Foods to Avoid

[Gumby]

It's also worth noting that there dozens of studies that go against conventional wisdom. To name a few...

Indian Railway Workers Study:
In 1967 the British Heart Journal published a study that found that heart disease was seven times more common among workers in Madras compared to those in Punjab. Punjabi workers ate ten to twenty times more fat (and smoked eight times as much) as those in Madras. The Punjabi workers lived twelve years longer than the typically vegetarian workers of Madras.

Framingham—Puerto Rico—Honolulu Study:
Conducted by the NIH, 16,000 healthy middle-aged men in Framingham, Massachusetts; Puerto Rico; and Honolulu answered questions about their eating habits. Six years later, in 1981, the researchers compared the diets of those who had heart attacks and those who had not. The most significant finding was the fact that the heart attack victims had eaten more polyunsaturated oils than the other group.

Parisian Study:
In 1998, a Parisian study published in The Lancet found that those who live the longest are old women with very high cholesterol levels. Women with very low levels had a death rate over five times higher.

Denmark Study:
The results of a study conducted by researchers in Denmark and published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2002, indicated no association between dietary patterns and coronary heart disease. The study looked at the diets of patients admitted to the hospital for diagnosis of heart disease. Patients were divided into three groups: two groups ate diets that were "healthy" according to established standards—they avoided animal fats and frequently ate whole grains, fruit, and vegetables. The third group consumed a so-called Western diet with a lot of meat, butter, and white bread. Again, the study indicated no association between dietary patterns and coronary heart disease, even though the otherwise healthy "Western" diet contained white bread.

A Swedish study published in the British Journal of Nutrition, 2004, found that consumption of milk fat (that is, butterfat) was negatively associated with the risk factors for heart disease and also for actual heart attack, In other words, butterfat protects against heart disease.

The Honolulu Heart Program:
A report published in The Lancet, 2001, as part of the Honolulu Heart Program, an ongoing study, looked at lowering cholesterol in the elderly. Researchers compared changes in cholesterol concentrations over 20 years with mortality from all causes. The results completely contradict the lipid hypothesis. Said the researchers, "Our data accords with previous findings of increased mortality in elderly people with low serum cholesterol, and show that...the earlier that patients start to have lower cholesterol concentrations, the greater the risk of death..." That is, when people maintain low levels of cholesterol in their blood over a long period of time — for example, by eating the kind of low-fat diet that government agencies recommend—their risk of death from all causes will increase.

Russian Low Cholesterol = Increased Risk:
A study carried out by a research team from the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences in St. Petersburg and published in the journal Circulation, 1993, found that it was low levels of LDL (the "bad" cholesterol that we're always told to keep as low as possible) that were associated with increased risk of heart disease. Nor was this higher risk the result of lower levels of HDL (the "good" cholesterol), for the people with low LDL were the ones with the highest HDL levels.

The International Atherosclerosis Project:
The lipid hypothesis could have been laid to rest as far back as 1968, with the publication of the results of the International Atherosclerosis Project in the journal Laboratory Investigations. Researchers performed detailed autopsies on 22,000 corpses in 14 nations. This study showed the same degree of atheroma (fatty plaques that block arteries) in all parts of the world—in populations that consumed large amounts of fatty animal products and those that were largely vegetarian; and in populations that suffered from a great deal of heart disease and in populations that very little or none at all. Furthermore, the researchers found just as much artery blockage in people who had low levels of cholesterol compared to those whose cholesterol was high.

Canadian Study:
A team of researchers in London, Canada, conducted a long-term study of 800 war veterans confined to a hospital, published in Circulation, 1963. For years, the researchers analyzed the veterans' cholesterol levels and studied the arteries of those who died to determine the level of arteriosclerosis for each veteran. They found that, although the levels of cholesterol varied considerably from one individual to another, each man's cholesterol remained more or less the same during the entire period of the study. That is, if a veteran had low cholesterol at the beginning of the study, it was still low when he died. Yet the men who had low cholesterol had just as much arteriosclerosis as those with high cholesterol.
Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=XHlJMN ... &q&f=false

And to top it off, most of the research that condemns meats and animal fat are full of flaws. Researchers tend to lump trans fat intake with saturated fat intake, so most survey-type studies are pretty unreliable. For instance, ghee has often been a saturated fat staple of India, but modern versions of ghee are typically hydrogenated — which may be contributing to heart disease. Researchers would likely be unable to tell the difference in a survey (since most people are unaware they are even consuming trans fats). Furthermore, many people are cooking their saturated fats with a wide range of synthetic cooking oils — which appear to contribute heavily towards heart disease.

[rocketdog]

rocketdog,

I have a much, much harder time avoiding grain/corn based food than avoiding fats.  It's brutal. 

Further, I'm pretty vehimently against the Atkins Diet.  It's way too unbalanced and there's no focus on whether the mea you're eating was properly raised.

Do you have any curiosity at least around Omega6/Omega3 ratios?  How about the idea that at the very least, phytates, if not downright destructive, at least contribute to very little of the micro-nutient value in grains getting into our system.

I mean what can grains truly provide that can't be better obtained by eating potatoes and other vegetables?

I'm familiar to some extent with the Omega 6/Omega 3 ratio topic.  And I'm on board for the most part with that concept.  But you can still get a good ratio through plant-based foods and oils if you know what you're doing.  I added flax seeds to my diet back in the 1990s due to the Omegas, in fact.  My wife has recently gotten into Chia seeds for the same reason.  Mostly we just add them to fruit smoothies for breakfast. 

I'm also in favor of minimally processed foods whenever possible, but just because something had to be processed or refined doesn't necessarily make it harmful.  Most vitamin and mineral supplements are highly processed and refined (a lot of Vitamin C supplements are derived from corn, for instance).  And pretty much all dairy products are processed in one way or another. 

I'm not here to tout a grain-based diet -- far from it.  But to say that grains are evil and will lead to our certain destruction is a bit hyperbolic to say the least.    I don't think including a variety of whole grains as part of a balanced diet is harmful. 

Corn is another matter, since the corn we eat today has been so overbred and genetically modified that it bears little resemblance to ancestral maize.  It's basically a sugar-bomb.  I only eat corn on the cob once or twice a week when it's in season for about 8 weeks each summer, because it's the law where I live.*

(*not really, but it's grown all around these parts so sometimes it feels that way! )

[Benko]

I'm familiar to some extent with the Omega 6/Omega 3 ratio topic.  And I'm on board for the most part with that concept.  But you can still get a good ratio through plant-based foods and oils if you know what you're doing. 

Flax is not a substitue for fish oil.  The conversion of flax to it may be EPA is so so (and variable) BUT it does not yield much DHA at all (I may have it backwards but either DHA or EPA cannot be gotten very well from flax).  So flax in the real world is not a substitute for fish oil.

"Corn is another matter, since the corn we eat today has been so overbred and genetically modified that it bears little resemblance to ancestral maize."
This is most certainly true of wheat, which would be the grain you'd get the most agreement on as something to avoid.

[rocketdog]

Not to be crass, but if your previous diet was a Standard American Diet (SAD) your health would have improved dramatically even if you transitioned to a high quality dog-food diet (the biologically appropriate ones are actually very nutrient dense). Anything is better than SAD. You shouldn't assume it was the lack of meat. More likely it was the reduction of processed foods.

I was already eating a fairly healthy diet, I just basically cut out the meat with few if any other changes. 

Also, vegetarians tend to have a "healthy user effect". The fact that you started training for a "marathon" after converting to vegetarianism corroborates that effect (i.e. you took other steps to improve your health that had nothing to do with diet).

No, I was already running daily and had decided to train for the marathon the following year.  That's what lead me to research what foods I should eat to give me the best performance possible, and what I learned turned me onto vegetarianism.  So the running actually came first (I've been a cross-country runner since I was in grade school, and I was on the track and field teams in junior high and high school).

What your doctor believes, and reality are two different things. Let me guess, you have low cholesterol? Yes, the "consensus" is that low cholesterol is better. Unfortunatelty that ideology is based on a myth.

It's not what my doctor believes, it's what the tests show.  My cholesterol is like my blood pressure: "low normal", meaning it's towards the low end of the normal range.  So I guess if the standard medical health tests are all wrong then yes, I must be profoundly unhealthy. 

Cholesterol is also about balancing LDL and HDL, not strictly your total number.  But assuming a healthy LDL/HDL ratio, if I were given a choice between having low cholesterol or high cholesterol, I'll take the low cholesterol all day long. 

The real data suggests that people with "low cholesterol" don't live as long as people with higher cholesterol. And this makes sense, since cholesterol is used for many different things in the body — including fighting infections, building cell walls, and as a precursor to Serotonin (the "happiness" hormone) to name a few. Most family doctors learn about cholesterol from pharmaceutical companies, so it's no wonder the myth lives on.

Do an internet search for "low cholesterol benefits" and note the sources of the articles listed.  Then do the same for "high cholesterol benefits".  It's your health, so you be the judge of which sources you'd rather put your trust in. 

[Gumby]

I'm familiar to some extent with the Omega 6/Omega 3 ratio topic.  And I'm on board for the most part with that concept.  But you can still get a good ratio through plant-based foods and oils if you know what you're doing.  I added flax seeds to my diet back in the 1990s due to the Omegas, in fact.  My wife has recently gotten into Chia seeds for the same reason.  Mostly we just add them to fruit smoothies for breakfast.

Oh rocketdog, you're adorable.

When people eat flax seeds, they are doing it in the hopes that their body will synthesize EPA and DHA from the short-chain omega-3 alpha-linolenic acid (ALA). ALA is found in plant foods such as flax, hemp and pumpkin seeds and walnuts. The best and most easily absorbed source of pure EPA and DHA acids is wild fish (and fish oil).

Unfortunately, research clearly shows that the conversion of ALA to EPA and DHA is extremely limited. Less than 5% of ALA gets converted to EPA, and less than 0.5% of ALA gets converted to DHA.

A common misconception, especially amongst vegetarians and vegans, is that our need for EPA and DHA can be met by consuming flax oil and other plant sources of ALA. But the conversion numbers above clearly indicate that this isn’t the case.

Studies have shown that ALA supplements (like flax oil) are unable to raise plasma DHA levels in vegans, despite low DHA levels at baseline. So unless they are supplementing with an algae-derived source of DHA, it is likely that most vegetarians and vegans are deficient.

This is significant because researchers now believe that the majority of the health benefits we get from dietary omega-3 fats come from the longer chain derivatives...

...The conversion of plant sources of ALA, such as flax seed oil, to DHA is poor in healthy people and even worse in people deficient in certain nutrients. Vegans and vegetarians are especially prone to be poor converters of ALA to DHA.

Source: http://chriskresser.com/why-fish-stomps ... of-omega-3

You would need to consume huge quantities of flaxseed in order to benefit from it.

I cannot recommend the amounts of flaxseed that would be needed to deliver equivalent amounts of omega-3s. In flaxseed this would require 6-60 grams/per person a day which might cause diarrhea, intestinal blockage, nausea, constipation and other GI side effects.

Source: http://perfecthealthdiet.com/category/n ... nd-spices/

The research is very clear about poor conversion of ALA to EPA/DHA...

http://pmid.us/16188209
http://pmid.us/17920214
http://www.lipidworld.com/content/8/1/33

Given the demonstrated benefits of DHA on visual acuity and in the developing mammalian brain, poor conversion of ALA to DHA is a concern, particularly for vegetarians and for individuals who do not eat fatty fish.

Source: http://www.lipidworld.com/content/8/1/33

So, consuming flax in the hopes of converting to EPA/DHA is a pipe dream. If you don't consume fatty fish, you are almost certainly not getting enough Omega-3s — which would mean you have way too much Omega-6 in your diet.

[Gumby]

if I were given a choice between having low cholesterol or high cholesterol, I'll take the low cholesterol all day long. 

It's absolutely fascinating that an atheist would have so much conviction in so many myths (flax, cholesterol, meat, oils, etc.).

I have to say rocketdog, it seems like you won't be convinced that you've been lied to no matter how much evidence I show you, despite the fact that you haven't shown any evidence to support any of your claims that the consensus is right.

Do an internet search for "low cholesterol benefits" and note the sources of the articles listed.  Then do the same for "high cholesterol benefits".  It's your health, so you be the judge of which sources you'd rather put your trust in.

The sources of the "low cholesterol benefits" all have corporate interests but none of them explain why lowering cholesterol is good for preventing disease.

The sources of the "high cholesterol benefits" actually take the time to explain the benefits of cholesterol and debunk the "low cholesterol" myth. Plus, the raw data actually supports the "high cholesterol benefits" group.

[Gumby]

The problem with believing in the "consensus" is that the consensus relies on "Group Think"

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

If your dietary convictions are based on "Group Think" you're in trouble. You might as well just eat a Standard American Diet.

[rocketdog]

I'm familiar to some extent with the Omega 6/Omega 3 ratio topic.  And I'm on board for the most part with that concept.  But you can still get a good ratio through plant-based foods and oils if you know what you're doing.  I added flax seeds to my diet back in the 1990s due to the Omegas, in fact.  My wife has recently gotten into Chia seeds for the same reason.  Mostly we just add them to fruit smoothies for breakfast.

Oh rocketdog, you're adorable.

That's what all the bitches* tell me. 

(*as in female dogs)

You would need to consume huge quantities of flaxseed in order to benefit from it.

Tell me about it -- you should see what I spend on toilet paper! 

But seriously, somehow vegetarians and non-fish eaters are managing to live long, perfectly healthy lives.  Amazing how they've managed to do that without fish oil capsules. 

I could quote you articles that would refute your articles, but that would be a waste of both our time. 

So, consuming flax in the hopes of converting to EPA/DHA is a pipe dream. If you don't consume fatty fish, you are almost certainly not getting enough Omega-3s — which would mean you have way too much Omega-6 in your diet.

Gosh, I guess I'd better get myself on life support!  I'm practically the walking dead! 

[Gumby]

Given that you unable to have a serious conversation about the evidence, it's probably best that I stop wasting my time refuting all of your arguments. I mean, it seems like you are really comfortable in your beliefs and don't want to learn anything new. I'm happy to stop trying to convince you if you'd rather not hear about it.

[rocketdog]

OK, so I couldn't resist:

Why Do Vegetarians Live Longer?

Excerpt: According to a recent report on the largest study of vegetarians and vegans to date, those eating plant-based diets appear to have a significantly longer life expectancy. Vegetarians live on average almost eight years longer than the general population.

Vegetarians Have Longer Life Expectancy Than Meat Eaters, Study Finds

Excerpt:  The study data, released by researchers at the Loma Linda University, USA, finds that people following a vegetarian diet have a number of health benefits compared to those who consume meat - and top of those benefits is a longer lifespan, with vegetarian men living an average of 9.5 and women an average of 6.1 years longer than meat munching counterparts.

Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans?

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.

How To Live To 100

Excerpt: A 2009 study in Archives of Internal Medicine that followed 547,000 older Americans found those who ate the most red meat had a 31% to 36% higher risk of dying over 10 years.


I could go on and on, but you get the idea... 

[rocketdog]

I have to say rocketdog, it seems like you won't be convinced that you've been lied to no matter how much evidence I show you, despite the fact that you haven't shown any evidence to support any of your claims that the consensus is right.

To paraphrase Sir Isaac Newton:

"For every study there is an equal and opposite study."

I could quote study after study for you, but that would waste both our time (me in digging them up and you in reading and rejecting them for one reason or another.)  But if it would really make you happy, I can start culling through the studies for you.  It's going to take me a while though, because I don't have them all compiled into a single document at my fingertips the way you clearly do. 

Do an internet search for "low cholesterol benefits" and note the sources of the articles listed.  Then do the same for "high cholesterol benefits".  It's your health, so you be the judge of which sources you'd rather put your trust in.

The sources of the "low cholesterol benefits" all have corporate interests but none of them explain why lowering cholesterol is good for preventing disease.

Yes, it's all a conspiracy.  A conspiracy to make people live longer so greedy vegetable farmers can extract more money out of us.  I can almost hear them cackling from behind the produce racks... 

[rocketdog]

It's absolutely fascinating that an atheist would have so much conviction in so many myths (flax, cholesterol, meat, oils, etc.).

That's what skepticism is all about: not accepting claims without sufficient evidence.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so you have an uphill battle to overcome the decades of evidence showing the benefits of a well-balanced meatless diet. 

You've thrown a lot of studies out there, and I frankly don't have time to read them all.  But as long as I keep finding studies that support the health benefits of a vegetarian diet, it's basically all a big "he said, she said" discussion, with no clear winner. 

Remember, you can't tear down decades of corroborated medical findings with a handful of studies.  That's like saying you're going to tear down evolutionary theory because you found a few fossils that don't seem to fit.  You need to basically get the preponderance of studies overturning the entire body of previous literature on the matter.  Otherwise you're just raising interesting anomalies. 

And besides -- if you think my studies are all flawed and yours are the correct ones, what happens 20 or 30 years from now when the pendulum has swung the other way and a whole new set of studies comes out that refutes your studies?  At what point do you determine which set of studies is the "right" one when they all conflict with one another?

[Pointedstick]

When Gumby was exposing me to this information, it wasn't the studies that were persuasive (as you said, "For every study there is an equal and opposite study"), it was learning about the actual biochemistry of what really happens when you eat things. Studies that say "people who do X experience benefit Y!" will never be accurate no matter what they purport to show because correlation is not causation. Learning about the biology of what your body actually does with the stuff you put in your mouth strips all that away, because it's just pure science, unfiltered by bias, preconceived notions, and observational studies.

Don't ask what the studies say. Ask the biologists what about digestion, nutrient absorption, bioavailability, stuff like that.

[Gumby]

It's absolutely fascinating that an atheist would have so much conviction in so many myths (flax, cholesterol, meat, oils, etc.).

That's what skepticism is all about: not accepting claims without sufficient evidence.

And yet, you chose to buy into vegetarianism — which only a minority of the people who have ever occupied the planet have ever chosen to attempt — just because you read a few biased books about the dangers of meat? Where was your skepticism there? I honestly can't believe you bought into their arguments without more skepticism. I mean the evidence is so weak, it's stunning.

I can understand if you have ethical concerns about eating meat, but I don't see how you can be convinced it's a better way to eat. Humans evolved to eat meat. Our acid-based stomachs are literally designed to digest meat with ease (same system a carnivore uses). Herbivores have 4 stomachs and large caecums to digest plants and they must eat continuously — nearly every waking minute — in order to nourish themselves, while often engaging in coprophagy (i.e. fecal eating) in order to maximize their nutrients.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so you have an uphill battle to overcome the decades of evidence showing the benefits of a well-balanced meatless diet.

Decades?

Ah... and that's where you have it backwards. I have +2 million of years of evidence that shows that a high-fat meat-based diet has allowed our species to thrive with virtually no evidence of chronic disease. Virtually every indigenous culture around the world that's ever been observed ate a high-fat meat/seafood-eating diet and had been free of chronic disease until improperly-prepared grains and modern diets were introduced.

And after 2 million years, researchers came up with a "hypothesis" that meat and fat are bad for us. The only problem is, decades later, the "Diet Heart hypothesis" still hasn't been proven. So, where is your skepticism? Why do you believe in the "Diet Heart hypothesis" when the evidence to support it is so weak?

Humans evolved to eat meat and high-fat diets over 2 millions years ago:

[align=center][/align]

So, where is your skepticism on all these newfangled approaches to eating? The ancestral-diet approach is to eat the way we were meant to eat — the way our ancestors have always eaten.

We know that people always ate meat. We know that people always ate fat. It wasn't until the 20th century that people started coming up with unproven theories about cholesterol and fat. So, as corporations started convincing people to replace their butter and lard with vegetable oils, heart attacks and heart disease exploded during the middle of the 20th century (they were quite rare a century before). It couldn't have been meat or fat that contributed to all the heart disease in the 20th century. Nope. It was likely the vegetable oil — which we now know is highly oxidized Omega-6 polyunsaturates.

Remember, you can't tear down decades of corroborated medical findings with a handful of studies.

Sure I can. The studies can't explain 2 million years of high-fat, meat-eating diets.

And besides -- if you think my studies are all flawed and yours are the correct ones, what happens 20 or 30 years from now when the pendulum has swung the other way and a whole new set of studies comes out that refutes your studies?  At what point do you determine which set of studies is the "right" one when they all conflict with one another?

I could care less where the "pendulum" is. All I have to do is look at how humans have evolved. 2 million years of meat and fat in the diet and our species thrived with very little evidence of much chronic disease until the Industrial Revolution began.

If anything, the new "fad" diets (vegetarianism, vegan, low fat, etc.) are the ones that we should be skeptical about. Their supporters are the ones that need to prove that the old way of doing things were somehow wrong.

[Gumby]

I've often wondered what a person from the 1700s would say about our eating habits. I've sort of imagined that it would go something like this:

1700s Time Traveler: So, do you have any milk?

Modern guy: Oh yeah, what kind? 1% milk fat, 2% milk fat, skim or whole.

1700s Time Traveler: I beg your pardon, but why would someone ever choose less milk fat? The cream is the best part!

Modern guy: Well, modern doctors believe that the milk fat is bad for you. It causes heart disease and makes you fat.

1700s Time Traveler: Am I considered fat in your modern world?

Modern guy: No, not at all. You're actually quite thin. You must do a lot of labor.

1700s Time Traveler: No, I do no such thing. I have slaves for that. What is "heart disease?"

Modern guy: It's when your arteries and heart become clogged with deposits and your heart stops working properly. It's one of the leading causes of death in our country now.

1700s Time Traveler: I've never heard of such a widespread heart malaise. Back in my day, everyone drank milk as it was from the cow itself.

Modern guy: Well, I hate to tell you this, but there are some states where it's illegal to sell milk directly from the cow. Almost everyone has their milk boiled to high temperatures, to improve the shelf life, and the milk fat is processed by homogenization so that you don't have to shake the milk anymore before you drink it.

1700s Time Traveler: So, I can't have a glass of real milk, as it comes from the cow?

Modern guy: I'm afraid not.

1700s Time Traveler: How strange. Well, how about some animal food. What can I have to eat? Do you have any calf brains or goat liver?

Modern guy: Uh no. We have a steak cooked with healthy vegetable oil and not very much salt?

1700s Time Traveler: I beg your pardon. Is there are salt shortage? And what is a "healthy vegetable oil?" I thought you said that many people are getting heart disease in your modern world?

Modern guy: Well, that's because those people ate too much animal fat and salt. So, instead, people eat less salt and corporations take vegetable seeds and heat them to really high temperatures and crush them into a fine oil that's easy to sell and everyone says is healthy.

1700s Time Traveler: I'm quite confused. Everyone used to cook their meats in animal fat, cream and butter in my day. The animal would eat the grass, and the fat would be "healthy" as you say. We also used a lot of salt to preserve our food. And very few people had heart problems.

Modern guy: Well, modern doctors disagree. They are scientists and they know better.

1700s Time Traveler: So, other than this heart disease, I assume modern medicine has eradicated all other forms of disease?

Modern guy: Yes and no. We eradicated almost all infectious disease, but there is a thriving pharmaceutical industry to treat chronic disease.

1700s Time Traveler: Ah, yes. Snake oil salesmen.

Modern guy: Yes. But, it's serious business. People have lots of problems. Depression, cholesterol, infertility, autism, anxiety, obesity, erectile disfunction, sleeping problems, aches and pains. You name it.

1700s Time Traveler: Dear lord. It's worse than I thought. I don't think I've ever met too many people with those problems. Are these problems fairly widespread?

Modern guy: Generally, yes. But, that's why we have modern medicine — to help make us better.

1700s Time Traveler: Fascinating. Do people ever suspect that the modern diet is causing some of these problems.

Modern guy: Oh sure. They are called vegans. They don't eat meat, dairy, fish or eggs at all. They only eat plants. They are convinced that all our health issues originate from animal consumption.

1700s Time Traveler: I beg your pardon?! That's preposterous. How do these people survive without the nutrients one gets from animals?

Modern guy: Well, the pharmaceutical companies put all of those nutrients into a pill and you swallow it. They also put a lot of vegetables into machines that mash them up into a drinkable form.

1700s Time Traveler: You must be joking. I never heard of such a thing. Are you sure these people are healthy?

Modern guy: Well, they think they are. And many scientists support their lifestyle. It's hard to argue with scientists.

1700s Time Traveler: I'd like to go home now.

And scene...

[Gumby]

OK, so I couldn't resist:

Why Do Vegetarians Live Longer?

Excerpt: According to a recent report on the largest study of vegetarians and vegans to date, those eating plant-based diets appear to have a significantly longer life expectancy. Vegetarians live on average almost eight years longer than the general population.

Vegetarians Have Longer Life Expectancy Than Meat Eaters, Study Finds

Excerpt:  The study data, released by researchers at the Loma Linda University, USA, finds that people following a vegetarian diet have a number of health benefits compared to those who consume meat - and top of those benefits is a longer lifespan, with vegetarian men living an average of 9.5 and women an average of 6.1 years longer than meat munching counterparts.

Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans?

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.

How To Live To 100

Excerpt: A 2009 study in Archives of Internal Medicine that followed 547,000 older Americans found those who ate the most red meat had a 31% to 36% higher risk of dying over 10 years.


I could go on and on, but you get the idea... 

Rocketdog... Each one of these links is about the same "Seventh-day Adventists" study. What a joke.

The study did not adjust for the healthy user bias we've been discussing over and over again here.

And the Adventists had higher incidences of other cancers than the general population. They had more Hodgkins disease (131%), more brain cancer (118%), more malignant melanoma (171%), more uterine cancer (191%), more cervical cancer (180%) and more ovarian cancer (129%) on average. Source: Mills PF and others. Cancer incidence among California Seventh-Day Adventists, 1976-1982. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1994, Vol 59 (Supplement), Pages 1136S-1142S).

So either their plant-based diets caused lots of cancer, or there were other lifestyle factors involved.

Rocketdog, it's a terribly flawed study and you shouldn't put much stock in a single study like that. The truth is that there haven't been that many studies done on the vegetarian way of life. And furthermore, the ones that have been done are comparing vegetarianism to a Standard American Diet (SAD), which would make any diet look good.

[rocketdog]

A few more...

New Link Between Heart Disease and Red Meat: New Understanding of Cardiovascular Health Benefits of Vegan, Vegetarian Diets
Science Daily

Excerpt:  A compound abundant in red meat... has been found to promote atherosclerosis -- or the hardening or clogging of the arteries -- according to Cleveland Clinic research published online this week in the journal Nature Medicine.  The study shows that bacteria living in the human digestive tract metabolize the compound carnitine, turning it into trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO), a metabolite the researchers previously linked in a 2011 study to the promotion of atherosclerosis in humans. Further, the research finds that a diet high in carnitine promotes the growth of the bacteria that metabolize carnitine, compounding the problem by producing even more of the artery-clogging TMAO. 

"The bacteria living in our digestive tracts are dictated by our long-term dietary patterns," Hazen said. "A diet high in carnitine actually shifts our gut microbe composition to those that like carnitine, making meat eaters even more susceptible to forming TMAO and its artery-clogging effects. Meanwhile, vegans and vegetarians have a significantly reduced capacity to synthesize TMAO from carnitine, which may explain the cardiovascular health benefits of these diets."

Vegetarian Foods: Powerful for Health
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

Excerpt: Vegetarian diets—naturally low in saturated fat, high in fiber, and replete with cancer-protective phytochemicals—help to prevent cancer. Large studies in England and Germany have shown that vegetarians are about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat-eaters.  Harvard studies that included tens of thousands of women and men have shown that regular meat consumption increases colon cancer risk by roughly 300 percent.  Vegetarians avoid the animal fat linked to cancer and get abundant fiber, vitamins, and phytochemicals that help to prevent cancer. In addition, blood analysis of vegetarians reveals a higher level of “natural killer cells,”? specialized white blood cells that attack cancer cells.

Vegetarian Diets
The American Dietetic Association

Excerpt: It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. A vegetarian diet can meet current recommendations for all nutrients. The results of an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians also appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than nonvegetarians. Furthermore, vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates. Features of a vegetarian diet that may reduce risk of chronic disease include lower intakes of saturated fat and cholesterol and higher intakes of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, soy products, fiber, and phytochemicals.

Health effects of vegan diets
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Excerpt: In general, vegetarians typically enjoy a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), obesity, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers.  A higher consumption of fruit and vegetables, which are rich in fiber, folic acid, antioxidants, and phytochemicals, is associated with lower blood cholesterol concentrations, a lower incidence of stroke, and a lower risk of mortality from stroke and ischemic heart disease. Vegans also have a higher consumption of whole grains, soy, and nuts, all of which provide significant cardio-protective effects.  Red meat and processed meat consumption are consistently associated with an increase risk of colorectal cancer. Those in the highest quintile of red meat intake had elevated risks, ranging from 20% to 60%, of esophageal, liver, colorectal, and lung cancers than did those in the lowest quintile of red meat intake. In addition, the use of eggs was recently shown to be associated with a higher risk of pancreatic cancer.


I have more, but it's bedtime for Bonzo so nighty-night...

[rocketdog]

Given that you unable to have a serious conversation about the evidence, it's probably best that I stop wasting my time refuting all of your arguments. I mean, it seems like you are really comfortable in your beliefs and don't want to learn anything new. I'm happy to stop trying to convince you if you'd rather not hear about it.

Since when does the use of emoticons constitute an inability to have a serious conversation?  I'm happy to hear whatever you have to say, as long as the feeling is mutual.    (whoops, there I go again.)

[rocketdog]

When Gumby was exposing me to this information, it wasn't the studies that were persuasive (as you said, "For every study there is an equal and opposite study"), it was learning about the actual biochemistry of what really happens when you eat things. Studies that say "people who do X experience benefit Y!" will never be accurate no matter what they purport to show because correlation is not causation. Learning about the biology of what your body actually does with the stuff you put in your mouth strips all that away, because it's just pure science, unfiltered by bias, preconceived notions, and observational studies.

Don't ask what the studies say. Ask the biologists what about digestion, nutrient absorption, bioavailability, stuff like that.

That is all well and good, but knowing what my body does with what I eat doesn't help me to know whether or not it's going to make me healthier or live longer.  Population studies over long time periods is where we need to be looking to answer those questions.

[Gumby]

A few more...

Rocketdog, it's pretty clear you haven't read any of these links that closely. Most of their evidence is all coming from that flawed Seventh-day Adventists study.

And if you read the analyses of the TMAO study, you would know that it found that TMAO was highest in people with Prevotella bacteria in their guts (regardless of whether they were meat eaters, vegetarians or vegans). Prevotella is most often found in people who consume whole grains.

I still don't understand why you weren't more skeptical of vegetarian claims when you bought into that lifestyle. There's just not enough evidence to support it beyond a bunch of Seventh-day Adventists who have major healthy-user biases and increased incidences of some cancers.

[Gumby]

Population studies over long time periods is where we need to be looking to answer those questions.

Unfortunately, there just haven't been enough vegetarian populations to draw any conclusions. It seems that most of vegetarianism is riding on the observations of a group of Seventh-day Adventists — which is pretty sad since there are too many other factors that aren't being controlled for in that particular study.

[Pointedstick]

That is all well and good, but knowing what my body does with what I eat doesn't help me to know whether or not it's going to make me healthier or live longer.  Population studies over long time periods is where we need to be looking to answer those questions.

Er, isn't it the opposite? If I want to know if a food is healthy, I don't want to ask whether studies of people who ate it found that they did well or badly, I want to know what it will do to ME. There are a million billion complicating factors with observational studies that, as you've noticed, make the results nearly worthless in most cases.

Think about the analogue to gun control. I could dig up a ton of New England Journal of Medicine articles showing links between guns and violence, gun ownership and suicide, you name it. But we both know that those studies are biased and bogus. If I want to know the truth about guns, I look at what the actual data says. Have violence rates been rising or falling? In which places? Are claims about the power and lethality of individual weapons actually true? Stuff like that.

If I have a piece of meat or fruit or whatever, and I want to determine if it's healthy or not, I need to know the answer to questions like these:

- Is this stuff food for the bacteria on my gums? If those bacteria eat it, will they poop all over my teeth and cause cavities?
- Is this stuff fully digestible in my stomach, or does part of it move on to the small intestine?
- For anything that moves on to the intestinal tract, is this food healthy or unhealthy for my gut bacteria?
- Is this food healthy for the gut bacteria I want more of? Or is it healthy for the gut bacteria whose poop is toxic to me?
- Does my liver believe any of this is a toxin and rapidly collect it? Is my liver correct in its determination?
- Is any of this stuff physically damaging to my digestive system, because it's heavy, or sharp, or something like that?
- What is this stuff converted to inside my digestive system? Does it become glucose, fat, cholesterol...
- Is anything in this stuff directly used by my body without being broken down and reconstituted? If so, is it suitable for the purpose my body wants to use it for?

All of these questions are answerable, and in fact, all of them have already been answered on a biochemical level. There's really no magic here. Science can tell you exactly what a food will do in your body when you eat it. There's no reason to guess about it.

[doodle]

While I eat a diverse diet, I think Rocketdog brings up an interesting reality that vegetarians tend to live generally as long and healthy (if not longer) than the general population with no significant finding of degenerative disease. I mean, Ive met stong and healthy Mexicans who are 70 years old who can walk 15 miles a day who subsist on basically tortillas. How does one explain that? I think the human machinery is a bit more adaptable than we give it credit for.

[Gumby]

While I eat a diverse diet, I think Rocketdog brings up an interesting reality that vegetarians tend to live generally as long and healthy (if not longer) than the general population with no significant finding of degenerative disease. I mean, Ive met stong and healthy Mexicans who are 70 years old who can walk 15 miles a day who subsist on basically tortillas. How does one explain that? I think the human machinery is a bit more adaptable than we give it credit for.

Um, doodle, you just explained it yourself. They walk 15 miles a day! That's how. And properly made traditional tortillas (a lost art, mind you as the corn used to be soaked for days sometimes) are a near perfectly fine source of carb energy.

The only reason why vegetarians live as long or longer as a SAD eater is because they have a healthy user bias (don't smoke, exercise, lifestyle, etc.) and the studies don't adjust for those differences.

And once again, their longevity is compared to the mortality of SAD dieters, which is a very low standard.

[rocketdog]

Rocketdog, it's pretty clear you haven't read any of these links that closely. Most of their evidence is all coming from that flawed Seventh-day Adventists study.

Yes, all the studies demonstrating the benefits of a vegetarian diet are fatally flawed.  Hundreds of them, representing decades of research of different human populations all over the world, all flawed.  Vegetarians are an unhealthy population that drops dead earlier than meat-eaters.  Fruits and vegetables are toxic and should be avoided at all costs unless you want to die young. 

I still don't understand why you weren't more skeptical of vegetarian claims when you bought into that lifestyle. There's just not enough evidence to support it beyond a bunch of Seventh-day Adventists who have major healthy-user biases and increased incidences of some cancers.

When did I say I wasn't skeptical of vegetarianism before I adopted it?  Think about the situation I was in when I converted:  I was just a few years out of college and contemplating running my first marathon but didn't know anyone who had done so.  The World Wide Web did not yet exist, so my only source of information was the library.  When researching the healthiest diet for a marathon runner, I kept coming across different studies about the health benefits of vegetarianism.  I was raised on a meat and potato diet, so that was completely out of the question.  Or so I thought. 

But it kept popping up, the evidence that a vegetarian diet was not only healthier, but it could actually improve my training regimen.  But that was silly -- how could I expect to run a marathon unless I ate plenty of animal protein?  The thought was absurd. 

But as the months went by, the evidence kept mounting.  Eventually it was impossible for me to ignore.  Could I actually do this?  Should I do this?  Frankly, I was a little scared.  I didn't know any vegetarians, and I had no way of consulting any since there was no Internet as we know it.  I was already a picky eater, so how could I ever get all the protein and nutrients I needed unless I ate animal flesh? 

After deliberating it in my mind for a few months -- and having a few false starts -- I eventually took the plunge.  After all, what's the worst that could happen, right?  I mean, I could just go back to eating animal flesh if vegetarianism didn't work out for me, or if I experienced any ill health effects. 

That was the summer of 1990, so I'm coming up on my 23rd anniversary.  And it was the best damn decision I ever made for myself.  YMMV.