Been a vegetarian for a month now and

[RSRD]

I actually feel and look a lot better. My weight is down and my energy is up. Amazing. Glad I made the switch. I will note that living in Washington DC helps a ton. We have a gazillion rest.s that serve great vegetarian meals. But I feel better then I have in years. My runs are stronger and my workouts great.

The only debate Im having is whether to go pescitarian and do the fish thing once a month.

[TheGuildedAge]

How hard was it to get good meals without meat? What types of foods are you eating?

[Killcrop]

I like my sushi. You mentioned workout. What kinds of protein have you been eating?

[silvertone1481]

Where's that "My food sh##s on your food" thing?

[geekocaster]

I have been considering this too.. I am seriously concerned i would become a junk-a-tarian ya know. Pizza, grilled cheese, PB&J. just got to make sure its fruits & veges...
i am gonna try it

[The Last Rebel]

Where's that "My food sh##s on your food" thing?
Sitting in a big bin with all of the other dumb image macros.

I've thought about going vegetarian before, more for my health than anything else. I just don't know if I have the willpower though, I love meat.

[Guitar Josh]

More meat for me!

[T.Wesley]

The only debate Im having is whether to go pescitarian and do the fish thing once a month.
IMO get in or get out. Go all veg or eat meat. As Yoda once said - Do or do not :)

How hard was it to get good meals without meat? What types of foods are you eating?
Believe it or not, vegetarians (most of us anyway) don't eat weird food.

We eat the same stuff you do - just without the meat.

There are plenty of ways to get protein, it just takes a little patience & research and paying attention to what you're putting into your body.

Where's that "My food sh##s on your food" thing?
I don't know about you, but I tend to wash my fresh produce before I eat it. Pretty much takes care of this issue.

[silvertone1481]

I don't know about you, but I tend to wash my fresh produce before I eat it. Pretty much takes care of this issue.

It was a demotivational poster in a previous thread....

[Russorama]

More meat for me too. Seriously, while I doubt the oft touted "health benefits" of vegetarianism (and I seriously do) the damage to someones mental health from denying themselves something as wonderful as MEAT would pretty much make it a wash. ;-)

[starvingartist]

There is no real health benefit inherent in vegetarianism, but if one is doing it for ethical reasons that's a position I am unable to argue with.

[FeloniousBishop]

My advice is to occasionally (once or twice a week or something like that) eat some ~humanely raised meat or some fish.

It will increase your chance for long-term success, and still achieve 90% or more of your goals.

[LHanson]

There is no real health benefit inherent in vegetarianism, but if one is doing it for ethical reasons that's a position I am unable to argue with.

Don't know about that. I tried quitting all meat as a way to lose weight.

It worked.

I started eating meat again, and gained it all back.

YMMV

[Loop-Master]

I think the whole idea is to make it as easy on your digestive system as possible. I've thought about at least trying this for a while just to experiment.

[DC1]

I tried it, and really wanted it to work, but I was tired all the time.


I don't know why.


dc

[Conisewer]

I'm on the opposite side of the spectrum; I have been on an almost carnivorous/low carb diet for about a year now. I started off on Atkins, and once I lost all my extra baggage, I just never cared to introduce more carbs into my diet.

Upon further research, I found that a high fat/low carb diet is not as unhealthy as many would guess. You would think that eating a high fat diet would eventually lead to heart disease, high cholesterol, etc. In reality, what screws people is combining carbs AND fat. Some of the healthiest people on the planet are the Inuit, and they eat a no carb diet for most of the year (fish, whale, etc.).

Many doctors and scientists believe that the reason that the Inuit are so healthy is because humans haven't been eating grain nearly long enough for the species to evolve to process and digest it correctly, therefore it should not be eaten. They believe that we should follow a caveman diet (this consists of what foods they believe our ancestors ate, and what we have evolved eating). The caveman diet basically consists of meat, no vegetables, and some nuts and berries (although if you wanted to be a real caveman, you would only eat the nuts and berries when they sprouted: in the spring ;) ).

The "Protein Power" series by Michael Eades talks about much of this in detail.

I don't necessarily believe that I'm going to live forever, but I don't think that maintaining my carnivorous diet will have any negative effects in my years to come :)

Oh, and I know it seems a little trollish of me to post in a thread about vegetarians about being a carnivore, but I noticed that the focus was more on the health prospect of it, not the animals. Therefore I thought I would share :)

[circusinthesky]

What are you doing for food at home, versus restaurants? That's my problem. Sure, its easy to eat a good veg meal at a restaurant, but I can't really think of anything satisfying to cook at home on a regular basis.

[Gibson 1964]

I am not a vegetarian, but I have an allergy constrained restricted diet and some of the time vegetarian stuff is often a little easier for me to find something I can eat in. With stuff at home... What do you like to eat at restaurants? What things do you typically order? What do you miss?

I also find that I prefer things that don't pretend to be meat. I also find that I personally think Indian food has the most developed vegetarian cuisine.

Also buying fresher veggies makes a huge difference to me.

[Teleplayer]

I can go into a high quality Indian, Mexican or Thai restaurant and easily eat no meat; especially if the food is excellent and they have a great buffet (like for Sunday brunch/lunch).

It's all about cooking with spices, making the veggies, legumes, etc. flavorful and making sure the food is cooked well.

[Slackerprince]

There are no food police. If you want to eat mostly veg, and then have a piece of fish or a steak or some RIBS, now and then, just do it.
Only issue is not being able to "say" that you are veggie, but that's just an ego thing.
It's your body and your food, enjoy.

s

[MrGretsch]

I actually feel and look a lot better. My weight is down and my energy is up. Amazing. Glad I made the switch. I will note that living in Washington DC helps a ton. We have a gazillion rest.s that serve great vegetarian meals. But I feel better then I have in years. My runs are stronger and my workouts great.

The only debate Im having is whether to go pescitarian and do the fish thing once a month.

Placebo effect. You want to feel better bercause of your change in lifestyle, so you pretty much will, at least for a while. But, if it makes you happy, that's still a good thing.
There is no clinical evidence to support the idea the avereage vegan/vegetarian is any healthier than your average meat eater. The vegetarian crowd may feel better about themselves, but then so may the meat eater. Anecdotal evidence (well, i take xxx and i feel great) is untestable and unreliable.
Eat what you want when you want, and keep yourself happy

[Dillow4092]

I'm glad it's working for you, been there, done that. I'll stick with the t-bone side of things!

[Neer]

Eat plenty of eggs.

[wichita]

I was a vegetarian for 18 years.
I am going back to that this week. I have been back on fish and chicken for a few years..
I really think I was healthier without it. That's just me though..
Every body is different.

[ToneBrokerBill]

There are no food police. If you want to eat mostly veg, and then have a piece of fish or a steak or some RIBS, now and then, just do it.

Exactly. It's easy to get caught up in definitions and lose sight of the end goal - better health.

Michael Pollan: "Eat [real] food, not too much, mostly plants."

[rog951]

>>>My runs are stronger<<<

Unfortunate side effect of the vegeterian lifestyle! ;)

[Alister]

Placebo effect. You want to feel better bercause of your change in lifestyle, so you pretty much will, at least for a while. But, if it makes you happy, that's still a good thing.
There is no clinical evidence to support the idea the avereage vegan/vegetarian is any healthier than your average meat eater. The vegetarian crowd may feel better about themselves, but then so may the meat eater. Anecdotal evidence (well, i take xxx and i feel great) is untestable and unreliable.
Eat what you want when you want, and keep yourself happy


I love absolutist pronouncements like this.

NO clinical evidence? None?

Unless you consider cancer an issue in health.

http://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm

[rokpunk]

i haven't had red meat in 25 years (i'm 40), and i don't miss it a bit. i do, however, miss bacon, but i resist. i don't care what you eat, please don't care what i choose not to eat.

[JoeB63]

There is no real health benefit inherent in vegetarianism, but if one is doing it for ethical reasons that's a position I am unable to argue with.

Actually, there is an argument against the ethical argument. Evidently lots of animals, e.g. mice, are killed during vegetable farming operations. So, on the whole, the number of animal deaths due to meat-eating, or more vegetable eating, is essentially the same.

The real reason to go vegetarian, is that you just want to.

As far as health benefits go, there's research (and lots of anecdotes) that shows benefits of any style of eating you may choose. And on an individual level anything you want to work is going to work for you. Be it Atkins, or Paleo or Caveman, or vegetarianism or juicing or weight watchers or fasting --- if you've decided you're going to do something, you'll make it work for you..... until you eventually give it up.

Good luck to all.

[travisvwright]

i haven't had red meat in 25 years (i'm 40), and i don't miss it a bit. i do, however, miss bacon, but i resist. i don't care what you eat, please don't care what i choose not to eat.I like that philosophy. And think that any choice made just so you can keep a label (As in I want fish and realize it has health benefits but if I eat it I can't claim Vegitarianism anymore.) is sad. No slight ment to the OP I'm just saying if you want to, eat fish, don't care what that makes you.

[Guitar Josh]

I love absolutist pronouncements like this.

NO clinical evidence? None?

Unless you consider cancer an issue in health.

http://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm

I'm not sure you could have found a more biased source than this.

How about something from a reputable scientific journal, and not some site DEVOTED TO VEGETARIANISM.

[Tonekat]

I actually feel and look a lot better. My weight is down and my energy is up. Amazing. Glad I made the switch. I will note that living in Washington DC helps a ton. We have a gazillion rest.s that serve great vegetarian meals. But I feel better then I have in years. My runs are stronger and my workouts great.

The only debate Im having is whether to go pescitarian and do the fish thing once a month.

