A good reason to go vegan

[child]

Originally Posted by Sam988

I got the whole point "Animals also have rights and blabla"

They're not human, -while i believe they should be treated better- i think you people should first focus on saving other human lives like pepple in africa who still die from hunger. After all humans are fine, then move to making animals be finer too.

There's so much pain going on this world for humans, first lets take care of us, our specie, then move to other species.

What i mean is that, instead of wasting more money to buy clothes that have no leather and eating non animal food or whatever, waste this extra money you spend to donate to charity.



By the way, i love meat, but thats not the reason i hold this opinion.

Can you save humans by killing the world?

How does it help to hungry Africans when you eat meat? You are using more resources than you should when you eat meat (water, land etc.) Why should a hungry African be grateful for that?

Why do you think that humans should come first? Really why? Because you are a human? Hmm, that wont impress the jury.

[escapee]

My health comes first (so do my family members ).

To balance compassion for animals with nutritional needs

Bios of vegetarians, ex-vegetarians, and others in search of health, not dogma...

Say no to Vegan extemism and dietary racism

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by child

Can you save humans by killing the world?

Killing the world? You suggest that by feeding from other animals, humans are killing the world?

The stronger feed from the weaker. Nature has ALWAYS been this way. Its not a matter of killing the world at all.

Originally Posted by child

How does it help to hungry Africans when you eat meat? You are using more resources than you should when you eat meat (water, land etc.) Why should a hungry African be grateful for that?

Good point, i havent really thought about that, thanks for this point of view

Originally Posted by child

Why do you think that humans should come first? Really why? Because you are a human? Hmm, that wont impress the jury.

Yea thats EXACTLY why. Im a human, nothing could possibly be more logical than putting my own specie in front of the other species (even though i like my dog more than some humans ).

Of course im very against making other species suffer for no reason, but even the meat industry has a reason to be, which is giving meat (very tasteful, therefore a joy, a pleasure) to humans instead of grass. Also, meat has its health benefits for the human body.

[ferociousgoals]

escapee said: You know what i find funny about most of the vegans ? All of them seem to be extremely confident with their health status and knowledge on nutrition (The china study syndrome). Some even think that trans fat,processed food and refined sugar are somehow less dangerous than animal protein and fat. There's even one hard core vegan who think that a diabetic patient should be given ample amount of "low fat" sweet fruits and white rice. Some think we dont need essential fatty acids for living because there "oxidize". I'm glad it doesnt happen here (cough ... cough ) very often . But it does happen on a few vegetarian forums that i frequently visit (it's just so sad ).

If you do not "need my saving" ( cough .. cough ) then let your experience be your saviour. Be noted that when crap happens, the effects would be fast and your confidence would be shattered into million pieces.

The number of assumptions you make are astounding. I have not read the China Study. I don't eat transfats or refined sugar or white grains. My diet is approved by my non-vegan doctors and is responsible for my defeat of a medical condition that supposedly can't be managed without harsh medications. I would never give nutritional advice to a diabetic. Yet you have lumped me and all vegans (including the owner of this site!) into one big, stupid, helpless pile.

You mention that you hang out in other vegetarian forums too--why? It feels like you are determined to find failure in people who don't agree with you and with things like this: "Be noted that when crap happens, the effects would be fast and your confidence would be shattered into million pieces," that you are actively WISHING harm onto people who do not instantly succumb to your ideas and million internet junk-science links.

I have no problem with meat-eaters (yet another vegan stereotype shattered). I respect whatever diet works for each individual even if I wouldn't follow it. The majority of vegan threads on this forum are full of what is rapidly becoming disrespect ("dietary racism"??) has led me to believe that this perhaps isn't the place for me. Like not watching the local news, I have made an effort to not frequent venues where the mood is one of my-way-or-the-highway or I feel that I am not respected as an intelligent and conscious individual. Thirty-day no-forum trial? Maybe starting tomorrow.

Sorry for the tirade, everyone, it's just that there are so, so few places online that are not open season on vegans and I feel like this was one of them when I first started.

[escapee]

Yet you have lumped me and all vegans (including the owner of this site!) into one big, stupid, helpless pile.

Did i said most ? or should i change to some

Why would you call those uninformed vegans a stupid, helpless pile ? jesus buddha it's offensive to me, where is the compassion to those uninformed vegan who killed their baby or harmed themselves with a strict diet? Wait they deserve no more compassion than animal ? I would'nt call them stupid and helpless pile, it would be like calling my past self the same thing. I would call them uninformed, that's it, that's what i intended on my previous post and you twisted my intention to something more sinister, this is really uncalled for .
You know once they are able to get past the misconception and idealogy that continue to blind them (sometimes through disastrous health consequence ). There would be a wealth of conflicting but life saving information (including those info who once thought to be "junk science" by most of the vegans - Eg : Weston price, Brian peskin, Udo, Mercola just to name a few ) waiting for you to "decipher".

Sorry for the tirade, everyone, it's just that there are so, so few places online that are not open season on vegans and I feel like this was one of them when I first started.

This can be explained by Steve's polarity . The readers here are not predominantly vegans, so a thread like this would certainly invite heated discussion. My apology if my post offended you in anyway.

Peace to all

[joey m]

Ferociousgoals,

Try not to let it get to you. There are still vegans on this site who think and feel as you do. Most particularly, don't let somebody like Escapee chase you off the site. I don't think many people take Escapee's advice or comments seriously -- so it would be a shame to let someone like that (or anyone else for that matter) keep your voice from this forum.

Best of luck to you! Your voice is important!

Best,
Joey

[Adrienne]

Originally Posted by joey m

Ferociousgoals,

Try not to let it get to you. There are still vegans on this site who think and feel as you do. Most particularly, don't let somebody like Escapee chase you off the site. I don't think many people take Escapee's advice or comments seriously -- so it would be a shame to let someone like that (or anyone else for that matter) keep your voice from this forum.

Best of luck to you! Your voice is important!

Best,
Joey

I wouldn't say people dont take Escapee seriously. Escapee has alot of good points. The best one (in my opinion) being eat healthy and make sure you get what your body needs if you are a vegan. That same point i make to meat eaters as well. Escapee (ahhh the hard thing with forums is you dont know whether to use he or she pronoun!) is very passionate about not wanting people to be sick from not eating right. While he/she might consintrate on vegans (and i understand this, i know a couple junk food vegans who live off mcdonalds frys and crackers), the point is really valid for everyone.

I hope no one leaves. People are bound to disagree, but i think there are alot of people here (myself, many of the mods, the admins, many members) who are vegan and make a point to stand up for it.

Adrienne

[escapee]

Oh yes, dont take my advice or Joey's one (eg: Sugar, DI water, raw brocolli ) as real, but you can always keep those info as a reference. THe most important thing is that you listen to your body, Dont let the ultra strict vegan idealogy stop you from making a more healthy dietary change when necessary. Dont let someone like Joey imposes his/her idealogy of purity/veganism on your mind. Dont let my comment/opinion influence your dietary decision. Read as much as possible, It doesnt matter if it's from anti or pro vegan source. Read them all and find the common ground. You would learn so much about nutrition ( i bet you are already an expert on nutrition as sounded on your post). Your health always come first. Cruel free Ideology comes second.

[joey m]

Adrienne,

While I appreciate what you say, Escapee's knowledge is unfortunately very limited, and her advice is often quite terrible. I trust her advice comes from trying to help people, but we really would be far better off without it.

Every time I get into a discussion with her, I am amazed at how little knowledge she has in comparison to how much certainty she has in her opinions. It is always interesting asking Escapee to support her points with scientific studies -- each time I have asked she cites studies that don't even support her position, and often don't even touch on the topic we are discussing. While her posts are often amusing, they are also quite frightening if anybody does take her advice seriously.

I also think you may be in the minority regarding your opinions of Escapee since she has angered so many people with her posts and attacks.

Best,
Joey

[escapee]

Every time I get into a discussion with her, I am amazed at how little knowledge she has in comparison to how much certainty she has in her opinions. It is always interesting asking Escapee to support her points with scientific studies -- each time I have asked she cites studies that don't even support her position, and often don't even touch on the topic we are discussing. While her posts are often amusing, they are also quite frightening if anybody does take her advice seriously.

I've always worked my best to show everybody the "scientific studies", professional opinion or evidence that backed up my position on topic we discussed on sugar, protein, soy infant formula, DI water, Broccoli & act. Where is the proof for such accusation? Are you hallucinating? Now you are really frightening me Joey ....

I also think you may be in the minority regarding your opinions of Escapee since she has angered so many people with her posts and attacks.

I was inspired by Steve's article on "10 reasons you should never get a job " that angered lots of people". But i must admit that i have been wasting too much time in angering the wrong type of people. Sometimes i asked, (worth it?)

[joey m]

Escapee:

Your posts always amaze me:

Oh yes, dont take my advice or Joey's one (eg: Sugar, DI water, raw brocolli ) as real, but you can always keep those info as a reference

While I continue to marvel at your stance on raw broccoli, I am curious as to when I advocated sugar? That is not one of my philosophies, although I do recommend eating low-sugar fruits. Your intentional misrepresentations of my previous statements continue to prove your lack of ability to engage in an intelligent discussion.

I do agree with Escapee's sentiments that you should educate yourself about nutrition. Certainly don't take my word or Escapee's for anything -- find out for yourself.

Escapee, the fact that your posts continue to have frequent spelling, grammatical, punctuation and language mistakes betrays your attempts to sound knowledgeable or intelligent. You may wish to work on this if you wish people to take you seriously. We all make a couple mistakes because we rush to write these messages, but your mistakes are above and beyond what can be considered incidental.

Best,
Joey

[escapee]

Sugar Vs Candida ? Have you forgotten that you called that a myth where i was able to show you scientifc proof ? Would you want me to show you again?

Escapee, the fact that your posts continue to have frequent spelling, grammatical, punctuation and language mistakes betrays your attempts to sound knowledgeable or intelligent.

Oh, I dont need to write a proper sentence to communicate with a person who made false and unjustified accusationnn ( oh another mistake my apolozy).

[joey m]

Where is the proof for such accusation?

Please review the following threads to find instances of Escapee making claims without legitimate scientific proof:

Best water to drink

Concerns about vegan diet

Calling all vegetarians/vegans to be concerned on Soy products (again!)

Here are three threads in which Escapee claims to have science, and then only quotes junk science or science that doesn't even support her positions. For anyone who hasn't read these threads, it would be interesting to read through the entire threads to see what I mean.

Best,
Joey

[joey m]

[QUOTE=escapee;73487]Sugar Vs Candida ? Have you forgotten that you called that a myth where i was able to show you scientifc proof ? Would you want me to show you again?

Does this mean you didn't understand my point at the time? I will repost exactly what I wrote the first time below. Here is what I said in that thread:

I'll start with one that I consider to be an internet myth. First, internet gurus like to blame candida for almost everything, when in fact it is rarely the cause of major problems. Further, fruit actually will help lead to an environment that will decrease candida, not increase them. I don't know why this internet myth is so pervasive.

How does this post correlate with what you claimed I said? Are you saying fruits and sugar are one and the same? That would be an interesting position to take that goes against the 10,000's of peer-reviewed studies showing how fruit prevents various forms of cancer, stroke, heart disease etc.

[escapee]

Yes, thanks for posting those links .

The following are examples that Joey regarded as junk science.

Entrez PubMed


http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_...ientschap1.pdf

[escapee]

Are you saying fruits and sugar are one and the same?

If you overeat on fruits, the consequence would be the same.

That would be an interesting position to take that goes against the 10,000's of peer-reviewed studies showing how fruit prevents various forms of cancer, stroke, heart disease etc.

10 000 of peer reviewed studies ? Can you back that up with some good studies that provide a definite answer ?
I'm sorry , I believe fruit and fiber may not be the ultimate answer to cancer. I'm more of a believer of faulty fat metabolism caused by modern processed food.

Please read
http://www.brianpeskin.com/NEXUS Hid...ry Article.pdf

Udo's Oil, Flax Seed Oil, Essential Fatty Acids, Omega 3 > Articles, Writings & Research on Udo's Choice™ Products!

