Talk:Vegetarian nutrition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance assessment scale
Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Vitamin B12 claim

Vitamin B12 is light sensitive. So does Marmite's claim of B12 make sense as it is stored in glass jars?

Nov 8, 2004 A major deletion is that I removed a table, and the paragraph explaining that it proves vegetarians' protein is adequate and that protein-combining isn't necessary, because it was not only redundant (see history: There was already a citation of ADA in that section, with the explanation that the ADA link says vegetarianism provides enough protein and that no effort is needed to 'combine' them aside from a normally diverse/balanced diet, & see other links which also already proved the same), but, the table was also misleading:

Cysteine/tyrosine aren't IAA's! (indispensible, or essential, AA's) As is unanimously agreed: try google. And, (as is well-known) rice isn't a 'complete' protein, as the table & associated paragraph made it seem was being claimed!

(Also deleted was the claim that complementary proteins don't even need to be eaten within 'a few...days' of each other; the ADA citation recommends a diverse diet because proteins from one meal can last and combine with proteins days later -- but not more than a few days, as claimed. The claim that they need not be eaten within hours is substantiable, but that they need NOT be eaten within a few days is beyond what the quoted sources in the veg-nutrition article, such as ADA, recognize as safe. There's also the theoretical impossibilty of this 'days' claim: If one IAA is eaten, then another IAA is eaten 5-10 days later, the first IAA is long-depleted in the body -- or else broken-down for its caloric value or excreted, as the typical person evacuates within 5 days -- so, by the time the second IAA is eaten (assuming that no more of the first IAA was eaten on later days, of course), these 2 IAA's weren't even physically present simultaneously to one another, and thus they can't recombine into the associated dispensible AA.

Some of the additions were interesting (e.g. the history of how the myth evolved), but wordy, and I only condensed those parts. But the complex analysis of the table, and the new protein-combining section (in general) went on...and on...and on about this myth.

In the form of "Cite, explain the citation in a few sentences or less, then move along...please, so we don't fall asleep," the ADA's evidence against this myth was already cited & explained, but removed by the wordy poster. This form of 'moving along' within a few sentences is also consistent with the rest of the page, and this is so that any interested parties can read more details (such as raw data) by going to *outside* sources, rather than losing readers in data too excessive for an encyclopedia. ;-) The removed text (which was written by another primary contributor and myself) also conformed to that poster's pattern of presenting why each of these nutrients is necessary and then good food-sources for each, and I've re-corrected things by replacing most of that pattern (and adding to it) for the 'protein' section to match that pattern.

In general, the wordy poster's text also mildly overstated these things, as in the factually-misleading table cited above and the 'days' example. Also removed were some mild POV's:

  • "Probably the biggest myth about protein..." To you or me, maybe, but how can one quantify or support what the 'biggest' myth is? Even if you said 'biggest in terms of popular belief, rather than subjective opinion of what is 'big,' you've presented no poll showing that, despite that Wikipedia's admins call for us to support our claims. And even if you could objectively define 'biggest,' why does 'probably' ever belong in an encyclopedia, in this context: If 'the encyclopedia people' aren't even sure of themselves, why am I reading an encyclopedia (or any other publication which purports to belong in the reference-section)??
  • "Lappe's idea easily made its way into the collective consciousness of a society which was predisposed to think of plant foods as inferior." I agree, but you again lack support to claim what society 'collective consciousness' was: I'd post supporting research to support this, and especially the disposition of the USDA at the time, the popularity of USDA info such as the Food Pyramid, and the unfortunate fact that the USDA has often had industry-reps rather than nutritionists on its committees which recommend things such as the Food Pyramid; without that support, it comes off as POV, and with it, it goes on a tangent away from nutrition and too much into sociology and the politics of people believing whatever USDA tells them, despite the USDA's conflict of interest.
  • "The first good research..." Let the readers decide what's 'good' research; it's 'good' research to you, which is subjective, but you offer no objective qualifiers to prove why any 'bad' research which preceded it wasn't as 'good'.
  • "But it is to Lappe's credit that the [sic] recanted about the very idea that made her a household name". Extraneous, and readers can make their own judgments about whether this is creditworthy, as opposed to some who might actually agree with her original position despite our data to the contrary.

If you'd like to repost this table, please explain to the mods, for starters, how cysteine/tyrosine are even IAA's... :-) ...and/or similar reasoning if you'd like to re-post anything else critiqued for the reasons above, because hey, you may prove some of my reasoning wrong and thus improve the page; we'll see.


Jan 8, 2005
Within days after I posted the above, the same person (without the explanations/proof requested above) took out the fact that soy is the only plant with all IAA's present (again) which even pre-dated my own contributions, and re-added most of his erroneous IAA info, POV, and often redundant info (again). To keep some good additions which others made (and thanks to those of you who improved cross-links into the rest of the wikipedia; I was tired to add too many by the time I finished actually *writing* my parts, and I'm sure the other major writer who came before me was too tired for many cross-links too... ;-) ), I manually reverted this protein-combining section rather than reverting the entire page. I think it's far from done though, and primarily needs input from more people, maybe better organization or more info (on anything but protein unless there's another *really* important protein issue ;-) ).
For the protein-combination person: All I'm asking you to do is support your claims about the IAA's since they run contrary to common knowledge, including that your info on IAA's conflicts with what's been accepted into Wikipedia's AA article -- just as you pointed out that McDougall, quite rightly, is asking others to support their claims on another issue.
Oh, and I'm asking you not to make this issue regarding protein-combination 10 times longer than the ENTIRE entry for each of the OTHER nutrients of interest. ;-)
And not to praise Dr. McDougall, my hero as well as yours, so much that even I recognize your praise as POV, and the other POV examples I gave above). ;-)
P.S. For this guy who either can't read this 'discussion' page or ignores my calls for proof & explanations: Please also learn that an ellipse is made up of three (3) periods and that if a comma AND a quotation mark both follow a word, the comma comes before the quotation mark. You'll save me the need to edit those next time, too. ;-) Or better yet, I'll get a mod to review this IAA disinformation and the rest.

[edit] Vegimite B12

The following link (provided by Electric Blue) confirms that vegimite does not claim to contain any B12:

http://vegemite.com.au/index.cfm?fuseaction=VitaminB.welcome --Mig77 07:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soy the only plant food containing all 8 essential amino acids?

According to Patrick Holford's New Optimum Nutrition Bible, p54, quinoa also contains all 8 amino acids. I also found some labeling on a packet of millet claiming the same, but that's not likely to be reliable :) Greenman 14:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Believe it or not, the claim about Soy is itself a myth. In reality, all plant-derived proteins are complete. (Source: "A basic course in vegetarian and vegan nutrition," by George Eisman, R.D.) You can verify this yourself: check a breakdown of amino acids for common plant foods, and you'll find all the EAAs are there. Hoss Firooznia 14:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Lots of new research is happening in this area. The definition of 'complete' doesn't stand up anymore, but popularly means 'containing all 8 (or sometimes 9) essential amino acids'. I agree that plants (not sure about 'all', but I'll go along with it for now) contain all of these amino acids. However, the levels differ. Most grains have very low levels of lysine and methionine, probably below the ideal (probably only because ideal levels for humans haven't yet been accurately determined). The PDCAAS rating is a modern attempt to rate the digestibility of proteins for humans, taking into account amino acid levels. However, this does not lend itself to arbitrary divides between 'complete' and 'incomplete'. 1.0 is the highest rating, and foods such as soy and eggs have a rating of 1, beef 0.92, etc. I haven't managed to find a PDCAAS source for quinoa, but there are other plants that also score highly, such as whey. So, I'll remove the reference to soy as the only complete protein, and try and incorporate some of the subtleties into the article. Greenman 09:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] risk of heart attack

A vegetarian forwarded this information to me:

  • Most common cause of death in U.S.: Heart Disease
  • Risk of heart attack for the average American man: 50%
  • Risk of death front heart attack for the average American man who consumes no meat, dairy products or eggs: 4%

I can find sources for the first 2 statements. The CDC reports that the most common cause of death in the U.S. (at about 30%) is heart disease [1]. If a vegetarian diet truly does significantly reduce the risk of heart attack -- even by a small amount -- that should be in the main article. I wish I had a reference for it. -- DavidCary

There's some discussion in Vegetarianism about how difficult it is to separate out a variety of lifesytle factors (eg do lower % of veggies smoke compared to population at large?). That should be noted here. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Ethics of eating meat article (request for peer review)

I have recently done a major rewrite of the Ethics of eating meat article. I have tried to balance it's POV as well as perform a major reformatting. Since there are few editors on that article I have not gotten any feedback. I was wondering if people here could look at what I have done and comment on it. I have opened a Request for peer review for this article, please post comments there as I will not be watching this talk page. HighInBC 14:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doubt

Are these two sentences contradictory?

"the hemoglobin in meat yields little iron to the human body upon digestion"

This is trite. -- Mig77(t) 15:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Meat is the only source of heme iron; plants contain non-heme iron. The human body absorbs non-heme iron less efficiently"

This is correct -- Mig77(t) 15:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

One is in the protein section and the other one is in the iron section Knights who say ni 14:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Iodine

While I am aware that a lot of *table* salt *in the US* is iodized. I could not, however, find a source that said this is the case internationally or for salt used in processed foods. Mdbrownmsw 05:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I know in South Africa table salt is required to be iodised, however non-iodine varieties are available as iodine supplementation can cause problems with non-food uses of salt, and may be contra-indicated in certain medical conditions (like hyperthyroidism I think). --Mig77(t) 06:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The section in question stated that salt *added to processed food* was a source of iodine. The questions remain: is salt added by food processors iodized and in all countries? And, technically, we would need a source saying that this makes it easy for vegetarians to get their required iodine. Mdbrownmsw 17:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The source that has been removed twice says that vegetarians are particularly apt to have an iodine deficiency. This is a verifiable, sourced statement.
The source put up in its place does not mention vegetarians and is interpreted by the editor as saying that iodine deficiencies are common worldwide for vegetarians and meateaters alike. This is Original Research. Mdbrownmsw 01:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The source you site is [[2]] This is an article which references our old favourite ["Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian diets", Journal of the American Dietetic Association, vol 103: pp 748-765]. Which states

Some studies suggest that vegans who do not consume iodized salt may be at risk for iodine deficiency; this appears to be particularly true for those living in iodine-poor areas.

Thus the correct statement should reflect that this has only been documented in VEGANS. I trust Mdbrownsw to edit himself appropriately (or disagree ;). --Mig77(t) 08:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Scratch that, the ADA paper is fairly selective in its interpretation given that it cites: Remer, T.; Neubert, A.1; Manz, F, 1999 "Increased risk of iodine deficiency with vegetarian nutrition" British Journal of Nutrition, Volume 81, Number 1, 1999, pp. 45-49(5) [3] --Mig77(t) 09:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The source I cited - that of the Council for the Control of Iodine Deficiency Disorders - does not, in effect, say anything specific about vegetarians (or vegans). It does say something about the point that is made in the sentence that Mdbrownsw has repeatedly deleted: that everyone is at risk of iodine deficiency. Out of a global population of six billion, it states that three billion humans are in a state of deficiency.

The very fact that iodized salt is widely available (70% of the world's population "have access" to iodized salt, following the Institute) speaks for itself. Do you seriously think that all that iodized salt is to cater for the specific needs of the vegetarian population? Unfortunately, there are not that many of us!

So what sense is there to go on vegggie-bashing with the theme "some vegetarians do not get enough iodine"? Yes, you can substantiate that as much as you want. You can also substantiate that "some vegetarians fall out of windows" or "some vegetarians loose their jobs". Yes, that happens. But to single out the vegetarians population as having a specific risk of falling out of windows or loosing their jobs, and "supporting" that with some reference that states that it can happen to them, is plainly POV.

The fact is that the main factor that determines iodine deficiency is the iodine content of the soil. The animals eaten by carnivorous people don't invent iodine out of thin air. They don't make it. They get it from the plants they eat. If the soil is poor in iodine, eating animals won't help. The only exception is food coming from the ocean; and iodized salt. Some people eat sea fish. Many people don't, because they don't eat animals generally, or because they don't have access to sea fish, or for any other reason. Here again, singling out vegetarians is absurd. People who don't get iodine from eating fish can get it from iodized salt or from seaweeds. Iodine is a not a specific problem for vegetarians, and the article shouldn't try to make it look as if it was.

David Olivier 09:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Your cite does not mention vegetarians. Per WP:OR "That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." You said: "The source I cited...does not, in effect, say anything specific about vegetarians (or vegans)." As such, the cite you are providing is not appropriate for this article.
You state: ""some vegetarians do not get enough iodine"? Yes, you can substantiate that as much as you want." and go on to state that by adding this statement with an appropriate cite that specifically says vegetarians are at risk is POV. You then present an argument which may or may not be true, but is unsourced. Per WP:NPOV "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." I submit that I have fairly and without bias presented a view published by a reliable source. Mdbrownmsw 18:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Now look, if you interpret as you do the WP:OR clause you cite about the source having to be in a "reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article", you have to take off your own source, an article entitled "Test Your Supplements Savvy", since it clearly is not about vegetarian nutrition.

Actually, your interpretation is absurd. The subject of the paragraph on iodine is iodine deficiency. The fact that iodine deficiency is widespread among the human population in general is relevant to the subject of the article.

Furthermore, that article you cite ("Test Your Supplements Savvy") just simply doesn't substantiate the assertion that you keep putting back in, that "Some vegetarians do not get enough iodine". All it states is "Vegans, who eat no animal products, should pay special attention to protein, iron, zinc, calcium, riboflavin, vitamins D, B-12, and A, and iodine." That vegans should pay attention to a nutrient doesn't imply that some of them don't get enough of it.

The source I cite - which testifies that iodine deficiency is widespread among the human population generally - clearly implies that that sentence of yours is in any case irrelevant. Yes, I too believe some vegetarians do not get enough iodine, and also some have car accidents and some even die sooner or later. So what? Do we have to put that in the article?

David Olivier 23:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I do NOT interpret it to mean the SOURCE must be about vegetarian nutrition, only that the "facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments ... must already have been published ... in relation to the topic of the article". In other words, the source must say something about vegetarians and iodine. My source says, "vegetarians can have a very low (iodine) intake." The British Journal of Nutrition is a reliable source. The statement (in fact, the whole article) is clearly about vegetarian nutrition. Your argument is as follows: iodine deficiency is common in the world, so when discussing vegetarian nutrition, we should point this out because YOU think it is relevant to vegetarian nutrition. You also make a leap of logic, from a source that says iodine deficiency is common worldwide to "Iodine deficiency is a worldwide problem, in vegetarians and meat-eaters alike." Your source does not say that. Maybe iodine deficiency is common because vegetarianism is common. Maybe not. Who knows? If you want to introduce the argument that iodine deficiency has nothing to do wiht a vegetarian diet, you need to find a reliable source that says that. Failing that, we have a reliable source that connects the two. To avoid any argument of interpretation, my readding of the point will be a direct quote. If you have a problem with the source, say that. If you believe I am quoting out of context, fill in the missing context. If you simply don't like what the source clearly says, I have nothing to offer you. Mdbrownmsw 15:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Mdbrownmsw. Although I believe the study is deeply flawed (they constructed a deliberatly iodine free diet and found - supprise supprise - that their proxy for iodine was lower - oh and this artificial diet was vegeterian so "vegiterians are at risk"), my criticism of it would be "original research" and so I must contain myself. --Mig77(t) 16:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protein

I have deleted the last paragraph about protein, which seemed more the result of a tug of war than of thoughtful editing. I think that the whole paragraph about protein should be reworked somewhat, to make it more balanced (but not with preposterous anti-veg statements such as "animal protein is inherently superior", etc.). There is an ongoing debate about protein. The article should reflect that. I believe, for instance, that what it says about protein combination being a myth is probably true; but the article should present that and also the opposing view. David Olivier 00:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place for what you believe is "probably true". Wikipedia is about verifiability":
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." WP:Verifiability
I removed several unsourced claims and replaced them with sourced statements from reliable sources. You reverted this.
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." WP:Verifiability
The sources I gave are medical journals and the ADA. These, I firmly believe are reliable, resonably unbiased sources for this topic. The material you reverted to is largely unsourced. The section on zinc you reverted to is clearly a developing point/counterpoint about the import of zinc in the human diet, which (failing a source specifically discussing it in the context of vegetarianism) is wholly inappropriate to this article:
"the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." WP:OR
Before changing this back again, I will await discussion from you or any other interested party for several days. (To ensure that you see this, I will post a quick note on your talk page.)
Mdbrownmsw 18:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iron

I have added a working source in place of the dead link. The new source was the source the dead link cited. Both discuss "iron deficiency anemia", not "iron deficiency". Both noted the quoted issue for vegetarian children. Mdbrownmsw 15:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Added fish and poultry as sources for heme iron along with source. Mdbrownmsw 15:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletions on 4 December 2006 per WP:OR the "precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia". Mdbrownmsw 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zinc

The cited source says that Western vegetarians and vegans have not been found to suffer from overt zinc deficiencies any more than meat-eaters. I have made this correction. Mdbrownmsw 15:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a source for previously unsourced "However, phylate in many whole-grains and fiber in many foods may interfere with zinc absorption". I also added the associated warning that "marginal zinc intake has poorly understood effects." Mdbrownmsw 15:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed a section arguing that proper zinc intake relates to cancer. The various sources cited said nothing about vegetarian nutrition. Per WP:OR the "precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia". As published in the source, it was not in relation to the topic. Mdbrownmsw 15:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources and WP:OR

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." WP:Verifiability

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." WP:Verifiability

"the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." WP:OR

Any material in an article MUST come from a reliable source that directly relates that material to the topic (Vegetarian nutrition).

"In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves." Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources

(see also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Aspects_of_reliability)

Kellogg's 1918 book is not reliable, as he has a poor reputation and no fact-checking facility or editorial oversight. Mdbrownmsw 20:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iron (again?)

The article stated that vegetarian diets are relatively low in iron. I found no reference of this in the cited sources; in fact, the American Dietetic Association's page says that vegetarians get more iron than non-vegetarians. See [4]

As that source points out, vegetarian diets are often higher in total iron, but the type of iron in vegetarian diets is harder to absorb, and more susceptible to inhibitors of absorption. --Coroebus 13:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Combining proteins

I've removed the following table because the information wasn't attributed to a reliable source:

Food Group Limiting Amino Acids Combine With
Legumes Tryptophan, Methionine Grains, nuts/seeds
Nuts/seeds Lysine, Isoleucine Legumes
Grains Lysine, Isoleucine, Threonine Legumes, dairy

Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typical vegetarian gets less protein?

I've deleted this unsubstantiated claim. The citation refers only to a study which examines the possible benefits of a low protein diet.--Ksteveh 06:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

To User:Sideshow Bob Roberts Your reference citation is interesting, but offers no actual research to back its claim. In fact, there is no epidemiological work that would show low protein in a typical vegetarian diet, only lower levels than a meat-eating diet. But the implication from your statement (which I've deleted again) is that a vegetarian LOV diet is low in protein, which it is not. Why don't you have a look at this: American Dietetic Association position on vegetarian diet---- Ksteveh (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ksteveh,
I'm genuinely puzzled by your objection. Are you actually disputing the claim that "vegetarian diets are usually relatively low in protein"? It's true, it's uncontroversial, and there's plenty of reliable data out there to back it up. If you want raw data, the EPIC-Oxford data on mean daily nutrient intakes of various diet groups in the UK are presented in Davey GK, Spencer EA, Appleby PN, Allen NE, Knox KH & Key TJ (2003): "EPIC-Oxford: lifestyle characteristics and nutrient intakes in a cohort of 33,883 meat-eaters and 31,546 non meat-eaters in the UK" in Public Health Nutrition 6, 259–269.
Note that, in this context, "low" does not mean "deficient". The sentence you deleted didn't say vegetarian diets are generally protein-deficient, it said "Vegetarian diets are usually relatively low in protein,[2] which may be beneficial.[9][10]" If you think the wording was ambiguous, it would be more appropriate to rephrase the sentence than to delete a fact that is mentioned in most medical discussions about the health effects of vegetarian diets. How about "Vegetarians generally consume less protein than meat-eaters, and this may be beneficial"?
By the way, I have no idea why you're asking me to look at the ADA paper. Nowhere does it suggest that vegetarian diets are not low in protein. In fact, if you take five or ten minutes to read the sources cited in the references section of that paper, you'll find tons of evidence that vegetarians consume less protein. Regards, Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the claim that "vegetarian diets are usually relatively low in protein", which is directly attributable to a reliable, published source (a peer-reviewed article about the health effects of vegetarianism, published in a respected journal about nutrition). If anyone thinks this reference is inadequate, please state your case here. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protein again

I don't understand why the following paragraph was deleted:

Due to the lower digestibility of plant proteins, however, the American Dietetic Association (ADA) states "protein needs might be higher than the RDA in vegetarians whose dietary protein sources are mainly those that are less well digested, such as some cereals and legumes."

The edit summary [5] said "misleading - additionally cereals and legumes are included in vegetarian diets". What does this mean? How is a direct quote from the American Dietetic Association misleading? Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)