Puppy Forum and Dog Forums banner

81 - 89 of 89 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,674 Posts
As far as canola oil, since you like the China Study you may be interested in the fact that the data collected showed a 25+ correlation with rapeseed oil intake and liver cancer. (canola oil is genetically modified rapeseed).
I actually never said that I liked it or didn't like it. I just disagreed with the means in which you were sourcing your evidence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,842 Posts
Discussion Starter #82
This has turned out to be very interesting, I know you all didn't post them for me but I did find all the links very interesting and informative and I thank those who posted them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
I actually never said that I liked it or didn't like it. I just disagreed with the means in which you were sourcing your evidence.
This is what you said previously to my comment about Canola Oil having the omega 3s turn into trans fat during processing:

"I'm just not finding any peer reviewed sources that say this? Skimming through the top 100 results in peer reviewed journals, none of them had any negatives. This included reports from places like Harvard and the Mayo Clinic. Here's a sample of the kind of things I came across:"

And then you went on to paste a bunch of stuff about how it's healthy.

This is what gets me annoyed and I'm sorry to have an attitude but I just spent 10 mins looking for this stupid thing because it's literally impossible to find online because, well, no one wants to admit to it.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-4522.1994.tb00244.x/abstract

"Concentrations of trans isomers of 18:2w6 and 18:3w3 were measured in soybean and canola oils purchased in the U. S. Fatty acid methyl esters were prepared by BF3 catalyzed transesterification and separated using gas chromatography with Omegawax and CPSil88 capillary columns. Fatty acids were identified by comparing retention times with standards and with isomers of 18:2w6 and 18:3w3 in elaidinized linseed oil. Isomers identified included 18:2ct, 18:2tc, 18:3tct+ctt, 18:3cct, 18:3ctc, and 18:3tcc. The degree of isomerizations of 18:2w6 and 18:3w3 ranged from 0.3% to 3.3% and 6.6% to 37.1%, respectively. The trans contents were between 0.56% and 4.2% of the total fatty acids. Consumers will obtain isomerized essential fatty acids from vegetable oils currently marketed in the U. S."


So, like I initially said, Canola Oil contains trans fat which according to pretty much every source I was reading, is caused from the Omega 3s turning into trans fat during the deodorization process and pretty much every source that says that cites the study that was conducted by the University of Florida-Gainesville. Try googling that and it's pretty much impossible to actually find that study. I had to look through at least 10 diferentf websites with works cited at the bottom to find the name of the book that study was in. So there you go. :)

As far as not liking the way I was sourcing my information:

http://www.amazon.com/Diet-Life-Style-Mortality-China-Characteristics/dp/0801424534

The original data cost about 300 bucks to get. That original link, that girl has that book and read through it and ALL the data from the original study and broke it down. I'm sorry, I'm not spending 300 bucks and scanning pages of information so you can see the facts for yourself. That link goes to what is pretty much the most comprehensive and extensive look at the raw data and having it really looked at from an unbiased view of someone who isn't trying to promote a specific diet. It goes into detail about positive correlations for diseases that are completely ignored in Campbells book.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
Can you present that information in peer reviewed journal articles please? Right now, you're citing a non-neutral source with no formal education in nutrition/science, twice, (once through the Weston A. Price website- which is generally regarded as quackery) and a website that is using arguments against the China Study to advance its own agenda of selling its diet plan. I am 100% certain the China Study is not without flaws, but I do believe it is less biased than the sources you are citing.
OKay, now that I actually have more time. You're concerned about peer reviewed journal articles and studies so why don't you provide some proving that a vegan/vegetarian diet is healthier?

The sources I provided, you didn't like. That's a shame because the RawFoodSOS blog actually has a ton of info about the China Study which if you had actually read through instead of insisting it wasn't good enough, you would have found that there is actually raw data from the original study provided ALONG with another page that list pear reviewed studies about the China Study that go against Campbell's insinuations that meat is the one and only factor of bad health in the Western world. Actually, the raw data...which that blogger broke down for easy reading, but since it wasn't good enough, her opinions and evaluations of it are actually backed up by peer reviewed articles that she actually provided on another page of her blog. There's a reason why I gave that link. :)

http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/07/31/one-year-later-the-china-study-revisited-and-re-bashed/

You could read that whole thing and it's actually really interesting, or because only peer reviewed studies matter in the real world (sarcasm) I'll link those too. I think it should be interesting to note that a lot of healthy eating choices can be made from following quality sources that actually read all the studies for you and condense them. Idk about you but I'm not sitting on pubmed or going through my college libraries LARGE collection of sites with various types of peer reviewed journal articles and such every day. I have a few sources that aren't scientific but rather focused on healthy living and nutrition and they do a pretty damn good job of backing up what they say, which I've looked into on my own, and I trust them. I guess, maybe, that's not good enough for everyone but it doesn't, absolutely does NOT, make the information incorrect. Anyways, I'll be putting any of my words in italics... everything following is directly copied off of RawFoodSOS:

-"Erythrocyte fatty acids, plasma lipids, and cardiovascular disease in rural China" by Fan Wenxun, Robert Parker, Banoo Parpia, Qu Yinsheng, Patricia Cassano, Michael Crawford, Julius Leyton, Jean Tian, Li Junyao, Chen Junshi, and T. Colin Campbell.
"Within China neither plasma total cholesterol nor LDL cholesterol was associated with CVD [cardiovascular disease]. … The results indicate that geographical differences in CVD mortality within China are caused primarily by factors other than dietary or plasma cholesterol.:

There were no significant correlations between the various cholesterol fractions and the three mortality rates [coronary heart disease, hypertensive heart disease, and stroke]. In contrast, plasma triglyceride had a significant positive association with CHD and HHD but not with stroke.

We’ve even got a cameo appearance from wheat again:

The consumption of wheat flour and salt (the latter measured by a computed index of salt intake and urinary sodium excretion) was positively correlated with all three diseases [cardiovascular disease, hypertensive heart disease, and stroke].

And for those of your leery of industrial oils and polyunsaturated fats, check this out:

Unlike what might be expected from studies on Western subjects, there was no significant inverse correlation between RBC-PC total PUFAs and CVD mortality; in fact, RBC-PC total PUFAs, especially the n-6 fatty acids, were positively correlated with CHD [coronary heart disease] and HHD [hypertensive heart disease]."

-http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/52/6/1027.full.pdf

-"Association of dietary factors and selected plasma variables with sex hormone-binding globulin in rural Chinese women" (PDF) by Jeffrey R. Gates, Banoo Parpia, T. Colin Campbell, and Chen Junshi.

The principal positive food-SHBG correlates in order of magnitude were rice (0.61, P < 0.0001), green vegetables (0.49, P < 0.001), fish (0.42, P < 0.001), and meat (0.38, P < 0.05). The strongest negative food correlate with SHBG (positively correlated with insulin) was wheat (-0.57, P < 0.0001).

Significant differences in the diet of rural Chinese populations studied suggest that wheat consumption may promote higher insulin, higher triacylglycerol, and lower SHBG values. Such a profile is consistent with that commonly associated with obesity, dyslipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. On the other hand, the intake of rice, fish, and possibly green vegetables may elevate SHBG concentrations independent of weight or smoking habits.

The effect of rice and wheat on SHBG was remarkable and unexpected. … Nevertheless, there is some evidence to suggest that rice and wheat can have significantly different effects on the biochemical variables we measured. Panlasigui et al (58) found that the high-amylose rice varieties had blood glucose responses that were lower than those of wheat bread. Other varieties, particularly “converted” rice, gave considerably higher values. Miller et al (59) in comparing rice and wheat varieties found that the insulin index (II) was unusually low on the relative scale compared with the glycemic index (GI) of the same foods. For example, Calrose brown rice had a GI = 83 but an II = 51. White bread was used as the reference food (GI = 100, II = 100). Wheat may be unique in its relative capacity to stimulate insulin. Most recently, Behall and Howe (60) reported a significantly lower insulin response curve area in both normal and hyperinsulinemic men consuming a high-amylose diet. The relative differences in the fatty acid proportions and/or amylose content for wheat and rice may thus be responsible for modulating serum SHBG, triacylglycerols, and insulin.

-"Prolonged infection with hepatitis B virus and association between low blood cholesterol concentration and liver cancer" (PDF) by Zhengming Chen, Anthony Keech, Rory Collins, Brenda Slavin, Junshi Chen, T. Colin Campbell, and Richard Peto.

In addition to the [hepatitis B] virus being a cause of liver cancer in China, it seems that diet also plays a key role. How do we know? The blood cholesterol levels provided the main clue. Liver cancer is strongly associated with increasing blood cholesterol, and we already know that animal-based foods are responsible for increases in cholesterol. … Individuals who are chronically infected with HBV and who consume animal-based foods have high blood cholesterol and a high rate of liver cancer. The virus provides the gun, and bad nutrition pulls the trigger. (Page 104)


Several prospective epidemiological studies … have found an inverse relation between cholesterol concentration and the subsequent risk of cancer. … A prospective observational study in a Chinese population … found a significant inverse association between blood concentration of cholesterol and subsequent mortality from non-malignant liver disease or from liver cancer. More recently significant excess risk of death from liver cancer and chronic liver disease has been reported among North Americans with a low blood cholesterol concentration.

In the largest study in a Western population (the multiple risk factor intervention trial) 100 deaths from liver cancer were recorded during the follow up period, and a significantly increased risk of death from liver cancer was found among people in the group with the lowest cholesterol concentrations.

In our previous prospective study of another Chinese population the subsequent risk of death from liver cancer was shown to increase significantly with decreasing blood concentrations of cholesterol.

We have now shown that prolonged infection with hepatitis B virus is an additional factor contributing to the inverse relation between cholesterol concentration and liver cancer. Chronic hepatitis B, which usually starts in early childhood in China, leads not only to liver disease but also to a lower blood concentration of cholesterol in adulthood. This produces, as observed elsewhere, an inverse relation between cholesterol concentration and the risk of death from liver cancer or from other chronic liver disease. This result may also help to explain, at least in part, the inverse association between cholesterol concentration and liver disease observed in Western populations.

In this study there was a negative correlation between chronic infection with hepatitis B virus and blood concentrations of cholesterol (and apolipoprotein B) when people living in the same village were compared with each other, but the correlation was reversed when average values for different villages were compared with each other.

Correlations between populations based on average measures in groups are subject to the “ecological fallacy” (whereby these correlations may not represent the correlations that would be seen among individual subjects). … In general, comparisons within populations are much more reliable than comparisons between populations when assessing association of variables and diseases in individual subjects. So, in the present instance, the negative correlation observed when people living in the same village were compared with each other provides the most reliable evidence as to the real relation between chronic infection with hepatitis B virus and lipid concentrations in individual subjects.

-"Dietary calcium and bone density among middle-aged and elderly women in China" (PDF) by Ji-Fan Hu, Xi-He Zhao, Jian-Bin Jia, Banoo Parpia, and T. Colin Campbell.

Animal protein, including that from dairy products, may leach more calcium from the bones than is ingested, said Campbell, professor of nutritional biochemistry at Cornell and director of the Cornell-China-Oxford Project, the most comprehensive project on diet and disease ever conducted.

Campbell [and other collaborators] analyzed the role of dietary calcium in bone density by following closely the diets of 800 women from five counties that have very different diets in China. … Analyses of these data suggest that increased levels of animal-based proteins, including protein from dairy products, “almost certainly contribute to a significant loss of bone calcium while vegetable-based diets clearly protect against bone loss,” Campbell reported.

Analysis by individual for all counties combined showed that [bone mineral content] and [bone mineral density] were correlated positively with total calcium (r = 0.27-0.38, P < 0.0001), dairy calcium (r = 0.34-0.40, P < 0.0001), and to a lesser extent with nondairy calcium (r = 0.06-0.12. P = 0.001-0.100), even after age and/or body weight were adjusted for. The results strongly indicated that dietary calcium, especially from dairy sources, increased bone mass in middle-aged and elderly women by facilitating optimal peak bone mass earlier in life

A comparison of the bone mass of women in the five counties revealed that 20% greater bone mass at the distal radius was observed for all age groups of women in county YA [Xianghuangqi], a pastoral county with high consumption of dairy foods, as compared with the nonpastoral areas with lower calcium intakes.

The associations between bone mass and other nutrients, like dietary protein and phosphorous, were also examined. However, none of these nutrients showed an association with bone mass as significantly as did dietary calcium, although an inverse correlation was observed consistently for nondairy animal protein.

Further Studies that the list that deal with the above topic:


Prospective study of dietary protein intake and risk of hip fracture in postmenopausal women. “Protein from animal sources was the nutrient variable with the strongest negative association with risk of hip fracture in this prospective study of Iowa women. Protein from vegetable sources did not appear to protect against hip fractures.”

Effect of Dietary Protein on Bone Loss in Elderly Men and Women: The Framingham Osteoporosis Study. “Contrary to expectations, elders with animal protein intake up to several-fold greater than the RDA also had the least bone loss after controlling for known confounders. Nonanimal sources of protein were not related to BMD. These results suggest that typical population intakes of animal protein, within the range commonly consumed, do not result in bone loss. Rather animal protein intake appears important in maintaining bone or minimizing bone loss in elderly persons.”

Protein Consumption and Bone Mineral Density in the Elderly. “Multiple linear regression analyses … showed a positive association between animal protein consumption … and BMD. Conversely, a negative association between vegetable protein and BMD was observed in both sexes. … This study supports a protective role for dietary animal protein in the skeletal health of elderly women.”

Controlled High Meat Diets Do Not Affect Calcium Retention or Indices of Bone Status in Healthy Postmenopausal Women. “Calcium retention is not reduced when subjects consume a high protein diet from common dietary sources such as meat.”

Further studies dealing with veggies and bone health

Veganism and osteoporosis: A review of the current literature. “The findings gathered consistently support the hypothesis that vegans do have lower bone mineral density than their non-vegan counterparts.”

A Comparison of Bone Mass Measurements of Vegetarians and Omnivores. “In this review of 9 cross-sectional and 1 longitudinal study, little statistical significance between bone density and bone content was found between vegetarians and omnivores.”

Effect of vegetarian diets on bone mineral density: a Bayesian meta-analysis. “The results suggest that vegetarian diets, particularly vegan diets, are associated with lower BMD, but the magnitude of the association is clinically insignificant.”

Long-Term Vegetarian Diet and Bone Mineral Density in Postmenopausal Taiwanese Women. “Long-term practitioners of vegan vegetarian were found to be at a higher risk of exceeding lumbar spine fracture threshold … and of being classified as having osteopenia of the femoral neck.”

-"Reply to TC Campbell" by Frank B. Hu and Walter Willett.

A survey of 65 counties in rural China, however, did not find a clear association between animal product consumption and risk of heart disease or major cancers.

-Correlation of Cervical Cancer Mortality with Reproductive and Dietary Factors, and Serum Markers in China by Wan-De Guo, Ann W. Hsing, Jun-Yao Li, Jun-Shi Chen, Wong-Ho Chow, and William J. Blot:

When these variables were considered in the multiple regression analysis, early age at first birth and higher BMI were positively associated with cervical cancer mortality, while consumption of green vegetables and animal foods were negatively correlated.

-Risk Factors for Stomach Cancer in Sixty-Five Chinese Counties (PDF) by Robert W. Kneller, Wan-De Guo, Ann W. Hsing, Jun-Shi Chen, William J. Blot, Jun-Yao Li, David Forman, and Joseph F. Fraumeni, Jr.

Consumption of green vegetables, rice, meat, and fish was associated with reduced mortality. … On the other hand, salt-preserved vegetables, potatoes, wheat, and millet, plus combinations of wheat, corn, and millet, were correlated with significantly increased mortality.

Our finding of a significant inverse association for meat is consistent with a recent case-control report from Turkey. Meat is a common source of selenium, which showed the strongest protective effect among all the plasma micronutrients.

-Fish consumption, blood docosahexaenoic acid and chronic diseases in Chinese rural populations by Yiqun Wang, Michael A. Crawford, Junshi Chenb, Junyao Li, Kebreab Ghebremeskel, T. Colin Campbell, Wenxun Fan, Robert Parker, and Julius Leyton.:

Our finding that the highest blood cholesterol levels in the Chinese were associated with DHA and fish consumption but with the lowest risk [of heart disease], is also a contradiction of what might be expected.

The higher blood LDL cholesterol levels associated with the marine coastal and lacustrine communities in China as compared with their inland neighbours, needs to be seen as starting from very low levels. In this context, it is the largely vegetarian, inland communities who have the greatest all risk mortalities and morbidities and who have the lowest LDL cholesterols. It could well be that there is a minimum level of LDL cholesterol below which cell membranes are adversely affected.

[It] is not difficult to visualise the reason for the link with liver cancer. The coastal, estuarine and lacustrine regions with the high fish and sea food intakes are also those with the highest humidities. Storage of food in regions of high humidity is known to encourage the spread and growth of hepatitis B virus and Aspergillus flavus which produces aflatoxin, both are major causes of primary carcinoma of the liver.

-Diet and Blood Nutrient Correlations with Ischemic Heart, Hypertensive Heart, and Stroke Mortality in China by Wande Guo, J.Y. Li, H. King, and F.B. Locke.

Five variables were positively correlated: triglycerides and herpes antibodies with ischemic heart disease; salt and phosphorus (females) with hypertensive heart disease; and only albumin (males) with stroke. … Some findings confirm those observed in the West (salt, triglycerides, herpes, legumes, oleic acid, and liquor), but molybdenum and age at first pregnancy have not been emphasized previously. Still others significant in the West have not been observed here, such as cholesterol and smoking.


Fin

Now, do you see how easy it was for me to just post up ONE link with ALL this information available to you if you had just bothered to read through it instead of getting upset about the fact it wasn't straight out of a scientific journal.... Hope you appreciate the time I put into this. Honestly, it's only because I actually care about real science. These studies are peer reviewed. The China Study (the book) isn't peer reviewed and the actual raw data from the legit study was interpreted by Campbell in an obviously faulty and biased manner. Which is a shame because all that data could have really led to some legitimate knowledge.

Oh, and your comment about the Weston A. Price Foundation being quackery... that's funny because this woman:

I'm Harriet A. Hall, MD, a retired family physician and former Air Force flight surgeon. I write about medicine, so-called complementary and alternative medicine, science, quackery, and critical thinking.

I'm an editor and one of the 5 MD founders of the Science-Based Medicine blog.
I write the SkepDoc column in Skeptic magazine.
I'm a contributing editor to Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer.
I'm a medical advisor and author of articles on the Quackwatch website.
I recently published Women Aren't Supposed to Fly: The Memoirs of a Female Flight Surgeon.

Wrote this article:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/385/

"But I also found this critical review which makes some excellent points and accuses the authors of misrepresenting the findings of the study." -Comment in reference to the link I posted from the WAPF. & when several commentors mentioned that it was horrible for her to have used that as a source this was her reply (which I love):

"One could argue that it added to my article because even a pseudoscientific site could find valid criticisms of the book.

I won’t apologize for citing the review on the Weston Price website, because I think it is a good review; although in retrospect I might have mentioned that it was a rare gleam of reason on a generally unreliable website.

I was trying to be fair and show that there were both pro and con opinions of the book. I also mentioned that Oprah had featured it; and I certainly don’t consider her a reliable source.

I don’t go looking for pearls in the mud of a pigsty, but if I happened to see one there, I wouldn’t refuse to pick it up just because of where I found it."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
915 Posts
One question I'd like to pose to those who are vegetarian/vegan for ethical reasons-

why not by meat/animal products who raise and care for their animals the right way? You take your money away from practices you don't like and support those who do the right thing. Kind of like in the BYB thread-put your money with things you can support.

I think it's more effective than just withdrawing your money entirely.

I know some have said they can't separate meat from the animal and I respect that that is an entirely different aspect, but just strictly from a "I don't eat meat because farms/factories/etc are unethical" POV, I think supporting local/small/humane farms is in the greater interest.

