Vegetarian or Vegan Diet for Blacks: Lower Cardio Risk

[Thorham]

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'.

I didn't say that vegetarians do it for that reason, I said vegans do it for that reason. Seeking to reduce the killing and suffering of animals by not using animal products (specifically not limited to food) is at the core of what being vegan is really about. One can certainly have additional reasons, but when the well being of the animals isn't one's concern, one isn't vegan, but a strict vegetarian.

 

As for the rest of your post, I was only arguing against the OP's assertion that a vegan diet is healthy, while there is no one vegan diet. After all, a diet of french fries and potato chips is perfectly vegan. It's like saying that an omnivorous diet is healthy, while we all know that a diet of chicken nuggets and french fries isn't very healthy.

 

About the paper, I didn't read it, because I'm not going to argue about whether or not a plant based diet can be healthy or not. Food is a complex subject that I simply don't know enough about.

[Acme]

I didn't say that vegetarians do it for that reason, I said vegans do it for that reason.

Duly noted.

 

About the paper, I didn't read it, because I'm not going to argue about whether or not a plant based diet can be healthy or not. Food is a complex subject that I simply don't know enough about.

The reason one reads such papers is to learn more about the subject.

 

I'll just quote the conclusion and let everyone else not read it in their own time.

...Conclusions

Our study has shown that Austrian adults who consume a vegetarian diet are less healthy (in terms of cancer, allergies, and mental health disorders), have a lower quality of life, and also require more medical treatment. Therefore, a continued strong public health program for Austria is required in order to reduce the health risk due to nutritional factors. Moreover, our results emphasize the necessity of further studies in Austria, for a more in depth analysis of the health effects of different dietary habits.

[EdEarl]

I agree that a person can kill themselves eating poor food, regardless of whether it is vegetable or otherwise.

 

I don't cry cruelty because people eat animals; although, I think many of the animal food products we get from the food industry are bad for for us and/or the environment.

 

I consider eating GMO foods risky.

 

Organic foods are often better for us than others.

 

I think meat from the ocean, with lots of Omega 3, can be a good diet, but the ocean seems to be over exploited.

 

If you don't eat a few portions of brightly colored vegetables and fruit each day, you are taking an unnecessary risk.

[Acme]

I agree that a person can kill themselves eating poor food, regardless of whether it is vegetable or otherwise.

I don't cry cruelty because people eat animals; although, I think many of the animal food products we get from the food industry are bad for for us and/or the environment.

I consider eating GMO foods risky.

Organic foods are often better for us than others.

I think meat from the ocean, with lots of Omega 3, can be a good diet, but the ocean seems to be over exploited.

If you don't eat a few portions of brightly colored vegetables and fruit each day, you are taking an unnecessary risk.

What you don't get is that your opinions without legitimate reference or support are useless if not worthless.

[EdEarl]

What you don't get is that your opinions without legitimate reference or support are useless if not worthless.

Really? I stated my opinions for the record, because others had remarked about my opinions, when I felt they didn't know what I believed. I'd rather have everyone know how I feel about things, rather than have someone else confuse them on my behalf. Unfortunately, if you don't read about something, you are uninformed, and if you do read about it, you are misinformed--Mark Twain.

[sunshaker]

I have recently come across the ORD7D4 Gene

 

 

At the heart of the distaste for dead animals is the gene OR7D4. Researchers have found that should a person inherit the gene from one parent, the distaste for meat, pork in particular http://www.theflamingvegan.com/view-post/Are-you

This firstly brought up the thought of muslims who do not eat pork, As I believe most muslims are black, From Asia/North africa,

 

"Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, and most early Muslims were semi-vegetarians, consuming meat on occasion".

Why would some of us evolve this gene that gives us a distaste for meat? There always seems to be a reason for evolution.

 

I am not saying this gene is a "muslim gene", I have yet to find out more about this gene, But thought it may have some relevance to why a veg/vegan diet is healthier for certain people, Perhaps it is in our genes.

[Strange]

I consider eating GMO foods risky.

 

There might be risks with GMO products (although there is no compelling evidence for that) but eating GMO foods is not one of them.

