Vegetarian or Vegan Diet for Blacks: Lower Cardio Risk

[EdEarl]

 

MedicalXpress.com

 

The researchers found that black vegetarians or vegans, compared with black non-vegetarians, had a lower risk of hypertension (odds ratio [OR], 0.56; 95 percent confidence interval [CI], 0.36 to 0.87), diabetes (OR, 0.48; 95 percent CI, 0.24 to 0.98), high blood total cholesterol level (OR, 0.42; 95 percent CI, 0.27 to 0.65), and high blood low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level (OR, 0.54; 95 percent CI, 0.33 to 0.89), after multivariable adjustment. Compared with black non-vegetarians, black vegetarians/vegans and black pesco-vegetarians had a lower risk of obesity (ORs, 0.43 [95 percent CI, 0.28 to 0.67] and 0.47 [95 percent CI, 0.27 to 0.81], respectively) and abdominal obesity (ORs, 0.54 [95 percent CI, 0.36 to 0.82] and 0.50 [95 percent CI, 0.29 to 0.84], respectively).

See also:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82847-processed-meat-bad-for-health/

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82630-nutrition-beans-reduce-cholestorol/

 

More evidence that a vegan/vegetarian diet is more healthful.

[Thorham]

More evidence that a vegan/vegetarian diet is more healthful.

Not if all you eat is junk food.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Thorham

[EdEarl]

Not if all you eat is junk food.

True, corn chips with picante and dark chocolate don't make a balanced diet.

[Unity+]

See also:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82847-processed-meat-bad-for-health/

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82630-nutrition-beans-reduce-cholestorol/

 

More evidence that a vegan/vegetarian diet is more healthful.

There are always benefits and side effects of certain diets. Yes, processed meat is bad for your health, but not all meat is processed.

 

This does not prove that the regular diet of a human being is worse than a vegan diet.

[EdEarl]

There are always benefits and side effects of certain diets. Yes, processed meat is bad for your health, but not all meat is processed.

 

This does not prove that the regular diet of a human being is worse than a vegan diet.

I know. I'm slowly building a case.

 

Harvard.edu

 

It’s time to end the low-fat myth. That’s because the percentage of calories from fat that you eat, whether high or low, isn’t really linked with disease. What really matters is the type of fat you eat.

• Choose foods with healthy fats, limit foods high in saturated fat, and avoid foods with trans fat.
• “Good” fats—monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats—lower disease risk. Foods high in good fats include vegetable oils (such as olive, canola, sunflower, soy, and corn), nuts, seeds, and fish.
• “Bad” fats—saturated and, especially, trans fats—increase disease risk. Foods high in bad fats include red meat, butter, cheese, and ice cream, as well as processed foods made with trans fat from partially hydrogenated oil.

The key to a healthy diet is to choose foods that have more good fats than bad fats—vegetable oils instead of butter, salmon instead of steak—and that don’t contain any trans fat.

Of course, salmon and other sea food is building up radiation from the Fukushima disaster; thus, you might want to reconsider salmon. IDK how much radiation will be increased in salmon from it.

[John Cuthber]

I know. I'm slowly building a case.

Of course, salmon and other sea food is building up radiation from the Fukushima disaster; thus, you might want to reconsider salmon. IDK how much radiation will be increased in salmon from it.

If you are "building up a case" for the idea that a vegan diet is good, then you are not doing science, you are demonstrating bias.

 

There's a picture on the web that purports to show the radiation from Fukushima.

It shows a big scary green blob spreading across the ocean.

On the other hand, it doesn't tell you what the scale means. Most of that blob is a lot less radioactive than my pee.

So, in reply to

"you might want to reconsider salmon. IDK how much radiation will be increased in salmon from it."

I have considered it.

I do know how much the increase in radiation will be.

And I think I might have salmon for lunch tomorrow; there's no meaningful risk from it.

[EdEarl]

If you are "building up a case" for the idea that a vegan diet is good, then you are not doing science, you are demonstrating bias.

 

There's a picture on the web that purports to show the radiation from Fukushima.

It shows a big scary green blob spreading across the ocean.

On the other hand, it doesn't tell you what the scale means. Most of that blob is a lot less radioactive than my pee.

So, in reply to

"you might want to reconsider salmon. IDK how much radiation will be increased in salmon from it."

I have considered it.

I do know how much the increase in radiation will be.

And I think I might have salmon for lunch tomorrow; there's no meaningful risk from it.

Very small amounts of Fukushima radiation found in tuna:

yahoo news

PORTLAND Ore. (Reuters) - A sample of albacore tuna caught off the shores of Oregon and Washington state have small levels of radioactivity from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, researchers said on Tuesday.

 

But authors of the Oregon State University study say the levels are so small you would have to consume more than 700,000 pounds of the fish with the highest radioactive level to match the amount of radiation the average person is annually exposed to in everyday life through cosmic rays, the air, the ground, X-rays and other sources.

[davidivad]

while i do occasionally eat meat, i eat much less of it in the summer. this is because it has "hot" calories.

i am at the age where i am starting to run into heart health concerns.

i have replaced much of my meat with beans of various types and can't say i miss it. i would eat more fish, but i do not have much of a taste for it. i get my omegas from nuts and such any way. i also lift weights and there is nothing better than whey protien (it has casiens). that is really good for building muscle without raising cholesterol levels. i feel a lot healthier now that i have removed most of the meat from my diet.

 

i only have one argument for meat. i miss barbecuing and it is about that time of the year again.

that's ok. i have learned how fun it is to cook for someone else and harrass them about thier weight and cholesterol!

i always do this with an extravagant salad. the ladies always want me to make them some once they see what i have...

[chadn737]

See also:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82847-processed-meat-bad-for-health/

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82630-nutrition-beans-reduce-cholestorol/

 

More evidence that a vegan/vegetarian diet is more healthful.

 

The problem is....does this control for actual caloric intake? People who are vegetarians or vegans are often much more conscious of how much they eat, what they eat, exercise more often, etc. If you simply take non-vegetarians as a general group, then you will have everything from those who eat healthy well-balanced meals that include meat to those who eat nothing but McDonalds and 5000 calories a day. That is going to bias the results and thus falsely attribute the real cause (total calories, lack of exercise, etc) to the eating of certain products. This is why we have the old statistics adage of "correlation does not equal causation".

 

EDIT:

I read the actual study. Adjustment is made for physical activity, but not for actual calories ate or what exactly was ate. If you have individuals eating 5000 calories of day in one data set, thus skewing the results, then one would incorrectly find a correlation with meat-eating rather than simple caloric uptake.

Edited May 2, 2014 by chadn737

[John Cuthber]

while i do occasionally eat meat, i eat much less of it in the summer. this is because it has "hot" calories.

i am at the age where i am starting to run into heart health concerns.

i have replaced much of my meat with beans of various types and can't say i miss it. i would eat more fish, but i do not have much of a taste for it. i get my omegas from nuts and such any way. i also lift weights and there is nothing better than whey protien (it has casiens). that is really good for building muscle without raising cholesterol levels. i feel a lot healthier now that i have removed most of the meat from my diet.

 

i only have one argument for meat. i miss barbecuing and it is about that time of the year again.

that's ok. i have learned how fun it is to cook for someone else and harrass them about thier weight and cholesterol!

i always do this with an extravagant salad. the ladies always want me to make them some once they see what i have...

Is there real evidence of the existence of a "hot Calorie"?

[EdEarl]

 

http://health.wusf.usf.edu [from an interview with] Dr. Stanley Hazen is chair of the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the Lerner Research Institute at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio.

 

This is SCIENCE FRIDAY, I'm Flora Lichtman, filling in for Ira today. You know the phrase you are what you eat? Well, new research suggests a slight modification: Your gut bacteria are what you eat. And if you eat more red meat, for example, you'll nurture populations of microbes that like to eat red meat, too, which might not seem like a bad thing except that researchers have pinpointed a compound in red meat called L-carnitine that when broken down by gut bacteria might contribute to heart disease.

...

HAZEN: Well, what our studies show is that in our digestive tract, we have many, many bugs, microbes. They can digest carnitine; we can't. We get no calories from carnitine, but the bugs do. A byproduct that the microbes make gets released and converted in our bodies and then detected in the blood into a compound that actually helps promote clogging of the arteries or cholesterol deposition in the artery wall.

 

It does this by actually changing our metabolism of cholesterol. So this is not independent of cholesterol. It actually works through cholesterol. It changes how our body senses cholesterol and metabolizes cholesterol at the artery wall, in the liver and in the intestines.

 

The bacteria in our intestines become specialized for processing meat vs vegetables if our is meaty vs vegan. I think scientists are just learning about those differences.

[davidivad]

very interesting read edearl.

[Acme]

How many threads is this now that Ed has put forward the [unsupported] claim that vegetarianism is healthier than not vegetarianism? Let me count the ways... Seriously though, humans are omnivores & as I pointed out before in the meat/cheese thread, veggies & fruits just don't provide everything we need such as B12. People eat meat so get over it. Eat a balanced diet in moderate proportions and get you exercise (off the high horse of course).

[EdEarl]

B12 is available in supplement. Just supporting my argument for vegan being more healthful. It's not about what we can do, it's about what is better. For example, we can destroy life on earth is several ways, but it is better if we don't.

Edited May 3, 2014 by EdEarl

[Acme]

B12 is available in supplement. Just supporting my argument for vegan being more healthful. It's not about what we can do, it's about what is better. For example, we can destroy life on earth is several ways, but it is better if we don't.

We went through the B12 thing in the other thread; B12 supplements have an animal origin. No, vegetarianism is not better, disregarding that 'better' is a subjective term.

[Thorham]

B12 supplements have an animal origin.

Vitamin B12 is produced using micro organisms.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Thorham

[Acme]

 

B12 supplements have an animal origin.

Vitamin B12 is produced using micro organisms.

 

And the primary microorganisms used in the commercial production of B12 belong to the animal Kingdom.

 

Vitamin B12 Synthesis and Industrial Production

...Animal from the following genera are known to synthesize B12: Acetobacterium, Aerobacter, Agrobacterium, Alcaligenes, Azotobacter, Bacillus, Clostridium, Corynebacterium, Flavobacterium, Micromonospora, Mycobacterium, Nocardia, Propionibacterium, Protaminobacter, Proteus, Pseudomonas, Rhizobium, Salmonella, Serratia, Streptomyces, Streptococcus as well as Xanthomonas. ...

[Thorham]

And the primary microorganisms used in the commercial production of B12 belong to the animal Kingdom.

No, they're not. Animals don't produce vitamin B12. The list of organisms you quoted are bacteria, not animals, which you would've known if you took some time to google the names of those organisms.

 

Very obvious example: Salmonella (in your quoted list). Since when is that an animal?

[Acme]

No, they're not. Animals don't produce vitamin B12. The list of organisms you quoted are bacteria, not animals, which you would've known if you took some time to google the names of those organisms.

 

Very obvious example: Salmonella (in your quoted list). Since when is that an animal?

My bad. You are correct; bacteria are neither plant nor animal these days. The three-domain classification was introduced in the late 70's. Nevertheless, in regards to the topic of this thread B12 cannot be had from a vegetarian diet no matter a person's race.

[Thorham]

Nevertheless, in regards to the topic of this thread B12 cannot be had from a vegetarian diet no matter a person's race.

You probably mean a vegan or strict vegetarian diet (strictly speaking there really isn't a vegan diet, of course). Non-strict vegetarians usually only exclude meat from their diets, but vitamin B12 is present in other animal based foods such as milk.

 

Also, because vitamin B12 supplements aren't animal based, there's no problem for vegans and strict vegetarians to include those supplements in their diets.

[Acme]

You probably mean a vegan or strict vegetarian diet (strictly speaking there really isn't a vegan diet, of course). Non-strict vegetarians usually only exclude meat from their diets, but vitamin B12 is present in other animal based foods such as milk.

 

Also, because vitamin B12 supplements aren't animal based, there's no problem for vegans and strict vegetarians to include those supplements in their diets.

We've been over these classifications and nuances in numerous threads so I saw no need to repeat them here. The upshot is that I probably mean Ed is full of bull.

[EdEarl]

I'm not interested in fighting. I shall continue to add references to this thread as I find them, which will scientifically support a vegan life style as healthful. In fact, I'll put references that say it kills, if I find any.

[Acme]

I'm not interested in fighting. I shall continue to add references to this thread as I find them, which will scientifically support a vegan life style as healthful. In fact, I'll put references that say it kills, if I find any.

No one doubts that you will continue as you have or that your interest is pressing your personal bias. However nothing you have posted in this or any of your threads constitutes scientific support of a meatless diet. Allow me to reiterate a support of my claim which you either missed or ignored.

 

The problem is....does this control for actual caloric intake? People who are vegetarians or vegans are often much more conscious of how much they eat, what they eat, exercise more often, etc. If you simply take non-vegetarians as a general group, then you will have everything from those who eat healthy well-balanced meals that include meat to those who eat nothing but McDonalds and 5000 calories a day. That is going to bias the results and thus falsely attribute the real cause (total calories, lack of exercise, etc) to the eating of certain products. This is why we have the old statistics adage of "correlation does not equal causation".

 

EDIT:

 

I read the actual study. Adjustment is made for physical activity, but not for actual calories ate or what exactly was ate. If you have individuals eating 5000 calories of day in one data set, thus skewing the results, then one would incorrectly find a correlation with meat-eating rather than simple caloric uptake.

[Thorham]

I shall continue to add references to this thread as I find them, which will scientifically support a vegan life style as healthful.

And that's where you're wrong, because there is no vegan lifestyle, and there's no vegan diet. I myself used to exist on a diet of mostly beans, rice and lots of beer (was an alcoholic for 14 years). While perfectly vegan, it wasn't very healthy (of course), and I had been living like that before I even was a vegetarian, so my life style, that of an alcoholic, didn't change.

 

Vegans aim to reduce non-human animal suffering and killing by avoiding animal products. It has nothing to do with food in and of itself. Ever considered the fact that if we had the ability to create meat from just DNA, using, say, nano machines (or something like that), that we'd be able to create vegan meat, because no animals were harmed and killed in the process? Or a hypothetical steak-tree. Nonsense of course, but very vegan if such a tree would exist none the less.

 

What you're referring to is a high quality diet that just excludes animal based foods. The label vegan says nothing about the quality of ones diet. Strict vegetarian and vegan diets are simply diets that exclude animal based foods, and nothing more.

 

Is a high quality non-animal based diet that includes vitamin B12 supplements healthy? Of course it is, just like any other proper diet.

[Acme]

And that's where you're wrong, because there is no vegan lifestyle, and there's no vegan diet. I myself used to exist on a diet of mostly beans, rice and lots of beer (was an alcoholic for 14 years). While perfectly vegan, it wasn't very healthy (of course), and I had been living like that before I even was a vegetarian, so my life style, that of an alcoholic, didn't change.

 

Vegans aim to reduce non-human animal suffering and killing by avoiding animal products. It has nothing to do with food in and of itself. ...

While I agree with you that Ed is wrong on his claim, I don't necessarily agree that 'vegetarians' choose the lifestyle because of 'animal cruelty'. The following article says many do it for health reasons. (A subject for a study in-and-of itself.) In any case it is no simple situation as Ed seems to believe. I will only quote a few passages as I see fit, but reading the entire article is necessary to cover all the arguments and facts presented. Don't knee-jerk respond to the title as Ed does with his many threads and fallacious conclusions. I will quote the first paragraph of the article to emphasize that point. Repeat: Read the entire article before responding to it with a post.

EDIT: PS There is a link in the article to a PDF of the full actual study. I encourage interested folk to download and read it as I will. (I got an error trying to left-click on the file so I right-clicked and saved the PDF to my disk successfully.) Additionally, this study does not look at Blacks and arguably may not belong in this thread. Keeping track of Ed's multiple threads makes selecting a fit a crap-shoot.

>> http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0088278&representation=PDF

 

 

Are Meat Eaters Healthier Than Vegetarians?

The problem with jazzing up science reporting with misleading headlines (and articles), though, is that it makes real actual science harder to understand, and presents members of the public with conflicting information.

...

Here's a bit more on the methodology of the study: They broke participants into four groups, including vegetarians, heavy meat eaters (obligate carnivores, if you will), meat eaters who consume lots of fresh fruits and veggies, and meat eaters with a diet "less rich in meat." These are very distinct categories, dividing into something much more complex than simply "people who eat meat and people who do not."

...

For example, why do people become vegetarian? Many people choose a vegetarian diet for health reasons -- and thus, they might be more likely to have chronic health conditions in the first place, in addition to being more aware of health complaints.

...

The study seemed to suggest, however, that those eating a diet with moderate meat and heavy fruits and vegetables fared the best. That's not the same thing as concluding that meat eaters are healthier than vegetarians, because that statement is rather misleading. Someone who eats a heavy meat-based diet actually fares more poorly on many self-reported health metrics, even in this study, which means it's not as simple as meat versus vegetables.

...

Edited August 10, 2014 by Acme