• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Just got this from facebook

Well good point
But one would think then that those that eat more carbs then ( the vegetarians and vegans ) would have an even higher rate of cardiovascular disease .

But at least in the future there will be some to make a clean cut statistic from as some obviously are eating hardly anything but meat
 
Freema said:
well good argument... how about the many statistics that shows meateater die much more from cardiovascular deseasess than do vegetarians and especially compared to vegans.... do you think they are al tampered with too ?
Click to expand...
Epidemiological studies cannot be used to show that meat causes cardiovascular disease (or that anything causes a disease), only whether that thing (such as meat consumption) is associated with a disease (such as CVD). However, an epidemiological study can show that a given factor doesn't cause a disease if the study shows no association. For example, if you did a study of European countries and found the more meat people consume in each country, the less cardiovascular disease that country's population has, you'd have proven that meat does not cause cardiovascular disease:

FOOD CONSUMPTION AND THE ACTUAL STATISTICS OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES: AN EPIDEMIOLOGICAL COMPARISON OF 42 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES:
http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/31694

You have to look at the Discussion section where they say:

"The results of our study show that animal fat (and especially its combination with animal protein) is a very strong predictor of raised cholesterol levels."

BUT:
"Interestingly, the relationship between raised cholesterol and CVD indicators in the present study is always negative."

So, eating more animal derived protein and fat is associated with higher cholesterol, and higher cholesterol levels are associated with lower CVD rates.

And the Conclusion section:

"Irrespective of the possible limitations of the ecological study design, the undisputable finding of our paper is the fact that the highest CVD prevalence can be found in countries with the highest carbohydrate consumption, whereas the lowest CVD prevalence is typical of countries with the highest intake of fat and protein. The polarity between these geographical patterns is striking."

However, if you did a study of 96,469 7th Day Adventists you might find that "significant associations with vegetarian diets were detected for cardiovascular mortality, noncardiovascular noncancer mortality, renal mortality, and endocrine mortality".

Sounds great, however, if you look at the study, they excluded 11,956 of the 96,469 because they'd had a history of a specific prior cancer diagnosis (except nonmelanoma skin cancers) or of cardiovascular disease (CVD) (coronary bypass, angioplasty/stent, carotid artery surgery, myocardial infarction, or stroke; or angina pectoris or congestive heart failure treated in the past 12 months.

I'm guessing they'd have gotten a different result if they'd included these people. Why were they excluded? I don't know or understand why.

And of course they were comparing to "non-vegetarians". But how else did their diet and lifestyle differ from veg*ns? More junk food? More carbs? More stress? Less social cohesion? Less exercise? Who knows?

This is the study that is often used by veg*ns to make the claim that a veg*n diet is healthier than one with meat:

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1710093?resultClick=24
 


thank you yes that is a very intelligent argumentation... I think you have some very true points in what you have written here.. thanks a lot...
 
and the higher rate of smokers in very poor counties not mentioned...

and users of bad kinds of plant oils..

just a thought of why maybe they were excluded... maybe it was a long term study over several years, and there was a selection also among the meat-eating average people participating, so that at the beginning of the study all participans were like suspected to be healthy at the start of the study...
 
Last edited:
Any eat for me completely stops my colon working and cannot be transported through it. Random odd studies show up to 50% of diabetic may get problems with stomachs/colons/small intestines etc....

I just would not like anybody to get problems eating large amounts of meat when they may be suffering any stomach problems. Some stomachs etc cannot handle such fibrous foods..

Please be careful before making any changes to diets and ensure you watch and monitor effects of it with cholesterol, bowel movements, iron, b12, vit d etc...
 


one of the newer suggested reasons of getting diabetes is also that people with very high levels of iron- in their blood do have a much higher "chance" of getting diabetes... this is probably one of the rarer possible reasons for getting diabetes...
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/30/7/1926

but now it is also mentioned in connection to -pregnancy-diabetes on this cites FrontPage : http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2016...her-risk-of-developing-diabetes-94333639.html

when eating very high loads of meat , especially red meat one can I guess get an iron-poisoning as the most easily uptaken iron comes from meat-foods the iron in plants are much more difficult to uptake..., the high levels of iron in pregnant woman could also be caused from eating to many vitamin pills when having a foodstyle that already is adquate in iron-level,

especially in GB there are really many with hereditary tendence to high levels of iron, and among those many do get diabetes...http://www.uptodate.com/contents/hemochromatosis-hereditary-iron-overload-beyond-the-basics
 
Last edited:
Meat is pretty much digested before any of it gets to the colon. Mostly what makes it to colon is vegetable matter.
https://authoritynutrition.com/8-ridiculous-myths-about-meat-and-health/
http://www.gnolls.org/1444/does-meat-rot-in-your-colon-no-what-does-beans-grains-and-vegetables/
 
Some diabetics and non diabetics can get idiopathic or opoid induced problems with stomachs and small intestines and colons... many of us cannot digest meat.. even pmants though can be very difficult.. mashed plants can travel though whilst meats especially with higher fats are troublesome..

I'm certainly not an expert on what part of our bodies from swallowing to anus start the probs... but just that one size as always does not fit all...
 
I'm not an expert either, but I would guess that fibre would generally be more of a problem to the digestive system than meat. Meat would be more of a problem if you had gall bladder issues, which would make processing the fat difficult. Often digestive issues lower down in the digestive tact clear up if fibre is reduced. Unfortunately the common, uninformed advice for constipation treatment is to increase fibre, which often makes things worse.
 
Like one can get neuropathy nerve disturbance/ nerve-death from diabetes similar kind of damage can happen in the digestive system (and all over in our body) so to talk of the average problems and diseases in the nondiabetic population will in some cases NOT be enough and the right explanation
 
Last edited:

Point taken.
 


Totally agree with less fibre... my gastrochap totally agrees with less fiber the better... eating mush is boring though!!
 
What do you think on the studies (supposedly) of plant eating only for cancer??
Or it being advised to minimise certain meats to less offen because of cancer?
Only from aspect of lower carbing may give better statistics for one disease but impact on health for another?
 

I suspect they are bunk. Comparing a veg*n diet to the standard western diet full of refined carbs, refined oils, and factory processed food full of artificial chemicals will result in the veg*n diet being shown to be more healthy. I could have guessed that without any studies. I doubt it has anything to do with meat.
 
I don't have enough knowledge yet to form an educated opinion , only diagnosed 2 months ago , I've started a reduced carb diet reduced to about 100 and I've lost 2 stones , I don't test myself so can't give a blood glucose reading but am due the next hba1c in Jan . Certainly feel better .
 
Hb1Ac only gives an average over about 2 to 3 months and tells you nothing about your day to day fluctuations highs or lows personally I would get a meter and test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…