Apparently Oprah is going vegan for three weeks as part of a "cleanse". Vegan.com is doing a special series for her audience who are trying it with her: a podcast a day for 21 days. Tip for Oprah, or anyone else contemplating The Big Switch: from your first day menu, you aren't getting enough protein. Keep it up and by the end of the week you'll think you're missing eggs, when all you need is a good tofu scramble. It's really not hard to toss some cubed tofu on a salad or add some seitan curry to the menu. And Alessi makes a really quite delicious vegan split pea soup mix.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
The footpads didn't work?
Looking at Oprah's menu, not exactly the cheaper side of vegan, which could also be a deterrent to some. It's pretty easy to eat well, and vegan, without spending a ton of money.
I never understood the rationale of a "cleanse". If you want to clean out the lower intestines, just try the pabstkins diet. A 12 pack of PBR will clean you right out within 8 hours.
A life without bacon. Unimaginable. Like a life without beer or sunshine or fuzzy puppies.
Never has a web posting made me want a Five Guys double bacon cheeseburger so much.
Hey, look at me, I'm showing off my knowledge of how savvy I am at vegan cooking. I'm naming obscure dishes that I have a special knowledge of how to make, and bragging about how discerning I am regarding the relative taste of specific vegan preparations, even though I probably can't tell the difference in a double blind test.
So Oprah's pinch-marketing for Veganism? That's welcome news to commodity grocery producers ever eager to find new product claims to plaster across their packaging. Moving everyone upscale and making grocery shopping the next vogue for invidious comparison has something thrilling to it, but I won't participate.
Perhaps she can join PETA next and liberate all her pets from their human oppressors into the wilderness.
American society never ceases to amaze me for all its fadishness. I never understood why we laughed at the Japanese for their remarkable penchant for lemming-like behavior.
Tofu? People actually eat that stuff? I assumed it was just a punch line.
This seems really woo-ey, even for Oprah.
Tofu? People actually eat that stuff? I assumed it was just a punch line.
Clint Eastwood does - but he has other punch lines to fall back on. Quote from Wikipedia:
There are of course other types of vegan too...
A couple of thoughts:
1) "Cleansing" diets (or attempts to sweat out "impurities:) are unscientific hokum, for the most part.
2) For some vegan food that's actually tasty and convenient, check out the salad bar at your local Whole Foods. Ours had some green-colored (pesto?) smoked seitan dish (recipe from Manhattan's Candle 79) that was awesome. Their tofu egg salad isn't bad either. And there are usually a few tofu dishes with enough sauce on them that the tofu is actually tasty.
Can you put up some kind of filter so we can avoid these tiresome vegan posts?
This line actually sums things up quite well:
That's eating with a purpose. If that doesn't answer the post-Christian, post-Enlightenment existential question, I couldn't tell you what else does.
This is any marketer's wet dream in the making: Assigning a special cause to bodily functions. We ate chicken to save the fish. We drank bottled water to protest contaminated tap water and to make ourselves pure. Next: We ate leafy vegetables and pooped in the garden to kill industrial agrichemicals and resurrect our downstream wetlands.
People once did things out of gratitude that Christ died for their sins. They did things so as to avoid eternal immolation. But we can buy this salvation off the shelf, prepackaged, just add water and microwave on high for five minutes. Today it is the dolphin and spotted owl who have died for our sins.
rant: off
Americans go for fads no doubt (as does everyone) but its kind of embarrassing to a degree; you aren't doing it because its a fad, you see, but because of the inherent merits of w/e the fad is. Not much of a rationale, but being accused of being a lemming is offensive here.
The Japanese, however, do it because being part of a fad is awesome and they don't really care whether the object of the fad is particularly worthy. So they go for it with more gusto, because being accused of being a lemming is not a bad thing in a society that whole heartedly approves of conformity.
My theory, anyway.
Is gin vegan?
I suppose there is some utility to such fads and trends. I just get annoyed at some of the proselytizing.
The utility in consuming with a purpose is that it makes it easier to choose. Our consumer society is awash in abundant choices, so we try to figure out some sort of rationale for what to buy, to give the whole activity a time-saving methodical logic.
My great-grandmother and her generation eked out a living with what we would today call subsistence farming. There was no need to dream up any ideals or theories for what you consumed. You ate what you planted and worked half the year to grow. And you planted things that grew in sufficient abundance to feed your whole family for most of the year.
Living that type of a nostalgic "heritage" lifestyle today is merely one of many possible options. But now we feel the need to explain why we might make such a choice.
Next time someone claims tofu makes you live longer, or better, the answer should be: please define "life", and "better".
On the other hand, check out quinoa. Tastes good IMHO, has a lot of protein. Yummy. (And I'm an unrepentant carnivore.)
Oprah is following a plant-based diet.
There’s more to veganism than cleansing diets and not wearing leather shoes.
It’s a lifestyle, a philosophy of life.
To quote The Vegan Society, the origin of the word vegan:
“Ways of living that seek to exclude – as far as possible and practical – all forms of the exploitation of animals for food, clothing and other purposes.”
To be honest Megan, you still ascribe to non-vegan assumptions on some issues, but it is a journey, not a destination and diet is the beginning, not the end. I was really surprised you a vegan diet a try based on some of your older blog posts, but I guess we’ve all be there at some point. Please, read up some more on the philosophy you are practicing. Believe and speak what you like, disagree even, in any even it won’t hurt to be better informed.
“American society never ceases to amaze me for all its fadishness.
- MarkG
If you are talking about cleasning diets, than fine. While I don’t have a huge problem with the concept, there’s still some science-based inquiry that needs to be done before its validity is proven
If you are talking about the over two thousand year old fad of not exploiting animals for food, then your timeline for faddism is a bit severe. It used to be thought that animals and humans were related and that animals experience the world in ways we do, but Christian creationism and The Dark Ages squashed that idea in the West. Of course, Darwin came along and now we know that animals and humans were related and that animals experience the world in ways we do.
“Today it is the dolphin and spotted owl who have died for our sins.”
- MarkG
Seeing how it’s meat eaters engaging in sacrifice and thanking animals for "giving" us meat as Christians sacrifice Jesus on Sundays and rejoice in the gifts He "gave" us by consuming His body and blood, what you wrote does not relate to veganism where there is a pointed exclusion of animal sacrifice.
“Is gin vegan?”
- Nanonymous
Unflavored gin (typically) contains not animal products and does not utilize animal products in it’s processing.
I'm no fan of soy in any of its manifestations, but why are there no other legumes in this day's diet? Black-eyed peas are easy to prepare and delicious; serve over brown rice or other whole grain and you've got usable protein.
It sounds like her diet is gluten free, so that's probably why seitan is out. (I have no idea why it's gluten free. It seems like now that celiac is better known, people mistakenly think gluten is bad for you.)
I agree. She needs more legumes and more vegetables. Considering her age, some calicium rich (vegan) foods wouldn't hurt either.
Also, I have to say that reading these comments reminds me why it's sometimes hard to be a vegan. It's annoying when both meat eaters and vegans are condescending.
Oprah is not exactly a good role model for healthy behavior.
I'll stop thinking veganism is a fad of the well-off when I see a large spectrum of top-level professional athletes endorsing it. (Not the small group of people in whiterpeople sports who go for whiterpeople fads. I'm talking Tom Brady, Kobe Bryant, A-Rod, etc)
Something tells me that I'm not going to see "Vegan LeBron" anytime soon.
Oprah is not exactly a good role model for healthy behavior.
I'll stop thinking veganism is a fad of the well-off when I see a large spectrum of top-level professional athletes endorsing it. (Not the small group of people in whiterpeople sports who go for whiterpeople fads. I'm talking Tom Brady, Kobe Bryant, A-Rod, etc)
Something tells me that I'm not going to see "Vegan LeBron" anytime soon.
You can make split pea soup without a hamhock?
I see it as a mutually beneficial, symbiotic relationship. We give them the sheltered existence to propagate and they give us hearty, tasty sustenance. They serve our omnivorous needs and we protect them from predators and disease.
Our success as a species has always relied on animal husbandry, and we once even "exploited" animals for their brutish horsepower until well into the industrial age. The idea of abusing the creatures in our care -- as in, inflicting intentional harm and suffering -- has never been viewed as widely acceptable behavior, but instead as counterproductive and as a mark of a worryingly troubled individual.
Liquid smoke, my friend, liquid smoke.
“I’ll stop thinking veganism is a fad of the well-off when I see a large spectrum of top-level professional athletes endorsing it. (Not the small group of people in whiterpeople sports who go for whiterpeople fads.”
- secret asian man
Kenneth Williams – African American vegan natural bodybuilding champion.
Seba Johnson - African American Olympic skier (“White” sport! Is that what you mean?) raised vegan.
Salim Stoudamire - African American vegan NBA basketball player. (Is that sport non-white enough?)
Ricardo Moreira – Hispanic vegan Ultimate Fighter.
Carl Lewis - African American vegan track medal winning Olympian.
There are plenty more vegan athletes, but I limited it to my immediate knowledge of obvious non-Caucasians since you made the allusion to race as a determinate for affluence. Considering the percentage of vegans, the percentage of non-Caucasians, and the culturally held belief in properties of animal protein for athletic performance, that’s a pretty good representation.
The Jamaican Rastafarian Movement has a strong undercurrent of vegetarianism/veganism. Asian and India have a long history of vegetarianism, yes poverty plays a role in availability of meat as well, but the idea that poor people can’t afford to be vegetarian or vegan is false. The less affluent communities in what’s called The Blue Zone, don’t consume very much meat yet have documented high longevity rates.
I’m not sure how this would affect your perception of a fad, it seems like an irrelevant barometer to determine any fashion aside from athletic short’s length. It’s a red herring especially considering the wealth that major league sports athletes, white or non-white, can obtain.
Next time someone claims tofu makes you live longer, or better, the answer should be: please define "life", and "better".
- South American Guy
Apparently, they eat a lot of tofu in Okinawa and not so much meat or even that much fish. It’s one of the Blue Zones described in the similarly titled book. The definition used for “life” and” better”, is a healthier, happier, and longer life. Not saying tofu is the cause, but it sure doesn’t seem to hurt.
I hesitate to get hung up on health and longevity disputes citing conflicting research papers and on and on and on. It’s boring, ultimately, we won’t know for sure what’s best for a long time. There are ways to be a healthy vegan and ways to be a healthy non-vegan. There are plant-based health diet gurus and omnivore-health diet gurus. If personal health is your only concern, eat what works for you.
“I just get annoyed at some of the proselytizing.”
“I see it as a mutually beneficial, symbiotic relationship.”
- MarkG
You began the proselytizing, I responded though I never challenged your views Mark. I challenged your definition of faddism as applied to vegetarian philosophy and you poorly concieved analogy. If strictly limiting the discussion to veganism, the term was coined and Vegan Society was established in 1944. That’s still a long time for a fad. Get used to hearing more about veganism, or advocacy of plant based diets, it’s not going away anytime soon in the emerging political awareness of farm ethics, environment and health.
Ethics aside, your symbiotic relationship is trivial to parallel to writings in the American South before the Civil War. Seriously, reread what you wrote, swap a couple words, it’s all too easy. And yes, I am fully aware that a human is not the same as a cow, it’s the ideology that I am addressing.
Environmentally, this “mutually beneficial, symbiotic relationship” is at the expense of environmental habitat and biodiversity that is far more crucial to the survival of our species. There’s no way to explain away the “symbiotic relationship” of over-fishing that is devastating life in the oceans. What do fish get out of this? Meat eaters like Pollan and Bittman are parroting what vegetarians have been saying for decades like it’s late breaking news. Of course they hold vegetarianism at arms length, they submit that livestock is bringing about the destruction of the planet (see Bittman’s recent TED talk) but not eating meat, that’s just crazy talk.
Also, I don’t hold much weight in (what Megan recently gave me a name for by reading one of her posts) the Burkean argument that if it wasn’t largely done in the past it’s not worth doing. There’s been too much beneficial social reform to adhere to this principal. It’s a counter concept of evolution, that somehow humanity and our social behaviors evolved to a fixed point and should stop. Using evolution, a process that embodies change, as a reason to continue business as usual is a poor defense.
I understand your position thoroughly and I reject it as a way to inform my lifestyle. You are welcome to believe and live as you please. As, the majority of opinion is on your side, the social advantage is yours. Of course, it takes a majority of the little creatures to demonstrate “lemming-like” behavior.
“The idea of abusing the creatures in our care -- as in, inflicting intentional harm and suffering -- has never been viewed as widely acceptable behavior”
- MarkG
This is not factual, there are many large-scale historical instances were abuse of domestic animals makes the “product” more desirable. Beating live animals to tender their flesh (1800s), whipping horses to go faster, the ongoing debate over foie gras, keeping calves restrained to make their meat tender, the blind eye turned towards industrialized animal husbandry. There is little to debate regarding the utility of bull fighting and rodeos and the spectacle of domination involved.
If society really felt that factory farming practices unacceptable, it would not have begun and it would not have existed for as long as it has. The United States government, by the people and for the people, supports such practices in the most substantial way possible, through direct and indirect subsidies paid with our taxes. Don’t blame the faceless corporations, we elect our government and each and every one of us participates in the democracy of capitalism and cast votes with our dollars.
“Also, I have to say that reading these comments reminds me why it's sometimes hard to be a vegan. It's annoying when both meat eaters and vegans are condescending.”
- Kari
It’s tiring to see a perfectly reasonable and logical philosophy overrun with weight-loss healthism, new age woo and the often-irrational sensationalism of a certain animal welfare organization.
I reread my post to see if I was guilty of being condescending. Perhaps my tone (and horrible typographical errors) directed toward Megan may be construed as such. However, she is self-identifying as vegan lately and it may be in her best interest to refrain until she has a full appreciation of what the origin of veganism is in totality. Maybe she won’t want to identify as vegan upon further examination. That’s fine.
It would be great if Megan embraced vegan philosophy and identifies as vegan. Sure, her diet is set, but I don’t always read acknowledgement of a vegan perspective in her writings. Again, not agreement, but acknowledgement that there is an option besides “how we treat them as we use them for our unnecessary ends.”
For example, when discussing horse racing and not bringing up the question of use of horses for no reason other than entertainment, gambling, and tradition, then it makes me wary. I’m not saying she can’t find horse racing acceptable on her own terms as a vegan, but she didn’t address the question of use at all, in what is evidenced as a destructive “sport” for many of the horses we don’t see make it on the track, and the one we did see. Without the combustion engine, the necessity of horses to plow a field or pull a cart is somewhat defensible, but riding horses to their deaths in 2008 and wringing our hands about how treat them better during arduous training, selection and “disposal,” and racing them to near death?
If condescension was in my view of ritualized violence and suffering in Christianity, my interpretation is largely free of hyperbole and cannot be considered exaggeration. A theologian worth his salts would probably offer similar perspective and probably not concede it as a fault in the doctrine, but the point of it all.
Woodland Ants: As usual, cherry picking by the vegans. You're going through thirty years of sports to find a couple of guys, helping me show my point that veganism is a popular mostly among upper-income urban whites. I asked for a large spectrum, and you've failed to provide.
FInd me a good cross section of today's athletes, at the top level of competition, that are vegans.
Come to think of it, it's probably unfair to you as there is cultural inertia on the side of carnivores. Let's make this more interesting and fair:
I will bet you the gentleman's sum of one dollar that there are more professional athletes (we'll arbitrarily put this at the $1M/year mark) using creatine than adhering to vegan diets.
Neither are natural. Neither were known a couple decades ago, and became known within a couple decades of each other. Both have similar cultural barriers to adoption. They are in many ways very similar.
Except one way:
Creatine is performance enhancing.
Vegan diets are not.
@Woodland Ants - With all respect, your post did come off as condescending to me - but I know that tone is often not conveyed or received properly in these forums.
I will say that Ms. McArdle seems to be quite thoughtful and introspective. I am assuming that she has given veganism a lot of thought and is comfortable calling herself vegan.
Do I agree with her on all vegan issues? No. I am much more of an abolishionist myself. For example, I am firmly opposed to vat grown meat and horse racing.
That being said, I think that there is a proper time to argue these points (like in the specific posts that brought them up).
I think that suggesting that an obviously well educated woman "read up" and "become better informed" doesn't really come off well. It's not that constructive, and it smacks of moral superiority.
I try to be a good ambassador for veganism. Do I get annoyed with "vegans" every day online? Yes. But I just suck it up and kindly explain, for the millionth time, why meat from a dumpster, "cruelty free" eggs, or used leather is not vegan.
Basically, I think if compassion is important to vegans, then we should act compassionately - especially toward anyone even remotely curious about veganism. I guess I feel like your comment was not in that spirit, and that's what bothered me so much about it.
I've gotten into pissing matches with Vegans on this blog before. I will refrain from such contentions this time and make an appeal to common sense.
Everyone is entitled to make their own food choices.
Everyone is free to proselytize their lifestyle choices to try to convince others to follow them.
Please recognize that the human body has evolved or was created (whichever you believe) to be OMNIVOROUS.
Physiologically, our dental structure has incisors designed specifically for tearing flesh. We also have stomachs that produce hydrochloric acid.
These are physiological traits that are ONLY found in omnivorous and carnivorous species on the planet. Therefore, it requires no morality judgment or contention to say that consuming animal protein is quite natural and healthy, provided the source animals are natural and healthy.
Therefore, whether you believe in a religion based on the worship of an Omnipotent Deity or Deities as your source for moral principles, or if you are a Darwinist evolutionary atheist/agnostic/humanist, understand that you were designed to eat, digest and live off of animal protein. The physiological facts are indisputable.
Equating animals to humans or the predation of prey species as some kind of moral question is UNNATURAL.
Even if you cannot bear the idea of an animal dying to promote your own subsistence, there are still plenty of means of obtaining the vital animal protein's YOUR OMNIVOROUS BODY REQUIRES - humanely raised, free range organic chicken's allowed to eat their natural, omnivorous diet provide high quality eggs full of protein and essential fatty acids. Milk and milk fat produce derived from free range, pastured cows NOT PASTEURIZED, also provide a whole range of beneficial food products that your body will thrive on. And neither require cruelty or "exploitation." In fact, both sources require excellent husbandry of these animals to provide the highest quality foods that promote health and vitality.
On the question of environmentalism - the modern large scale industrial methods of producing meat and produce are harmful to the environment, inhumane to the animals, and provide substandard and even harmful "food."
Cows were not meant to be confined to feed lots, wallowing in their own offal and eating grains. They were designed/evolved to eat grass on pasture land - in which they exist in perfect symbiosis with their natural environment. They're eating the food they were designed/evolved to, and their offal fertilizes the land they just grazed, promoting new growth of the grass they just consumed. Also, naturally pastured cows provide milk and meat with high levels of Vitamin D, Conjugated Linoleic Acids and Omega-3 fatty acids...as well as Vitamin B12 - the one Vitamin your body absolutely needs, but cannot obtain through strict vegetarian diets.
Vegans and Vegetarians will often point to the produce of the Big Corporation Meat Production industries, their environmentally degrading feedlots and unhealthy reliance on preservatives and chemicals to extend shelf life and maximize profits as an indictment of all carnivorous dietary practices. This is akin to saying one should avoid eating all Spinach, simply because some unethical farmers spray neuro-toxic pesticides and use cholera-infected human feces as fertilizer on their Spinach crops.
There is a huge distinction in health and environmental benefits/detriments when discussing ANY food production techniques. But to say one's entire diet should be based on avoiding an entire class of food simply because SOME sources of that food are produced in an inferior and harmful manner is to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
Another physiological point of consideration is the bodies requirement of proteins and fats.
Vegans and Vegetarians think plant based substitutes are adequate and/or superior to animal sources of proteins and fats. Soy is the most popular (note Megan's suggestion to add Tofu as a protein source.)
What they often do not know is that Soy for the most part is full of estrogenic isoflavones that upset the bodies hormonal balance and can lead to a whole host of health problems.
This site, Soy Online Service offers a very comprehensive but easy to understand explanation to back up what I just claimed about Soy. There are plenty of other sites dedicated to the health dangers of Soy foods. Google it yourself.
Finally, many vegans and vegetarians are under the mistaken assumption that avoiding animal derived foods is the healthiest diet possible. But even the modern feed lot, preservative laden denatured animal products are healthier for you than the primary culprits of the modern, industrial societies degenerative diseases that are found in abundance in the typical Western societies diets - simple carbohydrates (refined grain products & sugar), trans-fats, chemical preservatives and taste enhancers and the proliferation of vegetable oils that oxidize easily and upset the optimal ratio of Omega 6 and Omega 3 fatty acids.
Here's another article on the Omega 6 and 3 ratio and how modern manufactured foods have it completely out of whack: Why Omega-3s Were Removed from the Western Diet and What We Can Do to Replace Them.
Veganism and Vegetarianism is based on emotional appeals (how you FEEL about the animals treatment) rather than an objective look at the scientific facts.
It relies on propaganda and scare tactics to try and convert people into adopting their own dietary practices...because anyone that truly and objectively researches the facts of the matter will come to realize that veganism is not a natural or health-optimizing diet.
Dang, I screwed up my html for the two links in my last post.
Here are the links:
Soyonline Service
and
Why Omega-3s Were Removed from the Western Diet and What We Can Do to Replace Them