told by multiple physicians to "keep doing whatever you're doing" and that with blood results like mine, I'd never have heart disease or diabetes.

Pass the sub-lingual B12.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
Woops, posted too late. This in response the CPs comment on cardiovascular health.


That's not even true. The whole fear of saturated fat (the fat that comes from animals) is a complete joke. Saturated fat actually raises good cholesterol. Trans fat, on the other hand, (the fat that comes from vegetable oils), has been shown to be the real problem fat for cardiovascular disease.

I've done a lot of reading about it and there's plenty of sources to get this info but with a quick search this is what I found:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/health/438600/Eating-fat-is-good-for-you-Doctors-change-their-minds-after-40-years

"Other experts have added their voices to his controversial call to end 40 years of advice to cut saturated fat – which has been described as “the greatest medical error of our time”."

"Dr Malhotra, an interventional cardiology specialist registrar at Croydon University Hospital, London, slammed the routine prescriptions of statins and claimed a diet high in saturated fats could be three times more effective at lowering cholesterol"

"But recent studies “have not supported any significant association between saturated fat intake and risk of cardiovascular disease” and saturated fat has actually been found to be protective"

There's plenty of other sites with info & studies saying the same thing. I even agree with the recommendation of a Mediterranean type diet. I do a Mediterranean Paleo type diet since I'm also pretty convinced that the scientific world is as wrong about grains being healthy as they were wrong about saturated fat being unhealthy. That's the thing about nutrition, it's consistently changing.... one day coffee, chocolate, and wine are horrible for you... The next thing you know they help fight dementia and heart disease... Gotta love it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,766 Posts
It's interesting because the majority of people in India have been vegetarian for a very long time. I think Buddhists too. Even without supplements they seem to have kept civilization going and had fairly long lifespans for the time. Although they aren't/weren't vegan. Maybe eggs and dairy provide those things?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
Yup, they do. Eggs were considered horrible not to long ago for cardiovascular health and that's been completely debunked as well. Trust me, I'm not saying a vegan is going to have horrible cardiovascular health, they just need to be careful about what types of oils they're putting into their bodies. There are healthy vegan oils... Olive, coconut, avacodo. The issue comes when ppl are eating unhealthy oils that are hydrogenated to make them solid (which vegetable oils are not supposed to be solid). So all those fake butters and stuff... Not healthy.

Oh, and some oils that aren't solid.. Like conola and plain vegetable oil, aren't healthy and usually partially hydrogenated as well as being high in omega 6 which we get way to much of in a diet because of eating mostly processed foods. So even something like sunflower oil can be an issue if someone eats a diet high in omega 6 already and doesn't balance it out with omega 3.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
The China Study has its own issues:

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/

http://www.westonaprice.org/vegetarianism-and-plant-foods/the-china-study-myth

The first link is the best but extremely long. Although, if you took the time to read the China Study then it is only fair that you take the time to read the critiques of it.

Honestly, I like the data from the China Study because, despite how it's presented, it actually shows that:

"I previously noted that data from the China Study reported by Denise Minger were highly supportive of the Perfect Health Diet. In particular, the China Study supported our claims that:

Animal protein is healthier than plant protein.
Dairy fats are good, but dairy proteins can be problematic.
Grains are bad – especially wheat – but rice is OK.
Calories should come predominantly from fat.
Now, Stan the Heretic has done more work in the raw China Study data and shows charts that support the Perfect Health Diet and similar diets such as Jan Kwasniewski’s Optimal Diet.

What the Perfect Health Diet and the Optimal Diet have in common is that around 65-70% of calories come from fats, not carbs or protein. (The Optimal Diet is a bit higher in protein than carbs, the Perfect Health Diet a bit higher in carbs than protein, but the two are close.) By the standard of both diets, popular diets all over the world have too much carbs and (arguably) too much protein, not enough fats.

So we would expect to see that in China, people who eat more fat have better health, while people who eat fewer carbs or less protein have better health. And that’s exactly what Stan reports.

His charts show that:

Cardiovascular mortality trends down as fat increases, but trends up as carb or protein intake increases.
Cancer mortality trends down as fat increases, but trends up as carb or protein intake increases.
Go to Stan’s site to see the charts!"

http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2010/08/the-china-study-more-evidence-for-the-perfect-health-diet/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,674 Posts
Yup, they do. Eggs were considered horrible not to long ago for cardiovascular health and that's been completely debunked as well. Trust me, I'm not saying a vegan is going to have horrible cardiovascular health, they just need to be careful about what types of oils they're putting into their bodies. There are healthy vegan oils... Olive, coconut, avacodo. The issue comes when ppl are eating unhealthy oils that are hydrogenated to make them solid (which vegetable oils are not supposed to be solid). So all those fake butters and stuff... Not healthy.

Oh, and some oils that aren't solid.. Like conola and plain vegetable oil, aren't healthy and usually partially hydrogenated as well as being high in omega 6 which we get way to much of in a diet because of eating mostly processed foods. So even something like sunflower oil can be an issue if someone eats a diet high in omega 6 already and doesn't balance it out with omega 3.
Everyone needs to be careful about what oils they put into their bodies. Don't know why vegans are being singled out here, unless everyone non vegan cooks in lard and butter exclusively? Most processed foods that have "partially hydrogenated" ingredients are not vegan. I have yet to find a "partially hydrogenated" margarine that is vegan. Hydrogenation makes oils solid at room temperature. Canola and "vegetable oil" (usually soybean) are liquid at room temperature, so they wouldn't be hydrogenated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,674 Posts
The China Study has its own issues:
Can you present that information in peer reviewed journal articles please? Right now, you're citing a non-neutral source with no formal education in nutrition/science, twice, (once through the Weston A. Price website- which is generally regarded as quackery) and a website that is using arguments against the China Study to advance its own agenda of selling its diet plan. I am 100% certain the China Study is not without flaws, but I do believe it is less biased than the sources you are citing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
Not picking on vegans. There just seems to be this belief that vegan eating is exceptionally healthy and it's really not. There's absolutely no proof of that at all. A vegan can be healthy but they would have to take more then meat and dairy out of their diets. People that eat meat aren't exceptionally healthy but they're not unhealthy because of eating meat, it's from eating other garbage.

So, stopping the consumption of meat isn't going to make someone healthy.... Unless they have some horrible physical reaction to it's consumption.

Sorry,... I meant overly processed... Which canola oil is. Not partially hydrogenated, which is used to make vegetable oils into spreads and such. Canola oil goes through a processing that causes some of the omega 3s it contains to transform into trans fat. (I believe). So it's really not healthy even if it's liquid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
Can you present that information in peer reviewed journal articles please? Right now, you're citing a non-neutral source with no formal education in nutrition/science, twice, (once through the Weston A. Price website- which is generally regarded as quackery) and a website that is using arguments against the China Study to advance its own agenda of selling its diet plan. I am 100% certain the China Study is not without flaws, but I do believe it is less biased than the sources you are citing.
The diet plan one is a website with 3 ppl with really good credentials. One of which happens to be Chinese. The diet is Paleo, you don't need to sell it. It's available all over the internet.

The first source is over 9000 words of info. You could at least bother to read the info presented.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-china-study-revisited/

This website, called science based medicine with .org at the end... You know cause to have a reliable source it has to have a .org or .gov at the end, took the time to read that first link I posted up. So maybe, idk, it might be worth the read.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,674 Posts
Not picking on vegans. There just seems to be this belief that vegan eating is exceptionally healthy and it's really not. There's absolutely no proof of that at all. A vegan can be healthy but they would have to take more then meat and dairy out of their diets. People that eat meat aren't exceptionally healthy but they're not unhealthy because of eating meat, it's from eating other garbage.

So, stopping the consumption of meat isn't going to make someone healthy.... Unless they have some horrible physical reaction to it's consumption.
Obviously you can be a vegan and your diet can consist of nothing but potatoes and you'd have issues. I assumed we were referring to "well planned vegan diets" not "that's a nice plate of potatoes you have... again." I've never argued that one can't eat a healthy omni diet.


Sorry,... I meant overly processed... Which canola oil is. Not partially hydrogenated, which is used to make vegetable oils into spreads and such. Canola oil goes through a processing that causes some of the omega 3s it contains to transform into trans fat. (I believe). So it's really not healthy even if it's liquid.
I'm just not finding any peer reviewed sources that say this? Skimming through the top 100 results in peer reviewed journals, none of them had any negatives. This included reports from places like Harvard and the Mayo Clinic. Here's a sample of the kind of things I came across:

Lin, L., Allemekinders, H., Dansby, A., Campbell, L., Durance-Tod, S., Berger, A., & Jones, P.J. (2013). Evidence of health benefits of canola oil. Nutrition Reviews, 71(6), 370-385.

Abstract:
Canola oil-based diets have been shown to reduce plasma cholesterol levels in comparison with diets containing higher levels of saturated fatty acids. Consumption of canola oil also influences biological functions that affect various other biomarkers of disease risk. Previous reviews have focused on the health effects of individual components of canola oil. Here, the objective is to address the health effects of intact canola oil, as this has immediate practical implications for consumers, nutritionists, and others deciding which oil to consume or recommend. A literature search was conducted to examine the effects of canola oil consumption on coronary heart disease, insulin sensitivity, lipid peroxidation, inflammation, energy metabolism, and cancer cell growth. Data reveal substantial reductions in total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, as well as other positive actions, including increased tocopherol levels and improved insulin sensitivity, compared with consumption of other dietary fat sources. In summary, growing scientific evidence supports the use of canola oil, beyond its beneficial actions on circulating lipid levels, as a health-promoting component of the diet.

