FoodBanter.com

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)
-   Vegan (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/)
-   -   "veganism" is NOT about health (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/49573-veganism-not-about-health.html)

Jay Santos 28-12-2004 08:37 AM

"veganism" is NOT about health
 
At Wikipedia:

Those who avoid animal products for reasons of
health (eg, due to allergies, or to avoid
cholesterol), rather than compassion sometimes
describe themselves as "dietary vegans". However,
popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak argues that
this term is inappropriate because veganism is by
definition about helping animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan

J.C. Scott 29-12-2004 07:46 PM

Jay Santos wrote:
At Wikipedia:

Those who avoid animal products for reasons of
health (eg, due to allergies, or to avoid
cholesterol), rather than compassion sometimes
describe themselves as "dietary vegans". However,
popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak argues that
this term is inappropriate because veganism is by
definition about helping animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan


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


usual suspect 29-12-2004 08:00 PM

J.C. Scott wrote:
Jay Santos wrote:

At Wikipedia:

Those who avoid animal products for reasons of
health (eg, due to allergies, or to avoid
cholesterol), rather than compassion sometimes
describe themselves as "dietary vegans". However,
popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak argues that
this term is inappropriate because veganism is by
definition about helping animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan



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"?

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?

If
the 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?

J.C. Scott 29-12-2004 08:36 PM

usual suspect wrote:
J.C. Scott wrote:
Jay Santos wrote:

At Wikipedia:

Those who avoid animal products for reasons of
health (eg, due to allergies, or to avoid
cholesterol), rather than compassion sometimes
describe themselves as "dietary vegans". However,
popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak argues that
this term is inappropriate because veganism is by
definition about helping animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan



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


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.

If
the 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.


usual suspect 29-12-2004 08:55 PM

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

- 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?

usual suspect 29-12-2004 09:14 PM

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?


J.C. Scott 29-12-2004 10:05 PM

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
---snipped---

Yes, I mean we've all heard the stories in the news of those who
consume way too many fruits and vegetables to the detriment of their
health and develop cancer, raise their cholesterol, develop heart
disease or die prematurely as a result. I mean, who hasn't? Of
course, unlike eating fruits and vegetables, none of those are
associated with meat consumption. What a crazy scare tactic that would
be to suggest that there are potential health risks associated with
eating meat. Nevermind that the meat industry is a multibillion dollar
a year industry, they have your best interest at heart, after all.
Why, if that multibillion dollar a year industry found out that
consuming meat wasn't so hot for your health, you can bet your bottom
dollar the studies they pay for would certainly reflect that, wouldn't
they? Nevermind these additional facts from Northern Illinois
University:

Risk of death from heart attack by average American man: 50%
Risk of death from heart attack by average American vegetarian man: 15%

Risk of death from heart attack by average American purely vegetarian
man: 4%

A) Meat, dairy and egg industries claim there is no reason to be
concerned about your blood cholesterol as long as it is: "normal"

B) Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your
blood cholesterol is "normal": over 50%

C) Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if you do
not consume saturated fat and cholesterol: 5%

Leading sources of saturated fat and cholesterol in American diets:
Meat, dairy products and eggs
Hollywood celebrity paid by Meat Board to tout beef as "Real food for
real people": James Garner
Medical event experienced by James Garner in April, 1988: Quintuple
coronary artery bypass surgery

The Meat Board tells us: "Today's meats are low in fat."
The Meat Board shows us: A serving of beef they claim has "only 300
calories".
The Meat Board doesn't tell us: The serving of beef they show us is
only 3 onces (half the size of an average serving of beef) and has been
surgically defatted with a scalpel.

The meat, dairy and egg industries tell us: Animal products constitute
2 of the "Basic 4" food groups.
The meat, dairy and egg industries don't tell us: There were originally
12 official basic food groups, before these industries applied enormous
political pressure on behalf of their products.

The meat, dairy, and egg industries tell us: We are well-fed only with
animal products.
The meat, dairy, and egg industries don't tell us: The diseases which
are commonly prevented, consistently improved, and sometimes cured by a
low-fat vegetarian diet include: Strokes, Heart Disease, Osteoporosis,
Kidney Stones, Breast Cancer, Colon Cancer , Prostate Cancer,
Pancreatic Cancer, Ovarian Cancer, Cervical Cancer, Stomach Cancer,
Endometrial Cancer, Diabetes, Hypoglycemia, Kidney Disease, Peptic
Ulcers, Constipation, Hemorrhoids, Hiatal Hernias, Diverticulosis,
Obesity, Gallstones, Hypertension, Asthma, Irritable Colon Syndrome,
Salmonellosis, Trichinosis,

The list goes on and on -- http://www.sa.niu.edu/veg/info.htm


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.


You're right, there's none, except this:

Broadband: http://www.drgreger.org/talks/madCow/mcVideoDSL.ram
Dial-up: http://www.drgreger.org/talks/madCow/mcVideoDial.ram


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


Yeah, I know. It's all scaremongering and all his talks cost money,
especially these free ones:

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


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.


It's obvious the dictionary reflects a much more open ended definition
and that definitions change over time:

Evolving definitions change over time, often reflecting changes in
social values, community standards, government policies, or scientific
research. Child abuse now describes behavior such as corporal
punishment that was once accepted as routine discipline by parents and
teachers. Mental retardation reflects a more compassionate and
understanding view of people once defined as feeble minded.

http://www.kahnwithak.com/essay_writing-definition.htm


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?


Actually, you got the first part right. The rest is a strawman
accusation.


J.C. Scott 29-12-2004 10:09 PM

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.


Go get the facts:

Optimum Vegetarian Nutrition:

Broadband -- http://www.drgreger.org/talks/nutrition/nuVideoDSL.ram
Dial-up -- http://www.drgreger.org/talks/nutrition/nuVideoDial.ram


J.C. Scott 29-12-2004 10:23 PM


usual suspect wrote:
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.


--http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/3/525S

--The Oxford Vegetarian Study: an overview 1,2,3

"From the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, Cancer Epidemiology Unit,
Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford, United Kingdom; the Department of Public
Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; and
the Department of Human Nutrition, University of Otago, Dunedin, New
Zealand."

"The Oxford Vegetarian Study is a prospective study of 6000 vegetarians
and 5000 nonvegetarian control subjects recruited in the United Kingdom
between 1980 and 1984. Cross-sectional analyses of study data showed
that vegans had lower total- and LDL-cholesterol concentrations than
did meat eaters; vegetarians and fish eaters had intermediate and
similar values. Meat and cheese consumption were positively associated,
and dietary fiber intake was inversely associated, with
total-cholesterol concentration in both men and women. After 12 y of
follow-up, all-cause mortality in the whole cohort was roughly half
that in the population of England and Wales (standardized mortality
ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.42, 0.51). After adjusting for smoking, body
mass index, and social class, death rates were lower in non-meat-eaters
than in meat eaters for each of the mortality endpoints studied
[relative risks and 95% CIs: 0.80 (0.65, 0.99) for all causes of death,
0.72 (0.47, 1.10) for ischemic heart disease, and 0.61 (0.44, 0.84) for
all malignant neoplasms]. Mortality from ischemic heart disease was
also positively associated with estimated intakes of total animal fat,
saturated animal fat, and dietary cholesterol. Other analyses showed
that non-meat-eaters had only half the risk of meat eaters of requiring
an emergency appendectomy, and that vegans in Britain may be at risk
for iodine deficiency. Thus, the health of vegetarians in this study is
generally good and compares favorably with that of the nonvegetarian
control subjects. Larger studies are needed to examine rates of
specific cancers and other diseases among vegetarians."

You may also wish to look at the American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition's Full Text article toward the bottom of that page entitled,
"Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans?"

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/526S

"Results: Our review of the 6 studies found the following trends: 1) a
very low meat intake was associated with a significant decrease in risk
of death in 4 studies, a nonsignificant decrease in risk of death in
the fifth study, and virtually no association in the sixth study; 2) 2
of the studies in which a low meat intake significantly decreased
mortality risk also indicated that a longer duration ( 2 decades) of
adherence to this diet contributed to a significant decrease in
mortality risk and a significant 3.6-y (95% CI: 1.4, 5.8 y) increase in
life expectancy; and 3) the protective effect of a very low meat intake
seems to attenuate after the ninth decade. Some of the variation in the
survival advantage in vegetarians may have been due to marked
differences between studies in adjustment for confounders, the
definition of vegetarian, measurement error, age distribution, the
healthy volunteer effect, and intake of specific plant foods by the
vegetarians."

"Conclusion: Current prospective cohort data from adults in North
America and Europe raise the possibility that a lifestyle pattern that
includes a very low meat intake is associated with greater longevity."


J.C. Scott 29-12-2004 10:23 PM


usual suspect wrote:
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.


--http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/3/525S

--The Oxford Vegetarian Study: an overview 1,2,3

"From the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, Cancer Epidemiology Unit,
Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford, United Kingdom; the Department of Public
Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; and
the Department of Human Nutrition, University of Otago, Dunedin, New
Zealand."

"The Oxford Vegetarian Study is a prospective study of 6000 vegetarians
and 5000 nonvegetarian control subjects recruited in the United Kingdom
between 1980 and 1984. Cross-sectional analyses of study data showed
that vegans had lower total- and LDL-cholesterol concentrations than
did meat eaters; vegetarians and fish eaters had intermediate and
similar values. Meat and cheese consumption were positively associated,
and dietary fiber intake was inversely associated, with
total-cholesterol concentration in both men and women. After 12 y of
follow-up, all-cause mortality in the whole cohort was roughly half
that in the population of England and Wales (standardized mortality
ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.42, 0.51). After adjusting for smoking, body
mass index, and social class, death rates were lower in non-meat-eaters
than in meat eaters for each of the mortality endpoints studied
[relative risks and 95% CIs: 0.80 (0.65, 0.99) for all causes of death,
0.72 (0.47, 1.10) for ischemic heart disease, and 0.61 (0.44, 0.84) for
all malignant neoplasms]. Mortality from ischemic heart disease was
also positively associated with estimated intakes of total animal fat,
saturated animal fat, and dietary cholesterol. Other analyses showed
that non-meat-eaters had only half the risk of meat eaters of requiring
an emergency appendectomy, and that vegans in Britain may be at risk
for iodine deficiency. Thus, the health of vegetarians in this study is
generally good and compares favorably with that of the nonvegetarian
control subjects. Larger studies are needed to examine rates of
specific cancers and other diseases among vegetarians."

You may also wish to look at the American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition's Full Text article toward the bottom of that page entitled,
"Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans?"

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/526S

"Results: Our review of the 6 studies found the following trends: 1) a
very low meat intake was associated with a significant decrease in risk
of death in 4 studies, a nonsignificant decrease in risk of death in
the fifth study, and virtually no association in the sixth study; 2) 2
of the studies in which a low meat intake significantly decreased
mortality risk also indicated that a longer duration ( 2 decades) of
adherence to this diet contributed to a significant decrease in
mortality risk and a significant 3.6-y (95% CI: 1.4, 5.8 y) increase in
life expectancy; and 3) the protective effect of a very low meat intake
seems to attenuate after the ninth decade. Some of the variation in the
survival advantage in vegetarians may have been due to marked
differences between studies in adjustment for confounders, the
definition of vegetarian, measurement error, age distribution, the
healthy volunteer effect, and intake of specific plant foods by the
vegetarians."

"Conclusion: Current prospective cohort data from adults in North
America and Europe raise the possibility that a lifestyle pattern that
includes a very low meat intake is associated with greater longevity."


usual suspect 29-12-2004 11:38 PM

J.C. Scott wrote:
...
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

---snipped---


****, two can play that game.

Yes, I mean we've all heard the stories in the news of those who
consume way too many fruits and vegetables to the detriment of their
health and develop cancer, raise their cholesterol, develop heart
disease or die prematurely as a result.


I realize science is beyond your grasp, but stop with the strawman.

I mean, who hasn't?


Who hasn't heard of the tendency for people to say that if too much of
something is bad, then zero is even better; or even its twin slothful
induction that if a little is good, then a lot is better. You twit, the
research shows that TOO MUCH is bad, and that TOO LITTLE can also be
bad. You've no concept of moderation.

Of course, unlike eating fruits and vegetables, none of those are
associated with meat consumption.


Overconsumption is not the same as "consumption."

What a crazy scare tactic that would
be to suggest that there are potential health risks associated with
eating meat.


There are also potential health risks associated with eating produce:
...[F]ederal health surveillance of food-borne diseases from
1993 to 1997 found 2,751 outbreaks. Those outbreaks totaled
12,537 individual cases involving fruits and vegetables,
compared with 6,709 cases involving meat.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...od-cover_x.htm

Nevermind that the meat industry is a multibillion dollar
a year industry,


So is the "vegetable industry." So is the "fruit industry." So is the
"soy industry." So is the "grain industry." So is the "water industry."
What kind of industry are you employed? Guess what. It's probably a
multibillion dollar a year industry. You sloppy dunce.

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.


You're right, there's none, except this:


That's anecdote, not evidence.

usual suspect 29-12-2004 11:40 PM

J.C. Scott wrote:
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.


Go get the facts:


After reviewing his website, I don't think your two-bit quack peddles facts.

