A vegan diet is the healthiest diet - discuss

[mrswdk]

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

You reckon?

[Metsfanmax]

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

There are many good reasons to switch to a diet that's higher in plant-based foods, and they don't all rely an ethical stance about killing animals to eat their flesh. For example, the livestock industry is collectively one of the largest contributors to global warming because it is responsible for nearly 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions according to the U.N. We would be able to significantly cut down on this if we stopped producing mass-scale animals for food, due to the intensity of the production process. From an economic/sustainability standpoint, there's a lot of waste in the process of creating beef.

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?

I think that it would have to do with the type of people who are stereotypically vegan. The people who are most likely to be vocal about their veganism are the kind of thin, hipster college student type. But there are lots of everyday folks (like me, I'm actually obese) who don't have that physical appearance, and you might not correlate them. But as 2-3% of the population identifies as vegan, there are indeed lots of us about there that you just don't know about because it never comes up. I participate in a social group of vegans where I live, it has over 1000 members, and very few of them are physically "brittle" as you say. But most of them aren't activists. The reason why there's not likely a correlation with the protein content in plants is that it doesn't take a whole lot of care to reach a typical accepted amount (10% of your calories from protein). Most people who eat meat most days do not need the amount of protein they're getting, unless they're very physically active.

There are also plenty of examples of very successful vegan athletes and body-builders. For example, Jim Morris is 78 years old and vegan; he was formerly Mr. America.

[dario2099]

There are also plenty of examples of very successful vegan athletes and body-builders. For example, Jim Morris is 78 years old and vegan; he was formerly Mr. America.

Is that your definition of healthy?

[Dualta]

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.

All fair points man. Minger just gets to me with her overly aggressive tone, and I can be guilty of dismissing her too readily. I had assumed that the study Esselstyn referred to in the documentary had ruled out other factors, and that the causal relationship had been established, or else it wouldn't have been referred to or featured in the piece. If those two things were not factored in, then, yes, it was very shoddy indeed.

[Dualta]

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.

Some should be ignored. The USA FDA guidelines are influenced by big agribusiness. About 10 years ago an organisation called Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) took the US Department of Agriculture to court over their RDA guidelines because half of the people on the committee who set the guidelines were in the pay of the meat, dairy and egg industries. The committee had set the guidelines at 25% of daily caloric intake from protein, whereas many other nations guidelines were closer to 14% or thereabouts. I wonder why they set the figure at 25%?

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.

Absolutely. Plants have all the amino acids, but not each plant. You can get the various aminos from a wide range of plants, but they combine in your diet to make up all the proteins you need. An average person needs around 10-14% protein content in the diet, and, if you look at the plants with the least amount of protein, like potatoes, they have around that. You can only be protein deficient on a whole-foods, plant-based diet by being calorie deficient.

I've got two colleagues who are vegans: one is obese and is struggling to lose weight to get into her wedding dress in a couple of months, and the other is an adonis-like personal trainer, built like he's be sculpted my a master craftsman. I, on the other hand, look much more like your stereotypical vegan, thin and wirey, but I look no different from what I did in my late teens-early 20s, when I was a smoking, beer guzzling, meat and white bread, chocolate munching sloth. A big difference between me between then and now is, that back then I couldn't run the length of myself, but I could put on my running shoes right now and run 30kms, and feel great afterwards. I'm now 45-years-old. I stopped eating all meat about five or six years ago, and I've been vegan for a couple of years. Since going vegan I've lost a lot of the gut fat I had and gained muscle mass on my legs and butt from running, but that has more to do with cutting out chocolate and cakes than meat. I don't believe eating meat makes people fat, but I do believe that it makes you sick.

[Dualta]

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.

Some should be ignored. For example, the USA FDA guidelines are influenced by big agribusiness. About 10 years ago an organisation called Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) took the US Department of Agriculture to court over their RDA guidelines because half of the people on the committee who set the guidelines were in the pay of the meat, dairy and egg industries. The committee had set the guidelines at 25% of daily caloric intake from protein, whereas many other nations guidelines were closer to 14% or thereabouts. I wonder why they set the figure at 25%? There is more transparency now though.

A case study - Finland:

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.

Absolutely. Plants have all the amino acids, but not each plant. You can get the various aminos from a wide range of plants, but they combine in your diet to make up all the proteins you need. An average person needs around 10-14% protein content in the diet, and, if you look at the plants with the least amount of protein, like potatoes, they have around that. You can only be protein deficient on a whole-foods, plant-based diet by being calorie deficient.

I've got two colleagues who are vegans: one is obese and is struggling to lose weight to get into her wedding dress in a couple of months, and the other is an adonis-like personal trainer, built like he's be sculpted my a master craftsman. I, on the other hand, look much more like your stereotypical vegan, thin and wirey, but I look no different from what I did in my late teens-early 20s, when I was a smoking, beer guzzling, meat and white bread, chocolate munching sloth. A big difference between me between then and now is, that back then I couldn't run the length of myself, but I could put on my running shoes right now and run 30kms, and feel great afterwards. I'm now 45-years-old. I stopped eating all meat about five or six years ago, and I've been vegan for a couple of years. Since going vegan I've lost a lot of the gut fat I had and gained muscle mass on my legs and butt from running, but that has more to do with cutting out chocolate and cakes than meat. I don't believe eating meat makes people fat, but I do believe that it makes you sick.

[nietzsche]

Dualta, how much bread (and gluten in general) do you eat?

I know Mets can't put down the bagels.

[Dualta]

Dualta, how much bread (and gluten in general) do you eat?

I know Mets can't put down the bagels.

I eat bread almost every day, but very little and only homemade, which has a large percentage of wholegrain flour. My wife bakes daily, especially bagels. My favourite evening snack is toasted bagels with guacamole, home-made also. Recently I've been mixing dijon mustard and avocado instead. Bloody gorgeous

I suspect that bread causes me to bloat a bit, so I might have some sort of intolerance, but it's not so bad. I stopped bloating really badly when I stopped drinking coffee. I do think, though, that I could cut down on my bread intake a bit.

[mrswdk]

Watch out - gluten!

[Lord Arioch]

Id say eat what u fell comfortable with.
If u like greens fine munch em.
If u like giving all your cash to the meat industries, for substandard meat, well go for it.

I myself am a meat eater, i hunt all meat or get it from dads farm... so i know where it been at:) and we complement the meat with a load of greens, i think a varied diet with no excesses in either direction is the best...

BUT i frigging hate meat eaters who cant kill, skin and gut there own food, i mean do it if u are going to eat it!

At least know where its been at for face it the meat industries of the world are kind of evil...

[BigBallinStalin]

Id say eat what u fell comfortable with.
If u like greens fine munch em.
If u like giving all your cash to the meat industries, for substandard meat, well go for it.

I myself am a meat eater, i hunt all meat or get it from dads farm... so i know where it been at:) and we complement the meat with a load of greens, i think a varied diet with no excesses in either direction is the best...

BUT i frigging hate meat eaters who cant kill, skin and gut there own food, i mean do it if u are going to eat it!

At least know where its been at for face it the meat industries of the world are kind of evil...

Nah, dude. Division of labor. Saves you time; enables greater wealth since you can pursue something you're more efficient in producing.

"BUT i friggin hate computer users who can't build their own computers from scratch."
"BUT i friggin hate vegans who don't grow all their food from scratch."
"BUT i friggin hate Scandinavians--with their Holier than Thou, I hunt in the woods cuz I'm teh awesome, Attitude!!!" (I'm just jealous).

[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.

Some should be ignored. For example, the USA FDA guidelines are influenced by big agribusiness. About 10 years ago an organisation called Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) took the US Department of Agriculture to court over their RDA guidelines because half of the people on the committee who set the guidelines were in the pay of the meat, dairy and egg industries. The committee had set the guidelines at 25% of daily caloric intake from protein, whereas many other nations guidelines were closer to 14% or thereabouts. I wonder why they set the figure at 25%? There is more transparency now though.

A case study - Finland:

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.

Absolutely. Plants have all the amino acids, but not each plant. You can get the various aminos from a wide range of plants, but they combine in your diet to make up all the proteins you need. An average person needs around 10-14% protein content in the diet, and, if you look at the plants with the least amount of protein, like potatoes, they have around that. You can only be protein deficient on a whole-foods, plant-based diet by being calorie deficient.

