Meat diets vs. vegetarianism

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."

Concerning the global warming aspect, look at the golden/brownish section on the bottom graph:

[Image: AR5_SYR_Figure_SPM.1.png]

And while I'm certainly no expert on this stuff and don't even really believe in global warming to begin with, I've heard many others criticize the rape of the land for crop production as inherently worse than grass fed cattle.  They sound compelling enough to be considered, in my opinion.  One can criticize me for not sounding very science-y with this, but I don't think it's hard to imagine them being right and crop growth being worse for the planet.  But I don't know how to really figure that out, I don't trust just anyone with it, and I don't really have the time to do it anyway.  

I would also add this: there are 9 million horses in the U.S. that consume plenty of resources and produce methane, yet we hear not a jot about this from vegans. That's more horses than dairy cattle.  Also, there are 140 million cats and dogs who consume the equivalent of 70 million people's food and yet we aren't told to get rid of our pets for feeding folks or helping combat climate change.

And since I consider it a related subject - food theft! - let's look at what cattle eat (and yes, this includes grain finished): 

46% grass and leaves
19% crop residues
8% fodder crops
5% oil seed cakes
5% by products
3% other non-edible

and lastly:
13% grains.

So, they're not stealing our food.  In fact, we definitely shouldn't be eating grains anyway . . . that is, unless we're starving.

Records Found In Basement Undermine Decades of Dietary Advice

Also, the co-leader of this study was one Dr. Ancel Keys.  

Analyzing the reams of old records, Ramsden and his team found, in line with the “diet-heart hypothesis,” that substituting vegetable oils lowered total blood cholesterol levels, by an average of 14 percent.

But that lowered cholesterol did not help people live longer. Instead, the lower cholesterol fell, the higher the risk of dying: 22 percent higher for every 30-point fall. Nor did the corn-oil group have less atherosclerosis or fewer heart attacks.

In 2013, Ramsden resurrected another long-lost randomized study11, the 1960s-era Sydney Diet Heart Study. Reanalyzing its unpublished data — also stored on old nine-track computer tapes — he found that volunteers who replaced much of the saturated fat in their diet with polyunsaturated fats high in linoleic acid had a higher risk of death from coronary heart disease.

For their new paper, Ramsden’s team also reviewed and analyzed all randomized controlled trials of substituting polyunsaturated fats for saturated fats. There have been only five. Bottom line: they reduce cholesterol, but not deaths from coronary heart disease or other causes.

It’s possible, Bob Frantz said, that his father’s team was discouraged by the failure to find a heart benefit from replacing saturated fats with vegetable oils. “My feeling is, when the overall objective of decreasing deaths by decreasing cholesterol wasn’t met, everything else became less compelling,” he said. “I suspect there was a lot of consternation about why” they couldn’t find a benefit.

The coleader of the project was Dr. Ancel Keys, author of the Seven Countries Study, Time cover subject, and the most prominent advocate of replacing saturated fat with vegetable fat. “The idea that there might be something adverse about lowering cholesterol [via vegetable oils] was really antithetical to the dogma of the day,” Bob Frantz said.

His father, he said, “was always committed to discovering the truth. He would be pleased this is finally coming out.”

There was also this mentioned, which I believe Chris Kresser was referencing in the Rogan podcast:

Other recent analyses, too, have questioned the demonization of saturated fats and the dogma that vegetable oils are healthier. For instance, a 2014 analysis10 of 78 studies involving some 650,000 people found that “neither lower consumption of saturated fats nor higher consumption of polyunsaturated fats reduces the risk of developing cardiovascular disease,” said epidemiologist Dr. Rajiv Chowdhury of the University of Cambridge, the lead author.

Honestly, I cannot imagine anyone today suggesting we replace butter with soy or corn oil.  It's almost strange we're still talking about it.

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."

Also, check this out:

Raising Beef May Help The Planet

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, all of U.S. agriculture accounts for just 8% of our greenhouse emissions, with by far the largest share owing to soil management—that is, crop farming. A Union of Concerned Scientists report concluded that about 2% of U.S. greenhouse gases can be linked to cattle and that good management would diminish it further. The primary concern is methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

But methane from cattle, now under vigorous study by agricultural colleges around the world, can be mitigated in several ways. Australian research shows that certain nutritional supplements can cut methane from cattle by half. Things as intuitive as good pasture management and as obscure as robust dung beetle populations have all been shown to reduce methane.

Importantly:

One-tenth of all human-caused carbon emissions since 1850 have come from soil, according to ecologist Richard Houghton of the Woods Hole Research Center. This is due to tillage, which releases carbon and strips thResearch by the Soil Association in the U.K. shows that if cattle are raised primarily on grass and if good farming practices are followed, enough carbon could be sequestered to offset the methane emissions of all U.K. beef cattle and half its dairy herd. Similarly, in the U.S., the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that as much as 2% of all greenhouse gases (slightly less than what’s attributed to cattle) could be eliminated by sequestering carbon in the soils of grazing operations.

. . . . 

Research by the Soil Association in the U.K. shows that if cattle are raised primarily on grass and if good farming practices are followed, enough carbon could be sequestered to offset the methane emissions of all U.K. beef cattle and half its dairy herd. Similarly, in the U.S., the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that as much as 2% of all greenhouse gases (slightly less than what’s attributed to cattle) could be eliminated by sequestering carbon in the soils of grazing operations.

Grass is also one of the best ways to generate and safeguard soil and to protect water. Grass blades shield soil from erosive wind and water, while its roots form a mat that holds soil and water in place. Soil experts have found that erosion rates from conventionally tilled agricultural fields average one to two orders of magnitude greater than erosion under native vegetation, such as what’s typically found on well-managed grazing lands. 

Vegans, research how much calcium you truly absorb from spinach, a supposed super-food.  This is the problem with sites that tell you the nutrients in an item, a vegetable or plant food: they don't calculate in anti-nutrients and bio-availability.  This is a serious thing.  For years, even while paleo, I ate high, high amounts of veggies and also juiced vegetables.  I ignored this problem for the longest time . . .  

The Health Dangers of Oxalates

While oxalate is useful as a calcium storage mechanism for plants, it’s toxic to humans in acute and chronic amounts. If you eat too much oxalate you die. Simple as that. But often oxalate toxicity is more insidious. [r]

Similarly to how phytic acid is a mineral thief, oxalic acid is a magnet for minerals, especially calcium. Oxalic acid grabs calcium and forms calcium oxalate – the main ingredient in kidney stones. [r, r]

These oxalate crystals build up into bigger and bigger crystals. They bioaccumulate. As they accumulate the body deposits these sharp crystals throughout the body – in joints, muscles, and especially the kidneys. [r, r, r, r, r, r]

With oxalate crystals growing and stored throughout the body muscles start aching, eyes, ears, mouth, and throat can burn, and stones form in the kidneys.

Many people think spinach is a good source of calcium. But it’s a fraud. The calcium in spinach is completely useless. It’s all tied up in oxalate. And this is true for all high-oxalate foods.

In the lab we can measure the calcium content in spinach, but that doesn’t mean it’s available as a nutrient for the body. There is a big difference in the nutrition measured in food and the nutrition that the body can actually absorb and use.

This is where standard nutrition guidelines fail miserably.

If we eat 100% of our RDI (recommended daily intake) of calcium from spinach, but 100% of it is tied up in oxalate, we really got 0% of the RDI. Making matters worse, certain foods can increase the amount of a nutrients we need.

For example, If I were to eat a large bowl of spinach every day for lunch, I would increase my need for certain vitamins and minerals. Processing the high oxalate concentration in the spinach depletes vitamin B6 and likely requires an increased amount of biotin and thiamine in my diet.

Oxalate isn’t just an antinutrient that depletes calcium and iron, stealing essential vitamins and minerals. It’s also toxic.

Oxalate crystals cause renal damage; they are neurotoxic; they activate the immune system, upset the GI tract, deplete glutathione, and corrode connective tissue (via interference with hyaluronic acid).

Oxalates can impact nearly every bodily system. [r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r, r]

• They can cause neurological symptoms which disturb sleep and adversely affect coordination, memory, learning, and concentration.
  
• They cause pain via mast cell degranulation and histamine release.
  
• Mysterious vulva pain, fibromyalgia, and carpal tunnel syndrome can all have oxalates causing or worsening the symptoms.
  
• Increased calcium excretion and increased oxalic acid excretion ride hand-in-hand and are linked with osteoporosis.
  
• Common practice for autism treatment is the elimination of oxalate-containing foods (as well as gluten, casein and soy).
  

. . . 

It’s not only spinach pricks that can hurt you.

Many of the cruciferous vegetables like kale, cauliflower, and broccoli have high concentrations of oxalate.

Other culprits include chocolate, most nuts (especially cashews and almonds that are popular among the health conscious) and seeds like sesame and poppy seeds. [r, r, r]

One of the worst offenders is soy. I remember when I was soy stupid – clueless that my soy protein shakes were loaded with oxalates.

Berries and beans. Potatoes and sweet potatoes. Okra. Swiss chard. Anything in the buckwheat family like sorrel. All high in oxalates.

Sorrel is actually worse than spinach and kale . . . 



[Click on the link to read the rest]

Is being vegan while pregnant a good idea?

Read Here (Or at least click and scroll down for the picture of the infant's brain compared to a normal infant's).

A case is reported of a 14 month old boy with severe dietary vitamin B-12 deficiency caused by his mother’s vegan diet. Cinical, electroencephalography (EEG), and haematological findings are described. Cranial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed severe frontal and frontoparietal cranial atrophy. Vitamin B-12 supplements led to a rapid improvement of haematological and neurological symptoms. Serum vitamin B-12 and urinary methylmalonate excretion were normal 10 days after treatment began. After six weeks, EEG was normal and cranial MRI after 10 weeks showed complete disappearance of all structural abnormalities. Cognitive and language development, however, remained seriously retarded at the age of 2 years. It is concluded that infantile vitamin B-12 deficiency induced by maternal vegan diets may cause lasting neurodisability even though vitamin B-12 supplementation leads to rapid resolution of cerebral atrophy and electroencephalographic abnormality

My bolding.

Basically, as was pointed out on the Rogan podcast, problems caused by B12 deficiency are irreversible after a certain point.

[Ninshub]

What about quasi-LOVs who eat fish and maximum 1 meal a week that features mammal meat? (meaning me)

What about quasi-LOVs who eat fish and maximum 1 meal a week that features mammal meat? (meaning me)

The problem with "healthy" is that it is an adjective and all adjectives are relative.  I.e. How healthy is healthy?  There is probably always going to be something else we can do to improve our diets, we just have to draw lines somewhere because it is too impractical to do otherwise.

This is on topic - very much so - just watch.

[Laird]

Reece: a long-overdue response to your own responses.

First, a brief summary: I advocate vegan-fruitarianism for ethical reasons. There is no need to kill for food. There is also no need for cruelty in the production of food. Eating animal products and especially meat - at least until lab-grown meat becomes commercially-viable - entails the former and often entails the latter. Health and the environment are, for me, secondary issues, and I don't base my advocacy upon them, but I am willing and happy to use them as part of my advocacy where they are valid.

You don't seem to address the ethics of meat-eating so much. You seem to focus on health. Nevertheless, your health-based advocacy is, it seems to me, weak, in that the main evidence that you present is in the form of testimonials. On a forum dedicated to the scientific study of psi and the paranormal, you surely should recognise that this is... not exactly the best evidence: it is all too easy to cherry-pick.

If you have genuinely scientific evidence - in the form of, say, long-term prospective studies - that veganism is unhealthy or that meat-only (or simply omnivory) is healthy, then I think you should present it. I haven't been able to find either. But to "combat" you on your own terms, I can offer a bunch of pro-vegan testimonials.

A Compilation of Long-Term Vegans; Our Powerful Message is a 2013-03-03 blog post by "Butterflies" Katz, in which she catalogues her story along with the stories shared with her by fellow long-term vegans - 57 altogether, most vegan for around three decades. None say they think their health is worse for being vegan. Many say their health is better, and/or that veganism cured various ailments. Here are a few representative quotes:

"Upon turning vegan, my allergies all went away. I'm 56 and have rarely needed to go to a doctor". --Butterflies (Katz), vegan for 35 years.

"I was 19 when I became vegan, and I was pretty healthy already. I was pleased to see my seasonal allergies disappear shortly after going vegan. Other than that, it’s difficult to say. I do think that I am healthier today than I would be had I not been vegan all these years". --Gabriel Figueroa, vegan for 23 years.

"I was very sick as a child and suffered from hay fever. I endured years of painful shots in both arms and frequent hay fever attacks. I slept with my mouth open for years, because I was so full of mucous that I couldn't inhale through my nose. I would often have sneezing attacks, even in the middle of the night. I was allergic to dust, smoke, pollen, grass, animal hair, etc. All of my lifelong allergies miraculously disappeared within two weeks of becoming a vegan. My health improved tremendously. I never took antihistamines again. I never went back to my doctor for those excruciating injections. I could now sleep through the night with my mouth closed. I could now lay on grass without sneezing and rubbing my eyes. I could now pet dogs and cats without fear. I could now enjoy springtime and smell flowers without fear". --Harvey Larochelle, vegan for 30 years.

"I am almost 50 and rarely get sick. I [...] haven't been to a doctor in decades. [...] I have worked in the natural products industry for 30 years and have dealt with people's health, or lack there of, for as long. Vegans (who eat a primarily whole foods diet) are by far the healthiest people I come across. As we all get older, this is even more true". --Lisa Shapiro, vegan for 28 years.

"After suffering in ignorance for many years, when I became vegan I realized that I was lactose sensitive. After I eliminated dairy and cheese from my diet, my quality of life improved significantly, and immediately". --Moses Seenarine, vegan for over 25 years.

"Yes, I am healthier, and I never ever thought about going back". --Linda Furness, vegan for 45 years.

---

Reece, you offer a bunch of other "arguments" against the healthfulness of veganism: arguments re zinc absorption, "anti-nutrients" in grains, "plant defenses", "the oxalates in spinach that prevent us from absorbing it's iron", and on and on. Whilst these might be interesting in theory, the ultimate test is whether they have any real-world impact, and, in the absence of (especially long-term, prospective) studies which conclude as much, they have little practical relevance. You have not referenced any such studies, and there are plenty of us surviving just fine on a vegan diet; the onus is on you to demonstrate beyond potentially cherry-picked anecdotes that we are either not healthy or that we are anomalous outliers, and that the majority (of non-outliers) would be unhealthy.

---

Regarding your counter-arguments against the relative environmental friendliness of veganism, you again fall prey to poor standards of evidence or at least of explicating that evidence. For example, in post #121 you supply an image and ask us to look at the "golden/brownish section on the bottom graph", however, you tell us neither (1) from where you sourced the graph (presumably the IPCC?), nor (2) what we are supposed to understand from the section to which you point us. I suspect that you are suggesting that animal agriculture falls under "other land use" alone, and that it is thus a small percentage of carbon emissions, but is this really supported by the graph? What do those who actually produced the graph say? You don't inform us.

In that same post, you also fail to inform us as to the source of the statistics you cite here:

And since I consider it a related subject - food theft! - let's look at what cattle eat (and yes, this includes grain finished):

46% grass and leaves
19% crop residues
8% fodder crops
5% oil seed cakes
5% by products
3% other non-edible

and lastly:
13% grains.

So, they're not stealing our food. In fact, we definitely shouldn't be eating grains anyway . . . that is, unless we're starving.

Too, this could be seen as a manipulative use of statistics given that which I shared in post #61 to this thread: even if animals bred for meat are fed "just" 13% grains as per the (unsourced) figures that you cite, it still ends up being the case that (including animals bred for meat and not fed grains) by weight over three times as many grains are fed to animals bred for meat than is gained in edible meat from them: which constitutes (metaphorical) theft by any reasonable (metaphorical) stretch of the word.

---

Is being vegan while pregnant a good idea?

[...]

Basically, as was pointed out on the Rogan podcast, problems caused by B12 deficiency are irreversible after a certain point.

Being deficient in B12 is obviously not a good idea, especially when pregnant, however (1) informed vegans are aware of this potential problem and most supplement to be safe, and anyway (2) plenty of non-vegans are deficient in B12 too:

Oddly, the researchers found no association between plasma B12 levels and meat, poultry, and fish intake, even though these foods supply the bulk of B12 in the diet. “It’s not because people aren’t eating enough meat,” Tucker said. “The vitamin isn’t getting absorbed.”

---

Regarding diets, recently, I have found success in increasing the DHA content of my diet. This is found in seafood mainly, less so in healthy animals (grass fed meat, free range chicken / eggs), and even less so in CAFO animals.

This is one area where vegetarian diets would be found lacking, as the body is not that great at converting ALA from sources such as flax seed into DHA, although it can be done.

Indeed, darkcheese, however, these days there are plenty of vegan DHA/EPA supplements - they're sourced/derived from algae, which is where the fish which are consumed as seafood originally source it.