Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Plant protein vs animal protein- better health vs lower mortality-New research
Options
Replies
-
goingtobefit2015 wrote: »Genetics for cancer is a small role it's mostly on what we eat. I had breast cancer and I was way overweight for many years eating the Western Diet (SAD DIET) standard American diet. I have turned my diet around to mostly a whole foods plant based diet 95% vegan and YES I get plenty of protein!
It really depends on the cancer. My cancer was not in any way related to lifestyle, it was all down to genetics. I've never been an unhealthy weight, and I've always led a healthy lifestyle.1 -
PennWalker wrote: »PennWalker wrote: »Many years ago, after my late husband was diagnosed with prostate cancer, we went to a seminar about the disease at Georgetown Hospital in Washington, DC. One of the speakers, my husband's oncologist at Georgetown's Lombardi Cancer Center, said research shows that men in who live in cultures that don't eat red meat and dairy (the typical western diet) rarely get the disease -- they eat soy products, rice, fish, and vegetables (I realize the fish is not vegetarian/vegan) and are far healthier. The speaker also said that if you could stop and check every American man over 80 years old, about half would turn out to have prostate cancer. He said the disease is heavily linked to diet.
This is interesting. But are there genetic markers that could also play a role here? Because there are more differences that just diet to a culture, when looking at a global perspective. Race might also have some role. There are some diseases that are more likely in some races than others. There are not a lot of Caucasian cultures that do not include meat.
That being said, I have no idea what percentage the makeup of races are in the USA, and how his 50% of the 80 year old men would apply to that. What portion of the 50% who had cancer were Caucasian? What percent were of African decent? Asian? Etc.
The speaker at that conference addressed your points. He said research showed that when men from cultures that did not eat a typical western diet of red meat and diary began to eat that diet (for example, Japanese who moved to the United States), they developed prostate cancer at the same rate as men in the west. He cited longterm research. His name was Dr. Gellman at the Lombardi Cancer Center/Georgetown Hospital in DC.
Also adding that cancer strikes all races of people. Humanity doesn't have a particular race or group of races who are almost immune to the disease.
One of the biggest problems with these studies are detection methods and comparative lifestyles as there are simply too many non-quantifiable variables at play. People in the Western world have greater access to medical services and regular check ups, so the simple fact that we get checked increases our percentage of cancer. We also generally live longer and take regular census. Meat eating is generally an indicator of prosperity, so simply having the option of how you source your protein is a luxury.
Protein is protein. Our body recognizes and metabolizes these using the same pathways.
Race plays a small factor, but as we all originate from the same common ancestor, the difference is non-existent when it comes to diet.
Cancer is nothing more than naughty cells not dying when they are programmed to. There are a multitude of various causes and it is impossible to attempt to determine causation on a large scale basis.1 -
mmmm saturated fat. delicious, and good for normal hormone production.2
-
If the human race was not meant to eat meat then we would have different teeth...and a different digestive system...and ability to raise livestock for food/hunt. Pretty sure our ancestors were called HUNTER-gatherers for a reason.3
-
If the human race was not meant to eat meat then we would have different teeth...and a different digestive system...and ability to raise livestock for food/hunt. Pretty sure our ancestors were called HUNTER-gatherers for a reason.
Our ancestors are called "hunter-gatherers" because that is what we (or some of us, anyway) have collectively decided to call them. We may be "meant" to eat meat (although I'm not sure whose intentions you are referring to), but that would be completely independent of what we call our ancestors.
3 -
If the human race was not meant to eat meat then we would have different teeth...and a different digestive system...and ability to raise livestock for food/hunt. Pretty sure our ancestors were called HUNTER-gatherers for a reason.
Humans haven't stopped evolving since the Paleolithic period. We can adapt to eat any diet that is most abundant in our surroundings. Do you really think meat and dairy as the focus for a meal, such as a traditional Western diet,are sustainable for 7 Billion people? Wouldn't plants, like unrefined grains, nuts, fruits, and vegetables, if nothing else, be more efficient and economic? The answer is already yes.
So what's better for our health? We can get everything we need from plants. We can also eat healthier. The only thing meat is is a quicker source of a complete protein. That's the only advantage it may have.
Is one protein source better? That depends. What hurts the human body (cholesterol, saturated fats, trans fats, carbs, etc.?) and how much of what hurts the body is in what we are eating?
I think for the healthiest diet, focusing on vegetables should be the main focus and everything else treated, at best, as a side dish. Meat isn't as important in our diet as many of us seem to think. Not to mention, how is most of it eaten and what is it paired with? Doesn't reducing the kind of meat we eat, making it leaner and eating less of it make us healthier? The Mediterranean diet and DASH diet, both diets for health not weight loss, have seen positive results for the majority of people that have done it. Both diets are low meat, highSo cutting out meat wouldn't make any difference to our health. However, cutting out vegetables would. I don't see how a plant protein could be any less valuable then meat. With all the nutrients and polyphenols that come with a plant protein package. It seems like they would be a healthy source to get protein.
1 -
I think for the healthiest diet, focusing on vegetables should be the main focus and everything else treated, at best, as a side dish. Meat isn't as important in our diet as many of us seem to think. Not to mention, how is most of it eaten and what is it paired with? Doesn't reducing the kind of meat we eat, making it leaner and eating less of it make us healthier? The Mediterranean diet and DASH diet, both diets for health not weight loss, have seen positive results for the majority of people that have done it. Both diets are low meat, highSo cutting out meat wouldn't make any difference to our health. However, cutting out vegetables would. I don't see how a plant protein could be any less valuable then meat. With all the nutrients and polyphenols that come with a plant protein package. It seems like they would be a healthy source to get protein.
Sorry, was in the middle of editing it when I had to run off and do something. Hit post thinking I was done.
*Both diets are low meat, high vegetable and whole grain.
0 -
viren19890 wrote: »OT Is anyone else seeing The Unknown Poster? Why is s/he there? Why is s/he always the last poster in this thread?singingflutelady wrote: »PennWalker wrote: »
Most likely a bug in coding which displays that error. If it were an actual person the comment won't be the last one all the time.
It's not last for me.
My understanding is that it's someone who is banned who doesn't know they are banned - like a sock puppet of a banned poster.1 -
goldthistime wrote: »I haven't read all the posts on this thread so apologies if this has already been stated but I've heard that the small difference in mortality between meat eaters and vegetarians is probably due to processed meat alone.
I heard that plus that the heavy meat eaters weren't eating a lot of veggies. So, it wasn't the presence of meat, but the absence of veggies.
Sorry, heard this on NPR years ago, no references.1 -
Vladimirnapkin wrote: »The trouble with human health studies is that they are population studies, while humans are individuals. That being said, I went vegan 20 years ago to avoid the heart disease that plagues my family. Genetics? Perhaps. All I know is that well into my 50s now, my cholesterol is still pretty low (160ish) while the rest of my family has high cholesterol. Will I avoid heart disease? Cancer? Maybe. It has certainly helped me to keep my weight down. I exercise a lot, too, which keeps my HDL high and my LDL low. While there are conflicting studies, I think the science is most supportive of a low animal protein diet.
Those of you saying that you felt bad on a vegan diet, I have to wonder what you were eating and whether you were getting enough calories. It can be difficult at first, but once you learn your way around, it gets pretty easy. Also, people need vastly less protein than they think.
I lived in vegetarian yoga communities that catered to vegans, ate lots of legumes, very little junk food, and had plenty of calories.
Many people were completely satisfied with the food. I was not one of them.
I do wholeheartedly support the principles behind veganism and wish it worked for me.
0 -
PennWalker wrote: »PennWalker wrote: »Many years ago, after my late husband was diagnosed with prostate cancer, we went to a seminar about the disease at Georgetown Hospital in Washington, DC. One of the speakers, my husband's oncologist at Georgetown's Lombardi Cancer Center, said research shows that men in who live in cultures that don't eat red meat and dairy (the typical western diet) rarely get the disease -- they eat soy products, rice, fish, and vegetables (I realize the fish is not vegetarian/vegan) and are far healthier. The speaker also said that if you could stop and check every American man over 80 years old, about half would turn out to have prostate cancer. He said the disease is heavily linked to diet.
This is interesting. But are there genetic markers that could also play a role here? Because there are more differences that just diet to a culture, when looking at a global perspective. Race might also have some role. There are some diseases that are more likely in some races than others. There are not a lot of Caucasian cultures that do not include meat.
That being said, I have no idea what percentage the makeup of races are in the USA, and how his 50% of the 80 year old men would apply to that. What portion of the 50% who had cancer were Caucasian? What percent were of African decent? Asian? Etc.
The speaker at that conference addressed your points. He said research showed that when men from cultures that did not eat a typical western diet of red meat and diary began to eat that diet (for example, Japanese who moved to the United States), they developed prostate cancer at the same rate as men in the west. He cited longterm research. His name was Dr. Gellman at the Lombardi Cancer Center/Georgetown Hospital in DC.
Also adding that cancer strikes all races of people. Humanity doesn't have a particular race or group of races who are almost immune to the disease.
One of the biggest problems with these studies are detection methods and comparative lifestyles as there are simply too many non-quantifiable variables at play. People in the Western world have greater access to medical services and regular check ups, so the simple fact that we get checked increases our percentage of cancer. We also generally live longer and take regular census. Meat eating is generally an indicator of prosperity, so simply having the option of how you source your protein is a luxury.
Protein is protein. Our body recognizes and metabolizes these using the same pathways.
Race plays a small factor, but as we all originate from the same common ancestor, the difference is non-existent when it comes to diet.
Cancer is nothing more than naughty cells not dying when they are programmed to. There are a multitude of various causes and it is impossible to attempt to determine causation on a large scale basis.
People tend to believe what they want to believe and look for an argument to support it. There are dozens of opinions about this subject.
The research at the Lombardi Cancer Center lecture I mentioned included people in Japan, who have good healthcare and good diets and plenty of prosperity.
I put in my time with cancer, about 14 years dealing with my husband's cancer, and have to agree with his doctors about the health problems in the western diet -- high cancer and heart disease you don't see among cultures that eat little dairy and red meat.
0 -
PennWalker wrote: »PennWalker wrote: »PennWalker wrote: »Many years ago, after my late husband was diagnosed with prostate cancer, we went to a seminar about the disease at Georgetown Hospital in Washington, DC. One of the speakers, my husband's oncologist at Georgetown's Lombardi Cancer Center, said research shows that men in who live in cultures that don't eat red meat and dairy (the typical western diet) rarely get the disease -- they eat soy products, rice, fish, and vegetables (I realize the fish is not vegetarian/vegan) and are far healthier. The speaker also said that if you could stop and check every American man over 80 years old, about half would turn out to have prostate cancer. He said the disease is heavily linked to diet.
This is interesting. But are there genetic markers that could also play a role here? Because there are more differences that just diet to a culture, when looking at a global perspective. Race might also have some role. There are some diseases that are more likely in some races than others. There are not a lot of Caucasian cultures that do not include meat.
That being said, I have no idea what percentage the makeup of races are in the USA, and how his 50% of the 80 year old men would apply to that. What portion of the 50% who had cancer were Caucasian? What percent were of African decent? Asian? Etc.
The speaker at that conference addressed your points. He said research showed that when men from cultures that did not eat a typical western diet of red meat and diary began to eat that diet (for example, Japanese who moved to the United States), they developed prostate cancer at the same rate as men in the west. He cited longterm research. His name was Dr. Gellman at the Lombardi Cancer Center/Georgetown Hospital in DC.
Also adding that cancer strikes all races of people. Humanity doesn't have a particular race or group of races who are almost immune to the disease.
One of the biggest problems with these studies are detection methods and comparative lifestyles as there are simply too many non-quantifiable variables at play. People in the Western world have greater access to medical services and regular check ups, so the simple fact that we get checked increases our percentage of cancer. We also generally live longer and take regular census. Meat eating is generally an indicator of prosperity, so simply having the option of how you source your protein is a luxury.
Protein is protein. Our body recognizes and metabolizes these using the same pathways.
Race plays a small factor, but as we all originate from the same common ancestor, the difference is non-existent when it comes to diet.
Cancer is nothing more than naughty cells not dying when they are programmed to. There are a multitude of various causes and it is impossible to attempt to determine causation on a large scale basis.
People tend to believe what they want to believe and look for an argument to support it. There are dozens of opinions about this subject.
The research at the Lombardi Cancer Center lecture I mentioned included people in Japan, who have good healthcare and good diets and plenty of prosperity.
I put in my time with cancer, about 14 years dealing with my husband's cancer, and have to agree with his doctors about the health problems in the western diet -- high cancer and heart disease you don't see among cultures that eat little dairy and red meat.
I am truly sorry to hear of your husband.
I am a cancer survivor as well - one of the many reasons I went into medicine.
Even in studies with the least amount of bias show at best a 0.09 heath/hazard ratio in red meat eaters...and that is only specific to colorectal cancer. The flaw in any study is lack of control over the population studied, so there is no control over physical activity, diet, genetic variation, stress, etc. - all the various environmental factors which may of may not have impact on the individual.1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Vladimirnapkin wrote: »The trouble with human health studies is that they are population studies, while humans are individuals. That being said, I went vegan 20 years ago to avoid the heart disease that plagues my family. Genetics? Perhaps. All I know is that well into my 50s now, my cholesterol is still pretty low (160ish) while the rest of my family has high cholesterol. Will I avoid heart disease? Cancer? Maybe. It has certainly helped me to keep my weight down. I exercise a lot, too, which keeps my HDL high and my LDL low. While there are conflicting studies, I think the science is most supportive of a low animal protein diet.
Those of you saying that you felt bad on a vegan diet, I have to wonder what you were eating and whether you were getting enough calories. It can be difficult at first, but once you learn your way around, it gets pretty easy. Also, people need vastly less protein than they think.
I lived in vegetarian yoga communities that catered to vegans, ate lots of legumes, very little junk food, and had plenty of calories.
Many people were completely satisfied with the food. I was not one of them.
I do wholeheartedly support the principles behind veganism and wish it worked for me.
Me too.
We were all vegan at my house for a while and mostly vegetarian in the years leading up to that. I feel sooo much healthier eating meat now. Perhaps if I'd done a better job at taking vitamins/supplements, and if I'd not fallen into a pattern of trying to fill the void with bread (delicious homemade bread, but still bread), I might have made it work. I had bad things happening at the same time that I can't disassociate, but my health suffered so much that I can't imagine trying it again. Respect for those who do though.0 -
The second article wasn't very compelling. Besides being a correlation study, the results of which could be totally meaningless if any confounding variable was not accounted for, three red flags for me:
1. The use of 95% CIs is common but it lends itself to a very high number of false positives. More compelling studies use 99% or 99.9%.
2. The effect was only very, very barely significant even at the low bar of a 95% CI.
3. The effect was seen only in certain subgroups but not others. Taken in conjunction with the other points, this suggests to me that it's a statistical anomaly.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions