Vegetarians Live Longer and Healthier

There are other factors that play a role in the health of Seventh Day Adventists (there are some in my family). To just jump to the assumption that a plant-based diet is the cause, rather than a correlation, is incorrect. Someone using the studies to back up their opinion might make that claim but I can bet that the researchers did not.

I invest incredible amounts of time researching, observing my Inuit neighbours (who, until recently, had a diet of almost totally animal sources and yet had no heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc, and lived long if they didn't have an accident or a food shortage) and experimenting on myself and your assertion is not fact. I'm sure it fits your beliefs, but that doesn't make it true.

It's interesting that there is not one single Paleolithic society, or even current hunger/gatherer society, that had/have a completely plant-based diet. So, what do you suppose we are genetically designed to eat? Monocultured grains? Sorry, I don't buy it. And no, it's not "ethical" to eat monocultured grains over wild or grass fed animals. Not when one considers soil organisms and environmental impacts, and even the impacts on people and their livelihoods/culture. Oh and if you think one can survive on just vegetables, I beg to differ on that too. Fat is not an optional nutrient.

Seventh Day Adventists certainly do eat a diet that is, in many ways, superior to the Standard American Diet (remember most people are eating grain fed animals raised on factory farms) and they also have a completely different lifestyle than the average American. Factors abound. Correlation versus causation.

You are exactly correct that correlation does not equal causation. It would be foolish to rely upon the findings of any given study. Now we have decades of research and tons of studies to show that plant-based diets are ideal. I find it interesting that folks seeking to find support for a high fat high animal protein diet have to resort to the Inuit as their primary example. This is a people that have learned and evolved to live in an extreme climate and relegated to live on fish, whale blubber and seal blood. It's not really a diet that can be practically translated for large warm climate societies. Nevertheless, there are numerous studies on the Inuit that indicate they suffered comparable rates of cancer and disease as those eating a western diet (at the time of the study). (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1097-0142(196902)23:2<468::AID-CNCR2820230225>3.0.CO;2-9/pdf)

While you may be correct in stating that there is not one major society that is COMPLETELY plant-based, I think you are missing the point that MOST large, successful long-lived societies ate mostly a diet of whole grains (corn, wheat, barley, sorghum, or rice) and vegetables, supplemented by small amounts of meat and animal products. They didn't suffer from cancer, heart disease and diabetes they way people do today eating the Standard American Diet. The more research that is done, the clearer it becomes that as the amount of animal products decrease in a diet, the healthier the population becomes. This doesn't prove that an animal-free diet is superior to one with very little animal protein, but the studies do suggest that the closer we approach zero animal products, the less disease occurs.

And if you want to argue about environmental impact, there is no industry more destructive to the earth than that of commercial animal feed operations. I would be happy to cite specific examples if needed.

As a vegitarian how to you get 30-40% of calories of protien? Pm

I don't get 30-40% of my calories from protein. That would be very unhealthy and it would overwork my kidneys. Standard plant foods provide all the protein I need in just the right proportions, usually between 6-15%. Human breast milk is only 5%-8% protein and that's for a growing baby, when protein needs are high. Too many of us believe what we see on TV and hear from the meat industry when it comes to protein requirements.