Veggies vs Meat
Replies
-
Rocky, it is NOT a study. It was paid for the the beef and pork associations. This does not prove anything except that companies will act in their own intererst even if the result is deletarious to the public.0
-
Sorry, mea culpa, I was wrong about one thing I said. I said that the organizations that paid for this meta analysis were not disclosed. They were:
"Supported in part by the Cattlemen's Beef Board, through the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and the National Pork Board."
No wonder it was ignored. This analysis is worthless.
Are studies that show negative health consequences of meat free of bias?
I don't know of any that were paid for by vegetarian organizations. All people have biases, but again, THIS IS NOT A STUDY. This is a meta analysis. This is an opionion about previous studies, nothing more. And yes, if you want I will stipupulate that the beef industry disagrees with my point of view. I would hardly call that "mixed data," "Mixed opinions," maybe.0 -
I goofed by prematurely posting this. I hope my repair works.
My little personal litany was meant to point out that people have different thresholds for what compels them into action. For me, mixed evidence is worth listening to, since nothing can be proven as fact, anyway. So, each of us is given the task to make the best sense of this messy research, which seems to refute itself every day. I take the 'where there's smoke there's fire' approach.
This is not saying you are wrong and I am right. It's merely a nod to differences in opinion.
Agreed. I posted earlier in this topic that observational research was "interesting food for thought." One of the problems we face is that nutritional science is still very new compared to other forms of medical science, little of what we know is concrete. My personal opinion is that the more we learn, the more we find out that Grandma's nutritional advice was pretty much true.0 -
Rocky, it is NOT a study. It was paid for the the beef and pork associations. This does not prove anything except that companies will act in their own intererst even if the result is deletarious to the public.
Ok, I'll site specific studies. Again, my point is not to say that any one study conclusively proves any particular point, I'm simply pointing out that the data is not exclusively one-sided, as you are claiming.
-No benefits for vegetarians for colon cancer risk: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2395312/
-Processed meats may increase risk, but no evidence that red meat does: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/3/718
-No significant associations between consumption of meat and eggs and colorectal cancer risk: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11487265
-Same conclusion as above here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12835287
-Again, high consumption of meat not associated with risk: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10530608
-Meat consumption not associated with reoccurrence of colon cancer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15167213
-Consumption of meat and eggs show no influence on risk: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9212223
-little support for an association between meat consumption and colon cancer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/99502350 -
And here's my take.
I am 41, was raised and still live on a cattle, chicken, and large garden farm. We have over 500 head of cattle, 300,000 chickens and a 3 acre garden. This all supports 3 families (my family as well as my dads 2 brothers families).
The cattle live on 2700 acres which equals approximately 5.5 acres per animal at all times. They have 2 ponds and 3 creeks to drink from. The chickens live in 4 houses that are over 250 feet long by 40 feet wide and they are not in cages. They are free to walk, fly, eat, drink, roost, nest 24 hrs a day. The houses are also climate controlled to help with the heat of summer and cold of winter.
We do not give hormones or steroids to the cattle or chickens whatsoever. We do not put pesticides on the fields used for grazing. We use natural fertilizer ( manure from the chicken houses).
I know that there are "factory farms" out there that do not allow the animals any sort of life whatsoever. I totally disagree with that concept. Our animals live life to the fullest that they can. It is possible to farm animals humanely.
My family and I are meat eaters and always will be. That being said, we love our vegetables too. My 4 and 6 year old kids love broccoli! But they also love beef, chicken, pork and venison. Yes we like to hunt as well. People have been doing it since the beginning of time and will continue to do so. Hunting, to some families, puts meat in the freezer to help provide food thru the winter.Ever heard of Hunters for the Hungry? They provide food for many less fortunate families that are very appreciative of the meat they receive, trust me one this.
I totally have nothing against those who don't eat meat, more power to them if they can do so and be healthy. To each their own. Just know that not all farms are like the ones on that show. Our family has been farming for many generations and hopefully will be able to continue to do so.
There is an old saying that comes to mind, " I didn't climb to the top of the food chain to eat vegetables".
Please visit your local Farmer's Market every chance you get!!0 -
Okay, Rocky, now we are getting somewhere. Let's start with
-No benefits for vegetarians for colon cancer risk: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2395312/
This is a good study, but as the researchers themselves pointed out, the incidence of colon cancer was so small th the result is suspect:
"The present analysis did not find a significant difference in risk between nonvegetarians and vegetarians. Furthermore, no increase in risk of colorectal cancer was seen with higher meat consumption among nonvegetarians. Nevertheless, the lack of statistical association may reflect the relative small number of cases. A previous analysis of mortality in this cohort (Appleby et al, 2002) showed similar death rates for colorectal cancer in vegetarians and non-vegetarians based on 25 and 24 deaths from colorectal cancer, respectively. However, in a prospective investigation of Seventh-day Adventists (Singh and Fraser, 1998), cancer of the colon was significantly more common in non-vegetarians than in vegetarians. It could be suggested that the nonvegetarians in our study represent a healthy group compared with the population at large, and that this might account for the lack of difference between the vegetarians and non-vegetarians; however, the SIR among non-vegetarians was exactly one."
But nonetheless, you are right. This does show a mixture of facts, and indicates the vegetarian diet does not confer any health benefits, even though the researchers themselves who did this study don't seem to believe the results.
Next:
-Processed meats may increase risk, but no evidence that red meat does: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/3/718
Very strange study, and one that flies in the face of a much larger one that I posted above. However, again we have a problem with who is paying for the study.
"Supported by the Dutch Cancer Society and the Commodity Board for live stock and meat."
'Nuff said.
Next,
-No significant associations between consumption of meat and eggs and colorectal cancer risk: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11487265
This is a very confusing study, or rather, abstract. This was an ecological study of 9,959 Finns, followed apparently from 1967 to 1972 (starting) to 1999. Of this population, 109 new colorectal cancer cases were found by late 1999. THE STUDY FOUND THAT "HIGH CHOLESTEROL INTAKE WAS ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED RISK FOR COLORECTAL CANCERS" even though "total fat intake of saturated, monounsaturated, or polyunsaturated fatty acids were NOT significantly associated with cancer risk." Of course, there are sources of vegetable fat, but no vegetable has cholesterol. So all of the danger in this study by necessity had to come from animal fat,even though oddly and unbelieveably the study only found a "nonsignificant" association between consumption of meat and eggs and colorectal cancer risk."
Unbelieveable! Cholersterol does NOT come from plants, therefore there had to be a significant association between eating of meat and eggs and risk of colorectal cancer! There is no way around that. These researchers did not know what they were doing.
Okay, enough for now. I will be back for the rest of your studies.0 -
Okay, Rocky, now we are getting somewhere. Let's start with
-No benefits for vegetarians for colon cancer risk: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2395312/
This is a good study, but as the researchers themselves pointed out, the incidence of colon cancer was so small th the result is suspect:
"The present analysis did not find a significant difference in risk between nonvegetarians and vegetarians. Furthermore, no increase in risk of colorectal cancer was seen with higher meat consumption among nonvegetarians. Nevertheless, the lack of statistical association may reflect the relative small number of cases. A previous analysis of mortality in this cohort (Appleby et al, 2002) showed similar death rates for colorectal cancer in vegetarians and non-vegetarians based on 25 and 24 deaths from colorectal cancer, respectively. However, in a prospective investigation of Seventh-day Adventists (Singh and Fraser, 1998), cancer of the colon was significantly more common in non-vegetarians than in vegetarians. It could be suggested that the nonvegetarians in our study represent a healthy group compared with the population at large, and that this might account for the lack of difference between the vegetarians and non-vegetarians; however, the SIR among non-vegetarians was exactly one."
But nonetheless, you are right. This does show a mixture of facts, and indicates the vegetarian diet does not confer any health benefits, even though the researchers themselves who did this study don't seem to believe the results.
Next:
-Processed meats may increase risk, but no evidence that red meat does: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/3/718
Very strange study, and one that flies in the face of a much larger one that I posted above. However, again we have a problem with who is paying for the study.
"Supported by the Dutch Cancer Society and the Commodity Board for live stock and meat."
'Nuff said.
Next,
-No significant associations between consumption of meat and eggs and colorectal cancer risk: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11487265
This is a very confusing study, or rather, abstract. This was an ecological study of 9,959 Finns, followed apparently from 1967 to 1972 (starting) to 1999. Of this population, 109 new colorectal cancer cases were found by late 1999. THE STUDY FOUND THAT "HIGH CHOLESTEROL INTAKE WAS ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED RISK FOR COLORECTAL CANCERS" even though "total fat intake of saturated, monounsaturated, or polyunsaturated fatty acids were NOT significantly associated with cancer risk." Of course, there are sources of vegetable fat, but no vegetable has cholesterol. So all of the danger in this study by necessity had to come from animal fat,even though oddly and unbelieveably the study only found a "nonsignificant" association between consumption of meat and eggs and colorectal cancer risk."
Unbelieveable! Cholersterol does NOT come from plants, therefore there had to be a significant association between eating of meat and eggs and risk of colorectal cancer! There is no way around that. These researchers did not know what they were doing.
Okay, enough for now. I will be back for the rest of your studies.
I'm sure one can poke holes in every study I posted, just as you can poke holes in ANY STUDY. Again, the only point I am making is that you assertion that the data is not mixed is incorrect.0 -
Oh, I can't resist. This is just too interesting. Thank you for doing this leg work . Next,
Same conclusion as above here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12835287
Unfortunately, the authors concluded their abstract with the sentence, "This study provided no evidence of an association between either meat or fat (or any of their subtypes) and colorectal cancer incidence, but the authors cannot rule out the possibility of a modest association."
My guess is these guys are not comfortable with their statistics.
-Again, high consumption of meat not associated with risk: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10530608
The conclusion here is not what you said:
"In this cohort of men consuming a diet high in fat, meat, and fiber and low in vegetables, high calcium intake was associated with lowered risk of colorectal cancer." This was a study of the effect of calcium on cancer risk, and we don't know if the cohort's "lower" risk due to intaking calcium was enough to bring the risk below the normal population or merely the risk of other meat eaters who did not take calcium. Calcium was what was being controlled for."
