Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The data supports it, and we're getting more data all the time. Thank people like Taubes, Noakes etc etc for actually shedding light on stuff like this.

 

Animal protein is NOT the demon that it has been painted as. This is becoming clearer and clearer all the time.

 

If you can post some of these I'm genuinely interested, as I've said before it was the health aspect that initially got me heading in this vegan direction. I'm honestly trying to think back but I have only come across the opposite. 

 

(I'll look up the saturated fat thing you mention, I love an MCG-like debunk)

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

The majority of those studies would have had the same results (reduction in ACM etc) if they'd just asked if they eat whole foods, or include processed foods and fast food in their diet. 

 

One group has a far better picture of health as a whole, vs the other which generally will engage in more unhealthy lifestyle practices. 

Posted

The majority of those studies would have had the same results (reduction in ACM etc) if they'd just asked if they eat whole foods, or include processed foods and fast food in their diet. 

 

One group has a far better picture of health as a whole, vs the other which generally will engage in more unhealthy lifestyle practices. 

 

You're making the assumption that a lower meat eater is by definition more health conscious than the other groups. You can't just make that assumption and call it a day. 

 

Also, your disdain for epidemiology is unwarranted. Yes, it can be done poorly (as with any other study type/design), but if it weren't for epidemiology, we wouldn't all today accept that smoking causes cancer. 

Posted

The majority of those studies would have had the same results (reduction in ACM etc) if they'd just asked if they eat whole foods, or include processed foods and fast food in their diet. 

 

One group has a far better picture of health as a whole, vs the other which generally will engage in more unhealthy lifestyle practices. 

 

I see, so its not really proven studies you're referring to, its how the studies are done, which then allows you to disregard the outcome?

Posted

You're making the assumption that a lower meat eater is by definition more health conscious than the other groups. You can't just make that assumption and call it a day. 

 

Also, your disdain for epidemiology is unwarranted. Yes, it can be done poorly (as with any other study type/design), but if it weren't for epidemiology, we wouldn't all today accept that smoking causes cancer. 

I'm actually making the assumption that someone who avoids a certain food group based on their particular ideals is more likely to go for a healthier lifestyle overall. 

 

Epidemiology is useful, sure. But done PROPERLY. Control for other things in order to isolate what it is you want to study. 

Posted

I see, so its not really proven studies you're referring to, its how the studies are done, which then allows you to disregard the outcome?

A healthy skepticism, not outright disregard. 

 

Performing a dietary study (esp epidemiologically) without controlling for other things that you ingest is a bit foolish, IMO. 

Posted

I'm actually making the assumption that someone who avoids a certain food group based on their particular ideals is more likely to go for a healthier lifestyle overall. 

 

Epidemiology is useful, sure. But done PROPERLY. Control for other things in order to isolate what it is you want to study. 

 

Making assumptions about the cohort/subjects/participants and then dismissing the outcomes isn't helpful. It's a slippery slope. 

 

And I agree with you here, but not all studies can control, so you then have to decide how you weigh it in your own understanding of the subject matter.

Posted

Making assumptions about the cohort/subjects/participants and then dismissing the outcomes isn't helpful. It's a slippery slope. 

 

And I agree with you here, but not all studies can control, so you then have to decide how you weigh it in your own understanding of the subject matter.

Nah man, I don't dismiss the outcomes. I just know that they may not be as accurate as people think they are, and that informs my opinion as well. I give more credence to studies that control factors more thoroughly, but that doesn't mean that I dismiss those that don't out of hand.

Posted

This is GOOD. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. As soon as affordable meat alternatives with the same taste and texture come through, I'll be on the bandwagon. I'll probably still eat that steak or pork belly (nom) but I'll definitely eat the replacements, too. And - I support the movement away from battery & pen-based farming practices. I think it's atrocious. 

Posted

http://lekkervegan.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/9k-menu-v3-left_s-576x1024.jpg

 

http://lekkervegan.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/9k-menu-v3-right_s-576x1024.jpg

 

Place in town that looks good... Still junk food, but vegan

 

Ooh. Lekker Vegan! I ate at the one in Town (I think - there's two or three) and it was really good! Bit more grab 'n go than sit down. Had The Gatsby. Go hungry!

Posted (edited)

Except it's not. Almost all of those studies are epidemiological, don't control for smoking / drinking / drugs and other lifestyle related indulgences, and simply rely on questionnaires filled in by humans who have a notoriously bad recollection of what they eat.

 

Meat by itself doesn't cause those issues, and we're seeing this in the current science. It's the additional stuff over and abive that that does.

 

In addition, vegans are generally more likely to be more aware of other health damaging practices, and control for them better than those who follow an SAD. In many cases they just have a look at all cause mortality in people who answer "yes" to the do you eat meat question, and make the leap that a reduction in life expectancy or increase in disease rates is due to that, instead of the other things that people do. Like smoke, drink, drugs, excessive carbs and fat etc etc.

 

It's well documented, unfortunately.

 

Also. Have a look at the history behind the vilification of saturated fat. Started post ww2 to prop up the megacropping (wheat corn etc) in the states, and the scientists with the other option (hypothesizing that meat and fat and veg are the way instead of wheat and corn and carbs) were German.

 

Again, America protecting its interests, and creating the food pyramid (and vilifying sat fat and animal products to boot) in order to push breakfast cereal and such.

 

You and the Milkman missed the point.

 

The point was that meat consumption is fine. Too much meat consumption is bad (the jury is still out on how much meat is overconsumption....)

 

If people like 100Tours are going to blame a vegan lifestyle for people malnourishing their children then the equal and opposite must also be true (ie eating meat makes people fat and unhealthy).

 

The realist in both situations is that you can be vegan and healthy as well as omnivorous and healthy. Using a rather specific click baity article to paint all vegans as malnourished is lazy and stupid.

Edited by Eldron

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout