Vegan Is As Vegan Does

If a vegan restaurant is serving - clandestinely - eggs, fish, and dairy food, it's not a vegan restaurant.

I received this link in an email from cw. (Thanks cw!) It's getting a lot of hits, so be patient if you go there:

Operation Pancake: Undercover Investigation Of LA Vegan Restaurants

Team Quarrygirl and Mr. Wishbone from quarrygirl.com tested food from 17 vegan restaurants in the Los Angeles area. Seven of them tested positive for non-vegan ingredients, mostly egg and dairy (the milk protein casein).

It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where everyone was raving about a shop's fat-free frozen yogurt, to find out, whilst racking up the pounds, that it wasn't fat-free.

But for some it's not a laughing matter. Egg, milk protein, and shellfish can induce allergic reactions. I don't know the legalities of this, but if I ordered food in a restaurant that was labeled as free from these known allergens, and I experienced a reaction, I would hold the restaurant responsible.

The quarrygirl team did some additional investigative work on vegan fake meats, since they're often produced offsite. They found that:

"MOST, if not all, of the fake meats you buy come from Taiwan."

Then:

"Posing as a potential US importer of allergen-free veggie meats, we emailed the Taiwanese manufacturer," [and also spoke with] somebody in the US who worked in the restaurant business in Taiwan."

And discovered:

"Sometimes eggs, fish flakes and milk might be added but not on the label, and we [Taiwanese manufacturer] never include ingredients of all the additives – there would be too many."

Stark difference between food regulation here and there. This highlights the need for regulation of imported food, doesn't it.

One comment was from someone claiming they worked for the manufacturer of the test kits:

"I work for the manufacturer of the tests that Quarry Girl used. We have been passing around this article in the office today and are so excited to see our products being used in this way. While I don’t officially speak for the manufacturer (and I am not anything resembling a vegan) I can tell you from the methods and pictures that this test was properly conducted and the results should be recognized.

We focus very tightly on false results: a false negative could kill somebody with an allergy while a false positive could cost a lot of money in lost production, discarded foodstuffs etc."

A spectacular job.
________Photos from quarrygirl.com. They're of actual tested food samples.

YouTube Opens Channel For Traditional Journalists To Offer Reporting Advice

A few hours ago YouTube debuted a "Reporters Center:"
http://www.youtube.com/reporterscenter

I found it via Nick Kristof's New York Times' blog, On The Ground. YouTube has gathered "some of the nation's top journalists" and given them a channel with which to tell the rest of us how to report news.

It feels odd.

First, it seems to promote journalists as celebrities. I think that who is reporting news should take a back seat to news being reported. Although there's something to be said for respecting journalists with good reporting reputations.

Second, good reporting isn't just about how you report, but what you report. Mainstream media journalists sometimes seem beholden to their sponsors in their story selection. Example - What mainstream outlets are covering the news about the Endocrine Society's landmark statement? It may be niche, but it's news. It makes me wonder if agriculture or petrochemical companies - who risk losing face and revenue if this story makes headlines - have some sway.

Lastly, what are Couric, Kristof, and Woodward doing on a grassroots media outlet like YouTube? Is this some concession by CBS, the New York Times, and the Washington Post? Maybe traditional reporters are trying to stay relevant? (Maybe YouTube received financial incentive from these traditional reporting groups to promote their journalists?)

Here's NPR's Scott Simon from YouTube's Reporters Center. "There are a few qualities that any story should have..."

________

Pathogens In Cookie Dough A Terrorist Act? Far-Fetched? "Don't Count On It," Says Bill Marler

I'm sure you've heard about Nestlé's recall of refrigerated Toll House Cookie Dough, thought to be contaminated with the pathogenic bacteria E. coli 0157:H7. (Visit Nestlé's press release for a list of recalled products.)

No one knows yet how E. coli 0157:H7 got into the chocolate chip cookie dough, if it's there at all ... Nestle says they still haven't found the smoking dough. (There is compelling circumstantial evidence that the dough is contaminated though.) (Update, Jun 29: They found it.)

Well, Bill Marler, the nation's preeminent food safety attorney, yesterday painted the following scenario:

"At 10:00 PM last night between yet another story about Michael Jackson’s death, a foreign Network begin airing a video taken inside a manufacturing facility showing someone treating a batch of cookie dough with an unknown liquid. There is a claim that this is a terrorist act.

