Diet and nutrition

[Bazzar]

Historical proportions of animal protein.
You'll agree 30% is very different to <2%.

My understanding is that animal protein consumption jumped a heap post WWII in addition to grain being added. Anyway, it's not an argument I need so I'm just going to steer clear of it in future.

Edit: ps, love your sig

There is no actual historical proportion of animal protein consumed outside of specific geographical areas. Animal has always been the primary source of nutrition if available.

 

[Bazzar]

Vegan, Vegetarian, Paleo, Primal, LCHF, Keto, Mediterranean, all have one thing in common, those who follow are interested in one thing and one thing only, improving health. Regardless of which you follow, that can only be a good thing.

 

[StiffArm]

Vegan, Vegetarian, Paleo, Primal, LCHF, Keto, Mediterranean, all have one thing in common, those who follow are interested in one thing and one thing only, improving health. Regardless of which you follow, that can only be a good thing.

Agreed.

By the way, if you're going to quote me in your sig, perhaps you'd like to add the study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12932937
CONCLUSIONS:
Our study suggests that a significant proportion of patients with angiographically documented coronary artery disease have erectile dysfunction and that this latter condition may become evident prior to angina symptoms in almost 70% of cases.

And maybe the one linking coronary artery disease to animal protein too for good measure.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4315380/

 

[Bazzar]

By the way, if you're going to quote me in your sig, perhaps you'd like to add the study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12932937
CONCLUSIONS:
Our study suggests that a significant proportion of patients with angiographically documented coronary artery disease have erectile dysfunction and that this latter condition may become evident prior to angina symptoms in almost 70% of cases.

Question.

Why do Vegans cherry pick?

[Patient mean age was 62.5+/-8 years (range 33-86 years). Mean duration of symptoms or signs of myocardial ischaemia prior to enrollment in the study was 49 months (range 1-200). Coronary angiography showed 1-, 2- and 3-vessel disease in 98 (32.6%), 88 (29.3%) and 114 (38%) patients, respectively.]

And that has to do with a particular macro diet?

Original comment stands "Bwahahaha?

 

[WakeUpPies]

Vegans have to cherry pick because the weight of evidence simply does not support their ridiculous claims.

Veganism is a religion, not a diet. Back in my more naive days I used to get into long drawn out debates where I'd present all sorts of evidence to refute freakin' dumbass vegan claims. But then I wisened up and realised they really don't care.

Of course, that doesn't stop some vegans from making their ridiculous claims against animal products. But as I mentioned before, I've found peace by just resorting to making fun of vegans rather than presenting research. Because if the vegan has researched properly they wouldn't make stupid claims in the first place.

And before anyone jumps on me about not knowing what I'm talking about again. I've published research in peer reviewed journals. Being able to cherry pick individual abstracts & studies (which you most likely don't actually comprehend) doesn't mean you know shit. Vegans gon' vegan, Paleo gon' paleo, Mediterranean gon' Mediterranean. In the end, none of it matters that much as long as the diet consists primarily of whole and minimally processed foods (and the missing nutrients supplemented).

Edit. My only issue with veganism is when it's forced on kids. Adults can do whatever the **** they want to their own bodies. And yes I am biased. I've seen too many undernourished kids with ****ing stupid vegan parents to give a damn about being PC.

 

[StiffArm]

Question.

Why do Vegans cherry pick?

[Patient mean age was 62.5+/-8 years (range 33-86 years). Mean duration of symptoms or signs of myocardial ischaemia prior to enrollment in the study was 49 months (range 1-200). Coronary angiography showed 1-, 2- and 3-vessel disease in 98 (32.6%), 88 (29.3%) and 114 (38%) patients, respectively.]

And that has to do with a particular macro diet?

Original comment stands "Bwahahaha?

I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole defending a tongue in cheek comment made to a person who told me that as a vegan I shouldn't go to the footy. Sure it's cherry picking, but not entirely without basis unless you're going to claim that animal fat has no part in clogging arteries.

 

[StiffArm]

Vegans have to cherry pick because the weight of evidence simply does not support their ridiculous claims.

Veganism is a religion, not a diet. Back in my more naive days I used to get into long drawn out debates where I'd present all sorts of evidence to refute freakin' dumbass vegan claims. But then I wisened up and realised they really don't care.

Of course, that doesn't stop some vegans from making their ridiculous claims against animal products. But as I mentioned before, I've found peace by just resorting to making fun of vegans rather than presenting research. Because if the vegan has researched properly they wouldn't make stupid claims in the first place.

And before anyone jumps on me about not knowing what I'm talking about again. I've published research in peer reviewed journals. Being able to cherry pick individual abstracts & studies (which you most likely don't actually comprehend) doesn't mean you know shit. Vegans gon' vegan, Paleo gon' paleo, Mediterranean gon' Mediterranean. In the end, none of it matters that much as long as the diet consists primarily of whole and minimally processed foods (and the missing nutrients supplemented).

Edit. My only issue with veganism is when it's forced on kids. Adults can do whatever the **** they want to their own bodies. And yes I am biased. I've seen too many undernourished kids with ******* stupid vegan parents to give a damn about being PC.

For all your "weight of evidence" claims, I'm yet to see anything from you that suggests my claims are ridiculous.

You are right to an extent when noting that veganism is more a way of life than a diet alone. It is also about reducing personal impact on the environment and animal suffering. As far as weight of evidence goes, in both those fields you won't find anything significant that doesn't fall strongly on the side of veganism.

But since we are discussing diet here, perhaps it is better to peal back to a different terminology, arguing for a Plant Based Whole Foods (PBWF) diet, rather than talking veganism.

The evidence seems to be that the closer people get to a PBWF diet, the healthier they are likely to be.
Here's an article discussing that trend, and the where some of the actual science is at.
That doesn't necessarily mean that absolutely zero animal fat is necessary to be healthy but the trend goes in that direction. While there is a wide gulf between the amount of meat scientists might recommend as a healthy amount and the amount that people actually eat, it is difficult to argue to complete exclusion of animal protein on health reasons alone.

What Vegans can argue convincingly is that it is easily achievable to eat a PBWF diet that provides everything needed, without the addition of animal proteins, and that it is significantly healthier than an "average diet".

On forcing kids to be vegan, I agree that care needs to be taken to ensure that kids growing up without animal protein receive all the nutrients they need, however there seems to be medical consensus that it is both achievable, and there are benefits those kids have.

World Health Organisation, American Academy of Pediatrics and the British equivalent all agree that a vegan diet is safe for kids and "Although there have been case reports of children failing to thrive or developing cobalamin deficiency on vegan diets, these are rare exceptions."

In essence you are cherry picking with respect to sick vegan kids. Just in the age today there is a story of a kid losing his eyesight over vit A deficiency. Malnutrition is malnutrition, and meat isn't a magic cure all for bad diet choices.

 

[Bazzar]

I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole defending a tongue in cheek comment made to a person who told me that as a vegan I shouldn't go to the footy. Sure it's cherry picking, but not entirely without basis unless you're going to claim that animal fat has no part in clogging arteries.

It doesn't.

Show some proof it does (and not from vegan propaganda sites from the likes of Greger, Campbell etc)

Oh, and if your going to cite papers, make sure they have no conflict of interest.

 

[StiffArm]

It doesn't.

Show some proof it does (and not from vegan propaganda sites from the likes of clowns like Greger, Campbell etc)

Oh, and if your going to cite papers, make sure they have no conflict of interest.

That's some pretty serious head-in-sand areas you're going into now.

There's a balance between providing systematic reviews, which tend not to use language that the lay person can understand, and quoting sources that disseminate that information.

The link between cholesterol and atherosclerosis is now so ingrained in culture that any quick google search will give you the same information as a PubMed meta-analysis. Excess cholesterol builds up on the walls of arteries in a well understood manner. A vegan diet has zero dietary cholesterol, and thus greatly reduces risk factors.

 

[DemonTim]

Read this a while back and thought it was good, might be useful for some. Actually read it, don't just cherry pick to confirm your bias.

Anyway, I'm going to move over to the other thread if you want to discuss.

Understand you getting pissy about a poor generalization Tim, and I get the points your making.

Something we find frustrating is the double standards we're given. Everything a vegan posts has to be peer reviewed, not from a "bias" source, and even then will be explained away anecdotally both with "I know such and such unhealthy vegan" while at the same time "stats are slanted due to vegans tending to make healthier choices because they care".

In return we have to deal with arguments like "circle of life", "if we didn't eat them the cows would overpopulate the world", "where do you get your protein", "what about them there teef?", "but plants have feelings too" and "if you're not saving all animals why bother?" (the last one being the one I reacted to earlier)

It's one I'm fine with, but it is a double standard.

Massive backflip here. First accuse me of not researching, then come back and say you get my points.

The issue is, i've not said anything negative about a vegan diet, but I keep getting questioned and attacked as if I am. The issue for the vegans discussing here is that they are too emotionally invested in the topic, it's evidenced here. Anything but a glowing recommendation of veganism breeds hostility. Why are you so emotionally invested? Why is me saying "individual food choices matter more than meat vs non meat" something that needs to be argued against?

As I said, i'm probably the healthiest person in my team at work, this is against both vegans and non vegans, but has nothing to do with that. It's my individual choices which make up my diet and lifestyle.

 

[Big Cox 88]

That's some pretty serious head-in-sand areas you're going into now.

There's a balance between providing systematic reviews, which tend not to use language that the lay person can understand, and quoting sources that disseminate that information.

The link between cholesterol and atherosclerosis is now so ingrained in culture that any quick google search will give you the same information as a PubMed meta-analysis. Excess cholesterol builds up on the walls of arteries in a well understood manner. A vegan diet has zero dietary cholesterol, and thus greatly reduces risk factors.

Learn more about cholesterol before sprouting this crap. cholesterol is a vital part of human existence and is in every cell. Higher levels of cholesterol have recently been proven not to be linked with cardio vascular disease and in fact lead to increased life span.

Bad cholesterol is the small LDL which comes from processed foods, vegetable oils and starchy carbohydrates. that is the stuff which embeds itself into your arteries. Saturated fat from animal proteins is either HDL ("good cholesterol") or low density LDL which is fluffy and not damaging to arteries.

I have read that many papers and looked into who wrote them and sponsored them. The amount sponsored by Nestle, Kelloggs and Coke testing on mice is ridiculous. We are not mice and those companies have a conflict of interest in processed foods.

Eat vegan fine, well done on living a lifestyle you feel is best for your health and wellbeing on animals. Don't tell us meat eaters that eating meat is unhealthy because you are wrong. Flat out wrong.

 

[saj_21]

Ha... give it another 3 posts and you'll have linked me to Hitler
It was a firmly tongue in cheek comment in response to an equally bad generalization.

Of course there are a heap of external factors, and one can be an incredibly unhealthy vegan too (for instance live on fries and oreos).
That said, there IS an automatic health benefit as it instantly becomes a lot harder to eat unhealthy (fast food is almost off the menu), and people start looking at nutrition labels etc.
I base my beliefs in the science and the numbers, not anecdotes.
The science suggests that vegans are, across a population, a fair bit healthier.
Whether that is solely due to the diet or other exernalities, the numbers don't lie.
Populations that have been vegan or nearly so have been some of the longest lived in this world (Ie okinawan islanders in Japan), and the biggest study undertaken on the issue across 10's of thousands of Seventh Day Adventists in the states who ate little or no meat showed longevity increases of 7.28 years in men and 4.42 years in women in the vegans.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/3/516s.full

Sure it's possible to lead a healthy life that includes animal protein intake, just as a moderate amount of alcohol doesn't automatically consign you to liver failure. But unless you're going to do some research, don't suggest to me what my logic is just because you don't like what I'm saying.

Just a question, when this research is undertaken do they take into consideration a) protein source b) other life style factors of meat eaters?

For example you can't just lump people who consume meat into a single category of meat eaters, surely their source of protein, a big mac vs. a piece of steak (do these studies differentiate that or is protein just protein to them) and secondly other life style factors do these meat eaters smoke and/or drink regularly, how much do they exercise etc.

Or is it as simple as correlating protein consumption to increased disease.

 

[showdownhero]

Learn more about cholesterol before sprouting this crap. cholesterol is a vital part of human existence and is in every cell. Higher levels of cholesterol have recently been proven not to be linked with cardio vascular disease and in fact lead to increased life span.

Bad cholesterol is the small LDL which comes from processed foods, vegetable oils and starchy carbohydrates. that is the stuff which embeds itself into your arteries. Saturated fat from animal proteins is either HDL ("good cholesterol") or low density LDL which is fluffy and not damaging to arteries.

I have read that many papers and looked into who wrote them and sponsored them. The amount sponsored by Nestle, Kelloggs and Coke testing on mice is ridiculous. We are not mice and those companies have a conflict of interest in processed foods.

Eat vegan fine, well done on living a lifestyle you feel is best for your health and wellbeing on animals. Don't tell us meat eaters that eating meat is unhealthy because you are wrong. Flat out wrong.

and not to mention mr erectile dysfunction brags about the virtues of a vegan/zero cholesterol lifestyle on his pee pee. However cholesterol is the building block of testosterone and low fat diets have been directly linked to decreased test levels.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15741266
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6298507

And unlinke meat consumption low test is actually linked to ED

 

[StiffArm]

and not to mention mr erectile dysfunction brags about the virtues of a vegan/zero cholesterol lifestyle on his pee pee. However cholesterol is the building block of testosterone and low fat diets have been directly linked to decreased test levels.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15741266
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6298507

And unlinke meat consumption low test is actually linked to ED

That is just an embarrassing post.

"To validate our hypothesis that reduction in dietary fat may result in changes in androgen metabolism, 39 middle-aged, white, healthy men (50-60 yr of age) were studied while they were consuming their usual high-fat, low-fiber diet and after 8 wk modulation to an isocaloric low-fat, high-fiber diet."

"When men were transferred from their customary diet to an experimental diet"

It is a study on men who consume high-fat low-fiber diets, and what happens when their diet is experimented with in the very short term.

**** me. At least give me something plausible.

 

[StiffArm]

Read this a while back and thought it was good, might be useful for some. Actually read it, don't just cherry pick to confirm your bias.

I did read it. I also try to stay abreast of points of view that counter my own. I'm yet to find any seriously compelling evidence, but that doesn't mean that I don't look.

Massive backflip here. First accuse me of not researching, then come back and say you get my points.

I don't back down from the arguments I've made for veganism, the getting your points was re: the ED stuff. It doesn't have the scientific research behind it to be proven, but is all plausible. Since the initial ED post was primarily a reaction to being trolled, I didn't feel the need to go too in depth attempting to defend it.

The issue is, i've not said anything negative about a vegan diet, but I keep getting questioned and attacked as if I am. The issue for the vegans discussing here is that they are too emotionally invested in the topic, it's evidenced here. Anything but a glowing recommendation of veganism breeds hostility. Why are you so emotionally invested? Why is me saying "individual food choices matter more than meat vs non meat" something that needs to be argued against?

I agree many vegans are pretty invested, and it often manifests in ugly fashion. You're painting a pretty thick brush if you include me in that, I've been pretty even toned.

To answer your question, many vegans get seemingly disproportionately involved because to them it isn't simply a choice about health. To most vegans it comes down to this. "Can you be as healthy and as fulfilled on a vegan diet as one including meat?" If the answer to that is "yes", then why the **** are we ruining the planet and doing seriously morally questionable things in animal agriculture?
(Animal agriculture being the leading cause of greenhouse emissions, deforestation, ocean dead zones etc... http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/ for a glance at some of the environmental arguments. The moral arguments essentially boil down to does an animal suffer more in the creation of meat than you benefit from its processing).

While it is possible to maintain a fairly zero sum argument with pro/anti the complete elimination of meat products from the human diet, the moral and ethical arguments are decidedly more one sided.

Obviously, that's not what is being argued in this setting, but it is there.
Then take into account the amount of undeserved derision vegans face throughout society, couple it with the farcical pro meat arguments often flung our way (like claims that if we don't eat animals they will overpopulate and take over the world) and you'll get some more understanding why many seem highly strung.

Happy for you that you're staying healthy. You won't hear me argue that veganism is the only way to achieve health.

 

[Bazzar]

Then take into account the amount of undeserved derision vegans face throughout society, couple it with the farcical pro meat arguments often flung our way (like claims that if we don't eat animals they will overpopulate and take over the world) and you'll get some more understanding why many seem highly strung.

 

[StiffArm]

Learn more about cholesterol before sprouting this crap. cholesterol is a vital part of human existence and is in every cell. Higher levels of cholesterol have recently been proven not to be linked with cardio vascular disease and in fact lead to increased life span.

Bad cholesterol is the small LDL which comes from processed foods, vegetable oils and starchy carbohydrates. that is the stuff which embeds itself into your arteries. Saturated fat from animal proteins is either HDL ("good cholesterol") or low density LDL which is fluffy and not damaging to arteries.

I have read that many papers and looked into who wrote them and sponsored them. The amount sponsored by Nestle, Kelloggs and Coke testing on mice is ridiculous. We are not mice and those companies have a conflict of interest in processed foods.

You raise a good point with the matter of who is sponsoring papers. I'm sure you're also aware of the scale of animal agriculture lobbies.

I believe this is the study you're quoting as "proving" that high cholesterol is not linked to CAD.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed...o-link-between-cholesterol-and-heart-disease/
If you read through it I'm not sure you'll be so strong in your view. It only argued that high LDL was not linked to mortality, and while it raised doubt to what is currently a medical consensus, there were some significant limitations.

Eat vegan fine, well done on living a lifestyle you feel is best for your health and wellbeing on animals. Don't tell us meat eaters that eating meat is unhealthy because you are wrong. Flat out wrong.

World Health Organization disagrees with you.
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

 

[StiffArm]

It's the way with any major change in society, from Slavery, to Suffrage, to Segregation...

First comes ridicule.
Then violent opposition.
Then acceptance.

 

[showdownhero]

That is just an embarrassing post.

"To validate our hypothesis that reduction in dietary fat may result in changes in androgen metabolism, 39 middle-aged, white, healthy men (50-60 yr of age) were studied while they were consuming their usual high-fat, low-fiber diet and after 8 wk modulation to an isocaloric low-fat, high-fiber diet."

"When men were transferred from their customary diet to an experimental diet"

It is a study on men who consume high-fat low-fiber diets, and what happens when their diet is experimented with in the very short term.

**** me. At least give me something plausible.

So this study you've quoted shows a direct link between decreased fat consumption and decreased testosterone

as does this one

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6298507

then all of these show a direct correlation between elevated HDL and elevated test

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1998648
http://jap.physiology.org/content/82/1/49
http://www.endocrine-abstracts.org/ea/0014/ea0014p628.htm
http://www.endocrine-abstracts.org/ea/0013/ea0013p161.htm

starting to see a pattern here

not to mention that cholesterol IS ACTUALLY THE PRECURSOR TO TESTOSTERONE!!!

How you could try and refute the link between cholesterol and testosterone is completely beyond me.

 

[DemonTim]

I did read it. I also try to stay abreast of points of view that counter my own. I'm yet to find any seriously compelling evidence, but that doesn't mean that I don't look.



I don't back down from the arguments I've made for veganism, the getting your points was re: the ED stuff. It doesn't have the scientific research behind it to be proven, but is all plausible. Since the initial ED post was primarily a reaction to being trolled, I didn't feel the need to go too in depth attempting to defend it.



I agree many vegans are pretty invested, and it often manifests in ugly fashion. You're painting a pretty thick brush if you include me in that, I've been pretty even toned.

To answer your question, many vegans get seemingly disproportionately involved because to them it isn't simply a choice about health. To most vegans it comes down to this. "Can you be as healthy and as fulfilled on a vegan diet as one including meat?" If the answer to that is "yes", then why the **** are we ruining the planet and doing seriously morally questionable things in animal agriculture?
(Animal agriculture being the leading cause of greenhouse emissions, deforestation, ocean dead zones etc... http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/ for a glance at some of the environmental arguments. The moral arguments essentially boil down to does an animal suffer more in the creation of meat than you benefit from its processing).

While it is possible to maintain a fairly zero sum argument with pro/anti the complete elimination of meat products from the human diet, the moral and ethical arguments are decidedly more one sided.

Obviously, that's not what is being argued in this setting, but it is there.
Then take into account the amount of undeserved derision vegans face throughout society, couple it with the farcical pro meat arguments often flung our way (like claims that if we don't eat animals they will overpopulate and take over the world) and you'll get some more understanding why many seem highly strung.

Happy for you that you're staying healthy. You won't hear me argue that veganism is the only way to achieve health.

You haven't actually responded to what I said at all:
The issue is, i've not said anything negative about a vegan diet, but I keep getting questioned and attacked as if I am. The issue for the vegans discussing here is that they are too emotionally invested in the topic, it's evidenced here. Anything but a glowing recommendation of veganism breeds hostility. Why are you so emotionally invested? Why is me saying "individual food choices matter more than meat vs non meat" something that needs to be argued against?

You quoted it, but are going on a tangent about the ethical good of veganism. It has zero relationship to my point. It seems you're not actually reading what i'm writing, you're just assuming because i'm not saying "veganism is the way to go" that you need to give me your standard response.

 

[DemonTim]

It's interesting watching someone question every piece of information presented to them, yet keeps referencing cowspiracy, a film that was criticised for huge flaws in it's scientific reasoning.

 

[Bazzar]

It's interesting watching someone question every piece of information presented to them, yet keeps referencing cowspiracy, a film that was criticised for huge flaws in it's scientific reasoning.

Cowspiracy AND Forks over Knives.

Forks over Knives has been debunked so many times it's not funny. These are just a few.

Forks Over Knives: The Latest Vegan Nonsense Dissected, Debunked and Destroyed
Posted In Nutrition,Quacks, Scams & Pseudoscience
Anthony Colpo
http://anthonycolpo.com/forks-over-...an-nonsense-dissected-debunked-and-destroyed/

“Forks Over Knives”: Is the Science Legit? (A Review and Critique)
Denise Minger
https://rawfoodsos.com/2011/09/22/forks-over-knives-is-the-science-legit-a-review-and-critique/


The Incredibly Bad Science Behind Dr. Esselstyn’s Plant-based Diet
Atherosclerosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease, Diet and Heart Disease
August 4, 2015 Dr. AnthonyP 7 Comments
https://theskepticalcardiologist.co...cience-behind-dr-esselstyns-plant-based-diet/

Forks Over Knives Debunked
OccupyTheory on 1 November, 2014 at 16:00
http://occupytheory.org/forks-over-knives-debunked/

 

[Bazzar]

A fantastic first day


NOAKES TRIAL: HPCSA FAILS TO CLIP ‘ANGELS’ WINGS
Posted in LCHF, noakestrial

By Marika Sboros

The first day of the nutrition trial of South African scientist Prof Tim Noakes resumed on a note of high drama in Cape Town today. The Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) tried and failed to stop Noakes calling two of his three expert witnesses.

The HPCSA also tried and failed to stop Noakes introducing new evidence in concluding his evidence in chief. Pretoria advocate Joan Adams, chair of the independent committee hearing the charge against Noakes, dismissed all the HPCSA objections. Here’s what she had to say...

http://foodmed.net/2016/10/17/noakes-trial-hpcsa-fails-clip-angels-wings-lchf/

 

[Big Cox 88]

Organic Lamb, silverbeet, sauteed mushrooms and spinach, asparagus,, brocollini, brussel sprouts all drenched in a herb and garlic butter.

 

[showdownhero]

that lamb looks amazing