Vegetarians - why?

[Kortney]

A few have mentioned just discomfort with eating meat after having been exposed to the innards and whatnot of animals (like through an anatomy class.

Ah yes, that's why I have never eaten a piece of fruit since 1925. I saw a rotting apple with a worm in. Made me sick to my stomach it did!

 

[Liudeius]

Actually the benefits of say eating a steak outweigh the bad. Aslong as you don't eat enough to end up with colon cancer or something.

The amount of bad eating 1 steak every now n then does to you is dwarfed by how much protein and iron it contains.

Aslong as you eat a healthy amount, more or less any meat is healthy.

But Fish is the healthiest and happens to be my favourite. Luckily I guess.

Well like you say, carcinogens are more of an issue with meat than plants (although they can be with plants) and yes, an occasional steak is unlikely to have a negative impact on your health. (Though only having an occasional vegetable is going to negatively impact your health.)

I'm not saying it's unacceptable to eat meat, only trying to answer the thread's question: "Vegetarians - Why?" And some of the reasons are those that I mentioned.

 

[Hader]

A few have mentioned just discomfort with eating meat after having been exposed to the innards and whatnot of animals (like through an anatomy class.

Ah yes, that's why I have never eaten a piece of fruit since 1925. I saw a rotting apple with a worm in. Made me sick to my stomach it did!

Hey, your problem not mine.

 

[Kortney]

A few have mentioned just discomfort with eating meat after having been exposed to the innards and whatnot of animals (like through an anatomy class.

Ah yes, that's why I have never eaten a piece of fruit since 1925. I saw a rotting apple with a worm in. Made me sick to my stomach it did!

Hey, your problem not mine.

I'll make it your problem in a second. Watch your back.

 

[Hader]

I'll make it your problem in a second. Watch your back.

Ooh I eagerly await these results!

 

[s0p0g]

i have no problems whatsoever with people who don't eat (red) meat because they don't like the taste or texture of it. also, these are the vegetarians who don't yell at you.

and then there are those who say it's morally wrong or derogatory (for the animal) to kill a living thing to eat it afterwards (and they will never shut up about it) ... what i never understood.
it's not like plants are dead anorganic material, like stones or something. plants live too you murderes!!!
ahem, sorry.

also, is it not wrong to eat the food of my food? i think it's way more cruel to let a living being starve than just, i dunno, fry their brains or shoot them or whatever.
or is that part of a bigger plan? eat the food of our food to starve them animals to starve us meat-eaters, and then take over the world? how perfidious!

 

[Treblaine]

I hate the whole human superiority thing. What we do isn't natural.
If a human kills an animal it's acceptable, but if an animal kills a human IT'S EVIL AND DESERVES TO DIE!

Evil is not an absolute construct. It IS relative and subjective.

If aliens come to kill us you can say:

"hey you can't kill me, I'm a vegan"

And see how far that gets you. I think anyone with any common sense would not submit to death just because they did the same to animals with minuscule brains that is barely capable of the most simple thought.

Illusion of moral superiority doesn't count for shit when you're dead.

...What? That's not my point at all and you know it. My point was that nothing makes humans more important than animals. I was using an example. Nothing to do with us surviving.

Humans are more important to humans than animals because we are humans.

To put the locust before the human is catastrophic.

 

[Canid117]

Yes but we didn't evolve in modern times. We evolved in a time when there were to easy ways to get protein. Nuts and other animals and it was very hard to get enough nuts to sustain a significant population. Ergo, we were designed to eat anything with nutritional value. Including that poor fluffy bunny that is so tasty when you cut it open.

Just to make it clear, I'm not vegetarian, just responding to your illogical comments against them.

Have you forgotten the original point?

You we're saying that the fact that you need protein have have four canine teeth means you HAVE to eat meat and vegetarians are wrong to not. I replied that this was not the case.

If you insist that vegetarians are wrong just because they are different from our stone age ancestors, I would recommend you eat that bunny you just killed raw and dispose of the computer on which you are responding to this message.

I never said you have to eat meat now but it was stated that humans were not biologically adapted to eat meat and that is blatantly false. Maybe you should go back and read the comment that started this whole argument and it will make a little more sense to you.

 

[Homo Carnivorous]

Scientific research shows that eating red meat reduces your life span and that eating certain plant materials increases your life span. If you think vegetarian diets or diets high in vegetables are not healthier, you really need to do some research. The only exception is fish, however omega-3 can be obtained from other sources as well.

what sciuentific research is that? Dont tell me. PCRM studies? yeah thats what I thought too. F#%& PCRM. They are not medical professionals or real researchers they are animal rights activists parading as and abusing science.

What these kinds of studies show time and time again is that;

1.Most of the meat is processed. meaning, its more likely to be Mcdonalds patty or balogna than fresh cut sirloin
2.Vegetarians are more likely to be non smokers and physically active.
3.chicken counts as "vegetarian" in many of the studies.
4.The amount of wheat wheat flour and sugar eaten is not considered.
5.Only balony is concidered and that makes these kinds of trials....well

balogna?!

Do one at a crossfit center which would represent active (majority) meat eaters. get back to me.

 

[Dirty-Zombie]

I find it to be cheaper. Plus is saw it as a Challenge... and I accepted.

 

[Homo Carnivorous]

**No we were not, or at least not in the quantities that we do. We evolved from apes, who were mostly vegetarian except from some insects (personally I don't think insects count as conscience animals). Additionally our digestive tract is almost 3 times longer then that of a true carnivore, such as a canine, this is for the digestion of fibrous grains and vegetables.

This is a typical vegan twist of reality. Our digestive tract measured by ratio of body length is 1:7, for compare a canine is 1:5 and a sheep is 1:28. For small intestines it is 1:4 vs. 1.5 vs. 1.25.

Where do we place. closer to the omnivore dog or the herbivore sheep?

** If you look at the human mouth you will count 4 canine teeth. There is many more incisors and molars for eating vegetables, grains, plant matter and other such tougher then meat substances. I surmise that our current canine teeth were for fighting with each other as primates rather then devouring prey.

You will notice that even our molars have "shredders" on them for crushing and tearing and our jaws have an up/down movement rather than a sideways grinding motion that most herbvores have.

** Not true, the required daily amount of protein for a man is around 80 grams

That certainly depends on what you are doing. Personally i am into physical culture (aka "clean" bodybuilding and fitness) and I opt for atleast 1,5 to 2 grams of protein per kg bodyweight, which lands me at 200-250g of protein a day. This is common among bodybuilders and many go far beyond it. Which makes no sense since they are scared of fat so the body cant utilize all that protein as effeciently. But to each their own. I dont think bodybuilders are more prone to cancers. But once you understand how these kinds of studies are conduted, you stop listening.

You see, they would make sense if they chose near 100% carnivorous humans for the "meat is..." tests. But they wont touch us with a 10 foot pole because we always come out demonstrating that their theories does not stand up to reality. In other words, there are too much static noise (other stuff people eat) to get anything genuinely usefull out of these trials.

** That is absolutely true and I have no argument with that statement. However we no longer need to eat meat to supply us with the protein to meet our needs.

You assume. We dont know the long term effects. what we can measure and have done is that vegan brains are shrinking. It doesnt mean vegans are stupid or turning so. But their brains are shrinking and we have no idea what it means. yet.

**Very much the opposite is true, if everyone went vegetarian we would have bountiful food supplies. The amount of feed used on meet farms is disproportionate to the amount of meat produced.

A twist of reality. The reason we feed cows an valuable crop such as grains are that overproduction has pressed prices down below production costs. So we overproduce wildly to compensate for that. Then we fill some of the surplus on the cows for 3 months at the end of their life (its all they can take the poor buggers before they get serious digestive problems). Burn some of it too, because we cant give it to poor people as that would hurt the marked (apparently). If we leave graziers to do what they do best, graze and shit all over the place we could revitalise lands that are now deserts or shrub because of agriculture. Mono crop agriculture is what is detroying earth and vegans try to shift blame.

