Animal food intake leads to Degenerative Diseases - Cornell-Oxford Study

[baarat]

Originally Posted by mean vegan

In the China-Cornell-Oxford Study (http://www.nutrition.cornell.edu/ChinaProject) the incidence of cancer, osteoporosis, obesity were compared to the USA and areas of China with high consumption of animal foods to areas with mostly plant based consumption.

CONCLUSIONS The following diseases are more common in the US than China and are related to higher animal food intake:
Breast cancer
Colon cancer
Osteoporosis
Obesity

Interesting quotes from the study?s website:
"degenerative diseases [cancers, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes] tended to cluster in the more urbanized, industrialized counties" where staples of diet are animal products and processed grains

"a substantial change in American dietary patterns from animal based foods to plant based foods must occur for there to be a substantial change in disease incidence patterns"

"[Osteoporosis] is less common in China even though the intake of calcium is lower...even though dairy food intake may increase bone density, no further reduction of osteoporosis is possible"
"Probably one of the most significant findings is the positive association of animal protein with blood cholesterol (both total and LDL) and the inverse association with plant protein."

Even LEAN animal protein sources are NOT HEALTHY
"There is strong evidence in scientific literature that when a reduction in fat is compared to reduction in protein intake, the protein effect on blood cholesterol is more significant than the effect of saturated fat. Animal protein is a hypercholesterolemic agent...Many Americans are switching from beef to skinless chicken and other animal-based foods simple to reduce their intake of fat. However the existing evidence suggests that this makes little or no sense"

WHERE TO GET PROTEIN?
ALL PLANTS HAVE PROTEIN. However they are conventionally not recommend them as a protein source because few are complete proteins. Yet few people eat raw animal protein and since several amino acids are heat labile (denatured) they cannot be absorbed by the body as a complete protein anyway. Legumes, nuts, seeds, soy products and even several vegetables (e.g. spinach, broccoli) are high in protein.
"a good quality plant based diet can lead to 'big' people"

The basic flaw in your hypothosis is that a vegan diet is better than a diet "compared to the USA" which is not the same diet that the human genome has been built on for milions of years.

HUNTER-GATHERER DIET: which comprised of wild fruits, nuts, seeds, greens, tubers raw and/or cooked, lean meat and organs of wild animals, insects, honey on occation.

WESTERN USA DIET: Domesticated grains (wheat, corn, rice), tubers, and legumes which present the problems of gluten, phytates, other antinutrients, and a high glycemic index for some tubers/refined grains. Domesticated animals for meat....most grain fed with omega's way out of wack, dairy, cultivated fruits-bred for high sugar, hybred vegetables, hydrogenated vegetable oils and refined poly oils, heavily processed food, and refined sugars.

You could compare any diet with the western diet and be on the winning side, every time. But to claim that meat proteins are not absorbed because their "denatured" is well, possibly trying to fool people thinking that, denatured sounds like something has been "neutered", but of course denaturing protein doesn't effect the amino profiles at all, the acid in your stomach start to denature protein immediately, because that's part of the process of the actual absortion. Your post mentions vegetable protein's like soy and legumes, which were never available for human consumption, until recently.

Your post also mentions protein from beef being high in saturated fat, and switching to lean chicken or other lean sources, makes no difference.....basically saying animal protein is the problem, regardless of the fat content.What else could a vegan stance take? Keep in mind these are all feedlot animals fed a diet of grain to be obese. Again, our meat eating ancestors ate lean wild meat with barely any saturated fat in these animals, and the highest portion of total fat to be mono and poly fats with proper omega balance. Actually the highly obese piece of beef today still has the highest percentage of it's fat coming from mono's and poly's, exept the omega profile is screwed. So yes even switching to low fat alternative meats will not change the landscape of the overweight and diseased of a western diet because that is only a small part of the puzzle.

Your post says that we must stay away from animal based food and eat a plant based diet, again this is extrapolated because of cholesterol levels, CVD, and other diseases related to meat in the western (USA) diet. Meat is conveniently guilty by association. There's many examples of omnivore diets of different cultures that had low levels of cholesterol, CVD and disease in general, but most were very close to the hunter-gatherer style of diet.

I could bring up deficiencies in a vegan diet like the EFA's in plant foods, which the body doesn't convert very well (less than 20%) if at all for some people. B-12 and the lack of reliable year-round plant sources, and in some areas, that could be over half the year, which is a basic stumbling block, having very little to no vegetation for some tribes of indigenous peoples in extremely colder climates. Taurine synthesis rate, slow conversion of beta-carotene, deficiencies in zinc and iron back in the early years, of course today there are legumes and grain, but not during our evolution. Infant neurological damage from the lack of B12 that can't be made up for in supplimentaion. None of these concerns arise on a omnivore diet. No supplimentation during our evolutionary time line either.

And like I said in my earlier post, the failure to thrive (FTT) on a vegetarian diet, let alone a vegan diet has more people that have switch back from a plant based diet to an animal based diet because of health concerns. Excuses like supplimentaion to fix a problem or making sure your eating enough of this specific plant or food.....sorry this isn't how our genome evolved. I respect and will listen to any knowledgable person on alternative diets and nutrition, and it's obvious today that it can easily be done on a vegetarian diet. I only take offence in the face of misinformation and misdirection of the facts. And the facts point to an animal and plant based diet from the get go. Hope I haven't offended anyone, that wasn't my intention.

[Throwback]

Originally Posted by Throwback

It just amazes me how a study that anyone with some common sense can see is greatly flawed somehow gets published by a reputable university.

To vegans and meat haters I recommend the following book

http://www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/napd.html

More than sixty years ago, a Cleveland dentist named Weston A. Price decided to embark on a series of unique investigations that would engage his attention and energies for the next ten years. Possessed of an inquiring mind and a spiritual nature, Price was disturbed by what he found when he looked into the mouths of his patients. Rarely did an examination of an adult client reveal anything but rampant decay, often accompanied by serious problems elsewhere in the body such as arthritis, osteoporosis, diabetes, intestinal complaints and chronic fatigue. (They called it neurasthenia in Price's day.) But it was the dentition of younger patients that gave him most cause for concern. He observed that crowded, crooked teeth were becoming more and more common, along with what Price called "facial deformities"--overbites, narrowed faces, underdevelopment of the nose, lack of well-defined cheekbones and pinched nostrils. Such children invariably suffered from one or more complaints that sound all too familiar to mothers of the 1990s: frequent infections, allergies, anemia, asthma, poor vision, lack of coordination, fatigue and behavioral problems. Price did not believe that such "physical degeneration" was God's plan for mankind. He was rather inclined to believe that the creator intended physical perfection for all human beings, and that children should grow up free of ailments.

Price's bewilderment gave way to a unique idea. He would travel to various isolated parts of the earth where the inhabitants had no contact with "civilization" to study their health and physical development. His investigations took him to isolated Swiss villages and a windswept island off the coast of Scotland. He studied traditional Eskimos, Indian tribes in Canada and the Florida Everglades, Southsea islanders, Aborigines in Australia, Maoris in New Zealand, Peruvian and Amazonian Indians and tribesmen in Africa. These investigations occurred at a time when there still existed remote pockets of humanity untouched by modern inventions; but when one modern invention, the camera, allowed Price to make a permanent record of the people he studied. The photographs Price took, the descriptions of what he found and his startling conclusions are preserved in a book considered a masterpiece by many nutrition researchers who followed in Price's footsteps: Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. Yet this compendium of ancestral wisdom is all but unknown to today's medical community and modern parents.

Nutrition and Physical Degeneration is the kind of book that changes the way people view the world. No one can look at the handsome photographs of so-called primitive people--faces that are broad, well-formed and noble--without realizing that there is something very wrong with the development of modern children. In every isolated region he visited, Price found tribes or villages where virtually every individual exhibited genuine physical perfection. In such groups, tooth decay was rare and dental crowding and occlusions--the kind of problems that keep American orthodontists in yachts and vacation homes--non existent. Price took photograph after photograph of beautiful smiles, and noted that the natives were invariably cheerful and optimistic. Such people were characterized by "splendid physical development" and an almost complete absence of disease, even those living in physical environments that were extremely harsh.

The fact that "primitives" often exhibited a high degree of physical perfection and beautiful straight white teeth was not unknown to other investigators of the era. The accepted explanation was that these people were "racially pure" and that unfortunate changes in facial structure were due to "race mixing". Price found this theory unacceptable. Very often the groups he studied lived close to racially similar groups that had come in contact with traders or missionaries, and had abandoned their traditional diet for foodstuffs available in the newly established stores--sugar, refined grains, canned foods, pasteurized milk and devitalized fats and oils--what Price called the "displacing foods of modern commerce." In these peoples, he found rampant tooth decay, infectious illness and degenerative conditions. Children born to parents who had adopted the so-called civilized diet had crowded and crooked teeth, narrowed faces, deformities of bone structure and reduced immunity to disease. Price concluded that race had nothing to do with these changes. He noted that physical degeneration occurred in children of native parents who had adopted the white man's diet; while mixed race children whose parents had consumed traditional foods were born with wide handsome faces and straight teeth.

The diets of the healthy "primitives" Price studied were all very different: In the Swiss village where Price began his investigations, the inhabitants lived on rich dairy products--unpasteurized milk, butter, cream and cheese--dense rye bread, meat occasionally, bone broth soups and the few vegetables they could cultivate during the short summer months. The children never brushed their teeth--in fact their teeth were covered in green slime--but Price found that only about one percent of the teeth had any decay at all. The children went barefoot in frigid streams during weather that forced Dr. Price and his wife to wear heavy wool coats; nevertheless childhood illnesses were virtually nonexistent and there had never been a single case of TB in the village. Hearty Gallic fishermen living off the coast of Scotland consumed no dairy products. Fish formed the mainstay of the diet, along with oats made into porridge and oatcakes. Fishheads stuffed with oats and chopped fish liver was a traditional dish, and one considered very important for children. The Eskimo diet, composed largely of fish, fish roe and marine animals, including seal oil and blubber, allowed Eskimo mothers to produce one sturdy baby after another without suffering any health problems or tooth decay. Well-muscled hunter-gatherers in Canada, the Everglades, the Amazon, Australia and Africa consumed game animals, particularly the parts that civilized folk tend to avoid--organ meats, glands, blood, marrow and particularly the adrenal glands--and a variety of grains, tubers, vegetables and fruits that were available. African cattle-keeping tribes like the Masai consumed no plant foods at all--just meat, blood and milk. Southsea islanders and the Maori of New Zealand ate seafood of every sort--fish, shark, octopus, shellfish, sea worms--along with pork meat and fat, and a variety of plant foods including coconut, manioc and fruit. Whenever these isolated peoples could obtain sea foods they did so--even Indian tribes living high in the Andes. These groups put a high value on fish roe which was available in dried form in the most remote Andean villages. Insects were another common food, in all regions except the Arctic. The foods that allow people of every race and every climate to be healthy are whole natural foods--meat with its fat, organ meats, whole milk products, fish, insects, whole grains, tubers, vegetables and fruit--not newfangled concoctions made with white sugar, refined flour and rancid and chemically altered vegetable oils.

Price took samples of native foods home with him to Cleveland and studied them in his laboratory. He found that these diets contained at least four times the minerals as the American diet of his day. Price would undoubtedly find a greater discrepancy in the 1990s due to continual depletion of our soils through industrial farming practices. What's more, among traditional populations, grains and tubers were prepared in ways that increased vitamin content and made minerals more available--soaking, fermenting, sprouting and sour leavening.

It was when Price analyzed the fat soluble vitamins that he got a real surprise. The diets of healthy native groups contained at least ten times more vitamin A and vitamin D than the American diet of his day! These vitamins are found only in animal fats--butter, lard, egg yolks, fish oils and foods with fat-rich cellular membranes like liver and other organ meats, fish eggs and shell fish.


Price describes the fat soluble vitamins as "catalysts" or "activators" upon which the assimilation of all the other nutrients depended--protein, minerals and vitamins. In other words, without the dietary factors found in animal fats, all the other nutrients largely go to waste.

Where'd the OP go?

[Lawdog1379]

This thread should only have been one post long. I mean come on. What do you expect from somone posting with the user name of, "mean vegan" and creating a thread stating that eating meat is detrimental to our health on a FRICKEN BODYBUILDING WEBSITE. It's quite obvious what her objective is.

Has anyone seen that video of that anti-war protester walking up to Condoleezza Rice? The OP's post kind of reminds of that.

[Throwback]

Originally Posted by Lawdog1379

This thread should only have been one post long. I mean come on. What do you expect from somone posting with the user name of, "mean vegan" and creating a thread stating that eating meat is detrimental to our health on a FRICKEN BODYBUILDING WEBSITE. It's quite obvious what her objective is.

Has anyone seen that video of that anti-war protester walking up to Condoleezza Rice? The OP's post kind of reminds of that.

I don't necessarily think the OP was trolling and I think the subject is up for debate but when the original study is clearly flawed in regards to her claim that animal product consumption leads to degenerative disease (since the study doesn't even indicate that animal products are the cause) and when other examples are provided that show the exact opposite I think it's funny how the OP suddenly disappears.

[mean vegan]

Originally Posted by Throwback

I don't necessarily think the OP was trolling and I think the subject is up for debate but when the original study is clearly flawed in regards to her claim that animal product consumption leads to degenerative disease (since the study doesn't even indicate that animal products are the cause) and when other examples are provided that show the exact opposite I think it's funny how the OP suddenly disappears.

Sorry to just "disappear" but at times we all have other priorities. I' m a fulltime student, work full time, and my grandfather passed away a few days ago I just haven't had time. I do try as much as possible to support what I say with some research which can be pretty time consuming to look up. Also I find that B12 and DHA are frequently mentioned but do not take issue with the articles that I've cited regarding B12 and DHA whcih leads me to believe that they just weren't read. I would rather not have to post that again.

[lawrence rush]

good post
when you diviate from the sad diet you will always get flack ,but be encouraged your posting some good info that brings life.

[Atheimetal]

Originally Posted by mean vegan

You mean to say cholesterol (only found in animal products) and saturated fat (much higher in animal products than in plant products) are good for you?

Actually yes, you need both of those in your diet. Some saturated fat is good and very low cholesterol is not good.. but I'm sure you knew this before posting which makes me wonder why you even bothered to type that response out.

[AronP24]

One of God's first commandments after the flood was to eat meat....
Ima go with the G man on this one....

just sayin'

[grapemaster]

Originally Posted by Atheimetal

Actually yes, you need both of those in your diet. Some saturated fat is good and very low cholesterol is not good.. but I'm sure you knew this before posting which makes me wonder why you even bothered to type that response out.

irrelevant from the op's post, a healthy body regulates cholesterol levels and produces it on its own regardless of dietary intake or lack there of.

[dav7612r]

Wow... another "study".

I stopped giving the 1,000 studies that come out every month any credit at all. 1/2 the time they contradict eachother.

[Throwback]

Originally Posted by mean vegan

Sorry to just "disappear" but at times we all have other priorities. I' m a fulltime student, work full time, and my grandfather passed away a few days ago I just haven't had time. I do try as much as possible to support what I say with some research which can be pretty time consuming to look up. Also I find that B12 and DHA are frequently mentioned but do not take issue with the articles that I've cited regarding B12 and DHA whcih leads me to believe that they just weren't read. I would rather not have to post that again.

I think that when I read the first paragraph and there is an obvious logical problem with the study I decided to focus on the basis of the study or at least in correlation to your thread title.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, there were two principal observations suggesting a relationship between diet and cancer. First, rich Western diets (high in fat and meat, low in dietary fiber) were strongly associated (correlated) with incidence of colon and breast cancer. Second, migrants moving to areas of different cancer risks acquired the risk of the country to which they moved, regardless of their ethnic or genetic backgrounds.

There it is. Western diets might be higher in fat and meat but they are also higher in processed garbage, refined sugars and people with generally bad eating habits(fast food nation). YOUR claim is that animal products are the problem. The study looks at Western diets and does not compare two diets..one with animal products and one without with other aspects of the diet being the same. The study is flawed in regards to claims that animal products are the root of the problems. It's quite simple.

Once again, read the book I recommended. It's quite good. If you aren't open minded enough to consider the possibility that you might be wrong about eating animals from a health standpoint then you shouldn't be arguing.

[atticus_a]

Originally Posted by mean vegan

In the China-Cornell-Oxford Study (http://www.nutrition.cornell.edu/ChinaProject) the incidence of cancer, osteoporosis, obesity were compared to the USA and areas of China with high consumption of animal foods to areas with mostly plant based consumption.

CONCLUSIONS The following diseases are more common in the US than China and are related to higher animal food intake:
Breast cancer
Colon cancer
Osteoporosis
Obesity

Interesting quotes from the study?s website:
"degenerative diseases [cancers, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes] tended to cluster in the more urbanized, industrialized counties" where staples of diet are animal products and processed grains

"a substantial change in American dietary patterns from animal based foods to plant based foods must occur for there to be a substantial change in disease incidence patterns"

"[Osteoporosis] is less common in China even though the intake of calcium is lower...even though dairy food intake may increase bone density, no further reduction of osteoporosis is possible"

"Probably one of the most significant findings is the positive association of animal protein with blood cholesterol (both total and LDL) and the inverse association with plant protein."

Even LEAN animal protein sources are NOT HEALTHY
"There is strong evidence in scientific literature that when a reduction in fat is compared to reduction in protein intake, the protein effect on blood cholesterol is more significant than the effect of saturated fat. Animal protein is a hypercholesterolemic agent...Many Americans are switching from beef to skinless chicken and other animal-based foods simple to reduce their intake of fat. However the existing evidence suggests that this makes little or no sense"

WHERE TO GET PROTEIN?
ALL PLANTS HAVE PROTEIN. However they are conventionally not recommend them as a protein source because few are complete proteins. Yet few people eat raw animal protein and since several amino acids are heat labile (denatured) they cannot be absorbed by the body as a complete protein anyway. Legumes, nuts, seeds, soy products and even several vegetables (e.g. spinach, broccoli) are high in protein.
"a good quality plant based diet can lead to 'big' people"

I do not hate on vegans. They are my natural living cousins but seriously this is a lame study to use to support your political agenda. You cannot compare the Chinese diet with the American diet. Look at the quantities of food ingested by the Chinese compared to Americans. It isn't the meat but the overconsumption in America that is the problem. The relationship to calcium and Osteoporosis is much more complex than calcium consumption or we would have fixed this problem by now.

[atticus_a]

Originally Posted by mean vegan

In what specific way was my response "horse crap"? Can you support it?

Here's how I supported my belief about B12 in vegan diets:

-Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian diets. Journal of the American Dietetic Association,103(6),p.748-765. 2003.
-Key et al. Health effects of vegetarian and vegan diets. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society FEB 2006 pages: 35-41 volume: 65 issue: 1.
-Rauma A L, et al. Vitamin B-12 status of long-term adherents of a strict uncooked vegan diet ("living food diet") is compromised. The Journal of nutrition,125(10),p.2511-2515. 1995.

More support from my response to GermanBarbarian today:

-Suzuki. Serum vitamin B-12 levels in young vegans who eat brown rice.
Journal of Nutritional Science and Vitaminology 1995 pages: 587-594 volume: 41 issue: 6. 1995.
-Dunn-Emke S.R., et al. Nutrient Adequacy of a Very Low-Fat Vegan Diet. Journal of the American Dietetic Association,105(9),p.1442-1446. 2005.
-T.A. Sanders, The nutritional adequacy of plant-based diets [review], Proceedings of the Nutritional Society. 58 (1999), pp. 265?269.


What specific critiques do you have of the China Study and Adventist studies? Can you support them?

Those have not been by only "ammo", as I've said before. Here's additional support:


-US NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES report "Diet, Nutrition and Cancer"
-Farley. More people trying vegetarian diets. FDA Consumer. 1995.
-The NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE'S Diet, Nutrition and Cancer Prevention booklet
-Sacks, et al. Soy Protein, Isoflavones and Cardiovascular Health. AHA Science Advisory. 2006.
-Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian diets. Journal of the American Dietetic Association,103(6),p.748-765. 2003

Remember it takes like 4 years to develop a b12 deficiency.

But anyway, I think that your minority voice does have merit. I do believe veganism is just choosing a different way to die. Swapping cancer for cancer.

Also look up soy protein and isoflavones in the AHA again. Their position is not necessarily that it leds to a healthy heart by the way.

[MrSinister]

these threads even giving me the sh|ts.

[reefpicker]

Originally Posted by atticus_a

I do not hate on vegans. They are my natural living cousins but seriously this is a lame study to use to support your political agenda. You cannot compare the Chinese diet with the American diet. Look at the quantities of food ingested by the Chinese compared to Americans. It isn't the meat but the overconsumption in America that is the problem. The relationship to calcium and Osteoporosis is much more complex than calcium consumption or we would have fixed this problem by now.

I am a vegetarian but I second this....

Studies that compare populations of people are always hard to tease out in terms of what is causing what.... The ppl in China do not have the same genes, and general lifestyle as ppl here in the US. Diet is one thing they do not have in common but it is certainly not the only one. Osteoporosis and cancer have many possible causes... Diet is one but not the only one. Thus, such a correlational study is weak at best. To be honest, I would consider them a complete waste of money

[mean vegan]

Originally Posted by Thinkingman85

Ok.... I was a vegan for 5 months. In that time period, I lost 25lbs on bench, lost 15lbs, got dry skin, mood swings, memory deficiency, and people said that I "wasn't being me". I was in a "trance", so to speak. I "believed" that I was healthy because I did immense research on how we are physiologically more suited toward consuming plants (which I still agree). I made sure to eat plenty of vegetables (especially green), seeds (especially flax), avocados, legumes, whole grains, mushrooms, potatoes, and fruits. I also took b-12 every day. All of my nutrients, micro and macro, were there, but I was slowly deteriorating. I felt as if I "had" to be a vegan because it was morally "wrong" to consume animals. After almost blacking out and having to go the E.R., I decided to start eating animal once more (fish and eggs). Immediately after consumption, my energy levels rose, but most importantly, I could think again. It was the scariest experience of my life being a vegan. I was literally dying. After only 2 weeks, I gained my strength and weight back. Also, my dry skin cleared. This led me to what I believe should be acknowledged (especially geared toward the vegan fanatics who thinks anyone can be a vegan):

-Some people need meat to live optimally. Some may need Vitamin A, B-12, Iron, Carnosine, Taurine, Carnitine, Cholesterol, EPA/DHA, and Creatine by way of animal flesh. This simply because they are the easiest absorbed forms, such as heme iron and true vitamin A. Also, one may not be able to synthesize certain things properly, such as cholesterol. Don't forget that conversion rates of ALA to EPA/DHA is only around 5-10%. I believe that I needed these nutrients in a very easily absorbable form to live optimally.

-Some people are more efficient at nutrient conversion. An example may be one can synthesize taurine or DHA properly. Hence, they will live as a vegan well.

It offends me for one to state that we are not designed to eat animal. If we weren't, then nutrients such as DHA and EPA, which are high in fish, shouldn't be in integral part of our brain development. I realize that EPA and DHA are in certain algae, but I do not believe that we evolved a need for the nutrient by way of consuming massive amounts of algae. Also, b-12 is vital, and it is very hard to get very absorbable and assimilable sources of b-12 from plants.

Personally I think it's just common sense. When is the last time that you remember a human being vegan? Even if you look at our relatives, such as a chimpanzee, they are not vegan. 5-10% of their calories come from animals and insects. It is in my opinion, we consumed higher amounts of flesh to excel our physiological capabilities.

In my honest opinion, I believe the threat of disease is not so much because of meat, but rather the lack of fruits and vegetables in the diet. The majority of Americans mostly consume refined grains and meat, which are both acidic. They have low micro nutrient value and there is not enough fiber to expel the animal flesh. The people from Crete are the healthiest on the planet and they consume much fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, legumes, and olive oil, with little fish and refined grains.

People don't seem to realize that micro nutrients and alkalinity/acidity balance, are very very important. Alkalinity and the vast majority of micro nutrients come from vegetables and fruits. However, meat contains certain micro nutrients (that I stated above) that are needed for optimal health. Also, meat contains protein which has higher biological value and amino acid balance/abundance, which is crucial toward development. This is why I think a vegan could never attain the same potential for peak muscularity compared to an omnivore. When's the last time you saw a vegan as big as Arnold Schwarzennegger?

Based off of anthropological studies I have read, there has been no conclusive evidence how much meat was a part of our ancestors diet, but ALL agree that it was involved.

I appreciate your input, which is why I wanted to shed some light on my situation and ideas. Still, I hope you follow truth rather than emotion. I, too, care for animals. That is why I get organic eggs when possible and wild caught fish. Also, better ethical standards need to be implemented toward animal raising and slaughtering. I, for one, however, will not compromise my health over this issue. We are not the only animals that consume other animals. It is a part of nature, even if we don't like it. All the best.

I do not believe that veganism is optimal for ALL; as I said in my 9/17 reply to GermanBarbarian, ?I also agree that using personal experience, though there will generally be patterns that can be applied to most, shouldn't be disregarded, especially in regards to health.?

ALA conversion varies with age, sex, presence of bile in the small intestine. ALA to DHA is 21% for women and 9% for men. ALA to EPA is 8% for women and 4% for men (Burdge GC, Jones AE, Wootton SA. Eicosapentaenoic and docosapentaenoic acids are the principal products of alpha-linolenic acid metabolism in young men. Br J Nutr. 2002;88(4):355-364 and
Burdge GC, Wootton SA. Conversion of alpha-linolenic acid to eicosapentaenoic, docosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acids in young women. Br J Nutr. 2002;88(4):411-420).
Just because EPA and DHA are important to brain development and that we are inefficient converters of ALA, does not mean that we need to eat foods high DHA and EPA in order to avoid deficiency. Evolution doesn?t lead to perfection; costs, defects and ineffiency will always be present, the key is optimization. I was unable to find any specific recommendation on the amount of ALA or DHA one needs to consume. If anyone knows, please post bibliographical info.

Nor do I believe that algae were a primary source of B 12. Vegans without B 12 deficiency in Iran used ?night soil?, human manure, to grow their crops (Halsted et al. Serum and tissue concentration of vitamin B12 in certain pathologic states. New England Journal of Medicine. 19;260(12):575-80. 1959.) From Antony?s paper titled ?Vegetarianism and vitamin B-12 (cobalamin) deficiency? in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 78: 3-6, 2003, "[Extant] Herbivores obtain vitamin B-12 primarily from plants contaminated with nitrogen-fixing, vitamin B-12 producing bacteria that grow in roots and nodes of legumes and from plants contaminated with feces."

An optimal diet cannot be determined on the basis of human behavior as culture is a major confounding factor. McDoland?s is very successful but I doubt many people would say it is healthy. I didn?t say that humans are vegans; I said they are herbivores. Even primates that eat some meat are still morphologically herbivores.

The ?protein efficiency ratio? of food is based on assays of rats which give certain meats higher PER and certain vegetables a lower PER than that of a human. I?m not implying that one will achieve peak muscularity as a vegan. But there are still many muscular vegans. And I don?t think that MAXIMUM muscularity was essential in our evolution as performance probably was. Meeting JoAnn Wabisca, a raw vegan, became a savate boxing champion in mid 40?s competing against 20 somethings!!, had a big influence on my diet (she is both muscular and an excellent athlete wouldn?t you agree? http://www.combativeartsacademy.com/...s/wabisca.asp). So I?m glad you mention micro nutrients and alkalinity since I eliminated meat, diary and processed, refined foods simultaneously. From my own diet I certainly cannot attribute the omission one particular type of food as providing the benefits that I feel I get from it.

As I said in my 9/16 reply to Druluv75 ?With the industry the way it is, being factory farms, it's extremely difficult to meet demands without disregarding the well being of the animals? i.e. eating meat is not in and of its self unethical. You?ll also see in that reply that animal rights is my last motive for being vegan. I do realize that death and killing is apart of nature. Aside from that ethics is based on logic not emotion. I don?t believe I?m compromising my health either.

Thanks for putting the time and thought into your reply.

[mean vegan]

Originally Posted by A_rrow

I think the key word here is to eat anything in moderation.. if you get too fanatic on either the meat or vegan side you're making certain mistakes.

I am just curious about one aspect. Technically fish,especially seafood, is not "meant" to be eaten by humans according to your reasoning because early humans had no way of obtaining them. Why are there so many health benefits from eating fish then? Also, I do not believe our hunting ancestors were able to gather all their nutrients from plants and nuts alone during their times(like you said, we today have access to them, but what about back then when there wasnt easy geographic access to all the variety needed?)

Sometimes I feel all the vegan substitutes in the market today are less natural than the foods they are supposed to imitate and replace. Are these considered natural? But then again most vegans need these processed unnatural substitutes to get their complete nutrients.

Never said that meat is devoid of nutrients. I do believe that one can fulfill one's nutrients requirements from plant sources without the use of supplements or eating processed foods . If anything it would seem that our ancestors would have greater access to a variety of plant sources since they were nomadic, had smaller populations to support, and there was little environmental degradation.

[Khronos]

Originally Posted by gfundaro

Yea, a new longitudinal study was just released about morning activity.
Researchers studied 320,000 Japanese men and found that those who rose early to work or exercise were more likely to develop cardiovascular disease.

So, I guess it's time to stop going to work or exercising in the morning. (yes, I'm rolling my eyes here).

Correlation does NOT imply causation.

x2

I have yet to see a study about meat consumption take into consideration how many veggies a person actually eats. I GUARANTEE that a person with no meat consumption is going to be getting a lot of leafy greens, but an average person with high meat consumption is going to be getting next to none. In these studies they lump together the average American who eats Fast Food and processed foods everyday with say - a bodybuilder who eats a lot of meat AND gets his leafy greens. There hasn't been a single study that I am aware of that looked at people who ate plentiful quantities of BOTH, like many in these forums do.

[mean vegan]

Originally Posted by Maestro

yes. phospholipid bilayers are the membranes of our cells they are made from those evil animal cholestrol byproducts. w/o it you will become anemic.

Most women become anemic because they don't eat meat and most older people develop it later in life because their teeth aren't good enough to chew meat.

Our diets do not need to include cholestrol. One can become anemic from not eating meat if one is not getting other sources of iron, b12, riboflavin; anemia is not related to cholestrol.

[mean vegan]

Originally Posted by Throwback

I must re-iterate the point here. The subject of this thread states that: Animal food intake leads to Degenerative Diseases

The study provided doesn't include two diets where the only difference in sample 1 vs. sample 2 is animal food intake. There are other factors to consider therefore the statement that animal food intake leads to degenerative disease is off base.

I am surprised at the lack of common sense applied to some of these studies. It almost seems as if someone has an agenda before the study is even launched and they seek data to support their conclusion or belief rather than do it the other way around. To conclude that animal intake is the cause of the problem you would have to have a study where the diets were extremely similar. The typical western diet is so much worse than any other diet in just about every aspect that we could probably conclude that it's worse in regards to disease than your typical Chinese,French,Mediterranean, or Ornish diet but we cannot, at least with this type of study, conclude that it's the animal product as the actual cause.

The China Study surveyed only Chinese families in the 80's in regions where large quantities of meat were consumed and low to none were consumed. The regions selected were based the 1973 Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences' report on mortality/cancer rates. That being said I don't think there was an agenda before the study was launched but maybe in their interpretation of the results when they applied it to American disease rates. But seems unlikely that the US National Cancer Institute, American Institute for Cancer Research, and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund would fund research with an agenda.

[MattyH7688]

lol at the username

[Riviera]

Originally Posted by mean vegan

Our diets do not need to include cholestrol. One can become anemic from not eating meat if one is not getting other sources of iron, b12, riboflavin; anemia is not related to cholestrol.

Mean Vegan, I'm vegan too Honey, stop wasting your breath. There are some people who have no concience and have been brainwashed by the influential meat and dairy industry beyond return. And from the posts I've read, these 'body builders' have NO idea about nutrition.

Stay happy, healthy, and vegan, and try changing the hearts of those who actually have them.

[grapemaster]

Hmm....again... wut? ^

Anyway... a vegan diet, sorry to say, is deficient. Vegetarian w/ lacto ovo fish... great.
Sorry but you are paying for your predecessors actions. Include some animal products or suffer the consequences. And it isn't like you are killing animals anyway... My dad had chickens growing up...they weren't suffering...Same with many family goats and cows.

Don't waste your health on a dogmatic diet.

[baarat]

Originally Posted by grapemaster

Don't waste your health on a dogmatic diet.

X2..... getting away from the party line of thinking isn't in the diet, except when the guru's do a 180 on an undisputable fact that comes to light. Not so much a diet as a cult, really.

[isdatzo]

Originally Posted by Khronos

x2

I have yet to see a study about meat consumption take into consideration how many veggies a person actually eats. I GUARANTEE that a person with no meat consumption is going to be getting a lot of leafy greens, but an average person with high meat consumption is going to be getting next to none. In these studies they lump together the average American who eats Fast Food and processed foods everyday with say - a bodybuilder who eats a lot of meat AND gets his leafy greens. There hasn't been a single study that I am aware of that looked at people who ate plentiful quantities of BOTH, like many in these forums do.

Actually, it was a pooled analysis of 14 cohort studies...
Source: http://canceranddiet.nl/colorectal_c...d_alcohol.html

A protective effect of combined vegetables and fruit against colon cancer risk may exist among non-alcohol drinkers and low red meat consumers:

Recently, a pooled analysis was published. It pooled the effects of 14 prospective studies that provided data about total fruits and vegetables in relation to colon cancer risk. In these cohorts, a total of 756,217 men and women were followed for up to 6 to 20 years. And during this period a total of 5,838 subjects were diagnosed with colon cancer.

No significant association was found between total fruits and vegetables and colon cancer risk: RR = 0.91 (0.82-1.01; P = 0.19). The association between between total fruits and vegetables and colon cancer risk did not vary by levels of smoking status, body mass index, and postmenopausal hormone use.
However, a significant interaction was found with different levels of alcohol (P = 0.02), and red meat (P = 0.01) consumption.
An inverse association with total fruit and vegetable intakes was apparent among nondrinkers of alcohol and among individuals in the lowest two tertiles of red meat intake.

The pooled data was adjusted for several factors known to influence colon cancer risk: BMI; height; education; physical activity; family history of colorectal cancer; postmenopausal hormone use; oral contraceptive use; use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; multivitamin use; smoking habits (never/past/current + amount); red meat; total milk; alcohol; and total energy.

[isdatzo]

Originally Posted by Riviera

Mean Vegan, I'm vegan too Honey, stop wasting your breath. There are some people who have no concience and have been brainwashed by the influential meat and dairy industry beyond return. And from the posts I've read, these 'body builders' have NO idea about nutrition.

Stay happy, healthy, and vegan, and try changing the hearts of those who actually have them.

I respect your choice, but do you think the broccoli industry will differ from the meat industry?
Do you think they will put a study on their site that found out broccoli does nothing to prevent cancer?

That's why I don't mind any industry. People should do their own research. Or read up on systematic reviews that looked at all available evidence instead of any single study. Sadly most choose to do the latter.

But maybe you can post us some systematic reviews showing the detrimental effects of a diet including dairy or meat...

[battlejacker99]

Good thread Mean Vegan, very interesting and informative and very well argued. I admire your courage and strength of your convictions, but I don't think you were really going to convert a lot of people to your cause on this one lol

I don't know if there's a bit of cross-atlantic divide on this one, in the UK this is something that springs up pretty regularly. I actually remember my GCSE Biology exam (I'm not sure what the US equivalent of those are) which had a question related to explaining why the vegetarian diet is healthier.

Ofcourse we in the Uk, like almost everywhere else in the world, predominantly eat meat and I don't think that'll likely change anytime soon whatever number of studies spring up. I'm sure whatever diet you choose to live by, you can be healthy as long as you exercise common sense and stick to healthy, balanced food choices.

Oh I should say I'm not vegan ( or indeed much of a body builder to be honest lol )

[TheGunther]

Judging by your avatar I'm sure a veagan diet works great for some one who lives a sedentary life. However, I doubt it has the caloric/energy needs for active people let alone those of us who are very active and are trying to build muscle. I also do not judge what I can do based on my evolutional make-up, for one I do not believe in evolution, but that is beside the point. I do not believe we should compare ourselves to Animals because we are not on the same level. But even knowing that some animals use tools to help them eat or digest foods. Does that mean they were not made to eat those things? I think not.

[adidamps2]

wow! this thread jsut keep sgoing, and going....