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?