You're so right about this area having choices that allow you to pursue a vegetarian diet. The indian restaurants are great for this, as are some other cuisines. A friend makes a veggie chili that is so good you don't miss the meat.
Now, I do love a well cooked piece of red meat, but right now, I'm just staying away from it due to some other factors, like not being able to exercise due to my hip problems, etc.


I tried it, and really wanted it to work, but I was tired all the time.


I don't know why.


dc

So many reasons that can be the cause, you'd really need some blood work to find out. The endocrine system affects everything, and I'm proof of how much can go wrong in that department if one part stops working. The thyroid is often the culprit. A nutritionist working within a medical group is a good person to see for this, they have contact with the M.D.s and can order the blood work and get the analysis back quickly.

[Lotis]

16 years vegetarian. Works for me. I have discovered a lot of really great foods along the way i didn't know existed. I have known vegetarians who have been told by Drs they need animal protein. I get a monthly shot of B12 but no other supplements. To each his own.

[harpinon]

Don't know about that. I tried quitting all meat as a way to lose weight.

It worked.

I started eating meat again, and gained it all back.

YMMV

Interesting.
But would you not increase your carb intake, thus adding more weight than lean meat would?

[Alister]

I'm not sure you could have found a more biased source than this.

How about something from a reputable scientific journal, and not some site DEVOTED TO VEGETARIANISM.




How about the Harvard Medical Review, then???
http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Red-meat-and-colon-cancer.shtml

The best evidence comes from a pair of large 2005 studies, one from Europe, the other from the United States. The European research tracked 478,000 men and women who were free of cancer when the study began. The people who ate the most red meat (about 5 ounces a day or more) were about a third more likely to develop colon cancer than those who ate the least red meat (less than an ounce a day on average). Their consumption of chicken did not influence risk one way or the other, but a high consumption of fish appeared to reduce the risk of colon cancer by about a third.
The U.S. study added important information about the effects of long-term meat consumption. The subjects were 148,610 people between the ages of 50 and 74. A high consumption of red and processed meats was linked with a substantial increase in the risk of cancer in the lower colon and rectum. Conversely, the long-term consumption of large amounts of fish and poultry appeared protective.
These two studies are impressive, and they don’t stand alone. A meta-analysis of 29 studies of meat consumption and colon cancer concluded that a high consumption of red meat increases risk by 28%, and a high consumption of processed meat increases risk by 20%.

On the issue of "bias," I'm gonna suspect that everybody and every source you or I could cite is "biased."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[art_z]

Don't know about that. I tried quitting all meat as a way to lose weight.

It worked.

I started eating meat again, and gained it all back.

YMMV


YMMV indeed. I did Atkins diet for 7 months (meat/protein/fat heavy), lost 70 pounds, kept it off for 8 years now.

Meat doesn't make you fat. Fat doesn't make you fat. Its eating too much crap and not moving enough that makes you fat.

[JoeB63]

How about the Harvard Medical Review, then???
http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Red-meat-and-colon-cancer.shtml

A high consumption of red and processed meats was linked with a substantial increase in the risk of cancer in the lower colon and rectum. Conversely, the long-term consumption of large amounts of fish and poultry appeared protective.

On the issue of "bias," I'm gonna suspect that everybody and every source you or I could cite is "biased."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias


So was it the "red meat" or the "processed meat?" What if you just ate grass-fed hormone-free red meat and skipped the processed meat? That study doesn't tell you what would happen. So maybe it's the "processing" and not the meat. And according to your citation, eating fish and poultry protects against cancer. So vegetarianism is bad for your health???

You can easily find studies that show that meat-based diets are fine, or in some cases (read Gary Taube's Why We Get Fat) that meat based diets are preferable.

If you want to not eat meat, more power to you. But you really can't claim the moral or the health high ground.

Joe

[ToneBrokerBill]

IMHO, many of these discussions on "what to eat" are a way to avoid the simple fact that eating much less is the simplest way to improve our health.

In the US at least, we all seem to want to eat as much as possible while staying healthy and not gaining weight. If we were to cut our current calorie consumption by 30-50%, I think we would be having fewer discussion on what we should eat to stay healthy.

(Note: Like most arguments, this one falls apart if you take it to the extreme. I'm not talking about eating 50% fewer calories but having all of those calories come from Twinkies and Mountain Dew. I am assuming a typical mix of foods.)

[Jason Calieri]

Actually, there is an argument against the ethical argument. Evidently lots of animals, e.g. mice, are killed during vegetable farming operations. So, on the whole, the number of animal deaths due to meat-eating, or more vegetable eating, is essentially the same.

A mouse being killed in a field is worlds away from a chicken, pig, or cow essentially being tortured to death in a factory farm.

[LHanson]

YMMV indeed. I did Atkins diet for 7 months (meat/protein/fat heavy), lost 70 pounds, kept it off for 8 years now.

Meat doesn't make you fat. Fat doesn't make you fat. Its eating too much crap and not moving enough that makes you fat.

I also did Atkins, lost some weight, but it didn't really set with me, and I gained it back.

I once almost totally eliminated fat from my diet. Lost some weight, but it made my fingertips crack- no good for guitar. I quit and gained it back.

The weird part is that I was thin all though my youth. I started gaining when I was about 28. Now my weight settles in at about 205- pretty heavy for my 5-9 frame.

[anathema]

There is no real health benefit inherent in vegetarianism, but if one is doing it for ethical reasons that's a position I am unable to argue with.

True.

And I solve that issue by eating locally sourced pastured and grass fed meats.

[anathema]

I also did Atkins, lost some weight, but it didn't really set with me, and I gained it back.

I once almost totally eliminated fat from my diet. Lost some weight, but it made my fingertips crack- no good for guitar. I quit and gained it back.

The weird part is that I was thin all though my youth. I started gaining when I was about 28. Now my weight settles in at about 205- pretty heavy for my 5-9 frame.

Fat is good. Good fat is good. Fats from coconuts, and nuts and the omega 3/6 profiles from grass fed meats are really good.

[RSRD]

You're so right about this area having choices that allow you to pursue a vegetarian diet. The indian restaurants are great for this, as are some other cuisines. A friend makes a veggie chili that is so good you don't miss the meat.

LOVE the veggie chili. If made right its much better then the greasy chili I used to eat. You don't have that 'slump in your chair with a rock in your belly feeling'

I love the indian rest. around Alexandria, Arlington and DC. Even better is the Thai food. And if I decide to go seafood we have some great ones too.

Really not hard at all to cook being a vegetarian. Especially with my wife helping :banana She's loving being a vegetarian as well. She runs marathons and said she actually feels stronger around 2/3rds the way thru her runs.

I do miss some good old bbq time to time but outside of that not missing meat, chicken or pork at all.


And I trying to do it for both health and humane reasons. I understand the argument about humanely raised farm animals and applaud it. But just figured I'd go all in.

So far couldn't be happier like i said.

ps- also note that the grocery stores around here make it real easy to be a veggie as well. Even safeway carries so many veggie options. Really not hard at all.

[Fred Farkus]

I won't be giving up meat, however, in the last few weeks I've all but eliminated sugar and simple carbs and increased my fresh veggie & fruit intake. I've lost weight and feel much better in general. I love fresh veggies.

[JoeB63]

A mouse being killed in a field is worlds away from a chicken, pig, or cow essentially being tortured to death in a factory farm.

False dichotomy. There are ranchers raising (and slaughtering) cows, pigs and chickens in more humane/ethical manners.

[Jason Calieri]

False dichotomy. There are ranchers raising (and slaughtering) cows, pigs and chickens in more humane/ethical manners.

Sure, but the vast majority of people are eating factory-farmed meat. Grass-fed/organic/etc. is a drop in the bucket.

[RSRD]

False dichotomy. There are ranchers raising (and slaughtering) cows, pigs and chickens in more humane/ethical manners.



I think his point was that there are many more unethical factory farms then ethical local farms. Without getting political there is no monitoring of what farms do for various reasons. Hopefully more and more people will continue to buy from the local 'organic' farmers instead of big corporate factory farms.


Edit- damn posted a few seconds too slow. you beat me too it..,

[TD_Madden]

oh, jeez........NTSA!

[Neer]

Whether you eat meat or not, sugar is one of the real problems in the diet.

[JoeB63]

I won't be giving up meat, however, in the last few weeks I've all but eliminated sugar and simple carbs and increased my fresh veggie & fruit intake. I've lost weight and feel much better in general. I love fresh veggies.

This is a smart strategy. First of all, whatever you do/change, it has to be something you can easily live with forever. Otherwise, any benefits you gain from changing your way of eating will disappear when you change back (or change to something else). So if you can't live with it easily, you probably shouldn't bother. And there's no "pro" argument for eating food with added sugar, or junk food in general. It's food without nutritional value, so why eat it? It's a habit -- not a need. Hard to break the habit, but it's entirely possible.

So the first thing to try if you want to lose fat, or improve your health should be to eliminate junk food. See how far that gets you. Then move on from there.

People who lost weight when they first switch to vegetarianism likely lost that weight because they are simply eating less food/calories, given that they've eliminated a major food group from their daily diet. Given that they're on a new health kick, they probably also eliminated sweets and other junk food from their diets at the same time. So the net result is a huge drop in daily calories. Once they spend some time as vegetarians, they learn about what else they can eat (e.g. meat substitutes and all that yummy non-meat junk food) and those missing calories start to get replaced, so that weight loss won't likely be permanent. The same is true for Atkins dieters. Once they discover and start eating Atkins dessert bars, the weight loss stops.

Joe

[Jason Calieri]

Agreed about sugar. That's probably the biggest problem of all.

[rob2001]

IMHO, many of these discussions on "what to eat" are a way to avoid the simple fact that eating much less is the simplest way to improve our health.

In the US at least, we all seem to want to eat as much as possible while staying healthy and not gaining weight. If we were to cut our current calorie consumption by 30-50%, I think we would be having fewer discussion on what we should eat to stay healthy.

(Note: Like most arguments, this one falls apart if you take it to the extreme. I'm not talking about eating 50% fewer calories but having all of those calories come from Twinkies and Mountain Dew. I am assuming a typical mix of foods.)

Sounds about right to me.

It may not be right way to eat less, but I just skip breakfast. That sets me up for a light lunch, then I try to eat a decent meal at night. If I eat breakfast I feel like i'm starving by noon, i'll have a big lunch, a big dinner and after dinner foods.

But ya, I feel much better just by eating less.

[waynesw]

I've got nothing against vegetarians.......the holier-than-thou vegans tend to piss me off, tho.
I like what Ron White said to his vegan friend during a conversation-
(friend) Cow flatulence is harming our atmosphere, Ron....what are you doing about it?
(Ron) I'm eating the f*ckin' cows!

Eat what you want and I'll eat what I want.

[RSRD]

oh, jeez........NTSA!

National Traffic and Safety Administration? I dont get the relation to the topic.

[RSRD]

Whether you eat meat or not, sugar is one of the real problems in the diet.

I don't eat too much sugar so that was never a problem. Breads with my coffee on the other hand......

[RSRD]

I've got nothing against vegetarians.......the holier-than-thou vegans tend to piss me off, tho.
I like what Ron White said to his vegan friend during a conversation-
(friend) Cow flatulence is harming our atmosphere, Ron....what are you doing about it?
(Ron) I'm eating the f*ckin' cows!


That joke doesn't make too much sense in relation to what the friend said. Who is ron ? seems pretty DUM.

[Alister]

So was it the "red meat" or the "processed meat?" What if you just ate grass-fed hormone-free red meat and skipped the processed meat? That study doesn't tell you what would happen. So maybe it's the "processing" and not the meat. And according to your citation, eating fish and poultry protects against cancer. So vegetarianism is bad for your health???

You can easily find studies that show that meat-based diets are fine, or in some cases (read Gary Taube's Why We Get Fat) that meat based diets are preferable.

If you want to not eat meat, more power to you. But you really can't claim the moral or the health high ground.

Joe

Do we have to get to the level of quibble-quibble here, Joe? Really?
Why do you want to contest what the study didn't say? I can never understand the propensity to do this. A study can study what it 'wants' to, as long as the claims, data, support are connected in reasonable, valid way.

The Harvard study says red meat AND processed meat. I assume Harvard researchers know the difference between 'and' and 'or,' as this is a crucial one in formal scientific studies, yes.
Why would they be obliged to bring in data about poultry or fish consumption? There are plenty of studies to go around, and as we say in formal argumentation, "the argument is never over."

Taube's balliwick is the "fat issue," is it not? And he is only very lately a nutritionist, if I'm correct, coming from the harder sciences originally.

In any case, this bit about "you can find a study to prove anything" is really not a persuasive one to me. It really is a bundle of logical fallacies, all packed into one.

If you wanna contest the Harvard study, or even more importantly the 29 other "mega "studies alluded to therein, then I think by all means, you should.
But stay on one study/source at a time, is my view.

Finally, who in the hell claimed any "moral high ground"?

You seem to be an advocate for the grass-fed, 'good' kind of meat production. Fine. But do you think most people who argue FOR meat consumption have the slightest idea how their (industrial) food is raised or processed?
I think that's the key issue, even above "meat eating vs. vegetarianism."

[rob2001]

I don't eat too much sugar so that was never a problem. Breads with my coffee on the other hand......

I'm just asking an honest question, I don't mean to challenge anyone or anything.

Do you think you feel better strictly from eliminating meat, or have you made other dietary changes that might account for feeling better.....like the breads?

Again, i'm not challenging the idea that people feel better from not eating meat. How everyone feels is thier deal. But I know from my own experience of quitting meat for a while that I also made other dietary changes. If I felt better I can't say that quitting meat was 100% the reason.

[travisvwright]

National Traffic and Safety Administration? I dont get the relation to the topic.
Not This $h** Again.

[travisvwright]

That joke doesn't make too much sense in relation to what the friend said. Who is ron ? seems pretty DUM.He's one of the Blue Collar Comedy guys. Real smart guy but plays pretty dumb in his act.

[RSRD]

I'm just asking an honest question, I don't mean to challenge anyone or anything.

Do you think you feel better strictly from eliminating meat, or have you made other dietary changes that might account for feeling better.....like the breads?

Again, i'm not challenging the idea that people feel better from not eating meat. How everyone feels is thier deal. But I know from my own experience of quitting meat for a while that I also made other dietary changes. If I felt better I can't say that quitting meat was 100% the reason.

Hey Rob, not sure how my response translated but I was being serious. Im not a big candy or chocolate guy. So I guess my calorie intake isnt effected by sugars too much. I love bread though. And Id rather cut out meat,etc.. and keep eating breads then vice versa. Also, I like the idea of not eating meat for humane reasons. I would never want my dogs treated like i see how the cows, pigs and chicken are treated at these farms.

