NIH Statement on Vegetarianism
Replies
-
If you are referring to the NIH article, why do you suppose they would like to promote diets which are more plant-based?
Well, to name a few, Cargill and Monsanto have quite a bit of pull in Congress, where the NIH gets most of its funding.
Interesting point. I have heard local farmers cursing Monsanto because they make farmers sign contracts not to hold back seed for the next year's planting. Plus, Monsanto has created a pesticide for this specific seed, so there's a monopoly going on.
Still, I believe that Monsanto is very much part of the meat and dairy web, since much of the corn grown from their seed goes to feed cattle.
That's one of the reasons I only eat grass fed beef, pastured pork and pastured chicken from local farms
0 -
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is *not* a "conservative" organization in the political sense. "Conservative" used to mean cautious, which would apply to NIH, but "conservative" is almost always used for its political meaning.
NIH is a government agency (so its mere existence would be contrary to political conservative's ideology--it's an example of "big government" at its best). It is not, in itself conservative or liberal. It is science-based, which one might use "conservative" meaning "cautious" to describe. However, "empirical" or "scientific" or "academic" or "cautious" are all more precise descriptors than "conservative".
I just think given the political polarization in our country "conservative" as a modifier didn't necessarily describe what I think you meant with much precision and was likely to be misinterpreted by others.
Continue to eat as you wish and ignore anyone who says you must eat animal flesh in order to be healthy or that if you do ever eat animal flesh, you will immediately die.0 -
There are many books about this subject, e.g., Diet for a Small Planet. If you are an environmentalist, becoming vegan is the BEST thing you can do to help the planet. This has been known for many many years. Meat consumption has pushed the environment to the point where the Midwest aquifer is in danger of disappearing, the pollution from animal waste is poisoning whole communities, the transportation costs to the environment from shipping food to cattle and cattle to slaughter houses is the single most destructive use of the gas engine, and of course meat is poisoning Americans to the point were we have a obesity and diabetes pandemic, and we may be the most unhealthy population on this planet. All thanks to meat.
I'm not really sure how you can blame diabetes on meat consumption, considering diabetes is a problem with insulin / sugar absorption...0 -
There are many books about this subject, e.g., Diet for a Small Planet. If you are an environmentalist, becoming vegan is the BEST thing you can do to help the planet. This has been known for many many years. Meat consumption has pushed the environment to the point where the Midwest aquifer is in danger of disappearing, the pollution from animal waste is poisoning whole communities, the transportation costs to the environment from shipping food to cattle and cattle to slaughter houses is the single most destructive use of the gas engine, and of course meat is poisoning Americans to the point were we have a obesity and diabetes pandemic, and we may be the most unhealthy population on this planet. All thanks to meat.
I'm not really sure how you can blame diabetes on meat consumption, considering diabetes is a problem with insulin / sugar absorption...
True, but it is also a problem caused by obesity. I am not saying sugar is not also an issue, but I think it is mainly meat consumption. Besides the studies I have seen and some of which I have posted here attribute having a long healthy life to not eating meat, not to not eating sugar, although there may also be such a study,0 -
Alright. I have already warned one person on this board. This is a discussion about vegetarianism, not individuals. I have not been uncivil, but you just dislike what I have posted and you cannot argue with it. Try. I am really sick of meat eaters whose sole purpose in life seems to be to bash vegetarians. If I have said something you disagree with, kindly find a study to refute it or express a contrary opinion. Do not attack me or anyone else.
This actually IS a civil thread. Check out any forum post about Adkins/Paleo/Carbohydrates and you'll see what real attacking looks like. :flowerforyou:0 -
True, but it is also a problem caused by obesity. I am not saying sugar is not also an issue, but I think it is mainly meat consumption. Besides the studies I have seen and some of which I have posted here attribute having a long healthy life to not eating meat, not to not eating sugar, although there may also be such a study,
Did it ever cross your mind that most vegetarians are generally more health conscious anyway and maybe that might be skewing some data?0 -
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is *not* a "conservative" organization in the political sense. "Conservative" used to mean cautious, which would apply to NIH, but "conservative" is almost always used for its political meaning.
NIH is a government agency (so its mere existence would be contrary to political conservative's ideology--it's an example of "big government" at its best). It is not, in itself conservative or liberal. It is science-based, which one might use "conservative" meaning "cautious" to describe. However, "empirical" or "scientific" or "academic" or "cautious" are all more precise descriptors than "conservative".
I just think given the political polarization in our country "conservative" as a modifier didn't necessarily describe what I think you meant with much precision and was likely to be misinterpreted by others.
Continue to eat as you wish and ignore anyone who says you must eat animal flesh in order to be healthy or that if you do ever eat animal flesh, you will immediately die.
I worked in healthcare most of my life, so I used the term 'conservative' in the way most medical people use it: cautious, slow to adopt new practices.0 -
True, but it is also a problem caused by obesity. I am not saying sugar is not also an issue, but I think it is mainly meat consumption. Besides the studies I have seen and some of which I have posted here attribute having a long healthy life to not eating meat, not to not eating sugar, although there may also be such a study,
Did it ever cross your mind that most vegetarians are generally more health conscious anyway and maybe that might be skewing some data?
Yes, it has crossed my mind. And as I posted previously, there are studies (which I posted links to) which show that Vegetarians are also smarter than non-vegetarians and wealthier than non-vegetarians. So what do you make of that. Do people become vegetarians because they have higher IQs? Or because they have more money? Or do ordinary people get smarter or wealthier because they become vegetarian. I honestly don't know, but an awful lot of good things are associated with being vegetarian, and an awful lot of bad things are associated with eating meat,0 -
idon,t think people are angry because you are trying to show that vegetarianism is healthy way to eat but you are also stating that meat eaters are not intelligent in the process again both diets followed in an healthy way are healthy i,m no more intelligent than any meat eater and they are no more intelligent than me and as for them causing global warming come on now you are just giving us vegetarians a bad name
How you can be civil, but your husband be very over the top baffles me on how you live together.Wow, I'm vegan and so wanted to jump into this discussion, but I'm exhausted after reading all the back and forth.
Bottom line, to each his own.
Thanks for your comment, and don't be put off by the tit-a-tat.
I posted the NIH article to show that all the fears people have about vegetarianism are largely unfounded. In my experience here, many think a vegetarian diet can't be adequate to meet basic nutritional needs, or they think it is complicated and impractical.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Alright. I have already warned one person on this board. This is a discussion about vegetarianism, not individuals. I have not been uncivil, but you just dislike what I have posted and you cannot argue with it. Try. I am really sick of meat eaters whose sole purpose in life seems to be to bash vegetarians. If I have said something you disagree with, kindly find a study to refute it or express a contrary opinion. Do not attack me or anyone else.
I am not saying that meat eaters are not intelligent, but I posted a link to a study that found that vegetarians have higher IQs than meat eaters. Read the study. I am not the one making this claim, THE STUDY IS, The same thing about vegetarians being wealthier and better educated. That came from the the German Vegetarian Study which I also posted a link to. Why are the meat eaters blaming me for what controlled scientific studies are saying? I had nothing to do with the studies, but of course I like them.0 -
because if it was the other way round we would be offended you may not av wrote the words but by posting it you come across as agreeing to them and to be fair it is not true you cannot make people understand our way of eating by putting in those kind of statements its adding fuel to fire :happy: :happy:
idon,t think people are angry because you are trying to show that vegetarianism is healthy way to eat but you are also stating that meat eaters are not intelligent in the process again both diets followed in an healthy way are healthy i,m no more intelligent than any meat eater and they are no more intelligent than me and as for them causing global warming come on now you are just giving us vegetarians a bad name
How you can be civil, but your husband be very over the top baffles me on how you live together.Wow, I'm vegan and so wanted to jump into this discussion, but I'm exhausted after reading all the back and forth.
Bottom line, to each his own.
Thanks for your comment, and don't be put off by the tit-a-tat.
I posted the NIH article to show that all the fears people have about vegetarianism are largely unfounded. In my experience here, many think a vegetarian diet can't be adequate to meet basic nutritional needs, or they think it is complicated and impractical.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Alright. I have already warned one person on this board. This is a discussion about vegetarianism, not individuals. I have not been uncivil, but you just dislike what I have posted and you cannot argue with it. Try. I am really sick of meat eaters whose sole purpose in life seems to be to bash vegetarians. If I have said something you disagree with, kindly find a study to refute it or express a contrary opinion. Do not attack me or anyone else.
I am not saying that meat eaters are not intelligent, but I posted a link to a study that found that vegetarians have higher IQs than meat eaters. Read the study. I am not the one making this claim, THE STUDY IS, The same thing about vegetarians being wealthier and better educated. That came from the the German Vegetarian Study which I also posted a link to. Why are the meat eaters blaming me for what controlled scientific studies are saying? I had nothing to do with the studies, but of course I like them.0 -
because if it was the other way round we would be offended you may not av wrote the words but by posting it you come across as agreeing to them and to be fair it is not true you cannot make people understand our way of eating by putting in those kind of statements its adding fuel to fire :happy: :happy:
idon,t think people are angry because you are trying to show that vegetarianism is healthy way to eat but you are also stating that meat eaters are not intelligent in the process again both diets followed in an healthy way are healthy i,m no more intelligent than any meat eater and they are no more intelligent than me and as for them causing global warming come on now you are just giving us vegetarians a bad name
How you can be civil, but your husband be very over the top baffles me on how you live together.Wow, I'm vegan and so wanted to jump into this discussion, but I'm exhausted after reading all the back and forth.
Bottom line, to each his own.
Thanks for your comment, and don't be put off by the tit-a-tat.
I posted the NIH article to show that all the fears people have about vegetarianism are largely unfounded. In my experience here, many think a vegetarian diet can't be adequate to meet basic nutritional needs, or they think it is complicated and impractical.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Alright. I have already warned one person on this board. This is a discussion about vegetarianism, not individuals. I have not been uncivil, but you just dislike what I have posted and you cannot argue with it. Try. I am really sick of meat eaters whose sole purpose in life seems to be to bash vegetarians. If I have said something you disagree with, kindly find a study to refute it or express a contrary opinion. Do not attack me or anyone else.
I am not saying that meat eaters are not intelligent, but I posted a link to a study that found that vegetarians have higher IQs than meat eaters. Read the study. I am not the one making this claim, THE STUDY IS, The same thing about vegetarians being wealthier and better educated. That came from the the German Vegetarian Study which I also posted a link to. Why are the meat eaters blaming me for what controlled scientific studies are saying? I had nothing to do with the studies, but of course I like them.
I understand what you are saying and you are certainly right if all that was important here was that peoples' egos are schmoozed no matter what the truth is. However, they bring up issues like for example that vegetarians tend to be more health conscious which studies have also shown. My point is that studies show a lot of positive correlations with vegetarianism. I cannot help that, nor will I just ignore it. If they don't like what the studies show, let them take it up with the people who did the studies, not with me. These are real studies and are part of the factual framework that people should deal with in determining which diet is most beneficial. The idea of vegetarianism is healthy, not necessarily politically correct.0 -
So you base all of your opinions on individual studies? Do you understand how science works? One study is meaningless. You need to compare ALL of the studies in order to form a valid conclusion. Based on the entire body of work I've read, there is very little difference between vegan/vegetarian and omnivorous lifestyles. In fact, most of the studies out there show omnivores and vegans having the exact same incidences of cancers, diseases, illnesses and identical lifespans. Ovo/lacto vegetarians have been shown to have very slight increases in life expectancy, and slight decreases in illness rates, but nothing that is really statistically significant over the entire body of work.
idon,t think people are angry because you are trying to show that vegetarianism is healthy way to eat but you are also stating that meat eaters are not intelligent in the process again both diets followed in an healthy way are healthy i,m no more intelligent than any meat eater and they are no more intelligent than me and as for them causing global warming come on now you are just giving us vegetarians a bad name
How you can be civil, but your husband be very over the top baffles me on how you live together.Wow, I'm vegan and so wanted to jump into this discussion, but I'm exhausted after reading all the back and forth.
Bottom line, to each his own.
Thanks for your comment, and don't be put off by the tit-a-tat.
I posted the NIH article to show that all the fears people have about vegetarianism are largely unfounded. In my experience here, many think a vegetarian diet can't be adequate to meet basic nutritional needs, or they think it is complicated and impractical.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Alright. I have already warned one person on this board. This is a discussion about vegetarianism, not individuals. I have not been uncivil, but you just dislike what I have posted and you cannot argue with it. Try. I am really sick of meat eaters whose sole purpose in life seems to be to bash vegetarians. If I have said something you disagree with, kindly find a study to refute it or express a contrary opinion. Do not attack me or anyone else.
I am not saying that meat eaters are not intelligent, but I posted a link to a study that found that vegetarians have higher IQs than meat eaters. Read the study. I am not the one making this claim, THE STUDY IS, The same thing about vegetarians being wealthier and better educated. That came from the the German Vegetarian Study which I also posted a link to. Why are the meat eaters blaming me for what controlled scientific studies are saying? I had nothing to do with the studies, but of course I like them.0 -
I'm the only one in my house who isn't vegetarian, so I eat very little meat. One thing I have noticed over the years is that I will eventually start having problems with wound healing. When that starts, the only thing that will get them to heal again is eating beef. Dairy products and poultry don't work. I don't know if it is some unidentified nutrient in cow muscle (that perhaps I'm genetically deficient in) or some god-awful additive from cattle feed that ends up in the beef, but it's happened so many times over many years that I can't ignore it. Whatever it is, I only have to eat it occasionally, then I'm good for a long time.0
-
Did anybody actually read these studies? The first study included people who ate fish and chicken as "vegetarians," which invalidates its results. The second study directly stated that occasional meat consumers were healthier than complete vegetarians and vegans. From the article:Okay, then why is the NIH promoting vegetarianism. And yes, there are several studies (mostly done on Lappland and Inuit populations) that show eating meat is just fine. However, for every one of those, there are probably 99 saying the opposite. You cannot argue with the fact that STATISTICALLY vegetarians live longer and healthier. The studies that point out that vegetarians smoke less and make better lifestyle choices also show that vegetarians are smarter, wealthier and and more educated. You can read anything into that that you want.
Why do organizations promote things? For facts, for lies, for money, for reasons unknown, because they can - what do I know? And what do I care? One organization may be as corrupt as any other and I don't have enough contact with the NIH to judge whether they fall under that category or not.
Is that so? Would you truly say that people are smarter because they chose not to eat something? That people automatically turn into vegetarians because they are smart? That they are more eductaed?
While I would like to ask you, where your proof for that lies, I'll state the truth: I'm not interested in abusing google and throwing articles at you while you throw some back. As I mentioned before, for every article you can find, I can find two others, with which you might respond by finding four, and so on.
Your dedication may be remarkable, but you should be careful not to let that turn into blind arrogance - and frankly, saying such things is nothing short of arrogant. Whether meat is part of anyone's dinner is no indication for that persons intelligence, wealth, or whatever.
First of all, there are studies showing that vegetarians are smarter than non-vegetarians:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6180753.stm
U. es gibt eine ausgezeitnete Studie von Deutschland:
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/vegetarians-live-longer.htmlComparing these three categories, occasional meat consumers seem to have opted for the healthiest diet, i.e. the observed lowered mortality risk cannot be attributed to complete abstention from meat and fish.
So the second study actually refuted VegesaurusRex's entire argument of a no meat diet being healthier.0 -
iwatched a programme the other nite stating that people are now living longer (that is a fact) 100 now is becoming the norm these people who are at that age now are of a generation that lived on a meat and 2 veg diet had to money was tight not many of our elderly citizens are like us this is due to better health care , people being more active and better diet and nutrition information , you can give information you can,t force it , you are forcing your oppinion people don,t like it .this way of eating suits us and is right for us but its not right for every one
because if it was the other way round we would be offended you may not av wrote the words but by posting it you come across as agreeing to them and to be fair it is not true you cannot make people understand our way of eating by putting in those kind of statements its adding fuel to fire :happy: :happy:
idon,t think people are angry because you are trying to show that vegetarianism is healthy way to eat but you are also stating that meat eaters are not intelligent in the process again both diets followed in an healthy way are healthy i,m no more intelligent than any meat eater and they are no more intelligent than me and as for them causing global warming come on now you are just giving us vegetarians a bad name
How you can be civil, but your husband be very over the top baffles me on how you live together.Wow, I'm vegan and so wanted to jump into this discussion, but I'm exhausted after reading all the back and forth.
Bottom line, to each his own.
Thanks for your comment, and don't be put off by the tit-a-tat.
I posted the NIH article to show that all the fears people have about vegetarianism are largely unfounded. In my experience here, many think a vegetarian diet can't be adequate to meet basic nutritional needs, or they think it is complicated and impractical.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Alright. I have already warned one person on this board. This is a discussion about vegetarianism, not individuals. I have not been uncivil, but you just dislike what I have posted and you cannot argue with it. Try. I am really sick of meat eaters whose sole purpose in life seems to be to bash vegetarians. If I have said something you disagree with, kindly find a study to refute it or express a contrary opinion. Do not attack me or anyone else.
I am not saying that meat eaters are not intelligent, but I posted a link to a study that found that vegetarians have higher IQs than meat eaters. Read the study. I am not the one making this claim, THE STUDY IS, The same thing about vegetarians being wealthier and better educated. That came from the the German Vegetarian Study which I also posted a link to. Why are the meat eaters blaming me for what controlled scientific studies are saying? I had nothing to do with the studies, but of course I like them.
I understand what you are saying and you are certainly right if all that was important here was that peoples' egos are schmoozed no matter what the truth is. However, they bring up issues like for example that vegetarians tend to be more health conscious which studies have also shown. My point is that studies show a lot of positive correlations with vegetarianism. I cannot help that, nor will I just ignore it. If they don't like what the studies show, let them take it up with the people who did the studies, not with me. These are real studies and are part of the factual framework that people should deal with in determining which diet is most beneficial. The idea of vegetarianism is healthy, not necessarily politically correct.0 -
So you base all of your opinions on individual studies? Do you understand how science works? One study is meaningless. You need to compare ALL of the studies in order to form a valid conclusion. Based on the entire body of work I've read, there is very little difference between vegan/vegetarian and omnivorous lifestyles. In fact, most of the studies out there show omnivores and vegans having the exact same incidences of cancers, diseases, illnesses and identical lifespans. Ovo/lacto vegetarians have been shown to have very slight increases in life expectancy, and slight decreases in illness rates, but nothing that is really statistically significant over the entire body of work.
idon,t think people are angry because you are trying to show that vegetarianism is healthy way to eat but you are also stating that meat eaters are not intelligent in the process again both diets followed in an healthy way are healthy i,m no more intelligent than any meat eater and they are no more intelligent than me and as for them causing global warming come on now you are just giving us vegetarians a bad name
How you can be civil, but your husband be very over the top baffles me on how you live together.Wow, I'm vegan and so wanted to jump into this discussion, but I'm exhausted after reading all the back and forth.
Bottom line, to each his own.
Thanks for your comment, and don't be put off by the tit-a-tat.
I posted the NIH article to show that all the fears people have about vegetarianism are largely unfounded. In my experience here, many think a vegetarian diet can't be adequate to meet basic nutritional needs, or they think it is complicated and impractical.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Alright. I have already warned one person on this board. This is a discussion about vegetarianism, not individuals. I have not been uncivil, but you just dislike what I have posted and you cannot argue with it. Try. I am really sick of meat eaters whose sole purpose in life seems to be to bash vegetarians. If I have said something you disagree with, kindly find a study to refute it or express a contrary opinion. Do not attack me or anyone else.
I am not saying that meat eaters are not intelligent, but I posted a link to a study that found that vegetarians have higher IQs than meat eaters. Read the study. I am not the one making this claim, THE STUDY IS, The same thing about vegetarians being wealthier and better educated. That came from the the German Vegetarian Study which I also posted a link to. Why are the meat eaters blaming me for what controlled scientific studies are saying? I had nothing to do with the studies, but of course I like them.
I know about science, believe me. I majored in physics. One study is NOT meaningless, particularly if it is a prospective longitudinal study that follows a huge population for dozens of years. What you are referring to is the necessity in any empirical science to have results reproducible. That is true. But to reproduce a 20 year study, you need to do another 20 year study which is both expensive and, er... time consuming. A major study like, for example, The China Study will probably never be reproduced, although it could be in principle.
And if you have studies that show, for example that any chronic disease is associated with vegetarianism, please give me a cite to it. All the studies I know of show that eating meat is associated with heart disease and cancer. If you have one that shows eating carrots is associated with cancer and heart disease, I really want to know about it.0 -
The subject is the benefits of a vegetarian diet. Those benefits can be in terms of health or intelligence. I don't understand why anyone would be interested in limiting the number or type of studies mentioned here that relate to the subject of the benefits of a vegetarian diet. Studies that I referred to are all relevant to the topic. As I said before, you just don't like them, can't argue against them, and want to bring the discussion to a personal level.0
-
True, but it is also a problem caused by obesity. I am not saying sugar is not also an issue, but I think it is mainly meat consumption. Besides the studies I have seen and some of which I have posted here attribute having a long healthy life to not eating meat, not to not eating sugar, although there may also be such a study,
Did it ever cross your mind that most vegetarians are generally more health conscious anyway and maybe that might be skewing some data?
Yes, it has crossed my mind. And as I posted previously, there are studies (which I posted links to) which show that Vegetarians are also smarter than non-vegetarians and wealthier than non-vegetarians. So what do you make of that. Do people become vegetarians because they have higher IQs? Or because they have more money? Or do ordinary people get smarter or wealthier because they become vegetarian. I honestly don't know, but an awful lot of good things are associated with being vegetarian, and an awful lot of bad things are associated with eating meat,
First of all, I'm sure I could find a study out there that "proves" the sky is green.
Secondly I'm a very intelligent individual. My IQ is far to the right of the bell curve and I do extensive research into health/nutrition/fitness. I've made my very own informative decision on what I choose to put in my body. Insinuating that someone who chooses vegetarianism is obviously more intelligent than the rest of the population is very belittling.0 -
I disagree that vegetarians miss out on any of those foods! There are vegan versions of everything...that can even taste better if one takes the time to find/make them.
I totally agree. I don't feel deprived at all, and actually prefer many of the analogues to the 'real thing.'
Unless you can't digest soy, which kind of eliminates all of those "faux" meats and whatnot.0 -
Did anybody actually read these studies? The first study included people who ate fish and chicken as "vegetarians," which invalidates its results.Okay, then why is the NIH promoting vegetarianism. And yes, there are several studies (mostly done on Lappland and Inuit populations) that show eating meat is just fine. However, for every one of those, there are probably 99 saying the opposite. You cannot argue with the fact that STATISTICALLY vegetarians live longer and healthier. The studies that point out that vegetarians smoke less and make better lifestyle choices also show that vegetarians are smarter, wealthier and and more educated. You can read anything into that that you want.
Why do organizations promote things? For facts, for lies, for money, for reasons unknown, because they can - what do I know? And what do I care? One organization may be as corrupt as any other and I don't have enough contact with the NIH to judge whether they fall under that category or not.
Is that so? Would you truly say that people are smarter because they chose not to eat something? That people automatically turn into vegetarians because they are smart? That they are more eductaed?
While I would like to ask you, where your proof for that lies, I'll state the truth: I'm not interested in abusing google and throwing articles at you while you throw some back. As I mentioned before, for every article you can find, I can find two others, with which you might respond by finding four, and so on.
Your dedication may be remarkable, but you should be careful not to let that turn into blind arrogance - and frankly, saying such things is nothing short of arrogant. Whether meat is part of anyone's dinner is no indication for that persons intelligence, wealth, or whatever.
First of all, there are studies showing that vegetarians are smarter than non-vegetarians:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6180753.stm
U. es gibt eine ausgezeitnete Studie von Deutschland:
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/vegetarians-live-longer.html
Thank you for pointing that out. And also you might want to point out that the study found a sliding scale of benefits, i.e., the closer you were to being vegan, the more benefits you got. Yes if you ate only fish, you certainly do better than a meat eater.If you eat eggs and dairy you do better than the fish eaters. If you are vegan you do better than the ovo lacto vegetarians. You were somewhat remiss in leaving that out.
The second study directly stated that occasional meat consumers were healthier than complete vegetarians and vegans. From the article:Comparing these three categories, occasional meat consumers seem to have opted for the healthiest diet, i.e. the observed lowered mortality risk cannot be attributed to complete abstention from meat and fish.
I totally disagree with your out of context quote. Why don't you read the conclusion, or would you like me to post it?
So the second study actually refuted VegesaurusRex's entire argument of a no meat diet being healthier.0 -
I disagree that vegetarians miss out on any of those foods! There are vegan versions of everything...that can even taste better if one takes the time to find/make them.
I totally agree. I don't feel deprived at all, and actually prefer many of the analogues to the 'real thing.'
Unless you can't digest soy, which kind of eliminates all of those "faux" meats and whatnot.
Yeah, bummer. There is some faux meat not made with soy, but you are right, it takes away a lot of choices.0 -
Did anybody actually read these studies? The first study included people who ate fish and chicken as "vegetarians," which invalidates its results.Okay, then why is the NIH promoting vegetarianism. And yes, there are several studies (mostly done on Lappland and Inuit populations) that show eating meat is just fine. However, for every one of those, there are probably 99 saying the opposite. You cannot argue with the fact that STATISTICALLY vegetarians live longer and healthier. The studies that point out that vegetarians smoke less and make better lifestyle choices also show that vegetarians are smarter, wealthier and and more educated. You can read anything into that that you want.
Why do organizations promote things? For facts, for lies, for money, for reasons unknown, because they can - what do I know? And what do I care? One organization may be as corrupt as any other and I don't have enough contact with the NIH to judge whether they fall under that category or not.
Is that so? Would you truly say that people are smarter because they chose not to eat something? That people automatically turn into vegetarians because they are smart? That they are more eductaed?
While I would like to ask you, where your proof for that lies, I'll state the truth: I'm not interested in abusing google and throwing articles at you while you throw some back. As I mentioned before, for every article you can find, I can find two others, with which you might respond by finding four, and so on.
Your dedication may be remarkable, but you should be careful not to let that turn into blind arrogance - and frankly, saying such things is nothing short of arrogant. Whether meat is part of anyone's dinner is no indication for that persons intelligence, wealth, or whatever.
First of all, there are studies showing that vegetarians are smarter than non-vegetarians:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6180753.stm
U. es gibt eine ausgezeitnete Studie von Deutschland:
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/vegetarians-live-longer.html
Thank you for pointing that out. And also you might want to point out that the study found a sliding scale of benefits, i.e., the closer you were to being vegan, the more benefits you got. Yes if you ate only fish, you certainly do better than a meat eater.If you eat eggs and dairy you do better than the fish eaters. If you are vegan you do better than the ovo lacto vegetarians. You were somewhat remiss in leaving that out.
Really?
Directly from the article you linked to.There was no difference in IQ score between strict vegetarians and those who said they were vegetarian but who reported eating fish or chicken.0 -
I disagree that vegetarians miss out on any of those foods! There are vegan versions of everything...that can even taste better if one takes the time to find/make them.
I totally agree. I don't feel deprived at all, and actually prefer many of the analogues to the 'real thing.'
Unless you can't digest soy, which kind of eliminates all of those "faux" meats and whatnot.
Some faux 'meats' are soy free: Field Roast, Quorn and (the newcomer) Beyond Meat are soy-free. I also make burgers and patties out of beans and veggies that are both soy and gluten-free. With the right condiments, they are mighty tasty.0 -
So I read the article...
WOA! 5 whole IQ points?? :noway:
I'm wondering how this adjustment was done.Researchers said the findings were partly related to better education and higher occupational social class, but it remained statistically significant after adjusting for these factors.However, she added the link may be merely an example of many other lifestyle preferences that might be expected to vary with intelligence, such as choice of newspaper, but which may or may not have implications for health.
Anyone else read or have a link to the actual journal article? I can't find the source!0 -
I totally disagree with your out of context quote. Why don't you read the conclusion, or would you like me to post it?The second study directly stated that occasional meat consumers were healthier than complete vegetarians and vegans. From the article:Comparing these three categories, occasional meat consumers seem to have opted for the healthiest diet, i.e. the observed lowered mortality risk cannot be attributed to complete abstention from meat and fish.
So the second study actually refuted VegesaurusRex's entire argument of a no meat diet being healthier.
Which conclusion, this one?
Notice the bolded parts, both of which state that the diet choice had no impact on mortality.Results: Standardized mortality ratios for all-cause mortality was significantly below 100: 59 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 54-64], predominantly due to a deficit of deaths from circulatory diseases. Within the cohort, vegetarian compared with nonvegetarian diet had no effect on overall mortality [rate ratio (RR), 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89-1.36], whereas moderate and high physical activity significantly reduced risk of death (RR, 0.62, 0.64), adjusted for age, sex, smoking, alcohol intake, body mass index, and educational level. Vegetarian diet was however associated with a reduced RR of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.41-1.18) for ischemic heart disease, which could partly be related to avoidance of meat.
Conclusions: Both vegetarians and nonvegetarian health-conscious persons in this study have reduced mortality compared with the general population. Within the study, low prevalence of smoking and moderate or high level of physical activity but not strictly vegetarian diet was associated with reduced overall mortality. The nonsignificant reduction in mortality from ischemic heart diseases in vegetarians compared with health-conscious persons could be explained in part by avoidance of meat intake.0 -
Some studies say that non-conformists tend to have higher IQ's. Vegetarians are certainly not streaming along with the mainstream. But that said, MFPers are non-conformists, too. We are all bucking the trend to overeat and under-exercise---tending to our health and fitness are highly intelligent behaviors. So, I'm fine with leaving it at that.
I would prefer discussing plant-based eating, which was the subject of this thread.0 -
Did anybody actually read these studies? The first study included people who ate fish and chicken as "vegetarians," which invalidates its results.Okay, then why is the NIH promoting vegetarianism. And yes, there are several studies (mostly done on Lappland and Inuit populations) that show eating meat is just fine. However, for every one of those, there are probably 99 saying the opposite. You cannot argue with the fact that STATISTICALLY vegetarians live longer and healthier. The studies that point out that vegetarians smoke less and make better lifestyle choices also show that vegetarians are smarter, wealthier and and more educated. You can read anything into that that you want.
Why do organizations promote things? For facts, for lies, for money, for reasons unknown, because they can - what do I know? And what do I care? One organization may be as corrupt as any other and I don't have enough contact with the NIH to judge whether they fall under that category or not.
Is that so? Would you truly say that people are smarter because they chose not to eat something? That people automatically turn into vegetarians because they are smart? That they are more eductaed?
While I would like to ask you, where your proof for that lies, I'll state the truth: I'm not interested in abusing google and throwing articles at you while you throw some back. As I mentioned before, for every article you can find, I can find two others, with which you might respond by finding four, and so on.
Your dedication may be remarkable, but you should be careful not to let that turn into blind arrogance - and frankly, saying such things is nothing short of arrogant. Whether meat is part of anyone's dinner is no indication for that persons intelligence, wealth, or whatever.
First of all, there are studies showing that vegetarians are smarter than non-vegetarians:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6180753.stm
U. es gibt eine ausgezeitnete Studie von Deutschland:
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/vegetarians-live-longer.html
Thank you for pointing that out. And also you might want to point out that the study found a sliding scale of benefits, i.e., the closer you were to being vegan, the more benefits you got. Yes if you ate only fish, you certainly do better than a meat eater.If you eat eggs and dairy you do better than the fish eaters. If you are vegan you do better than the ovo lacto vegetarians. You were somewhat remiss in leaving that out.
Really?
YEAH REALLY. READ IT!
