A vegan diet is the healthiest diet - discuss

[Dualta]

There is a lot of correlational evidence between low animal product consumption and low cancer rates. ........ I don't think that these studies have really done the right statistics to be able to establish causation.

I agree this is the case. However, as Campbell says in both the book and the documentary, there is a greater amount of correlational evidence between animal produce consumption and certain types of cancer, i.e. colorectal, stomach, prostate and breast cancer, than there is between smoking and lung cancer. There is no direct evidence of causation between smoking and lung cancer, as the tobacco industry will happily point out, but who these days, apart from them, would cast doubt on the link?

[Dukasaur]

There is a lot of correlational evidence between low animal product consumption and low cancer rates. ........ I don't think that these studies have really done the right statistics to be able to establish causation.

I agree this is the case. However, as Campbell says in both the book and the documentary, there is a greater amount of correlational evidence between animal produce consumption and certain types of cancer, i.e. colorectal, stomach, prostate and breast cancer, than there is between smoking and lung cancer. There is no direct evidence of causation between smoking and lung cancer, as the tobacco industry will happily point out, but who these days, apart from them, would cast doubt on the link?

Actually there is evidence of causation now. The gene that is broken by tobacco tar was identified and the pathway explored a few years ago.

But no matter, let's move on to meat.

Stomach cancer was one of the most common cancers before refrigeration; it is pretty rare nowadays. Basically, before refrigeration meats had to be either salted or smoked to preserve them, and the stomach cancers were not caused by the meat but by the huge quantities of salt and soot that were ingested as a result of the salting or smoking.

Although refrigeration has freed us from the need to salt or smoke, we still do it to a lesser degree, because the flavours are popular. To some degree, meat smoking has made a comeback in the form of open grilles and barbeques. Furthermore, we have begun adding other chemicals -- nitrites to make red meat look more red and phosphates to make chicken breast swell up and become huge.

There are many other confounding factors: most industrially-raised animals are fed hormones and/or drugs whose effects are not fully known.

I have not studied the issue in detail, but from what little I read, it did not seem that the studies made a serious effort to rule out methods of preservation and preparation. Show me a study correlating cancer with the eating of meat from free-range animals, raised without drugs, processed without smoking or salting, not subject to cosmetic alteration with phosphates or nitrites, cooked without browning agents or barbeque sauce, and you might have a case.

[Dualta]

Show me a study correlating cancer with the eating of meat from free-range animals, raised without drugs, processed without smoking or salting, not subject to cosmetic alteration with phosphates or nitrites, cooked without browning agents or barbeque sauce, and you might have a case.

Prostate Cancer and Organic Milk vs. Almond Milk

[Metsfanmax]

There is a lot of correlational evidence between low animal product consumption and low cancer rates. ........ I don't think that these studies have really done the right statistics to be able to establish causation.

I agree this is the case. However, as Campbell says in both the book and the documentary, there is a greater amount of correlational evidence between animal produce consumption and certain types of cancer, i.e. colorectal, stomach, prostate and breast cancer, than there is between smoking and lung cancer.

Unlike smoking, there are often huge differences in lifestyle between people who live on plant-based diets and those who don't. For example, The China Study is generally comparing people who live in rural, agrarian-type communities versus those who live in urban environments. There's lots of uncontrolled factors that make it impossible to definitively establish that it's the plant-based diet itself that is the cause. "Correlation is not causation" is true even if the correlation is very strong.



And then there's Forks Over Knives. That film engaged in a very large amount of cherry-picking and bad science. For example, this plot, which just incredibly annoyed me:



The claim that the film would have you believe is that the Nazis came in and occupied Norway, and rationed their meat and dairy. Suddenly the rate of heart disease drops precipitously! Surely it's the plant-based diet that we can thank! Except that the Nazis didn't start the rationing until late 1941, and the drop starts in that year. And does anyone really believe that the same year people stop eating as much meat and dairy, the rate of deaths from heart disease would go down by 10%? These things take years to develop. It's almost like the director forgot that there was a war going on.

I don't think that films with bad science are doing us a real service in the long run.

[Dukasaur]

Show me a study correlating cancer with the eating of meat from free-range animals, raised without drugs, processed without smoking or salting, not subject to cosmetic alteration with phosphates or nitrites, cooked without browning agents or barbeque sauce, and you might have a case.

Prostate Cancer and Organic Milk vs. Almond Milk

Greger is not exactly an objective source. He's a player in the "holistic health" world, which while having some good things to say is also full of quackery and bogus claims.

Anyway, I'm not here to run him down. He may well be one of the better players in that industry. I've watched a few of his videos and they're not horrible. Still, there is rarely a link to any original research in his stuff. The "best meta-studies" that he cites in the above video are un-named and un-sourced. Pretty much as I said earlier: "growing bodies" of research are usually just true-believers citing flimsy studies that back up their prejudice, and repackaging them as something new.

[Dualta]

The China Study is generally comparing people who live in rural, agrarian-type communities versus those who live in urban environments.

Actually, it didn't. The China Study focused only on rural areas. I'm not sure where you got your information from, but it's wrong. Now I wonder if you've read the book or watched Forks Over knives, or if you're getting your info from one of the troll websites that are spreading misinformation about Campbell's work and findings.

And then there's Forks Over Knives. That film engaged in a very large amount of cherry-picking and bad science. For example, this plot, which just incredibly annoyed me:



The claim that the film would have you believe is that the Nazis came in and occupied Norway, and rationed their meat and dairy. Suddenly the rate of heart disease drops precipitously! Surely it's the plant-based diet that we can thank! Except that the Nazis didn't start the rationing until late 1941, and the drop starts in that year. And does anyone really believe that the same year people stop eating as much meat and dairy, the rate of deaths from heart disease would go down by 10%? These things take years to develop. It's almost like the director forgot that there was a war going on.

I don't think that films with bad science are doing us a real service in the long run.

Ah, you're getting your info from Minger's site. Man dear, don't go there for reliable science! She's the one who recommends eating raw beef and drinking raw milk for good health. She's that amateur blogger who's be trying as hard as she can to discredit Campbell, but failing at every turn. Did you actually read the China Study, or watch the documentary? Just because formal rationing didn't start until 1941 doesn't mean the supply didn't plummet beforehand. She has proved nothing.

[DoomYoshi]

My girlfriend is a vegan and you know what that means for me. There are tons of health problems associated with eating meat. 90% of them go away if instead of eating factory-farmed domesticated animals, which have been bred to be disgustingly fatty and heart-killing, you eat wild-caught or at least non-domesticated animals. I haven't really researched fish wild-caught vs farmed, so it may be different there.

However, if a pregnant mother does not eat enough fish then the baby will not get enough Omegas and folate which means, respectively, that the baby's brain won't develop and that the spinal cord won't close so cerebral spinal fluid will leak everywhere.

Ontario has outlawed the sale of wild-caught game animal which means the Ontario government wants you to die of heart attacks (and related diseases) so they can keep jacking up taxes to pay for ridiculous health care fees. It's a ponzi scheme and it starts at the level of the farmer.

Ontario was better off before the advent of cash crops, when there was only subsistence farmers.

[Metsfanmax]

The China Study is generally comparing people who live in rural, agrarian-type communities versus those who live in urban environments.

Actually, it didn't. The China Study focused only on rural areas. I'm not sure where you got your information from, but it's wrong. Now I wonder if you've read the book or watched Forks Over knives, or if you're getting your info from one of the troll websites that are spreading misinformation about Campbell's work and findings.

And then there's Forks Over Knives. That film engaged in a very large amount of cherry-picking and bad science. For example, this plot, which just incredibly annoyed me:



The claim that the film would have you believe is that the Nazis came in and occupied Norway, and rationed their meat and dairy. Suddenly the rate of heart disease drops precipitously! Surely it's the plant-based diet that we can thank! Except that the Nazis didn't start the rationing until late 1941, and the drop starts in that year. And does anyone really believe that the same year people stop eating as much meat and dairy, the rate of deaths from heart disease would go down by 10%? These things take years to develop. It's almost like the director forgot that there was a war going on.

I don't think that films with bad science are doing us a real service in the long run.

Ah, you're getting your info from Minger's site. Man dear, don't go there for reliable science! She's the one who recommends eating raw beef and drinking raw milk for good health. She's that amateur blogger who's be trying as hard as she can to discredit Campbell, but failing at every turn. Did you actually read the China Study, or watch the documentary? Just because formal rationing didn't start until 1941 doesn't mean the supply didn't plummet beforehand. She has proved nothing.

Here's a tip: suggesting that someone is a troll is not an effective method of argumentation. I'm a vegan, but that doesn't mean that I buy every argument made in favor of it, because I'm also a scientist and know bad reasoning when I see it. And I did watch the documentary.

I have no idea who Minger is. I looked up what happened in Norway immediately after I saw that, because it seemed unlikely that someone could separate out a plant-based diet from all the other effects of a war. Wikipedia has an article on the Norway dairy rationing, which says it started in September 1941. And no, of course that doesn't prove anything; I don't imagine that on September 7, 1941 Norwegians had a full supply of meat and dairy and the next day they didn't, but that's not the point. The point is that first you need to be able to rule out any other possible explanation, and second you need to be able to establish a causal relationship. A graph with a picture of the Nazi flag on it does not count. If you saw that and thought "OK, maybe it's not certain but surely they're onto something," then you fell for exactly what people who peddle bad science want you to fall for. Correlation without causation and without ruling out alternative factors is nothing.

I just looked to see if I could find the original Strom and Jensen article, but I couldn't find any sources that were hosting it.

[Dualta]

However, if a pregnant mother does not eat enough fish then the baby will not get enough Omegas and folate which means, respectively, that the baby's brain won't develop and that the spinal cord won't close so cerebral spinal fluid will leak everywhere.

There are several plant sources of omega 3 fatty acids, including cauliflower and Brussels sprouts. You can get folates from beans or any green leafy vegetable, as well as orange juice. You've nothing to worry about.

[DoomYoshi]

However, if a pregnant mother does not eat enough fish then the baby will not get enough Omegas and folate which means, respectively, that the baby's brain won't develop and that the spinal cord won't close so cerebral spinal fluid will leak everywhere.

There are several plant sources of omega 3 fatty acids, including cauliflower and Brussels sprouts. You can get folates from beans or any green leafy vegetable, as well as orange juice. You've nothing to worry about.

It's true brassicates have some, but only a tenth of what fish gives you. So 10 servings of Broccoli will give a pregnant mother what her child needs. Great, 1000 calories out of your daily budget on cauliflower.

I don't why I said folate... fish isn't really a good source of this.

[DoomYoshi]

In any case, this topic bores me... where are you getting B12 from?

Never mind those chemicals that are specifically named after meat: creatine and carnosine.

And yea, creatine can be made in body but it usually isn't. I have the genes to lactate, but I usually don't.

I suppose one could argue that being un-muscular and slow-witted is the "healthiest" but I disagree.

[DoomYoshi]

Hurry up man, your Wikipedia research is too slow. I'm already on the next point.

There are only a few plants in season right now where I live. I can eat wine grapes, cabbage, squash, carrots, potatoes and some apples and onions I saved as well as whatever is preserved from the summer (I hate preserves). Using only these selections (as well as white and whole wheat flour) explain to me how I can get a completely balanced diet.

[DoomYoshi]

Next point - I just moved to the arctic (in this thought exercise). The only plants are lichens and algae. How do I get a complete diet?

[DoomYoshi]

Next point - athletic vegans.

Daniel Bryan (the WWE Champion) was forced to stop being a vegan as he developed a soy intolerance. If a professional athlete is unable to remain healthy while a vegan, how do you expect regular people (who aren't making a million a year) to achieve this while still keeping a full-time physical job (like I did for 7 years, such as roofing, where I was burning +3500 cals a day when I only weighed 160 lbs).

[DoomYoshi]

Any vegan athletes who do succeed rely a lot on Whey protein isolates etc.

I just got back from a missions trip in South Sudan. I couldn't find a GNC store anywhere. Should the South Sudanese get on planes to come to American malls to buy Whey isolates?

[DoomYoshi]

HURRY THE f*ck UP DUALTA AND ANSWER THE FUCKING POINTS!!!!

[betiko]

we are an omnivorous specie. if you guys want to create your own specie through vegan epigenetics go ahead. in some centuries you guys will look green and we won't be able to sleep with you.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't agree with the statement as a categorical. A vegan diet is defined by what it doesn't do (eat animal products), which means that eating potato chips for every meal is technically vegan.

A plant-based diet is the healthiest diet? Absolutely.

Doesn't such a diet relying solely on whey protein result in an inordinate amount of estrogen?

And, would a plant-based diet cover the full range of necessary proteins/amino acids?

Estrogen has been linked to cancers in women, such as breast cancer, but vegan women have the lowest incidence of breast cancer of all. High levels of testosterone have also been linked to higher risks of cancer in men, but vegan men have the highest levels of testosterone, yet the lowest levels of cancer of any other group of men.

And yes, it is very easy to get all the necessary protein from plants (proteins are made up of amino acids). The issue of protein and vegan/vegetarian diets always comes up, i.e. "Where do you get your protein?" It's a common misconception that we can only get protein from eating animals. Most national dietary guidelines suggest that an average human needs 10-14% dietary protein, and if you look at the plants with the lowest protein content, like potatoes, they have around that much, so it is not possible to be protein deficient on a whole-foods plant-based diet without being calorie deficient.

1. Government dietary guidelines should be ignored.
2. I know some plants contain protein, but would a plant-based diet cover the full range of necessary proteins/amino acids? I keep hearing to the contrary, and vegans I've observed are physically brittle. So, I'm also partly curious as to the cause of the correlation between poor physical strength/stamina and a vegan diet.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't agree with the statement as a categorical. A vegan diet is defined by what it doesn't do (eat animal products), which means that eating potato chips for every meal is technically vegan.

A plant-based diet is the healthiest diet? Absolutely.

Indeed! And we can expand that to a whole-foods, plant-based diet.

For others reading this, there is an increasing body of scientific evidence that shows that the links between some forms of cancers and the consumption of meat, dairy and eggs, are in fact stronger than the link between smoking and lung cancer. And this is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the major diseases of today being linked to the consumption of animal products. So enjoy your foie gras while you can. It seems the geese will be having the last laugh

Dairy, perhaps. And the continual overconsumption of processed or large scale meat outfits at the expense of vegetables and such. The idea of a whole foods diet is based on evolutionary medicine, which entails that the consumption of meat is part of a natural diet.

Look no further than current hunter gatherers who consume meat. The incidence of cancers of the GI tract or hypertension or heart disease is almost null.

-TG

Is their diet in any way connected to their relatively shorter lifespans?

So you see no markets here and you make a basic, dumb mistake?

I'm angry cause nobody reacted to my post.

You're not making sense.

Here's a kitten:







I hope you make a speedy recovery from your butthurt.

[nietzsche]

Hurry up man, your Wikipedia research is too slow. I'm already on the next point.

There are only a few plants in season right now where I live. I can eat wine grapes, cabbage, squash, carrots, potatoes and some apples and onions I saved as well as whatever is preserved from the summer (I hate preserves). Using only these selections (as well as white and whole wheat flour) explain to me how I can get a completely balanced diet.

You don't have to be a vegan. You can eat this!! *nietzsche points at his packet*

No, sorry. I was saying, don't need to do what others say is better for you. If you were to forget about bread and potato for example, you could eat as many of this *nietzsche points at his packet again*... hm no, I was saying, you could eat as many meat and pork and fish and bacon and you wouldn't get fat (I know because I did it for 1 year or more, I actually lost up to 30kg at one point), so being slim you could say gets rid of all those "being obese causes diabetes" ideas in your head, so what's better?

Now because Dualta brought it up, and because Mets backs him up, you might be thinking "vegan is the way to go, omg I'm doing it wrong!! omg omg omg im gonna die because i ate that triple six dollar burger the other day omg". and then you will develop cancer, in your balls because you are being a little girl like Mets... hm, no wait, I mean, then you will be causing yourself some unnecessary stress. What if in 30 years scientists will find the "perfect diet", the one... what then? "omg if only i had been born in 2040". Come on. Add an apple in the mid morning, juice every now and then a ton of leafy greens, you'll find you feel good.

btw, B12 is everywhere if i remember correctly, high quality omega 3 is in sunflower seed i think, carnosine you can find in this *nietzsche points at packet*.

[DoomYoshi]

btw, B12 is everywhere if i remember correctly.

at a microscopic level.

my girlfriend gets B12 shots every month, as per doctor's orders.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't agree with the statement as a categorical. A vegan diet is defined by what it doesn't do (eat animal products), which means that eating potato chips for every meal is technically vegan.

A plant-based diet is the healthiest diet? Absolutely.

Doesn't such a diet relying solely on whey protein result in an inordinate amount of estrogen?

Vegans don't even consume whey protein. Did you mean soy? If so, soy contains phytoestrogens, compounds that behave like estrogen does in some ways, but there's no established link between moderate amounts of soy consumption and any obvious negative health effects.

And, would a plant-based diet cover the full range of necessary proteins/amino acids?

Yes, but you do have to be careful to consume the right plants. If you just ate vegetables and fruits, you wouldn't get the right spectrum. But if you include in that beans, lentils, quinoa, things like that, then you're fine.

Regarding the evidence linking plant-based diets with lower cancer rates. I'll side with Dukasaur on this one. There is a lot of correlational evidence between low animal product consumption and low cancer rates. The book The China Study and the documentary Forks Over Knives is one example of this. But the science is far from being definitive at this point. I don't think that these studies have really done the right statistics to be able to establish causation. Like, if you watch Forks Over Knives, they argue that because p < 0.05 convinced them of the link. But if you do that study 20 times, one time that'll happen purely by random chance using that criterion.

(Hell yeah critical thinking!)

Unfortunately, I don't like to consume that many beans, and I lack the normative foundation to shift toward a vegan/vegetarian diet.

You might know this one: Presumably, plant matter contains less protein per pound than animal flesh. From my experience, vegans tend to be physically brittle. So, I'm curious as to the cause of the correlation between poor physical strength/stamina and a vegan diet. What do you think?

[nietzsche]

I don't agree with the statement as a categorical. A vegan diet is defined by what it doesn't do (eat animal products), which means that eating potato chips for every meal is technically vegan.

A plant-based diet is the healthiest diet? Absolutely.

Indeed! And we can expand that to a whole-foods, plant-based diet.

For others reading this, there is an increasing body of scientific evidence that shows that the links between some forms of cancers and the consumption of meat, dairy and eggs, are in fact stronger than the link between smoking and lung cancer. And this is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the major diseases of today being linked to the consumption of animal products. So enjoy your foie gras while you can. It seems the geese will be having the last laugh

Dairy, perhaps. And the continual overconsumption of processed or large scale meat outfits at the expense of vegetables and such. The idea of a whole foods diet is based on evolutionary medicine, which entails that the consumption of meat is part of a natural diet.

Look no further than current hunter gatherers who consume meat. The incidence of cancers of the GI tract or hypertension or heart disease is almost null.

-TG

Is their diet in any way connected to their relatively shorter lifespans?

So you see no markets here and you make a basic, dumb mistake?

I'm angry cause nobody reacted to my post.

You're not making sense.

Yes I was, I was teaming up with tailgunner

[BigBallinStalin]

Nietz, have you been missing your daily B12 shots?

[nietzsche]

Nietz, have you been missing your daily B12 shots?

yours are right here *nietzsche points at his packet*