 

[The Gnome King]

You seem quite eager to convince yourself that eating meat is healthy. I have no doubt that meat, when consumed in small amounts, can be a part of a healthy diet. On the other hand, I also have no doubt that an equally healthy diet can be achieved without meat. The vegan diet has an advantage of lowering LDL cholesterol, which is a prime goal of standard cardiovascular risk management in every single country on Earth that has a modern medical system.

Why? Because they have a nicer web page? because they are a million dollar company that relies on advertisement income from companies that makes drugs such as statins? I see their claims, but I see no data or reference to back them up.

Here's a Mayo Clinic (they're fairly reputable, I hear) site with 14 references on the first page. I'll go with their results before I scour the web for the very, very few reports and doctors out there who are saying that high cholesterol levels aren't dangerous.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/high-blood-cholesterol/DS00178

(I provided this before and you conveniently ignored it.)

I can find doctors on Google who claim that AIDS doesn't exist. Finding links on Google from non-reputable sources from people we've never heard of isn't extremely comforting. And it's easy. Keep in mind, even medical doctors and nutritionists still disagree about what an "optimal" diet is; though I like Michael Pollan's advice and think it continues to be sensible in light of all the studies and differing opinions out there:

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

The newer studies are comming out in Atkins favour. So I wouldnt be holding my breath if I were you. (http://www.ajcn.org/content/91/3/502.abstract)

Erm... did you read the abstract yourself? All it says is that replacing saturated fat with refined carbohydrates might not be a good idea; it also states that:

Clinical trials that replaced saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat have generally shown a reduction in CVD events, although several studies showed no effects.

So how are these "newer studies" coming out in Atkins favor? Your own link claims that studies *generally* show replacing saturated fats with non-saturated fats reduce cardiovascular events. You're basically providing information that argues in favor of exactly what I am stating. So, thank you. I guess.

Furthermore, particularly given the differential effects of dietary saturated fats and carbohydrates on concentrations of larger and smaller LDL particles, respectively, dietary efforts to improve the increasing burden of CVD risk associated with atherogenic dyslipidemia should primarily emphasize the limitation of refined carbohydrate intakes and a reduction in excess adiposity.

All sensible advice. It's saying don't eat refined carbohydrates and don't be too fat. I'm personally quite thin and I don't eat refined carbohydrates at all. Dr. Fuhrman, for example, suggests a vegan diet with green leafy vegetables, healthy fruits and some healthy plant fats being the cornerstone(s) of your diet - and this is generally what I follow; with excellent results.

As for you being healthy, I'm sure you are. But how old are you? When I ran track in college I was extremely healthy and I ate an Atkins-style diet. As I aged, this no longer suited my health goals and I found something that worked better for me.

Its not just the protein.

Then what is it? The saturated fat? Are you trying to tell me that humans need saturated fat to live? Uh... interesting. If you mean iron, you can get it from plants in abundance - for males at least iron overdose is a much more likely problem than iron deficiency. If you mean B12, B12 deficiency is extremely, extremely rare... even in vegans that don't take supplements.

http://www.pamrotella.com/health/b12.html

And if you're saying that people can live off meat entirely, a "meatian" I guess - you try that experiment on yourself, without supplements, while I eat my vegan diet without supplements. We'll see what happens first - me developing a B12 deficiency or you developing scurvy. Or, equally likely, any number of nutritional deficiencies caused from a lack of fruits and vegetables (plants) in the diet. Or a mineral deficiency. (Scurvy being a disease caused from lack of Vitamin C... which is found in... plants.) It exists in a very few odd animal sources like calf's liver; but not in very significant amounts.

humans have no problems digesting plants or living on plants.

If this was true. I would like to hear about any vegan tribe found. We know virtually no 3rd generation vegans. We can live on plants for a while. The large drop out from veganism isnt because people "want doing it right" or "did it wrong",. its because for most of us it is impossible to live on plants alone. For a lot its not even possible with a wash of different supplements.

This argument is so unscientific and full of holes I don't know where to start.

1) "Tribes" of people, until recently, historically relied on getting enough calories to survive, period. They ate whatever was available without a large agricultural-industrial complex and modern day supply-chain management/logistics to support them. There are plenty of religions out there that have been *vegetarian* for many generations; they're doing fine and often have lifespans longer than that of the average American. (Jainism and Buddhism, for example.) As far as *vegan* 'tribes' go, no, why would people who needed calories and didn't have our infrastructure turn them down; in any form? If you want to know about MOSTLY vegan cultures; there are many. See the aforementioned China Study for rural villages in China where eating meat is something that happens perhaps 1-2 times a year, if they can manage it, with dairy products being virtually unknown.

2) We can live off "plants" infinitely. Humans are adaptable like that. People drop out of Atkins all the time, too. It's not because they can't live off the diet, it's because they are in some cases lazy and lack discipline and in some cases the diet isn't performing the way they want it to perform.

Can you provide ANY reputable studies that shows vegans in large numbers are dropping out of the lifestyle because it was "impossible" for them to remain vegan due to health issues? I know quite a few vegans who have been following the lifestyle for 20+ years; they're doing fine.

PCRM is a notoriously misleading bunch of vegan cooks. I wont take their word for anything, because I have seen enough times how they torture data and make studies nobody can seem to duplicate to know better than doing so.

No, you've shown your preference for odd, obscure doctors and websites. The PCRM site provided over a dozen references; it wasn't as if they were pulling the data out of thin air. Most of their references were from sources that had nothing to do with the PCRM.

And remind me... what is it that's the #1 cause of death in the US again? I can't seem to recall... I think it has something to do with the heart...

So what does America eat a lot of besides meat. wheat flour, sugar, Soy, acesulfam K, uppers, downers, high fructose corn sirup, Monosodium glutamte...

The jury's still out on soy being beneficial or harmful; I recommend people eat it as close to the natural fermented or unprocessed forms as possible if they do eat it. (Close to my recommendations to people who want to eat meat, actually - wild is best, grass-fed is OK, factory farmed is worse... etc.)

As for the other substances; they're not part of a healthy diet for vegans OR meat eaters. I agree. But fat and cholesterol still play a huge role. Unless you want to bury your head in the sand and convince yourself that all those double-bacon cheeseburgers are good for you; which is what you sound like - somebody who IS concerned about their health, has read up a little bit on it - just enough knowledge to be dangerous to himself - and is going with what you feel like doing instead of really digging through all the available data. (Hint - do you know what a "meta analysis" of many studies is? It's something I would subject your diet to. Look at ALL the available info out there; not just the info that supports what you want to believe.)

As I said, I have no moral or ethical obligation in being vegan; I've eaten an Atkins-modified diet as well; I'm an athlete, and I have tried many things. After researching everything out there and making it to 32, this is what I have come up with as being the best available information from a wide, wide range of available nutritional info.

If new info comes out that sways my opinion - such as a conclusive meta-analysis of many reputable studies showing that cholesterol is, say, cardioprotective - then I would change my mind.

Thing is, those studies don't exist.

and ok...I admit. I work for the meat industry. We spend millions on going on gamers forum to spread propaganda to people who are allready majority fanboys of us. Got me.

Nah, I don't think you work for the meat industry. As I said, I think you just want to believe what you want to believe and so you sift through mountains of data for information that matches what you want to believe. Period. Lots of people do this. It's kind of human nature. It takes a lot to really objectively stand back in the case of something very emotion-ridden and important to us - like food - and scientifically say, "I will eat thusly because it is good for me and take nothing else, including my feelings, into consideration." It's comforting to people to follow guys like Dr. Atkins, who provide them with an "excuse" to eat what they want to eat; or think they want to eat until they're sick of bacon and screaming for carbs...

As for gamers being heavy consumers of meat already; why, yes, let's take gamers as an example of the healthiest population out there.

Savvy.

 

[eljawa]

Because they either A). DOnt like meat B). Just watched Food Inc and realized how bad the corporate food we all eat is C). Dont like the idea of killing animals or D). have realized that meat requires more energy to make than we get from it, thus making in inefficent, and that if we were all vegetarians there would be no hunger in the world

for the record, I love meat

 

[Homo Carnivorous]

I'll go with their results before I scour the web for the very, very few reports and doctors out there who are saying that high cholesterol levels aren't dangerous.

Not 'few' but 'new'. The lipid and lipid/heart hypothesis was accepted wholesale and it has spawned a billion dollars low fat/statin industry that have had 40 years to gain momentum. If you wanted to do any trials outside of the lipid hypothesis framwork, good luck finding grants.

(I provided this before and you conveniently ignored it.)

Yes because I have (and provided) newer and better data that is supported by the findings comming in from other similar studies. http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

"A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat. "

(sample base: 347,747 subjects)

I can find doctors on Google who claim that AIDS doesn't exist.

I see what you did there. But it doesnt fly. You will notice how dietists all over the world have started to backtrack from the fat scare like it was a new international sport. Of course they dont dare to make the full 180 turn at once so its happening in small steps. yeat more avocado, oil, cheese may actually be good for you as is choclate etc..

Finding links on Google from non-reputable sources from people we've never heard of isn't extremely comforting.

But anonymous writer on WebMD was ok untill you figured out that they are a big business who have a massive conflict of interrest?! I am just pointing out the double standards used here. Uffe Has the credentials and he is far from alone.

Erm... did you read the abstract yourself? All it says is that replacing saturated fat with refined carbohydrates might not be a good idea; it also states that:

Clinical trials that replaced saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat have generally shown a reduction in CVD events, although several studies showed no effects.

Yes did you read the "although several studies showed no effects." part? Not one study, not two, but several could not reproduce the result.

So how are these "newer studies" coming out in Atkins favor? Your own link claims that studies *generally* show replacing saturated fats with non-saturated fats reduce cardiovascular events. You're basically providing information that argues in favor of exactly what I am stating. So, thank you. I guess.

You should probably read the whole article. I guess.

All sensible advice. It's saying don't eat refined carbohydrates and don't be too fat. I'm personally quite thin and I don't eat refined carbohydrates at all. Dr. Fuhrman, for example, suggests a vegan diet with green leafy vegetables, healthy fruits and some healthy plant fats being the cornerstone(s) of your diet - and this is generally what I follow; with excellent results.

I follow the direct opposite. Healthy saturated fats, healthy (whole) proteins and...well thats about it. And my results are good.

As for you being healthy, I'm sure you are. But how old are you? When I ran track in college I was extremely healthy and I ate an Atkins-style diet. As I aged, this no longer suited my health goals and I found something that worked better for me.

33, been a heavy meat eater all my life since I grew up on the countryside.. I never developed much of a taste for greens or the taste of sweet so my intake of vegs and fruits are very limited.

Then what is it? The saturated fat? Are you trying to tell me that humans need saturated fat to live?

To live well yes. And here is why.

Atleast 50% of all your cell membranes are saturated fatty acids.

Healthy Saturated fat is an important factor in bone health. For optimal calcium absorbation in the skeletal structure atleast (no less than) 50% of your fat intake should be saturated.

Healthy saturated fat boosts your immune defense system

Healthy saturated fat is a key element in proper utilisation of Omega 3 storage and use in the body

Healthy saturated fat is the prefered fuel for the heart. Thats the reason the it keeps some of it around.

Short and long chains of healthy fatty acids has properties that protect you from harmful microbes in your digestive system.

Healthy saturated fat is important in the transportation and utilization of vitamins such as A, D, E and K etc.


Stay vegan for another 10 years, get back to me.

And if you're saying that people can live off meat entirely, a "meatian" I guess - you try that experiment on yourself, without supplements, while I eat my vegan diet without supplements.

I have done just that for years on end. I know people who have eaten nothing but meat for 20 years. In fact, one of our own icons, Owsley 'the bear' Stanley, just passed away in a car crash. He ate nothing but meat and animal products for nearly 50 years. Funny guy him.

me developing a B12 deficiency or you developing scurvy.

yes? I havent seen a trace of it. Lets ask the world smartest man; why do carnivore humans not get scurvy, but silly explorers who lived primarily from canned foods (at the time where a can meant 'lead') got it more or less the minute they stepped off the shore?

Dear Cecil...

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2374/traditionally-eskimos-ate-only-meat-and-fish-why-didnt-they-get-scurvy

1) "Tribes" of people, until recently, historically relied on getting enough calories to survive, period. They ate whatever was available without a large agricultural-industrial complex and modern day supply-chain management/logistics to support them. There are plenty of religions out there that have been *vegetarian* for many generations; they're doing fine and often have lifespans longer than that of the average American.

..on heavy amounts og butter, Ghee, raw milk, eggs and fish. yes. Purely vegan. Not one.

See the aforementioned China Study for rural villages in China where eating meat is something that happens perhaps 1-2 times a year, if they can manage it, with dairy products being virtually unknown.

The china study is not worth the paper it is printed on. I wont go though that sleeping pill again. Everybody connected to PCRM are animal rights activists before they are anything else and if shades everything they touch.

2) We can live off "plants" infinitely. Humans are adaptable like that.

SO where are the multigenerational vegans you talk about?

Can you provide ANY reputable studies that shows vegans in large numbers are dropping out of the lifestyle because it was "impossible" for them to remain vegan due to health issues? I know quite a few vegans who have been following the lifestyle for 20+ years; they're doing fine.

Why would anyone want to study it? Multigenerational or stfu.I have the words of many vegans who made blogs to tell others about the problems they faced, especially within the vegan community when they asked why their were failing on their diet.
http://letthemeatmeat.com/
http://huntgatherlove.com/category/tags/hunter-gatherer

No, you've shown your preference for odd, obscure doctors and websites. The PCRM site provided over a dozen references; it wasn't as if they were pulling the data out of thin air. Most of their references were from sources that had nothing to do with the PCRM.

Do you know the expression "lying by ommision"?

The jury's still out on soy being beneficial or harmful; I recommend people eat it as close to the natural fermented or unprocessed forms as possible if they do eat it. (Close to my recommendations to people who want to eat meat, actually - wild is best, grass-fed is OK, factory farmed is worse... etc.)

On that we agree in full. I wont eat factory meat. Its taste and texture is disgusting. Free range grassfed is good. Wild is awesome, but hard to come by. Also it should be said that the soy on my short list is probably the least troublesome. Monosodium glutamate. You can make cardboard taste nice with this stuff, so its everpresent under its various names. Umami is another.

Unless you want to bury your head in the sand and convince yourself that all those double-bacon cheeseburgers are good for you; which is what you sound like

They are, but use good meat sources and leave the bun. The most troublesome part of the burger is the bun and the ketchup for its high sugar content.

(Hint - do you know what a "meta analysis" of many studies is? It's something I would subject your diet to. Look at ALL the available info out there; not just the info that supports what you want to believe.)

I belong to a strange sect of people who are obsessed with health and physical appearance. Most would call it obsessive, and i would be inclined to agree with that assessment. We do look at ALL the evidence. In fact we are so nuts about what we are doing that some of us will get up in the morning to eat raw liver for the many documented benefits of it.

If new info comes out that sways my opinion - such as a conclusive meta-analysis of many reputable studies showing that cholesterol is, say, cardioprotective - then I would change my mind.

I dont believe you.

Nah, I don't think you work for the meat industry. As I said, I think you just want to believe what you want to believe and so you sift through mountains of data for information that matches what you want to believe. Period. Lots of people do this.

and nobody does it more than vegans and the PCRM cult and its echochamber attendees.

 

[ScumbagEddie]

I love how some say they don't eat living things. Yes, I've heard that one before. So to people who take that stance, quit eating vegetables. They're living too.

 

[JackWestJr]

If we weren't supposed to eat meat, why does it taste so good?

 

[Dwarfman]

Why don't you eat insects?

Different tastes, different backgrounds, different diets. 'Tis that simple.

Citrus ants taste great when sprinkled on smoked salmon incidently.

 

[crazyhyena645]

Avoiding meat is one of the best and simplest ways to cut down your fat consumption. Modern farm animals are deliberately fattened up to increase profits. Eating fatty meat increases your chances of having a heart attack or developing cancer,If we eat the plants we grow instead of feeding them to animals, the world's food shortage will disappear virtually overnight. Remember that 100 acres of land will produce enough beef for 20 people but enough wheat to feed 240 people.If we eat the plants we grow instead of feeding them to animals, the world's food shortage will disappear virtually overnight. Remember that 100 acres of land will produce enough beef for 20 people but enough wheat to feed 240 people.

 

[Homo Carnivorous]

Eating fatty meat increases your chances of having a heart attack or developing cancer

No it doesnt: http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

"A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat. "

(sample base: 347,747 subjects)

But a sedative lifestyle with too many refined carbohydrates and trash 'meatproducts' like balogna might. Also remember that animals because of the fat scare are kept as low fat as possible, because people wont buy fatty cuts anymore.

If we eat the plants we grow instead of feeding them to animals, the world's food shortage will disappear virtually overnight.

Source for this claim?

The reason we feed valuable crop to animals is because we overproduce them to the point of absurdity. The price of grains are so low that if you dont overproduce madly, you cannot survive. So what to do with all this overproduced grain. Some is burned and some are fed to cows and pigs. The most normal thing is to grass feed cows because its cheap, real cheap, and then use a 3 month grain finnish before slaughtering.

Animals have the potential to save us. We need more graziers, not fewer. Factory farms are devestating to our environment first and foremost because it keeps graziers off the grass and barren land we need to turn into fertile land. nature isnt as stupid as humans like to believe. Graziers and grass go together. And where grass starts to grow, water is pulled to the surface, and where water is pulled to the surface eventually crop can grow. See the patern? If we want succes with naure we need to imitate its own behaviour, not try to enforce our own rigid and limited hypothesis over it.

Our love of money is what is destroying us. Not animals, animal keep or animal consumption.

 

[The Gnome King]

Not 'few' but 'new'. The lipid and lipid/heart hypothesis was accepted wholesale and it has spawned a billion dollars low fat/statin industry that have had 40 years to gain momentum. If you wanted to do any trials outside of the lipid hypothesis framwork, good luck finding grants.

It's accepted because it works. Dr. Ornish wouldn't be reversing (that is, curing) heart disease through a vegan diet if it didn't work. People with cholesterol levels under 150 wouldn't be essentially immune to cardiovascular disease if it didn't work.

You will notice how dietists all over the world have started to backtrack from the fat scare like it was a new international sport. Of course they dont dare to make the full 180 turn at once so its happening in small steps. yeat more avocado, oil, cheese may actually be good for you as is choclate etc.

Not really. Dr. John McDougall is still a staunch proponent of treating his patients with an extremely low-fat diet, as is Dr. Esselstyn. As are many others. We can play Google-fu all we want but it's pretty obvious nothing out there is as compelling to either of us as what we've already determined works. I would be willing to change my mind if presented with new information; and indeed, I have over the course of my life. Would you?

I follow the direct opposite. Healthy saturated fats, healthy (whole) proteins and...well thats about it. And my results are good.

You're either genetically predisposed to such a diet or your bodybuilding lifestyle is allowing you to burn off the excess, I'd wager. You say you're doing well so I have no reason to doubt you. I've met quite a few bodybuilders over the years but precious few of them that aren't plagued with health problems in their 50's and 60's, if not before. Anecdotal evidence, though I've spent my fair share of time in/with the medical community in one of America's largest cities.

33, been a heavy meat eater all my life since I grew up on the countryside.. I never developed much of a taste for greens or the taste of sweet so my intake of vegs and fruits are very limited.

Sure. And my great-grandfather smoked and drank until the day he died in his 90's. We're all genetically different. Doesn't mean this diet is good for the majority of people, of non-bodybuilders - Hell, even OF bodybuilders. I'm glad you haven't developed any nutritional deficiencies, cancer, or cardiovascular problems from a lack of fruits and vegetables in your diet, truly. I doubt many physicians will be recommending this to their patients anytime soon, though.

To live well yes. And here is why.

Here you make a lot of statements that are basically your opinions. Saturated fat boosts the immune system, it's the preferred fuel for your heart, etc., etc... OK.

There are vegan sources of saturated fat too, though I still wouldn't consume massive amounts of them.

Stay vegan for another 10 years, get back to me.

All I can really say is... OK? You honestly think it's quite hard to find vegans who have been living the lifestyle for 10 years+ out there that are doing fine? I won't even bother providing the links for you. Find them. They exist. In large numbers.

me developing a B12 deficiency or you developing scurvy.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2374/traditionally-eskimos-ate-only-meat-and-fish-why-didnt-they-get-scurvy

Here your own link provides several possible reasons as to why eskimos don't get scurvy. None of them seem conclusive. None of them impact the point I was making - if you cut all plant foods out of YOUR diet and ate no supplements I would be willing to bet you would suffer for it far more than I am "suffering" from a lack of meat.

..on heavy amounts og butter, Ghee, raw milk, eggs and fish. yes. Purely vegan. Not one.

Yup, those rural southeast Asians and Chinese who are eating all that raw milk, fish, eggs, and ghee. Yup.

The china study is not worth the paper it is printed on.

You pretty much say that about anything you disagree with, yes?

Why would anyone want to study it? Multigenerational or stfu.I have the words of many vegans who made blogs to tell others about the problems they faced, especially within the vegan community when they asked why their were failing on their diet.
http://letthemeatmeat.com/
http://huntgatherlove.com/category/tags/hunter-gatherer

Yes and I can point to vegan blogs of people who claim veganism cured their cancer. Your point? Your scientific data?

On that we agree in full. I wont eat factory meat. Its taste and texture is disgusting. Free range grassfed is good. Wild is awesome, but hard to come by. Also it should be said that the soy on my short list is probably the least troublesome. Monosodium glutamate. You can make cardboard taste nice with this stuff, so its everpresent under its various names. Umami is another.

I doubt that MSG is responsible for the massive amounts of cardiovascular disease in the US, but I don't consume it. At least we agree on the importance of quality food, meat or non-meat.

They are, but use good meat sources and leave the bun. The most troublesome part of the burger is the bun and the ketchup for its high sugar content.

We agree on the refined carbs being relatively unhealthy. Unrefined whole grains and vegetables aren't remotely unhealthy. Apples and oranges.

I belong to a strange sect of people who are obsessed with health and physical appearance. Most would call it obsessive, and i would be inclined to agree with that assessment. We do look at ALL the evidence. In fact we are so nuts about what we are doing that some of us will get up in the morning to eat raw liver for the many documented benefits of it.

Ah yes. Bodybuilders. People that I believe are in general more concerned with how they look than their overall health, but more power to you. I belong to a "strange sect" of people who are obsessed with health, period.

If new info comes out that sways my opinion - such as a conclusive meta-analysis of many reputable studies showing that cholesterol is, say, cardioprotective - then I would change my mind.

I dont believe you.

What have I said that gives you the impression that I would be resistant to new information? I'm not vegan for ethical reasons, as I stated.

The meta-analysis you provided on saturated fat intake not being related to cardiovascular disease seems directly opposed to every other meta-analysis I've seen on cholesterol levels in general, including the AHA's most recent "Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics?2011 Update" - which isn't a meta analysis but includes quite a lot of references and data you may (or may not) find interesting.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/123/4/e18

Again, if cholesterol isn't an issue why is heart disease seen in such decreased amounts in populations with cholesterol serum levels under 150?

Then again, I am already arguing with a person who states that he ignores studies at whim which disagree with what he already believes and "doesn't believe me" when I state I'm open to new data so perhaps I should say; peace brother. Eat what you want. You've obviously found something that works for you; more power to you. I'm doing as well on my vegan diet as you claim to be doing on your own, and I know far more vegans in good health than I know people who eat exclusively meat who are in good health.