This thread took off into a battle again which wasnt the purpose of my OP. ITs just to say that Ive been a vegetarian for a month and never felt better in my life. My excercises are better, my energy is better, I dont sag during the middle of the day, etc... If ppl like eating meat and could never stop thats great. If others are also veggies and show moral support, thanks!

Now lets see what month 2 brings!

Cheers.

[RSRD]

He's one of the Blue Collar Comedy guys. Real smart guy but plays pretty dumb in his act.

oh

Not This $h** Again.


??

[JoeB63]

Do we have to get to the level of quibble-quibble here, Joe? Really?
Why do you want to contest what the study didn't say? I can never understand the propensity to do this. A study can study what it 'wants' to, as long as the claims, data, support are connected in reasonable, valid way.

The Harvard study says red meat AND processed meat. I assume Harvard researchers know the difference between 'and' and 'or,' as this is a crucial one in formal scientific studies, yes.
Why would they be obliged to bring in data about poultry or fish consumption? There are plenty of studies to go around, and as we say in formal argumentation, "the argument is never over."

Taube's balliwick is the "fat issue," is it not? And he is only very lately a nutritionist, if I'm correct, coming from the harder sciences originally.

In any case, this bit about "you can find a study to prove anything" is really not a persuasive one to me. It really is a bundle of logical fallacies, all packed into one.

If you wanna contest the Harvard study, or even more importantly the 29 other "mega "studies alluded to therein, then I think by all means, you should.
But stay on one study/source at a time, is my view.

Finally, who in the hell claimed any "moral high ground"?

You seem to be an advocate for the grass-fed, 'good' kind of meat production. Fine. But do you think most people who argue FOR meat consumption have the slightest idea how their (industrial) food is raised or processed?
I think that's the key issue, even above "meat eating vs. vegetarianism."

You cited that Harvard study to support the proposition that vegetarianism is healthier than meat-eating. You did that. But the study you cited said (clearly) that people who are heavy red meat and processed red meat eaters have a higher incident of colon cancer. And that Poultry and fish seemed to have a protective effect. My point was that since they didn't separate non-processed red meat eaters from processed meat eaters, you can't conclude that red-meat eaters who avoid processed meat will be more likely to get colon cancer than vegetarians. You just can't do that. Also, apparently, according to study that you cited (check your post, you quoted it), if you want to reduce your chance of getting colon cancer, you should NOT avoid poultry or fish, and last I checked, those were animal products.

Also, when looking at a study like that one, we need to consider the math. I don't know the real numbers here, but let's use an example: If we assume that 1% of the population gets colon cancer, and we avoid red-meat to reduce our risk of colon cancer by 5%, that means that our risk of getting colon cancer dropped from 1.0% to 0.95% --- not that big a deal in the scheme of things, and perhaps not worth giving up 30 years of hamburgers for.

Joe

[Neer]

Cutting way back on carbs and alcohol is one of those things that has an almost immediate positive impact on your feeling of well-being; however, it is not easy to give those up and who doesn't want a reward every once in a while?

[Alister]

You cited that Harvard study to support the proposition that vegetarianism is healthier than meat-eating. You did that. But the study you cited said (clearly) that people who are heavy red meat and processed red meat eaters have a higher incident of colon cancer. And that Poultry and fish seemed to have a protective effect. My point was that since they didn't separate non-processed red meat eaters from processed meat eaters, you can't conclude that red-meat eaters who avoid processed meat will be more likely to get colon cancer than vegetarians. You just can't do that. Also, apparently, according to study that you cited (check your post, you quoted it), if you want to reduce your chance of getting colon cancer, you should NOT avoid poultry or fish, and last I checked, those were animal products.

Also, when looking at a study like that one, we need to consider the math. I don't know the real numbers here, but let's use an example: If we assume that 1% of the population gets colon cancer, and we avoid red-meat to reduce our risk of colon cancer by 5%, that means that our risk of getting colon cancer dropped from 1.0% to 0.95% --- not that big a deal in the scheme of things, and perhaps not worth giving up 30 years of hamburgers for.

Joe

Let's work on our reading comprehension one more time, before we assume anything about your imaginary math extrapolations (which are another one of your tangents anyway):

These two studies are impressive, and they don’t stand alone. A meta-analysis of 29 studies of meat consumption and colon cancer concluded that a high consumption of red meat increases risk by 28%, and a high consumption of processed meat increases risk by 20%

That's a direct statistical statement separating "red meat" from "processed red meat." And yes, poultry and fish consumption are noted as preventative for long term eaters.

[RSRD]

Sigh. Can you both go start another thread and debate there? I really didn't want ppl to get this aggitated...

[Neer]

Get a room!

[fetishfrog]

Sigh. Can you both go start another thread and debate there? I really didn't want ppl to get this aggitated...

No kidding.

Congrats BC, glad it's working out for you.

[JoeB63]

Let's work on our reading comprehension one more time, before we assume anything about your imaginary math extrapolations (which are another one of your tangents anyway):



That's a direct statistical statement separating "red meat" from "processed red meat." And yes, poultry and fish consumption are noted as preventative for long term eaters.

You win. You caught me skimming. Sorry to throw the thread off track.

[Alister]

In defense of Joe and me, both, I don't think we're "aggitated"; I think we're smart guys, and we're not afraid to discuss the larger "So What" questions in some depth.

And I salute Joe for that.

And, I salute your new good health, Big Country. No matter what you eat.

[travisvwright]

oh




??
I was expounding what NTSA means from two earlier posts.

[travisvwright]

Cutting way back on carbs and alcohol is one of those things that has an almost immediate positive impact on your feeling of well-being; however, it is not easy to give those up and who doesn't want a reward every once in a while?Personally and from people I know there are some pretty painful withdarwal symptoms immediate and the postive impact isn't felt until after that.

[RSRD]

Thanks guys. We will see how I progress as the months go by. None of my friends are veggies (except my wife) but I'm hoping I can do it for a lifetime. I'll never go vegan. Not enough will power to cut out cheese and milk. And like I said, I might succumb to fish once in a blue moon when out to a nice establishment.

Wonder how long others have made it as a veggie

[starvingartist]

How about the Harvard Medical Review, then???
http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Red-meat-and-colon-cancer.shtml


On the issue of "bias," I'm gonna suspect that everybody and every source you or I could cite is "biased."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Do we have to get to the level of quibble-quibble here, Joe? Really?
Why do you want to contest what the study didn't say? I can never understand the propensity to do this. A study can study what it 'wants' to, as long as the claims, data, support are connected in reasonable, valid way.

The Harvard study says red meat AND processed meat. I assume Harvard researchers know the difference between 'and' and 'or,' as this is a crucial one in formal scientific studies, yes.
Why would they be obliged to bring in data about poultry or fish consumption? There are plenty of studies to go around, and as we say in formal argumentation, "the argument is never over."

Taube's balliwick is the "fat issue," is it not? And he is only very lately a nutritionist, if I'm correct, coming from the harder sciences originally.

In any case, this bit about "you can find a study to prove anything" is really not a persuasive one to me. It really is a bundle of logical fallacies, all packed into one.

If you wanna contest the Harvard study, or even more importantly the 29 other "mega "studies alluded to therein, then I think by all means, you should.
But stay on one study/source at a time, is my view.

Finally, who in the hell claimed any "moral high ground"?

You seem to be an advocate for the grass-fed, 'good' kind of meat production. Fine. But do you think most people who argue FOR meat consumption have the slightest idea how their (industrial) food is raised or processed?
I think that's the key issue, even above "meat eating vs. vegetarianism."




From the actual text of the harvard study:



During 7 years of follow-up, 2,719 colorectal cancer cases were ascertained from a cohort of 300,948 men and women. The hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) comparing the fifth to the first quintile for both red (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.09-1.42; P(trend) < 0.001) and processed meat (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P(trend) = 0.017) intakes indicated an elevated risk for colorectal cancer. The potential mechanisms for this relation include heme iron (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.99-1.29; P(trend) = 0.022), nitrate from processed meats (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32; P(trend) = 0.001), and heterocyclic amine intake [HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.05-1.34; P(trend) < 0.001 for 2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline (MeIQx) and HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.29; P(trend) <0.001 for 2-amino-3,4,8-trimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline (DiMeIQx)]. In general, the elevated risks were higher for rectal cancer than for colon cancer, with the exception of MeIQx and DiMeIQx, which were only associated with colon cancer. In conclusion, we found a positive association for red and processed meat intake and colorectal cancer; heme iron, nitrate/nitrite, and heterocyclic amines from meat may explain these associations.


They compared the people in the top quintile of meat eaters to people in the bottom quintile and determined people in the top quintile got cancer more often. They then observed that people who ate the most meat ate the most stuff contained in meats (hence the correlation between nitrates and cancer here). No other parts of their diets were analyzed.

To say people who eat red meat get cancer more often is pointless because eating red meat doesn't cause cancer. Take this example: teenage girls who drop out of high school are more likely to get pregnant. Do you think that the inverse correlation between high school attendance and pregnancy is causative or perhaps there's a confounder that explains why they correlate?

Do you eat 20% of your daily calories from protein? Congratulations, you're probably in the 95th percentile in any group regardless of age or sex.

Correlation does not = causation.

[Alister]

From the actual text of the harvard study:




They compared the people in the top quintile of meat eaters to people in the bottom quintile and determined people in the top quintile got cancer more often. They then observed that people who ate the most meat ate the most stuff contained in meats (hence the correlation between nitrates and cancer here). No other parts of their diets were analyzed.

To say people who eat red meat get cancer more often is pointless because eating red meat doesn't cause cancer. Take this example: teenage girls who drop out of high school are more likely to get pregnant. Do you think that the inverse correlation between high school attendance and pregnancy is causative or perhaps there's a confounder that explains why they correlate?

