Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
>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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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 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 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
J.C. Scott wrote:
>>>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. > > "Beef cattle rank as the most valuable product of the nation's farms, > accounting for almost one-fourth of total annual farm receipts." > > http://www.english.agava.ru/country/usa-econ.htm > > Now, if those profits were to get infringed upon by, say, Just say ANYthing, because you don't want to deal with reality. The question really is, What does science show? It doesn't show what you claim. You're relying on studies which show that heavy consumption is bad and moderate consumption is okay; they don't say anything about zero consumption being even better than moderation, but that's what you parrot from blowhard alternative "doctors'" websites. The funniest part of all is you're basing this on an irrational objection to profit-making. Other agricultural products are also profitable, and far more profitable than beef production. Growers and marketers of other products hire lobbyists, PR people, and scientists to skew studies; they also have been known to cover up possible risky things about their own products. There's a lot of information about soy that shows it may not be the safest or healthiest alternative to meat; it could cause certain forms of cancer to metastasize and spread faster, and the phytoestrogens in soy delay or prevent sexual maturation in male rats in lab studies. Got tits? You initially said you liked meat. Have you considered the leaner options available to you, some of which DON'T add to the profitability of multinational beef producers? What do you have against wild game, for example? What about grass-fed (NOT grain-finished) beef? What about catching your own fish? |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
"J.C. Scott" > wrote in message oups.com... > 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 ======================= All I saw was a scam artist looking for your money. What percentage do you get for directing people to a site full of propaganda to scare the rubes into "donating" all their cash? > > >> > 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. =============== I suggest you get a better dictionary then fool. Look up the real meaning of the term as it was intended by the *GUY* that coined it, idiot. You can pretend now that it means anything you want, because you're a) too lazy to reesly be vegan, and b) too stupid to know how to be vegan. Hint, look up Donald Watson, killer. > >> > 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. ======================== Except all the animals that die for your veggies. They might think that an event happened. > |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... >> 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"? The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is well known in the scientific/medical literature, if willfully not by the anti-veg*n hate mongers. Pick the "degenerative disease" of your choice at: www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html Laurie |
|
|||
|
|||
Lying Larry, failed loser, wrote: > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >> 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"? > The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is well known in the > scientific/medical literature, if willfully not by the anti-veg*n hate > mongers. Pick the "degenerative disease" of your choice at: > www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html > > Laurie Lying Larry, that's NOT a credible site. It's a pile of hysterics put together by charlatans, by lying snake oil salesmen like YOU, loser. People like YOU, who have ZERO scientific qualifications to say ANYTHING about diet. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Laurie" > wrote in message ... > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... >>> 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"? > The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is well known in the > scientific/medical literature, if willfully not by the anti-veg*n hate > mongers. Pick the "degenerative disease" of your choice at: > www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html > ======================= ROTFLMAO You decry anti-vegan sites and then as "proof" for your own ignorance you put forth anti-meat sites. You really are just too much of a hoot, killer! > Laurie > > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Larry wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >>>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"? > > The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is Effects *ARE*, you fruity oaf. > well known in the > scientific/medical literature, Larry, does the literature you've selectively chosen for your dumb website focus on generalized consumption of meat, overconsumption of meat, or does it take into account moderate consumption of recommended portion sizes? You're not much of a scientist if you focus only on studies that demonstrate what overconsumption of meat can do, because I can find studies of overconsumption of numerous other foods, including foods high in sugar. Compare apples to apples: find some studies which include moderate intake of lean meats -- red, white, fish, doesn't matter so long as they're lean, although consumption of fish and wild game has shown reduced incidence of heart disease, lower LDL and triglyceride levels, etc. -- and compare those to some kind of "vegan" control if you want. You'll find no significant health differences among those who consume *healthy* diets, whether they contain meat or not. Meat isn't the evil you claim it to be, overconsumption is. And meat eaters aren't alone when it comes to risks of overconsumption: see Derek Nash -- an utterly undisciplined 250 pound "vegan." http://www.cnn.com/FOOD/news/9906/28/red.meat.study/ http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/...ies/s60363.htm http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...?oneclick=true > if willfully not by the anti-veg*n hate > mongers. You conveniently left out the vegan misanthropes and hate mongers, but why should you single yourself out. |
|
|||
|
|||
Larry wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >>>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"? > > The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is Effects *ARE*, you fruity oaf. > well known in the > scientific/medical literature, Larry, does the literature you've selectively chosen for your dumb website focus on generalized consumption of meat, overconsumption of meat, or does it take into account moderate consumption of recommended portion sizes? You're not much of a scientist if you focus only on studies that demonstrate what overconsumption of meat can do, because I can find studies of overconsumption of numerous other foods, including foods high in sugar. Compare apples to apples: find some studies which include moderate intake of lean meats -- red, white, fish, doesn't matter so long as they're lean, although consumption of fish and wild game has shown reduced incidence of heart disease, lower LDL and triglyceride levels, etc. -- and compare those to some kind of "vegan" control if you want. You'll find no significant health differences among those who consume *healthy* diets, whether they contain meat or not. Meat isn't the evil you claim it to be, overconsumption is. And meat eaters aren't alone when it comes to risks of overconsumption: see Derek Nash -- an utterly undisciplined 250 pound "vegan." http://www.cnn.com/FOOD/news/9906/28/red.meat.study/ http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/...ies/s60363.htm http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...?oneclick=true > if willfully not by the anti-veg*n hate > mongers. You conveniently left out the vegan misanthropes and hate mongers, but why should you single yourself out. |
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Fruity wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >>>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"? > > The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is well known No, it isn't. Once again, you are confusing mere polemical assertion with fact. |
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Fruity wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > >>>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"? > > The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is well known No, it isn't. Once again, you are confusing mere polemical assertion with fact. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net... > Larry Fruity wrote: > > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >>>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"? > > > > The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is well known > > No, it isn't. Once again, you are confusing mere > polemical assertion with fact. You are out of touch Rudy, the ill effects of consuming animal products are the outcome of years of epidemiology, clinical research, and other scientific work. They are therefore well known. Both heart disease and cancer are major killers that have been associated with eating animal products. John |
|
|||
|
|||
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net... > Larry Fruity wrote: > > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >>>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"? > > > > The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is well known > > No, it isn't. Once again, you are confusing mere > polemical assertion with fact. You are out of touch Rudy, the ill effects of consuming animal products are the outcome of years of epidemiology, clinical research, and other scientific work. They are therefore well known. Both heart disease and cancer are major killers that have been associated with eating animal products. John |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > ink.net... > >>Larry Fruity wrote: >> >> >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message .. . >>> >>> >>>>>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"? >>> >>> The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is well known >> >>No, it isn't. Once again, you are confusing mere >>polemical assertion with fact. > > > You are out of touch Rudy, the ill effects of consuming animal products are > the outcome of years of epidemiology, clinical research, and other > scientific work. No, there is no such conclusion that comes out of any of those fields. Furthermore, YOU have no expertise in any of the fields. That's why you are so prone to misreading the conclusions they DO make. |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > ink.net... > >>Larry Fruity wrote: >> >> >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message .. . >>> >>> >>>>>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"? >>> >>> The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is well known >> >>No, it isn't. Once again, you are confusing mere >>polemical assertion with fact. > > > You are out of touch Rudy, the ill effects of consuming animal products are > the outcome of years of epidemiology, clinical research, and other > scientific work. No, there is no such conclusion that comes out of any of those fields. Furthermore, YOU have no expertise in any of the fields. That's why you are so prone to misreading the conclusions they DO make. |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote:
>>>>>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"? >>> >>> The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is well known >> >>No, it isn't. Once again, you are confusing mere >>polemical assertion with fact. > > You are out of touch Rudy, You were never in touch, Coleman. > the ill effects of consuming animal products are > the outcome of years of epidemiology, clinical research, and other > scientific work. Your sentence is so shoddy that it appears you're blaming scientific study for the ill effects of consuming animal products, you sissy. > They are therefore well known. Logical fallacy of appealing to popular knowledge. To date, studies have shown that overconsumption of certain animal products, especially fatty meat, can have deleterious health consequences. But conversely, some studies have shown consumption particularly of fish and poultry to have very positive health benefits: reduced incidence of colorectal cancers, significant improvements in LDL:HDL and triglycerides, etc. > Both heart disease and > cancer are major killers that have been associated with eating animal > products. Ipse dixit, poor generalization. The latest red meat study which you'll no doubt put on your pseudoscience website showed a significant reduction in colorectal cancer rates among those who ate more poultry and fish. As well, the studies upon which you rely seldom distinguish between lean meats and fatty meats, reduced-fat dairy products and whole milk products, etc. IOW, you like to compare apples to oranges and make wild claims accordingly. |
|
|||
|
|||
usual suspect wrote:
> John Coleman wrote: > > >>> The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is well known > >> > >>No, it isn't. Once again, you are confusing mere > >>polemical assertion with fact. > > > > You are out of touch Rudy, > > You were never in touch, Coleman. > > > the ill effects of consuming animal products are > > the outcome of years of epidemiology, clinical research, and other > > scientific work. > > Your sentence is so shoddy that it appears you're blaming scientific > study for the ill effects of consuming animal products, you sissy. Wasn't that pathetic?! He wrote, the ill effects of consuming animal products are the outcome of...research. Nice. > > > They are therefore well known. > > Logical fallacy of appealing to popular knowledge. To date, studies have > shown that overconsumption of certain animal products, especially fatty > meat, can have deleterious health consequences. But conversely, some > studies have shown consumption particularly of fish and poultry to have > very positive health benefits: reduced incidence of colorectal cancers, > significant improvements in LDL:HDL and triglycerides, etc. > > > Both heart disease and > > cancer are major killers that have been associated with eating animal > > products. > > Ipse dixit, poor generalization. The latest red meat study which you'll > no doubt put on your pseudoscience website showed a significant > reduction in colorectal cancer rates among those who ate more poultry > and fish. As well, the studies upon which you rely seldom distinguish > between lean meats and fatty meats, reduced-fat dairy products and whole > milk products, etc. IOW, you like to compare apples to oranges and make > wild claims accordingly. Coleman and Larry Fruity and Peril and all the other pseudo-science-spewing vegetarian extremists ALWAYS get this point wrong. EVERY scientifically credible study indicates that *excessive* meat consumption, particularly fat, is the problem, NOT meat consumption per se. |
|
|||
|
|||
Rudy Canoza wrote:
> usual suspect wrote: > >>John Coleman wrote: >> >> >>>>> The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is well known >>>> >>>>No, it isn't. Once again, you are confusing mere >>>>polemical assertion with fact. >>> >>>You are out of touch Rudy, >> >>You were never in touch, Coleman. >> >> >>>the ill effects of consuming animal products are >>>the outcome of years of epidemiology, clinical research, and other >>>scientific work. >> >>Your sentence is so shoddy that it appears you're blaming scientific >>study for the ill effects of consuming animal products, you sissy. > > Wasn't that pathetic?! That's standard practice in his circle jerk. > He wrote, > > the ill effects of consuming animal products are the outcome > of...research. > > Nice. > > >>>They are therefore well known. >> >>Logical fallacy of appealing to popular knowledge. To date, studies > > have > >>shown that overconsumption of certain animal products, especially > > fatty > >>meat, can have deleterious health consequences. But conversely, some >>studies have shown consumption particularly of fish and poultry to > > have > >>very positive health benefits: reduced incidence of colorectal > > cancers, > >>significant improvements in LDL:HDL and triglycerides, etc. >> >> >>>Both heart disease and >>>cancer are major killers that have been associated with eating > > animal > >>>products. >> >>Ipse dixit, poor generalization. The latest red meat study which > > you'll > >>no doubt put on your pseudoscience website showed a significant >>reduction in colorectal cancer rates among those who ate more poultry > > >>and fish. As well, the studies upon which you rely seldom distinguish > > >>between lean meats and fatty meats, reduced-fat dairy products and > > whole > >>milk products, etc. IOW, you like to compare apples to oranges and > > make > >>wild claims accordingly. > > > Coleman and Larry Fruity and Peril and all the other > pseudo-science-spewing vegetarian extremists ALWAYS get this point > wrong. EVERY scientifically credible study indicates that *excessive* > meat consumption, particularly fat, is the problem, NOT meat > consumption per se. You can even say that it's the excessive consumption of *saturated* fats, including transfats. Many cardiologists recommend their patients increase their consumption of fatty fish rich in omega-3 FAs. Not all animal fats are "bad" -- some are much more healthful than some plant-derived fats. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message nk.net... > John Coleman wrote: > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > ink.net... > > > >>Larry Fruity wrote: > >> > >> > >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message > .. . > >>> > >>> > >>>>>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"? > >>> > >>> The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is well known > >> > >>No, it isn't. Once again, you are confusing mere > >>polemical assertion with fact. > > > > > > You are out of touch Rudy, the ill effects of consuming animal products are > > the outcome of years of epidemiology, clinical research, and other > > scientific work. > > No, there is no such conclusion that comes out of any > of those fields. Science never produces "conclusions" as such, there is always the posibility of new findings proving the current ideas wrong. However, currently there is plenty of information linking meat eating to serious degenerative diseases, and no sign of this being wrong or even likely wrong. A few years ago the UK government were even considering a program to recommend meat intake be limited to less than 90g daily (which is a lot) because that would lower cancers, but it was blown off by the meat marketing lobby. > Furthermore, YOU have no expertise in > any of the fields. That's why you are so prone to > misreading the conclusions they DO make. uh, unlike you the expert?? See the thread I posted "China Study book published"*. Read the book. It's written by an expert in biochemistry, epidemiology and nutrition. John --- *http://www.thechinastudy.com/about.html The findings? "People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease . People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. These results could not be ignored," said Dr. Campbell. |
|
|||
|
|||
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/293/2/172
Meat Consumption and Risk of Colorectal Cancer Ann Chao, PhD; Michael J. Thun, MD, MS; Cari J. Connell, MPH; Marjorie L. McCullough, ScD; Eric J. Jacobs, PhD; W. Dana Flanders, MD, ScD; Carmen Rodriguez, MD, MPH; Rashmi Sinha, PhD; Eugenia E. Calle, PhD JAMA. 2005;293:172-182. Context Consumption of red and processed meat has been associated with colorectal cancer in many but not all epidemiological studies; few studies have examined risk in relation to long-term meat intake or the association of meat with rectal cancer. Objective To examine the relationship between recent and long-term meat consumption and the risk of incident colon and rectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants A cohort of 148 610 adults aged 50 to 74 years (median, 63 years), residing in 21 states with population-based cancer registries, who provided information on meat consumption in 1982 and again in 1992/1993 when enrolled in the Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS II) Nutrition Cohort. Follow-up from time of enrollment in 1992/1993 through August 31, 2001, identified 1667 incident colorectal cancers. Participants contributed person-years at risk until death or a diagnosis of colon or rectal cancer. Main Outcome Measure Incidence rate ratio (RR) of colon and rectal cancer. Results High intake of red and processed meat reported in 1992/1993 was associated with higher risk of colon cancer after adjusting for age and energy intake but not after further adjustment for body mass index, cigarette smoking, and other covariates. When long-term consumption was considered, persons in the highest tertile of consumption in both 1982 and 1992/1993 had higher risk of distal colon cancer associated with processed meat (RR, 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.17), and ratio of red meat to poultry and fish (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.08-2.18) relative to those persons in the lowest tertile at both time points. Long-term consumption of poultry and fish was inversely associated with risk of both proximal and distal colon cancer. High consumption of red meat reported in 1992/1993 was associated with higher risk of rectal cancer (RR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.15-2.52; P = .007 for trend), as was high consumption reported in both 1982 and 1992/1993 (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.00-2.05). Conclusions Our results demonstrate the potential value of examining long-term meat consumption in assessing cancer risk and strengthen the evidence that prolonged high consumption of red and processed meat may increase the risk of cancer in the distal portion of the large intestine. |
|
|||
|
|||
John Coleman wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > nk.net... > > John Coleman wrote: > > > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > > ink.net... > > > > > >>> The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is well known > > >> > > >>No, it isn't. Once again, you are confusing mere > > >>polemical assertion with fact. > > > > > > > > > You are out of touch Rudy, the ill effects of consuming animal products > > > are the outcome of years of epidemiology, clinical research, and other > > > scientific work. > > > > No, there is no such conclusion that comes out of any > > of those fields. > > Science never produces "conclusions" as such Then you were simply bullshitting above, not to mention constructing truly wretched English sentences. > However, currently there is > plenty of information linking meat eating to serious degenerative diseases, > and no sign of this being wrong or even likely wrong. No. You are wrong. There is information linking HIGH meat consumption with degenerative diseases. There is no information linking meat consumption _per se_ with degenerative diseases. This is the fundamental point you, Larry Fruity, Peril, and all other anti-meat orthorexics get fundamentally wrong. > > A few years ago the UK government were even considering a program to > recommend meat intake be limited to less than 90g daily (which is a lot) That is NOT a large quantity. > because that would lower cancers, but it was blown off by the meat marketing > lobby. Perhaps; or, perhaps that's merely your extremist's paranoia at work. > > > Furthermore, YOU have no expertise in > > any of the fields. That's why you are so prone to > > misreading the conclusions they DO make. > > uh, unlike you the expert?? Unlike you, I don't pretend to expertise I don't have. |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ...
> http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/293/2/172 > > Meat Consumption and Risk of Colorectal Cancer > Ann Chao, PhD; Michael J. Thun, MD, MS; Cari J. Connell, MPH; Marjorie L. > McCullough, ScD; Eric J. Jacobs, PhD; W. Dana Flanders, MD, ScD; Carmen > Rodriguez, MD, MPH; Rashmi Sinha, PhD; Eugenia E. Calle, PhD > > > JAMA. 2005;293:172-182. > > Context Consumption of red and processed meat has been associated with > colorectal cancer in many but not all epidemiological studies; few studies > have examined risk in relation to long-term meat intake or the association > of meat with rectal cancer. > > Objective To examine the relationship between recent and long-term meat > consumption and the risk of incident colon and rectal cancer. > > Design, Setting, and Participants A cohort of 148 610 adults aged 50 to > 74 years (median, 63 years), residing in 21 states with population-based > cancer registries, who provided information on meat consumption in 1982 > and again in 1992/1993 when enrolled in the Cancer Prevention Study II > (CPS II) Nutrition Cohort. Follow-up from time of enrollment in 1992/1993 > through August 31, 2001, identified 1667 incident colorectal cancers. > Participants contributed person-years at risk until death or a diagnosis > of colon or rectal cancer. > > Main Outcome Measure Incidence rate ratio (RR) of colon and rectal > cancer. > > Results High intake of red and processed meat reported in 1992/1993 was > associated with higher risk of colon cancer after adjusting for age and > energy intake but not after further adjustment for body mass index, > cigarette smoking, and other covariates. When long-term consumption was > considered, persons in the highest tertile of consumption in both 1982 and > 1992/1993 had higher risk of distal colon cancer associated with processed > meat (RR, 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.17), and ratio of red > meat to poultry and fish (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.08-2.18) relative to those > persons in the lowest tertile at both time points. Long-term consumption > of poultry and fish was inversely associated with risk of both proximal > and distal colon cancer. High consumption of red meat reported in > 1992/1993 was associated with higher risk of rectal cancer (RR, 1.71; 95% > CI, 1.15-2.52; P = .007 for trend), as was high consumption reported in > both 1982 and 1992/1993 (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.00-2.05). > > Conclusions Our results demonstrate the potential value of examining > long-term meat consumption in assessing cancer risk and strengthen the > evidence that prolonged high consumption of red and processed meat may > increase the risk of cancer in the distal portion of the large intestine. ################################################## ##### Former McDonald's CEO Charlie Bell dies of cancer Posted 1/16/2005 7:11 PM CHICAGO (AP) — Charlie Bell, who stepped down last year as McDonald's Corp.'s chief executive to battle colorectal cancer, died early Monday in his native Australia. He was 44. .... http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...ell-obit_x.htm |
|
|||
|
|||
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ...
> http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/293/2/172 > > Meat Consumption and Risk of Colorectal Cancer > Ann Chao, PhD; Michael J. Thun, MD, MS; Cari J. Connell, MPH; Marjorie L. > McCullough, ScD; Eric J. Jacobs, PhD; W. Dana Flanders, MD, ScD; Carmen > Rodriguez, MD, MPH; Rashmi Sinha, PhD; Eugenia E. Calle, PhD > > > JAMA. 2005;293:172-182. > > Context Consumption of red and processed meat has been associated with > colorectal cancer in many but not all epidemiological studies; few studies > have examined risk in relation to long-term meat intake or the association > of meat with rectal cancer. > > Objective To examine the relationship between recent and long-term meat > consumption and the risk of incident colon and rectal cancer. > > Design, Setting, and Participants A cohort of 148 610 adults aged 50 to > 74 years (median, 63 years), residing in 21 states with population-based > cancer registries, who provided information on meat consumption in 1982 > and again in 1992/1993 when enrolled in the Cancer Prevention Study II > (CPS II) Nutrition Cohort. Follow-up from time of enrollment in 1992/1993 > through August 31, 2001, identified 1667 incident colorectal cancers. > Participants contributed person-years at risk until death or a diagnosis > of colon or rectal cancer. > > Main Outcome Measure Incidence rate ratio (RR) of colon and rectal > cancer. > > Results High intake of red and processed meat reported in 1992/1993 was > associated with higher risk of colon cancer after adjusting for age and > energy intake but not after further adjustment for body mass index, > cigarette smoking, and other covariates. When long-term consumption was > considered, persons in the highest tertile of consumption in both 1982 and > 1992/1993 had higher risk of distal colon cancer associated with processed > meat (RR, 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.17), and ratio of red > meat to poultry and fish (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.08-2.18) relative to those > persons in the lowest tertile at both time points. Long-term consumption > of poultry and fish was inversely associated with risk of both proximal > and distal colon cancer. High consumption of red meat reported in > 1992/1993 was associated with higher risk of rectal cancer (RR, 1.71; 95% > CI, 1.15-2.52; P = .007 for trend), as was high consumption reported in > both 1982 and 1992/1993 (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.00-2.05). > > Conclusions Our results demonstrate the potential value of examining > long-term meat consumption in assessing cancer risk and strengthen the > evidence that prolonged high consumption of red and processed meat may > increase the risk of cancer in the distal portion of the large intestine. ################################################## ##### Former McDonald's CEO Charlie Bell dies of cancer Posted 1/16/2005 7:11 PM CHICAGO (AP) — Charlie Bell, who stepped down last year as McDonald's Corp.'s chief executive to battle colorectal cancer, died early Monday in his native Australia. He was 44. .... http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...ell-obit_x.htm |
|
|||
|
|||
heartless ~peril~ jumped up and down on Charlie Bell's casket and wrote:
> ################################################## ##### > > Former McDonald's CEO Charlie Bell dies of cancer > Posted 1/16/2005 7:11 PM > > CHICAGO (AP) — Charlie Bell, who stepped down last year > as McDonald's Corp.'s chief executive to battle colorectal cancer, > died early Monday in his native Australia. He was 44. That's the same Charlie Bell who revamped McD's menu to include healthier fare like salads, bottled water, etc. |
|
|||
|
|||
heartless ~peril~ jumped up and down on Charlie Bell's casket and wrote:
> ################################################## ##### > > Former McDonald's CEO Charlie Bell dies of cancer > Posted 1/16/2005 7:11 PM > > CHICAGO (AP) — Charlie Bell, who stepped down last year > as McDonald's Corp.'s chief executive to battle colorectal cancer, > died early Monday in his native Australia. He was 44. That's the same Charlie Bell who revamped McD's menu to include healthier fare like salads, bottled water, etc. |
|
|||
|
|||
blackhearted peril wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote... > >>heartless ~peril~ jumped up and down > > eh? I'm dancing! Dance is one of the arts. It's hard to tell what you're doing the way you skinheads thrash and stomp about, but rest assured it's NOT dancing. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
WHY VEGANISM? | Vegan | |||
free health coupons and samples from quality health | Diabetic | |||
get frEE health samples from QUALITY HEALTH | Diabetic | |||
free health coupons and samples from quality health | Diabetic | |||
free health coupons and samples from quality health | Diabetic |