J.C. Scott 30-12-2004 02:47 AM


usual suspect wrote:
J.C. Scott wrote:
...
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

---snipped---


****, two can play --snipped--


Well, at least you're not good and riled, spewing ad hominems, like I'd
hoped you would be.

Yes, I mean we've all heard the stories in the news of those who
consume way too many fruits and vegetables to the detriment of

their
health and develop cancer, raise their cholesterol, develop heart
disease or die prematurely as a result.


I realize science is beyond your grasp, but stop with the strawman.


It's not enough that you use them, now you want to project, too.

I mean, who hasn't?


Who hasn't heard of the tendency for people to say that if too much

of
something is bad, then zero is even better; or even its twin slothful


induction that if a little is good, then a lot is better. You twit,

the
research shows that TOO MUCH is bad, and that TOO LITTLE can also be
bad. You've no concept of moderation.


Overconsumption is not the same as "consumption."


Yes, you're right. Nevermind the info. I quoted from Northern Illinois
University which stated:

Risk of death from heart attack by average American man: 50%
Risk of death from heart attack by average American vegetarian man: 15%
Risk of death from heart attack by average American purely vegetarian
man: 4%

I would never ask anyone to let the facts contort their expectations of
reality, however.


What a crazy scare tactic that would
be to suggest that there are potential health risks associated with
eating meat.


There are also potential health risks associated with eating produce:
...[F]ederal health surveillance of food-borne diseases from
1993 to 1997 found 2,751 outbreaks. Those outbreaks totaled
12,537 individual cases involving fruits and vegetables,
compared with 6,709 cases involving meat.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...od-cover_x.htm

Nevermind that the meat industry is a multibillion dollar
a year industry,


So is the "vegetable industry." So is the "fruit industry." So is the


"soy industry." So is the "grain industry." So is the "water

industry."
What kind of industry are you employed? Guess what. It's probably a
multibillion dollar a year industry. You sloppy dunce.


Yes, of course. I can see the line of Forbes 500 fruit and vegetable
suppliers for miles.


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.


You're right, there's none, except this:


That's anecdote, not evidence.


Nice assertion, now if you'll just identify which part of the evidence
you're referring to as anecdotal we can move this little discussion
right along, that is if you actually watched it. It's apparent you
have, hence this should be easy.


J.C. Scott 30-12-2004 02:49 AM


usual suspect wrote:
J.C. Scott wrote:
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.


Go get the facts:


After reviewing his website, I don't think your two-bit quack peddles

facts.

And since you're the expert on facts, I'll let your begging the
question go unnoticed.


J.C. Scott 30-12-2004 03:29 AM


usual suspect wrote:
J.C. Scott wrote:
I quoted from Northern Illinois
University which stated:


Citation please. NIU doesn't throw out this kind of bullshit.


Too late.

Risk of death from heart attack by average American man: 50%
Risk of death from heart attack by average American vegetarian man:

15%
Risk of death from heart attack by average American purely

vegetarian
man: 4%


Or did you get this "NIU" information out of a book like Diet for a

New
America by Robbins? Yeah, you're the kind who'd do that.


The link was posted earlier in the thread, which makes it clearly
apparent your observational skills far exceed that of, say, the average
garden rake.

I would never ask anyone to let the facts contort their

expectations of
reality, however.


Other than yourself, you mean.


Correct. Other than yourself.


What a crazy scare tactic that would
be to suggest that there are potential health risks associated

with
eating meat.

There are also potential health risks associated with eating

produce:
...[F]ederal health surveillance of food-borne diseases from
1993 to 1997 found 2,751 outbreaks. Those outbreaks totaled
12,537 individual cases involving fruits and vegetables,
compared with 6,709 cases involving meat.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...od-cover_x.htm


Nevermind that the meat industry is a multibillion dollar
a year industry,

So is the "vegetable industry." So is the "fruit industry." So is

the
"soy industry." So is the "grain industry." So is the "water
industry." What kind of industry are you employed? Guess what.

It's probably a
multibillion dollar a year industry. You sloppy dunce.


Yes, of course. I can see the line of Forbes 500 fruit and

vegetable
suppliers for miles.


Maybe you should investigate which individual crops hire lobbyists in


Washington, DC, as well as in state capitals. The "meat industry," as


you call it, is but a drop in the bucket. Why is so much "corporate
welfare" (as some are wont to call it) tied to grain crops?

You're right, there's none, except this:

That's anecdote, not evidence.


Nice assertion,


Not an assertion. A fact.


Ah yes, the sound of chirping crickets, as we wait for that citation
regarding which parts of the lecture are anecdotal that you're going to
provide.



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter