Addendum to previous post

JB MacKinnon of the 100 Mile Diet blog revisits his question "Can Vegetarianism Go Local" (parts 1 and 2) with this follow-up piece.

Can one be a locavore AND a vegetarian?

Yesterday and today the 100 Mile Diet blog published a two-part series that thoughtfully considers this question:

Can Vegetarianism Go Local? (part 1, part 2) 

This blog and the local eating philosophy are challenging my thinking. My rationale for being a vegetarian has evolved over the past 25 years (and to be honest, so has the strictness of my adherence). My current list of reasons why includes a desire to eat the "greenist" (as in most environmentally-sustainable) diet possible.

The author (JBM) describes some of the complexities in trying to be vegetarian locavore. Here are a two:

• [A] plant-based diet will be possible in many places.....In some places, though, it won’t....The Inuit of the far north, for example, could not likely exist within their chosen ecology without animal foods and products. If eating within the ecological limits of a place requires the consumption of animal foods, what does that mean to the vegetarian philosophy?
  
• [A food systems study] which appeared in Food Policy in 1998, looked at full life-cycle analyses for various types of diet in terms of the greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of protein, beta carotene, and calories. The least greenhouse-gas intensive diet proved to be “domestic [local] vegetarian.” But it’s important to note that a local non-vegetarian diet proved to be more environmentally sustainable than an “exotic” vegetarian diet with foods travelling long distances and frequently being eaten out of season.

Although JBM does not end his article with answers and I know I have lots of  research, critical thinking and self-examination ahead of me, I think these concluding statements can be a helpful guideline for making choices:

Ecology is complicated, and can only truly be considered case by case with an eye on the big picture. Or, put another way, it can only really be considered locally, with an eye to Planet Earth.

Thursday Round-up

For the past few weeks I've been mulling over doing two things on this blog.

1. Sharing, with minimal commentary, what's caught my attention on other blogs.
2. Posting a regular weekly feature.

Today I'm going to combine the two and post the first installment of the Thursday Round-up.

Here are the blog posts and web resources that I've saved for re-reading and future reference because they are Inspirational, Controversial, Progressive, Creative, Provocative and/or otherwise Important-for-Dietitians-to-Know (in my humble opinion).

Edible Communities (noted on You Grow Girl)

Plant Therapy: Miracle Fruit -- Redecorate your tastebuds

We Be Jammin' (excellent advice from the 100 Mile Diet Blog on safely preserving the garden's bounty)

Critical Topics in Food (a series of panel discussions at the Fales Library at NYU; as noted on Marion Nestle's blog)

Marion Nestle's Scientfic American article Eating Made Simple and accompanying podcast

Adolescent Appetites 

School Children Grow and Cook Their Own, Healthier Lunches

....and for hardy souls who like a spirited, well-argued debate: three core questions about Vegetarianism and Environmentalism (a post on the environmental news blog, Grist, including 134 (!) comments, ranging from  rational to emotional, on both sides of the issues)

....and just because it's such a cool tool: the Mr. Bento Lunch Jar

A mini-primer on epidemiology for dietitians

Caveat lector: I am not an epidemiologist. (If you've been reading this blog, I'm sure you already knew that.) I also do not have a graduate degree in research. But I have completed Dietitians of Canada's (DC) Evidence-Based Decision-Making (EBDM) course so if anything, I am more aware of what I don't know. And I'm working on becoming more evidence-based  by  selectively acquiring, critically appraising and judiciously applying the literature. If this sounds like considerable mental effort requiring hours of concentrated reading and reflecting, well it is and it does.  But the results are worth the time and energy inputs: I have greater confidence I am using"best practice" based on information that is up-to-date, valid, makes a difference to outcome, and applies to the specific situation.

Gary Traubes' recent New York Times Magazine article, Do we know what makes us healthy? (see previous post) motivated me to review my  very rudmentary knowledge of epidemiology. If you've read this article  you will recall  the author extensively discussed the different types of  potential bias in epidemiological studies.  Mr. Traubes ended his article with the guiding principles  "skeptical epidemiologists" recommend:

1.  "[A]ssume that the first report of an association is incorrect or meaningless, no matter how big that association might be."
2. "If the association appears consistently in study after study, population after population, but is small — in the range of tens of percent — then doubt it."
3. "If the association involves some aspect of human behavior, which is, of course, the case with the great majority of the epidemiology that attracts our attention, then question its validity."  (The exception to this rule:  pay close attention to an association of unexpected harm.).
4. In summary, "remain skeptical until somebody spends the time and the money to do a randomized trial and, contrary to much of the history of the endeavor to date, fails to refute [the results of the epidemiological study]."

This skeptical or "question everything" mindset is part of what I learned in my EBDM course, which equipped me with tools and build knowledge and skills to critically evaluate whether a study is valid (true), important (clinically significant) and applicable to the specific situation. 

You can read an overview of the 10-unit interactive online course here. I believe DC will be offering the course at least once in 2008. The current  course is already in progress.

In the meantime, you can begin self-directed study on evidence-based practice by using online resources. Over the next couple of weeks, I will share ones that I've found helpful.

Here are some resources specifically about Epidemiology:

Epidemiology Supercourse  (a link on UBC's Health Care & Epidemiology so I feel confident recommending it)

You may find it easiest to navigate the site by going to the page that is organized by topic.  Here are some basic courses that I liked because they had detailed speaker's notes in addition to the slides.

Descriptive Epidemiology for Health Professionals (4-part series)
Different Kinds of Epidemiologic Studies
Potential Errors in Epidemiologic Studies (a good one to read before or after the NYT Magazine article)

What to believe about what to eat

I subscribe to Marion Nestle's blog and read as many posts as time permits. When she recommends a resource, I pay attention. (She has very impressive credentials.) Yesterday, in her post titled "Does Nutritional Epidemiology Work?", she suggested reading this "thoughtful" [Marion's word] article on epidemiology. After reading the piece, I decided I needed to review my notes from DC's Evidence-Based Decision-making course. These, unfortunately, are in my office at work and I am currently on vacation.

So because I don't have ready access to my notes, I'm in the process of compiling some resources and processes for dietitians to use when evaluating epidemiologic studies. Doing this will be a good review for me, too. I'll try to get these up within the next couple of days. In the meantime, you may want to read the article. It is 9 pages so you will need to set aside a chunk of time for reading and reflecting.