THE LURE: The temptation of a lobster dinner tests the author’s resolve to go vegan for the month of January.
By Mary Macvean
On a recent Sunday, four days into my month-long vegan diet, I went to dinner with dear friends — 10 people who’d planned for many weeks to share a Chinese seafood feast at New Port Seafood in Beverly Hills.
Could I make an exception (AKA, cheat)? my son asked. I cannot say I wasn’t tempted. But I wasn’t ready to break this resolution to go vegan in January — and I didn’t want to lie. Fortunately, the friend who planned the dinner just laughed and ordered extra tofu and vegetable dishes.
I tried not to look at the gorgeous mountain of lobster on the platter. It helps that I can cook. I’ve been eating from my pot of “vegan soup,” made from what was in the fridge (potatoes, chard, carrots, celery and more) and a few other ingredients: chickpeas for protein and wonderful pasta shells from the Los Angeles company Semolina Artisanal Pasta. I also love nuts and nut butter (who could resist PB&J on whole-grain bread?).
After I announced in the January 3 Saturday section that I would document a month’s progress as a vegan, I received lots of advice and support from readers, too, such as trying “yoghurt” made from almond or soy milk and visiting certain restaurants. (An online search turned up 60 vegan restaurants in LA.)
I also heard from people who were upset because I acknowledged that my motivation was not the welfare of animals, and I heard about the health benefits of a vegan diet from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. (The Paleo diet proponents haven’t been in touch yet.)
Which raises the question: Why would someone choose a vegan diet? (According to a 2011 Harris Poll, around 5% of people in the US are full-on vegetarian, including vegans.)
The answers fall mostly into these categories: being healthy; protecting the planet (reducing water use and greenhouse gas emissions from the meat industry); and promoting animal welfare.
But vegans haven’t cornered the market on those issues, said Brian Kateman, a 25-year-old New Yorker who grew up eating a standard American diet and works at Columbia University’s Earth Institute.
“The question is not how we can we increase the amount of vegetarians and vegans, but how can we reduce the amount of meat consumption,” said Kateman, who with a friend came up with the concept of reducetarians, people who are working to reduce the amount of animal protein they eat. They co-founded the Reducetarian Foundation.
“For a very long time I was committed to reduce my meat consumption, but I kept getting caught in situations in which I wanted to eat meat,” Kateman said by phone. Designations like vegan and vegetarian staged “a boxing match for moral superiority” that’s unproductive and does not focus on the shared commitment to eat less meat, he said.
Kateman’s is among several Internet campaigns working to reduce meat consumption, including Meatless Monday and Veganuary. Some advocates, many of them foodies, suggest eating less meat but making it more eco-friendly — grass-fed beef or humanely caught seafood.
It’s obvious that the environment and animal welfare are ethical concerns, but Stephanie Gray Winnard, who teaches psychology at Pierce College and is a vegan cooking teacher, noted in an e-mail that “living a healthy lifestyle is an ethical reason as well, because it’s wrong to be reckless with our health and treat our bodies with disrespect. It’s also wrong to be reckless with our health because our health affects others besides ourselves.”
It is true, however, that a vegan diet does not equal a healthy diet. I could eat artificially flavoured fatty chips washed down with sodas all day and keep my vegan cred.
Obviously, that’s not a good idea; I’m planning a healthful month — and I plan to write about it. For now, a reader, Kathryn Cook, passed along this advice she’d once read: “Swedish Fish (a fish-shaped gum candy) are vegan, but they’re not good for you. Don’t be a junk-food vegan.” — Los Angeles Times/TNS
Anger an indicator of good health
Contrary to popular belief prevalent in Western societies, researchers have found that anger is actually linked with better, not worse health, in certain cultures. Greater anger is associated with better biological health among Japanese people, the findings showed.
“The truism linking anger to ill health may be valid only within the cultural boundary of the ‘West,’ where anger functions as an index of frustration, poverty, low status and everything else that potentially compromises health,” said psychological scientist Shinobu Kitayama from University of Michigan.
For the study, the researchers examined survey data drawn from participants in the US and Japan. To measure health, the researchers looked at biomarkers for inflammation and cardiovascular functioning, both of which have been linked to anger expression in previous research.
The combination of these two factors served as a measure of overall biological health risk. The researchers also looked at measures that gauged various aspects of anger, including how often participants expressed angry feelings through verbally or physically aggressive behaviours.
The data revealed that greater anger expression was associated with increased biological health risk among US participants, as previous studies have shown. But greater anger expression was associated with reduced biological health risk among Japanese participants.
“The association between greater anger and compromised biological health, taken for granted in the current (Western) literature, was completely reversed so that greater anger was associated with better biological health among Japanese,” Kitayama said. “These findings show how socio-cultural factors go under the skin to influence vital biological processes,” Kitayama said. — IANS
