Meat eating vs. Vegan debate
Replies
-
I do want to know if any of the vegans or vegetarians on here miss eating meat. I live in NJ and miss Taylor Ham. That is really the only thing I miss, small sacrifice I guess.
Not a bit, but I haven't eaten meat since 1979. I am extremely healthy - did a 43 mile bike ride the other weekend. Work out about 5 times a week at the gym. Have a black belt in Shaolin Kempo Karate. I have two teenage kids (whoops -one just turned 20.) I am 69 years old. I watch the meat eaters I know who are much younger than me developing their chronic illnesses and becoming more and more incapacitated. I wonder why everyone just doesn't get it.
What made you decide to give up on meat?
And again, i'm unsure whether we can really say it's meat that's the health issue here or all the other s*it that people eat daily. I just feel that if meat really was causing all these problems then dieticians and doctors would blo*dy well make a point of making it common knowledge. The whole thing is still very 'underground' in terms of publicity.
True My husband is a meatosaurus and he is in incredible shape. He does biking too (and running, and swimming, kayaking, climbing, will someone please tell thisman to come inside). His vitals are awsome, we just had a big work up done on him because he turned 35 and wanted to make sure he really was in good health. He is in waaay better shape than I am and I don't eat meat. I agree that more studies regarding health and longevity need to be completed before we can say - yes eat meat, or no don't eat it.
Please give me a break. When you're 35 it's easy to be in great shape. The trick is being in good shape at twice that age. I ate meat at 35 too. I ran marathons. I invented the beer and ice cream diet. I weighed 155 lbs ( I am about 185 now and very muscular - some of it's not muscle. however.) Anyway, a combinaton of diet and exercise is hard to beat. Bytheway, I also work full time and have no intention of ever retiring.
Sorry if you were offended. You are the one who talked about the meat eaters who are much younger than you being unhealthy, not me. I was just pointing out that there are much younger meat eaters that are totally healthy.
Please, I am not offended. It takes much more than anything you said to offend me. I am not even sure it's possible to offend me. Honestly, and I am NOT referring to you here, I read so many stupid comments on many message boards, that I have become immune to anything anyone says, even when it is offensive, which your comments were not. My point is that in general, 35 year olds today look a lot different from when I was 35. Many are out of shape. Many are diabetic. Many have a lifestyle that a sloth would envy. Many of these will never be as old as I am now.
And many of those probably didn't gorge on the horrendous amounts of processed crap (definitely not just meat here) that takes up about 75% of supermarkets.
Can I ask, do you eat absolutely clean or do you eat some of the processed rubbish that most of us do too?0 -
I do want to know if any of the vegans or vegetarians on here miss eating meat. I live in NJ and miss Taylor Ham. That is really the only thing I miss, small sacrifice I guess.
Not a bit, but I haven't eaten meat since 1979. I am extremely healthy - did a 43 mile bike ride the other weekend. Work out about 5 times a week at the gym. Have a black belt in Shaolin Kempo Karate. I have two teenage kids (whoops -one just turned 20.) I am 69 years old. I watch the meat eaters I know who are much younger than me developing their chronic illnesses and becoming more and more incapacitated. I wonder why everyone just doesn't get it.
What made you decide to give up on meat?
And again, i'm unsure whether we can really say it's meat that's the health issue here or all the other s*it that people eat daily. I just feel that if meat really was causing all these problems then dieticians and doctors would blo*dy well make a point of making it common knowledge. The whole thing is still very 'underground' in terms of publicity.
Ethics. I realized what a hypocrite I was saying I like animals and then eating them.
I believe diet is the issue in 99% of illnesses. I know one woman, for example 10 years younger than me who has mercury poisoning. Yet she loves fish. It's killing her but she loves it. Go figure.
I know many other much younger than me who have cancer. All meat eaters. Vegetarians so rarely get colon and other cancers that you can almost say they are immune.
People cannot come to terms that what they were brought up eating is killing them. So they resist. As I said in a previous thread, there are literally thousands of studies showing that eating meat can cause chronic illness. There is not one single study that shows that eating vegetables can cause chronic illness. Nonetheless, people say the dumbest things. I guess it is the bell shaped curve in action.
The ignorance is due to it not being public knowledge. If you decide to become a vegan or veggie (for whatever reason) you're more likely to look up the health benefits of not eating meat than someone like me who, until I came across a few vegans a few days ago didn't even THINK about it.
This is exactly the area I am most interested in - whether there are any REAL benefits to eating meat that you can't get from other sources or whether we are literally just eating it because we always have and just have a taste for rich foods. Meat was a huge benefit back in the pleistocene, when it wasn't so easy to get but now it's in abundance we're definitely over-doing it.
From the American Society of Nutrition (2009)
Background: Few prospective studies have examined cancer incidence among vegetarians.
Objective: We report cancer incidence among vegetarians and nonvegetarians in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition–Oxford (EPIC-Oxford) study.
Design: This was a prospective study of 63,550 men and women recruited throughout the United Kingdom in the 1990s. Cancer incidence was followed through nationwide cancer registries.
Results: The standardized incidence ratio for all malignant neoplasms for all participants was 72% (95% CI: 69%, 75%). The standardized incidence ratios for colorectal cancer were 84% (95% CI: 73%, 95%) among nonvegetarians and 102% (95% CI: 80%, 129%) among vegetarians. In a comparison of vegetarians with meat eaters and after adjustment for age, sex, and smoking, the incidence rate ratio for all malignant neoplasms was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.80, 1.00). The incidence rate ratio for colorectal cancer in vegetarians compared with meat eaters was 1.39 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.91).
Conclusions: The overall cancer incidence rates of both the vegetarians and the nonvegetarians in this study are low compared with national rates. Within the study, the incidence of all cancers combined was lower among vegetarians than among meat eaters, but the incidence of colorectal cancer was higher in vegetarians than in meat eaters.
I was interested to read the statement re: colorectal cancers not occurring in vegetarians. A quick Google search found this study. Like you say, some people say the dumbest things. Guess it's that darned bell curve.0 -
I know many other much younger than me who have cancer. All meat eaters. Vegetarians so rarely get colon and other cancers that you can almost say they are immune.
People cannot come to terms that what they were brought up eating is killing them. So they resist. As I said in a previous thread, there are literally thousands of studies showing that eating meat can cause chronic illness. There is not one single study that shows that eating vegetables can cause chronic illness. Nonetheless, people say the dumbest things. I guess it is the bell shaped curve in action.
I wish that being vegetarian stopped my mother from getting the terminal cancer that killed her at 43.
Did she become a vegetarian AFTER she got cancer?
no0 -
edit for double post0
-
I do want to know if any of the vegans or vegetarians on here miss eating meat. I live in NJ and miss Taylor Ham. That is really the only thing I miss, small sacrifice I guess.
Not a bit, but I haven't eaten meat since 1979. I am extremely healthy - did a 43 mile bike ride the other weekend. Work out about 5 times a week at the gym. Have a black belt in Shaolin Kempo Karate. I have two teenage kids (whoops -one just turned 20.) I am 69 years old. I watch the meat eaters I know who are much younger than me developing their chronic illnesses and becoming more and more incapacitated. I wonder why everyone just doesn't get it.
What made you decide to give up on meat?
And again, i'm unsure whether we can really say it's meat that's the health issue here or all the other s*it that people eat daily. I just feel that if meat really was causing all these problems then dieticians and doctors would blo*dy well make a point of making it common knowledge. The whole thing is still very 'underground' in terms of publicity.
True My husband is a meatosaurus and he is in incredible shape. He does biking too (and running, and swimming, kayaking, climbing, will someone please tell thisman to come inside). His vitals are awsome, we just had a big work up done on him because he turned 35 and wanted to make sure he really was in good health. He is in waaay better shape than I am and I don't eat meat. I agree that more studies regarding health and longevity need to be completed before we can say - yes eat meat, or no don't eat it.
Please give me a break. When you're 35 it's easy to be in great shape. The trick is being in good shape at twice that age. I ate meat at 35 too. I ran marathons. I invented the beer and ice cream diet. I weighed 155 lbs ( I am about 185 now and very muscular - some of it's not muscle. however.) Anyway, a combinaton of diet and exercise is hard to beat. Bytheway, I also work full time and have no intention of ever retiring.
Sorry if you were offended. You are the one who talked about the meat eaters who are much younger than you being unhealthy, not me. I was just pointing out that there are much younger meat eaters that are totally healthy.
Please, I am not offended. It takes much more than anything you said to offend me. I am not even sure it's possible to offend me. Honestly, and I am NOT referring to you here, I read so many stupid comments on many message boards, that I have become immune to anything anyone says, even when it is offensive, which your comments were not. My point is that in general, 35 year olds today look a lot different from when I was 35. Many are out of shape. Many are diabetic. Many have a lifestyle that a sloth would envy. Many of these will never be as old as I am now.
And many of those probably didn't gorge on the horrendous amounts of processed crap (definitely not just meat here) that takes up about 75% of supermarkets.
Can I ask, do you eat absolutely clean or do you eat some of the processed rubbish that most of us do too?
I don't know what you mean by "processed foods." I do eat Gardein seven Grain Crispy Tenders, various tofu concoctions, and veggie burgers. I also eat just plain veggies, Cheerios, sorbet , etc. Overall a good diet, I'd say.0 -
I do want to know if any of the vegans or vegetarians on here miss eating meat. I live in NJ and miss Taylor Ham. That is really the only thing I miss, small sacrifice I guess.