Harland, J.I. (2009). An assessment of the economic and heart health benefits of replacing saturated fat in the diet with monounsaturates in the form of rapeseed (canola) oil. Nutrition Bulletin, 34(2), 174-184.

Abstract:
There is a well-established requirement for the UK population to reduce the saturates content of its diet from around 13.3% energy (E) intake to 10% E intake (including alcohol) and to improve fat quality by increasing monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) intake. Canola (rapeseed) oil is one of the richest sources of dietary MUFAs and is a good source of the omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) alpha-linolenic acid. Recent advances using conventional plant breeding have led to the development of high-oleic canola, which has an increased level of MUFA and greater oxidative stability, making it suitable for a wide range of culinary purposes including frying. Around 7% of dietary saturated fatty acid (SFA) intake in adults derives from potatoes (fried potatoes and chips) and savoury snacks, with the value increasing to 13%–15% SFA in 4–18-year-olds. Traditionally, frying oils have been high in saturates content and their replacement with lower SFA alternatives provides the opportunity for food manufactures to lower SFA content of food with minimal consumer intervention. It has been estimated that at least half of the SFA in this category of foods can be replaced. In this review of literature, ten intervention studies were identified, where SFAs and/or carbohydrates were replaced by rapeseed oil, and the effect on blood lipids were reported. Results from these studies were pooled using standard meta-analysis methods. The standard mean differences in total cholesterol (Total-C) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were 0.86 mmol/l [95% confidence interval (CI): −1.05 to −0.66] (ten studies) and 0.87 mmol/l (95% CI: −1.07 to −0.66) (nine studies), respectively, both significant ( P < 0.0001) and non-heterogeneous ( P > 0.1). Using the pooled data, it can be calculated that each gram of SFA intake reduction was associated with reductions in both Total-C and LDL-C of 0.03 mmol/l, while each gram increase in either MUFA or PUFA reduced Total-C by 0.05 and 0.09, respectively, and LDL-C by 0.04 mmol/l and 0.08 mmol/l, respectively. It was also calculated that each 10 g increase in MUFA or rapeseed oil intake was associated with a reduction in Total-C of 9.8% and 5.8%, respectively. In 2006, annual direct healthcare costs associated with coronary heart disease were estimated at £3.2 billion and the overall cost to the UK economy was nearly £9.0 billion. Assuming 3.5 g total fat (typically 30% E SFA) is replaced by 3.5 g rapeseed oil, then it can be predicted that Total-C will be reduced by 1.9%, equivalent to an annual reduction of £61 million direct health costs and £171 million total costs.

Iggman, D., Gustafsson, I-B., Berglund, L., Vessby, B., Marckmann, P., Risérus, U. (2011). Replacing dairy fat with rapeseed oil causes rapid improvement of hyperlipidaemia: a randomized controlled study. Journal of Internal Medicine, 270 (4), 356-364.

Abstract:
Background. Rapeseed oil (RO), also known as canola oil, principally contains the unsaturated fatty acids 18:1n-9, 18:2n-6 and 18:3n-3 and may promote cardiometabolic health. Objective. To investigate the effects on lipoprotein profile, factors of coagulation and insulin sensitivity of replacing a diet rich in saturated fat from dairy foods (DF diet) with a diet including RO-based fat (RO diet). Design. During a 2 × 3-week randomized, controlled, cross-over trial, 20 free-living hyperlipidaemic subjects were provided with isocaloric test diets that differed in fat composition alone. Blood lipoprotein profile, coagulation and fibrinolytic factors and insulin sensitivity (euglycaemic clamp) were determined before and after the dietary intervention. Results. All subjects completed the study, and compliance was high according to changes in serum fatty acids. The RO diet, but not the DF diet, reduced the levels of serum cholesterol (−17%), triglycerides (−20%) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (−17%), cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol ratio (−21%), apolipoprotein (apo) B/apo A-I ratio (−4%) and factor VII coagulant activity (FVIIc) (−5%) from baseline. These changes were significantly different between the diets ( P = 0.05 to P < 0.0001), except for FVIIc ( P = 0.1). The RO diet, but not the DF diet, modestly increased serum lipoprotein(a) (+6%) and tended to increase the glucose disappearance rate (K-value, +33%). HDL cholesterol, insulin sensitivity, fibrinogen and tissue plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 levels did not change from baseline or differ between the two diets. Conclusions. In a diet moderately high in total fat, replacing dairy fat with RO causes a rapid and clinically relevant improvement in serum lipoprotein profile including lowering of triglycerides in hyperlipidaemic individuals.

Three diet plan one is a website with 3 ppl with really good credentials. One of which happens to be Chinese. The diet is Paleo, you don't need to sell it. It's available all over the internet.

The first source is over 9000 words of info. You could at least bother to read the info presented.
You're assuming I didn't. I see there is conflicting information. I care more about the studies cited by the blogger than anything she says. I can read original research and come to my own conclusions... though honestly I don't care enough to go and find those articles and read them. I never stated The China Study was the be all and end all of anything. My assumption would be that there is conflicting information. It is exceptionally difficult to prove anything in science. How many years did it take to prove cigarettes cause cancer? It is a process of continuously replicating studies to arrive at a "cause," it takes many many years, lots of money, and is very difficult to do. For every article the blogger found that say "No, the data doesn't say that," one could probably find one that says "Yes it does." You can decide what you want to believe and live how you want to live. I don't believe anyone is arguing your right to do so, but making blanket statements about either diet being "right" or "wrong" or specific components being "dangerous" without firm evidence supporting them is misguided at best.

I will say, with regards to what you linked - If I cited any of those websites on a project at work, I'd lose my job. Being Chinese isn't a credential (not saying that the Chinese haven't made many fine contributions to the world...). They are selling a book with that website. The top banner says "BUY THE BOOK."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,674 Posts
This website, called science based medicine with .org at the end... You know cause to have a reliable source it has to have a .org or .gov at the end, took the time to read that first link I posted up. So maybe, idk, it might be worth the read.
Just... no. I can go buy a .org for myself right now if I cared to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
Just... no. I can go buy a .org for myself right now if I cared to.
It was a joke. I don't know how long it's been since you were in school but you may remember that for any research paper writing it was mandatory that any articles used as sources for info had to be with a .org or .gov at the end because that made them "legit"... anything .com was inferior at best.

As far as the book website, the comment about her being Chinese was also not really all that serious. Obviously though, that does indicate that she has some experience with the lifestyle and diet of such countries. Since she was born to Chinese parents and raised in Korea. More experience than someone from the Western world or a researcher who didn't actually grow up living in the country, or similar countries, that were being studied in the China Study. I'm pretty sure she has a good idea of the type of diet that people eat in such countries since, you know, she actually lived that lifestyle. These are her credentials:

"Shou-Ching is a molecular biologist and cancer researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, and Director of BIDMC’s Multi-Gene Transcriptional Profiling Core. Shou-Ching was born in Korea to Chinese parents, grew up in Korea, attended college at National Taiwan University in Taipei, and graduate school at University of Newcastle in Australia, before coming to the US to work at Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Children’s Hospital Boston, and Beth Israel Deaconess and Harvard Medical School. Her publications may be found by searching Pubmed for “Shih SC” (through Sep 2011) and “Jaminet SC” (since Sep 2011)." -http://perfecthealthdiet.com/about/

As far as canola oil, since you like the China Study you may be interested in the fact that the data collected showed a 25+ correlation with rapeseed oil intake and liver cancer. (canola oil is genetically modified rapeseed).

As far as the blogger in the original link. ALL of her information comes DIRECTLY from the data collected in the original CHINA STUDY. So, that's what the China study REALLY, actually showed that was COMPLETELY ignored in the book written by Campbell. Like the fact the rapeseed oil has a 25+ correlation to liver cancer. Or like the fact that, according to the data collected in the CHINA STUDY, there is a 25+ correlation between plant protein intake and cardiovascular disease. She's not just making this stuff up off of the top of her head it is ALL coming from the original study. I could go look at the data the was collected during the study myself and find that same information and write a huge article about it, much the same as any other person could, but she already did it. Just because she's a blogger doesn't mean the information being presented by her isn't coming from a legit study, and actually, the study that people believe promotes a vegetarian and vegan diet. If anything, the data collected during the China Study seems to show that a diet primarily of veggies and fish with very little grain, carbs, and starch along with limited animal AND veggie protein but HIGH in healthy fats is the diet that has the most potential health benefits.

Which, *gasp*, is the type of diet I actually eat. From spending about a year reading different scientific articles and further break downs of said articles. I'm bio major by the way... the links I post, whether they seems quality or legit or whatever to you, I didn't just read them and start following them... there are PLENTY or legit studies that back them up but instead of posting like 20-40 DIFFERENT studies that all add up to the same thing... they've been condensed into an easy to read form by others.

Also, I'm not even arguing against a healthy vegan lifestyle. But healthy vegan to me would be pretty much no grain consumption and limited carbs... because that's what science points to as being healthy...
 
61 - 80 of 89 Posts
Top