Vegetarianism/Veganism

[TheAuthority]

I feed my dog meat because he is a canid and therefore has a short intestine and colon which makes him capable of processing and passing it quickly.

Mammals in the wild with long intestines (like humans) are usually herbivores (primates, elephants.) With our intestines and colon it is likely that meat with sit, get stuck and rot in the gut. This is one of the reasons why instances of bowel cancel is higher among those societies with a higher meat diet.

[Stevo985]

20 hours ago, peterms said:

This  may be interesting for vegans.

If trees, and plants, have feelings, sensations, some kind of memory, what is the rationale for eating them and not animals?  Presumably the level of intelligence as perceived by us.  A similar kind of problem as eating tiny beings living and growing on salad leaves, only bigger.

As always I'm happy to be corrected. But I don't think there's much, if any, evidence that plants or trees have feelings or feel pain or fear. The article above is one man. For a start there's no evolutionary reason for them to feel pain or fear.

But even if you accept that plants feel pain and fear, then Veganism would still be the least harmful lifestyle. Far far more plants are killed and used for food for livestock than is needed for humans. I think the ratio is something like 14:1. i.e. you need 14kg of plant based food to feed 1kg of meat (that might be specifically beef). Animals need a lot more plant food than humans.

The plant based food used to feed livestock in the US alone is enough to feed 800million people and the world grows enough plant food to sustain something like 12 billion people. But we feed it all to animals who we then eat. It's incredibly inefficient.

It all comes back to necessity again. Humans need to eat something to survive. We don't need to eat animals to survive. If it turned out that plants felt pain and suffering then it would be the case that whatever humans ate would cause pain and suffering and death to something. But as I said above, veganism would still be the lifestyle that caused the least amount of that because we need far less plants than the animals we would then eat anyway.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Stevo985

[JB]

3 minutes ago, TheAuthority said:

Mammals in the wild with long intestines (like humans) are usually herbivores (primates, elephants.) With our intestines and colon it is likely that meat with sit, get stuck and rot in the gut. This is one of the reasons why instances of bowel cancel is higher among those societies with a higher meat diet.

Wow that’s a huge claim to make. Always happy to be educated but if that’s true, I’m very surprised that it’s not more widely known. I’m certainly not aware of any evidence that links meat consumption (in isolation) to cancer. 

[TheAuthority]

12 minutes ago, JB said:

Wow that’s a huge claim to make. Always happy to be educated but if that’s true, I’m very surprised that it’s not more widely known. I’m certainly not aware of any evidence that links meat consumption (in isolation) to cancer. 

I don't even know where to start with your comment as there is so much evidence. Just google "meat and cancer."

It's not my huge claim. The World Health Organization classifies processed meat as a carcinogen. 

https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization-says-processed-meat-causes-cancer.html

Quote

World Health Organization Says Processed Meat Causes Cancer

Oct 26, 2015

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified processed meat as a carcinogen, something that causes cancer. And it has classified red meat as a probable carcinogen, something that probably causes cancer. IARC is the cancer agency of the World Health Organization.

Other links from page 1 of google.

https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/21639/cancer-prevention/diet-exercise/nutrition-diet/fruit-vegetables/meat-and-cancer/

Quote

There is now a clear body of evidence that bowel cancer is more common among those who eat the most red and processed meat. Processed meat consumption has also been strongly linked to a higher risk of stomach cancer.

The World Health Organization has classified processed meats – including ham, salami, bacon and frankfurts – as a Group 1 carcinogen which means that there is strong evidence that processed meats cause cancer. Red meat, such as beef, lamb and pork has been classified as a ‘probable’ cause of cancer. These classifications do not indicate the risk of getting cancer, rather how certain we are that these things are likely to cause cancer.

 

https://progressreport.cancer.gov/prevention/red_meat

Quote

Introduction

Red meat and processed meat are associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer, and evidence also suggests their association with some other cancers, such as prostate cancer. Red meat refers to beef, pork, and lamb, although some studies include all processed meats (such as bacon, sausage, hot dogs, and cold cuts) in their definition, regardless of animal origin. Some research suggests that processed meat, but not fresh meat, may increase risk.

More research is needed to understand how these meats influence cancer risk. The increased risk may be explained by the iron and fat content in red meat, and/or the salt and nitrates/nitrites in processed meat. Additionally, when meat is cooked at high temperatures, substances are formed that may cause cancer.

 

[Davkaus]

You can't just conflate meat and processed meat.

There's little argument that processed meat is absolutely dreadful for people and shouldn't be a regular part of your diet if you care about your health. That doesn't necessarily mean a chicken fillet has the same effect.

Having said that, the typical brit seems to eat far more sausages and bacon than anything else. 

Edited January 6, 2019 by Davkaus

[TheAuthority]

1 minute ago, Davkaus said:

You can't just conflate meat and processed meat.

There's little argument that processed meat is absolutely dreadful for people and shouldn't be a regular part of your diet if you care about your health. That doesn't necessarily mean a chicken fillet has the same effect.

Having said that, the typical brit seems to eat far more sausages and bacon than anything else. 

My original point was about human digestive system and how mammals with long intestines such as ours are generally non-meat eaters.

A very interesting book is The China Study, the most comprehensive nutritional study in history. The book found that essentially as developing countries move from a mostly plant based diet to a more Western diet, (high in meat and dairy,) cancer rates and heart disease rates have increased in direct correlation to the adoption of the "rich mans diet." 

[Stevo985]

5 minutes ago, TheAuthority said:

My original point was about human digestive system and how mammals with long intestines such as ours are generally non-meat eaters.

A very interesting book is The China Study, the most comprehensive nutritional study in history. The book found that essentially as developing countries move from a mostly plant based diet to a more Western diet, (high in meat and dairy,) cancer rates and heart disease rates have increased in direct correlation to the adoption of the "rich mans diet." 

This book makes the same conclousion. Although to be fair it may well have been citing the China study, I can't remember

 

[Davkaus]

@TheAuthority That was your original point, but then all of the sources copied above are talking about processed/red meat. Nobody eating bacon and sausages every morning is convinced it's good for them.

I've not read the above book, but i might see if I can pick up a cheap copy. i'm curious about whether it draws the same distinction. It's no surprise that if people move to a diet that's primarily processed meat and dairy, there are health implications, I'm curious about if there are any clear links to the meat options that are typically seen as the healthier choices.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Davkaus

[Stevo985]

8 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

@TheAuthority That was your original point, but then all of the sources copied above are talking about processed/red meat. Nobody eating bacon and sausages every morning is convinced it's good for them.

I've not read the above book, but i might see if I can pick up a cheap copy. i'm curious about whether it draws the same distinction. It's no surprise that if people move to a diet that's primarily processed meat and dairy, there are health implications, I'm curious about if there are any clear links to the meat options that are typically seen as the healthier choices.

I think it comes back to what was said early on in the thread.

You can have a healthy diet whether you're vegetarian, vegan, pescatarian, omnivorous etc. Similarly you can have a very unhealthy diet with any of those options.

But I think what's probably true is it's easier to almost accidentally have a healthy diet by being vegan or vegetarian because you obviously avoid a lot of high fat foods and processed meats etc because they're completely not in your diet as a rule.

@JB I'm sure has a very healthy diet including meat (from the gym thread I know he's a healthy dude). But I think if you look at society as a whole that as countries move towards a more western diet than the healthiness of that diet for Joe Average decreases.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Stevo985

[TheAuthority]

10 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

@TheAuthority That was your original point, but then all of the sources copied above are talking about processed/red meat. Nobody eating bacon and sausages every morning is convinced it's good for them.

I've not read the above book, but i might see if I can pick up a cheap copy. i'm curious about whether it draws the same distinction. It's no surprise that if people move to a diet that's primarily processed meat and dairy, there are health implications, I'm curious about if there are any clear links to the meat options that are typically seen as the healthier options.

In the China study it is not processed meat that they are moving their diet to, it's just meat. Also in countries where refrigeration is not as common, meat is generally fresher than here in the west (usually eaten the day it is killed.)

My impression has always been that 'healthier' meat options (chicken, turkey breast) is a bit like smoking low tar cigarettes. It's still bad for you it just might take a little longer to get you! 

Also my personal observation is that people who are fine with eating chicken for example, will eat chicken anywhere. So that could be an organic, antibiotic chicken breast they cook at home, but they are also fine with buying a pizza with chicken on or a train station chicken sandwich. Those are places where the meat will be sourced for cost not for quality.

Edit: The sources I quoted were from a 12 second google search in response to the other posters assertion that it was a huge  claim to tie cancer to meat.

Edited January 6, 2019 by TheAuthority

[JB]

1 hour ago, TheAuthority said:

I don't even know where to start with your comment as there is so much evidence. Just google "meat and cancer."

It's not my huge claim. The World Health Organization classifies processed meat as a carcinogen. 

https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization-says-processed-meat-causes-cancer.html

Other links from page 1 of google.

https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/21639/cancer-prevention/diet-exercise/nutrition-diet/fruit-vegetables/meat-and-cancer/

https://progressreport.cancer.gov/prevention/red_meat

 

If we’re advising each other to Google stuff, I’ll counter with Googling something about critical analysis of WHO recommendations. Examine.com is very good for evidence-based analysis.

FYI I don’t have a horse in this race. I’m not leaping to the defence of meat. Veganism is something I’m very much interested in (hence why I’m reading this thread). I think you may not have taken my post in the spirit it was intended.

You’ve also read something in my post that wasn’t there. I never said that linking processed meat to cancer was the huge claim. As @Davkaus points out, in your original post, you refer to meat in general which was something that I wanted to pick you up on. You’ve now referred specifically to red and processed meat. But it was the claim that meat sitting in our gut and rotting causes cancer that I was really interested in hearing more about. I’m no doctor but I’m surprised that’s not relatively common knowledge, if true. There may be some truth to it - I honestly don’t know. As I said, I’m always open to learning more but statements like that ring alarm bells and I’d classify that as a pretty big claim . Also, do you have any data on the increased rates of bowel cancer in societies with ‘higher meat’ diets? I’d imagine it would be a very nuanced discussion.

I would absolutely agree that there is evidence linking processed meat to an increased risk of cancer but headlines that say that it ‘causes’ cancer are hyperbole. The actual impact depends on dosage, which I think is a very important distinction to make, and even then, the level of increased risk is not really known, but appears to be very low.

I also made a point of adding the words ‘in isolation’ to my post. A lot of critical analysis of WHO recommendations has brought up the good old correlation vs causation argument. That is, people who consume the amounts of processed meat that would have a significant effect on their physiology, tend to have countless other unhealthy lifestyle factors in play (drinking, smoking, sedentary etc.). Public health recommendations are always worth critical examination. 

You won’t find me arguing that processed meat is good for you. But is there any evidence that moderate consumption as part of an otherwise balanced diet gives you cancer?

[TheAuthority]

20 hours ago, JB said:

@DavkausFYI I don’t have a horse in this race. I’m not leaping to the defence of meat. Veganism is something I’m very much interested in (hence why I’m reading this thread). I think you may not have taken my post in the spirit it was intended....

You won’t find me arguing that processed meat is good for you. But is there any evidence that moderate consumption as part of an otherwise balanced diet gives you cancer?

Apologies - I did take your original post as flippant I see now that it wasn't meant that way.  I'l try and address the points you raise.

Some background - My personal history/relationship is that my dad was diagnosed with bowel cancer in his early forties and at the age of 16 I tried to become conscious about my diet to minimize my own risk of developing the same.   I can't quote all of the articles/documentaries/books that have informed me over nearly 30 years but I will concede that nutrition can be a minefield of special interests and misinformation so in some ways we are still left to come to our own conclusions.

Quote

do you have any data on the increased rates of bowel cancer in societies with ‘higher meat’ diets? I’d imagine it would be a very nuanced discussion.

Quote

you refer to meat in general which was something that I wanted to pick you up on. You’ve now referred specifically to red and processed meat.

One study that I do remember clearly is from the book that I quoted earlier "The China Study." They introduced animal protein to rats and saw very high cancer rates in the results. So much so that they reduced the amount of protein and even with a small amount of animal protein introduced to the rat population they saw large amounts of cancer develop. That book does not reduce the animal protein to processed or none processed meat, it doesn't even separate between dairy and meat - it simply states that protein derived from animals increased the likely hood of developing cancer in their rat studies. The book also looks at huge populations of developing nations as their diets changed over decades and the health implications that had (as I mentioned in my earlier post.)

Quote

I also made a point of adding the words ‘in isolation’ to my post. A lot of critical analysis of WHO recommendations has brought up the good old correlation vs causation argument. That is, people who consume the amounts of processed meat that would have a significant effect on their physiology, tend to have countless other unhealthy lifestyle factors in play (drinking, smoking, sedentary etc.).

 Human studies in the population are virtually impossible to do  in isolation but many of the lifestyle factors that you mention hopefully are evened out by the sheer volume of people that were analyzed in the study. 

Quote

But is there any evidence that moderate consumption as part of an otherwise balanced diet gives you cancer?

The most honest answer to this is I think that there is evidence if you want to find it and there is also probably contrary evidence if thats what you're looking for. In reality we are left to draw our own conclusions because of many factors, one which that can't be discounted is the messaging by special interests.

22 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

This is one of the reasons why instances of bowel cancel is higher among those societies with a higher meat diet.

I still stand by my original post specifically bowel cancer and related to red meat.

Someone else to look into if you're interested is Max Gerson who claimed to have reversed many of his patients cancer with diet.

[KenjiOgiwara]

Gonna drop Paracelsus here, but it really is the dose that's the key word here. You have no idea how much stuff can give you an increase risk of cancer, but it's largely unimportant if you focus on dosage and variation.  

Big difference between smoking 3 fags a month and smoking 30 daily. 

[JB]

18 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

Apologies - I did take your original post as flippant I see now that it wasn't meant that way.  I'l try and address the points you raise.

Some background - My personal history/relationship is that my dad was diagnosed with bowel cancer in his early forties and at the age of 16 I tried to become conscious about my diet to minimize my own risk of developing the same.   I can't quote all of the articles/documentaries/books that have informed me over nearly 30 years but I will concede that nutrition can be a minefield of special interests and misinformation so in some ways we are still left to come to our own conclusions.

One study that I do remember clearly is from the book that I quoted earlier "The China Study." They introduced animal protein to rats and saw very high cancer rates in the results...

Human studies in the population are virtually impossible to do  in isolation but many of the lifestyle factors that you mention hopefully are evened out by the sheer volume of people that were analyzed in the study. 

The most honest answer to this is I think that there is evidence if you want to find it and there is also probably contrary evidence if that's what you're looking for. In reality we are left to draw our own conclusions because of many factors, one which that can't be discounted is the messaging by special interests.

I still stand by my original post specifically bowel cancer and related to red meat.

Someone else to look into if you're interested is Max Gerson who claimed to have reversed many of his patients cancer with diet.

No worries . I could’ve been clearer about what part of your post I was referring to. 

I still think that there’s an important differentiation between red meat and processed meat.

I couldn’t agree more with what you say about nutrition being a minefield of misinformation and special interest. There are so many social media ‘personalities’ with names like ‘Wellness Warrior’ and no significant background in nutritional science who spout relentless bullshit based on nothing more than their own unfounded beliefs.

I looked more into the idea that meat sits and rots in our guts as it just didn’t sound biologically feasible to me. It appears that it is not the case. There are foods that sit and rot in our guts but they are all plant-based foods, which makes sense given the high fibre content. I haven’t read anything which suggests that this is harmful, though.

I had never heard of Max Gerson. If, as he claims, he has effectively cured cancer, then I suspect he would be a bit more famous. But having briefly looked him up, if he’s the same one who died in 1959, then he appears to be a dangerous charlatan whose methods are the very definition of pseudoscience and quackery. The special interest in the Gerson Institute’s case seems to be cash, with ‘treatment’ prices starting from $11,000 (not including special juicing machines and foods), part of which seems to involve pumping coffee up your arse five times a day. In fact, not only has the data from his claims been analysed to show that there is no benefit from his treatments, but they have been found to be actively dangerous. 

I’m going off topic here. Just to be clear, I’m not arguing against veganism - far from it. I’m just expressing my scepticism of some of the points raised. Veganism is undoubtedly a good thing and doesn’t need bullshit to support it. Most vegans I know choose not to consume animal products on ethical grounds and I don’t think that there’s a valid counter argument to that.

[peterms]

2 hours ago, JB said:

pumping coffee up your arse five times a day

Possibly a habit better suited to those who work from home.  In an office setting, getting the coffees in for the team could be a little disconcerting.

[Stevo985]

The big food companies jumping on the Veganuary bandwagon has provided some amusing news stories.

Saw a headline on the Daily Mail that said something like "McDonalds causes outcry among meat lovers as expands it's vegetarian options"

Really? Does it really justify an outcry?  

 

(I know, it's the Daily Mail, but still)

[Davkaus]

There's a certain demographic, and I think we can all picture the type of "bloke", who takes anyone doing something differently to them as an attack. There must be something wrong.

Same kind of guy who thinks if you read a book, you probably like it up the bum.

Edited January 8, 2019 by Davkaus

[lapal_fan]

2 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

There's a certain demographic, and I think we can all picture the type of "bloke", who takes anyone doing something differently to them as an attack. There must be something wrong.

Same kind of guy who thinks if you read a book, you probably like it up the bum.

Ahh, I know em' the blokes that go for a Vindaloo every Thursday and pretend to me Mo's mate cos he's a cheeky fella? They usually drink Tiger beer too because it's made to go with curry y'know. 

[Stevo985]

I just can't get my head around being angry about something extra on a menu just because it's meat-less.

I mean, if Greggs were saying "We're REPLACING our normal sausage rolls with vegan ones" then fine. Or if McDonalds were taking a meat burger off the menu to make way for veggie options I can understand people being annoyed.

But just adding to the menu... why are you angry at that?

 

It's like me being livid that Sainsbury's are selling Gluten free bread. **** gluten intolerant words removed. 

[PieFacE]

31 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I just can't get my head around being angry about something extra on a menu just because it's meat-less.

I mean, if Greggs were saying "We're REPLACING our normal sausage rolls with vegan ones" then fine. Or if McDonalds were taking a meat burger off the menu to make way for veggie options I can understand people being annoyed.

But just adding to the menu... why are you angry at that?

 

It's like me being livid that Sainsbury's are selling Gluten free bread. **** gluten intolerant words removed. 

Yeah it's utterly pathetic. I bet the same people who are outraged by this are the same people who have opinion that vegans and vegetarians constantly talk about their dietary choices and hate them for it, without actually hearing it first hand.

 

Edited January 8, 2019 by PieFacE