Most Vegetarians Are Unhealthy - Importance Of Dietary Protein.

[radeldudel]

Originally Posted by moviestar

I love animals, that's why I eat them.

I love plants, too, like I love animals. And I believe *everything* has a soul, so for me it does not change anything if I eat meat or not.

Remember, your belief shapes your world. If you belief vegan is unhealthy it will work for you like that and you'll see a lot examples why you are right. Likewise, if you belief animals got souls but plants got none, it will change your own soul depending on what you eat.
And if you believe going vegan will give you more energy (like Steve), your reality will try its best to follow along.

Everyone of us has, and creates his own reality. And his reality will try to work like his belief tells him.

So be nice, you all are right of course. Right for your own reality, for yourself.
We are all creators. We are all one.

Love you!

[Keith]

I'm not sure why people are wasting so much energy replying to this troll.

If he was genuinely interested in informing people his post would have been called something like "Things for new vegetarians to watch out for".

Instead he chose a 'shock' title and launched straight into attacking a strawman.

IMO, let the troll have its "pay attention to me" tantrum and don't waste any more energy responding to it.

[EDIT] P.S. The linked article is considerably better. The original post appears to be the most vitriolic parts of that article/blog post posted out of context. eg. In the article he disclaimed the cautionary example first, rather than using it to open with.

BTW, a couple of typos in that article: thinkn->think and becasue-> because

[da1prophet]

Originally Posted by Keith

I'm not sure why people are wasting so much energy replying to this troll.

If he was genuinely interested in informing people his post would have been called something like "Things for new vegetarians to watch out for".

Instead he chose a 'shock' title and launched straight into attacking a strawman.

IMO, let the troll have its "pay attention to me" tantrum and don't waste any more energy responding to it.

[EDIT] P.S. The linked article is considerably better. The original post appears to be the most vitriolic parts of that article/blog post posted out of context. eg. In the article he disclaimed the cautionary example first, rather than using it to open with.

BTW, a couple of typos in that article: thinkn->think and becasue-> because

I agree with you in theory, but I think that the reason people--myself included--have gone to the trouble to respond to him is that his sort of trolling is antithetical to this forum's purposes and that very little of it has gone on in here. Typically ignoring trolls like this is, as you suggest, the right idea...

[escapee]

I believe the title is as controversial as "10 reasons you should never get a job" or " health studies are worthless" . It's controversial and fun to get into discussion.

Peace

[Conan Stevens]

Judging by the number of intelligent responses this post got I don't think it qualifies as a trolling session. Also it seems some Vegetarians learnt something new - and that never hurt anyone (well maybe emotionally, but that would be because their ideals were emotionally based)

[impaul99]

Conan:

1) It is perfectly possible to have a healthy diet eating no meat.

2) Some vegetarians, especially the ones who are in it for the fad factor don't eat healthy. Just because you're vegetarian doesn't mean you're healthy.

3) Meat eaters suffer the same fate, however, if they don't have a proper diet.

4) In North America, unlike Cambodia, the average person consumes WAY more than enough protein per day. I think the average is about 2-3times the recommended amount. It is very easy to consume the proper amount of protein, including all the different types of amino acids by combining different types of proteins throughout the day. They don't have to be eaten at the same time either.

5) Just because your physique is muscular, it doesn't necessarily mean you are healthy. FIT and HEALTHY are not the same thing. I'm not saying you're not healthy, but I'm just saying we can't tell by looking at a picture.

What I would suggest, if you'd like to really help people is to change your article to say something like "HOW TO BE A HEALTHY VEGETARIAN" and include in it your research for what most vegetarians are missing, instead of saying that most vegetarians are unhealthy.

Also your quote on your website says:

Yes Mr. Pavlina I am talking to you. If you are going to spout off about Vegetarianism being healthy then have the common sense to research it and provide proper advice to people genuinely interested in their health. And YES protein is important, to thinkn otherwise is plain stupid.

I have not read anywhere on Steve's site where he says to cut out protein out of your diet. He simply advocates getting it from vegetarian sources.

6) I still eat meat, but mostly because it tastes good to me, but I fully realize that red meat is not good for me due to it's high saturated fat content.

7) You're a big guy. Don't beat me up.

[escapee]

4) In North America, unlike Cambodia, the average person consumes WAY more than enough protein per day. I think the average is about 2-3times the recommended amount. It is very easy to consume the proper amount of protein, including all the different types of amino acids by combining different types of proteins throughout the day. They don't have to be eaten at the same time either.

The current obesity problem in North America isn't high protein consumption but high refined carbohydrate intake in the form of flour based products, sugar, soda, bread, potatoes chips and the deadly trans fat/high vege oil consumption. Take those human made fake food and fake fat off the meal ppl would start living great. It really takes alot fake food and bad oil to manifest a disease called cancer or heart disease.


The French eats more saturated fats than the American in general but why they have much lower heart problem ? Our ancestors eat alot more butter, animal oil and saturated fats than us but why they werent as proned to chronic illness than us ? How can you explain such a discrepancy ? The answer lies in The Skinny on Fats. I hope you would read the article in full .

Amazon.com: Eat Fat, Lose Fat: The Healthy Alternative to Trans Fats: Books: Mary Enig,Sally Fallon

[escapee]

Enjoy reading !

Myths and Truths About Osteoporosis (Do high protein diets cause bone loss?)

The 1972 study comparing British vegetarians and omnivores calls for additional comment. Bone density determinations through absorptiometry or X-ray are highly subject to error26, especially in unblinded studies where researchers may be biased towards obtaining pre-determined results. Subjects were matched merely for age, height and sex, but not for body composition and dietary habits such as smoking and sugar, coffee and alcohol consumption. A group of omnivores that smokes, drinks and indulges in a calcium-poor diet of refined carbohydrates will naturally have more of a tendency to bone loss than a group of health-conscious lacto-ovo vegetarians who consume plenty of dairy products. (British vegetarians do, in fact, tend to be very health conscious, avoiding not only meat but also alcohol, cigarettes, coffee and soft drinks. Unlike American vegetarians, they understand the importance of calcium-rich whole dairy products in the diet and eat plentifully of milk, cheese, butter and eggs.) When researchers compare the effects of high-meat diets to normal diets in the same person, no adverse effects are found, even over extended periods of time.27

Individuals who find they do better on high meat diets need not, therefore, worry about osteoporosis, as long as their diet includes complementary animal fats, plenty of calcium and a variety of other properly prepared whole foods.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by escapee

The current obesity problem in North America isn't high protein consumption but high refined carbohydrate intake in the form of flour based products, sugar, soda, bread, potatoes chips and the deadly trans fat/high vege oil consumption. Take those human made fake food and fake fat off the meal ppl would start living great.

Yup I agree. I didn't say protein caused obesity. I just said in North America we don't have a "too little protein" problem like they might in Cambodia (in response to Conan's comments about Cambodia).

[impaul99]

When researchers compare the effects of high-meat diets to normal diets in the same person, no adverse effects are found, even over extended periods of time.27

Ok then. Read the following from "The China Study":

...The aim of these efforts in the Philippines was simple: make sure that children were getting as much protein as possible. It was widely thought that much of the childhood malnutrition in the world was caused by a lack of protein, especially from animal-based foods. Universities and governments around the world were working to alleviate a perceived “protein gap” in the
developing world.

In this project, however, I uncovered a dark secret. Children who ate the highest-protein diets were the ones most likely to get liver cancer! They were the children of the wealthiest families.

I then noticed a research report from India that had some very provocative, relevant findings. Indian researchers had studied two groups of rats. In one group, they administered the cancer causing aflatoxin, then fed a diet that was composed of 20% protein, a level near what many of us consume in the West. In the other group, they administered the same amount of aflatoxin,
but then fed a diet that was only composed of 5% protein. Incredibly, every single animal that consumed the 20% protein diet had evidence of liver cancer, and every single animal that consumed a 5% protein diet avoided liver cancer. It was a 100 to 0 score, leaving no doubt that nutrition trumped chemical carcinogens, even very potent carcinogens, in controlling cancer.

This information countered everything I had been taught. It was heretical to say that protein wasn’t healthy, let alone say it promoted cancer. It was a defining moment in my career. Investigating such a provocative question so early in my career was not a very wise choice.

Questioning protein and animal-based foods in general ran the risk of my being labeled a heretic, even if it passed the test of “good science.”
But I never was much for following directions just for the sake of following directions. When I first learned to drive a team of horses or herd cattle, to hunt animals, to fish our creek or to work in the fields, I came to accept that independent thinking was part of the deal. It had to be. Encountering problems in the field meant that I had to figure out what to do next. It was a
great classroom, as any farm boy can tell you. That sense of independence has stayed with me until today.

So, faced with a difficult decision, I decided to start an in-depth laboratory program that would investigate the role of nutrition, especially protein, in the development of cancer. My colleagues and I were cautious in framing our hypotheses, rigorous in our methodology and
conservative in interpreting our findings. I chose to do this research at a very basic science level, studying the biochemical details of cancer formation. It was important to understand not only whether but also how protein might promote cancer. It was the best of all worlds. By
carefully following the rules of good science, I was able to study a provocative topic without provoking knee-jerk responses that arise with radical ideas. Eventually, this research became handsomely funded for twenty-seven years by the best reviewed and most competitive funding
sources [mostly the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the American Cancer Society and the American Institute for Cancer Research]. Then our results were reviewed (a second time) for publication in many of the best scientific journals.

What we found was shocking. Low-protein diets inhibited the initiation of cancer by aflatoxin, regardless of how much of this carcinogen was administered to these animals. After cancer
initiation was completed, low-protein diets also dramatically blocked subsequent cancer growth. In other words, the cancer-producing effects of this highly carcinogenic chemical were rendered insignificant by a low-protein diet. In fact, dietary protein proved to be so powerful in its
effect that we could turn on and turn off cancer growth simply by changing the level consumed.

Furthermore, the amounts of protein being fed were those that we humans routinely consume. We didn’t use extraordinary levels, as is so often the case in carcinogen studies. But that’s not all. We found that not all proteins had this effect. What protein consistently and strongly promoted cancer? Casein, which makes up 87% of cow’s milk protein, promoted all
stages of the cancer process. What type of protein did not promote cancer, even at high levels of intake? The safe proteins were from plants, including wheat and soy. As this picture came
into view, it began to challenge and then to shatter some of my most cherished assumptions.

These experimental animal studies didn’t end there. I went on to direct the most comprehensive study of diet, lifestyle and disease ever done with humans in the history of biomedical research. It was a massive undertaking jointly arranged through Cornell University, Oxford University and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine. The New York Times called it the “Grand Prix of Epidemiology.” This project surveyed a vast range of diseases and diet and lifestyle factors in rural China and, more recently, in Taiwan. More
commonly known as the China Study, this project eventually produced more than 8,000 statistically significant associations between various dietary factors and disease!
What made this project especially remarkable is that, among the many associations that are relevant to diet and disease, so many pointed to the same finding: people who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease. Even relatively small intakes of animal-based
food were associated with adverse effects. People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. These results could not be ignored. From the
initial experimental animal studies on animal protein effects to this massive human study on dietary patterns, the findings proved to be consistent. The health implications of consuming either animal or plant-based nutrients were remarkably different.

Here's the link to the book: ::: THE CHINA STUDY :::

Still want to eat meat?

[moviestar]

First of all, rats are not humans.
Second, Philippinians are a selected group of people that might tolerate protein differently.
Third examine who sponsored the study. I'll bet 10$ that soy companies did this research.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by moviestar

First of all, rats are not humans.
Second, Philippinians are a selected group of people that might tolerate protein differently.
Third examine who sponsored the study. I'll bet 10$ that soy companies did this research.

1) The study started with animals, but later moved onto humans. The research results they're talking about are from humans.

2) Phillipians weren't the only ones tested. THat was just one part of the study.

3) Nope. The research wasn't paid for by SOY companies. The major funding came from National Institutes of Health (NIH), the American Cancer Society and the American Institute for Cancer Research who have no hidden conspiracy agenda to promote SOY or vegetarian products.

Also, not targeting the following specifically at YOU, but rather the meat eating/defending group of people:

That whole arguement of discrediting research studies that show that meat is bad because suppedly there's a vegetarian conspiracy involved with the research being paid for by SOY companies is kinda weak. How do you know that PRO-MEAT studies aren't paid for by the Beef and Cattle companies? If you're going to discredit research studies due to bias caused by their $ backing, then you have to discount ALL of them, not just the ones that disagree with your point of view.

As I said before, I'm a meat eater. I still eat meat. But only because it tastes good, not because it's good for me. I know it's crap and am slowly decreasing my consumption of it. If I had the discipline, I'd cut out all red meat right now. I've seen enough evidence that it's bad stuff. And I have no spiritual reason for it either. Meaning, although I like animals, I wouldn't stop eating meat just because of that reason. For me it would be a purely health related issue.

I see meat just like Coca-Cola. We all know it's bad for us. We drink it anways, because it tastes good and water tastes like crap. So for now I still drink it once in a while but I know it's bad, just like eating a donut. What's funny about MEAT is that even though there is overwhelming evidence that it isn't good for you, people get so offended by the suggestion that it's bad for us, you'd think we're asking to remove their testicles or something. It's like if you don't eat MEAT you're not a REAL MAN. If you don't eat meat you must be WEAK. It's like we don't want to give it up because it reminds us of the caveman days we miss where we could eat meat and walk around with clubs wacking women in the head and pulling them into our caves by their hair or something.

If you need to eat meat to feel like a man, then keep eating it. I'm not going to stop you, nor should anybody else. But to suggest that one MUST eat meat otherwise they will die of malnutrition is pretty ignorant.

I'm not even going to start with how bad MILK is for you either.

The battle between MEAT vs. VEGETARIAN is and will still be a battle of EGO's for a long time.