-Meat consumption not associated with reoccurrence of colon cancer:
This study proves nothing since you are already dealing with a population that has had cancer, chemotherapy etc, This is not a random study and says nothing about the general population.
-Consumption of meat and eggs show no influence on risk: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9212223
This is merely a revisit of the recurrance study above, only four years later. Again it proves nothing about the general population.
-little support for an association between meat consumption and colon cancer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9950235
This is a very weak study done with questionaires. Again its conclusions are not what you said. This was a study of meat eating with relationship to specific carcinogen-metabolizing genes NAT2 and GSTM1. This was focused not on meat eating causing increased risk of cancer in a general population but rather it focused on how the meat was prepared and controled for that. I don't think, without reading the entire study, that it says anything about meat eating and risk of colon cancer.
Anyway, Rocky, you should be very happy. You showed that there were studies out there that showed there was no risk of eating meat, studies I was totally unaware of. Congratulations. However, these are very weak poor studies, many of which were paid for by the meat industry and which seem to be primarily focused on Finns. Nonetheless you are right. However, you still haven't shown me any studies that shows meat-eating cures colorectal cancer or lowers the risk of it.0 -
However, you still haven't shown me any studies that shows meat-eating cures colorectal cancer or lowers the risk of it.
I never made such a claim0 -
However, you still haven't shown me any studies that shows meat-eating cures colorectal cancer or lowers the risk of it.
I never made such a claim
No you didn't. But I claim my studies show that there is a correlation between meat eating and colon cancer. What you said was, that the studies came to different conflcting conclusions, and you were absolutely right. I have never seen such studies before, and I am sure that some or all of them were bought and paid for by the meat industry.
You seem an intelligent guy. Take a hard look at studies on both sides and see which ones seem credible.0 -
As I said before, we truly can eat everything, just as a mouse can eat meat, but a true carnivore like a lion will never get occluded arteries or heart disease in the wild. The mouse and us will.
Can you provide evidence of us getting heart disease in the wild? I'm not doubting you, but I would like to see a link. Thanks!
Okay, I think either you misunderstood what I was saying, or I didn't say it very well. As far as I know, humans "in the wild" have a healthier existence than humans in modern industrial societies. I don't know if there are any studies on that population with respect to heart disease, but I suspect if there were, it would show little or no heart disease. Probably the closest you will ever get to that is the China study, where people spend a huge portion of their time just getting enough food to subsist. In the China study, heart disease was virtually non-existent. That population as stated earlier, is well over 90% vegetarian.
I know there have been studies of tribal societies in Borneo and New Guinea ( I don't have any in front of me at the moment) and these studies show that as tribal cultures adopt Western ways their health deteriorates signficantly. They start succumbing to diseases, such as colon cancer and heart disease that were never a problem in their society previously.
There also have been controlled studies done on mice and other animals which were force-fed cholesterol. The animals in that experiment which were normally vegetarian developed the diseases you would expect. The carnivores in that experiment did not develop heart disease even when they were fed HUNDREDS of times more cholesterol than they would normally get.
No, I didn't misunderstand and I did read everything. I just wondered where you got that from. What about the Inuits and people who subsist on fat/meat?
Also, mice being force-fed cholesterol... what form of it? Force-fed doesn't seem to equate to eating meat in the wild.0 -
[/quote]I didn't agree with your interpretation of what she said regarding correlation. The fact is RexEatsHisVeggies, that no amount of rearranging statistical terms will make correlation=causation. She said you generally can't have causation without correlation, which is absolutely true. You can have correlation without causation, all the time, we see it everyday.
No, actually she said just the opposite. She said, 'whenever I see correlation I expect there to be causation." Of course that does not mean there is always causation. But this is beating a dead horse. You cannot ignore an ecological study where thousands of people were followed for years, and then turn around and claim that the anecdotal studies you seem to follow are superior. There are not only numerous studies showing the same thing over and over, some of which are controlled and some of which are ecological, but there are NO STUDIES that contradict these findings. And this has been true for decades.
I'm still too busy to respond to the other points, crazy things going on, looking forward to throwing a few counter arguments into the forum in a couple of days.
Also, I had no idea that the vegan ethic extended all the way to insects but I guess that make senses if you're a vegan.
Some vegans do have great concern for insects,some don't
Does it apply to micro organisms too? I'm not being a Smart A, just curious. Doesn't the broom kill insects?
I don't know about the broom. I can only speak for myself and my concern only extends to sentient beings.
If she expects to see causation when there is correlation then I really hope she is not and never is a research scientist.
Agreed, horse is well and truly dead on this one. LOL
Seriously Veggie, you're arguing like a politician. The original discussion was around the value of the conclusions drawn from the correlations found in the China Study. The scientific support for a Paleo diet has little relevance to that and you know it. As I said, I included numerous links to studies supporting aspects of Paleo eating which you claim are anecdotal. Cordain's paper that I linked to included 130 or so citations and discussed electron microscopy images of animal jaw bones with scrape marks on them from stone tools.
You can find it here in case you didn't read it last time:
http://crossfitbirmingham.ning.com/forum/topics/the-protein-debate-loren
Observational studies are not the only way to determine the truth. Other posters have raised how it's not ethical to experiment on humans, I agree and I have mentioned the same issue. However, what I want to hear about is a MECHANISM, a physical explanation for how intake of X --> Y. That is one of the criticism of Campbell's work on the China Study he made many claims based on his correlations but very few suggestions of possible mechanisms. The mechanism can be tested, experiments can be performed and verified proving the mechanism (as much as possible). As I've said ad nauseum, anything else is skipping steps of the scientific method. The studies are merely the observations, science is replete with examples of observations leading to conclusions that turned out to be totally and utterly wrong. Hell, the entire scientific community thought we nearly understood everything but a few niggles here and there and that was before Relativity and Quantum Theory!
Veggie, you state the composition of our ancestral diet like it's a fact when it is not. There are huge assumptions made and many argue for a different composition, it's not an open and shut case like you seem to claim.
Also, many of those meat and fat studies have a major failing. They use factory farmed meat, processed oils, often a lot of trans fats. The Primal/Paleo diet calls for grass fed meat which have a very different fatty acid profile as game meat also does. Grass = omega 3 --> Cow --> human. If grass fed meat can't be found then lean meats are used and fats are replaced with healthier options like coconut oil. In fact, a major factor of any of the Paleo diets is a major shift towards increased omega 3 intake.
As I said, sadly there are no studies comparing those that follow a Paleo/Primal diet to those eating say the SAD or other options like vegan. That would be REALLY interesting.0 -
As I said before, we truly can eat everything, just as a mouse can eat meat, but a true carnivore like a lion will never get occluded arteries or heart disease in the wild. The mouse and us will.
Can you provide evidence of us getting heart disease in the wild? I'm not doubting you, but I would like to see a link. Thanks!
Okay, I think either you misunderstood what I was saying, or I didn't say it very well. As far as I know, humans "in the wild" have a healthier existence than humans in modern industrial societies. I don't know if there are any studies on that population with respect to heart disease, but I suspect if there were, it would show little or no heart disease. Probably the closest you will ever get to that is the China study, where people spend a huge portion of their time just getting enough food to subsist. In the China study, heart disease was virtually non-existent. That population as stated earlier, is well over 90% vegetarian.
I know there have been studies of tribal societies in Borneo and New Guinea ( I don't have any in front of me at the moment) and these studies show that as tribal cultures adopt Western ways their health deteriorates signficantly. They start succumbing to diseases, such as colon cancer and heart disease that were never a problem in their society previously.
There also have been controlled studies done on mice and other animals which were force-fed cholesterol. The animals in that experiment which were normally vegetarian developed the diseases you would expect. The carnivores in that experiment did not develop heart disease even when they were fed HUNDREDS of times more cholesterol than they would normally get.
Those studies of tribal societies and their deteriorating health are interesting and telling but you can't necessarily blame it on meat. When they adopt a Western diet they also pick up things like twinkies, bread, vegetable oils etc. In other words, grain and sugar and corn oils and so on.0 -
I said the data was mixed, you also said that there are "zero studies showing the opposite."
Will you admit that you were wrong, and that the data is mixed?
I never said that there were studies that showed that meat consumption PREVENTS colon cancer, and I didn't say anything about heart disease. I said that the data on meat causing colon cancer was mixed, you said that there were "hundreds of studies" showing a link between meat and colon cancer and "zero studies showing the opposite."
I already showed you an example of a study that shows no link between meat consumption and colon cancer, and I'll post it again: http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2009/03/04/ajcn.2008.26838.abstract
Now, will you admit that you were wrong and that the data is mixed?
First, there are several things wrong with this "study."
1. It is not a study, it is a "meta-analysis." A meta analysis takes studies that have been done and examines them trying to reach an overall conclusion. It contributes no new data, and relies upon taking studies which were done at different times and different places with different premesis and perports to summarize all the data. In other words this is nothing more than the glorified opinion of the authors as to what previous studies were relevant for this meta analysis, and which were not, and for that matter that these studies were even susceptable of being compared.
2. I only read the abstract but the author did not set out his criteria for selecting studies, or even name the studies that were analyzed, or the methods used for analysis.
3. The organization that produced this meta-analysis is located in Houston Texas, the center of the meat industry. Unlike most such works on a controversial subject such as this, funders and connections with industry was not disclosed. I strongly suspect this is an analysis by the meat industry, paid for by the meat industry.
4. This paper has only been cited three times since 2009. I only managed to pull up one citation, and it was a citatiion not in any way relevent to the main topic. Three citations on a paper that purports to show that hundreds of studies as well as conventional wisdom, and the advice of most Western Countries Health organizations are all wrong would have been cited hundreds of times by now if it were worth anything.
Since this is NOT a study, important information is NOT disclosed, and the paper has been pretty much ignored by scientists working in the field of cancer, I would say this meta-analysis proves nothing.
I think we all know what a meta analysis is Veggie. There is nothing wrong with it in concept, in fact, it can be a good thing. By defining criteria and selecting studies that meat that criteria you create a larger more statistically significant pool of data. Ever heard of a cochrane review? Saying that, the fact that this one was funded by a organization so tied to meat production makes it suspect. I should mention that this concern applies to A LOT of studies. The money has to come from somewhere, often it's from organizations that represent a conflict of interest.
I do find it interesting that you mention a conflict of interest in this study but yet you posted a reference to an article on the PETA site in the old thread...
btw, back on the China Study. Here is a graph showing meat consumption in various provinces studied:
http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/animal_protein_intake.jpg
http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/percent_cals_from_fat.jpg
http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/fiber.jpg
http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/mi_and_chd.jpg
http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/stomach_cancer.jpg
Although these graphs pick on just a few piece of data it's interesting nonetheless. If there was causation why doesn't it apply in these cases? Perhaps a confounding variable?
In fact, you should read this post which pulls the China Study data apart:
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/0 -
As I said before, we truly can eat everything, just as a mouse can eat meat, but a true carnivore like a lion will never get occluded arteries or heart disease in the wild. The mouse and us will.
Can you provide evidence of us getting heart disease in the wild? I'm not doubting you, but I would like to see a link. Thanks!
Okay, I think either you misunderstood what I was saying, or I didn't say it very well. As far as I know, humans "in the wild" have a healthier existence than humans in modern industrial societies. I don't know if there are any studies on that population with respect to heart disease, but I suspect if there were, it would show little or no heart disease. Probably the closest you will ever get to that is the China study, where people spend a huge portion of their time just getting enough food to subsist. In the China study, heart disease was virtually non-existent. That population as stated earlier, is well over 90% vegetarian.
I know there have been studies of tribal societies in Borneo and New Guinea ( I don't have any in front of me at the moment) and these studies show that as tribal cultures adopt Western ways their health deteriorates signficantly. They start succumbing to diseases, such as colon cancer and heart disease that were never a problem in their society previously.
There also have been controlled studies done on mice and other animals which were force-fed cholesterol. The animals in that experiment which were normally vegetarian developed the diseases you would expect. The carnivores in that experiment did not develop heart disease even when they were fed HUNDREDS of times more cholesterol than they would normally get.
No, I didn't misunderstand and I did read everything. I just wondered where you got that from. What about the Inuits and people who subsist on fat/meat?
Also, mice being force-fed cholesterol... what form of it? Force-fed doesn't seem to equate to eating meat in the wild.
Okay, the Inuit. Now I see where you are going. See:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/6/1182.full.pdf
The Inuit did not eat red meat. Period. They ate plenty of seafood, and when they started to take on a Western diet, they started getting Western diseases. If your point is that not all people "in the wild" ate plants as the main part of their diet, I agree. The vast majority did however. The Inuit are an unusual exception because of the place where they live. Over the centuries they may have developed traits that helped them survive on the diet they are eating. I would not claim that they are typical or proof that eating lots of fat won't kill you.0 -
If she expects to see causation when there is correlation then I really hope she is not and never is a research scientist. Agreed, horse is well and truly dead on this one. LOL
I never said that. What she said was that generally, but not always, when you see a correlation, that is EVIDENCE of causality. Of course, you have to check other possible causes, and see if you have accounted for all other reasonable possiblities.
Seriously Veggie, you're arguing like a politician. The original discussion was around the value of the conclusions drawn from the correlations found in the China Study.
The China Study was massive, and I believe, unless you can point out some obvious errors, which I already know you can't, that it is very convincing. Hundreds of other studies also back this up. Of course then there are the studies funded by the meat and dairy association, and those dealing with specific small populations such as Inuits and Lapplanders, which in my opinon, do not have general applicability to other populations.
The scientific support for a Paleo diet has little relevance to that and you know it.
No but it has relevance to this discussion. You entered the previous thread demanding hard studies to back up vegetarians' choice of diet. The demand for hard scientific proof came from YOU. So we gave you plenty of studies, but your objection to all of them was the same. Correlation does not mean causation. So it is not at all unfair for us to demand studies from you that meet your own criteria. So far I have seen nothing from you where you have showed me anything like the solid proof you are demanding. Therefore, I have to believe you are being disingenuous
As I said, I included numerous links to studies supporting aspects of Paleo eating which you claim are anecdotal. Cordain's paper that I linked to included 130 or so citations and discussed electron microscopy images of animal jaw bones with scrape marks on them from stone tools.
It is anecdotal because it deals with specific individuals, case studies. They have some value but certainly do not provide the kind of proof you are demanding from us.
You can find it here in case you didn't read it last time:
http://crossfitbirmingham.ning.com/forum/topics/the-protein-debate-loren
Observational studies are not the only way to determine the truth. Other posters have raised how it's not ethical to experiment on humans, I agree and I have mentioned the same issue. However, what I want to hear about is a MECHANISM, a physical explanation for how intake of X --> Y.
That was well beyond the perview of the study, and you know it.
That is one of the criticism of Campbell's work on the China Study he made many claims based on his correlations but very few suggestions of possible mechanisms. The mechanism can be tested, experiments can be performed and verified proving the mechanism (as much as possible).
One of the studies I cited, and I forget which one did provide such mechanisms. It found that eating meat causes carcinogenic chemicals to be produced in the intestines.
As I've said ad nauseum, anything else is skipping steps of the scientific method. The studies are merely the observations, science is replete with examples of observations leading to conclusions that turned out to be totally and utterly wrong. Hell, the entire scientific community thought we nearly understood everything but a few niggles here and there and that was before Relativity and Quantum Theory!
So how do your studies meet the scientific method?
Veggie, you state the composition of our ancestral diet like it's a fact when it is not. There are huge assumptions made and many argue for a different composition, it's not an open and shut case like you seem to claim.
Of course. Like your information it is anecdotal. However, I have additional evidence. OUR PHYSIOLOGY. Our mandibular structure is herbovore, our dentition is herbovore our intestines are herbovore. Evolution has provided contempory evidence of ancient plant eaters. We don't really need to rely upon anecdotal information.
Also, many of those meat and fat studies have a major failing. They use factory farmed meat, processed oils, often a lot of trans fats. The Primal/Paleo diet calls for grass fed meat which have a very different fatty acid profile as game meat also does. Grass = omega 3 --> Cow --> human. If grass fed meat can't be found then lean meats are used and fats are replaced with healthier options like coconut oil. In fact, a major factor of any of the Paleo diets is a major shift towards increased omega 3 intake.
This is all speculation and based on nothing, as far as I can tell. Your speculation as to what the ancient diet was, like mine is anecdotal. But I have physiology to back me up. You do not.
As I said, sadly there are no studies comparing those that follow a Paleo/Primal diet to those eating say the SAD or other options like vegan. That would be REALLY interesting.0 -
I think we all know what a meta analysis is Veggie. There is nothing wrong with it in concept, in fact, it can be a good thing. By defining criteria and selecting studies that meat that criteria you create a larger more statistically significant pool of data. Ever heard of a cochrane review? Saying that, the fact that this one was funded by a organization so tied to meat production makes it suspect. I should mention that this concern applies to A LOT of studies. The money has to come from somewhere, often it's from organizations that represent a conflict of interest.
I do find it interesting that you mention a conflict of interest in this study but yet you posted a reference to an article on the PETA site in the old thread...
Yes I did, but that was not a study funded by PETA. It was a synopsis of other studies, none of which had funding in any way connected with PETA. Of course PETA is interested in studied that prove them correct.
btw, back on the China Study. Here is a graph showing meat consumption in various provinces studied:
http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/animal_protein_intake.jpg
http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/percent_cals_from_fat.jpg
http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/fiber.jpg
http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/mi_and_chd.jpg
http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/stomach_cancer.jpg
Although these graphs pick on just a few piece of data it's interesting nonetheless. If there was causation why doesn't it apply in these cases? Perhaps a confounding variable?
What exactly do you think this proves?
In fact, you should read this post which pulls the China Study data apart:
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/
Okay, I may in fact read this, but I am not going to now, because after reading the introduction, this seems to be nothing more than someone, who may or may not have an axe to grind, who is reviewing this as a hobby. Not that I have any problem with that, but I like real studies where people have peer review and methodology checking. This is some guy's weekend project, and I am not going to be his peer reviewer.0 -
Okay, the Inuit. Now I see where you are going. See:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/6/1182.full.pdf
The Inuit did not eat red meat. Period. They ate plenty of seafood, and when they started to take on a Western diet, they started getting Western diseases. If your point is that not all people "in the wild" ate plants as the main part of their diet, I agree. The vast majority did however. The Inuit are an unusual exception because of the place where they live. Over the centuries they may have developed traits that helped them survive on the diet they are eating. I would not claim that they are typical or proof that eating lots of fat won't kill you.
Oh, so now it's the fat that will kill you? I thought you were claiming animal protein was the culprit? Fat is a whole other err... animal.
Do you believe it's the animal protein that's bad or the fat that comes along with it or both?0 -
Okay, the Inuit. Now I see where you are going. See:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/6/1182.full.pdf
The Inuit did not eat red meat. Period. They ate plenty of seafood, and when they started to take on a Western diet, they started getting Western diseases. If your point is that not all people "in the wild" ate plants as the main part of their diet, I agree. The vast majority did however. The Inuit are an unusual exception because of the place where they live. Over the centuries they may have developed traits that helped them survive on the diet they are eating. I would not claim that they are typical or proof that eating lots of fat won't kill you.
Oh, so now it's the fat that will kill you? I thought you were claiming animal protein was the culprit? Fat is a whole other err... animal.
Do you believe it's the animal protein that's bad or the fat that comes along with it or both?
Both. Animal protein causes Osteoporosis. Fat and Cholesterol cause heart disease.0 -
Both. Animal protein causes Osteoporosis. Fat and Cholesterol cause heart disease.
I disagree on both. The first is a misunderstanding of the available evidence. The common understanding is that a diet high protein causes increased urinary calcium excretion, which it does. However, that doesn't mean calcium is being "leached" from the bones as is often claimed. This meta analysis does a good job of explaining this.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1359/jbmr.090515/full
The second is far far more complex than the simple model understood by the "man in the street" and often recited by your average GP. For a good analysis of the Lipid Hypothesis, it's history etc. read Taube's book, Good Calories Bad Calories. I'm skeptical about his weight loss claims since his insulin theory is as old as the hills and metabolic ward studies don't show any metabolic benefit to LC diets, but his chapters on the Lipid Hypothesis are fascinating, especially the history of how it developed, became political and entered the mainstream. Worth a read, it's on the kindle if you have one.0 -
I disagree on both. The first is a misunderstanding of the available evidence. The common understanding is that a diet high protein causes increased urinary calcium excretion, which it does. However, that doesn't mean calcium is being "leached" from the bones as is often claimed. This meta analysis does a good job of explaining this.
I have mentioned the Framingham study many times, and to my knowledge, it is definitive on this sujbect. Here is a cite to the Framingham study, probably the largest ever done on this topic, and also this study has been cited hundreds of times, making it the definitive study on the subject.:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1359/jbmr.2000.15.12.2504/full
As for meta analysis I think you know my opinion about them. They are, from my point of view too difficult and too time consuming to verify, one tiny mistake including the wrong article or selecting articles that have no business being included, can result in a horrible conclusion that is extremely difficult to undermine.0 -
Your meta study did not say what you said it did. First, it considered a population with 68 grams per day dietary protein intake. The average American protein intake per day is over 100 grams.
http://links.nephron.com/nephsites/adp/protein_ckd.htm
This is undoubtedly due to a meat centered diet. And also, this latter citation makes clear that there are adverse effects on other organs as well (e.g., kidney.) Here is what your meta-analysis said:
These studies, when considered together, suggest that adequate protein nutriture is required for bone health. Metabolic studies showing that high intakes of protein may have an adverse consequence on calcium balance have all been of short-term duration. It remains unclear what the long-term influences of protein intake and its possible acid load have on bone. It may well be that only extreme excess protein intake or deficient protein intake may be deleterious yet uncommon problems in human populations. Our results suggest that within the normal variation in dietary protein of this population of elders low protein intake is associated with BMD loss, while higher (normal) protein intake is associated with reduced bone loss or with maintenance of BMD.
This meta analysis of the Framingham Study and two other studies (which I have not read) proves nothing. It does not define what "extreme excess protein intake" is, and I haven't got the time to follow their statistics with regard to how they lined these three studies up. I would of course have to read the two other studies as well.0 -
I disagree on both. The first is a misunderstanding of the available evidence. The common understanding is that a diet high protein causes increased urinary calcium excretion, which it does. However, that doesn't mean calcium is being "leached" from the bones as is often claimed. This meta analysis does a good job of explaining this.
I have mentioned the Framingham study many times, and to my knowledge, it is definitive on this sujbect. Here is a cite to the Framingham study, probably the largest ever done on this topic, and also this study has been cited hundreds of times, making it the definitive study on the subject.:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1359/jbmr.2000.15.12.2504/full
As for meta analysis I think you know my opinion about them. They are, from my point of view too difficult and too time consuming to verify, one tiny mistake including the wrong article or selecting articles that have no business being included, can result in a horrible conclusion that is extremely difficult to undermine.
I skimmed that link and this is what I found:Even after controlling for known confounders including weight loss, women and men with relatively lower protein intake had increased bone loss, suggesting that protein intake is important in maintaining bone or minimizing bone loss in elderly persons. Further, higher intake of animal protein does not appear to affect the skeleton adversely in this elderly population
Also, this paper focused on bone loss in the elderly, a slightly different topic.
On Meta Analysis, all studies are hard, with the risk of missing confounding variables being an ever present threat. Meta Analysis can be a powerful tool to help eliminate some of the unknown mistakes made in individual studies by combining a lot of similar studies into a more statistically significant population. Of course there is potential for mistakes to be made but to ignore meta analysis based on that alone suggests that you should ignore all studies.0 -
Your meta study did not say what you said it did. First, it considered a population with 68 grams per day dietary protein intake. The average American protein intake per day is over 100 grams.
http://links.nephron.com/nephsites/adp/protein_ckd.htm
This is undoubtedly due to a meat centered diet. And also, this latter citation makes clear that there are adverse effects on other organs as well (e.g., kidney.) Here is what your meta-analysis said:
These studies, when considered together, suggest that adequate protein nutriture is required for bone health. Metabolic studies showing that high intakes of protein may have an adverse consequence on calcium balance have all been of short-term duration. It remains unclear what the long-term influences of protein intake and its possible acid load have on bone. It may well be that only extreme excess protein intake or deficient protein intake may be deleterious yet uncommon problems in human populations. Our results suggest that within the normal variation in dietary protein of this population of elders low protein intake is associated with BMD loss, while higher (normal) protein intake is associated with reduced bone loss or with maintenance of BMD.
This meta analysis of the Framingham Study and two other studies (which I have not read) proves nothing. It does not define what "extreme excess protein intake" is, and I haven't got the time to follow their statistics with regard to how they lined these three studies up. I would of course have to read the two other studies as well.
Actually, you're quoting the study you posted a link to, not mine.
The point is, it's not an open and shut case that increased animal protein = bone loss. In fact, there are quite a few studies that show differently (two of which are linked to in this thread).
We should tackle fat next, that's really interesting. 0 -
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/
Okay, I may in fact read this, but I am not going to now, because after reading the introduction, this seems to be nothing more than someone, who may or may not have an axe to grind, who is reviewing this as a hobby. Not that I have any problem with that, but I like real studies where people have peer review and methodology checking. This is some guy's weekend project, and I am not going to be his peer reviewer.
She is just like you or me (although she is currently studying and has more spare time lol). She read the China Study and raised some good points about the data. So much so that Campbell felt the need to respond to her. You don't have to read it like it's a peer reviewed paper but read it and consider her arguments. I did so with the PETA site you sent me.0 -
She is just like you or me (although she is currently studying and has more spare time lol). She read the China Study and raised some good points about the data. So much so that Campbell felt the need to respond to her. You don't have to read it like it's a peer reviewed paper but read it and consider her arguments. I did so with the PETA site you sent me.
Can you give me a cite to Campbell's response?0 -
She is just like you or me (although she is currently studying and has more spare time lol). She read the China Study and raised some good points about the data. So much so that Campbell felt the need to respond to her. You don't have to read it like it's a peer reviewed paper but read it and consider her arguments. I did so with the PETA site you sent me.
Can you give me a cite to Campbell's response?
http://tynan.com/chinastudyresponse
I should be fair and say a blogger asked him to address her post. Which he did, in fairly condescending way I might add. Regardless, he could have focused more on the stats and less on her lack of credentials but I'll give him this, at least he responded, many people in his position would not have.0 -
As I said before, we truly can eat everything, just as a mouse can eat meat, but a true carnivore like a lion will never get occluded arteries or heart disease in the wild. The mouse and us will.
Can you provide evidence of us getting heart disease in the wild? I'm not doubting you, but I would like to see a link. Thanks!
Okay, I think either you misunderstood what I was saying, or I didn't say it very well. As far as I know, humans "in the wild" have a healthier existence than humans in modern industrial societies. I don't know if there are any studies on that population with respect to heart disease, but I suspect if there were, it would show little or no heart disease. Probably the closest you will ever get to that is the China study, where people spend a huge portion of their time just getting enough food to subsist. In the China study, heart disease was virtually non-existent. That population as stated earlier, is well over 90% vegetarian.
I know there have been studies of tribal societies in Borneo and New Guinea ( I don't have any in front of me at the moment) and these studies show that as tribal cultures adopt Western ways their health deteriorates signficantly. They start succumbing to diseases, such as colon cancer and heart disease that were never a problem in their society previously.
There also have been controlled studies done on mice and other animals which were force-fed cholesterol. The animals in that experiment which were normally vegetarian developed the diseases you would expect. The carnivores in that experiment did not develop heart disease even when they were fed HUNDREDS of times more cholesterol than they would normally get.
No, I didn't misunderstand and I did read everything. I just wondered where you got that from. What about the Inuits and people who subsist on fat/meat?
Also, mice being force-fed cholesterol... what form of it? Force-fed doesn't seem to equate to eating meat in the wild.
Okay, the Inuit. Now I see where you are going. See:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/6/1182.full.pdf
The Inuit did not eat red meat. Period. They ate plenty of seafood, and when they started to take on a Western diet, they started getting Western diseases. If your point is that not all people "in the wild" ate plants as the main part of their diet, I agree. The vast majority did however. The Inuit are an unusual exception because of the place where they live. Over the centuries they may have developed traits that helped them survive on the diet they are eating. I would not claim that they are typical or proof that eating lots of fat won't kill you.
Not really going anywhere, and not making a point either. Just putting stuff out there and observing the responses.
And yes, I agree about the developed traits based on location, food availability, climate, etc. Eating in the "wild" is very different from all these meta analysis studies and experiments... I tend to posit that eating as close to "wild" as possible (grass-fed, organic, full fat, etc... basically nothing processed or Westernized) means NO diseases for humans, or at least a huge drop in the major diseases like cancer, heart disease, diabetes.... whether you are eating loads of meat or not. Loads of meat or vegetarian, doesn't matter. I was once a raw vegan. I now eat meat. I've run the whole gamut.
Bison, deer, chicken, pigs in the wild are not what most Westerners get thrown on their dinner plate.
I just don't take the attitude of "veggies vs meat" these days... I eat them both. Tend to eat more veggies than meat. Just because of density.0 -
I'm afraid the upshot of the thread over on the main boards was to convince me that meat eaters are aggressive and rude, and I am not debating with them any more.
Sorry to bow out of what could be an interesting discussion on ethics. I come on the internet for fun, not to be laid into completely unprovoked by strangers with an attitude problem.
I'll leave this one to Veggie.0 -
I'm afraid the upshot of the thread over on the main boards was to convince me that meat eaters are aggressive and rude, and I am not debating with them any more.
Sorry to bow out of what could be an interesting discussion on ethics. I come on the internet for fun, not to be laid into completely unprovoked by strangers with an attitude problem.
I'll leave this one to Veggie.
??
Guess I'm missing what provoked you... Can't believe what I said would. You must be referring to someone else's post.0
This discussion has been closed.