View Single Post
  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-12-2004, 09:14 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Adding more information. I'd forgotten about studies showing increased
mortality from cancer among vegetarians, and one study in particular
which shows insignificant differences in other diseases.

usual suspect wrote:
J.C. Scott wrote:

I don't eat any animal products at all, and it's strictly for
health reasons. In my own case, it has nothing to do with compassion
for
animals. In fact, I love hamburgers and chicken, among many other
types of animal products, but due to the associated ill effects of

such consumption, I abstain.

What "ill effects"?



http://www.drgreger.org/talks.html



The whole list or individual ones?

- Cancer: The studies most often cited deal with multiple issues, not
merely meat consumption. Some misuse the data to suggest that ALL meat
should be avoided, when the correlations have a lot more to do with the
amount of fruits and vegetables consumed in comparison to the amount of
meat consumed. Too much of anything can be bad, so moderation is called
for. One can still eat meat and not be at higher risk of cancer. Pay
attention to the words I highlighted:

SOME research has suggested that diets HIGH in red meat are
associated with a SLIGHT increase in risk of bowel cancer;
processed meat seems to be of most concern.
http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/edit...sp?pageid=1861

See also: http://www.breastcancer.org/research_diet_010903.html




Here's something else worth considering. It's from a study of 11,000
vegetarians and other health conscious people.

This study was initially set up to test the hypotheses that
daily consumption of wholemeal bread (as an indicator of a high
fibre diet) and vegetarian diet are associated with a reduction
in mortality from ischaemic heart disease; the reduction in
mortality associated with both of these dietary factors was *NOT
SIGNIFICANT*.

We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a 15%
reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease. This was
*NOT SIGNIFICANT* and was LESS THAN the roughly 30% reductions
REPORTED IN EARLIER ANALYSES of this cohort.... A vegetarian
diet was also associated with a *SIGNIFICANT INCREASE* in
mortality from breast cancer. However, the confidence interval
was wide.... The numbers of deaths for individual cancer sites
were small and the mortality ratios have wide confidence
intervals. The 41% reduction in mortality from lung cancer
associated with daily consumption of fresh fruit was *NOT
SIGNIFICANT*....
http://tinyurl.com/4q6fe

The emphases in that are from points I was making to a bonehead who used
that particular study to suggest that the study found important and
significant correlations between vegetarianism and good health. As you
can see, the benefits were statistically *not* significant, and there
was actually an increase in the number of mortalities from breast cancer
among vegetarians.



- vCJD: How many new cases of vCJD are reported each year in the
countries hit hardest by BSE, like the UK?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1620289.stm
http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/news.asp?id=7656
(if foodnavigator link doesn't open, try http://tinyurl.com/5zkwm)

There's also no evidence whatsoever that CWD affects humans. Not all
TSEs cross species. Scrapie, the oldest known TSE, affects sheep but it
doesn't affect humans who eat them.

- "Killer fats": Easy solution -- consume leaner meats. Grass-fed beef,
bison, wild game, goat, etc., are all very lean and also high in omega-3
FAs just like oily cold-water fish. Cook them in healthy oils like olive
or canola.

Etc. All I see on that site is a bunch of scaremongering and
solicitations to listen to his recordings for $10.

A person could label me vegetarian but that's
too lax a term, in my opinion, because plenty of vegetarians
continue to eat eggs and cheese, which I don't. My diet is
extremely rigid.


So is your sense of semantics. Why do you insist on using *any*
labels if animal rights isn't a personal concern?



The dictionary definition of 'vegetarianism' or 'vegan' fails to
mention animal rights, therefore your question is irrelevant.



Veganism is a ******* offspring of animal rights:
In late 1944, The Vegan Society was established, advocating a
totally plant-based diet excluding flesh, fish, fowl, eggs,
honey, and animals' milk, butter, and cheese, and also
encouraging the manufacture and use of alternatives to animal
commodities, including clothing and shoes. The group argued that
the elimination of exploitation of any kind was necessary in
order to bring about a more reasonable and humane society. FROM
ITS INCEPTION, VEGANISM WAS DEFINED AS A "PHILOSOPHY" AND "WAY
OF LIVING." IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE MERELY A DIET AND, STILL
TODAY, DESCRIBES A LIFESTYLE AND BELIEF SYSTEM THAT REVOLVES
AROUND A REVERENCE FOR LIFE.
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/veganliving.htm

It's not about food at all.

Ifthe debate is strictly over whether the term "dietary vegan" is
valid, well, it's just trivial semantics, as far as I'm concerned
anyway.


Then why do you consider "vegetarian" too lax a description of your
diet?



... because I'm open to debate it just for the sake of discussion, but
when it's all said and done it's really a nonevent, in my opinion.



IOW, you had nothing better to do today than jump into a discussion and
show that you're susceptible to some charlatan's scaremongering but not
to calling things what they really are?