Effect of {gamma}-Linolenic Acid on the Transcriptional Activity of the Her-2/neu (erbB-2) Oncogene -- Menendez et al. 97 (21): 1611 -- JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

[Adrienne]

Joey
Her posts do not anger me. While i certinally dont agree that being vegan is bad since I love being a vegan and i am more happier for it both in the fact i am not killing to eat and i feel great.

Escappee and i disagree on alot but i see her as very passionate about what she says even if it is limited.

Tho really, isn't all of our knolwedge limited? I know i feel i am making the best choice for me and for the earth.

I know escappee causes a reaction in a lot of people. Mostly, i am happy she has passion for what she talks about. I disagree with her whole heartedly alot. For example, i am a distilled water drinking, fasting, vegan and raw eating person.

I think she has alot of opinions and gets her opinions based on different evidence.

There are all sorts of studies that say being a vegan is bad. There are all sorts of studies that say eating meat is bad.

The ones who say eating meat is bad to stike more of a cord with me. I find thie evidence to be stronger, and my own experments with it find that eating a vegan diet rocks.

Adrienne

[escapee]

The ones who say eating meat is bad to stike more of a cord with me. I find thie evidence to be stronger, and my own experments with it find that eating a vegan diet rocks.

Have you read anything about essential fatty acids? The kind of fats we need(in grams per day) that are easily destroyed by heat, O2 and light ?

http://www.brianpeskin.com/NEXUS%20H...%20Article.pdf

The fats that heal, the fats that kill

[escapee]

I'm taking a break from this .

[Adrienne]

Originally Posted by escapee

Have you read anything about essential fatty acids? The kind of fats we need(in grams per day) that are easily destroyed by heat, O2 and light ?

http://www.brianpeskin.com/NEXUS%20H...%20Article.pdf

The fats that heal, the fats that kill

actually yes i have read both of those as well as another artical on the brianpeskin page about how the 3 to 6 omega 3 ratio was figued out.

I agree with alot of what he says. As i have pointed out, i do supplment my diet with omega 3s and omega 6s. It was one of the things i learned when i went vegan.

I do alot of reading and alot of research.

Thanks for pointing out those links incase i had not seen them before, they are good references.

Adrienne

[joey m]

Adrienne,

I really like what you have to say. I'm sure I could learn from you! You seem to be both wise and patient. Unfortunately, I see somebody like Escapee and I fear people will listen to less than optimal nutritional advice. She attempts to come off as an expert, but as you can tell, I view her in very much a different light.

Escapee -- I am happy to let the previous threads speak for themselves. So no need to comment there.

As for your fruit comments, that is just another area where your advice is dangerous and goes way against the grain. Are you really asking me to post studies showing the benefits of fruit? Well, just to be agreeable, here are a few recent ones:

Eur J Cancer. 2005 Sep;41(13):1931-40.

J Hum Hypertens. 2007 Apr 19; [Epub ahead of print]

Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2007 Apr;1100:470-85.

Those are just a few, but all you have to do is go to pub med and you will find endless studies. While I suggest eating more fruits and vegetables, you suggest limiting fruits and certain raw vegetables like broccoli. Well, I guess that should speak for itself.

[escapee]

Fruit and vege for total cancer protection ? forget about it.

Study: Fruit, Vegetables Useless Against Breast Cancer

Does a diet rich in fruit and vegetables lower breast cancer risk? New research contradicts the results of earlier reports that suggested a protective benefit. The latest study, published in this week's JAMA, found no link between eating fruits and vegetables and a subsequent decreased risk for breast cancer, among hundreds of thousands of women.Carla H. van Gils, Ph.D., of the University Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands, and colleagues examined how the intake of total and specific vegetable and fruit groups is related to breast cancer risk among participants in the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study, a large prospective collaboration project carried out in 10 European countries.

"[T]he findings from this study confirm the data from the largest pooled analysis to date, in that no large protective effects for vegetable or fruit intake in relation to breast cancer can be observed," the authors note.

DO FRUITS AND VEGETABLES PROTECT AGAINST BOWEL CANCER?

They conclude "high consumption of fruit and vegetables did not appear to be protective against cancers of the colon or rectum in our large U.S. cohort".

Fiber Not Protective for Colon Cancer

There are plenty of good reasons to eat a fiber-rich diet, but lowering colorectal cancer risk may not be among them.

Junk science or not, you be the judge .

[joey m]

Congratulations Escapee!!! That is the first good post I have seen from you. All science -- and from actual legitimate sources. Not to sound too condescending, but I am proud of you! So now, maybe we can have an intelligent discussion.

I believe there are some good reasons why some studies are coming back negatively towards fruits and vegetables. Now, the vast majority still show very positive correlations between fruit and vegetable intake and lower incidence of major disease like cancer, heart disease, diabetes etc.

But, why do some show only marginal benefits? Well, the major fiber studies done years ago showing no major correlation with reduced colon cancer were very flawed studies. Instead of testing for fiber naturally found in vegetation, it used supplemental fiber which has none of the phytochemical benefits that actual vegetation has. It is not surprising that fiber on its own had limited impact -- but we could expect actual fruits to have significant impact. For instance, refer to the following studies:

Anticancer Res. 2007 Mar-Apr;27(2):937-48.

Nutr Cancer. 2006;54(1):69-78.

Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Jan 1;13(1):350-5.

J Nutr. 2007 Jan;137(1):31-6.

Here are 2 different articles analyzing the above study:

Fruit May Sway Colon Cancer Risk

Eating fruit may prevent colon cancer - Cancer - MSNBC.com

For the other studies which actually involved an increased intake of fruits and vegetables, that increase was likely too minimal to have a drastic effect. Let me explain why I say this:

Essentially, what we eat in childhood has more of an impact on disease than what we eat later in life. Accordingly, small changes in what we eat early in our lives have a far greater effect than small changes later in life. To have the same protective benefits later in life, we need to more radically change our diets. So, it does not surprise me that adding in a few more fruits and vegetables later in life does not drastically alter certain cancer risks. But a more dramatic change (which was not what was done in the studies you pointed out), should show greater differences.

Here are some other good studies done on disease and fruit and vegetable intake:

The effect of fruit and vegetable intake on risk for coronary heart disease, Joshipura KJ, Hu FB, Manson JE, et al., Ann Intern Med 2001;134:1106-1114

Fruit and vegetable intake in relation to risk of ischemic stroke, Joshipura KJ, Ascherio A, Manson JE, et al., JAMA 1999;282:1233-1239

Diet and cancer prevention, Greenwald P, Clifford CK, Milner JA., Eur J Cancer 2001;37:948-965

Food for thought.

Best,
Joey

[Adrienne]

Originally Posted by joey m

Adrienne,

I really like what you have to say. I'm sure I could learn from you! You seem to be both wise and patient. Unfortunately, I see somebody like Escapee and I fear people will listen to less than optimal nutritional advice. She attempts to come off as an expert, but as you can tell, I view her in very much a different light.

Thanks Joey. I am glad i can help out.
I try to be wise and patient; we shall see at the end of my life if i succeed.

When i started going vegan, i read over 1000 documents to try and give me a solid framework to learn and make it work for me. I fill in details by observation and life experience.

Some people will listen to her. Some people dont want to do the work to figure out how to be vegan and live well. The message i take from her is nutrition is important. I take that further and say regardless of what dietary restrictions you follow, nutrition is important. Getting what your body needs is one of the best things you can do for yourself. Vegans are an easy target for this because making vegan diet work requires alot of going against society's grain and learning what you need.

Adrienne

[escapee]

Congratulations Escapee!!! That is the first good post I have seen from you. All science -- and from actual legitimate sources. Not to sound too condescending, but I am proud of you! So now, maybe we can have an intelligent discussion.

(cough) I have always posted legitimimate scientific sources in my posts. I'm very glad that you finally recovered from the bout against severe hallucination by recognizing the value of those "scientific studies". Congratulation ! I'm proud of your progress and yea lets' have intelligent discussion.

What makes a science reliable ? ( As a former R&D engineer ) I would say it's repeatability and reproducibility. The subsequent larger studies show that veges and fruits(fiber) offer no protection at all against cancer. All these dissapointing LARGER studies easily override all the previous smaller studies done that showed otherwise.

I believe it's game over for fruits and vege against cancer. But there are good for preventing scurvy and possibly CVD

Instead of testing for fiber naturally found in vegetation, it used supplemental fiber which has none of the phytochemical benefits that actual vegetation has. It is not surprising that fiber on its own had limited impact

Oh yes, real vegetables are used, read them carefully.

JAMA -- Abstract: Intake of Fruits and Vegetables and Risk of Breast Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of Cohort Studies, February 14, 2001, Smith-Warner et al. 285 (6): 769

Context Some epidemiologic studies suggest that elevated fruit and vegetable consumption is associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer. However, most have been case-control studies in which recall and selection bias may influence the results. Additionally, publication bias may have influenced the literature on associations for specific fruit and vegetable subgroups.

Data Synthesis The studies included 7377 incident invasive breast cancer cases occurring among 351 825 women whose diet was analyzed at baseline. For comparisons of the highest vs lowest quartiles of intake, weak, nonsignificant associations were observed for total fruits (pooled multivariate RR, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-1.00; P for trend = .08), total vegetables (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.04; P for trend = .54), and total fruits and vegetables (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86-1.00; P for trend = .12). No additional benefit was apparent in comparisons of the highest and lowest deciles of intake. No associations were observed for green leafy vegetables, 8 botanical groups, and 17 specific fruits and vegetables.

Conclusion These results suggest that fruit and vegetable consumption during adulthood is not significantly associated with reduced breast cancer risk.

[escapee]

JAMA -- Abstract: Dietary Fiber Intake and Risk of Colorectal Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies, December 14, 2005, Park et al. 294 (22): 2849

Context Inconsistent findings from observational studies have continued the controversy over the effects of dietary fiber on colorectal cancer.

Results During 6 to 20 years of follow-up across studies, 8081 colorectal cancer cases were identified. For comparison of the highest vs lowest study- and sex-specific quintile of dietary fiber intake, a significant inverse association was found in the age-adjusted model (pooled RR = 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77-0.92). However, the association was attenuated and no longer statistically significant after adjusting for other risk factors (pooled multivariate RR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86-1.03). In categorical analyses compared with dietary fiber intake of 10 to <15 g/d, the pooled multivariate RR was 1.18 (95% CI, 1.05-1.31) for less than 10 g/d (11% of the overall study population); and RR, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.85-1.17) for 30 or more g/d. Fiber intake from cereals, fruits, and vegetables was not associated with risk of colorectal cancer. The pooled multivariate RRs comparing the highest vs lowest study- and sex-specific quintile of dietary fiber intake were 1.00 (95% CI, 0.90-1.11) for colon cancer and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.72-1.01) for rectal cancer (P for common effects by tumor site = .07).

Conclusions In this large pooled analysis, dietary fiber intake was inversely associated with risk of colorectal cancer in age-adjusted analyses. However, after accounting for other dietary risk factors, high dietary fiber intake was not associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer.

JAMA -- Abstract: Consumption of Vegetables and Fruits and Risk of Breast Cancer, January 12, 2005, van Gils et al. 293 (2): 183

Results During 1 486 402 person-years (median duration of follow-up, 5.4 years), 3659 invasive incident breast cancer cases were reported. No significant associations between vegetable or fruit intake and breast cancer risk were observed. Relative risks for the highest vs the lowest quintile were 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-1.14) for total vegetables, 1.09 (95% CI , 0.94-1.25) for total fruit, and 1.05 (95% CI , 0.92-1.20) for fruit and vegetable juices. For 6 specific vegetable subgroups no associations with breast cancer risk were observed either.

Conclusion Although the period of follow-up is limited for now, the results suggest that total or specific vegetable and fruit intake is not associated with risk for breast cancer.

[escapee]

JAMA -- Abstract: Low-Fat Dietary Pattern and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: The Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial, February 8, 2006, Howard et al. 295 (6): 655

Results By year 6, mean fat intake decreased by 8.2% of energy intake in the intervention vs the comparison group, with small decreases in saturated (2.9%), monounsaturated (3.3%), and polyunsaturated (1.5%) fat; increases occurred in intakes of vegetables/fruits (1.1 servings/d) and grains (0.5 serving/d). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, diastolic blood pressure, and factor VIIc levels were significantly reduced by 3.55 mg/dL, 0.31 mm Hg, and 4.29%, respectively; levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose, and insulin did not significantly differ in the intervention vs comparison groups. The numbers who developed CHD, stroke, and CVD (annualized incidence rates) were 1000 (0.63%), 434 (0.28%), and 1357 (0.86%) in the intervention and 1549 (0.65%), 642 (0.27%), and 2088 (0.88%) in the comparison group. The diet had no significant effects on incidence of CHD (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.06), stroke (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.90-1.15), or CVD (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.05). Excluding participants with baseline CVD (3.4%), the HRs (95% CIs) for CHD and stroke were 0.94 (0.86-1.02) and 1.02 (0.90-1.17), respectively. Trends toward greater reductions in CHD risk were observed in those with lower intakes of saturated fat or trans fat or higher intakes of vegetables/fruits.

Conclusions Over a mean of 8.1 years, a dietary intervention that reduced total fat intake and increased intakes of vegetables, fruits, and grains did not significantly reduce the risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD in postmenopausal women and achieved only modest effects on CVD risk factors, suggesting that more focused diet and lifestyle interventions may be needed to improve risk factors and reduce CVD risk.

[escapee]

Essentially, what we eat in childhood has more of an impact on disease than what we eat later in life. Accordingly, small changes in what we eat early in our lives have a far greater effect than small changes later in life.

Joey, You're giving a future death sentence (cancer) to those who are obese at the moment due to their past dietary lifestyle. I strongly believe a change can be made now to reverse many health challenges faced in adulthood but i'm afraid that when it comes to total cancer prevention, fruits and vegetables do not hold much promise.

Again, all these super large cohort studies should cast great uncertainly over the role fruit and vegetables on total cancer prevention. If you feel otherwise, then we should just wait for larger studies that involve millions of people for further confirmation while we stick with our own unique dietary choice. It's time consuming to argue over here, aren't we both need to work (productively) ?

[ginkgo]

Originally Posted by uberinquisitive

Ok...someone help me!

I am absolutely in love with the taste, texture, and "afterglow" of all sorts of meat. I adore foie gras, raw oysters, super rare prime ribs, dark meat chicken, Peking duck, organ meats (I'm something of a Hannibal Lecter, and will eat extreme delicacies).

You could try the fake meat in stores. Philadelphia has 3 vegetarian Chinese restaurants and they are great at fake meat dishes. Their fake duck tastes better than real duck. I have been vegetarian for decades but I loved eating meat more than anyone I ever met. It was most of my diet. I tried giving it up cold turkey and got sick. I had to get off it gradually. You have to find new things you like.

[joey m]

Escapee,

Some of what you posted holds water, but most does not. Your condemnation of fruits and vegetables makes little sense when you view the vast majority of studies out there, and it makes little sense even in light of some of the studies you posted.

The key isn't just to find studies that support your point, but to analyze the studies to see if they are in fact good studies.

Here is a response to the Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 295 No. 6, February 8, 2006, pp. 629-642. from Susan Mayne, PhD, a professor in the Yale University School of Medicine Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, and associate director at the Yale Cancer Center.

Study shows that more research is warranted

News of this study has generated a lot of interest, but unfortunately caused just as much confusion. Women are wondering if they should bother to eat a carrot stick rather than an ice cream bar, if it really doesn't make a difference anyway.

As a nutritional epidemiologist, this topic fascinates me. I think that women shouldn't discount this study.

Unfortunately, the media seems to have overly simplified the results by just saying that a low-fat diet hasn't helped reduce the risk of breast cancer.

Women still got less cancer
The media oversimplification of these results is unfortunate. While the study didn't prove by statistical standards that a low-fat diet cuts one's risk of breast cancer, the women who ate less fat, got less cancer — in fact, 9 percent less. Further, the benefit was both more dramatic (22 percent lower risk) and statistically significant in women with the highest fat intake at baseline.

And while I consider 9 percent still less, scientists won't determine whether a study proves an effect unless it hits a statistically significant level. Scientists will say, "How do we know that this reduction didn't just happen by chance?"
“All in all, the dietary modification group got fewer cases of breast cancer, and when they did get cancer, there was a 23 percent reduction in breast cancer mortality.”

While the dietary modification group did better than the comparison group, it wasn't statistically significant enough to call the study a success. That may change with additional follow-up. All in all, the dietary modification group got fewer cases of cancer, and when they did get cancer, there was a 23 percent reduction in breast cancer mortality.

Study difficult to carry out
From the start, the study had challenges. Scientists knew it would be hard to carry out, especially because it was such a large study and involved women who had only "volunteered" to modify their diets.

One of the first problems was really making sure that women were adhering to the new diet. Could they have been cheating and not owning up to it?

There is no biomarker that would show the researchers what the women were eating. Scientists couldn't test to see if their diet was low in fat. The closest marker they had was to check their body weight. The dietary modification group initially lost weight, but found it hard to sustain year after year. They did not see a big loss of weight in the later years. This likely means that women found it tough to stick to the diet as the years progressed. I have to say, it was a tough intervention to follow.

Women cut both good and bad fats
Second, the women were asked to cut all fats. At the time the study was started in the early 1990s, the role of specific fats in breast cancer was not clear. Today, however, we know that fats like fish oil and olive oil are actually good for us for cardiovascular disease prevention and possibly cancer prevention. So in the study group, women were also cutting the good fats that help our bodies.

Another problem with the study was that it only included women age 50 and over. Perhaps at age 50 it's too late to start eating more healthfully and to undo the damage of decades of poor eating. Perhaps it takes a lifelong dietary pattern of eating well to make a difference? These are questions we all need to consider.
“I personally believe that a good diet is a lifelong process.”

I personally believe that a good diet is a lifelong process. Cancer affects us through genetics and lifestyle. We can't change our genes, but we can modify our lifestyle by not smoking, eating well, maintaining an appropriate body weight and exercising.

Dr. Mayne is echoing much of what I said in my previous post.

Further, if you look at the study you posted:

Results By year 6, mean fat intake decreased by 8.2% of energy intake in the intervention vs the comparison group, with small decreases in saturated (2.9%), monounsaturated (3.3%), and polyunsaturated (1.5%) fat; increases occurred in intakes of vegetables/fruits (1.1 servings/d) and grains (0.5 serving/d).

You also quoted the study: Abstract: Low-Fat Dietary Pattern and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: The Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial, February 8, 2006, Howard et al. 295 (6): 655

This is another terribly done study that shows next to nothing. Did you read the actual study?

Let me quote some of the findings and then I'll discuss it:

Results By year 6, mean fat intake decreased by 8.2% of energy intake in the intervention vs the comparison group, with small decreases in saturated (2.9%), monounsaturated (3.3%), and polyunsaturated (1.5%) fat; increases occurred in intakes of vegetables/fruits (1.1 servings/d) and grains (0.5 serving/d).

This study basically compared two groups who both ate unhealthy diets, so why would we presume their health would get better.

According to the study's authors, the "low fat diet" they told the women in the study to eat is as follows:

...postmenopausal women in the intervention group were advised to reduce total fat intake to 20% of energy and to consume at least 5 servings of fruits and vegetables and 6 servings of grains daily; women in the control group continued their usual eating pattern.

What happened, though, is that the women in the low fat group actually ate just about one more serving of fruit or vegetable per day, fell far short of the even the modest 20%-of-energy-from-fat goal, and consumed the same number of calories as the women who did not modify their diets.

Gina Kolata reports in The New York Times:

In the first year, the women on the low-fat diets reduced the percentage of fat in their diet to 24 percent of daily calories, and by the end of the study their diets had 29 percent of their calories as fat. In the first year, the women in the control group were eating 35 percent of their calories as fat, and by the end of the study their dietary fat content was 37 percent. The two groups consumed about the same number of calories.

So neither of these are low fat diets, and even if they were, low fat dieting isn't the key to longevity.

Now, if they had increased fruit and vegetable servings by 5 a day, I think we would have a very different study. Increasing fruits and vegetables by one serving combined, when you are talking about post-menopausal women is really nothing.

Even then, look at this quote from that study:

Trends toward greater reductions in CHD risk were observed in those with lower intakes of saturated fat or trans fat or higher intakes of vegetables/fruits.

Best,
Joey