Prejudiced Reviews

I should be preparing for company for Memorial Day, but instead I'm writing an admittedly half-thought-out and hurried post on books and reviews -- namely, that many books on veganism appear to be reviewed only by vegans.  As I write this, three children are whining for my attention, the laundry needs folded, the dishes need to be done, and it's pouring rain; my thoughts are interrupted constantly by what most people call "real life". 

But heck, I want to blog!  Real life, you'll just have to wait.

The prejudiced reviews are a real problem.  I want to read more books on the subject -- but I also want to read the good ones and one way, traditionally, to know which books are good is to look for reviews.  If all reviews come from people already committed to a vegan philosophy, then of course those books espousing veganism are touted as being the final argument, and there must be no need to say more.  There must be nothing to criticize.  There must be nothing wrong with veganism.  Or, to put it the other way, there must be everything wrong with non-veganism.

It troubles me that, for instance, a forthcoming book with a provocative title (Meat is for Pussies) appears only to have been reviewed by other vegans (who, judging by the reviews I've read, think the book is nothing but pure truth). 

I haven't read the book (but I plan to).  It may be, indeed, that it's wonderful.  The problem, however, is that without more "objective" reviewers, to outsiders (read:  non-vegans) it appears hopelessly prejudiced. 

I imagine that there are two predictable vegan responses to my concerns.  One, the mainstream media ignores us.  (Lately?  Not so much.)  Two, the only people who will read this and review it positively are committed vegans. (I'm not so sure; it seems to be that even non-vegans are starting to recognize that veganism has something to teach everyone, even if many many people will decide it goes too far.)

Vegans take hits from critics all the time for being extreme, utopian, unrealistic, judgmental.  Non-vegans take hits all the time for being selfish, speciesist, cruel, uncaring.  Both sets of labels are harsh and only contain, at best, kernels of truth.  Most vegetarians or almost vegans or plain old omnivores that I know are, if they have any expendable time or income, doing thoughtful things to lessen their impact on the environment, for instance -- including making new food choices on a regular basis.  And many vegans I've met are extremely sweet people who try very hard to appreciate where others are coming from.  However, some of the more vocal proponents of veganism take pride in mincing no words and they come across about as militant and evangelical as leaders of a movement can be.  That understandably closes the ears of many, many people.

I've been having an "argument" of sorts over on a google blog group called veganviews.  The argument is the typical one:  whether something short of veganism (like I espouse) is possible and whether vegans can even get their heads around it, given that they philosophically are opposed to use of animals for any type of human consumption.  (The answers, according to vegans, are no and no.)

It's obvious that veganism challenges some of the core assumptions of our collective cultures, most notably the idea that people are somehow "above" animals and can therefore raise, breed, and use them for our benefit.  (As you know, I take the position that limited and careful use should be OK -- but that to get to that place requires massive social changes; it falls short of the vegan ideal.) 

Can veganism be reviewed thoughtfully by a non-vegan?  I think it can.  Too bad that so many of the books written by thoughtful vegan researchers are not reviewed (so far as I can find) by non-vegans, and are reviewed only in small, alternative places unlikely to be known to most people (making it even less likely that a non-vegan will even know of them).

Do you know of books (other than Skinny Bitch and The China Study and Eating Animals) which espouse veganism AND have been reviewed (even critically!) by non-vegans, particularly in major presses or news outlets?

If so, I'd love some book recommendations and the names of the reviews that go with them. 

Applebee's

I'm in the thick of the end-of-the-term madness and have little time right now to write a proper post.  But I thought I'd share my experience this evening eating out with my kids and my sister, her husband, and their three kids.

We went to Applebee's.  Family friendly.  Relatively affordable.  Relatively large menu.  We knew each of the kids (each picky in a different way) would actually eat something there. 

We discovered nearly immediately that the menu offers NOTHING vegan; not even anything vegetarian.  Unless you want a plain baked potato or just an order of fries, this restaurant caters exclusively to the meat-and-dairy-eating crowd.  Not a huge surprise, of course, but *most* restaurants these days have at least a pasta and vegetable option or a garden burger.  Not Applebees.

I sat there mulling my options:  cheat and eat something with dairy (as in a ceasar salad or a bowl of French onion soup) or just have a beverage and be REALLY hungry on the two-hour-long ride home.