Not a bit, but I haven't eaten meat since 1979. I am extremely healthy - did a 43 mile bike ride the other weekend. Work out about 5 times a week at the gym. Have a black belt in Shaolin Kempo Karate. I have two teenage kids (whoops -one just turned 20.) I am 69 years old. I watch the meat eaters I know who are much younger than me developing their chronic illnesses and becoming more and more incapacitated. I wonder why everyone just doesn't get it.
What made you decide to give up on meat?
And again, i'm unsure whether we can really say it's meat that's the health issue here or all the other s*it that people eat daily. I just feel that if meat really was causing all these problems then dieticians and doctors would blo*dy well make a point of making it common knowledge. The whole thing is still very 'underground' in terms of publicity.
Ethics. I realized what a hypocrite I was saying I like animals and then eating them.
I believe diet is the issue in 99% of illnesses. I know one woman, for example 10 years younger than me who has mercury poisoning. Yet she loves fish. It's killing her but she loves it. Go figure.
I know many other much younger than me who have cancer. All meat eaters. Vegetarians so rarely get colon and other cancers that you can almost say they are immune.
People cannot come to terms that what they were brought up eating is killing them. So they resist. As I said in a previous thread, there are literally thousands of studies showing that eating meat can cause chronic illness. There is not one single study that shows that eating vegetables can cause chronic illness. Nonetheless, people say the dumbest things. I guess it is the bell shaped curve in action.
The ignorance is due to it not being public knowledge. If you decide to become a vegan or veggie (for whatever reason) you're more likely to look up the health benefits of not eating meat than someone like me who, until I came across a few vegans a few days ago didn't even THINK about it.
This is exactly the area I am most interested in - whether there are any REAL benefits to eating meat that you can't get from other sources or whether we are literally just eating it because we always have and just have a taste for rich foods. Meat was a huge benefit back in the pleistocene, when it wasn't so easy to get but now it's in abundance we're definitely over-doing it.
From the American Society of Nutrition (2009)
Background: Few prospective studies have examined cancer incidence among vegetarians.
Objective: We report cancer incidence among vegetarians and nonvegetarians in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition–Oxford (EPIC-Oxford) study.
Design: This was a prospective study of 63,550 men and women recruited throughout the United Kingdom in the 1990s. Cancer incidence was followed through nationwide cancer registries.
Results: The standardized incidence ratio for all malignant neoplasms for all participants was 72% (95% CI: 69%, 75%). The standardized incidence ratios for colorectal cancer were 84% (95% CI: 73%, 95%) among nonvegetarians and 102% (95% CI: 80%, 129%) among vegetarians. In a comparison of vegetarians with meat eaters and after adjustment for age, sex, and smoking, the incidence rate ratio for all malignant neoplasms was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.80, 1.00). The incidence rate ratio for colorectal cancer in vegetarians compared with meat eaters was 1.39 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.91).
Conclusions: The overall cancer incidence rates of both the vegetarians and the nonvegetarians in this study are low compared with national rates. Within the study, the incidence of all cancers combined was lower among vegetarians than among meat eaters, but the incidence of colorectal cancer was higher in vegetarians than in meat eaters.
I was interested to read the statement re: colorectal cancers not occurring in vegetarians. A quick Google search found this study.
Really? So colorectal cancer was found in this study to be higher in vegetarians? Interesting. Selecting samples is so difficult though, because you don't know their food history and what else they may be eating / not eating that may be causing these problems.0 -
I do want to know if any of the vegans or vegetarians on here miss eating meat. I live in NJ and miss Taylor Ham. That is really the only thing I miss, small sacrifice I guess.
Not a bit, but I haven't eaten meat since 1979. I am extremely healthy - did a 43 mile bike ride the other weekend. Work out about 5 times a week at the gym. Have a black belt in Shaolin Kempo Karate. I have two teenage kids (whoops -one just turned 20.) I am 69 years old. I watch the meat eaters I know who are much younger than me developing their chronic illnesses and becoming more and more incapacitated. I wonder why everyone just doesn't get it.
What made you decide to give up on meat?
And again, i'm unsure whether we can really say it's meat that's the health issue here or all the other s*it that people eat daily. I just feel that if meat really was causing all these problems then dieticians and doctors would blo*dy well make a point of making it common knowledge. The whole thing is still very 'underground' in terms of publicity.
True My husband is a meatosaurus and he is in incredible shape. He does biking too (and running, and swimming, kayaking, climbing, will someone please tell thisman to come inside). His vitals are awsome, we just had a big work up done on him because he turned 35 and wanted to make sure he really was in good health. He is in waaay better shape than I am and I don't eat meat. I agree that more studies regarding health and longevity need to be completed before we can say - yes eat meat, or no don't eat it.
Please give me a break. When you're 35 it's easy to be in great shape. The trick is being in good shape at twice that age. I ate meat at 35 too. I ran marathons. I invented the beer and ice cream diet. I weighed 155 lbs ( I am about 185 now and very muscular - some of it's not muscle. however.) Anyway, a combinaton of diet and exercise is hard to beat. Bytheway, I also work full time and have no intention of ever retiring.
Sorry if you were offended. You are the one who talked about the meat eaters who are much younger than you being unhealthy, not me. I was just pointing out that there are much younger meat eaters that are totally healthy.
Please, I am not offended. It takes much more than anything you said to offend me. I am not even sure it's possible to offend me. Honestly, and I am NOT referring to you here, I read so many stupid comments on many message boards, that I have become immune to anything anyone says, even when it is offensive, which your comments were not. My point is that in general, 35 year olds today look a lot different from when I was 35. Many are out of shape. Many are diabetic. Many have a lifestyle that a sloth would envy. Many of these will never be as old as I am now.
And many of those probably didn't gorge on the horrendous amounts of processed crap (definitely not just meat here) that takes up about 75% of supermarkets.
Can I ask, do you eat absolutely clean or do you eat some of the processed rubbish that most of us do too?
I don't know what you mean by "processed foods." I do eat Gardein seven Grain Crispy Tenders, various tofu concoctions, and veggie burgers. I also eat just plain veggies, Cheerios, sorbet , etc. Overall a good diet, I'd say.
Apologies, I mean foods that contain a lot of chemicals and additives and god-knows-what's-really-in-them foods. This book I read 'Food Rules' talked about the amount of foods we have now that our grandparents wouldn't even recognise as food.0 -
Really? So colorectal cancer was found in this study to be higher in vegetarians? Interesting. Selecting samples is so difficult though, because you don't know their food history and what else they may be eating / not eating that may be causing these problems.
I know, sampling for something like this is tough. I'm sure there are counter studies. I always read through the sources of the study before I deem it totally accurate.0 -
Really? So colorectal cancer was found in this study to be higher in vegetarians? Interesting. Selecting samples is so difficult though, because you don't know their food history and what else they may be eating / not eating that may be causing these problems.
I know, sampling for something like this is tough. I'm sure there are counter studies. I always read through the sources of the study before I deem it totally accurate.
You just cannot take stand-alone studies as complete proof. Especially large-scale studies like this. Although numbers do speak loudly when correlating, there's always going to be a skew in either direction, and you don't know what the real reasons are. Maybe veggies are more generally concerned with their health and they do other things to ensure their physical and mental wellbeing? Too many variables.0 -
Really? So colorectal cancer was found in this study to be higher in vegetarians? Interesting. Selecting samples is so difficult though, because you don't know their food history and what else they may be eating / not eating that may be causing these problems.
I know, sampling for something like this is tough. I'm sure there are counter studies. I always read through the sources of the study before I deem it totally accurate.
N=63,000+ and they corrected for things like age, sex, and smoking. Pretty valid overall I'd say.
The reason I posted this though was to refute the statement that vegetarians rarely got colorectal cancer, they were virtually immune.
Here's the link:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/5/1620S.full0 -
edit for double post
Very interesting. I have read dozens of studies on this subject, the most noteable being the China study and most sound like this (a recent 30 year longitudinal study):
This March, a study from the Harvard School of Public Health left vegans smiling, the meat industry grumbling–and the media buzzing. The 30-year study showed that eating red meat was associated with a sharply increased risk of premature death–especially from heart disease and cancer. Researchers followed more than 120,000 men and women from 1980 to 2006, and found that each daily increase of three ounces of red meat carried a 13-percent greater risk of dying during the course of the study. The risks linked to processed meat were even greater–eating one hot dog or two strips of bacon per day was linked to a 20 percent increased risk of death.
N= 120,000+
Now why do you suppose your study is so radically different? Believe me the vast majority of studies are on my side.0 -
Really? So colorectal cancer was found in this study to be higher in vegetarians? Interesting. Selecting samples is so difficult though, because you don't know their food history and what else they may be eating / not eating that may be causing these problems.
I know, sampling for something like this is tough. I'm sure there are counter studies. I always read through the sources of the study before I deem it totally accurate.
You just cannot take stand-alone studies as complete proof. Especially large-scale studies like this. Although numbers do speak loudly when correlating, there's always going to be a skew in either direction, and you don't know what the real reasons are. Maybe veggies are more generally concerned with their health and they do other things to ensure their physical and mental wellbeing? Too many variables.
Your comments reminded me that I want to track down the British study referred to in this short video:
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/vegetarians-versus-healthy-omnivores/0 -
edit for double post
Very interesting. I have read dozens of studies on this subject, the most noteable being the China study and most sound like this (a recent 30 year longitudinal study):
This March, a study from the Harvard School of Public Health left vegans smiling, the meat industry grumbling–and the media buzzing. The 30-year study showed that eating red meat was associated with a sharply increased risk of premature death–especially from heart disease and cancer. Researchers followed more than 120,000 men and women from 1980 to 2006, and found that each daily increase of three ounces of red meat carried a 13-percent greater risk of dying during the course of the study. The risks linked to processed meat were even greater–eating one hot dog or two strips of bacon per day was linked to a 20 percent increased risk of death.
Now why do you suppose your study is so radically different? Believe me the vast majority of studies are on my side.
There will be a number of studies that argue the opposite. There always are contrasts in the world of research. I have heard a little about the effect of red meat on heart disease. Although I don't suppose people will care much. Gotta die of something, right? I think that people are immune to what studies say now - the ones that the media have presented - just because of the contradictory evidence they were pushing for so long. One week they'd say potato gives you cancer. The next it doesn't (an example based on nothing, just making a point). So i'm guessing the public doesn't take food issues seriously anymore.0 -
Hmmm, this is just a thought, but how about everyone eat whatever they want and don't worry about what other people eat?
I know, crazy right?0 -
edit for double post
Very interesting. I have read dozens of studies on this subject, the most noteable being the China study and most sound like this (a recent 30 year longitudinal study):
This March, a study from the Harvard School of Public Health left vegans smiling, the meat industry grumbling–and the media buzzing. The 30-year study showed that eating red meat was associated with a sharply increased risk of premature death–especially from heart disease and cancer. Researchers followed more than 120,000 men and women from 1980 to 2006, and found that each daily increase of three ounces of red meat carried a 13-percent greater risk of dying during the course of the study. The risks linked to processed meat were even greater–eating one hot dog or two strips of bacon per day was linked to a 20 percent increased risk of death.
Now why do you suppose your study is so radically different? Believe me the vast majority of studies are on my side.
It's not "my study" and and please don't assign me a "side". I was merely pointing out that vegetarians do get colorectal cancer.
I can see merit in vegan/vegetarian diet; just don't make claims that are unsubstantiated and then call people dumb (as did the poster who made the statement about vegetarians rarely getting colorectal cancer).0 -
Hmmm, this is just a thought, but how about everyone eat whatever they want and don't worry about what other people eat?
I know, crazy right?
I really hope the OP gives you some history on how this thread came about.
Your glib attitude is sort of out of step with the discussion we've been having.0 -
Hmmm, this is just a thought, but how about everyone eat whatever they want and don't worry about what other people eat?
I know, crazy right?
I really hope the OP gives you some history on how this thread came about.
Your glib attitude is sort of out of step with the discussion we've been having.
LOL I read the original one as well as all of this one. My "glib" attitude is perfectly normal for me. Just the way I am. Humor keeps us young. Give it a try.
0 -
I am responding to a bunch of different posts, but I'm combining it into one, so sorry if there is confusion. Just warning you now.
1) I am not a vegetarian, but I tried being one once to see if I would like it, and found out my love for meat surpasses the love to save animals from being my food. =/
2) I do like PC, but I love Xbox360 more, and I hate PS3. I had ps3 and xbox360 at the same time and couldn't stand the PS3.
3) My step-sister is vegetarian (or vegan, not too sure. either way she doesn't eat meat) but she does like chicken broth and other meat-tasting things, so I guess it depends on the person.
4) I know a lot of hunters, and none of them are drunk and lower class. My step-father, who is a millionaire, not including items and property he owns, hunts a lot, and he is not a drunk or in the lower class. There are also many people in my area that hunt and are not drinkers. I suppose if you live in the Southern US (not all of it, but some parts) you would see a lot of that, or watching some of those weird shows on TV, but not in most normal places.0 -
Hmmm, this is just a thought, but how about everyone eat whatever they want and don't worry about what other people eat?
I know, crazy right?
I really hope the OP gives you some history on how this thread came about.
Your glib attitude is sort of out of step with the discussion we've been having.
LOL I read the original one as well as all of this one. My "glib" attitude is perfectly normal for me. Just the way I am. Humor keeps us young. Give it a try.
Nope! We shouldn't care, really! This is purely for my interest and anyone else whose been following!0 -
Really? So colorectal cancer was found in this study to be higher in vegetarians? Interesting. Selecting samples is so difficult though, because you don't know their food history and what else they may be eating / not eating that may be causing these problems.
I know, sampling for something like this is tough. I'm sure there are counter studies. I always read through the sources of the study before I deem it totally accurate.
N=63,000+ and they corrected for things like age, sex, and smoking. Pretty valid overall I'd say.
The reason I posted this though was to refute the statement that vegetarians rarely got colorectal cancer, they were virtually immune.
Here's the link:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/5/1620S.full
Just a quick scan of your study and I think I found out why they came to the conclusion they did. Your study was controlled for things like smoking, for example. Now how many vegetarians do you think smoke? I've never met one. Yet your study probably eliminated meat eating smokers. Similarly, your study probably eliminated overweight chronically ill people as well. So what you were in effect doing was comparing virtually ALL Vegetyarians to some meat-eaters. Yes, I am sure there were some overweight and ill vegetarians, but probably not many. I would guess among the meat eating population, the unhealthy were to a large extent eliminated from the study do to correcting for "lifestyle." In effect, vegetarians do have a healthier lifestyle. Although I do believe in controlled studies, I think in this case it resulted in an unbalanced study. They were in effect controling for things vegetarians rarely do.0 -
Hmmm, this is just a thought, but how about everyone eat whatever they want and don't worry about what other people eat?
I know, crazy right?
I really hope the OP gives you some history on how this thread came about.
Your glib attitude is sort of out of step with the discussion we've been having.
LOL I read the original one as well as all of this one. My "glib" attitude is perfectly normal for me. Just the way I am. Humor keeps us young. Give it a try.
I do have a sense of humor, but right now, this discussion is a serious one, and no one is getting bent out of shape. Your comment just came across as 'STOP TALKING!'--albeit light-hearted and friendly. If this discussion doesn't matter to you, and if the matter of eating meat vs not eating meat is all the same to you, I'm guessing there are threads which might interest you more than this one (at least right this moment).0 -
I am responding to a bunch of different posts, but I'm combining it into one, so sorry if there is confusion. Just warning you now.
1) I am not a vegetarian, but I tried being one once to see if I would like it, and found out my love for meat surpasses the love to save animals from being my food. =/
2) I do like PC, but I love Xbox360 more, and I hate PS3. I had ps3 and xbox360 at the same time and couldn't stand the PS3.
3) My step-sister is vegetarian (or vegan, not too sure. either way she doesn't eat meat) but she does like chicken broth and other meat-tasting things, so I guess it depends on the person.
4) I know a lot of hunters, and none of them are drunk and lower class. My step-father, who is a millionaire, not including items and property he owns, hunts a lot, and he is not a drunk or in the lower class. There are also many people in my area that hunt and are not drinkers. I suppose if you live in the Southern US (not all of it, but some parts) you would see a lot of that, or watching some of those weird shows on TV, but not in most normal places.
At least you gave it a go! But then you made a decision that was better for you.
I didn't fully understand all of the 'hunters' argument throughout this 2-part thread. Or how socioeconomic status was anything to do with it. I do feel that hunting is much more humane than keeping animals packed together for human needs.0 -
Really? So colorectal cancer was found in this study to be higher in vegetarians? Interesting. Selecting samples is so difficult though, because you don't know their food history and what else they may be eating / not eating that may be causing these problems.
I know, sampling for something like this is tough. I'm sure there are counter studies. I always read through the sources of the study before I deem it totally accurate.
N=63,000+ and they corrected for things like age, sex, and smoking. Pretty valid overall I'd say.
The reason I posted this though was to refute the statement that vegetarians rarely got colorectal cancer, they were virtually immune.
Here's the link:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/5/1620S.full
Just a quick scan of your study and I think I found out why they came to the conclusion they did. Your study was controlled for things like smoking, for example. Now how many vegetarians do you think smoke? I've never met one. Yet your study probably eliminated meat eating smokers. Similarly, your study probably eliminated overweight chronically ill people as well. So what you were in effect doing was comparing virtually ALL Vegetyarians to some meat-eaters. Yes, I am sure there were some overweight and ill vegetarians, but probably not many. I would guess among the meat eating population, the unhealthy were to a large extent eliminated from the study do to correcting for "lifestyle." In effect, vegetarians do have a healthier lifestyle. Although I do believe in controlled studies, I think in this case it resulted in an unbalanced study. They were in effect controling for things vegetarians rarely do.
The main point I was making is that vegetarians do get colorectal cancer despite was was said earlier.
They controlled for age and sex. I think vegetarians falls into both those categories?
And btw I do know vegetarians that smoke.0 -
Really? So colorectal cancer was found in this study to be higher in vegetarians? Interesting. Selecting samples is so difficult though, because you don't know their food history and what else they may be eating / not eating that may be causing these problems.
I know, sampling for something like this is tough. I'm sure there are counter studies. I always read through the sources of the study before I deem it totally accurate.
N=63,000+ and they corrected for things like age, sex, and smoking. Pretty valid overall I'd say.
The reason I posted this though was to refute the statement that vegetarians rarely got colorectal cancer, they were virtually immune.
Here's the link:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/5/1620S.full
Just a quick scan of your study and I think I found out why they came to the conclusion they did. Your study was controlled for things like smoking, for example. Now how many vegetarians do you think smoke? I've never met one. Yet your study probably eliminated meat eating smokers. Similarly, your study probably eliminated overweight chronically ill people as well. So what you were in effect doing was comparing virtually ALL Vegetyarians to some meat-eaters. Yes, I am sure there were some overweight and ill vegetarians, but probably not many. I would guess among the meat eating population, the unhealthy were to a large extent eliminated from the study do to correcting for "lifestyle." In effect, vegetarians do have a healthier lifestyle. Although I do believe in controlled studies, I think in this case it resulted in an unbalanced study. They were in effect controling for things vegetarians rarely do.
Three of my friends are vegetarians and also smoke...0 -
Hmmm, this is just a thought, but how about everyone eat whatever they want and don't worry about what other people eat?
I know, crazy right?
I really hope the OP gives you some history on how this thread came about.
Your glib attitude is sort of out of step with the discussion we've been having.
LOL I read the original one as well as all of this one. My "glib" attitude is perfectly normal for me. Just the way I am. Humor keeps us young. Give it a try.
I do have a sense of humor, but right now, this discussion is a serious one, and no one is getting bent out of shape. Your comment just came across as 'STOP TALKING!'--albeit light-hearted and friendly. If this discussion doesn't matter to you, and if the matter of eating meat vs not eating meat is all the same to you, I'm guessing there are threads which might interest you more than this one (at least right this moment).
I see, so what you are saying is that you don't feel that I should be posting on this thread? I don't recall telling anyone to stop talking, seems to be a case of misinterpretation on your part (lack of that claimed sense of humor perhaps?).
Sorry I seem to have touched a nerve with you, but I think I will be the one to choose which threads upon which I will comment and in what tone. I am a good-hearted sort and don't have a mean bone in my body, but I do as I will and don't really care all that much if some people don't get my particular sense of humor. Not my problem, really.
I wish you well.0 -
Really? So colorectal cancer was found in this study to be higher in vegetarians? Interesting. Selecting samples is so difficult though, because you don't know their food history and what else they may be eating / not eating that may be causing these problems.
I know, sampling for something like this is tough. I'm sure there are counter studies. I always read through the sources of the study before I deem it totally accurate.
N=63,000+ and they corrected for things like age, sex, and smoking. Pretty valid overall I'd say.
The reason I posted this though was to refute the statement that vegetarians rarely got colorectal cancer, they were virtually immune.
Here's the link:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/5/1620S.full
Just a quick scan of your study and I think I found out why they came to the conclusion they did. Your study was controlled for things like smoking, for example. Now how many vegetarians do you think smoke? I've never met one. Yet your study probably eliminated meat eating smokers. Similarly, your study probably eliminated overweight chronically ill people as well. So what you were in effect doing was comparing virtually ALL Vegetyarians to some meat-eaters. Yes, I am sure there were some overweight and ill vegetarians, but probably not many. I would guess among the meat eating population, the unhealthy were to a large extent eliminated from the study do to correcting for "lifestyle." In effect, vegetarians do have a healthier lifestyle. Although I do believe in controlled studies, I think in this case it resulted in an unbalanced study. They were in effect controling for things vegetarians rarely do.
The main point I was making is that vegetarians do get colorectal cancer despite was was said earlier.
They controlled for age and sex. I think vegetarians falls into both those categories?
Agreed. The previous argument was that 'vegetarians are immune to cancers'. clearly they're not if vegetarians have been found to have it. HOWEVER, we don't know how long they were vegetarian for.0 -
Hmmm, this is just a thought, but how about everyone eat whatever they want and don't worry about what other people eat?
I know, crazy right?
I really hope the OP gives you some history on how this thread came about.
Your glib attitude is sort of out of step with the discussion we've been having.
LOL I read the original one as well as all of this one. My "glib" attitude is perfectly normal for me. Just the way I am. Humor keeps us young. Give it a try.
I do have a sense of humor, but right now, this discussion is a serious one, and no one is getting bent out of shape. Your comment just came across as 'STOP TALKING!'--albeit light-hearted and friendly. If this discussion doesn't matter to you, and if the matter of eating meat vs not eating meat is all the same to you, I'm guessing there are threads which might interest you more than this one (at least right this moment).
I see, so what you are saying is that you don't feel that I should be posting on this thread? I don't recall telling anyone to stop talking, seems to be a case of misinterpretation on your part (lack of that claimed sense of humor perhaps?).
Sorry I seem to have touched a nerve with you, but I think I will be the one to choose which threads upon which I will comment and in what tone. I am a good-hearted sort and don't have a mean bone in my body, but I do as I will and don't really care alll that much if some people don't get my particular sense of humor. Not my problem, really.
I wish you well.
Shh. No arguing. Although light-heartedness is welcome.0 -
Hmmm, this is just a thought, but how about everyone eat whatever they want and don't worry about what other people eat?
I know, crazy right?
I really hope the OP gives you some history on how this thread came about.
Your glib attitude is sort of out of step with the discussion we've been having.
LOL I read the original one as well as all of this one. My "glib" attitude is perfectly normal for me. Just the way I am. Humor keeps us young. Give it a try.
I do have a sense of humor, but right now, this discussion is a serious one, and no one is getting bent out of shape. Your comment just came across as 'STOP TALKING!'--albeit light-hearted and friendly. If this discussion doesn't matter to you, and if the matter of eating meat vs not eating meat is all the same to you, I'm guessing there are threads which might interest you more than this one (at least right this moment).
I see, so what you are saying is that you don't feel that I should be posting on this thread? I don't recall telling anyone to stop talking, seems to be a case of misinterpretation on your part (lack of that claimed sense of humor perhaps?).
Sorry I seem to have touched a nerve with you, but I think I will be the one to choose which threads upon which I will comment and in what tone. I am a good-hearted sort and don't have a mean bone in my body, but I do as I will and don't really care alll that much if some people don't get my particular sense of humor. Not my problem, really.
I wish you well.
Shh. No arguing. Although light-heartedness is welcome. 0 -
Really? So colorectal cancer was found in this study to be higher in vegetarians? Interesting. Selecting samples is so difficult though, because you don't know their food history and what else they may be eating / not eating that may be causing these problems.
I know, sampling for something like this is tough. I'm sure there are counter studies. I always read through the sources of the study before I deem it totally accurate.
N=63,000+ and they corrected for things like age, sex, and smoking. Pretty valid overall I'd say.
The reason I posted this though was to refute the statement that vegetarians rarely got colorectal cancer, they were virtually immune.
Here's the link:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/5/1620S.full
Just a quick scan of your study and I think I found out why they came to the conclusion they did. Your study was controlled for things like smoking, for example. Now how many vegetarians do you think smoke? I've never met one. Yet your study probably eliminated meat eating smokers. Similarly, your study probably eliminated overweight chronically ill people as well. So what you were in effect doing was comparing virtually ALL Vegetyarians to some meat-eaters. Yes, I am sure there were some overweight and ill vegetarians, but probably not many. I would guess among the meat eating population, the unhealthy were to a large extent eliminated from the study do to correcting for "lifestyle." In effect, vegetarians do have a healthier lifestyle. Although I do believe in controlled studies, I think in this case it resulted in an unbalanced study. They were in effect controling for things vegetarians rarely do.
The main point I was making is that vegetarians do get colorectal cancer despite was was said earlier.
They controlled for age and sex. I think vegetarians falls into both those categories?
Agreed. The previous argument was that 'vegetarians are immune to cancers'. clearly they're not if vegetarians have been found to have it. HOWEVER, we don't know how long they were vegetarian for.
Of course any study is open to criticism, and the paper I posted like any good study does discuss potential flaws in its methodology. It's hard to control all variables and stay within ethical boundaries.
The China study which has been referred to in this thread also has had many criticism for its methodology and analysis. If you're interested, here's one link
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/0 -
Really? So colorectal cancer was found in this study to be higher in vegetarians? Interesting. Selecting samples is so difficult though, because you don't know their food history and what else they may be eating / not eating that may be causing these problems.
I know, sampling for something like this is tough. I'm sure there are counter studies. I always read through the sources of the study before I deem it totally accurate.
N=63,000+ and they corrected for things like age, sex, and smoking. Pretty valid overall I'd say.
The reason I posted this though was to refute the statement that vegetarians rarely got colorectal cancer, they were virtually immune.
Here's the link:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/5/1620S.full
Just a quick scan of your study and I think I found out why they came to the conclusion they did. Your study was controlled for things like smoking, for example. Now how many vegetarians do you think smoke? I've never met one. Yet your study probably eliminated meat eating smokers. Similarly, your study probably eliminated overweight chronically ill people as well. So what you were in effect doing was comparing virtually ALL Vegetyarians to some meat-eaters. Yes, I am sure there were some overweight and ill vegetarians, but probably not many. I would guess among the meat eating population, the unhealthy were to a large extent eliminated from the study do to correcting for "lifestyle." In effect, vegetarians do have a healthier lifestyle. Although I do believe in controlled studies, I think in this case it resulted in an unbalanced study. They were in effect controling for things vegetarians rarely do.
The main point I was making is that vegetarians do get colorectal cancer despite was was said earlier.
They controlled for age and sex. I think vegetarians falls into both those categories?
And btw I do know vegetarians that smoke.
Okay, I urge you to listen to this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2699384/ Cancer Incidence in British Vegetarians, which I believe was the same study you referred to. The person introducing the study explains several things:
1. The study was admittedly unfair to vegetarians because it eliminated all INDIRECT benefits of vegetariansim
2. Even so VEGETARIANS HAD A LOWER INCIDENCE OF CANCER THAN MEAT EATERS. Total cancer incidence was significantly lower among vegetarians than meat eaters. THIS STUDY found no difference in colorecatal cancer, but clearly most other studies have.
Please go to this link.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions