Interesting article... now it's time to tear that study apart. I would like to find the article itself, and look at their study design, how they controlled for all children getting the exact same nutrition and amount of food for those years, etc.
So they divided 554 Kenyan children into four groups: one got two ounces of meat each day, two others were given equivalent calories in milk or oil, and one group got no supplement.
that's all well and good, but it's a fact that neither milk nor oil (and what kind of oil: olive, vegetable?) have the same amount of protein as meat. if people think that vegans don't consume ANY protein, then they do not know anything about the typical western vegan today. the typical vegan eats soy protein, nuts, etc, as a protein supplement. what about SOY PROTEIN for this study???? the study would have at least a modicum of clout in my book if they had given the kids equivalent protein or calories through soy each day, as a fifth group. that assumptions could be made about the health of vegan/vegetarian diets. I think it's a no-brainer that kids who received protein vs. kids who didn't thrived better. and what about vegans who supplement? I supplement with B vitamins and folic acid, nutrients otherwise only found in animal product. B vitamins are really important for brain health. it's insane and unethical for this researcher to use the kind of strong language that she does against Western vegan diets.
Also, all supplement groups weighed more and had greater muscle development in their upper arms. Also, they report "35 points higher score on an intelligence, etc, test for the meat group compared with 14 point higher score for the dairy and oil groups, vs. the no supplement group." what is the SCALE of the test? is it a 100 point scale, 500 point??? so ambiguous.
also the duration of the study: two years. that's not really a long time when you think about it. if you tracked kids from birth to adulthood you might have some data that is applicable for generalizations...
I would also like to see some info on the studies from the US and NEtherlands that were mentioned. you can't just throw those accusations aruond with ANYTHING to back up what you are saying.
To sum up, I think that the article was VERY badly written, and really mostly propaganda. people need to think critically when these kinds of harsh accusations are thrown around.
now that's what I call unethical.
all from me.
love,
H
- posted by H @ 3/03/2005 05:34:00 PM