Then I noticed the menu had a dijon chicken and portobello mushroom item that came with steamed veggies and potatoes.  Could, I wondered, they make that with more mushrooms and leave out the chicken?

I asked for that.  The cooks did a very good job and the presentation was, frankly, very attractive.   My sister, a committed omnivore eating a spinach and shrimp salad, looked over and said, "THAT looks good.  Next time I'm here, I'm ordering that, that way." 

A little vegan victory for this almost vegan.  :)

Calorie Counting and Grade Grubbing

So, according to several vegan writers, if you go vegan you can skip calorie counting (Skinny Bitch is one of the books that proposes this).

I suppose that might be true if a) you NEVER "cheat," b) you NEVER consume sugar, and c) you NEVER crave something like that white flour-and white-sugar-high fructose corn syrup-filled pumpkin scone at Starbucks. 

It may also be true for people under 35 (the age when my metabolism decided to come to a grinding halt).

For us mere mortals, those three caveats are hard to stick to.  There is temptation everywhere and old habits are hard to break, particularly those lattes that gosh darn it! have too many calories and too much sugar in them.  (For the record, I rarely buy them anymore, though I still daily drink one or two cups of regular coffee that I make at home.)

I've discovered that if I want to lose weight EVEN WHILE eating a vegan diet, I have to count calories.

I've found a website, caloriecount.about.com, to be incredibly helpful.

It works just like you would imagine it would:  you keep a log of EVERYTHING you eat, paying particular attention to quantities, of course.  (It's amazing how much oatmeal I was eating before I learned to eat ONLY what is considered ONE serving.) You also keep a log of all activities. At the end of the day, you hope to have expended more calories than you consumed. 

I've quickly discovered two things.  One, I eat more than I thought I did.  I bet most people do.  Two, I do less than I thought I did.  Again, I bet that's true for most people. 

OUCH.

The website first asks you to give them basic information:  your current weight and height, your age, your desired weight, whether your lifestyle is sedentary or active, etc. 

It also asks you to measure your wrist, to give them an indication of your body build.  I always assumed I was "average," but, according to them, I have a large build.  Or, at least, my wrist (which looks thin to me) has a "large" circumference.

That is actually INCREDIBLY good news, as I have never been able to be as "thin" or as "light" as those guidelines suggest one my height could be (and still be healthy).  (If you have a heavier frame, you're allowed to be at the upper end of "normal" without any worry of being too heavy, as I'm sure you all know.  I just never realized I was actually one of those people.) 

According to their analysis of my diet, I am consistently high (that's good) in consuming vitamins A and C, and I do a darn good job managing my calories (now that I'm paying more attention to them).

But most days I am deficient in almost every other category they have, such as fats, protein, potassium, iron, carbs, and calcium (the calcium thing WAS easier when I was eating dairy...).  I'm also, according to them, not eating enough fiber, which makes NO sense to me whatsoever; I actually question their analysis here.  If you're eating between 7 and 10 servings of fruits and vegetables a day, how could you NOT be consuming enough fiber!!??

There's other evidence in my life that fiber is a non-issue.

I am also, according to the website, still eating too much sugar. 

Good lord.  I have cut back SO much; if *I* am still eating too much sugar then I guarantee 99% of the rest of America is eating too much sugar. 

Perhaps that's no big shocker.  But golly, sugar is clearly an American addiction!

So, I am making choices as I go.  If, for instance, after recording my breakfast, I see where I'm deficient, then I make sure the next snack or meal intentionally addresses one or more of the nutritional deficits.

I no longer just reach for bread and peanut butter when I'm in the mood for a snack.

I've never kept this kind of log before, but doing so is a good thing.  It's made me FAR more aware than ever of how even somebody who eats "well" intentionally can have some rather serious deficits in their diet. After all, choosing a mostly vegan diet in this culture is a VERY intentional choice.

It's made me aware of how being vegan IS harder than being an omnivore in terms of getting adequate nutrition (not, of course, meaning to infer that all omnivores eat well). 

It's not impossible, but it is harder.  Let's be honest!

The website grades your food choices and analyzes what you eat in a surprisingly complete way.

Overall, I consistently get a grade of "A" for my food choices.

God, I am SUCH a grade grubber.

But, some individual choices are still problematic. Use even a teaspoonful of sugar in your coffee and you get a "D" for that particular choice.

Geez.  That may be the first "D" I've ever earned. 

I've discovered that choosing molasses instead of white sugar earns me a B+.

:)