I've got two colleagues who are vegans: one is obese and is struggling to lose weight to get into her wedding dress in a couple of months, and the other is an adonis-like personal trainer, built like he's be sculpted my a master craftsman. I, on the other hand, look much more like your stereotypical vegan, thin and wirey, but I look no different from what I did in my late teens-early 20s, when I was a smoking, beer guzzling, meat and white bread, chocolate munching sloth. A big difference between me between then and now is, that back then I couldn't run the length of myself, but I could put on my running shoes right now and run 30kms, and feel great afterwards. I'm now 45-years-old. I stopped eating all meat about five or six years ago, and I've been vegan for a couple of years. Since going vegan I've lost a lot of the gut fat I had and gained muscle mass on my legs and butt from running, but that has more to do with cutting out chocolate and cakes than meat. I don't believe eating meat makes people fat, but I do believe that it makes you sick.

Thanks. This has been informative, but my standard would require some long-term study that did a damn fine job of controlling for relevant variables while comparing life expectancies. I'd like to see meat-based diets, processed foods (vegan and pro-animal flesh), and so on. If there was a significant difference, then I'd switch over. Currently, I eat plenty of vegetables and fruits and meat, I exercise regularly, and I've tried a vegetarian diet for a few weeks; however, I found that diet lacking. Why change my diet when the benefits don't offset the costs? (A vegetarian diet is cheaper though; the taste of animal flesh is still #1 though).

Another issue are those correlations with reduced cancer rates. Even if the risk is lower, how much lower is it compared to an omnivorous diet? I keep thinking the difference is about 0.0000001.

[thegreekdog]

I hate to burst bubbles, but didn't Mets already address the OP in like the second post? A vegan diet is not necessarily the healthiest diet. I have some personal evidence here. My father-in-law is a vegan, but he eats a lot of really bad food (e.g. potato chips) and is overweight and unhealthy generally.

From my personal experience, the best diet for me is a combination of lean meat and vegetables (not that I actually live by that diet). I tend to think diets are personal rather than applicable across large swathes of people.

[Metsfanmax]

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.

All fair points man. Minger just gets to me with her overly aggressive tone, and I can be guilty of dismissing her too readily. I had assumed that the study Esselstyn referred to in the documentary had ruled out other factors, and that the causal relationship had been established, or else it wouldn't have been referred to or featured in the piece. If those two things were not factored in, then, yes, it was very shoddy indeed.

I'm not accusing the original article of doing bad science. Since I couldn't get a copy of it, I don't know what factors were controlled for (e.g. age, occupation, exercise, location). The article was published in The Lancet so I don't suspect that they missed any obvious ones. What I have a problem with is the way the documentary presented it: they didn't discuss those controlling factors. They presented the argument that the Nazis came in and then heart disease dropped -- but they didn't attempt to argue how the research controlled for other factors (like whether wartime violence and death could have influenced this). Despite all of this, it's still possible that Esselstyn knows his stuff and this is a good piece of research -- but as a scientist, I'm not going to take it on faith. I want us to win the vegan debate using the right arguments, and that starts by being forthcoming about what we know and what we don't.

[DoomYoshi]

You know, I really do hate road users who can't pour their own cement etc.

That should be a new rule, my commute would be easier.

[nietzsche]

Dualta, how much bread (and gluten in general) do you eat?

I know Mets can't put down the bagels.

I eat bread almost every day, but very little and only homemade, which has a large percentage of wholegrain flour. My wife bakes daily, especially bagels. My favourite evening snack is toasted bagels with guacamole, home-made also. Recently I've been mixing dijon mustard and avocado instead. Bloody gorgeous

I suspect that bread causes me to bloat a bit, so I might have some sort of intolerance, but it's not so bad. I stopped bloating really badly when I stopped drinking coffee. I do think, though, that I could cut down on my bread intake a bit.

When I stopped eating gluten I simply could not gain weight. I could eat all the avocado, chocolate, meat, eggs, milky, greek yogurt, coconut bread, ice cream and nothing, I kept losing weight. I know everybody is different but for me, gluten is what does me bad. And coffe, as to you. But coffee is something I just can't quit lol, I quit for 3 months then I'm back at it. But I'm down to 1 mug per day.

Oh, but I'm back eating bread, long story. What I've noticed, clearly noticed, is that if I don't eat bread and too much sugar I don't need as much sleep, I can have even only 5 hours of sleep and wake up completely refreshed.

[Gillipig]

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?

That's an old myth, consuming large amounts of whey protein won't notably change your testosterone levels.





Protein that comes from vegtables taste very bad in comparison to animal based protein though. That's the reason almost everyone loves meat but can't stand soy. No one sets his teeth in a big steak and think "Oh I'm being so healthy right now", it just taste so much better than the alternative. You want more people to become vegan? Pray they make the protein substitute taste better.

[Dualta]

I'm not accusing the original article of doing bad science. Since I couldn't get a copy of it, I don't know what factors were controlled for (e.g. age, occupation, exercise, location). The article was published in The Lancet so I don't suspect that they missed any obvious ones. What I have a problem with is the way the documentary presented it: they didn't discuss those controlling factors. They presented the argument that the Nazis came in and then heart disease dropped -- but they didn't attempt to argue how the research controlled for other factors (like whether wartime violence and death could have influenced this). Despite all of this, it's still possible that Esselstyn knows his stuff and this is a good piece of research -- but as a scientist, I'm not going to take it on faith. I want us to win the vegan debate using the right arguments, and that starts by being forthcoming about what we know and what we don't.

After reading The China Study and having waded through Campbell's explanations of the research in the book, I though that it was very poorly represented in Forks Over Knives. The book went a long way to persuading me of his assertions, but, had I watched Forks Over Knives having not read the book beforehand, I would not have been so ready to accept the veracity of their claims. Having seen Campbell's representation of his research in such theatre friendly way, I simply assumed Esselstyn's finding were being presented in the same way. I've yet you read any of Esselstyn's papers, but I suspect that they are rather more thorough than you'd gather from the documentary. But I suppose they reckoned that indepth explanations of their findings might be too much for the average audience and might have a lot of people switch off. I can understand their point, if that was it.

[Dualta]

But coffee is something I just can't quit lol, I quit for 3 months then I'm back at it. But I'm down to 1 mug per day.

I had to quit it altogether. Cutting down wasn't an option for me. I was drowning in the stuff. I'd have 3-4 mugs of coffee before lunch, and then maybe another 3-4 before bedtime. I was so sleep deprived and fatigued by it, when I woke up in the morning I felt like I'd not slept at all. I've been on and off coffee for years, sometimes lasting a year and a half or more before going back on it. I'm not sure how long I've been off it now, but it has been easily a year and a half, maybe 2. The caffeine was messing up my mind and something else in the coffee was messing up my stomach. I love the smell of it though. Even now, I get a whiff of brewing coffee and it hit me right on the pleasure button.

[Metsfanmax]

I'm not accusing the original article of doing bad science. Since I couldn't get a copy of it, I don't know what factors were controlled for (e.g. age, occupation, exercise, location). The article was published in The Lancet so I don't suspect that they missed any obvious ones. What I have a problem with is the way the documentary presented it: they didn't discuss those controlling factors. They presented the argument that the Nazis came in and then heart disease dropped -- but they didn't attempt to argue how the research controlled for other factors (like whether wartime violence and death could have influenced this). Despite all of this, it's still possible that Esselstyn knows his stuff and this is a good piece of research -- but as a scientist, I'm not going to take it on faith. I want us to win the vegan debate using the right arguments, and that starts by being forthcoming about what we know and what we don't.

After reading The China Study and having waded through Campbell's explanations of the research in the book, I though that it was very poorly represented in Forks Over Knives. The book went a long way to persuading me of his assertions, but, had I watched Forks Over Knives having not read the book beforehand, I would not have been so ready to accept the veracity of their claims.

I have not yet read the book either, nor examined the study itself.

Having seen Campbell's representation of his research in such theatre friendly way, I simply assumed Esselstyn's finding were being presented in the same way. I've yet you read any of Esselstyn's papers, but I suspect that they are rather more thorough than you'd gather from the documentary. But I suppose they reckoned that indepth explanations of their findings might be too much for the average audience and might have a lot of people switch off. I can understand their point, if that was it.

Here's an example of the problems one would want to avoid. I found the abstract for what I think is Esselstyn's first paper on his clinical diet test, and added comments below:

A strategy to arrest and reverse coronary artery disease: a 5-year longitudinal study of a single physician's practice.
Esselstyn CB Jr, Ellis SG, Medendorp SV, Crowe TD.

BACKGROUND:

Animal experiments and epidemiological studies have suggested that coronary disease could be prevented, arrested, or even reversed by maintaining total serum cholesterol levels below 150 mg/dL (3.88 mmol/L). In 1985, we began to study how effective one physician could be in helping patients achieve this cholesterol level and what the associated effect of achieving and maintaining this cholesterol level has on coronary disease.

METHODS:

The study included 22 patients with angiographically documented, severe coronary artery disease that was not immediately life threatening. These patients took cholesterol-lowering drugs and followed a diet that derived no more than 10% of its calories from fat. Disease progression was measured by coronary angiography and quantified with the percent diameter stenosis and minimal lumen diameter methods. Serum cholesterol was measured biweekly for 5 years and monthly thereafter.

RESULTS:

Of the 22 participants, 5 dropped out within 2 years, and 17 maintained the diet, 11 of whom completed a mean of 5.5 years of follow-up. All 11 of these participants reduced their cholesterol level from a mean baseline of 246 mg/dL (6.36 mmol/L) to below 150 mg/dL (3.88 mmol/L). Lesion analysis by percent stenosis showed that of 25 lesions, 11 regressed and 14 remained stable. Mean arterial stenosis decreased from 53.4% to 46.2% (estimated decrease = 7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.3 to 10.7, P < .05). Analysis by minimal lumen diameter of 25 lesions found that 6 regressed, 14 remained stable, and 5 progressed. Mean lumen diameter increased from 1.3 mm to 1.4 mm (estimated increase = 0.08 mm; 95% CI, -0.06 to 0.22, P = NS). Disease was clinically arrested in all 11 participants, and none had new infarctions. Among the 11 remaining patients after 10 years, six continued the diet and had no further coronary events, whereas the five dropouts who resumed their prestudy diet reported 10 coronary events.

CONCLUSIONS:

A physician can influence patients in the decision to adopt a very low-fat diet that, combined with lipid-lowering drugs, can reduce cholesterol levels to below 150 mg/dL and uniformly result in the arrest or reversal of coronary artery disease.

Where is the control group that did not follow the diet?

Where is the control group that did the diet but didn't take the drugs, and the control group that took the drugs but didn't do the diet?

11 people total left at the end? Even for a clinical trial, that's on the low end.

That's not a fair argument because we don't know at what points they stopped (if it was one of five guys having ten coronary events, that's not necessarily meaningful).

A physician can influence some patients to take almost any treatment path.

[Lootifer]

But coffee is something I just can't quit lol, I quit for 3 months then I'm back at it. But I'm down to 1 mug per day.

I had to quit it altogether. Cutting down wasn't an option for me. I was drowning in the stuff. I'd have 3-4 mugs of coffee before lunch, and then maybe another 3-4 before bedtime. I was so sleep deprived and fatigued by it, when I woke up in the morning I felt like I'd not slept at all. I've been on and off coffee for years, sometimes lasting a year and a half or more before going back on it. I'm not sure how long I've been off it now, but it has been easily a year and a half, maybe 2. The caffeine was messing up my mind and something else in the coffee was messing up my stomach. I love the smell of it though. Even now, I get a whiff of brewing coffee and it hit me right on the pleasure button.

Nah caffine will mess with your stomach too. It's a pretty powerful drug.

Re: OP.

I drink 10-12 litres of milk a week, and gnaw my fair share of dead animal. When I die of cancer you can say I told you so, but until then I shall continue to remain as healthy as an ox and fit as a fiddle.

No one diet is the healthiest, as healthiest is different for individuals and many vastly different diets are, statistically speaking, just as healthy as one another.

[PLAYER57832]

Caffeine-- the jury is still out on that one. Most recent studies show a reduced risk of some diseases, dementia. Its not that caffein is conclusively good... or fully bad, and THAT is the real point we all need to take away.

So many people want a simple "magic bullet"and definite answer. in food, medicine (biology in general), that rarely happens. Part of the problem is that a good scientific study HAS to be inherenetly narrow. You look at benefits of caffeine for white male heart disease patients in a certain weight range, on a particular medication regime,for example. If you don't go so narrow, then there tends to be too much inbuilt variability and error. Even narrowing a study like that means you have to essentially overlook other factors such as maybe race,weight, etc. Narrower studies give more firm results, but are NOT necessarily translatable.

The other option is to try and get a large enough group that all the variabilities are, essentially overshadowed by the variability between the people in the study. How many people you need depends on the variables. In humans, we have hundreds, even thousands of variables, many of which are almost impossible to catalogue (for example, how you feel when you eat a particular food on a particular day,even the weather can potentially impact how your body processes a food). So, even the best, most well designed study is either going to be too narrow to really do much good OR it will be too broad to give much real information.

That said, we do essentially have a long term in-built set of studies if you look at regional native diets. Even that is limited. We might,for example be healthier eating Venison, Beaver tails and nettles (just to pick some random North American historic food sources), but its not practical to suggest such a diet.

The OTHER problem is that people talking Vegan and/or Vegetarien often mix up different issues. Direct nutritional/medical benefits are only one side. If your child is getting a slight benefit from eating rice and soy, but the production of that rice and soy means that 50 other kids are literally poisoned because they live near the fields wehre these things are grown, OR even if the water usage requires building/maintaining a dam that cuts off miles of fish habitat, a historic food source and recreation source (recreation =not just fun,but ALSO health), then what truly is the correct choice?

Ultimately, the real choice is to look individually at what is available at prices you can actually pay and compare how those things are produced, including ALL the impacts. That takes work and in many cases is not even directly possible. When all fails, growing as much of your own food, generally as organic as possible (some exceptions even to that,though -- if your citrus is spreading greening, you are doing no one any favors by abstaining from treatments, the option may be to just not grow it). Buying generally locally, from small farmers and/or concientious farmers (a few larger scale operations do OK, also not everyone can get enough from just small farms).

[BigBallinStalin]

What do y'all think about the Paleo diet?

The Paleolithic diet consists mainly of fish, grass-fed pasture raised meats, eggs, vegetables, fruit, fungi, roots, and nuts, and excludes grains, legumes, dairy products, potatoes, refined salt, refined sugar, and processed oils.[1][2][wiki]

that grass-fed part isn't always true

[thegreekdog]

What do y'all think about the Paleo diet?

The Paleolithic diet consists mainly of fish, grass-fed pasture raised meats, eggs, vegetables, fruit, fungi, roots, and nuts, and excludes grains, legumes, dairy products, potatoes, refined salt, refined sugar, and processed oils.[1][2][wiki]

that grass-fed part isn't always true

Isn't this just Atkins (other than the lack of salt, oil, etc.)?

I did Atkins back in college and lost a ton of weight. My brother did Atkins in high school and went from about 280 to about 180 in a year. He also passed out in the twice. He then tried to do it in college while also drinking beer and gained weight. For those not familiar, Atkins basically tells you to cut all carbs out of your diet, but you can eat whatever meats, etc. you want. My brother ate a lot of bacon.

[PLAYER57832]

What do y'all think about the Paleo diet?

The Paleolithic diet consists mainly of fish, grass-fed pasture raised meats, eggs, vegetables, fruit, fungi, roots, and nuts, and excludes grains, legumes, dairy products, potatoes, refined salt, refined sugar, and processed oils.[1][2][wiki]

that grass-fed part isn't always true

Isn't this just Atkins (other than the lack of salt, oil, etc.)?

I did Atkins back in college and lost a ton of weight. My brother did Atkins in high school and went from about 280 to about 180 in a year. He also passed out in the twice. He then tried to do it in college while also drinking beer and gained weight. For those not familiar, Atkins basically tells you to cut all carbs out of your diet, but you can eat whatever meats, etc. you want. My brother ate a lot of bacon.

No, Atkins includes a lot of things like cheese, etc not in the Paleo diet.

Also, I have never heard that the paleo diet excludes grains, it just excludes the highly developed and processed ones we think of today.