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

[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"

[Lord_Superior]

Pork chop sandwiches!!!
So what, eat, drink and be merry. Stop hating on the carnevours.

[Giorrgi]

Just a little thought:

I never seen somebody really get screwed with 2 chicken fillets per day. I mean really... NEVER EVER, in my entourage. And I'm not even talking about people who eat healthy, even people who eat like **** most of the time are not going to get any of those diseases except because of a extreme overabuse during their whole lifetime/severe genetical predisposition.

I also think you have to make a choice: animal meat = bad, but not getting your full proteins = bad.

What's worse? Choose, and don't do it.

Hope this cleared some things up.

[Mr.Hombre]

umm...rare filet mignon

f u c k the fufi, "green", soy-loving, starbuck-drinking-only, artsy people

edit. no offense to mean vegan....because she's hot

[Mr.Hombre]

Originally Posted by Giorrgi

Just a little thought:

I never seen somebody really get screwed with 2 chicken fillets per day. I mean really... NEVER EVER, in my entourage. And I'm not even talking about people who eat healthy, even people who eat like **** most of the time are not going to get any of those diseases except because of a extreme overabuse during their whole lifetime/severe genetical predisposition.

I also think you have to make a choice: animal meat = bad, but not getting your full proteins = bad.

What's worse? Choose, and don't do it.

Hope this cleared some things up.

animal meat is not bad

[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.

[Phill.D]

does this mean I should stop eating dog food ? (jk but that was my first thought when I read the title)

[Rodzilla]

perhaps if your name was not mean vegan, and you werent in the red, I would actually read this post.

[GermanBarbarian]

There was also a study discussion why stds are starting so get huge in India... you know why... because the condoms do not fit. Technically the men in India are on average about an inch or more smaller than people in the US (you know what I'm talking about too). So... if there are more vegans/vegetarians in India than the U.S. then you can correllate well... there diet gives them a small package. Thus increasing consumption of vegetables gives a decreased package. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat...e_x.htm?csp=34)

"Be a man and eat some meat." I wonder why eating meat is considered manly?

[JimmyBurrito]

Originally Posted by GermanBarbarian

There was also a study discussion why stds are starting so get huge in India... you know why... because the condoms do not fit. Technically the men in India are on average about an inch or more smaller than people in the US (you know what I'm talking about too). So... if there are more vegans/vegetarians in India than the U.S. then you can correllate well... there diet gives them a small package. Thus increasing consumption of vegetables gives a decreased package. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat...e_x.htm?csp=34)

"Be a man and eat some meat." I wonder why eating meat is considered manly?

Yeah, but since those injuns are a bunch of vegans they use carrots and cucumbers rather than meat.

[lanks]

You know there is also a study out that correlates veganism with lower intelligence as well?

http://www.carbwire.com/2006/12/20/v...rs_study_shows

[-Aaron-]

So, humans have been eating meat since the beginning of time, then one second rate Ivy-League school makes a study and it's all supposed to be fact now?

[gfundaro]

In the 70's, there was a study that showed smoking was BENEFICIAL to your health. So, yea, most studies are absolute ****. If someone pays you enough, you can easily manipulate the statisical information to skew it in whatever direction the money is pointing.

[tinyman5000]

I've eaten 2-4 lbs of meat a day, and I'm not fat.

[mean vegan]

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.

You're correct about correlation not implying causation.

One always needs to evaluate whether a particular study's conclusions are valid. Who did the study and where the study was published should be major factors when evaluating a study. I?m sure if you?d provided that info the Japanese study could have discredited. The China-Cornell-Oxford study was done by TWO of the MOST RENOWNED UNIVERSITIES in the WORLD. Not only that but SCIENCE mag, THE MOST RENOWNED AND CREDIBLE SCIENCE PUBLICATION IN THE WORLD, describes it as ?the most comprehensive survey of food, environment, social practices and diseases ever made? (Moffat, China: a living lab for epidemiology, 1990). Clearly their findings could not be simply based on correlation; if you would just take the time and read the studies publications you would have realized that.

In addition, MANY STUDIES CORROBORATE THESE FINDINGS including the US NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES report ?Diet, Nutrition and Cancer?. Studies on mortality and degenerative diseases in Seventh-Day Adventist show that they have longer life spans and lower incidence of degenerative diseases (Berkel and de Waard. Mortality pattern and life expectancy of Seventh-Day Adventists in the Netherlands. International Journal of Epidemiology. 1983. OR Snowdon. Animal product consumption and mortality because of all causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer in Seventh-Day Adventists. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1988.). Even the FDA, an organization that recommends eating meat, says ?vegetarians? longevity is equal or GREATER than that of non-vegetarians? (Farley. More people trying vegetarian diets. FDA Consumer. 1995). The NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE?S Diet, Nutirition and Cancer Prevention booklet says that many plants have cancer preventing benefits. A more recent study by the AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION says ?when soy protein is substituted for animal protein, hypercholesterolemia does not occur? and that using ?soy foods to replace foods high in animal protein?confer[s] benefits to cardiovascular health? (Sacks, et al. Soy Protein, Isoflavones and Cardiovascular Health. AHA Science Advisory. 2006).

In addition, evolutionary biology and physical anthropology support that humans bodies are not ?designed? to eat meat. Humans did not evolve as meat eaters. We don't in anyway have the morphology of a meat eater; our facial muscles, jaws, nails, chewing, saliva, and digestive tract are like that of herbivores not carnivores or even omnivores. What has enabled us to consume meat has been our intellect and thumbs to fashion tools. I don't think it can be argued that the modifications to our lifestyle because of our intellect have not been far to fast for adaptations to our phenotypes to arise. Look in any anthropology and evolution text book to support these statements.

[gfundaro]

Originally Posted by mean vegan

You're correct about correlation not implying causation.

One always needs to evaluate whether a particular study's conclusions are valid. Who did the study and where the study was published should be major factors when evaluating a study. I?m sure if you?d provided that info the Japanese study could have discredited. The China-Cornell-Oxford study was done by TWO of the MOST RENOWNED UNIVERSITIES in the WORLD. Not only that but SCIENCE mag, THE MOST RENOWNED AND CREDIBLE SCIENCE PUBLICATION IN THE WORLD, describes it as ?the most comprehensive survey of food, environment, social practices and diseases ever made? (Moffat, China: a living lab for epidemiology, 1990). Clearly their findings could not be simply based on correlation; if you would just take the time and read the studies publications you would have realized that.

In addition, MANY STUDIES CORROBORATE THESE FINDINGS including the US NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES report ?Diet, Nutrition and Cancer?. Studies on mortality and degenerative diseases in Seventh-Day Adventist show that they have longer life spans and lower incidence of degenerative diseases (Berkel and de Waard. Mortality pattern and life expectancy of Seventh-Day Adventists in the Netherlands. International Journal of Epidemiology. 1983. OR Snowdon. Animal product consumption and mortality because of all causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer in Seventh-Day Adventists. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1988.). Even the FDA, an organization that recommends eating meat, says ?vegetarians? longevity is equal or GREATER than that of non-vegetarians? (Farley. More people trying vegetarian diets. FDA Consumer. 1995). The NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE?S Diet, Nutirition and Cancer Prevention booklet says that many plants have cancer preventing benefits. A more recent study by the AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION says ?when soy protein is substituted for animal protein, hypercholesterolemia does not occur? and that using ?soy foods to replace foods high in animal protein?confer[s] benefits to cardiovascular health? (Sacks, et al. Soy Protein, Isoflavones and Cardiovascular Health. AHA Science Advisory. 2006).

In addition, evolutionary biology and physical anthropology support that humans bodies are not ?designed? to eat meat. Humans did not evolve as meat eaters. We don't in anyway have the morphology of a meat eater; our facial muscles, jaws, nails, chewing, saliva, and digestive tract are like that of herbivores not carnivores or even omnivores. What has enabled us to consume meat has been our intellect and thumbs to fashion tools. I don't think it can be argued that the modifications to our lifestyle because of our intellect have not been far to fast for adaptations to our phenotypes to arise. Look in any anthropology and evolution text book to support these statements.

Oh, that's funny, because in my text books it's stated very directly that our brains only grew to their current size and complexity due to a high-protein diet. And that we have sharp canines. Or are those just for tearing bark?

I'm gonna warn you: this is a bodybuilding site. Many, many people here eat meat. Some don't. And anyone who attacks anyone else's way of eating generally gets flamed, especially if they present information as poorly as you have. New studies are released every day that contradict one another or claim the evils of every single food group. If you don't want to eat it, don't. I don't care. But don't post this on a bodybuilding site and expect rave reviews.

[mean vegan]

Originally Posted by -Aaron-

So, humans have been eating meat since the beginning of time, then one second rate Ivy-League school makes a study and it's all supposed to be fact now?

Not true at all!!!! Just open any physical anthropolgy text book or an evolutionary biology textbook. Humans were not able to eat meat until they had the tools, including making fire, to do so. There are quite a few deer in my area. I'm sure if I or another human tried to bite into a deer, tear it up with their hands they would be unsuccessful, if we were even capable of chasing and catching one on foot, because our morphology (teeth, nails, jaws, digestive tract) is that of a herbivore not a carnivore or omnivore.

"You can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand. Our anterior teeth are not suited for tearing flesh or hide. We don't have large canine teeth, and we wouldn't have been able to deal with food sources that required those large canines."
Renowned anthropologist Richard Leakey

[gfundaro]

Originally Posted by mean vegan

Not true at all!!!! Just open any physical anthropolgy text book or an evolutionary biology textbook. Humans were not able to eat meat until they had the tools, including making fire, to do so. There are quite a few deer in my area. I'm sure if I or another human tried to bite into a deer, tear it up with their hands they would be unsuccessful, if we were even capable of chasing and catching one on foot, because our morphology (teeth, nails, jaws, digestive tract) is that of a herbivore not a carnivore or omnivore.

"You can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand. Our anterior teeth are not suited for tearing flesh or hide. We don't have large canine teeth, and we wouldn't have been able to deal with food sources that required those large canines."
Renowned anthropologist Richard Leakey

Apparently you haven't seen the episode of Man Vs. Wild in which Mr. Bear Grills bites into a live fish and chews it up....with his teeth.
Have you tried chewing meat before? You might be surprised at how easy and delicious it is.

[mean vegan]

Originally Posted by gfundaro

Oh, that's funny, because in my text books it's stated very directly that our brains only grew to their current size and complexity due to a high-protein diet. And that we have sharp canines. Or are those just for tearing bark?

I'm gonna warn you: this is a bodybuilding site. Many, many people here eat meat. Some don't. And anyone who attacks anyone else's way of eating generally gets flamed, especially if they present information as poorly as you have. New studies are released every day that contradict one another or claim the evils of every single food group. If you don't want to eat it, don't. I don't care. But don't post this on a bodybuilding site and expect rave reviews.

Yes they grew to their current size because of a high protein diet, probably animal protein, and had higher survival rates because of the ability to utilize animal calories. So there was a positive feed back loop. But it only takes one trait, thumbs, to fashion tools that could be used to make tools and start the feed back loop. And thumbs occurred early on in our development when hominids were still not that intelligent, as we see that our closest relatives, primates also have thumbs. But that doesn't mean our morphology was able to adapt to eat meat. Really our teeth, jaw motion, saliva, digestive tract are that of a herbivore.

And No we do not have sharp canines. I would rather be bitten by you than a tiger any day.

And yes we can bite into bark. Try it. Bite into a cinnamon stick. And bark is not the only plant that we eat there are several other plant sources of food that we are easily able to consume.

And yes new studies come out everyday and contradict one another. But as I mentioned in the last reply to the China-Cornell-Oxford Study was corroborated by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Cancer Institute, and the American Heart Association.

And...I AM NOT ATTACKING ANYONE!!! I DIDN'T SAY A SINGLE NEGATIVE THING ABOUT MEAT EATERS! I merely posted an interesting finding. Wouldn't you want to share interesting health risk info. How is that any different from posting a study on the risks of smoking?!! No one would interpret that has condemning smokers.

[mean vegan]

Originally Posted by 7he9od

Pork chop sandwiches!!!
So what, eat, drink and be merry. Stop hating on the carnevours.

UMM...BBQ ribs and chili dogs!!!!
Those were some of my faves when I ate meat.

I am merry but also want to be healthy.

I'm not hating on anyone. In fact, all the people I love the most eat meat including my mother and sister.

I just posted an interesting finding. How does that signify that I dislike meat eaters!?!

[mean vegan]

Originally Posted by Mr.Hombre

animal meat is not bad

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?

[mean vegan]

Originally Posted by Phill.D

does this mean I should stop eating dog food ? (jk but that was my first thought when I read the title)

LOL I read the title after I posted it and thought that doesn't sound right

[gfundaro]

Originally Posted by mean vegan

Yes they grew to their current size because of a high protein diet, probably animal protein, and had higher survival rates because of the ability to utilize animal calories. So there was a positive feed back loop. But it only takes one trait, thumbs, to fashion tools that could be used to make tools and start the feed back loop. And thumbs occurred early on in our development when hominids were still not that intelligent, as we see that our closest relatives, primates also have thumbs. But that doesn't mean our morphology was able to adapt to eat meat. Really our teeth, jaw motion, saliva, digestive tract are that of a herbivore.

And No we do not have sharp canines. I would rather be bitten by you than a tiger any day.

And yes we can bite into bark. Try it. Bite into a cinnamon stick. And bark is not the only plant that we eat there are several other plant sources of food that we are easily able to consume.

And yes new studies come out everyday and contradict one another. But as I mentioned in the last reply to the China-Cornell-Oxford Study was corroborated by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Cancer Institute, and the American Heart Association.

And...I AM NOT ATTACKING ANYONE!!! I DIDN'T SAY A SINGLE NEGATIVE THING ABOUT MEAT EATERS! I merely posted an interesting finding. Wouldn't you want to share interesting health risk info. How is that any different from posting a study on the risks of smoking?!! No one would interpret that has condemning smokers.

I don't share 'interesting' health info because 99% of it is complete bull, and if people are concerned with their eating habits, they can do their own research. Many people here know that I'm knowledgeable about nutrition and the science of nutrient utilization, and they can ask me questions, but I don't go around saying HEY GUYS I KNOW THIS:..... Besides, I don't site studies. I just state fact and the mechanics of it all.
I fail to see how my 'jaw morphology' and 'dull' canines prevent me from eating meat, since I do it every day. I could say that, due to the fact that we can't digest cellulose because we lack the 4-chambered stomach and cud-chewing ability, we're not meant to eat fibrous vegetables. But that wouldn't make any sense, because we DO eat vegetables despite that fact. We digest meat. It dissolves, we utilize the proteins, we poop the waste. Celery stalks, however, just form bulk in our intestines, where we might leach a couple calories from the fibrous mass. Then we poop it out. Should we stop eating veggies now? Of course not.

[RedHerring]

*without reading a single word of thread*

I agree. I doubt eating dog/cat food would be healthy for you.




....****sake man just eat food like everyone else.

[mean vegan]

Originally Posted by lanks

You know there is also a study out that correlates veganism with lower intelligence as well?

http://www.carbwire.com/2006/12/20/v...rs_study_shows

Well, I'll have to read the study but I have a feeling that intelligence in the study is related to IQ. There are studies that relate intelligence (based on IQ) to race. Obviously that's absurd. Intelligence is a very difficult trait to study because it's hard to quantify and there are several socio-economic factors that affect "intelligence". Besides race doesn't have a genetic basis.

But even being vegan but because I am a natural history and ecology major, I will say that meat eaters across the animal kingdom are much more intelligent than plant eaters.
It takes much more intellect to succeed at searching, stalking, and capturing animal prey than it does "passive" plant prey. (Plants really aren't all that passive; they have all kinds of morphological and chemical defenses.)

[gfundaro]

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?

Yes.
Research their ACTUAL uses in the body. Artery-clogging isn't one of them. In fact, dietary cholesterol has little effect on blood cholesterol levels in healthy individuals. High cholesterol is caused by genetics and a sedentary lifestyle. Cholesterol isn't going to collect in the arteries of an active person.
The only fat you should actually avoid is trans fat because it's manmade so the molecular structure isn't one that occurs in nature, even in saturated fats. So your hydrogenated plant oils are the problem, not the saturated fats they're trying to emulate.

[gunslinger0901]

Originally Posted by mean vegan

You're correct about correlation not implying causation.

One always needs to evaluate whether a particular study's conclusions are valid. Who did the study and where the study was published should be major factors when evaluating a study. I?m sure if you?d provided that info the Japanese study could have discredited. The China-Cornell-Oxford study was done by TWO of the MOST RENOWNED UNIVERSITIES in the WORLD. Not only that but SCIENCE mag, THE MOST RENOWNED AND CREDIBLE SCIENCE PUBLICATION IN THE WORLD, describes it as ?the most comprehensive survey of food, environment, social practices and diseases ever made? (Moffat, China: a living lab for epidemiology, 1990). Clearly their findings could not be simply based on correlation; if you would just take the time and read the studies publications you would have realized that.

In addition, MANY STUDIES CORROBORATE THESE FINDINGS including the US NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES report ?Diet, Nutrition and Cancer?. Studies on mortality and degenerative diseases in Seventh-Day Adventist show that they have longer life spans and lower incidence of degenerative diseases (Berkel and de Waard. Mortality pattern and life expectancy of Seventh-Day Adventists in the Netherlands. International Journal of Epidemiology. 1983. OR Snowdon. Animal product consumption and mortality because of all causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer in Seventh-Day Adventists. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1988.). Even the FDA, an organization that recommends eating meat, says ?vegetarians? longevity is equal or GREATER than that of non-vegetarians? (Farley. More people trying vegetarian diets. FDA Consumer. 1995). The NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE?S Diet, Nutirition and Cancer Prevention booklet says that many plants have cancer preventing benefits. A more recent study by the AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION says ?when soy protein is substituted for animal protein, hypercholesterolemia does not occur? and that using ?soy foods to replace foods high in animal protein?confer[s] benefits to cardiovascular health? (Sacks, et al. Soy Protein, Isoflavones and Cardiovascular Health. AHA Science Advisory. 2006).

In addition, evolutionary biology and physical anthropology support that humans bodies are not ?designed? to eat meat. Humans did not evolve as meat eaters. We don't in anyway have the morphology of a meat eater; our facial muscles, jaws, nails, chewing, saliva, and digestive tract are like that of herbivores not carnivores or even omnivores. What has enabled us to consume meat has been our intellect and thumbs to fashion tools. I don't think it can be argued that the modifications to our lifestyle because of our intellect have not been far to fast for adaptations to our phenotypes to arise. Look in any anthropology and evolution text book to support these statements.

I dont care how renowned a university is or some science publication, MONEY TALKS so anything can be misconstrued and as long as you didnt do the study yourself youll never really know, plus its all statistics, its not like its the golden rule for everyone on earth

and if we werent meant to eat meat then it wouldnt be happening right now.. you dont go to fast food restaurants and order baby feet (yes cannabalism) or order chalk stew or eat rocks do we? no its either some form of meat or vegetable or processed crap. I dont disagree that most of the food we recieve nowadays is probably doing us worse damage than when people hunted and gathered theyre own food, but seriously... if we werent meant to eat meat our teeth would be flat and eating meat would be considered taboo, I get the feeling your an extremist when it come to vegans. Maybe you should just sit down with a nice full rack of bbq baby back ribs and maybe youll suprise yourself.

[gfundaro]

Originally Posted by gunslinger0901

I dont care how renowned a university is or some science publication, MONEY TALKS so anything can be misconstrued and as long as you didnt do the study yourself youll never really know, plus its all statistics, its not like its the golden rule for everyone on earth

and if we werent meant to eat meat then it wouldnt be happening right now.. you dont go to fast food restaurants and order baby feet (yes cannabalism) or order chalk stew or eat rocks do we? no its either some form of meat or vegetable or processed crap. I dont disagree that most of the food we recieve nowadays is probably doing us worse damage than when people hunted and gathered theyre own food, but seriously... if we werent meant to eat meat our teeth would be flat and eating meat would be considered taboo, I get the feeling your an extremist when it come to vegans. Maybe you should just sit down with a nice full rack of bbq baby back ribs and maybe youll suprise yourself.

LOLOLOL


baby feet

[mean vegan]

Originally Posted by gfundaro

I don't share 'interesting' health info because 99% of it is complete bull, and if people are concerned with their eating habits, they can do their own research. Many people here know that I'm knowledgeable about nutrition and the science of nutrient utilization, and they can ask me questions, but I don't go around saying HEY GUYS I KNOW THIS:..... Besides, I don't site studies. I just state fact and the mechanics of it all.
I fail to see how my 'jaw morphology' and 'dull' canines prevent me from eating meat, since I do it every day. I could say that, due to the fact that we can't digest cellulose because we lack the 4-chambered stomach and cud-chewing ability, we're not meant to eat fibrous vegetables. But that wouldn't make any sense, because we DO eat vegetables despite that fact. We digest meat. It dissolves, we utilize the proteins, we poop the waste. Celery stalks, however, just form bulk in our intestines, where we might leach a couple calories from the fibrous mass. Then we poop it out. Should we stop eating veggies now? Of course not.

I would agree with you that a lot of research is bull but if it's corroborated by several other studies than it is reasonable to accept the conclusions of that research. That is what is considered "fact" in science anyway as nothing can be proven only supported.

My motive for posting was because this isn't well known but well supported and I was finding it difficult to find any info on the disadvantages of meat and most people believe that it is healthy. I assumed there must be some difference since I feel so much better now that I'm a vegan than when I was a meat eater. My mother is an RD and has an MPH and is meat eater. I would ask her if she knew anything about that subject and she only had positive things to say. And a lot of vegan health related books are anecdotal with very little scientific citations. My post was not to show how knowledgeable I am as I didn't say anything novel and basically just copy and paste direct quotes from other individuals' studies. I only added all those other citations because you challenged me on the validity of the study. Why are you taking such a big offense to the post anyway?

If you didn't cook your meat or have knives you'd probably have a lot of difficulty eating it. But even that being said morphology doesn't prevent you from eating, which I never said anyway. I just said that we didn't evolve to eat meat thus we don't have the appropriate morphology for meat consumption. Most meat eaters could probably eat plants; that doesn't mean they should or that it will be advatageous.

There are other reasons to eat food besides caloric and nutrient requirements. We need bulk in order to ****. There's nothing you can't get from plant foods (even B12-umm tempeh and nori) that you can get animal foods. But the inverse is not true.

So meat lovers eat meat. Still love you meat eaters just concerned about your health is all.

[labradarep]

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?

" Among the reasons for cholesterol's "bad press" as it is considered in connection with cardiovascular disease is that cholesterol & especially cholesterol esters are major components of fatty plaque. Contrary to wide spread belief, changing the amount of cholesterol in the diet has only minor influence on blood cholesterol concentration in most people. This is because compensatory mechanisms are engaged, such as HDL activity in scavenging excess cholesterol, and the down-regulation of cholesterol synthesis dietary cholesterol. It is well known , however that certain induviduals respond strongly, and others weakly, to dietary cholesterol. This phenomenon may have a genetic basis, but is further complicated by the observation that significant within person variability exists that is independant od diet. . This fact clearly confounds the results of intersubject studies. "

Advanced Nutrition & Human Metabolism. (Groff, Gropper)

Also be aware that cholesterol can be produced by every single cell within our bodies and is essential for many functions within our body.

Eg: 1) cholesterol is a building block for Steriod hormones
2) Cholesterol can be converted into Vitamin D when exposed to sunlight.
3) Cholesterol helps with the metabolism of Carbohydrates
4) Transports Fat soluable vitamins
5) Helps build cell membranes

etc..........

Here is an interesting Fact:

Homocysteine is the root cause of cardiovascular disease NOT CHOLESTEROL!.

" In the presence of homocysteine, proteoglycans in the blood vessals walls lose the ability to cross-link and create their normal fibrous structure. The homocysteine-altered proteoglycans take on a more granular form of organization, and these abnormal proteoglycans are likely to aggregate into clumps in the bloodstream. Lipoproteins flowing in the bloodstream bind to these dissolved proteoglycans, which then are deposited into the blood vessal linings as plaque."
K.S. McKully , " Homocysteinemia and Arteriosclerosis," American Heart Journal 83(4) (April 1972): 571-573

Suprisingly, the cure for Homocysteinemia is quite simple.

Folic Acid, B12, B6, Choline, and Betaine.

No drugs needed.