Meat diets vs. vegetarianism

You don't seem to have read the study all that carefully. The authors state (emphasis mine) that they've "offered the 7.3 billion number as though it’s a hedge. Averaging Davis and Archer seems like a way to be conservative". They go on to say, though, that, as they'll argue, they "haven’t hedged nearly enough" and that "[t]here are several reasons to question the accuracy of these calculations". Most importantly, they go on to conclude that "the estimate should be reduced: 7.3 billion is clearly too high".

So, no, Reece, 7.3 billion is not a "conservative" estimate. It's an upper limit - a very upper limit.

The authors go on to say that "we should have a fairly low level of confidence in whatever number we propose. There are too many reasons to be skeptical about generalizing from the available data, which is obviously quite limited in its own right". But more importantly, they make it clear that "we need to recognize that the 7.3 billion estimate rests on a number of philosophical assumptions, which are quite controversial".

The most relevant philosophical assumption to my mind is "the moral significance of predation. It turns out that many of the deaths associated with plant agriculture are not directly caused by machinery, poisons, or other direct human interventions. In the majority of cases, rather, what happens is that human activity exposes animals to predators, and those predators are the ones directly responsible for the deaths".

Why do I find this most relevant? Because those predators are going to find their meals wherever they can anyway, and the fact that they find them (more) easily due to exposure of prey via agricultural machinery does not make humans particularly culpable for the deaths of those prey. We can control what we eat; we can't control what obligate carnivores eat - they're going to eat something anyway.


Ridiculous, Ian. It's only vegans who miss out on vitamins and other important nutrients.

More seriously: yes, of course - and, not that you need to confirm so obvious a fact, it is elementary to confirm it via any of the various web apps that allow you to check the nutrient profiles of different foods; web apps such as https://nutritiondata.self.com/ and https://cronometer.com/ to name but two.


For those who are interested, here are both of T. Colin Campbell's responses to Denise Minger:

1. http://tynan.com/chinastudyresponse
   
2. http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/ch...inger.html
   

Are these responses totally convincing? It's hard to judge, and they might not totally seem to be, but for me, the most important point is that despite it being the (publisher-mandated) title of his book, the China Study is only a small part of the overall evidence upon which he bases his conclusion that a plant-based diet is optimal for health. And no, I didn't like the paternalism of his reference to Denise as a "young girl", but then, I didn't like her imputations of his purported academic misconduct either.


Well, no, it doesn't. It reports of the Masai that (emphasis mine): "Dr. Mann, who published some of the early research, did an autopsy study of 50 Masai men and found that they had extensive atherosclerosis. They had disease (coronary intimal thickening) on par with older American men". Disease on par with older American men sounds to me like finding something "going on" with the Masai pretty much in line with expectations, rather than something being "brushed away".

It also reports of the Inuit that (footnotes elided; emphasis mine): "in 1940 the “father of epidemiology” in Greenland, Bertelsen, noted heart disease to be quite common, perhaps even more interesting given the young age of the population. He based this on clinical experience and medical officer reports going back for many decades. All told, the 2003 paper found “the hypothesis that mortality from ischemic heart disease is low among the Inuit compared with western populations insufficiently founded.” Further, “…a general statement that mortality from cardiovascular disease is high among the Inuit seems more warranted than the opposite.”" Not much "brushing away" there either.


So, did he look at the Okinawans? "Residents of Okinawa, the southernmost prefecture of Japan, are known for their long average life expectancy, high numbers of centenarians, and accompanying low risk of age-associated diseases".. and guess what? Their traditional diet is high in vegetables, high in legumes (mostly soy), moderate in fish, and low in meat/dairy consumption: in particular, it is 85% carbohydrate-based (mostly sweet potato). OK, so, it's not completely vegan, but then show me an even near-completely meat-eating society studied by Weston Price with a longevity and lack of age-associated disease comparable with the Okinawans...


There are no essential taxi-cabs either, so have fun walking twenty kilometres home on your next night out because you refuse non-essential yet readily-available sources of energy.


Maybe you can keep track of them and give us an update on their health a few years down the track - let us know how many of them have avoided cardiovascular incidents.


The key word there being "appear", and the missing words being "to me" and "for now".


Ah, yes. The author who condemns as "myths" that "meat-eating causes osteoporosis, kidney disease, heart disease, and cancer" and that "saturated fats and dietary cholesterol cause heart disease, atherosclerosis, and/or cancer, and low-fat, low-cholesterol diets are healthier for people", and then... dies of a stroke before the age of forty.

Funny also to note about Dr Robert Atkins of the "Atkins Diet" that "a medical report issued by the New York medical examiner's office a year after his death showed that Atkins had a history of heart attack, congestive heart failure and hypertension" (from Wikipedia; emphasis mine).

But no fair - those are just anecdotes.

True... so, peruse the last few pages of this thread and tell me what you find...

And those two are leaders of the "meat and dairy are good and healthy" brigade.

In response to the rest of the article, I quote “Brandolini’s Law”: “The amount of energy needed to refute [misinformation] is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”

I am not devoting that energy to the misinformation in that article - misinformation which, by the way, includes in many (but not all) cases the idea that any given "myth" is either (1) used by informed vegans to justify veganism and/or (2) taken seriously by informed vegans.


Because the more you spam it, the truer it becomes?


Although your question was directed to Brian, I'll answer it:

Really? At about a minute in it became obvious that the guy was obliviously repeating common misconceptions (deliberate lies?) about Ancel Keys. No need to watch further. He obviously has no idea what he's talking about. Please, inform yourself.

Stan Woolley, you actually "liked" that? For shame, man, for shame.

What now?

How about long term carnivores? 

It's true we don't have tons of them around.  We do have a few, though.

Amber O'Hearn for about 10 years (and very high fat for many years before that):
Article On Amber O'Hearn (Previously Vegetarian)

Kelly Hogan (several years - 5?) and how meat helped her get pregnant:


"Bear," who's around 71 year old and has been carnivore for 50 years:
Bear (Sorry for low quality link) . . .

Charlene, carnivore for 20 years:
Charlene Anderson

And here with her husband, Joe, and kids - Joe's carnivore 20 plus years, too:


Sorry, I don't know how to make that smaller.

Then, of course, there's Shawn Baker, the one who's probably popularized this more than anyone else.  He just had his arterial calcium build up measured, which, as I understand it, is considered the primary indicator of heart disease.  His was a zero.  He's two years in.  Not exactly "long term," but getting there.

Ok, so what now?  Maybe compare to long term vegans?

Let me say in advance, that I'm certainly not trying to be mean here . . . and the guy who makes these videos sometimes adds commentary that I don't necessarily fully agree with . . . but I do, unfortunately, agree that on the whole, most of these long term vegans are looking pretty rough:

(Oh, and also: I recommend turning the volume down)


(A notable moment is at 7:30 when a guy's tooth breaks completely out of his mouth on camera)

I could also keep adding videos of ex-vegans and what it did to them long term and why they quit . . . but I'd probably get the thread shut down for that. 

I will add one more though.  A friend sent me a picture a few months back because he always sends me pics of old 80s/early 90s musicians as weird form of a joke.  He sent me Fiona Apple.  I didn't know who it was at first, of course, because she looks nothing like she did . . . And she looked like she'd had a meth problem; she insisted she didn't.  I was amazed at how horrible she looked during her mid to late 30s.  Then, after seeing those vegan malnourishment videos my mind flew to that pic and I knew she was probably vegan or ex-vegan.  It turns out I was right.  Here's a before and after picture (again sorry for sizes):

[Image: 1401x788-94843965.jpg]
[Image: o-FIONA-APPLE-facebook.jpg]

A couple other thoughts here, Laird: it seems with a certain amount of snark you're asking me to get back with how they're doing years from now, but it's worth repeating here for anyone that doesn't know that almost everyone who goes carnivore cures themselves of many, many problems . . . from diabetes to autoimmune issues to gut/digestion issues. The list is piling up; the cup is overflowing.  Inflammation goes away completely for most people . . . so, what we have to speculate about here is how something that's curing people of a long list of ailments would secretly be killing them with heart-disease.  Are you upset that they're feeling better?  Is this not what you want? 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Let me touch on the comments to Ian, which were directed towards me, initially, concerning nutrient deficiencies on meat only diets. 

I'd like to approach this from another angle, mainly because it's fun, as simple food for thought.  Suppose the shit hits the fan.  The lights are out, communication's down, and you're out of food.  You walk outside.  What can you eat out there?  As a person who used to consume only plants, I used to kind of fret over the fact that I knew so little about what to eat (plant-wise).  My wife bought me a book which I looked at a little bit, and I got an app that could identify plants with the camera which was pretty neat.  How many of those plants are edible?  Of all plants in the world, in fact?  I suggest something less than 99%.  And even supposing that 1% of them are edible, guess what: you certainly must cook almost all of them:
legumes, tubers, even leafy greens need cooking down because they have acids.  How many plants can actually kill us?  I don't know, but probably quite a few considering that even a good amount of plants we already eat could kill us if not cooked:  8 Deadly Foods.  (Yes, one is an animal: the blowfish).  How many animals could we eat that we see daily, though?  Almost every single one, and almost all of them raw if need be, too.  Many claim we need to be eating some raw anyway.  I wager we could eat around 99% of animals.  So, in light of "needing" some of them, just remember that 12 thousand years ago, we only had access to what grew in the wild and only seasonal fruit.  What about people in the desert?  Or other inhospitable terrains?  I suggest that animals, especially eating all parts of them, will give you more than enough nutrients. 

The article below contains a lot of stuff I find really interesting . . . but what I like best is the little chart that illustrates a study on zinc absorption about 2/3s of the way down the article.  It shows how much zinc is absorbed by itself (in the form of oysters), then with black beans, then with corn tortillas.  All grains have anti-nutrients that hinder our absorption of other nutrients and sends them out with our stool.  Most plants have such defenses.  This little study shows how serious they can be.  The rest of the article covers some other plant defenses and what they actually do to us.  Another interesting example she gives is the oxalates in spinach that prevent us from absorbing it's iron (unlike iron from a steak that's fully bioavailable).  (Oxalates also interfere with calcium absorption).  So, some plants actually hinder our absorption of nutrients and others make us pay for what we take from them through their acids and poisons.  An animal will only make you pay for what you (try to) take from it by killing you first if it can.  But if you kill it, it has no more defenses (except for the extremely rare few like the blowfish above).   
 
So, with the above in mind, do to the two sites you listed, Laird, tell us that there's iron a' plenty in spinach?  What about calcium?  And what about with grains and their anti-nutrients?  In other words, it's very deceptive to say a plant has a nutrient that it won't allow us to absorb.  (Let me add that that's not a loaded question; I didn't look, so perhaps it does account for that . . . but I know that as an ex-vegetarian, 'anti-nutrient' and 'bio-availability' were words that were ne'er heard . . . and that both are more serious than I'd wanted to admit even as a paleo eater who juiced and drank green smoothies).  

Plant Defense Article By Georgia Ede

Another vegan becomes extremely sick and eventually heals herself on a carnivore diet:

Esmée La Fleur's Blog 

In 1986, at the age of 16, I decided to become a vegan for ethical reasons. I did not like the way commercial ranching operations treated the animals they were raising for food. I also did not like the idea of killing another living being to feed myself, especially if it wasn’t necessary for my own survival. Over the next 10 years, my health gradually deteriorated until I was forced to drop out of Mount Holyoke College where I was studying Medical Anthropology on a full academic scholarship. I was finally diagnosed with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome by Dr. Paul Cheney in 1996, at the age of 26.

Besides experiencing fatigue so extreme that taking a shower was a monumental effort, my main difficulties involved food. Pretty much every thing I ate made me feel terrible. I tried every conceivable way of eating from raw foods to macrobiotics to the paleolithic diet of modern hunter-gatherers. The only time I felt even half way decent was when I stopped eating all together and drank just water. As a result, I have done many water-only fasts over the past 20 years lasting anywhere from 1 to 4 weeks in length. By 2003, I hit a very low point both physically and mentally. I weighed only 87 lbs. and was pretty close to ending my earthly existence.

Read the rest at her blog . . .

Another vegan becomes extremely sick and eventually heals herself on a carnivore diet:

Esmée La Fleur's Blog 

Read the rest at her blog . . .

There are so many vegans that are successful that I can't help wondering what this one was doing wrong.  Many ethical vegans don't do the research and end up living on Oreos and fries.  No wonder they become unhealthy!  Those who claim they are living on a meat only diet must be supplementing with vitamins, many of which are extracted from plants, so why not eat the whole plants and get the fibre as well?

Possibly this whole subject is too complex to say too much about it?

The interaction of the mind maybe totally changes any one bodies’ needs from what it appears to need. The all round mental well being of the eskimos might affect their physical appearance, their teeth for example.

Just a thought.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There are so many vegans that are successful that I can't help wondering what this one was doing wrong.  Many ethical vegans don't do the research and end up living on Oreos and fries.  No wonder they become unhealthy!  Those who claim they are living on a meat only diet must be supplementing with vitamins, many of which are extracted from plants, so why not eat the whole plants and get the fibre as well?

Thanks for responding.

So, there are a few things here. 

1.

First off, how does one do a vegan diet correctly?  What should they include and not include?  Should vegans eat grains?  Should they eat vegetables with oxalates? What about with lectins? What about nightshades?  Soy? . . . It's become something of a running joke - though not necessarily overly harsh! And I'm not attacking or wanting to run you off! - amongst those critical of veganism and especially those who left it that anyone who has trouble with it "wasn't doing it right!"  

And just to be clear here about what most of us are saying negatively about veganism, it's this: generally, most who begin veganism will likely show improvements, assuming they're not living on Oreos and fries, because the body does certainly seem to be really great at cleaning itself out when we stop eating processed stuff and also when we simply eat less . . . basically, I see veganism as akin to a fast.  That certainly, normally, has benefits for a limited time.  But the problem is that their bodies have to start pulling nutrients, minerals, and other what not from the rest of their body: muscle and bones.  In other words, they start cannibalizing themselves.  And this, it seems, is why the bones become so brittle with vegans, leading to things like numerous dental caries.  The bones are otherwise normally store houses of nutrients; that's why bone broth is so nutritious.  So, the question with a person going vegan is how many nutrients they already have stored before beginning and when those begin to run out.  The vegan can certainly try to supplement and I wish them the best!  But supplements don't really seem to be very effective.   

I'll certainly give you that there do exist some vegans I've seen that still look somewhat healthy years later.  Recently on Rogan, the singer from Cro-Magnon, John Joseph, being an example that comes to mind.  But I find those like him very rare once we're talking about 20 years of veganism.  Take Fiona Apple.  What should she have done different?  I suggest to you that there's simply nothing radical she could've done differently. 

2.

What does the meat eater need to supplement with from plants?  (Vitamin C is one that all of us think about in the beginning, but many are now saying we only need vitamin C if we're eating carbs).  We have several historical examples of people(s) who only ate meat or only ate meat for extended periods.  They weren't supplementing, of course.   

And let me mention this, too: while I'm mentioning the carnivore diet here very freely, I'm not necessarily saying everyone should be doing it or that people should eat absolutely no fruit or veggies . . . rather, I find it intriguing and a way to illustrate the exact opposite of what we're told to expect from eating meat: we see auto-immune problems disappear.  We see blood pressure normalize.  We see diabetes disappear.  We see inflammation disappear. 

So what I'm saying here isn't necessarily that you or anyone should only eat meat.  I just find it's a nice way to control for other variables.  You know what I mean?  If someone thinks they need berries or spinach, then eat them! . . . though, I do find it very interesting that some people are questioning the value of veggies (and fruits, which are very different).  I think it's a completely legit question to ask, "are people benefitting from veggies because they're intrinsically good for you or because they're lower carb alternatives to things like grains and donuts and such?"  I understand, of course, when you first encounter this idea it certainly seems too outrageous to even consider . . . till you start seeing some info on it. 

(Dead lines I can't delete)

Back to carnivore dieters supplementing: I've heard of a few, but many say they don't supplement at all. 

I find this a very interesting example below:

(And let me add, first, that I'm not trying to be crazy rude and punch you in the face with a "vegan to carnivore" story or something . . . it just seems very relevant)

This 10 year vegan, Vegetable Police, went carnivore three months ago.  Though he reported pretty much everything being better, namely the digestion issues he'd been plagued with, he still said he was breaking out around his mouth.  He thought it must surely be the meat.  Then he realized it was a magnesium supplement he'd been taking.  As far as I'm aware, since he eliminated it, the breakouts stopped.

 



And he's not the only one with a very similar story.  I apologize for not taking the time to look up who I'm thinking about; it might be Mikhaila Peterson.  At any rate, assuming you believe me, whoever it was went fully carnivore except for adding a multi-vitamin/supplement.  And whatever auto-immune problem they were having continued until they stopped taking it. 

And anyway, whether carnivore or vegan or paleo or whatever, I would be very suspicious of the effectiveness of any supplement in the first place. 

3.

Fiber!  What did people do for thousands of years during the ice age for fiber?  How many wild plants did they stumble across that were actually edible?  How did they get their recommended daily intake of fruit and veggies?  How were the eskimos still pooping after not eating a shred of vegetation for 6 months?  How do babies poop multiple times a day on fiber-free breast milk?  Why are all of these people going carnivore saying their digestion is better than it's ever been?  No bloating, no gas . . . ?

(Dead space I cannot delete)

Here's a study suggesting that reducing fiber helped constipation:

Fiber Study

Here's a slightly more assessable write up:
(example of the dead space/line I cannot delete)

Slightly more assessable write up

I’m used to the disbelief and rage whenever I mention that fiber isn’t essential, I get it, you grew up being accosted with the “fact” that fiber is good for you and it does all these magical things.

Frankly, they are nearly all completely wrong, and you’ve been led up the high-fiber garden path for too long, but nobody likes the idea that fiber might not be the mystical unicorn-grade asshole cleanser with god-like powers.

The simple idea that we should be filling our digestive systems with something indigestible is utter madness.

As incredible as it seems, many say that even one fruit or vegetable causes inflammation (or flare ups of their personal problem) and that it doesn't stop till it's cut from the diet.  I realize that's a hard thing for all of us to process after all the "plants are the best thing in the world for us" indoctrination, but that's what many are saying.  That's probably the short version . . . I mean, read about / listen to Mikhaila Peterson's story of arthritis and depression.  It didn't go away till all plants were removed.  She's the most obvious example.  A guy I know at work has went carnivore and he says that he has back pain (or joint pain?) if there are any carbs at all.

Vegans shouid supplement B12 and in winter D (or eat lots of mushrooms) and make sure they are getting enoughh Omega 3.  Otherwise a wide variety of fruit, veg, legumes, wholegrains, nuts and seeds.  It's not too difficult if you can be bothered.

Cultures that have lived on large amounts of meat have also had high death rates from cardiovascular disease and often eat more carbs than you are imagining.  You need to do a lot more research on this before you decieve other people with your ignorance. 

https://www.forksoverknives.com/extreme-...gs.UplmuBc

"Rumors have since circulated that traditional Eskimos have lived free of heart disease, cancer, and most other chronic diseases affecting western civilizations these days. Research published in the mid-1970s tried to explain this “Eskimo paradox” of living healthy with very few plant foods, on a high-fat, high-cholesterol, no-dietary-fiber diet. The omega-3 fish fats were noted as the miracle ingredient providing protection. Dietetic and medical experts have uncritically accepted this theory in the face of libraries filled with incriminating evidence to the contrary. They tell patients to eat more fish, poultry, and even red meat—like the Eskimos – and plenty of fish oil – in order to stay healthy." 

I'm out of this thread because it takes a lot more time than I have to amass the amount of scientific and anthropological evidence needed to counteract the glut of anecdotal evidence you are displaying.

Just thought I'd mention that Joe Rogan is live with a debate between Chris Kresser and Dr. Joel Kahn on vegan vs. meat (paleo, I suppose) diets . . . I've been watching intermittently.  I'm sure it'll be up in it's entirety before long.

EDIT, video added:

Interestingly, to me, it might be the longest podcast I've seen from Rogan.

Vegans smell better!!! 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitne...g-science/

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle...ts-dangers

"Christopher Gardner, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, is less convinced by the evidence....

The lack of dietary fibre in an all-meat diet is likely to wreak havoc on the bacteria in our colons, known as the microbiome, he said. “Growing evidence suggests that in the absence of adequate fibre, the bacteria in the colon consume and thin the protective mucus lining, which then leads to impaired immune function and inflammation.”

Eating more meat also contributes to a rise in a substance called trimethylamine N-oxide in the blood which, according to research by the Cleveland Heart Lab, may be as bad for heart disease as saturated fat and elevated cholesterol.

Factory farming of animals is also linked to antibiotic resistance in humans and is a huge contributor to the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.
“In summary, I think a ‘carnivore diet’ is inappropriate for human health, bad for the health of our planet, abusive of the human labour force that handles the preparation of meat, abusive of animal rights and welfare,” he said."