In the next 15 minutes, every network news operation is playing the video. The broadcast networks break into regular programming to air it, and the cable news stations go nonstop with the video while talking heads dissect it. Michael Jackson fades into the distance.

Coming on a Friday evening on the East Coast, the food terrorism story catches the mainstream Media completely off guard. Other than to say the video is being analyzed by CIA experts, and is presumed to be authentic, there isn’t much coming out of the government."
- Bill Marler, "Who Poisoned the Cookie Dough?"

That's fiction. Marler says it's not far-fetched though. And he's not alone in that thinking. Tommy Thompson, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services (a position Kathleen Sebelius just filled), expressed concern about the nation’s food supply on his last day in the job in 2004, saying,

"For the life of me I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do."
- Former HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson

When asked if he agreed with Thompson's concern about the food supply, former FDA Associate Commissioner William Hubbard said in a PBS interview in 2007, "I wouldn't disagree with Secretary Thompson."

Ms. Sebelius has a big job ahead of her.
________

Endocrine Society Releases Public Statement on Risk From Pollutants

The Endocrine Society, "the world's oldest, largest, and most active organization devoted to research on hormones and the clinical practice of endocrinology," just published an ominous 50-page statement, their first, reflecting the concern building in the scientific community over certain environmental pollutants. (Diagram to the right is of the endocrine system.)

"There is growing interest in the possible health threat posed by endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which are substances in our environment, food, and consumer products."
- Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement, Endocrine Reviews, June 2009

They presented evidence (animal studies, human clinical trials, epidemiological studies) that EDCs can affect:

• Production and activity of hormones (insulin, estrogen, testosterone, adrenaline)
  
• Male and female reproduction (endometriosis, sperm counts)
  
• Breast development and breast cancer
  
• Prostate cancer
  
• Thyroid function
  
• Brain development and function
  
• Metabolism and obesity
  
• Cardiovascular health

This is a big deal. The Society is now on record as claiming EDCs are "a significant concern to public health."

Where are EDCs found?

• Pesticides
  
• Industrial chemicals
  
• Plastics
  
• Fuels

Everyone has been, and is being, exposed.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the lead here. They initiated a testing program (from a 1996 Congressional go-ahead) and in April (2009) are still publishing lists of chemicals, mostly pesticide ingredients, to be screened "to determine whether certain substances may have hormonal effects."

Given the Endocrine Society's evidence-filled warning, I think we need to set a fire under the EPA's screening activities. Thirteen years seems like a long time to still be making lists. Although I can see that having reps from "agrichemical companies" and "commodity chemical companies" on the EPA's Validation Task Force might slow things down.
________The plastics photo I picked up on Hit+Run Crew's blog. Their description of Number 7 plastic:

"Most often refers to PC (polycarbonate) This plastic is most commonly used for baby bottles, five-gallon water jugs, and reusable sports water bottles. It can leach out the hormone-disruptor bisphenol A, especially when heated."

Weighing The Options

I received this in an email a few days ago (thank you, V) and it's had me thinking. It's a quotation from "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance," by Robert Persig:

"If you have a high evaluation of yourself then your ability to recognize new facts is weakened. Your ego isolates you from the Quality of reality. When the facts show that you've just goofed, you're not as likely to admit it. When false information makes you look good, you're likely to believe it. On any mechanical repair job ego comes in for rough treatment. You're always being fooled, you're always making mistakes, and a mechanic who has a big ego to defend is at a terrific disadvantage."

And some more...

"If you know enough mechanics to think of them as a group, and your observations coincide with mine, I think you'll agree that mechanics tend to be rather modest and quiet. There are exceptions, but generally if they're not quiet and modest at first, the work seems to make them that way. And skeptical. Attentive, but skeptical. But not egoistic. There's no way to bullshit your way into looking good on a mechanical repair job, except with someone who doesn't know what you're doing."

Of course, I apply this to the field of health. For me, it's revealing how someone responds to new information (myself included). Do they embrace it forthrightly, test it, dismiss it? How much does where it comes from influence their response? How do they view the bearer of the news?

There have been some respectable doctors-turned-authors who I feel have painted themselves into a corner with their views.

• How does someone who endorses low-fat, vegan diets deal with those diets' apparent insufficiency of essential nutrients?
  
• How does someone who endorses low-carb diets deal with information about the beneficial role of intestinal bacteria and undigested starch?
  
• How does someone who endorses an aggressive supplement regimen deal with research questioning its lack of efficacy? Or safety?
  
• How does someone who endorses eating locally-grown food apply that concept to places that don't possess the resources to produce adequate food locally?

I'm not asking for answers to these questions. I'm just saying I learn about someone based on how they handle information that contradicts, or for that matter reinforces, their positions. (Still learning here myself.)
________Illustration of Right vs. Wrong from Current Configuration, where they argue for their position on the best method for hanging bathroom tissue.

Plants Communicate

Below is an excerpt from the BBC series "Supernatural," a six-part nature documentary narrated by Andrew Sachs.

"Even though they lack specialized nerve cells, they do have a primitive nervous system that transmits electrical signals."

"The more we discover, the more like animals they seem."

If plants have developed such intricate and specialized forms of communication and self-preservation, I wonder how chemicalized factory farming and monoculture has affected them.
________Thanks to @lyricessence on Twitter. She's a fun person to follow if you use Twitter.

Pesticide-Laced Food

While I'm on the topic of organics, shaun twittered about this site yesterday. It's a real eye-opener:
What's On My Food?

It's an easy-to-use database of pesticides in conventional foods, relative to organic foods. It doesn't address quantities, just presence (that I can tell). But in answer to the question, "How much pesticide exposure is too much?" It says:

"Depends on the pesticide. Depends on the person. Depends on the timing."

So it's a difficult question to answer. Even if we're not in a position to supply organics to most people, we could at least petition government agencies to require more judicious use of pesticides.

Here's what's in an apple:


To see the rest of this list, visit What's On My Food?, and select "Apples" from the menu on the righthand side.
________

Organics' Reach

Great article by Marion Nestle in her Food Matters column for the San Francisco Chronicle over the weekend:
'Certified Organic' May Not Be 100%

She answered these questions:

• What is the difference between "100% organic" and "organic"?
  
• How do we know "organic" truly reflects our beliefs?
  
• Do food companies use the word "organic" in the same way they use "health"?
  
• Which is worse: eating nonorganic produce full of pesticides or not eating produce at all?
  
• Is organic food nutritionally worth its higher cost?
  
• Aren't organics elitist? People can't buy organic foods if they aren't available at an affordable price.

I liked how she dealt with the last one, "Aren't organics elitist?" Here's what she said:

"I once heard Eric Schlosser answer a similar question aimed at his book, "Fast Food Nation." He pointed out that social movements have to begin somewhere and that several began with elites but ended up helping the poor and disenfranchised - the civil rights, environmental and women's movements, for example."

She didn't deny that organics are elitist, choosing to focus instead on the impact buying organic can have, regardless of who does the buying.

Here she suggests what might be done to remove the price barriers:

"Dealing with the elitism implied by the higher cost of organics means doing something about income inequities. If we want elected representatives to care more about public health than corporate health, let's work to remove the corruption from election campaign contributions. If Congress were less beholden to corporations, we might be able to create a system that paid farmers and farm workers decently and sold organic foods at prices that everyone could afford."

I'm a big believer in voting. The reason we have members of Congress beholden to corporations is because the majority of us preferred it that way, and expressed our preference in our vote. (By the same token, the reason we did not as a nation commit to reduce greenhouse gases at the turn of the century is because we knowingly voted for elected officials who did not support the Kyoto Protocol.)
________

A Note

I may post sporadically while I focus on the situation at home. I have a newfound appreciation for eyesight. Thank you to everyone who expressed well wishes.
________

Eat The Weeds

This is a continuation of the discussion about eating primarily meat vs. eating primarily plants. If you've already made up your mind, and you lean towards plants, you can skip to the video at the end. It's the first of over 80 episodes by Green Deane on foraging for wild plants. A real treat.
________
In the same issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in which Cordain (of paleolithic diet fame), et al. claimed that hunter-gatherers eat mostly animal foods:¹

"Most (73%) of the worldwide hunter-gatherer societies derived >50% (56%-65%) of their subsistence from animal foods, whereas only 14% of these societies derived >50% (56%-65%) of their subsistence from gathered plant foods."

And that:

"Diets of modern-day hunter-gatherers may represent a reference standard for modern human nutrition and a model for defense against certain 'diseases of civilization'."

Dr. Milton published an editorial in response:²

"The hunter-gatherer data used by Cordain et al came from the Ethnographic Atlas, a cross-cultural index compiled largely from 20th century sources and written by ethnographers or others with disparate backgrounds, rarely interested in diet per se or trained in dietary collection techniques."

Indeed, Cordain admits, "Ethnographic data are qualitative in nature and as such lack the precision of quantitative data; consequently, Murdock's subsistence-dependence categories, in almost all cases, represent subjective approximations."

Dr. Milton:

"Because most of the ethnographers were male, they often did not associate with women, who typically collect and process plant resources."

So, to avoid "diseases of civilization", should humans eat more animal foods as Cordain contends, or more plant foods? Or doesn't it matter? Milton:

"There is general agreement that the ancestral line (Hominoidea) giving rise to humans was strongly herbivorous (refs cited). Modern human nutritional requirements (e.g., the need for a dietary source of vitamin C), features of the modern human gut (haustrated colon), and the modern human pattern of digestive kinetics (similar to that of great apes) suggest an ancestral past in which tropical plant foods formed the basis of the daily diet, with perhaps some opportunistic intake of animal matter."

What about the success of those living at higher elevations or latitudes, e.g. the Canadian Eskimos who derive much of their energy from wild animal foods? Milton:

"Because some hunter-gatherer societies obtained most of their dietary energy from wild animal fat and protein does not imply that this is the ideal diet for modern humans, nor does it imply that modern humans have genetic adaptations to such diets. It does, however, indicate that humans can thrive on extreme diets as long as these diets contribute the full range of essential nutrients."

This was noteworthy:

"The hunter-gatherer Hazda of Tanzania consume "the bulk of their diet" as wild plants, although they live in an area with an exceptional abundance of game animals and refer to themselves as hunters."

Although Milton defends that plant foods form the foundation of a best-suited human diet, she seems to embrace the "it doesn't matter" argument, so long as we're not eating lots of calorically dense (processed) foods:

"It is likely that no hunter-gatherer society, regardless of the proportion of macronutrients consumed, suffered from diseases of civilization. Most wild foods lack high amounts of energy and this feature, in combination with the slow transit of food particles through the human digestive tract, would have served as a natural check to obesity and certain other diseases."

In the end, her editorial essentially dismissed Cordain's argument for a meat-based diet:

"It seems prudent for modern-day humans to remember their long evolutionary heritage as anthropoid primates and heed current recommendations to increase the number and variety of fresh fruit and vegetables in their diets rather than to increase their intakes of domesticated animal fat and protein."

From my other readings, the "variety" part of this advice is key.
________
Below is Green Deane from EatTheWeeds.com with his introduction video on foraging for edible plants. You can see more of his videos here. (Here's his video on dandelions, "the classic foraging plant." They don't grow well in Florida where he lives. Says Deane, "Every time I've seen the dandelion, I've had to grab the seeds and haul them home. I've been trying to get dandelions to grow in my lawn for a long time.")

________¹ Plant-Animal Subsistence Ratios And Macronutrient Energy Estimations In Worldwide Hunter-Gatherer Diets, AJCN 2000
² Hunter-Gatherer Diets—A Different Perspective, AJCN 2000

Hominids - Graphic

Since I'm talking about various Homos, I thought I'd repost this graphic from 2006. I don't know how accurate it is, but I've been referring to it.

Below is an illustration and caption from Australia's news site The Age.

1. HOMO HABILIS ~ NICKNAME: Handyman. LIVED: 2.4 to 1.6 million years ago. HABITAT: Tropical Africa. DIET: Omnivorous – nuts, seeds, tubers, fruits, some meat.
   
2. HOMO SAPIEN ~ NICKNAME: Human. LIVED: 200,000 years ago to present. HABITAT: All. DIET: Omnivorous - meat, vegetables, tubers, nuts, pizza, sushi.
   
3. HOMO FLORESIENSIS ~ NICKNAME: Hobbit. LIVED: 95,000 to 13,000 years ago. HABITAT: Flores, Indonesia (tropical). DIET: Omnivorous - meat included pygmy stegodon, giant rat.
   
4. HOMO ERECTUS ~ NICKNAME: Erectus. LIVED: 1.8 million years to 100,000 years ago. HABITAT: Tropical to temperate - Africa, Asia, Europe. DIET: Omnivorous - meat, tubers, fruits, nuts.
   
5. PARANTHROPUS BOISEI ~ NICKNAME: Nutcracker man. LIVED: 2.3 to 1.4 million years ago. HABITAT: Tropical Africa. DIET: Omnivorous - nuts, seeds, leaves, tubers, fruits, maybe some meat.
   
6. HOMO HEIDELBERGENSIS ~ NICKNAME: Goliath. LIVED: 700,000 to 300,000 years ago. HABITAT: Temperate and tropical, Africa and Europe. DIET: Omnivorous - meat, vegetables, tubers, nuts.
   
7. HOMO NEANDERTHALENSIS ~ NICKNAME: Neanderthal. LIVED: 250,000 to 30,000 years ago. HABITAT: Europe and Western Asia. DIET: Relied heavily on meat, such as bison, deer and musk ox.

________

Are Ape Diets Suited To Humans?

As a follow-up to my post about the BBC's experiment in which they fed "the sort of diet our ape-like ancestors once ate" to a group of 9 volunteers (who in 12 days experienced impressive reductions in weight, cholesterol, and blood pressure), here's a glimpse into some anatomical differences between humans and apes.

The chart below shows the relative sizes of 4 digestive compartments for some closely-related primate species:

Click to enlarge.
Our closest living relative in the animal kingdom, the chimpanzee (a great ape), and our next closest relative, the gorilla (also a great ape), have much smaller small intestines, and much larger large intestines (colons) than we do.

According to Katharine Milton, an expert in primate physiology:

"In humans, more than half (>56%) of total gut volume is found in the small intestine, whereas all apes have by far the greatest total gut volume (>45%) in the colon."

"In addition, the size of the total human GI tract in relation to body size is small in comparison to those of apes."
- Katharine Milton, Nutritional Characteristics of Wild Primate Foods: Do The Diets Of Our Closest Living Relatives Have Lessons For Us?

So apes have more total intestine, and a larger relative colon. Considering that:

• The small intestine is the place where most chemical digestion and absorption take place.
  
• The large intestine is the place where undigested material is fed upon by bacteria, and where water is absorbed prior to feces exit.

You might say that humans evolved to eat more processed foods or as Dr. Milton says, "predigested" foods:

"The proportions of the modern human gut appear to reflect the fact that many foods are "predigested" by technology in one way or another before they even enter the human digestive tract."
- Katharine Milton, Hunter-Gatherer Diets - A Different Perspective

One more thought. No digestion takes place in the colon, however, we do absorb nutrients (vitamins, fatty acids) produced by bacteria there. So, the nutrients an ape absorbs, and the nutrients we absorb, from the same foods, are different. They are different in amount, and in type. (These differences also exist among humans although to a lesser degree.)
________Chart from Milton's Nutritional Characteristics of Wild Primate Foods: Do The Diets Of Our Closest Living Relatives Have Lessons For Us?

Protein In Plant Food

Perovskia raised the point about protein in plant food. Some thoughts...

All living things contain DNA (well most, maybe not a prion, are prions living?). The function of DNA is to manufacture protein, that's it. So, all living things contain protein. Those proteins are found in structural components (muscles, plant cell walls), in chemicals like hormones, enzymes, immune cells, all over the place. Plant foods, as well as animal foods, provide these proteins to the human diet.

There are some differences between these food sources.

One, protein consists of amino acids. And each living thing we eat provides those amino acids in different ratios. (Which is why it's important to eat a variety of foods, although, as I showed here, you can get all your essential amino acids if all you ate were potatoes.)

Two, protein in vegetable matter is usually less bioavailable because of other compounds it comes packaged with. Where we might absorb 95% of the protein from animal foods, we might absorb 90% from plant foods. Lots of factors affect absorption though, so these are round figures.

The amount of protein we need is still debated. It's generally accepted that humans need about 0.8g/kg/day - that's 44g protein for a 120 lb person, 65g for a 180 lb person. And, of course, it varies depending on age, gender, life stage, body composition, etc.
________Photo of chimpanzee (is that a chimpanzee?) foraging from duiops.net. I read that they use their teeth to strip away outer bark of tender tree limbs to chew on pith and suckle sap.

Evo Diet

This is a good time to revisit a diet the BBC tested on a reality show back in 2006. A group of volunteers were housed at a British zoo for 12 days and fed "the sort of diet our ape-like ancestors once ate."

Background:

• 9 volunteers, aged 36 to 49
  
• Chosen because they had high cholesterol: 5-6.8 mmol/l (about 195-265 mg/dl)
  
• Diet supplied about 2000 kcal/day for women, 2500 kcal/day for men

After 12 days:

• Cholesterol dropped 23% (e.g. From 210 to 162 mg/dl)
  
• Blood pressure dropped from 140/83 to 122/76
  
• Weight dropped 9.7 lbs (Diet fed was not intended for weight loss)

Here's a sample of what volunteers ate over the course of three days. The diet was low in fat and sodium (1g/day). Food was raw. About 11 pounds of food (although that included pits and peels) was delivered in a cooler each day. Some had difficulty finishing it. (My refrigerator would have difficulty housing it.) It looked like a vegan diet, except "In the second week, standard portions of cooked oily fish were introduced."

Olives in brine (weighted with stones) (35g) = 0.2% of total diet
Honey (34g) = 0.2%
Walnuts (50g) = 0.3%
Cashew nuts, plain (50g) = 0.3%
Mange-tout peas (75g) = 0.5%
Sugar-snap peas (150g) = 1.0%
Cabbage, average (80g) = 0.5%
Watercress (80g) = 0.5%
Summer Cabbage (80g) = 0.5%
Nuts, hazel nuts or filberts (96g) = 0.6%
Spring onions, bulbs and tops (200g) = 1.3%
Peas, edible-podded (200g) = 1.3%
Kiwi fruit (weighed with skin) (120g) = 0.8%
Asparagus (125g) = 0.8%
Avocado (weighed with skin and stone) (150g) = 1.0%
Cherries (weighed with stones) (150g) = 1.0%
Peanuts (weighed with shells) (150g) = 1.0%
Radish (320g) = 2.1%
Dates (weighed with stones) (160g) = 1.1%
Cauliflower (200g) = 1.3%
Courgette (200g) = 1.3%
Peppers, red (400g) = 2.7%
Figs (400g) = 2.7%
Broccoli (750g) = 5.0%
Mangoes (weighed with skin and stone) (500g) = 3.3%
Paw-paw (300g) = 2.0%
Strawberries (302g) = 2.0%
Carrots, young (1004g) = 6.7%
Bananas (603g) = 4.0%
Pears (302g) = 2.0%
Raspberries (604g) = 4.0%
Blueberries (302g) = 2.0%
Mushrooms (322g) = 2.2%
Grapes (322g) = 2.2%
Plums (weighed with stones) (322g) = 2.2%
Apricots (350g) = 2.3%
Peaches (400g) = 2.7%
Apples (450g) = 3.0%
Melon, Honeydew (weighed whole) (1000g) = 6.7%
Tomatoes (1950g) = 13%
Satsumas (weighed with peel) (1376g) = 9.2%
Total weight = 14966g (33 pounds)

Not science, but telling nonetheless.

Related posts:
Are Ape Diets Suited To Humans? For relative sizes of small and large intestine in apes and humans.
How Many Minutes A Day Do You Spend Eating (Chewing)? Apes take 6 hours/day to eat 1800 calories of raw food.
________Here's the BBC's article on the experiment: Going Ape

Diets Of Our Closest Living Relatives

Wikipedia says chimpanzees are a type of great ape (Hominidae), "the closest living relatives to humans," and are fruit-loving omnivores (they hunt lower order primates).

They say bonobos are a type of great ape, along with chimpanzees are "the closest extant [living] relatives to humans," and are primarily frugivores (fruit-eating) but "supplement their diet with leaves and hunt for meat from lower order primates."

They say gorillas are a type of great ape, "the next closest living relatives to humans after the two chimpanzee species," and that they are primarily herbivores that supplement their diet with insects.

They say orangutans are a type of great ape, next in line genetically after the gorilla, possibly "the world's most intelligent animal other than humans," and are fruit-loving foragers, consuming "leaves, shoots, seeds and bark ... insects, honey and bird eggs."

So, our closest relatives, the chimpanzees and bonobos, eat meat (and fish as I read). But the next genetically removed, gorillas and orangutans, it seems, couldn't be bothered to hunt, or so it was thought.

Since studying apes' diets in the wild is difficult, this study:
Interactions Between Zoo-Housed Great Apes And Local Wildlife, Am J Prim, 2009

... turned to zoos, asking caretakers about apes' interactions with local wildlife. Chimps and bonobos didn't surprise the researchers:

"Chimpanzees and bonobos demonstrated the most aggressive behavior toward wildlife. ... Captive gorillas and orangutans were reported to be much less likely to chase, catch and kill wildlife than chimpanzees and bonobos."

The gorillas did surprise them:

"Unlike wild gorillas, captive gorillas were reported to kill (and in one case, eat) local wildlife." (A bird.)

Orangutans were also observed hunting small game successfully.
________
While reading about apes and their diets, I came across this paper:
Bonobo Nutrition - Relation of Captive Diet to Wild Diet

I liked the glimpse of what bonobos are fed in zoos.

Their basic diet was a mix of carrots, tubers, celery, apples, oranges, grapes, lettuce, bananas, raisins, green beans, and other fruits and vegetables. Most items were raw, whole or cut up. Nuts, seeds, flaked grains, cooked beans, and peanuts supplemented the basics. Meat, milk, cheese, and eggs were fed occasionally. Some zoos added dog food, monkey food, and Ensure.

Many gave vitamins, e.g. Super Acerola (500 mg natural vitamin C) and Mazuri Vita-Zu brand vitamins. "Cincinnati supplemented the bonobo diet with children’s chewable multi-vitamins."

Some of the apes had weight problems and diabetes, so their food was rationed, e.g. 1 apple instead of 2, a quarter of a sweet potato instead of a whole, and 8 celery sticks instead of 6.

Bonobos at:

• Berlin Zoo had "tea in the afternoon."
  
• Leipzig Zoo had "herbal tea at 8.00 and 13.00."
  
• Twycross Zoo had "skimmed milk with Ovaltine - approx. 2 pints per adult"
  
• Milwaukee County Zoo had "raisins, 10 per animal." (Cruel.)

________Photos: Top left: chimpanzee and bonobo (from Wikipedia). Bottom right: gorilla and orangutan (from duiops.net).

National Running Day

Yesterday was the first annual National Running Day. Here are two inspirational blogs.

From a Daily Kos' Diary by sheddhead. With before and after photos:
It's National Running Day!

"A year and a half ago, I could run NO WHERE. See, I weighed 400 pounds at 5 foot 6. ..."

She started a program:

"This is a program where you start out by walking, then running a little, then walking, then running a little, ..."

________
From Tara Parker-Pope's New York Times' Well Blog on Monday:
Why Walk Breaks Help You Run

About 200 comments there, based on her full article in the NYTs Health Section Monday:
Better Running Through Walking

"I am more couch potato than runner. But not long ago, I decided to get myself into shape to run in the New York City Marathon, on Nov. 1, just 152 days from now. (Not that I’m counting.)

To train for my first marathon, I’m using the “run-walk” method, popularized by the distance coach Jeff Galloway, a member of the 1972 Olympic team. When I mentioned this to a colleague who runs, she snickered — a common reaction among purists."

Couch potato to marathoner in 152 days!
________Photo: Bix. (Walk, run a little, walk some more, run a little, stroll.)

What Are Your Thoughts On A Paleolithic Diet For Modern Humans?

Matt asked this question in comments. Here are some of my thoughts. Feel free to add yours.

The choice of a diet depends on what you want to accomplish - whether you want to lose weight, gain weight, manage a chronic lung disease or kidney problem, protect your heart, or protect the planet.

I think the paleo diet is restrictive. As I know it, since it tries to mirror how humans ate before the advent of farming and fire, it prohibits all grains and beans, even in their whole form, including green beans, peas, and peanuts; all dairy food, butter, cheese, etc.; all fermented foods like vinegars, kim chee, pickles, and alcohol; salt; and all cooking oils (as well as all cooking, although I know some paleo followers have relaxed this restriction). As a beverage it allows unheated, unprocessed water - rainwater or from a surface source (to maintain a particular colonic bacteria population?). I don't think it's a diet that many people can easily follow.

I know it focuses on wild plants and animals. That has benefits. You'd do away with chemical fertilizers (all fertilizers?), pesticides, genetic engineering, fuel for farming, irrigation, and processing, and the whole confined animal feeding operation mess. Meat would have a higher relative amount of omega-3 and less total fat. But here again it's restrictive. Plants like tomatoes, apples, corn, etc. bred to be large, starchy, and sweet would not be consumed. And there aren't that many non-farmed plants and animals to go around. The more you relax restrictions, the more it can be argued you aren't eating a paleo diet.

There's the issue of animal food consumption's larger carbon footprint relative to plant food, the increase in the price of food it causes, and its contribution to global warming and world hunger. That brings me back to the purpose of the diet.

So, the diet itself - wild lean uncooked meats, wild unprocessed uncooked plant foods - has merit for some purposes. It's probably a good weight loss diet, especially if everything is raw. Although it's difficult to judge a diet out of context. Modern man lives in a very different environment than prehistoric man. In fact, Dr. Wrangham argues that modern man (and modern man's brain) would not exist if not for fire and cooking.

One thing it has going for it that I think most people can do - it restricts processed food.________Photo of a 100,000-year-old human skull, found in Israel in 2001, from National Geographic.

Pneumonia and Other Adverse Effects From Drugs That Reduce Stomach Acid (Nexium, Prilosec, Prevacid)

Things aren't looking well for Nexium, Prilosec, Prevacid, and other heartburn remedies that work by inhibiting the stomach's acid-producing proton-pump.

A study from the May 27 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA):
Acid-Suppressive Medication Use and the Risk for Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia

Found a 30% increased risk for pneumonia among hospital patients taking acid-suppressing medications, specifically proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs).

This was a big study. It analyzed data from 63,878 hospital admissions. The number of variables for which it controlled (which could confound the association) - was staggering. They included:

• Age
  
• Gender
  
• Race
  
• Season of the year of admission
  
• Day of the week of admission
  
• Admitting service
  
• Admission type
  
• Length of hospitalization
  
• A slew of co-prescribed medications (e.g. Sedatives, NSAIDS, steroids, anticoagulants)
  
• A slew of comorbidities (e.g. Heart diseases, chronic lung diseases, kidney diseases, diabetes, alcohol/drug use)

This isn't the only evidence. Previous studies found a link between community-acquired pneumonia (in non-hospitalized people) and acid-suppressing meds.

Mechanism

1. Stomach acid kills bacteria and other microorganisms that cause infection. Changes in the mix of bacteria in the stomach and GI tract impose changes in the mix of bacteria in the respiratory tract, leading to respiratory infection.

2. PPIs such as Prilosec have been shown to inhibit the ability of white blood cells to disable infectious cells, both in the test tube (in vitro) and in the human (in vivo). Here's just one study:
Omeprazole Inhibits Natural Killer Cell Functions, Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 2007

"Omeprazole [Prilosec] significantly reduces natural killer cell functions. This finding suggests that omeprazole may also have some effects on the other systems in addition to parietal cell acid secretion."

Long-term Adverse Effects

PPIs are only indicated for short-term use, 3 or 4 weeks. For those with erosion in the lower esophagus, the time is extended to a few months to encourage healing. They're not indicated for long-term use. Nonetheless, people use them on a long-term basis - for several years.

Long-term adverse effects are accumulating in studies:

• Hip fracture and osteoporosis. Stomach acid is needed to absorb calcium and other nutrients. Lack of acid may also interfere with bone formation.
  
• Reduced levels of vitamin B12. Stomach acid is needed to free B12 that is bound to protein in food. B12 is required for nerve function. A depletion leads to nerve-related disorders. Deficiency also causes reduced red and white blood cell counts, leading to anemia and inability to fight infection.

________
I ask myself (your input is welcome):

• Why do so many people have heartburn? (Acid-suppressors are one of the top-selling drugs in the world.)
  
• Why are over half of hospital admissions (in this study 52% of 63,878 admissions) receiving acid-reducing meds, especially when conditions don't warrant ("inappropriate prescribing practices in the inpatient setting")?
  
• Why are so many people taking these meds for longer than 3 or 4 weeks, the period indicated by the manufacturer?
  
• Are most people aware of the risks?
  
• And ... if not an acid-suppressor, what? What do people use, or do, as an alternative?

PPIs are very effective at reducing stomach acid. However, at what point do the costs outweigh the benefits? The authors of this study projected the number of cases of pneumonia (180,000/yr) and pneumonia-caused death (33,000/yr) from acid-suppressors used in hospital settings would likely surpass the incidence of GI bleeding:

"It therefore seems unlikely that the benefit of these medications for gastrointestinal bleed prophylaxis would offset the risk."

The tactics used by pharmaceutical companies to promote drugs that have not been adequately tested, and to market drugs for conditions for which the drug is not indicated - tactics that I outlined in my post, Corrupted Research - seem to be at play here.
________Photo: Bix