 

This might be of interest: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329800.400-heart-attack-on-a-plate-the-truth-about-saturated-fat.html

[harshgoel1975]

I am vegetarian .. because of strange reasons.. I feel that Intelligent living being should not harvest the non-intelligent beings and eat them... apart from many other reason.. this click me most..

[EdEarl]

 

There might be risks with GMO products (although there is no compelling evidence for that) but eating GMO foods is not one of them.

 

This might be of interest: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329800.400-heart-attack-on-a-plate-the-truth-about-saturated-fat.html

I didn't speak clearly, GMO is not known to be bad for people. In fact, most of it will be OK, but the gene changes may have unintended consequences that are bad for people in a few cases, but we do not know. The unknown entails a risk.

[Strange]

I didn't speak clearly, GMO is not known to be bad for people. In fact, most of it will be OK, but the gene changes may have unintended consequences that are bad for people in a few cases, but we do not know. The unknown entails a risk.

You could say the same about non-GMO foods. Most of those have had little or no research into their effects. Any GMO crop will be extensively tested before it is allowed to be sold so will probably be safer than most normal fruit or veg.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Discussion on GMO food is probably best left for one of the many existing threads on the topic.

[EdEarl]

You could say the same about non-GMO foods. Most of those have had little or no research into their effects. Any GMO crop will be extensively tested before it is allowed to be sold so will probably be safer than most normal fruit or veg.

Living is dangerous, no one survives forever. Seriously, I have no science to add to the discussion on GMOs.

[Acme]

 

What you don't get is that your opinions without legitimate reference or support are useless if not worthless.

Really? I stated my opinions for the record, because others had remarked about my opinions, when I felt they didn't know what I believed. I'd rather have everyone know how I feel about things, rather than have someone else confuse them on my behalf. Unfortunately, if you don't read about something, you are uninformed, and if you do read about it, you are misinformed--Mark Twain.

 

The problem Ed is that you keep putting up these threads as if your opinions were fact and without exception the articles you put in the OPs have serious flaws in their methodology. Yet you blithely ignore those problems when people point them out as you continue to assert vegetarianism (veganism, ovo yada yada yada whatever you are misrepresenting-anism) is 'more' healthy. So yes really; your words are useless if not worthless. Moreover, by the well-controlled study that I just cited [and you ignored and/or failed to address] from Austria, your opinions/recommendations to vegetarianism may actually be putting people at risk were they to act on your words.

 

Living is dangerous, no one survives forever. Seriously, I have no science to add to the discussion on GMOs.

You have flawed science if science at all in lo these many threads Ed. Seriously.

 

....

Organic foods are often better for us than others.

...

Unsubstantiated hogwash.

[EdEarl]

The problem Ed is that you keep putting up these threads as if your opinions were fact and without exception the articles you put in the OPs have serious flaws in their methodology. Yet you blithely ignore those problems when people point them out as you continue to assert vegetarianism (veganism, ovo yada yada yada whatever you are misrepresenting-anism) is 'more' healthy. So yes really; your words are useless if not worthless. Moreover, by the well-controlled study that I just cited [and you ignored and/or failed to address] from Austria, your opinions/recommendations to vegetarianism may actually be putting people at risk were they to act on your words.

 

 

You have flawed science if science at all in lo these many threads Ed. Seriously.

 

 

Unsubstantiated hogwash.

You also are entitled to your opinions, seriously. But, I recommend people read the papers and make up their own minds. Trading opinions is futile.

[Acme]

You also are entitled to your opinions, seriously. But, I recommend people read the papers and make up their own minds. Trading opinions is futile.

I am not giving opinions, I am citing scientific evidence. Your failure to understand the distinction is abysmal.

[MonDie]

Nor are B12-fortified foods animal based.

[EdEarl]

The report you cite (http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0088278&representation=PDF) is interesting, but not by itself convincing enough for me. Correlations are interesting, but not conclusive, and the study populaton was not large. There is a larger study, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study.

[Acme]

The report you cite (http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0088278&representation=PDF) is interesting, but not by itself convincing enough for me. Correlations are interesting, but not conclusive, and the study populaton was not large. There is a larger study, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study.

Your response is laughable. The Austrian study, unlike anything you have offered in any of your threads on the topic, is well controlled and gives careful and explicit attention to its shortcomings as well as its validity. Moreover, the studies you present are actually not studies at all but popular media reports about studies and you present them as if their correlations are conclusive evidence. The Austrian study clearly calls into question your ill-supported ongoing blanket assertions that a vegetarian (vegan, etc. ) diet is 'healthier' than a diet containing meat. The China study has been discredited numerous times, most recently that I recall in Ten oz's thread on whether the world must adopt vegetarianism. (I'll find the reference.) Moreover, even if people can survive on a non-meat diet it is a non sequitur to conclude it is healthier than those diets that include meat.

 

PS Your China study link is a dead-end, i.e. it does not lead to the study or even a discussion of it. Worthless.

 

Nor are B12-fortified foods animal based.

What or who are you responding to? We covered the B12 supplement issue and the bacterial source for commercial production of B12 and people that eat meat do not need to supplement their B12.

------------------------

Addendum:

I didn't find the China study debunking where I expected, but that is little matter as to its existence. I also seem to recall that I have already presented this to Ed when he brought the China study issue up before, and whether that recollection is correct or not is again of no matter other than the ongoing ignoring of contrary evidence to Ed's claims.

 

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy?

...

Disclaimer: This blog post covers only a fraction of whats wrong with The China Study. In the years since I wrote it, Ive added a number of additional articles expanding on this critique and covering a great deal of new material. Please read my Forks Over Knives review for more information on whats wrong with the conclusions drawn from Campbells casein/aflatoxin research, and if youd rather look at peer-reviewed research than the words of some random internet blogger, see my collection of scientific papers based on the China Study data that contradict the claims in Campbells book. Ive also responded to Campbells reply to my critique with a much longer, more formal analysis than the one on this page, which you can read here.

...

[Conclusion of article]

Its no surprise The China Study has been so widely embraced within the vegan and vegetarian community: It says point-blank what any vegan wants to hearthat theres scientific rationale for avoiding all animal foods. That even small amounts of animal protein are harmful. That an ethical ideal can be completely wed with health. These are exciting things to hear for anyone trying to justify a plant-only diet, and its for this reason I believe The China Study has not received as much critical analysis as it deserves, especially from some of the great thinkers in the vegetarian world. Hopefully this critique has shed some light on the books problems and will lead others to examine the data for themselves.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Acme

[EdEarl]

 

sciencedaily.com

Significant consumption of instant noodles -- ramen included -- may increase a person’s risk for cardiometabolic syndrome, especially in women, research shows. The findings could shed new light on the risks of a worldwide dietary habit. "This research is significant since many people are consuming instant noodles without knowing possible health risks," one researcher said. "My hope is that this study can lay a foundation for future research about the health effects of instant noodle consumption."

 

[EdEarl]

 

sciencedaily.com

 

A Joslin randomized clinical trial now has demonstrated that both Asian Americans and Caucasian Americans at risk of type 2 diabetes who adopted a rigorously controlled traditional Asian diet lowered their insulin resistance. (A leading risk factor for developing the disease, insulin resistance is a condition in which the body struggles to use the hormone insulin, which helps to metabolize sugar.)

In other words, for those at risk for type 2 diabetes, a diet of rice, vegetables, fruit and fish rather than meat and potatoes decreases the risk of becoming diabetic.

[EdEarl]

 

sciencedaily.com

 

A new study by the University of South Carolina confirms one big draw of saying no to all animal products: the ability to shed weight faster than those who consume a diet that contains meat and dairy.

 

 

sciencedaily.com

 

The health benefits of switching to a Mediterranean style diet and upping the amount of time spent exercising for a period of just eight weeks can still be seen a year after stopping the regime, a new study has shown.

 

Researchers believe the long-term health benefits observed after such a short intervention could be due to molecular changes associated with the Mediterranean diet. Traditional Mediterranean cuisine is based on olive oil, fruit, vegetables and salad, fish, legumes, whole grain foods, wine and limited consumption of red meat.

IMO, the Mediterranean diet is a good alternative to a vegan diet, since meat and meat products are limited.

Edited November 7, 2014 by EdEarl

[EdEarl]

 

medicaldaily.com

 

... a team of Swedish researchers followed 61,433 women and 45,339 men for between 11 and 20 years, tracking their diet and bone health. Results showed that for women, higher milk consumption was not associated with a reduction in fracture risk. On top of this, women who drank more than three glasses of milk a day were found to have a higher risk of death than women who drank less than one glass. The men showed similar results with an even more pronounced association between high milk consumption and higher risk of death.

Emphasis mine.

[EdEarl]

 

medicalexpress.com

 

In a study published in the Dec. 29 online early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the scientists found that feeding Neu5Gc to mice engineered to be deficient in the sugar (like humans) significantly promoted spontaneous cancers. The study did not involve exposure to carcinogens or artificially inducing cancers, further implicating Neu5Gc as a key link between red meat consumption and cancer.

[Ten oz]

*disclaimer* I am not a vegetarian or a vegan. I eat poultry and fish. No red meat.

 

I have thought about this issue some. Whether or not there are health benefits to vegetarianism and veganism. They certainly have been shown to help with some of the biggest health issues facing the developed world.

 

According to the ADA, vegetarians are at lower risk for developing:

• Heart disease
• Colorectal, ovarian, and breast cancers
• Diabetes
• Obesity
• Hypertension (high blood pressure)

http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/nutrition_&_eating_concerns/being_a_vegetarian.php

 

 

The argument against generally seems to center around what is "natural" for humans. People say that humans have always eaten meat and our need for vitamins such as B12 is evidence that humans need meat. While it is indisputable that humans do need B12 it is debatable from what source human traditional got it. I also think which type of meat humans naturally have eaten through the millennia it is debatable. The human form is not designed to take down, kill, and eat game animals. We do not have the teeth or jaw muscles to take a bit out of any moderate sized mammal. Nor do humans have the speed, strength, or agility to catch and kill any moderately sized mammal with our bare hands. So imo it is highly unlikely humans evolved eating the sort of game meat often attributed to various prehistorical hominids. It is more likely early humans got the bulk of their B12, calcium, zinc, riboflavin, and etc from insects. Primates eat insects as part of their regular diet and I assume our ancestors did as well. Fish, eggs, and reptiles were probably the next largest source of protein and the above mentioned vitamins. The bulk of their diets were most likely fruits, nuts, and other other plant based wild edibles. Larger mammals were opportunity based meals that may or may not have presented themselves. As humans became more intelligent and were able to build weapons, conceive of traps, and organize strategies larger animals became obtainable. Of course those larger mammals required cutting up and cooking because neither our teeth or stomachs could handle them straight up. So the error on the side of natural would be lots of berry, nuts, roots, and bugs with some seasonal fish, eggs, snake and the occasional bone marrow from a large red blooded mammal.

 

 

Of course humans are unique. We can "choose" how we eat. Our intellect allows us to prepare food as necessary to match our needs. We can remove the lactose from milk, Pure sugar from cane, fortify grain, turn maze into corn, distill alcohol, and etc to meet our needs. So I see the argument that humans must eat meet because it is natural and we need to as an exaggeration that neither accurately portrays history or acknowledges where we currently stand. Beef, pork, chicken, Salmon, and etc are not necessary food sources. Crickets, beetle, ants, turtles, and etc contain all the same essential vitamins and arguably have less downside both physically and environmentally. I am not advocating eating insects and reptiles but rather am highlighting what I see as a false dichotomy. Our choices are not between today's beef obsessed culture vs vegetarianism with eating beef as the more natural of the two. We have lots of other options.

[MonDie]

Ed, try to link to the article and not just the site. I can't accurately interpret "higher milk consumption" within that quote.

---

 

Insects, nuts, and berries are all underrated health foods. Ooh ooh aah aaaaaah!