Garbage study is garbage. It's just vegan propaganda. This wasn't even high protein. It was on the low-end of moderate (20%+)

Also, these types of studies never isolate the food from other factors.
Think of the most unhealthy people you know. Ya, the ones who sit on the couch watching TV and eat out/order-in most days and don't do a lick of exercise. These people also often smoke and drink a lot. Those people also eat meat. They're not unhealthy because they eat meat but they are unhealthy and they eat meat.

So when you're doing a study of meat-eaters vs veg*ns, you're comparing averages and you're fooling yourself if you think the only difference between the average veg*n and meat-eater is what they eat.

Exactly! I would love to read the actual study because I am sure it doesn't take that into account.

So, now that I read the actual article. It suggest .8 grams of protein per kg of body weight, which is what I eat. I suppose I occasionally go higher, but rarely much higher than that. So what is the point? How much protein were the "high" protein people eating? And while I don't support Atkins, it really is more of a high fat diet than a high protein diet.

Funny that the article comes from New Zealand, where there are like 10 times more sheep and lambs than people.

If others want to eat less red meat that just means more for me.

As for vegans, I know more coming back to the dark side than I do going over to veganism.

I like some of the comments in the CNN link I found earlier - http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/05/middle-aged-put-down-the-meat/?hpt=hp_t2

For once, a good chunk of them are sane and correct, including some calling bull**** on the study.

It reminds me of the thing with Cholesterol that's been happening. I found an article the other day (I wish I could find it again) that said something along the lines of "people with a TC of 100 are just as likely as those with a TC of 200 to die of CVD, so the TC threshold must not be low enough!" (yes, because that must be the reason and not, you know, that it's not a good indicator and they aren't related...).

Thanks for sharing the rebuttal, although I didn’t agree with it fully, it provided some sense to the whole thing. This was my favorite analogy, simple and true, “just because we observe singing in the bath, it does not mean that being in the bath causes singing any more than singing causes being in the bath.”

Not all meat is raised in CAFOs and we should all do our best to buy local and hunt our own where possible. Everyone should know where their food comes from and be involved in what goes on the table.

Not that long ago it was "eggs are worse than smoking"... and when one really looked at the study, there was a bunch of plant foods that came out far worse than the animal foods. Seriously flawed "research", as is most nutritional research. Nutrition is one area of study that history, anthropology and personal experience should come above all other information.

I take sides against vegan diets because they are absolutely unhealthy; organizations like PETA help suck young girls into it and then they develop eating disorders that they sometimes never recover from or even die; because vegans usually claim their choice is ETHICAL when it's anything but; and I have yet to have a calm and rational conversation with a vegan but have been personally attacked, ridiculed, and disrespected by many. Life is life. Just because something is big, furry, and cute doesn't mean it's life is more valuable. And we also have NO ability to measure accurately if something is "sentient" or not. All life is sentient. Even plants have clearly demonstrated sentience. Whether soil organisms are sentient or not, they are absolutely the most vital life on this planet; crop agriculture in the absence of animals (aka nutrient cycle) destroys soil. Man made fertilizers and pesticides, genetically modified organisms, plus food politics (control/dominance/patenting/loss of diversity of crops) will soon be the end of our food supply. Most food now sickens, rather than nourishes, and it's by design.

I take sides against vegan diets because they are absolutely unhealthy; organizations like PETA help suck young girls into it and then they develop eating disorders that they sometimes never recover from or even die; because vegans usually claim their choice is ETHICAL when it's anything but; and I have yet to have a calm and rational conversation with a vegan but have been personally attacked, ridiculed, and disrespected by many.

Um, my sister is vegan. She is one of the healthiest people I know and has never tried to push her lifestyle on anyone. I'm sorry you have had negative experiences but you should not paint with a broad brush like that.

I have had calm and rational discussions with vegetarians, never a vegan. My stance against veganism is not a personal attack against your sister. The vegans I have the misfortune to run across are pushing their lifestyle and claiming it's the only ethical diet (and I've explained a bit why it is not, in my opinion). I have never been insulted so personally or disrespected so vehemently by any other strangers except vegans. Disagreeing does not have to become a personal attack. Obviously I strongly disagree with veganism but I do NOT personally attack people.

The "health" of a vegan likely has much to do with other lifestyle choices, and is in spite of the diet. I have read a number of published books written by former vegans (one was vegan 20 years!) and I'm sorry, but I believe what they have to say. They were motivated to share their experience to help others. It's very common to be extremely healthy when first going vegan but then health begins to deteriorate and much damage may occur over the long term. Because children are being influenced and harmed by organizations/people pushing the "ethical vegan" agenda, I find it hard to be tolerant. It is not ethical to hurt people in the name of saving animals (just the big, cute, furry, charismatic, interesting ones that is).