Directly from the article you linked to.There was no difference in IQ score between strict vegetarians and those who said they were vegetarian but who reported eating fish or chicken.
RESULTS:
Standardized mortality ratios for all-cause mortality was significantly below 100: 59 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 54-64], predominantly due to a deficit of deaths from circulatory diseases. Within the cohort, vegetarian compared with nonvegetarian diet had no effect on overall mortality [rate ratio (RR), 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89-1.36], whereas moderate and high physical activity significantly reduced risk of death (RR, 0.62, 0.64), adjusted for age, sex, smoking, alcohol intake, body mass index, and educational level. Vegetarian diet was however associated with a reduced RR of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.41-1.18) for ischemic heart disease, which could partly be related to avoidance of meat.0 -
I totally disagree with your out of context quote. Why don't you read the conclusion, or would you like me to post it?The second study directly stated that occasional meat consumers were healthier than complete vegetarians and vegans. From the article:Comparing these three categories, occasional meat consumers seem to have opted for the healthiest diet, i.e. the observed lowered mortality risk cannot be attributed to complete abstention from meat and fish.
So the second study actually refuted VegesaurusRex's entire argument of a no meat diet being healthier.
Which conclusion, this one?
Notice the bolded parts, both of which state that the diet choice had no impact on mortality.Results: Standardized mortality ratios for all-cause mortality was significantly below 100: 59 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 54-64], predominantly due to a deficit of deaths from circulatory diseases. Within the cohort, vegetarian compared with nonvegetarian diet had no effect on overall mortality [rate ratio (RR), 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89-1.36], whereas moderate and high physical activity significantly reduced risk of death (RR, 0.62, 0.64), adjusted for age, sex, smoking, alcohol intake, body mass index, and educational level. Vegetarian diet was however associated with a reduced RR of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.41-1.18) for ischemic heart disease, which could partly be related to avoidance of meat.
Conclusions: Both vegetarians and nonvegetarian health-conscious persons in this study have reduced mortality compared with the general population. Within the study, low prevalence of smoking and moderate or high level of physical activity but not strictly vegetarian diet was associated with reduced overall mortality. The nonsignificant reduction in mortality from ischemic heart diseases in vegetarians compared with health-conscious persons could be explained in part by avoidance of meat intake.
Okay, please explain to me what the last line means.0 -
That's not even the right study. You are insulting other people for their reading comprehension, and yet, you're not even talking about the same study I am.0
-
That's not even the right study. You are insulting other people for their reading comprehension, and yet, you're not even talking about the same study I am.
I quoted the abstract of the study:
Lifestyle Determinants and Mortality in German Vegetarians and Health-Conscious Persons: Results of a 21-Year Follow-up
Jenny Chang-Claude1, Silke Hermann1,3, Ursula Eilber1 and Karen Steindorf2
+ Author Affiliations
1Division of Clinical Epidemiology, 2Unit of Environmental Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany and 3Unilever Health Institute, Vlaardingen, the Netherlands
Requests for reprints:
Jenny Chang-Claude, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany. Phone: 496-224-422373; Fax: 011-49-6221422203. E-mail: j.chang-claude@dkfz-heidelberg.de
Abstract
Background: The long-term observation of vegetarians in affluent countries can provide insight into the relative effects of a vegetarian diet and lifestyle factors on mortality.
Methods: A cohort study of vegetarians and health-conscious persons in Germany was followed-up prospectively for 21 years, including 1,225 vegetarians and 679 health-conscious nonvegetarians. Standardized mortality ratios compared with the German general population were calculated for all causes and specific causes. Within the cohort, Poisson regression modeling was used to investigate the joint effects of several risk factors on overall and cause-specific mortality.
Results: Standardized mortality ratios for all-cause mortality was significantly below 100: 59 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 54-64], predominantly due to a deficit of deaths from circulatory diseases. Within the cohort, vegetarian compared with nonvegetarian diet had no effect on overall mortality [rate ratio (RR), 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89-1.36], whereas moderate and high physical activity significantly reduced risk of death (RR, 0.62, 0.64), adjusted for age, sex, smoking, alcohol intake, body mass index, and educational level. Vegetarian diet was however associated with a reduced RR of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.41-1.18) for ischemic heart disease, which could partly be related to avoidance of meat.
Conclusions: Both vegetarians and nonvegetarian health-conscious persons in this study have reduced mortality compared with the general population. Within the study, low prevalence of smoking and moderate or high level of physical activity but not strictly vegetarian diet was associated with reduced overall mortality. The nonsignificant reduction in mortality from ischemic heart diseases in vegetarians compared with health-conscious persons could be explained in part by avoidance of meat intake.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions