Skinny Bi**h Book

*TW* Rape occurs in nature among other animals, but I sincerely doubt you'll find a sane person who thinks rape is ethical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

Seriously? You're touting Ivy league? pfffft. Back to the studies for you.

Total meat consumption was not significantly associated with colorectal cancer risk.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.10126/full

That's from the IJC, There are more, this was just the first I found. What you're missing is that your statement is wholly predicated on OVER consumption (which brings in other confounding variables) where you are assuming that research shows ANY consumption is an indicator of increased risk. That's simply not supported by the articles I've read.

Go forth and pubmed.

Can't watch youtube at work. But I'm assuming you didn't really have anything interesting to say and were just mocking me.

As I said, I'm not touting. I did say that it makes me sound like a jacka$$ to talk about it. But I was using my professor as the source, not me. I haven't done any research on meat consumption and cancer.

I just did.

And note "meat consumption" not "eating meat at all"

Also a quote from the study I linked. "In recent meta-analyses of colorectal cancer that included studies published up to 2005 summary associations indicated that red meat intakes were associated with 28%–35% increased risks while processed meats were associated with elevated risks of 20%–49%."

Enjoy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/pubmed/24842864

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/pubmed/24847855

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/pubmed/23563998

And while obesity may be a confounding factor when looking at general population studies, it's been found to be associated regardless of BMI.

TL;DR

Eating meat causes cancer. That's what ivy league educators are saying so you know it's true.

Increased risk.

But thanks for trying. I appreciate your attempt to summarize for me.

"I don't believe you because I don't want to" - Guy on the internet

You know it's true when random guys on the internet say things.

You know, I don't think she really went about it in the right way, but the girl talking about how vegetarian diets are healthier is in fact correct. I'm a public health student at an Ivy League university and was taught this information. I sound like a total a$$hat for saying that but I feel like I need some credibility.

I also found this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2121650/ simply by googling. If you think a professor of public health at an Ivy is wrong, want to disagree with the NIH?

Meat consumption is linked to increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and metabolic syndrome- basically all chronic diseases.

Also there is no ethical argument to support meat consumption. Just because our bodies can do it does not make it ethical. Just because it happens in nature does not make it ethical. *TW* Rape occurs in nature among other animals, but I sincerely doubt you'll find a sane person who thinks rape is ethical.

That all being said, I'm an omnivore. I like burgers. I need more protein. I know it's not ethical and increases my risk for chronic disease but I do it anyway. I'm too lazy to do it and I like my meat foods too much.

There's nothing wrong with being an omnivore, but even if I don't want to go veg or vegan, I accept that I would be a more ethical and perhaps healthier person if I did.

From the study you linked

"In interpreting the findings from studies of meat intake and cancer, it should be noted that individuals who consume a diet high in red and processed meat typically also consume large amounts of foods such as butter, potatoes, refined grains, and high-fat dairy, all components of a westernized diet [60]. Thus red and processed meat intake might not be solely responsible for higher cancer risk. Additionally, meat intake is usually correlated with higher energy intakes [61,62] and obesity [63], so residual confounding may be present. Research aimed at understanding how foods and nutrients interact to promote or prevent carcinogenesis may provide a better understanding of potential etiological pathways and may explain some of the heterogeneity of published results."

None of the blue zone populations, which are the healthiest and longest living populations in the world, follow a strictly vegetarian or vegan diet.

Thank you for bringing some sanity to this loony bin.

Can't watch youtube at work. But I'm assuming you didn't really have anything interesting to say and were just mocking me.

Watch it at home then, it's quite relevant to your comment.

But I was using my professor as the source, not me. I haven't done any research on meat consumption and cancer.

Then cite them, not attendance at a bastion of inflated tuition. Having worked with people from Dartmouth, Cornell, Harvard, and a couple others. Only thing impressive has been the network they have.

And note "meat consumption" not "eating meat at all"

What you keep missing is something basic, and this is wholly inline with attendance at Ivy leagues. Consumption does not show causation. OVER consumption does. It's a tiny word, I know. 4 letters. However, it's an extremely important modifier.

No need to thank me, it's a public service I provide.

Yeah.... see, I'm bored at my internship and procrastinating on a project. I don't think I'll be watching it at home but thanks anyway.

I agree that Ivy does not equal intelligence. I know some really stupid people in my program. But teaching at an Ivy is different. Especially when it's one of the top schools in receiving funding from the NIH. The professor I'm lazily quoting has his specialty in oncogenetics and cancer research and has published for the National Academy of Science. Now, you can say what you will about academia not necessarily being based on intelligence either, but I think it hits a little closer to the mark.

Thanks for being so condescending. That's incredibly sweet of you. Thank you for that public service.

Here, let me teach you a new word too! It's called dose-response. It's often used to chart the effects of an exposure based on differing amounts. Now, meat consumption and colorectal cancer have been shown to have what's called a "linear dose-response", this means that any amount increases risk and the more you consume, the greater your risk.

This paper has a graph of it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108955/

I know that pictures can be easier to understand than words.

You know, I don't think she really went about it in the right way, but the girl talking about how vegetarian diets are healthier is in fact correct. I'm a public health student at an Ivy League university and was taught this information. I sound like a total a$$hat for saying that but I feel like I need some credibility.

I also found this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2121650/ simply by googling. If you think a professor of public health at an Ivy is wrong, want to disagree with the NIH?

Meat consumption is linked to increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and metabolic syndrome- basically all chronic diseases.

Also there is no ethical argument to support meat consumption. Just because our bodies can do it does not make it ethical. Just because it happens in nature does not make it ethical. *TW* Rape occurs in nature among other animals, but I sincerely doubt you'll find a sane person who thinks rape is ethical.

That all being said, I'm an omnivore. I like burgers. I need more protein. I know it's not ethical and increases my risk for chronic disease but I do it anyway. I'm too lazy to do it and I like my meat foods too much.

There's nothing wrong with being an omnivore, but even if I don't want to go veg or vegan, I accept that I would be a more ethical and perhaps healthier person if I did.

From the study you linked

"In interpreting the findings from studies of meat intake and cancer, it should be noted that individuals who consume a diet high in red and processed meat typically also consume large amounts of foods such as butter, potatoes, refined grains, and high-fat dairy, all components of a westernized diet [60]. Thus red and processed meat intake might not be solely responsible for higher cancer risk. Additionally, meat intake is usually correlated with higher energy intakes [61,62] and obesity [63], so residual confounding may be present. Research aimed at understanding how foods and nutrients interact to promote or prevent carcinogenesis may provide a better understanding of potential etiological pathways and may explain some of the heterogeneity of published results."

None of the blue zone populations, which are the healthiest and longest living populations in the world, follow a strictly vegetarian or vegan diet.

Thank you for bringing some sanity to this loony bin.

Also from that article:

"Although the association of cancer and meat intake may be partially explained by high-energy or high-fat (“westernized”) diets, of greater interest is a possible direct role of potentially carcinogenic compounds that are found in meats, including N-nitroso compounds, heterocyclic amines, or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. N-nitroso compounds are broad-acting potent carcinogens in animal models [3] and include nitrosamines, which require metabolic activation to be converted to a carcinogenic form, and nitrosamides, which do not require activation. Similarly, heterocyclic amines are classified as mutagens and animal carcinogens [4–8]. These compounds and others present in meats (salts, nitrates, nitrites, heme iron, saturated fat, estradiol) have been theorized to increase DNA synthesis and cell proliferation, increase insulin-like growth factors, affect hormone metabolism, promote free radical damage, and produce carcinogenic heterocyclic amines [9–16], all of which may promote the development of cancer."

and in the conclusion

"In summary, red and processed meat intake appears to be positively associated with risk of cancer of the colon and rectum, esophagus, liver, lung, and pancreas in a new, large US cohort study of 500,000 men and women....Overall, the strongest risk factors for cancer in the US are smoking and obesity [67]. However, understanding the complex interaction of diet with smoking and obesity, and how specific foods and nutrients are metabolized, may provide further clues into the etiology and, most importantly, the prevention of cancer."

You quoted the limitations section. All studies require discussing possible limitations and confounding factors. They recognize that obesity is related to cancer risk, but their conclusion is that mean consumption contributes to that risk.

Hi Everyone!

I read the Book Skinny ***** by two models Rory and Kim.
Has anyone else read this book?
I am curious to get everyones opinon on the information in the book!
They explain in graphic detail how badly mistreated animals are and that to loose weight means you need to be healthy. Healthy= Skinny. They say to go vegetarian and always start your day off with fruits.
I like the book but should i really stop eating meat & dairy?
Opinions?

Thank You!!! : )

I'm doing just fine eating meat and cheese and heavy cream... Losing weight is about a calorie deficit, nothing else. Vegetarianism/Veganism is a moral choice and if you chose either of those based on anything else, you're doing it wrong.

I have no opinion on the book, however I shall say I was a vegetarian for five years (but not vegan)...and gained a TON of weight!!! I get that this was my fault, but vegetarian does not automatically equal skinny or healthy, you still have to eat well and within your calories

Although I am vegetarian (aspiring to be vegan) I don't think its necessary for weight loss. If you are going to do it for the animals thats great and I definitely encourage it

Hey babe! I became vegetarian 6 years ago after watching and reading about the various cruelties that animals are subjected to...just for our tastebuds. After I gave up eating meat and eggs, I lost 25 pounds, my body felt cleaner, and I felt better about myself knowing that I do not support the slaughter of those poor animals. Many people believe that animals are treated well at these "family farms", but it's a sad misconception, if you don't take my word, I suggest you watch the documentary "Meet Your Meat" on YouTube. I know it's really hard to watch, but it's essential, ignorance is not always bliss! It's awesome that you are even considering becoming vegetarian, and I hope you'll make the best choice for your health and the animals.

I'm amazed you seem to care so much about the ethical treatment of animals but seem to care so little about the ethical treatment of the human being you are advising here - the OP.

If you want to make the argument that vegetarianism is a good thing to do on an ethical basis then cool beans.

However trying to effectively scaremonger the OP into doing it when it may not be appropriate for her physiologically but especially psychologically given her previous eating history is not on.

I'm sure you mean well but being able to advise people properly means putting your personal beliefs and biases to one side and assessing the person before you critically to find the correct solutions to their issues depending on their situation.

Thank you for putting this far more eloquently than I was doing last night. My irritation caused an articulation malfunction I think.

I can understand your irritation.

I think you had the interests of the OP as the foremost concern in your advice above your own preferences and that must be the correct approach.