And yeah, I'm not sure how vegetarian/veganism became the greatest health thing ever? (Speaking generally, not at anyone here and this is not meant to be a jab). Member of FI's family have severe gluten intolerance, so "paleo"/no corn/wheat/grain has been the way to go for them personally.

On the other hand, I've known people who can't handle meat or dairy at all. So I wonder if their is any sort of universal diet/method of eating out there.

P.S.

What are the ingredients for vegan pizza? UNT has a vegan cafeteria that I've tried out of curiosity, and I've tried the pizza. Soy?

EDIT:

Also, would any vegans here have issues with milk or eggs if it came from a good source? Because it doesn't kill the animal to produce it.

And it's interesting to see how the area people grew up in clouds/influences their views. (Not that I doubt that there are horrendously cruel places out there). I mean I grew up surrounded by fields of cows and people raising animals for the fair. I know for a fact these animals were treated better than the average dog/cat were.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,995 Posts
One question I'd like to pose to those who are vegetarian/vegan for ethical reasons-

why not by meat/animal products who raise and care for their animals the right way? You take your money away from practices you don't like and support those who do the right thing. Kind of like in the BYB thread-put your money with things you can support.

I think it's more effective than just withdrawing your money entirely.

I know some have said they can't separate meat from the animal and I respect that that is an entirely different aspect, but just strictly from a "I don't eat meat because farms/factories/etc are unethical" POV, I think supporting local/small/humane farms is in the greater interest.

And yeah, I'm not sure how vegetarian/veganism became the greatest health thing ever? (Speaking generally, not at anyone here and this is not meant to be a jab). Member of FI's family have severe gluten intolerance, so "paleo"/no corn/wheat/grain has been the way to go for them personally.

On the other hand, I've known people who can't handle meat or dairy at all. So I wonder if their is any sort of universal diet/method of eating out there.

P.S.

What are the ingredients for vegan pizza? UNT has a vegan cafeteria that I've tried out of curiosity, and I've tried the pizza. Soy?

EDIT:

Also, would any vegans here have issues with milk or eggs if it came from a good source? Because it doesn't kill the animal to produce it.

And it's interesting to see how the area people grew up in clouds/influences their views. (Not that I doubt that there are horrendously cruel places out there). I mean I grew up surrounded by fields of cows and people raising animals for the fair. I know for a fact these animals were treated better than the average dog/cat were.
Because just because a package says 'free range' doesn't mean the animal is raised humanely, to get free range, the animal must have access to the outdoors SOMETIMES. And not everyone has the luxury of being able to go straight to the source for their food so they can see where it comes from first hand..
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/05/07/what-do-your-food-labels-really-mean-free-range-natural/
http://georgiaorganics.org/for-eaters/natural-free-range-cage-free-what-do-they-mean/

I tend to avoid soy all together but here are some vegan pizza recipes not all include soy or tofu http://www.onegreenplanet.org/tag/vegan-pizza-recipes

As far as milk and eggs go, i do not know what the issue is with eggs, because it's not fertilized, but milk is meant for a baby cow, (and a cow has to have a baby to produce milk only saying this because some people do not know this )and i am pretty sure the dairy industry and the veal industry go hand in hand , i think that is the reason they don't like milk
I am not a vegan for moral reasons, but i just through i'd throw in my 2 cents
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,766 Posts
I don't understand the objection to eggs if the chickens are pets. I mean, I can see it very obviously when it comes to commercial farms, and even if the chickens are ethically raised but the farmer uses them for meat when they're done laying I could still understand an objection to the whole thing, but not using unfertilized eggs from pet chickens just seems like an insult to the chicken, LOL. My mom has a little parrot who lays eggs several times a year (no man bird in the house so they're unfertilized) and she gives the eggs to the dogs so as not to waste them :p.

ETA: I guess it would make sense if the person is opposed to keeping pets at all, or keeping chickens as pets in particular.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
And yeah, I'm not sure how vegetarian/veganism became the greatest health thing ever? (Speaking generally, not at anyone here and this is not meant to be a jab). Member of FI's family have severe gluten intolerance, so "paleo"/no corn/wheat/grain has been the way to go for them personally.

On the other hand, I've known people who can't handle meat or dairy at all. So I wonder if their is any sort of universal diet/method of eating out there.

And it's interesting to see how the area people grew up in clouds/influences their views. (Not that I doubt that there are horrendously cruel places out there). I mean I grew up surrounded by fields of cows and people raising animals for the fair. I know for a fact these animals were treated better than the average dog/cat were.
I won't comment on the ethical thing because I don't have a problem with that. As far as the health thing, some people probably do amazingly well on a vegetarian and vegan diet compared to the previous diet they were eating. Those same people are probably eating fresher foods, fresh produce specifically, rather than over processed frozen dinners and fast food...because those things typically come with meat in them. Or they have a dairy and meat intolerance which happens, as has been mentioned.

As far as universal diet/method...no. Like the way that I eat right now isn't the same way that other people who eat a similar diet to me eat. For instance, I'm at a healthy weight right now so I eat more carbs than a person eating the same "paleo" diet as me would be eating if they were trying to lose weight because if I don't eat more carbs I lose too much weight. So when I say low carb, I eat low carb compared to the majority of the US population but in higher amounts than the typical low carber and keto diet person would be eating. When I say starch is bad, well there's been all these studies now about resistant starch and how it's amazing for lower blood glucose levels and for feeding beneficial bacteria in the gut leading to better health, immune system, etc. So all starch is bad? NO, obviously not. The starch that we are incapable of digesting but that the bacteria our gut feeds on is great for us apparently. It makes a wonderful prebiotic. It's been shown that low carb diets are the best for losing weight and improving some factors that are thought to influence cardiovascular risk so I would definitely say that eating low carb rather than low fat is the way to go if you're unhealthy and need to lose weight but not necessarily so if you're at an ideal weight and don't want to lose any more. That doesn't make all carbs good either. Like those studies I posted up before... it seems like wheat may actually impact cardiovascular health and other diseases and raise risk, unlike meat which isn't actually proven to do so. Too damn bad Campbell completely ignored that because tons of people are eating wheat because they think it's better for them than refined carbs when it turns out white rice may be a hell of a lot safer to eat. Anyways, I could keep going on and on. Than there's the whole natural is good, chemicals are bad thing... um no, everything breaks down into certain chemical elements in our body. Processed foods are bad? No again, even coconut oil and olive oil are processed...it's about being OVER processed, to the point that the nutrition in it is worth jack and it's basically just empty calories that give you nothing in return. That's what is bad. So how do you determine what to eat? There's plenty of studies out there showing this and that is bad for you and causes diseases and than another study saying the opposite. Literally, there have been studies showing a positive correlation between pretty much every food and cancer and than another study saying the opposite... it gets ridiculous. I can tell you one thing though, there is absolutely no scientific evidence showing that a vegetarian/vegan diet is healthier than one containing meat. Actually, from studies... it's been shown that diets containing meat have more benefits for health when compared to diets low in meat BUT containing grain. So grain, not looking too good. Meat on the other hand... still no study showing that all meat is bad, it seems the worst of it is red meat and even that can be eaten in moderation.

Oh yeah, I was going to comment on the growing up next to farms thing. My mother and Uncles and Aunt were brought up on a dairy farm. Literally, my uncle treated his show cows like they were just like pet dogs. He groomed them, loved them, and won quite a few ribbons with them. They took good care of their cows and it was a family bussiness, not some factory farm type nonsense. Also, another reason why I'm not so crazy about the whole "drinking raw milk will kill me" nonesense lol. My mother grew up drinking raw milk and walking bare foot through cow shit. She's lived to be a perfectly fine and healthy adult and has never had any major stomach disease or other illness in her life. I mean literally, they grew up having cow patty "snow ball" type fights. People worry too much about germs and crap now a days. The immune system will work that shit out if you actually give it the opportunity to boost itself instead of keeping it in submission throughout life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,842 Posts
Discussion Starter #89
I won't comment on the ethical thing because I don't have a problem with that. As far as the health thing, some people probably do amazingly well on a vegetarian and vegan diet compared to the previous diet they were eating. Those same people are probably eating fresher foods, fresh produce specifically, rather than over processed frozen dinners and fast food...because those things typically come with meat in them. Or they have a dairy and meat intolerance which happens, as has been mentioned.

As far as universal diet/method...no. Like the way that I eat right now isn't the same way that other people who eat a similar diet to me eat. For instance, I'm at a healthy weight right now so I eat more carbs than a person eating the same "paleo" diet as me would be eating if they were trying to lose weight because if I don't eat more carbs I lose too much weight. So when I say low carb, I eat low carb compared to the majority of the US population but in higher amounts than the typical low carber and keto diet person would be eating. When I say starch is bad, well there's been all these studies now about resistant starch and how it's amazing for lower blood glucose levels and for feeding beneficial bacteria in the gut leading to better health, immune system, etc. So all starch is bad? NO, obviously not. The starch that we are incapable of digesting but that the bacteria our gut feeds on is great for us apparently. It makes a wonderful prebiotic. It's been shown that low carb diets are the best for losing weight and improving some factors that are thought to influence cardiovascular risk so I would definitely say that eating low carb rather than low fat is the way to go if you're unhealthy and need to lose weight but not necessarily so if you're at an ideal weight and don't want to lose any more. That doesn't make all carbs good either. Like those studies I posted up before... it seems like wheat may actually impact cardiovascular health and other diseases and raise risk, unlike meat which isn't actually proven to do so. Too damn bad Campbell completely ignored that because tons of people are eating wheat because they think it's better for them than refined carbs when it turns out white rice may be a hell of a lot safer to eat. Anyways, I could keep going on and on. Than there's the whole natural is good, chemicals are bad thing... um no, everything breaks down into certain chemical elements in our body. Processed foods are bad? No again, even coconut oil and olive oil are processed...it's about being OVER processed, to the point that the nutrition in it is worth jack and it's basically just empty calories that give you nothing in return. That's what is bad. So how do you determine what to eat? There's plenty of studies out there showing this and that is bad for you and causes diseases and than another study saying the opposite. Literally, there have been studies showing a positive correlation between pretty much every food and cancer and than another study saying the opposite... it gets ridiculous. I can tell you one thing though, there is absolutely no scientific evidence showing that a vegetarian/vegan diet is healthier than one containing meat. Actually, from studies... it's been shown that diets containing meat have more benefits for health when compared to diets low in meat BUT containing grain. So grain, not looking too good. Meat on the other hand... still no study showing that all meat is bad, it seems the worst of it is red meat and even that can be eaten in moderation.

Oh yeah, I was going to comment on the growing up next to farms thing. My mother and Uncles and Aunt were brought up on a dairy farm. Literally, my uncle treated his show cows like they were just like pet dogs. He groomed them, loved them, and won quite a few ribbons with them. They took good care of their cows and it was a family bussiness, not some factory farm type nonsense. Also, another reason why I'm not so crazy about the whole "drinking raw milk will kill me" nonesense lol. My mother grew up drinking raw milk and walking bare foot through cow shit. She's lived to be a perfectly fine and healthy adult and has never had any major stomach disease or other illness in her life. I mean literally, they grew up having cow patty "snow ball" type fights. People worry too much about germs and crap now a days. The immune system will work that shit out if you actually give it the opportunity to boost itself instead of keeping it in submission throughout life.
I grew up around in horse poop (not barefoot lol but in summer I wore sandals around the arm sometimes so I guess it's close lol) and other dirty barn things and I have the strongest immune system ever. I think people have gotten too germophobic in recent years, just pay attention how many commercials and articles there are about everything kids touch bring germs home and all that.

I wish I could have farm eggs like I did before (which are what I consider a gift from the chickens :) ) also I have never understood why so many people think killing an animal for food is wrong? Animals (humans included) have been (and still do) kill animals for food since the beginning of time, like it or not, you need meat eggs etc ... Or at least the nutrients they have, I know a few vegetarians and they take supplements to fill in the nutritional holes.
 
81 - 89 of 89 Posts
Top