Vegetarians Vs Paleo
VegesaurusRex
Posts: 1,018
I haven't posted here for a while. I have been mostly posting on local boards in my area. Then one of the other posters sent me to SCOTTNET, a board which purported to be for "people who think. Well, it took me about four posts to get banned. It seems the free thinking people at SCOTTNET are all Paleos and they do not suffer opinions that differ from theirs.
Anyway, that brings me to why I am posting here now. This is a relatively free board, and I would like to get the message out to the Paleos, that I was forbidden to post on the SCOTT board. Here it is:
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/new-study-links-l-carnitine-in-red-meat-to-heart-disease-201304176083
This is a study that appeared in Nature which states that shows that red meat contains L-Carnitine which alters the microbome of the gut in such a way to cause chronic diseases such as cancer and heart disease. This study pretty much ends the debate between vegetarians and meat eaters and especially followers of fad diets such as Paleo that rely on high saturated fat consumption. If you eat red meat, you are increasing your risk factors for chronic diseases. There have been thousands of other studies that also point to the same conclusion, but in the past the Paleos have dismissed them as "correlation not causality" the common refrain from the statistically challenged who had one semester of stat 101.
Now my reasons for being a vegetarian, almost vegan, are ethical, and I really don't care if there are health benefits to my diet or not. But the reality is there certainly are. Human beings are herbivores, and are not meant to eat meat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUa814suU9A
Anyway, that brings me to why I am posting here now. This is a relatively free board, and I would like to get the message out to the Paleos, that I was forbidden to post on the SCOTT board. Here it is:
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/new-study-links-l-carnitine-in-red-meat-to-heart-disease-201304176083
This is a study that appeared in Nature which states that shows that red meat contains L-Carnitine which alters the microbome of the gut in such a way to cause chronic diseases such as cancer and heart disease. This study pretty much ends the debate between vegetarians and meat eaters and especially followers of fad diets such as Paleo that rely on high saturated fat consumption. If you eat red meat, you are increasing your risk factors for chronic diseases. There have been thousands of other studies that also point to the same conclusion, but in the past the Paleos have dismissed them as "correlation not causality" the common refrain from the statistically challenged who had one semester of stat 101.
Now my reasons for being a vegetarian, almost vegan, are ethical, and I really don't care if there are health benefits to my diet or not. But the reality is there certainly are. Human beings are herbivores, and are not meant to eat meat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUa814suU9A 0
Replies
-
From the article: "So, case closed—don’t eat red meat? Sorry, nutritional science isn’t that simple."
Also, human beings herbivores? I respectfully disagree. We are omnivores, and to paraphrase Michael Pollan, that's the dilemna. What should we eat? Of course, your dietary choices are yours and you have every right to argue ethically or otherwise, for your choices. I just don't think the article really says what you are claiming. At the end it even discusses the use of L-carnitine supplements as a treatment for heart attack victims.0 -
From the article: "So, case closed—don’t eat red meat? Sorry, nutritional science isn’t that simple."
Also, human beings herbivores? I respectfully disagree. We are omnivores, and to paraphrase Michael Pollan, that's the dilemna. What should we eat? Of course, your dietary choices are yours and you have every right to argue ethically or otherwise, for your choices. I just don't think the article really says what you are claiming. At the end it even discusses the use of L-carnitine supplements as a treatment for heart attack victims.
Yes, L-Carnitine is used as a medicine, and that doesn't bother me at all.Long term intense use and short term gradual use, I would guess, have two different results. For example, arsenic can be taken in small doses to kill internal parasites, but in large doses, it can be fatal.pr
And as for the definition of herbivore, I don't know where that is written in stone. As I pointed out in a different thread the terms are used with many different meanings. And omnivore means virtually nothing. All creatures are omnivores, in the sense that if presented with only one food, they will eat it. Thus bears, which I consider carnivores eat berries. Bears are in the order CARNIVORA. They have been considered carnivores for a long time. The order name gave birth to the adjective, carnivore. Now suddenly in order to give even a tiny semblance of logic to the words herbivore, carnivore and omnivore,some people are claiming that bears are omnivores! Dr Roberts in the video posted attempts to bring back common sense, by giving a precise definition to the word "herbivore" - an animal that is capable of getting atherosclerosis. This puts humans firmly in the herbivore category, and those creatures which are incapable of getting atherosclerosis in the carnivore family. The word "omnivore" should be dispensed with altogether, since it applies to virtually every creature on the planet. I am quite certain that a polar bear, who finds himself in a tomato patch, would eat tomatoes.
To state the point even more clearly, no human has ever developed a chronic disease from eating plants. There are literally thousands of studies which show that eating meat puts you at risk for chronic diseases. In my opinion the evidence is irrefutable, but of course that is my opinion. You probably differ.0 -
"No human has ever developed chronic disease from eating plants". Perhaps, but that statement would suggest that no human who eats only plants develops chronic disease. I don't have evidence either way, but have difficulty believing that statement is true. I'm sure evidence could be found either way, too.
This is the problem with these types of discussions. It kind of reminds me of all the sugar discussions on the main boards. I believe that we should all eat what we think is best, and as commercially unprocessed as possible. I also think there is so much that is still to be discovered about food and physiology.0 -
"No human has ever developed chronic disease from eating plants". Perhaps, but that statement would suggest that no human who eats only plants develops chronic disease. I don't have evidence either way, but have difficulty believing that statement is true. I'm sure evidence could be found either way, too.
This is the problem with these types of discussions. It kind of reminds me of all the sugar discussions on the main boards. I believe that we should all eat what we think is best, and as commercially unprocessed as possible. I also think there is so much that is still to be discovered about food and physiology.
I believe the statement I made, was true and correct as I made it. (Of course, it assumes the diet does not consist of Hemlock or other poisonous plants.) Your statement is too broad. For example it could be interpreted as meaning that if you eat only grains and nothing else, for example, you won't have any health problems. Of course if you don't eat fruits and vegetables with vitamin C, you will get scurvy. (A tangential argument: for that reason, humans are obligate herbivores.) Of course then there is the issue of Vitamin B12. That was not a problem when humans ate tubers and other plants right out of the ground. But in todays, pressure washed vegetable environment, B12 supplements are needed.
And I strongly disagree that "we should all eat what we think is best." There are two components to be considered. 1. the ethics of what you eat, and 2. is what you eat harmful to your body. Vegie diets win on both counts. I am not going to describe factory farms to you other than to say that are concentration camps for innocent animals. But some diets that that people who are not too bright try, such as Atkins and Paleo can really hurt you. What people think is best for them often depends both on their IQs and on what they know about nutrition.0 -
What I was trying to say was that opinions about what is best will vary widely, and people will find evidence to support their choices, Atkins or Paleo, vegetarian choices, or some balance of proteins, carbs and fats . You are obviously sure of your choices. On the main forums these discussions often go to long chemical explanations. I'm sure some of these knowledgeable people would find evidence to counter your assertions. I am not capable of doing that, nor am I interested in doing so.
As for your other comments, I agree about factory farming. We choose to grow some of our own vegetables, support local farmers and buy local as much as possible, as well as some carefully chosen organic produce. I don't think supplements of vitamins are necessary unless blood work shows a deficiency.
I do think you should be careful in saying that people who try things like Atkins and Paleo aren't too bright. Again, you are obviously sure of your opinions and not too willing to consider others, so I'd say we are done here. If you are really interested in other viewpoints or maybe an argument, please post this on the main board under "Food and Nutrition". I'm pretty sure you'll get a response. :happy:0 -
What I was trying to say was that opinions about what is best will vary widely, and people will find evidence to support their choices, Atkins or Paleo, vegetarian choices, or some balance of proteins, carbs and fats . You are obviously sure of your choices. On the main forums these discussions often go to long chemical explanations. I'm sure some of these knowledgeable people would find evidence to counter your assertions. I am not capable of doing that, nor am I interested in doing so.
As for your other comments, I agree about factory farming. We choose to grow some of our own vegetables, support local farmers and buy local as much as possible, as well as some carefully chosen organic produce. I don't think supplements of vitamins are necessary unless blood work shows a deficiency.
I do think you should be careful in saying that people who try things like Atkins and Paleo aren't too bright. Again, you are obviously sure of your opinions and not too willing to consider others, so I'd say we are done here. If you are really interested in other viewpoints or maybe an argument, please post this on the main board under "Food and Nutrition". I'm pretty sure you'll get a response. :happy:
When I said those who follow Atkins or Paleo aren't too bright, it is because they ignore literally thousands of studies in favor of a fad diet discovered by some guru or other who generally has little or no science to support his bizarre theories. For example, the Paleo diet. This is supposed to mimic the diet of Paleolithic times. However, anyone who has studied a smidgeon of anthropology will know that there was NO SINGLE DIET during Paleolitic times. These who lived on the coast sometimes caught fish and ate them. Those who lived in the jungle ate various insects and plants. The diet varied from one place to another, so the whole underlying philosophy of the diet is false. It doesn't exist. Nonetheless, the mindless toads are still proclaiming the wonderfulness of following an ancient diet that never existed because it is the best diet for human beings.
Sorry, but I find the paleos pathetico.0 -
However, anyone who has studied a smidgeon of anthropology will know that there was NO SINGLE DIET during Paleolitic times. These who lived on the coast sometimes caught fish and ate them. Those who lived in the jungle ate various insects and plants. The diet varied from one place to another, so the whole underlying philosophy of the diet is false. It doesn't exist. Nonetheless, the mindless toads are still proclaiming the wonderfulness of following an ancient diet that never existed because it is the best diet for human beings.
That adaptability to different diets is arguably what has made us omnivorous. And since we also have free will, we can choose to limit our diets to vegetables, proteins with no carbs, etc. Remarkable how there are so many paths to good health, no?
I don't find it productive to bash one camp or the other; I do believe I have found a path that works for ME it's a mostly paleo diet. I eat plenty of vegetables and never overdose on any meat. I'm much healthier than I was a decade ago. YMMV.0 -
However, anyone who has studied a smidgeon of anthropology will know that there was NO SINGLE DIET during Paleolitic times. These who lived on the coast sometimes caught fish and ate them. Those who lived in the jungle ate various insects and plants. The diet varied from one place to another, so the whole underlying philosophy of the diet is false. It doesn't exist. Nonetheless, the mindless toads are still proclaiming the wonderfulness of following an ancient diet that never existed because it is the best diet for human beings.
That adaptability to different diets is arguably what has made us omnivorous. And since we also have free will, we can choose to limit our diets to vegetables, proteins with no carbs, etc. Remarkable how there are so many paths to good health, no?
I don't find it productive to bash one camp or the other; I do believe I have found a path that works for ME it's a mostly paleo diet. I eat plenty of vegetables and never overdose on any meat. I'm much healthier than I was a decade ago. YMMV.
The point I am trying to make here is not that the Paleo diet makes you feel bad (although it is ranked number 31 in popularity out of 31 diets - http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets?page=4) but rather that it is bad for you in the long term. I referred to a novel study on L-carnatine above which is the first of its kind. Obviously more studies such as that need to be done. However, this study only provides the MECHANISM of the problem caused by red meat. There are dozens, if not hundreds of other studies that show there is a correlation between red meat and chronic diseases - http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/red-meat-consumption-linked-to-increased-risk-of-total-cardiovascular-and-cancer-mortality/
There is no question that diets heavy in red meat are ultimately bad for you. But in my mind, what is far worse is the cruelty imposed on innocent intelligent sensitive animals who are placed in concentration camps for the supposed benefit of humans. I am not at all religious, but I do believe in karma - you kill the cow, the cow kills you.0 -
Well first of all Paleo isn't even real. There is no way in this day and age to eat like paleolithic man. We don't even have the same plants anymore for the most part.0
-
Well first of all Paleo isn't even real. There is no way in this day and age to eat like paleolithic man. We don't even have the same plants anymore for the most part.
Correct. And even if we did, gubs, insects and worms constituted a big part of most paleolithic diets.0 -
I have seen people thrive on both diet philosophies so far... I don't think either is innately right or wrong... but then I don't see eating or what to eat as an ethical or moral dilemma.
The biggest thing that burns me about Paleo is the idea that agriculture and farming is what is making us all fat... never mind the fact that farming has been around for some 10,000 years and it's only the last 30? that we have seen our waistlines expand.0 -
I have seen people thrive on both diet philosophies so far... I don't think either is innately right or wrong... but then I don't see eating or what to eat as an ethical or moral dilemma.
The biggest thing that burns me about Paleo is the idea that agriculture and farming is what is making us all fat... never mind the fact that farming has been around for some 10,000 years and it's only the last 30? that we have seen our waistlines expand.
Yes, the philosophy of Paleo has absolutely nothing to do with reality. And certainly from an ethical point of view, Paleo is about the worst possible diet. My objection to it, besides the ethics, is that it hasn't really been around long enough for people to see the long term effects, which I think are indisputably going to be bad.0 -
So we eat red meat. This meat is broken down into a bunch of protein strands. (The same protein strands that are in beans and rice, although in greater quantities in the red meat) Those strands are then eaten by bacteria in our gut and produce another compound called TMAO. This substance has been shown in studies on mice to cause heart disease in mice.
I'm sorry but for you to now say it's been proven that red meat is bad for you is a false conclusion. The only thing this study "proves" is that red meat contains more L-carnatine than other sources. It doesn't even really prove that it just assumes it as fact, which I will cede. As for your conclusion, you're going to need a lot more information before you can properly make that point.0 -
I have seen people thrive on both diet philosophies so far... I don't think either is innately right or wrong... but then I don't see eating or what to eat as an ethical or moral dilemma.
The biggest thing that burns me about Paleo is the idea that agriculture and farming is what is making us all fat... never mind the fact that farming has been around for some 10,000 years and it's only the last 30? that we have seen our waistlines expand.
Yes, the philosophy of Paleo has absolutely nothing to do with reality. And certainly from an ethical point of view, Paleo is about the worst possible diet. My objection to it, besides the ethics, is that it hasn't really been around long enough for people to see the long term effects, which I think are indisputably going to be bad.
Based on your ethics it is the worst possible diet... if you keep up and tout the idea that it's unethical to eat meat you are going to alienate and even anger a ton of people. People have been on high protein/low carb diets for 20 years or better (maybe even longer they just haven't jumped on the bandwagon of popular diets). Some stick to it, others don't. Some see numbers improve, some don't. Some might do well on the twinkie diet, while others won't.... We are all different and require different nutritional needs and we all go to various forms of food to do that.0 -
So we eat red meat. This meat is broken down into a bunch of protein strands. (The same protein strands that are in beans and rice, although in greater quantities in the red meat) Those strands are then eaten by bacteria in our gut and produce another compound called TMAO. This substance has been shown in studies on mice to cause heart disease in mice.
I'm sorry but for you to now say it's been proven that red meat is bad for you is a false conclusion. The only thing this study "proves" is that red meat contains more L-carnatine than other sources. It doesn't even really prove that it just assumes it as fact, which I will cede. As for your conclusion, you're going to need a lot more information before you can properly make that point.
I actually agree with everything you said, including that more studies need to be done. But you seem to be implying that L-Carnatine can come from non-animal sources. I do not believe that is true. And for what it is worth, even Dr Oz seems to agree with me.
http://blog.doctoroz.com/dr-oz-blog/why-we-were-wrong-l-carnitine
As I also said in a prior post in this string, the study that you referred to and I referred to demonstrated the MECHANISM by which meat causes susceptibility to chronic diseases. It is by no means the only study that shows that meat is harmful. I cited another (and I could cite 50 more.) I willingly accept the L-Carnatine study since it provides a scientific explanation of how the mechanism works. However the fact that meat causes susceptibility to chronic diseases is show definitively by many other studies. The mechanism is important to understanding why meat is bad for you, but is not necessary to show that meat is bad for you. Understanding what the mechanism was, was the last piece of the puzzle, nothing more.0 -
I have seen people thrive on both diet philosophies so far... I don't think either is innately right or wrong... but then I don't see eating or what to eat as an ethical or moral dilemma.
The biggest thing that burns me about Paleo is the idea that agriculture and farming is what is making us all fat... never mind the fact that farming has been around for some 10,000 years and it's only the last 30? that we have seen our waistlines expand.
Yes, the philosophy of Paleo has absolutely nothing to do with reality. And certainly from an ethical point of view, Paleo is about the worst possible diet. My objection to it, besides the ethics, is that it hasn't really been around long enough for people to see the long term effects, which I think are indisputably going to be bad.
Based on your ethics it is the worst possible diet... if you keep up and tout the idea that it's unethical to eat meat you are going to alienate and even anger a ton of people. People have been on high protein/low carb diets for 20 years or better (maybe even longer they just haven't jumped on the bandwagon of popular diets). Some stick to it, others don't. Some see numbers improve, some don't. Some might do well on the twinkie diet, while others won't.... We are all different and require different nutritional needs and we all go to various forms of food to do that.
The truth often angers people, especially the truth about diets on this board. I can't help that, nor do I particularly want to avoid it. I am not a relativist. I don't believe that truth or falsity is relative to your culture or point of view. Truth is absolute. Digestive processes are absolute. They don't give a hoot for political correctness.0 -
I have seen people thrive on both diet philosophies so far... I don't think either is innately right or wrong... but then I don't see eating or what to eat as an ethical or moral dilemma.
The biggest thing that burns me about Paleo is the idea that agriculture and farming is what is making us all fat... never mind the fact that farming has been around for some 10,000 years and it's only the last 30? that we have seen our waistlines expand.
Yes, the philosophy of Paleo has absolutely nothing to do with reality. And certainly from an ethical point of view, Paleo is about the worst possible diet. My objection to it, besides the ethics, is that it hasn't really been around long enough for people to see the long term effects, which I think are indisputably going to be bad.
Based on your ethics it is the worst possible diet... if you keep up and tout the idea that it's unethical to eat meat you are going to alienate and even anger a ton of people. People have been on high protein/low carb diets for 20 years or better (maybe even longer they just haven't jumped on the bandwagon of popular diets). Some stick to it, others don't. Some see numbers improve, some don't. Some might do well on the twinkie diet, while others won't.... We are all different and require different nutritional needs and we all go to various forms of food to do that.
The truth often angers people, especially the truth about diets on this board. I can't help that, nor do I particularly want to avoid it. I am not a relativist. I don't believe that truth or falsity is relative to your culture or point of view. Truth is absolute. Digestive processes are absolute. They don't give a hoot for political correctness.
This is one of those things where the morality of eating animal flesh is solely opinion. Especially, when other peoples moral authority condone the eating of animal flesh. Just because you don't like it doesn't make them wrong and you correct. And no digestive processes are not absolute... otherwise, why is it I can digest wheat just fine but a celiac cannot or I can drink milk, but a person who is lactose intolerant cannot. If I stopped drinking milk then I too could become lactose intolerant. These are not finite absolute systems.. they are systems that depend on genetics and access.0 -
To state the point even more clearly, no human has ever developed a chronic disease from eating plants.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/02/11/all-fruit-diet.aspx
I think Steve Jobs' fruitarian lifestyle might have given him cancer (or at least, I've been freaking myself out today by googling it). Fruits are plants.0 -
If you eat red meat, you are increasing your risk factors for chronic diseases.
Your stated conclusion based on this study as the evidence of such is not valid.
You say that there a many other studies that prove your point but list none. For the purpose of this argument (you did post in debatable debating after all) you have failed to prove this claim.
Here is a link to a study that directly contradicts your point also. Ironically this study was referenced in the article you posted. Take an L-Carnitine supplement and greatly reduce your risk of heart problems.
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/webfiles/images/journals/jmcp/jmcp_ft88_4_2.pdf
And for the record - Avocados, nuts, seeds, beans, rice, and oranges all have L-Carnitine in them, all be it in lower levels than meat.0 -
The biggest thing that burns me about Paleo is the idea that agriculture and farming is what is making us all fat... never mind the fact that farming has been around for some 10,000 years and it's only the last 30? that we have seen our waistlines expand.
Exactly. I actually think our food culture is making us fat. Thirty years ago, eating was much more regimented. I don't recall seeing people 'graze' all day like they do now.0 -
I have seen people thrive on both diet philosophies so far... I don't think either is innately right or wrong... but then I don't see eating or what to eat as an ethical or moral dilemma.
The biggest thing that burns me about Paleo is the idea that agriculture and farming is what is making us all fat... never mind the fact that farming has been around for some 10,000 years and it's only the last 30? that we have seen our waistlines expand.
Yes, the philosophy of Paleo has absolutely nothing to do with reality. And certainly from an ethical point of view, Paleo is about the worst possible diet. My objection to it, besides the ethics, is that it hasn't really been around long enough for people to see the long term effects, which I think are indisputably going to be bad.
Based on your ethics it is the worst possible diet... if you keep up and tout the idea that it's unethical to eat meat you are going to alienate and even anger a ton of people. People have been on high protein/low carb diets for 20 years or better (maybe even longer they just haven't jumped on the bandwagon of popular diets). Some stick to it, others don't. Some see numbers improve, some don't. Some might do well on the twinkie diet, while others won't.... We are all different and require different nutritional needs and we all go to various forms of food to do that.
The truth often angers people, especially the truth about diets on this board. I can't help that, nor do I particularly want to avoid it. I am not a relativist. I don't believe that truth or falsity is relative to your culture or point of view. Truth is absolute. Digestive processes are absolute. They don't give a hoot for political correctness.
This is one of those things where the morality of eating animal flesh is solely opinion. Especially, when other peoples moral authority condone the eating of animal flesh. Just because you don't like it doesn't make them wrong and you correct. And no digestive processes are not absolute... otherwise, why is it I can digest wheat just fine but a celiac cannot or I can drink milk, but a person who is lactose intolerant cannot. If I stopped drinking milk then I too could become lactose intolerant. These are not finite absolute systems.. they are systems that depend on genetics and access.
Morality is never solely someone's opinion. Are you saying that if I believe it's okay to rape and kill, then that is my opinion, and it is as good as anyone else's? This is the moral relativism that has totally screwed up this world. Right or wrong exists independently of what you believe to be right or wrong. Right is usually easy to discover.Use Kant's Categorical Imperative: Universalize the action and see if everyone, including the victims would agree that the action is necessary. Or, if you don't want to wallow in 19th century philosophy, simply use the Golden Rule: Simply do unto others what you would have them do unto you. I am not at all religious, by the way, but moral certitude can be arrived at using reason.
Digestive processes also are absolute, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a multiplicity of them. Certainly, susceptibility to celiac disease, as you point out is one phenotype. But all digestive processes have certain things in common subject to epigenetic alterations. It is quite true that there are certain populations that can subsist solely on animal products, the Inuit for example. That is why the meat and dairy industry are fond of doing studies that involve only Inuit and Laplanders. The vast majority of the human race, however is different, and the dietary rules for them are different.0 -
To state the point even more clearly, no human has ever developed a chronic disease from eating plants.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/02/11/all-fruit-diet.aspx
I think Steve Jobs' fruitarian lifestyle might have given him cancer (or at least, I've been freaking myself out today by googling it). Fruits are plants.
I don't know who Dr Mercola is, but he is very sparse on citations. He did cite a Cancer Research study that stated that reduction of fructose for cancer patients may interrupt cancer growth. Cancer Research is a good journal and although I haven't read the article I did read the abstract, and if the article is up to their usual quality, the article is probably compelling. However, it does not state or even imply that eating fruit causes cancer. It was very clear that the article referred to people who already had cancer. Once you limit the population in the study so severely, you cannot draw any conclusions whatsoever about causative factors for the cancer in the first place. Stating that being a fruitarian will cause cancer based upon this study would be absurd.0 -
If you eat red meat, you are increasing your risk factors for chronic diseases.
Your stated conclusion based on this study as the evidence of such is not valid.
You say that there a many other studies that prove your point but list none. For the purpose of this argument (you did post in debatable debating after all) you have failed to prove this claim.
Here is a link to a study that directly contradicts your point also. Ironically this study was referenced in the article you posted. Take an L-Carnitine supplement and greatly reduce your risk of heart problems.
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/webfiles/images/journals/jmcp/jmcp_ft88_4_2.pdf
And for the record - Avocados, nuts, seeds, beans, rice, and oranges all have L-Carnitine in them, all be it in lower levels than meat.
I did list one article referring to a study, but since you wish:
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1134845
Pan A, Sun Q, Bernstein AM, et al. Red meat consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: 3 cohorts of US adults and an updated meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;94(4):1088-1096
PubMed
Micha R, Wallace SK, Mozaffarian D. Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation. 2010;121(21):2271-2283
PubMed
Zheng W, Lee SA. Well-done meat intake, heterocyclic amine exposure, and cancer risk. Nutr Cancer. 2009;61(4):437-446
PubMed
Fraser GE. Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;70(3):(suppl) 532S-538S
PubMed
Key TJ, Fraser GE, Thorogood M, et al. Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;70(3):(suppl) 516S-524S
PubMed
Sinha R, Cross AJ, Graubard BI, Leitzmann MF, Schatzkin A. Meat intake and mortality: a prospective study of over half a million people. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(6):562-571
PubMed
van Dam RM, Willett WC, Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ, Hu FB. Dietary fat and meat intake in relation to risk of type 2 diabetes in men. Diabetes Care. 2002;25(3):417-424
PubMed
Fung TT, Schulze M, Manson JE, Willett WC, Hu FB. Dietary patterns, meat intake, and the risk of type 2 diabetes in women. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(20):2235-2240
PubMed
Hu FB, Rimm E, Smith-Warner SA, et al. Reproducibility and validity of dietary patterns assessed with a food-frequency questionnaire. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;69(2):243-249
PubMed
Salvini S, Hunter DJ, Sampson L, et al. Food-based validation of a dietary questionnaire: the effects of week-to-week variation in food consumption. Int J Epidemiol. 1989;18(4):858-867
PubMed
Rich-Edwards JW, Corsano KA, Stampfer MJ. Test of the National Death Index and Equifax Nationwide Death Search. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140(11):1016-1019
PubMed
Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Rimm E, et al. Dietary fat and coronary heart disease: a comparison of approaches for adjusting for total energy intake and modeling repeated dietary measurements. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149(6):531-540
PubMed
Qiu W, Rosner B. Measurement error correction for the cumulative average model in the survival analysis of nutritional data: application to Nurses' Health Study. Lifetime Data Anal. 2010;16(1):136-153
PubMed
Bernstein AM, Sun Q, Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, Willett WC. Major dietary protein sources and risk of coronary heart disease in women. Circulation. 2010;122(9):876-883
PubMed
Spiegelman D, Hertzmark E, Wand HC. Point and interval estimates of partial population attributable risks in cohort studies: examples and software. Cancer Causes Control. 2007;18(5):571-579
PubMed
Willett WC. Nutritional Epidemiology. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1998
Ascherio A, Willett WC, Rimm EB, Giovannucci EL, Stampfer MJ. Dietary iron intake and risk of coronary disease among men. Circulation. 1994;89(3):969-974
PubMed
Klipstein-Grobusch K, Grobbee DE, den Breeijen JH, Boeing H, Hofman A, Witteman JC. Dietary iron and risk of myocardial infarction in the Rotterdam Study. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149(5):421-428
PubMed
van der A DL, Peeters PH, Grobbee DE, Marx JJ, van der Schouw YT. Dietary haem iron and coronary heart disease in women. Eur Heart J. 2005;26(3):257-262
PubMed
Qi L, van Dam RM, Rexrode K, Hu FB. Heme iron from diet as a risk factor for coronary heart disease in women with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(1):101-106
PubMed
Menke A, Muntner P, Fernández-Real JM, Guallar E. The association of biomarkers of iron status with mortality in US adults [published online ahead of print February 15, 2011]. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis
Bibbins-Domingo K, Chertow GM, Coxson PG, et al. Projected effect of dietary salt reductions on future cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(7):590-599
PubMed
Smith-Spangler CM, Juusola JL, Enns EA, Owens DK, Garber AM. Population strategies to decrease sodium intake and the burden of cardiovascular disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(8):481-487, W170-W173
PubMed
Kleinbongard P, Dejam A, Lauer T, et al. Plasma nitrite concentrations reflect the degree of endothelial dysfunction in humans. Free Radic Biol Med. 2006;40(2):295-302
PubMed
Pereira EC, Ferderbar S, Bertolami MC, et al. Biomarkers of oxidative stress and endothelial dysfunction in glucose intolerance and diabetes mellitus. Clin Biochem. 2008;41(18):1454-1460
PubMed
World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research. Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective. Washington, DC: American Institute for Cancer Research; 2007
Hughes R, Cross AJ, Pollock JRA, Bingham S. Dose-dependent effect of dietary meat on endogenous colonic N-nitrosation. Carcinogenesis. 2001;22(1):199-202
PubMed
Skog K, Steineck G, Augustsson K, Jägerstad M. Effect of cooking temperature on the formation of heterocyclic amines in fried meat products and pan residues. Carcinogenesis. 1995;16(4):861-867
PubMed
Sinha R, Rothman N, Salmon CP, et al. Heterocyclic amine content in beef cooked by different methods to varying degrees of doneness and gravy made from meat drippings. Food Chem Toxicol. 1998;36(4):279-287
PubMed
Cross AJ, Sinha R. Meat-related mutagens/carcinogens in the etiology of colorectal cancer. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2004;44(1):44-
PubMed
Cross AJ, Pollock JR, Bingham SA. Haem, not protein or inorganic iron, is responsible for endogenous intestinal N-nitrosation arising from red meat. Cancer Res. 2003;63(10):2358-2360
PubMed
Sesink AL, Termont DS, Kleibeuker JH, Van der Meer R. Red meat and colon cancer: the cytotoxic and hyperproliferative effects of dietary heme. Cancer Res. 1999;59(22):5704-5709
PubMed
Huang X. Iron overload and its association with cancer risk in humans: evidence for iron as a carcinogenic metal. Mutat Res. 2003;533(1-2):153-171
PubMed
The above are mostly on PubMed and so are relatively easy to access.
You might also want to see:
The China Study T. Colin Campbell
The Framingham Study from the 1940s
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/06/27/155527365/visualizing-a-nation-of-meat-eaters
and the following:
Thorogood M, Mann J, Appleby P, McPherson K. Risk of death from cancer and ischaemic heart disease in meat and non-meat eaters. Br Med J. 1994;308:1667-1670.
Chang-Claude J, Frentzel-Beyme R, Eilber U. Mortality patterns of German vegetarians after 11 years of follow-up. Epidemiology. 1992;3:395-401.
Chang-Claude J, Frentzel-Beyme R. Dietary and lifestyle determinants of mortality among German vegetarians. Int J Epidemiol. 1993;22:228-236.
Barnard ND, Nicholson A, Howard JL. The medical costs attributable to meat consumption. Prev Med. 1995;24:646-655.
World Cancer Research Fund. Food, nutrition, physical activity, and the prevention of cancer: A global perspective. American Institute of Cancer Research. Washington, DC:2007.
Skog KI, Johansson MAE, Jagerstad MI. Carcinogenic heterocyclic amines in model systems and cooked foods: a review on formation, occurrence, and intake. Food and Chem Toxicol. 1998;36:879-896.
Robbana-Barnat S, Rabache M, Rialland E, Fradin J. Heterocyclic amines: occurrence and prevention in cooked food. Environ Health Perspect. 1996;104:280-288.
Thiebaud HP, Knize MG, Kuzmicky PA, Hsieh DP, Felton JS. Airborne mutagens produced by frying beef, pork, and a soy-based food. Food Chem Toxicol. 1995;33(10):821-828.
Sinha R, Rothman N, Brown ED, et al. High concentrations of the carcinogen 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo-[4,5] pyridine [PhlP] occur in chicken but are dependent on the cooking method. Cancer Res. 1995;55:4516-4519.
Jagerstad M, Skog K, Grivas S, Olsson K. Formation of heterocyclic amines using model systems. Mutat Res. 1991;259(3-4):219-233.
Murtaugh MA, Ma KN, Sweeney C, Caan BJ, Slattery ML. Meat Consumption patterns and preparation, genetic variants of metabolic enzymes, and their association with rectal cancer in men and women. J Nutr. 2004;134(4):776-784.
Norat T, Riboli E. Meat consumption and colorectal cancer: a review of epidemiologic evidence. Nutr Rev. 2001;59(2):37-47.
Armstrong B, Doll R. Environmental factors and cancer incidence and mortality in different countries, with special reference to dietary practices. Int J Cancer. 1975;15:617-631.
Carroll KK, Braden LM. Dietary fat and mammary carcinogenesis. Nutrition and Cancer. 1985;6:254-259.
Rose DP, Boyar AP, Wynder EL. International comparisons of mortality rates for cancer of the breast, ovary, prostate, and colon, and per capita food consumption. Cancer. 1986;58:2363-2371.
Lands WEM, Hamazaki T, Yamazaki K, et al. Changing dietary patterns. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990;51:991-993.
Hirayama T. Epidemiology of breast cancer with special reference to the role of diet. Prev Med. 1978;7:173-195.
Sang-Ah Lee, Xiao-Ou Shu, Honglan Li, et. al., Adolescent and adult soy food intake and breast cancer risk: results from the Shanghai Women's Health Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009; 89: 1920-1926.
Dorgan JF, Hunsberger SA, McMahon RP, et al. Diet and sex hormones in girls: findings from a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:132-141.
Cho E, Spiegelman D, Hunter DJ, et al. Premenopausal fat intake and risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:1079-1085.
Boyd NF, Stone J, Vogt KN, Connelly BS, Martin LJ, Minkin S. Dietary fat and breast cancer risk revisited: a meta-analysis of the published literature. Br J Cancer. 2003;89(9):1672-1685.
De Stefani E, Ronco A, Mendilaharsu M, Guidobono M, Deneo-Pellegrini H. Meat intake, heterocyclic amines, and risk of breast cancer: a case-control study in Uruguay. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1997;6(8):573-581.
Matos EL, Thomas DB, Sobel N, Vuoto D. Breast cancer in Argentina: case-control study with special reference to meat eating habits. Neoplasma. 1991;38(3):357-366.
Snyderwine EG. Some perspectives on the nutritional aspects of breast cancer research. Food-derived heterocyclic amines as etiologic agents in human mammary cancer. Cancer. 1994;74(3 suppl):1070-1077.
Singh PN, Fraser GE. Dietary risk factors for colon cancer in a low-risk population. Am J Epidemiol. 1998;148(8):761-74.
Giovannucci E, Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Ascherio A, Willett WC. Intake of fat, meat, and fiber in relation to risk of colon cancer in men. Cancer Res. 1994;54(9):2390-2397.
Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Rosner BA, Speizer FE. Relation of meat, fat, and fiber intake to the risk of colon cancer in a prospective study among women. N Engl J Med. 1990;323:1664-1672.
Chao A, Thun MJ, Connell CJ, et al. Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer. JAMA. 2005;293:172-82.
Fraser GE. Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;70(suppl):532S-538S.
Butler LM, Sinha R, Millikan RC, Martin CF, Newman B, Gammon MD, Ammerman AS, Sandler RS. Heterocyclic amines, meat intake, and association with colon cancer in a population-based study. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157(5):434-445.
Siegel RL, Jemal A, Ward EM. Increase in incidence of colorectal cancer among young men and women in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18:1695-1698.
Gann PH, Hennekens CH, Sacks FM, Grodstein F, Giovannucci EL, Stampfer MJ. Prospective study of plasma fatty acids and risk of prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994;86(4):281-286.
Giovannucci E, Rimm EB, Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ, Ascherio A, Chute CC, Willett WC. A prospective study of dietary fat and risk of prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(19):1571-1579.
Kolonel LN. Nutrition and prostate cancer. Cancer Causes Control. 1996;7(1):83-44.
Ma RW, Chapman K. A systematic review of the effect of diet in prostate cancer prevention and treatment. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2009;22(3):187-1899; quiz 200-202. Epub 2009 Apr 1.
Dolwick Grieb SM, Theis RP, et al. Food groups and renal cell carcinoma: results from a case-control study. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109:656-667.
Thiébaut ACM, Jia L, Silverman DT, et al. Dietary fatty acids and pancreatic cancer in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:1001-1011.
Key TJ, Appleby PN, Spencer EA, et. al. Cancer incidence in British vegetarians. British Journal of Cancer. 2009;101:192–197.
Phillips RL. Role of lifestyle and dietary habits in risk of cancer among Seventh-day Adventists. Cancer Res. 19
If you would like more references, please let me know. there are plenty more.0 -
If you eat red meat, you are increasing your risk factors for chronic diseases.
Your stated conclusion based on this study as the evidence of such is not valid.
You say that there a many other studies that prove your point but list none. For the purpose of this argument (you did post in debatable debating after all) you have failed to prove this claim.
Here is a link to a study that directly contradicts your point also. Ironically this study was referenced in the article you posted. Take an L-Carnitine supplement and greatly reduce your risk of heart problems.
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/webfiles/images/journals/jmcp/jmcp_ft88_4_2.pdf
And for the record - Avocados, nuts, seeds, beans, rice, and oranges all have L-Carnitine in them, all be it in lower levels than meat.
Bytheway, please never apologize for debating a point or disagreeing. As you said this is a debating board, and I did come here to debate, not to pontificate. My experience is that this board is vastly superior to the other boards on this site, in terms of the quality and intelligence of the debaters, and the tone of the debate. The regular boards are mostly for people who do not know how to debate or even understand what a debate is.
You also pointed out that there was another "study" which contracts the study I referred to. As you also said this "study" was referred to in the article I referred to.
There are two things wrong with your statement, and this "study" does not contradict anything in the study referred to:
1. This is not a study but a meta analysis and review of the literature. Yes, that is a picky point, but I thought I needed to point that out.
2. This mata-analysis has absolutely nothing to do with eating meat or getting L-Carnatine from meat. This study has to do with the use of L-Carnatine as a MEDICINE, administrated in concentrated doses over a short period of time. This is totally different from eating red meat and getting long-term exposure of the microbiome to L-Carnatine. Frequently substances have completely different effects if administered in large or small doses over a long or short period of time. For example, you may know that Arsenic is a poison. Did you also know that taken in low doses Arsenic can be a medicinal treatment for tapeworm or other internal parasites? Again, different uses, different results.
Finally, you are correct that L-Carnatine is used in some plants for oxidation of fatty acids:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1177855/?page=1
I was unaware of that. However, the amount in plants is trivial compared to amount in meat:
http://nutrition.about.com/od/calcium/a/Carnitine.htm
(Please note: I disagree with the advice given in this article, but cite it only to show that animal sources provide much more carnatine than plant sources.)
Nutritional advice that I do agree with, along with more cites to articles showing the relationship between meat and chronic diseases are in this article:
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/cardiovascular-disease-red-meat-gut-bacteria-and-heart-disease.html
This article also explains why eating red meat over time results in chronic diseases.0 -
. . .0
-
Wow! That was a lot of information . I have to admit I didn't and have no intention of reading all of it. But from a quick random sampling I'll fall back to the tried and "true correlation does not equal causation".
I also have to wonder if you've read any of it. Contain within the second study you sited -
Subjects who consumed more red meat tended to be married, more likely of non-Hispanic white ethnicity, more likely a current smoker, have a higher body mass index, and have a higher daily intake of energy, total fat, and saturated fat, and they tended to have lower education and physical activity levels and lower fruit, vegetable, fiber, and vitamin supplement intakes.
In this instance, based on that study, it is just as likely that having a lower education increases your risk of heart disease. Or being married. Or being non-Hispanic white. Or, and to me this one came out of left field, being fat. Seems completely logical to conclude that it's the red meat intake.
I truly am sorry you invoke the "correlation vs Causation" rebuttal. I am not trying to be offensive, but that is a very weak rebuttal to any longitudinal or epidemiological study. If you are statistically sophisticated, then you already know the answer to your question: longitudinal studies have value, and the more independent variables studied, the more reliable the results. I have cited approximately 80 studies (I certainly have read all of the major ones that I have cited. I even have and have read The China Study in book form where much detail is given.) A variety of factors are looked at from a variety of angles. They all come to approximately the same conclusions even though the independent variables in each study may be different.
No, it is not just as likely that being non-Hispanic white, fat, smoking with a poor education is a cause of cancer. At least you cannot deduce that from this study. If I understand the study you are referring to correctly, the items that you listed as possible causes were in fact given as correlation in this study. Almost certainly you could find a study of smokers and find that the study would indicate that smoking causes lung cancer, (I.e., it would support the conclusion that smoking causes lung cancer.) However, I don't believe that was the conclusion of this study.
Now, as to lifestyle.
Is being uneducated likely to cause cancer?
I think not. However, uneducated people are likely to do stupid things, like smoke, drink excessively, engage in risky behavior, etc. Are some of the choices that a less sophisticated person makes likely to be bad, such as eating meat excessively, putting on weight, and not exercising? Yes certainly. (I am NOT saying that risky behavior is limited to uneducated people. )
Is being uneducated likely to result in poorly informed decisions?
I would say yes. However, even though making bad decisions may include bad decisions with regard to diet, I would consider being uneducated being so attenuated from the actual decisions that result in higher likelihood of chronic disease that the causal connection is distant at best. Uneducated people are more likely to be poor, have fewer options available to them, to be susceptible to advertising, and to not be informed as to what the good dietary choices are.
But is being uneducated a cause of cancer? I would really not say that. Similarly, being white or Hispanic or married not, in my mind, direct causes of cancer. As I said before, smoking certainly would be a cause of throat or lung cancer, and there is likely a direct causal relationship there.
Part of understanding what these studies show is just common sense. It may turn out, for example, that neutrinos from the sun may be a cause of cancer. But that can never be studied in a controlled experiment, and even if it were determined to be true, there is not much we could do about it.
But we can do something about eating meat.0 -
I don't see eating or what to eat as an ethical or moral dilemma.
This is an interesting comment and probably deserves a thread all to itself. Given that what we eat has broad-reaching effects on other humans, other animals, and entire ecosystems, I wholeheartedly disagree.0 -
I don't see eating or what to eat as an ethical or moral dilemma.
This is an interesting comment and probably deserves a thread all to itself. Given that what we eat has broad-reaching effects on other humans, other animals, and entire ecosystems, I wholeheartedly disagree.
I agree that it deserves a complete thread in itself. And I wholeheartedly disagree with the statement you quoted as well.0 -
Of course you disagree with me.... you have a different world view than me and you aren't ashamed to bash people over the head with it. As shown by the massive wall of texts that no one has time nor desire to read.
I tend to liken Vegetarians/Vegans such as the OP as the Veggieburger version of Evangelical Christians... always touting how right they are and wrong everyone else is that they can see absolutely nothing else.
At the end of the day, if my family is starving and it's the dead of winter with little to no other sustanence... I will not hesitate to take down the first piece of flesh that walks by me.... If it means my family can survive a few more days. If the Donner party can do it, well... then so can I.0 -
Of course you disagree with me.... you have a different world view than me and you aren't ashamed to bash people over the head with it. As shown by the massive wall of texts that no one has time nor desire to read.
I tend to liken Vegetarians/Vegans such as the OP as the Veggieburger version of Evangelical Christians... always touting how right they are and wrong everyone else is that they can see absolutely nothing else.
At the end of the day, if my family is starving and it's the dead of winter with little to no other sustanence... I will not hesitate to take down the first piece of flesh that walks by me.... If it means my family can survive a few more days. If the Donner party can do it, well... then so can I.
Sorry, but this is a free country and some of us do not subscribe to political correctness. Your comment about the number of cites I gave was totally off-base. First they were requested. Second, your unwillingness to read them is one of the problems with debate on this board. People, like you I assume, believe that uninformed opinion, or an anecdote about your second cousin is as good as a formal study. Well it isn't.
And finally, what you eat IS my business. You are destroying my planet. I know you don't like to read but here is a link you might want to read:
http://www.foeeurope.org/new-report-international-Meat-atlas-090113
Meat eaters are screwing up the environment for the rest of us, besides being cruel to animals. Even the United Nations recognizes that a relatively small population of selfish people is screwing up our planet.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/sep/07/food.foodanddrink
Damn right I will say what I think.
And I will give studies to back it up.0
