The Kind Diet: Alicia Silverstone

I have a new found and tremendous respect for Alicia Silverstone, someone who is obviously not only passionate but well-informed about good, ethical nutrition; so glad to have a much more positive image of her to replace the one of a bimbo in rock videos and brainless Hollywood films.

Well-established scientific nutritional evidence identifies the dangers of meat consumption and points to a plant-based diet as the most healthy. The American Cancer Society has just published a report covering men/women in a study lasting from 1980 - 2006 and concluded that meat consumption increases not only our risk of cancer, but also our risk of death from all causes...these study results were justed released Sept. 7, 2010. In the 30's-50's, no one saw any harm in smoking cigarettes; but when the American Cancer Society produced the results of its study showing the dangers of tobacco smoke, people began to quit smoking; and today, the American Cancer Society has stepped forward again, warning us of another huge cancer risk: meat consumption. And just as the sale of tobacco dropped and has steadily declined once its dangers were made known, so too will the sale of meat and other animal products for food. And speaking of declining sales...when you hear someone trying to convince people that saturated fat is good for you, research them--what organization is supporting them--at base of such ludicrous advice you will find the powerful meat and dairy industry who have hired front groups and front people to support their cause...but you don't even need to research all the evidence to learn the truth about meat consumption...just look around at your meat-eating acquaintances in the over 50 age group--these are the ones starting to feel the effect of years of meat consumption--double and triple bypass surgeries, clogged arteries, stents implanted to hold the arteries open. Sure, some people will continue to eat meat no matter the documented evidence..just like some people will continue to smoke cigarettes...right up until that last beat of the heart. What a shame.

While most vegans are slender, some are not; just like non-vegans, they can overeat vegan foods that add weight--potatoes, potato chips, peanuts, beans, rice, avocados, etc. As for health, I've been vegan over 10 years, am middle-aged, and am in the best health of my life. Some people new to veganism may not be aware of their need for B12 supplement, an extremely important vitamin to a vegan's health. Next, wealth isn't required to be vegan; some vegan foods may seem expensive, but when you consider all the money not spent on steaks, roasts, etc., you realize that vegan eating is less expensive. Further, while store-bought vegan entrees and meat alternatives are convenient, they're not absolutely necessary--many delicious vegan foods can be prepared using spices and a variety of veggies, beans, lentils, rice, etc. Moreover, when considering cost of the vegan diet, we shouldn't forget costs all too frequently associated with the meateaters diet--costs of heart bypass surgery, stent placements, strokes, and kidney disease, etc., cost not only in terms of dollars, but also in terms of physical and emotional pain. An excellent health information source for vegans is this site: http://www.veganhealth.org/ Also, for all things vegan--diet, health, recipes, etc., here's a great site: http://www.vegsource.com/

So helpful

sorry, but she likes a chorizo dish isnt chorizo pork?

Um, JDHaddad, did you read the book... all the way through? Because it doesn't sound like it. Your argument sounds a lot like, ahem, some "anecdotal bullshit" of the day you skimmed the pages.

i don't have any science credentials involved in chemistry or medicine to contradict her claim about health benefits involved vegan. But i can make good conclusion based only on her controversial reasoning and so called proofs what are mostly from her private life and can't be applied to majority as "good science source" that she is dumb as am I on this subject. love form russia ( how's my english ? )

Quote: Originally Posted by Peacem0nger A young Hollywood actress selling her diet book is not science by any stretch of the imagination. The claims she makes for this book, which also appears to be a political manifesto, may belong on an infomercial. It does not deserve to be categorized as science on this website. I totally agree. It's really fascinating how celebrities attain such unquestioned credibility. I especially liked her response to "critical non-vegans" - show them pretty pictures! Unfortunately, I fear I may be considered one of those "critical non-vegans" - but my argument against veganism is footed solely in rationality, and not in some distaste for vegans (or the trendiness of veganism, which I find is often the case). Indeed, I have many friends who are vegetarians and vegans, but I'm strongly opposed to any diet that completely restricts any element of natural, nutritious foods (meat certainly being one of them). There is overwhelming biological, genetic, evolutionary, anthropological, and biochemical evidence that we are, on the whole, omnivores; as such, we should strive for balance and moderation in all things, rather than seek to eliminate entire food groups. There's really nothing wrong with a celebrity "coming up" with a diet or lifestyle plan; to argue against that would be a waste of energy. What's wrong is presenting this collection of "cliff notes" and pseudoscience as something worthy of appearing on the same platform as real science. It's not all wrong, of course, but the meager number of credible recommendations simply cannot outweigh the misinformation I gathered from a simple skimming of this book: "Don't eat nuts or nut butters - too fatty." Yes, and what exactly is the implication there? At another point in the book, she mentions the importance of mono- and polyunsaturated fats in the diet - nuts are an excellent source of beneficial fats! Contradictory. Her claim that plant based omega-3s are "much more stable" than fish oil is simply false. Her argument about toxicity is discredited by the fact that you can buy molecularly distilled fish oil. Finally, she neglects to mention that the conversion rate of plant-based omega-3s is awful (in the ballpark of 15%), and her claim that we should "make [our] omega-3s from the plants [we] eat" just like fish demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding on the topic. The whole issue of avoiding fruit that's not grown in your area is absolutely ludicrous. She uses some silly example like if you're from Manhattan, you shouldn't eat tropical fruit. This, to me, demonstrates another fundamental understanding of the way our bodies have evolved over time. Heritage and genetics are indeed important in diet, but where you were BORN has no influence on the type of foods you should be eating, and certainly doesn't negate the multitude of positive effects gained through an omnivorous diet. Her demonization of saturated fats in the face of current research again reflects a lack of honesty (or comprehension, or awareness: you choose). Weak blood? How about that megaloblastic anemia you'll develop if you stop supplementing with B12. And by the way, claiming you want to make something "easier" for the reader by leaving out things like credible research and scientific evidence isn't helpful, it's condescending. In short, there's simply no room for this "touchy-feely" anecdotal bullshit in reputable nutrition literature.

I will continue with this beautiful diet and I will ignore the clueless naysayers (some who have posted already).

the Zombie feast came already, after getting the death diagnosis I went vegan and got really strong. The rest of us power balling mother fuckers roll vegan. Occasionally I eat hamburger...Why? Cultural Joy...