Meat eating vs. Vegan debate

VegesaurusRex · May 2012

What on earth makes you think you need meat to be a bodybuilder?

http://www.google.com/search?q=vegan+body+builders&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=WpnAT7XCO6SJ6AHbrazLCg&ved=0CIQBELAE&biw=771&bih=570#q=vegan+body+builders&hl=en&sa=X&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw

Most body builders I know are vegan.

VegesaurusRex · May 2012

Nothing I ever read suggests that vegetarianism has ever hurt anyone. There are plenty of studies, however, on the negative effects of eating meat. People who can't draw a proper conclusion from that are doomed to repeat history. Older people, my generation and older, did eat meat, as I did when I was young, but nothing like people do today. The British study that someone posted here suggests that when a meat eater eats less than 3 ounces of meat per day (about a 3/4s of a quarter pounder) no more than (I think) four times a week, the negative effects of meat eating are not detectable. What I don't understand is why would someone want to eat even that much? It's like saying that if you eat only a few grams of arsenic a day it won't hurt you. But why would you do it anyway? Whatever good you get out of the meat can be gotten a lot safer by eating veggies.

I went to a party the other day, and it reminded me of why I don't like to go to parties.Oh, it was great to talk to others and chat up young girls (my wife was with me don't get the wrong idea) but the piles of meat were so disgusting I almost wanted to vomit. These mostly young people ate more meat on that one occasion than I ever ate in a week when I was their age. There were a few vegetarians among them, but for the most part it was scarf up as much poison as you can. They better get religion fast, or most of them will never see 60.

VegesaurusRex · May 2012

Yes, it could be a genetic predisposition. It could be environment. It could be the number of neutrinos going through your body. However, when you see HUNDREDS of studies, longitudinal, prospective controlled, etc, and the vast majority of them all come to the same conclusion, that should tell you something. Truly, only a fool could ignore such a massive amount of evidence.

Someone here wanted to show that what I said about vegetarians not getting colorectal cancer was wrong, so he found a nice British study. That study was so controlled as to be almost worthless. It was like comparing vegetarians who worked in coal mines, smoked, drank and used drugs with non-vegetarians who worked in coal mines, smoked, drank and used drugs. The study effectively weeded out the good done by being vegetarian by confounding it with other factors that were in fact more negative than eating meat, and the result was that vegetarians and non-vegetarians came out about even in colorectal cancer incidence, However, and I am sure it was to the chagrin of the person who brought up the study, even with all those other factors thrown in, vegetarians still came out with a lower incidence of cancer.

Why there is so much resistance to believing these studies is beyond me. You have tons of evidence. Most of you have had Statistics 101. Yes, I know you grew up eating meat. So did I. Guess what? You can quit if you want to. You will feel better, and be healthier.

VegesaurusRex · May 2012

[
Ah, my friend, I didn't say they are worthless, I said they are little better than anecdotal. It's possible that the study simply indicates that many people don't eat enough vegetables, not that meat causes cancer. There are many possible conclusions one may draw from this study, which is my real point.

************
They are much better tha anecdotal. There are statistical correlations. And you should not take any one study into account and exclude all others that have been done on the subject. Every study is either uncontrolled or controlled for different things. The British study that was mentioned here was unfair since it introduced other negative factors into the vegetarian population. For example rather than compare the vegetarian population to the non-vegetarian population, it compared vegetarian smokers to non-vegetarian smokers. Smoking is more of a negative factor than eating meat, so that skewed the data in a way that downplayed all the indirect benefits of being vegetarian. I understand why people would want to control a study, but controling it in such a way as to bring in as many other negative lifestyle factors as possible clearly downplays (but does not eliminate) the benefit of being vegetarian.
*************

It's pretty well known that most people do not get enough veggies and fiber in their diet. That is not the same as eating meat causes cancer. You see my point?

***********
Yup. But you are wrong.
**********

I advocate for nothing more than simple common sense. It's possible that people who do not eat meat get less cancer, but the real reason for this is not explained by this study.

*************
No, it is not explained in any one study, but it is explained in the thousands of studies that have been done and come to the same conclusion, and have come to the same conclusion since the Framingham study of the 1940s. There is overwhelming data that suggests that meat causes cancer.
*************

Do the meat eaters in the study eat as many vegetables and get as much fiber as the non meat eaters? Probably not. To conclude that meat is the cause is a serious flaw in logic.

************
The British study posted by the other fellow DID control for amount of veggies eaten as well as fiber. The result: Vegetarians still had a lower incidnece of cancer. My question is why don't you believe it?
************

gpstrucker · May 2012

The answer to that question is quite simple. I am skeptical by nature, especially when it comes to "studies".

If a bunch of studies came out concluding that vegetarians had a higher incidence of cancer I would also be skeptical. It has been my experience over the years that a great many of these studies are heavily manipulated in order to produce a desired conclusion.
I am not necessarily saying that is the case here, but it has happened enough times to make me skeptical of all such studies.

Personally, I believe that the typical Western diet does lack sufficient vegetables and fiber as well as having too much dairy.

VegesaurusRex · May 2012

I agree with you that there are plenty of bad studies and studies can be manipulated. For example, the meat and dairy industry are fond of sponsoring studies about the Inuit and Lapplanders. Why? Because there has been a genetic drift in those populations do to the fact that they live in areas where access to anything BUT fatty meat is very problematic. Thus, due to the drift their suseptibility genes to cancer have mostly disappeared. They are populations that really can eat lost of meat with no ill effects. The problem of course would be generalizing from these populations to a broader population or to humans in general. And if you look virtually every study of Inuit and Lapps are sponsored by the meat industry. They assume, probably correctlly, that people will not be sophisticated enough to understand what is going on.

However, my point is that there have been hundreds or even thousands of studies on vegetarian diets and not a single one has shown them to be harmful. On the other hand, probably an equal number of studies on meat centered diets give cause for concern. Not all of them show harm, relationship to cardiac prolems and cancer, but most of them do. And if you look carefully, you will see that most of the studies that show no harm from meat are funded by the meat industry.

So you are right in that studies can be manipulaated. However, what big money organization would be paying for skewed studies to support vegetarianism? No vegetarian organization is worth one milliionth of what the meat industry is worth. And the meat industry has the most to lose.

The studies that have been done are worth something. Do not ignore them. Draw the logical conclusions.

tross0924 · May 2012

First I didn't say you need meat. "By and large" is a statement that allows for exceptions to the statement because it's not an absolute, but indicates that a greater percentage follows the statement than don't.

Second I did mention vegetarian bodybuilders.

Third you're a vegan, which follows that a higher percentage of your friends are vegan and/or vegetarian also and that would include any bodybuilder friends. I'm not a vegan/vegetarian and therefore don't know a single bodybuilder that is. Neither one of those statements prove anything.

Fourth, a much larger percentage of bodybuilders eat meat and animal products including whey protein as supplementation for the simple reason that's it's easier to get to the protein requirements by doing so.

And fifth, the meat eating bodybuilders aren't dropping like flies. Why?

If your last statement was meant to be an answer to that question the implication would be that for some reason you think that vegan/vegetarian bodybuilders are the majority. I realize I'm drawing a lot from what you said, and that you probably weren't answering the question, simply evading it, but it's still a point that I've always wondered about. If you'd care to provide any insight to your prospective to this question, I'd love to hear it.

VegesaurusRex · May 2012

Is your question, "Why can meat eating body builders live past 50?"

My answer is that you have half of it right. Exercise and diet are the two components of longevity, in my opinion. Anyone who is a body builder obviously cares about his body. Even meat eating body builders (Rocky, are you out there?) take care to eat plenty of veggies.

jg627 · May 2012

A lot of bodybuilders are on steroids, so wouldn't drugs cancel out the exercise for longevity factor?

tross0924 · May 2012

Please forgive me, most of my opinion isn't necessarily based on your statements, but rather the "The Forks Over Knives" documentary which sighted studies of animal protein basically being the cause of cancer. I admit I didn't read everything you posted in this thread, but I got the rough idea that you were of the same opinion based on what I did read.

The question then is "If animal proteins are a cause of cancer, then why are the people who consume the most of it not being dramatically affected?" Is the exercise they do enough of a cancer prevention to balance out the increased risk? And if that's the case than vegetarian exercisers should be nearly immune to cancer, shouldn't they?

VegesaurusRex · May 2012

Yeah, they would. However, I have never seen any statistics on longevity of body builders on steroids. My guess is it wouldn't be a pretty statistic.

VegesaurusRex · May 2012

Okay, I am NOT a medical doctor, but my understanding is longevity is a function of genes and lifestyle, along with environmental factors. Genes are probably the most important of the three. Some people won't live beyond 40 no matter what they do right. In my simple way of looking at things genes define a range of lifespan that is possible for each individual. To maximize that lifespan, you have to do what you can to control environment and lifestyle. Fortunately for us in the United States, environment can be manipulated by choice of where we want to live (smoggy Los Angeles or Burlington, VT) and what we do for a living (Coal mining vs forest ranger.) Most people have to compromise on both place and job. Finally, lifestyle which includes for me mostly diet and exercise. As I have said many times here, there are plenty of studies that correlate meat eating with cancer and heart disease, but there is not a single study that I have ever seen that correlates vegetarian diet with any chronic disease. (Okay, B12 deficiency, but that is easily remedied.) Finally, exercise. I personally believe (no scientific evidence for this) that humans were meant to sweat every day. I try to do a one hour cardio workout at least 5 times a week, and I do resistance machines and weights about 4 times a week. I really enjoy long bike rides and hiking. I used to run distance (5 k to marathon) and downhill ski, but my legs are not as good as they used to be, so I have to be careful of impact exercises. I have a lifecycle and weights at home and I go to a gym.

Because so many factors are implicated in longevity, doing a controlled study that takes into account genetic disposition, occupation, quality of life, location, exercise and diet are impossible. We don't even know all the genetic factors, so how can we control for them? The best we can do is perform studies comparing the factors that we know about and can control for. Diet is certainly in that category. Even controlled diet studies cannot control for everything, so you look at what you have. Fortunately, there are hundreds, if not thousands on vegetarian and meat diets. They generally fall out as showing that vegetarian diets are better, or in a few as good as, meat diets, the overwhelming number showing vegetarian diets being better.

Now again, none of them can control for all genetic factors, and probably few control for environmental factors. If controlled at all, they are probably controled for lifestyle factors (smoking, drugs, exercise, weight, chronic illnesses) There is not a diet study you can point to that is perfect, but since so many have been done, you can at least see a trend. Vegetarian diets are better. (Again, junk food vegetarians can throw off the curve, but not enough to distort the end result)

Pardon the length of this response, but the answer to your question of why meat eaters do not show a much more dramatic negative effect is because there are so many factors in determining health, genetics probably being the most important. As I pointed out Inuit people and Lapplanders have genetically much lower predisposition to cancer and heart disease, and in addition their lifestyle is pretty healthy, so eating meat is probably not a negative factor for them. Due to all of the factors that come into play, eating meat is probably one of the less important factors. But it is a factor nonetheless. And it is enough of a factor that practically every study ever done shows a statistical correlation between eating meat and certain chronic diseases.

BrokenButterfly · May 2012

Here's something interesting that has made me think again about at least how MUCH meat I eat. And this should be interesting to the meat-eaters on this site particularly:

The meat we eat is injected with all kinds of antibiotics and WEIGHT-GAINING drugs, which we then later ingest ourselves. I'll have to look a little more into this, but I think this is an interesting topic of discussion.

Here's the question. Would you think about at least eating much less meat in a week knowing this? I find it disturbing to think i'm ingesting antibiotics and weight gaining drugs.

BrokenButterfly · May 2012

I heard something about 'some bodybuilders consciously switching to a vegan diet' because the proteins found in plant and grown foods are much more beneficial for building. What are your thoughts?

gpstrucker · May 2012

The only thing in this with which I find a major flaw in thinking is the assumption that studies are only skewed due to "big money" organizations paying for them to be so. There are a number of reasons, including bias and ideology, that can be the reason for an individual, or a group, to manipulate a study. Sometimes, they start with their conclusion and then produce a "study" to support it (bad science).

Don't get me wrong, I have never stated that a vegetarian diet is bad, or unhealthy, I just think that the "dangers of eating meat" is being blown way out of realistic proportion here. A huge segment of the population eat meat daily and live long, healthy lives, and have done so throughout our history.

quixoteQ · May 2012

All sentient animals eat whatever they can.

tripitena · May 2012

I've been vegetarian for 20 some odd years. I seldom see the need to debate it. I know I'm doing the right thing for myself. Eat whatever you want and keep your opinion to yourself about what I eat and I will do the same.

Respect.
Free will.
Important concepts.

BrokenButterfly · May 2012

Absolutely! But this is about whether meat is doing more harm than good! Like I said earlier, I was particularly disturbed to see that factory animals are pumped full of antibiotics and weight-gaining hormones. Something which we are then also consuming regularly as meat-eaters. Ew!

VegesaurusRex · May 2012

Most studies done by universities or institutions that have no connection with an interested party are fair, that is, not intentionally biased. If you are getting money from the meat and dairy industry, then of course there is an agenda. I know that organizations such as Physicians Committee also do studies, but I never refer to them, since the organization is opposed to meat eating even though the studies are probably not biased, since they agree with practically every other study. But like I said, since there are so many studies out there that prove my point I am not going to use a study that someone could claim is biased.

Yes, a huge portion of the American population eats meat. We have an obesity epidemic, a diabetes epidemic and an epidemic of chronic diseases, especially as compared to vegetarian areas. I think you just proved my point.

tripitena · May 2012

It is still a personal choice, regardless of the harm it is doing. People have known for a great number of years that animals are being drugged with various growth enhancers and antibiotics. Yet the meat industry continues to flourish. Obviously the choice for a great many is to eat the enhanced meat, many only because they cannot afford the alternative.
Organic meat continues to be cost prohibitive for many consumers. I doubt most would choose to buy chemically treated meat if the alternative were not so expensive. Think the commercial industry is going to go to the expense to change practices? Hardly. It's much cheaper the way they are doing it so they keep that profit margin. Consumers can't afford to do an embargo on treated meats to pressure the industry.
As someone mentioned," big money organizations" manipulate studies to benefit them. They also spend huge on lobbyists to keep laws governing legal use of steroids, antibiotics and pesticides in their favor. They manipulate market costs to keep at a profitable level. It's hard to compete with the billions of dollars behind factory farming. The advertising budget alone blows organic farmers out of the water.
In the long run, the big picture is about money and greed, not much about health. I think there is little chance of this changing.
IMO

Meat eating vs. Vegan debate

Replies

Categories