In the book I posted the first several chapters see heavily about the history of dietary sciences. Around chapter 9 it seems to finally dive more into the science of the biochemistry of nutrition. So far focused on fats.
A good video.
A bit about Dr. Harcombe: Zoë Harcombe - RationalWiki
Interesting article regarding the history and status of dietary cholesterol and saturated fats. Evidently shrimp and eggs are good in moderation, fatty beef not so much due to saturated fat.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6024687/
1 Like
Why blame the âoldest of foodsâ for the ânewest of diseasesâ?
By: Dr. Pran Yoganathan, MD, Gastroenterology
The burden of chronic illnesses such as obesity and type 2 diabetes overwhelm me in my role as a gastroenterologist and hepatologist. The realities of the many subsequent metabolic complications that often appear alongside chronic illnesses makes treatment challenging.
One of the biggest health related challenges humanity will face in the years to come is reducing skeletal muscle loss due to age or chronic disease. Although there are a variety of factors influencing skeletal muscle loss, a key factor in addressing this challenge is the implementation of a balanced diet. This includes a key superfood - red meat.
Biology teaches us to study and understand organisms in the context of the environment they evolved in. Ideology aside, it is hard for science to ignore that we are simply the primate that learnt to hunt and value the nutrient density of meat. There is little doubt from an evolutionary perspective that humans were reliant on animal sourced foods prior to the advent of agrarian societies.
There is a concept known as the expensive tissue hypothesis which stipulates that for the human brain to have developed we needed a much more efficient gastrointestinal tract that relied on higher quality foods. Increased access to high quality food allows for ease of digestion and maximal nutrient delivery.
As humans evolved towards being hind gut fermenters of poor-quality plant material to mid-gut (auto enzyme) digesters, energy was freed up for the development of what is the most complex biological matter that exists on the planet and arguably in the universe - the human brain.
Where does that all take me? Meat was, and is, a critical part of the process of being human.
My question then is how did we end up in the situation where we blamed the oldest of foods for the newest of diseases?
Public health measures along with vaccinations and antibiotics help to ensure we no longer die of communicable disease (infection). Rather, we die of modern and chronic diseases brought on by lifestyle choices (non-communicable).
It is therefore not surprising that scientific literature contains numerous reports of associations between protein sources and markers of diet quality. This literature has led to the popularization of the protein package, an idea which has long blamed animal proteins for their contribution to an inadequate nutrient intake profile. Maybe this explains the association between meat protein and cardiovascular disease risk as well? Although these are important links between protein sources and diet quality, we must remember that the protein packages that have become readily available tend to be delivered in takeaway or âjunkâ foods such as pizzas and burgers. These types of foods are protein, however they are often very low protein meals which are overwhelmed by refined carbohydrates and fats.
High-quality protein consumption optimizes protein metabolism at both the whole-body and skeletal-muscle level, especially in older people. Plant-based protein sources that are rich in fibre and micronutrients are valuable, but have lower anabolic potential than animal-based proteins. Strategies to improve plant protein properties include selective breeding, fortifying plant-based proteins with specific essential amino acids, mixing several plant proteins, as well as mixing plant and animal-based protein sources. We need high-quality food proteins to mitigate muscle loss.
When you compare fat and carbohydrates, protein is the macronutrient that makes the smallest observed contribution to energy intake and constitutes the lowest proportion of recommended intake. There are a limited number of foods offering large amounts of protein and most of these foods are consumed infrequently. This has resulted in an average protein consumption that ranges between 12% to 20% (of energy intake) in economically developed countries. These numbers are even less in underdeveloped countries.
Despite low protein consumption, media reports and research seem to implicate that animal sourced foods (often rich in protein) result in cardiovascular diseases and even cancer. Concerns regarding sustainability, planetary health, and the ethics of animal farming, alongside the growing vegan initiative have led to a situation where foods such as red meat have become linked to poor health and lack of environmental concern.
We have seen a rapid deterioration of global health at a trajectory that is impossible to fully comprehend. America has become synonymous with declining metabolic health. Has the consumption of animal sourced protein contributed to this downfall? A survey completed in 2003 and published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition revealed a surprising result about the protein intake of Americans.
Letâs assume 35% of the macros should come from protein for a relatively healthy and balanced diet:
- The median intake of protein on a percentage of calories basis ranged from 13.4% in children aged 4 to 8 years to 16.0% in men aged 51 to 70 years.
- Even the 95th percentile of protein intake did not approach the highest acceptable macronutrient distribution range of 35% for any specific age/sex group.
- The highest 95th percentile of protein intake was 20.8% of calories in men aged 51 to 70 years.
The popular opinion is that Americans are big consumers of animal protein. But the truth is, people in America are protein starved.
Isnât it interesting when you separate opinions from science?
Yes, seen that. Donât expect better from Wikipedia. Mostly Ad Hominem for disagreeing with mainstream (subsidised) opinions and the greatest sin of all ⊠âclimate change denierâ
Well, it is from RationalWiki, not Wikipedia, but letâs not let facts get in the way. Anyway, anything they said that you find inaccurate? I am not that familiar with her, but as it is your source, will let you research if you want. If you promote sources, you have to accept they will be examined, otherwise there is no accountability. It appears she has a vested interest in promoting a specific viewpoint. She does appear to have good work on evaluating the flaws of guidelines from 40 years ago, but fails to keep up with ongoing research and information, possibly due to her financial interests.
1 Like
My dear Phil.
What you seem to miss, is the massive conflict between the âconsensusâ created by food and pharma mafia, professionals on the payroll, and ignorant professional followers, and those who are trying to expose them.
This David and Goliath fight, is in the hands of a few professionals that risk their own reputation against the massive resources of big corporations.
What I find ludicrous is how people think that it is OK for a multi billion dollars corporation to sell lies and make millions of people sick in the process for profit, yet it is wrong for a single solitary person to advance an idea and make some money in the process to survive another day.
There have been hundreds of studies supporting what this professionals promote, mostly have been suppressed, results cherry picked, or buried in a barrage of results or interpretations that the common person is unable to discern.
Dr Harcombe and all the others I have linked, are denouncing a massive cover up and a failure of governments to protect the population health and they themselves are at risk for not towing the party line.
Let the reader do the research and learn to discern true from lies.
Not my job. I done my research long ago and reap the health benefit.
If people want mainstream subsidized suger coated lies, all they need to do is to ask their doctor who has on average a week of undergraduate nutrition instruction from their university, some 20 or 30 years ago.
Hooroo
Marc
PS
I thought that our recent experience with Covid would make this a bit easier, but obviously people have short memories.Vaccination anyone?
vaccination for Covid is appropriate, and about 230,000 people died who otherwise would have survived, had they not refused getting the vaccine due to vaccine deniers. Not to mention those who suffer Long Covid when it has been shown vaccination decreases the incidence, even in those who subsequently get Covid infection. COVID Vaccines Reduce Long COVID Risk, New Study Shows > News > Yale Medicine.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10123459/
But, that is off topic, just couldnât let such statements stand unchallenged.
It is funny to hear you talk of financial issues, when if you look at legitimate researchers, they list their financial considerations, if any, but those who are dependent totally on their financial schemes get a free pass. And a lot rake in big bucks from clicks and sales.
Rather than rhetoric, may I suggest looking at legitimate studies, and debating the merits of those.
2 Likes
Sorry my mistake, didnât even know ârationalwikiâ existed.
A quick google search on rational wiki
RATINALWIKI is PRO WARMIST LIE created by LIBERAL wanting to DEFAME people who tell the TRUTH they want to take over world and DO COMMUNIST 
Not my words sorry.
As for Covid vaccines, I understand it is a big topic, vested with even bigger interest and massive misinformation to keep the trilion dollar industry going.
Yes, vaccines are useful. And then there are usless vaccines who give you a day or two of immunity
As for disclosure ⊠I donât see the food industry disclosing their lobbying of government and their distorsion or suppression of research to keep on selling sugar and carbs manufactured in a factory in favour of natural basic food from the farm.
Yes, absolutely. The rate of ICU admission was 20-40 times higher in our hospital system for those who were not vaccinated than for those who were. I lost quite a lot of patients to Covid. I vaccinate my kids to help with preventing spread to others.
Blessings. Have a good night.
1 Like
I think one of the biggest issues, and Cornell and Harvard, among others have highlighted is that the overwhelming majority of nutritional studies are reductionist studies which are nice, but they typically lack any meaningful holistic value. There are hundreds of thousands of studies that are often misunderstood because the study focuses on one part of one food that provides some kind of benefit to one organ and it does not highlight the issues that the other nutrients are having on other organs. Reductionist dietary focuses is what drives âsuperfoodâ and âsupplementsâ consumerism. People have bad diets, and are like but if I add this one superfood it provides this benefit instead of simply eating healthy.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5466944/
This is about an almost 80 year old man who underwent the healthiest known diet at the moment. Whole Foods plant based diet.
This link is a blog by PCRM which has over a dozen cited sources at the bottom.
When you get into actual holistic nutrition and health ( whole body healthy and overall diet ) those with a whole foods plant based diet scores the best for health.
Itâs not a plant based diet made up of tons of processed foods. Itâs not pescatarian diets, or those heavy in animal products and byproducts. Study after study after study shows this.
Take even the discussions on saturated fat. It does not just exist on its own. Itâs found overwhelming within animal based foods. Low nutrient hogh calorie foods. Unsaturated fat in whole foods are mostly found in plants and come packaged with thousands of phytonutrients.
The way we see meat being championed is very similar to how the medical establishment championed smoking in the past even though numerous doctors opposed it to no prevail. Similar to how pharmaceuticals are often being championed now as bandaids instead of fixing yourself though healthier lifestyle changes.
Those of us who work in the sciences are far more impressed by primary sources than by YouTube videos. Itâs not that all YT videos are bad, but any idiot can make a video, and quite a few do.
Diet and nutrition is not my area, but I know enough not draw any strong conclusions without careful study of the question. This too is Dunning-Kruger; those with some awareness realize the depth of that we do not know.
But snarky comments about facts and science are never helpful. What is helpful are reliable sources demonstrating better science, or at least giving a plausible alternative hypothesis.
1 Like
Here is another article by a medical doctor.
This one is focused on good vs bad sources of protein and itâs not written by someone who is pushing veganism.
They mention red meat as a bad source of protein.
They mention skinless white meat and fish as healthier sources of protein. They mention numerous plants as healthier lean forms of protein.
Those who tend to eat diets high in meat typically eat less plants. The plants tend to make up a fraction of the calories in the diet. You can find studies highlighting this or you can simply count the calories of dozens of typical âhealthyâ red meat driven meals.
It mentions that diets high in protein ( and those proteins are animal based proteins ) for people moderated significantly increased chances of cancer but that in people 65+ higher protein showed a decrease in cancer, but increase by 5x in diabetic mortality.
But others have shown that 10-20% of calories being protein from Whole Foods plant based sources does not come with that increase of mortality.
This is from American Institute of Cancer Research. Again they are not vegans. They are not even pushing for all plant based Whole Foods.
It mentions that what they suggest is reducing meat and increase whole plant foods. But if you keep digging what youâll notice is that itâs not the meat here that is providing the healthy benefits. Itâs the decrease of meat and the increase of plants in your diet.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5466936/
Several good things in this study.
Additionally to this being the healthiest supported by literature it also a diet that is healthier for the environment.
Look at how the meat industry is a major contribution to climate change and general ecological disasters.
This is by the highly respected PLOS journal.
This is an article by the Environmental Center of The University of Colorado. Within the article is numerous links to scientific paper .
Now, this part may not matter but even when it comes to the Bible, the image it paints of the new world, is a planet where animals are not being killed and eaten.
So not only is the WFPB diet ( whole foods plant based ) better for us individually, but itâs also better focus collectively and not just us, but all wildlife. Even fish do better because of us eating less meat because less ground water is messed up due to pesticides used in livestock crops .
Another article with several different links to cited studies.
1 Like
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM)
Organization
Finances Related People Donations
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is a wolf in sheepâs clothing. PCRM is a fanatical animal rights group that seeks to remove eggs, milk, meat, and seafood from the American diet, and to eliminate the use of animals in scientific research. Despite its operational and financial ties to other animal activist groups and its close relationship with violent zealots, PCRM has successfully duped the media and much of the general public into believing that its pronouncements about the superiority of vegetarian-only diets represent the opinion of the medical community.
âLess than 5 percent of PCRMâs members are physicians,â Newsweek wrote in February 2004. The respected news magazine continued:
[PCRM president Neal] Barnard has co-signed letters, on PCRM letterhead, with the leader of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, an animal-rights group the Department of Justice calls a âdomestic terrorist threat.â PCRM also has ties to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. An agency called the foundation to Support Animal Protection has distributed money from PETA to PCRM in the past and, until very recently, did both groupsâ books. Barnard and PETA head Ingrid Newkirk are both on the foundationâs board.
Etc,etc,etc âŠ
Well, if we are to copy and paste third party articles, there is an abundance of this available. Against and in favour and in between too.
Here is one.
Iâll refrain from posting more, since I had my fair share with everything copied and everything written.
What seems to be missing in all the replies received, is some form of genuine interest. The focus seems to be in posting furious rebuttals as if I had been promoting satanism, or perhaps will personally cut you off your primary source of sugary cereals and bread and pasta, forcing you into a diet of homemade salami sausages and rib eye steak.
The fact is that my findings on nutrition are the result of years of listening to others with interest, and putting in practice what I found credible. Listening or reading was the key, certainly not vehement opposal standing on a soap box. (Sacrilege! Heretic!)
When I am not an MD,my wife, brother, sister in law, nephew and brother in law are. Ophthalmologist, orthopedic surgeon, ophthalmologist, anesthetist, and I am not counting a few other relatives that are physiotherapist and physiologist.
I only refer to this for one simple reason. All of them without exception have no clue about nutrition, couldnât describe the metabolism of fat accurately if their life depended on it, and all refer to what was told to them in medical school decades ago as if nothing had change.
What I have found in relation to nutrition, dietary guidelines and dietary advice, is a long string of errors, born from bad science, bad research, poor political decisions and in the worst cases fraud and falsified data to serve an agenda and favour industry, in some well known cases, by paid medical professionals.
However, when this finding served me well for my personal health, I donât think this matter is either a religion or a political party, so I donât preach nor try to find acolytes or convert anyone.
My post have a genuine altruistic motivation. If you donât like the content, donât believe it or otherwise prefer to remain in your current status, whatever it is, again ⊠be my guest, no skin off my nose.
If on the other hand you oppose the content of my post because you are concerned others may be led astray by them, think again. your fellow member is an adult and can think for himself. Or so I am led to believe.
So ⊠if anyone here thinks that veganism is the way to stay healthy, that is a matter for himself. I say Godspeed.
If anyone wants to believe that agriculture is great for the land and that animal husbandry is Oh so bad! âŠbe my guest. You are Oh so wrong! but it does not matter to me. Politicians and lobbyist will use your credulity to push for even more damage to our health pushing for more and more carbs into our diet. Manufactured âfoodâ is where the money is, clearly not in meat or fish. Next is synthetic meat, made with ⊠recycled tyres? Donât really know nor want to know.
In conclusion, since we are all adults here, trying to score brownie points is a rather puerile exercise. The point of the matter is simple, government guidelines have created the current obesity, diabetes and the rest of the so called diseases of western civilization.
The reversal will have to begin with exposing the lies and the fraud by industry and government, aided by ignorance from the health professionals.
This can only happen if those on the front line, are able to think laterally and listen to the many voices of dissent. If the graph about obesity I posted does not make you think and ask, what happened in the fifties and sixties, clearly you are not scientifically inclined.
Does not matter, my interest in the topic remains and I will continue reading the latest findings and if at all possible, expose the lies the fraud and the falsification as much as possible.
Must go now, my spit roast is almost ready.
Bon chance!
Marc
Not all opinions are equal. Some people hold the opinion that the world is flat, or that the world is 6,000 years old or that red meat is essential. All of them are bad opinions. You mentioned early on about people having a vested interest or agendas within the scientific community.
The article you posted links to a journal thatâs open access peer reviewed by anonymous people. The management is made up of the American Society of Animal Science (ASAS), the European Federation of Animal Science (EAAP), the American Meat Science Association (AMSA), and the World Association for Animal Production (WAAP).
But here is the conclusion from one of their studies.
Agriculture in general, and livestock production, in particular, contributes to global warming through emissions of methane and nitrous oxide. To meet future needs of an expanding population, animal productivity will need to increase and greenhouse gas emission intensity per unit of product will need to decrease. One of the principal ways to achieve this environmental standard is to adopt effective mitigation strategies. To increase the effectiveness of these strategies, complex interactions among the components of livestock production systems must be taken into account to avoid environmental trade-offs. Unfortunately, there is not a standard procedure to follow. Mitigation practices should not be evaluated individually, but as a component of the entire livestock production system. The majority of these strategies aim to increase productivity (unit of product per animal), which in most cases cannot be achieved without good standards of animal health and welfare. Optimizing animal productivity has a powerful mitigating effect in both developed and developing countries; however, the size of the effect will also depend on factors such as the genetic potential of the animal and adoption of management technologies.
Itâs from this journal.
So even there it mentions that there is a direct and major contribution to climate change because of animal factory farming. They believe it should be handled by better practices, yet there is none. Seems that there main argument is to breed animals with more protein and mass to reduce how many animals are breed .
Here is one of their cited journal articles.
This article states â
Livestock activities have significant impacts on all aspects of the environment. Such impacts are increasing and changing rapidly. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has developed and applied a methodology based on the life cycle assessment (LCA) approach applicable to the global dairy sector (FAO, 2010). According to their results, the global dairy sector contributes 4.0% to the total global anthropogenic GHG emissions. This figure decreases to 2.7% if meat production is excluded (FAO, 2010). Concerning other environmental impacts, Tukker et al. (2006) have found that dairy products are responsible for about 10% of the total anthropogenic eutrophication potential, 6% of the acidification potential and 4% of the photochemical oxidant formation potential due to all products consumed in EU.â
So the article it mentions also mentions it has major contributions to the environment. But that if we breed cows and use technology to make each cow produce more milk, we will need less cows.
Here is another article it cites.
This mentions the same. They all seem to mention the same thing. Current practices have significant impact on the environment but we can improve technology and production rates to mitigate the damage being done. So as using lagoons to bio filter the waste water and manure.
Which was already addressed in my previous comment as having negative impacts on the environment.
Again, want to highlight there is a scientific consensus held by experts who study this. The consensus is that it is highly affecting the environment. Itâs contributing to a large portion of it and this is coming from articles from the journal you mentioned which is lead by those with a direct financial hand in this matter. The argument is with better technology and better breeding we can increase productivity ( which means cows are being bred to produce more milk faster ) and using filters to handle the waste.
You can look up videos and articles from journals on the impact of these lagoons on the planet and people, including the stench affecting mental health and how damaging it is when one goes wrong which happens all the time.
One of the claims from the article you mentioned is that red meat is essential. But we simply know thatâs not true.
When we look at the scientific consensus of those in the health industry from organizations such as Mayo Clinic, Harvard Medical, American Cancer Research and so on, whatâs healthy is a increase of plants and fruits in a whole foods plant based diet.
Everything is supporting my opinion.
1 Like
Also, there are tons and tons of plant and mushroom, even mold based options for consumption. You can get plenty of protein, plenty of fat, plenty of carbs from it. Even with just 12% of your diet coming from plant based foods , not talking about plant based protein powders either, you can still develop a very lean natural bodybuilding physique and if you add in things like protein powder muffins or whatever, and develop up to 20-30% of your diet consisting of plant based protein you can compete professionally in all sports and bodybuilding including strongmen competitions.
My dinner tonight is very healthy and very flavorful.
White beans, carrots, red beets, white and sweet onions, jalapeños sautéed together on low so they each maintain their own flavor seasoned with taco seasoning. I made mushroom crumbles cooked in red wine and liquid smoke and then mixed the two together.
For dessert Iâm going to mash up two chilled bananas with some vanilla extract and top it with diced licorice, strawberries, dates and walnuts with a tablespoon of maple syrup and a piece of dark chocolate the size of a single Hershey square for the drizzle.
Since itâs Saturday Iâll have a bottle of root beer. I drink either a can or bottle of soda for dinner on Saturday and Sunday. Rest of the week itâs normally sparkling flavored water or unsweetened tea.
2 Likes
I bowed out of this discussion when I realised you are vegan, even when you said so earlier own. I missed that, my mistake.
From previous experiences, I realise it is pointless to debate this just as it is pointless to debate sabbatism with a 7DA. (Note I said pointless only because it achieves no results and each sticks to his opinion)
Notice that in this thread, and in the one in Reddit, the words that are missing completely are: âWow, thatâs interesting!, or⊠I did not know that, Iâll look into thatâ even when the points are made by specialist with decades in the field, contributors dismiss them with fallacious arguments or no argument at all. That is why this is a pointless exercise.
I refrain to answer the post below. That is simply too much fun.
As a last post on this thread, I post a ink to a discussion on this very topic I find useful, with opinions in both camps.
Enjoy.
PS,
84% of vegetarians/vegans abandon their diet. About a third (34%) of lapsed vegetarians/vegans maintained the diet for three months or less. Slightly more than half (53%) adhered to the diet for less than one year. The only motivation cited by a majority (58%) of former vegetarians/vegans was health.24 Feb 2016
The best overall reply:
Veganism doesnât solve the issues it pretends to. When a field is plowed it ends millions of lives. When grains and vegetables are grown and stored they must be protected through the eradication of pests. You cannot escape being the cause of suffering and death: everything eats.
Veganism as an ideology focuses attention away from the goal of harm reduction and actionable solutions to climate change. Sustainable agriculture is the best concept I have come across to build on towards a solution to conventional agricultureâs negative effect on the biosphere. The best methods always integrate animals as producers that can easily consume the things we cannot consume, but have in abundance.
The strongest argument against veganism is that it is fallacy: it is utterly hypocritical to be consuming products made from exploited people and planted in a graveyard of animals massacred for the monoculture while pretentiously accusing local meat farmers of âmurderâ.
Even if you prescribe to the idea that we as a society should become âbenevolent stewardsâ of our universe, you cannot deny that we are eons away from possessing the technology and evolutionary traits to manifest our subsistence without causing suffering to any living thing.
So it turns out vegetarianism isnât popular. And itâs hard.
Next up, we could study the righteous life. See how that fairs as a popular cultural option.
1 Like
So youâll notice that on the other thread, response 147-149 which this thread broke off from some of that was already answered.
It does not matter that many people fail at sticking with veganism. Many have a hard time giving up whatâs bad for them and the planet. I know once again, you think you presented some decent argument but itâs one of the most overplayed and easily rebutted arguments that are out there.
Veganism as a concept, already contemplated with the fact that nothing commercialized is going to completely reduce the loss of animal life. But whatâs funny, is that someone who contributes to it significantly more thinks that changes anything.
For example, the non rhetorical questions you refused to answered about dogs apply here as well. Every year dogs die because they get hit by vehicles on the road. So if I know dogs still die because of driving, does that make me a hypocrite to say I donât support abusing dogs? Does the fact dogs die because of driving means I need to stop driving? Does that âhypocrisyâ give people who use dogs in dogfighting gambling a leg to stand on? Imagine a guy who fights dogs for profit saidâŠâŠ. Well you still drive a truck and every year dogs die by driving and so itâs not any different from be beating them and making them tear each others throat outâ.
Likewise, if you think vegans are not aware that animals still die even in crops grown for human consumption it just highlights how out of touch with reality you are. So the question is do vegans choose to stop eating and die or do we accept the fact some animals are going to die when food gets harvested? If we accept some animals die while food gets harvested, does that now mean screw it, might as well just kill several billion more animals for food each year? Thatâs just as stupid of a concept as the one about dog fighting and car driving.
Because again, around 80% of land used for agricultural practices and pastures are for livestock feed. So if you drive past 10 crops in America, 8 of those are for animals, 2 of those are for humans. So even off of that , veganism contributes to 1/5 of the animal life lost eating just plants and mushroom.
Then you have to realize, around
Vegan Meal Planning | American Diabetes Association 99.99% of all the animals lost in slaughter houses is because of meat eating.
So while vegans does not pretend to eliminate all animal deaths, it does contribute to the tiniest fraction of it compared to people like you who support animal abuse and death just so you can have a corpse sandwich.
Again, when you look at all the data driven organizations youâll see they push a diet that consists mostly of plants to give their patients the best chances.
American Diabetes Association Vegan Meal Planning | American Diabetes Association
American Heart Association
Iâll edit in several more later. Have things to do.