Do you eat 20% of your daily calories from protein? Congratulations, you're probably in the 95th percentile in any group regardless of age or sex.

Correlation does not = causation.

Do the authors of the study use language like "caused" or "causation"? From the quote you've tagged on, I only see them using phrases like "associated with" and "positive association."
I severely doubt that Harvard researchers would be unaware of the difference b/w correlation and cause.

But everyone makes mistakes or can operate on false assumptions, and I'm not being facetious when I say, if you think this study is bogus, you should contact them and point out flaws. Seriously.


In any case, it's not correct to make the blanket statement that "Correlation does not = causation."
There are instances where the two are almost indistinguishable. There are other situations where it's a "distinction without a difference."

From Wiki:

A major goal of scientific experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiments) and statistical methods is to approximate as best as possible the counterfactual state of the world.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation#cite_note-14) For example, one could run an experiment on identical twins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_study) who were known to consistently get the same grades on their tests. One twin is sent to study for six hours while the other is sent to the amusement park. If their test scores suddenly diverged by a large degree, this would be strong evidence that studying (or going to the amusement park) had a causal effect on test scores. In this case, correlation between studying and test scores would almost certainly imply causation.
Well-designed experimental studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment) replace equality of individuals as in the previous example by equality of groups. This is achieved by randomization of the subjects to two or more groups. Although not a perfect system, the likeliness of being equal in all aspects rises with the number of subjects placed randomly in the treatment/placebo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo) groups. From the significance of the difference of the effect of the treatment vs. the placebo, one can conclude the likeliness of the treatment having a causal effect on the disease. This likeliness can be quantified in statistical terms by the P-value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value).

[RSRD]

:argue

You couldn't resist could you?! Lol

[chinaski]

Sigh. Can you both go start another thread and debate there? I really didn't want ppl to get this aggitated...
same thing happened on another health related thread recently. it was locked.
however, congrats for making a positive step that must take some willpower. i find myself getting more interested in this sort of thing as i get older. i defininately play better when i feel better. good luck!

[starvingartist]

Do the authors of the study use language like "caused" or "causation"? From the quote you've tagged on, I only see them using phrases like "associated with" and "positive association."
I severely doubt that Harvard researchers would be unaware of the difference b/w correlation and cause.

But everyone makes mistakes or can operate on false assumptions, and I'm not being facetious when I say, if you think this study is bogus, you should contact them and point out flaws. Seriously.


In any case, it's not correct to make the blanket statement that "Correlation does not = causation."
There are instances where the two are almost indistinguishable. There are other situations where it's a "distinction without a difference."


The health and nutrition fields of study are notoriously bad when it comes to studies. Proper studies about nutrition are incredibly difficult and expensive, as a result usually only groups with a financial interest in the study set them up and fund them. Over two-thirds of all medical research is funded by pharmaceutical companies.

Here is a horrifying and sobering article about the state of medical research and studies and Dr. John Ioannidis, a doctor who has spent his career analyzing studies in the medical field:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/

I encourage everyone to read the whole thing, but here are a few choice quotes:

He and his team have shown, again and again, and in many different ways, that much of what biomedical researchers conclude in published studies—conclusions that doctors keep in mind when they prescribe antibiotics or blood-pressure medication, or when they advise us to consume more fiber or less meat, or when they recommend surgery for heart disease or back pain—is misleading, exaggerated, and often flat-out wrong. He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed.

He first stumbled on the sorts of problems plaguing the field, he explains, as a young physician-researcher in the early 1990s at Harvard. At the time, he was interested in diagnosing rare diseases, for which a lack of case data can leave doctors with little to go on other than intuition and rules of thumb. But he noticed that doctors seemed to proceed in much the same manner even when it came to cancer, heart disease, and other common ailments. Where were the hard data that would back up their treatment decisions? There was plenty of published research, but much of it was remarkably unscientific, based largely on observations of a small number of cases.

He chose to publish one paper, fittingly, in the online journal PLoS Medicine, which is committed to running any methodologically sound article without regard to how “interesting” the results may be. In the paper, Ioannidis laid out a detailed mathematical proof that, assuming modest levels of researcher bias, typically imperfect research techniques, and the well-known tendency to focus on exciting rather than highly plausible theories, researchers will come up with wrong findings most of the time. Simply put, if you’re attracted to ideas that have a good chance of being wrong, and if you’re motivated to prove them right, and if you have a little wiggle room in how you assemble the evidence, you’ll probably succeed in proving wrong theories right. His model predicted, in different fields of medical research, rates of wrongness roughly corresponding to the observed rates at which findings were later convincingly refuted: 80 percent of non-randomized studies (by far the most common type) turn out to be wrong, as do 25 percent of supposedly gold-standard randomized trials, and as much as 10 percent of the platinum-standard large randomized trials. The article spelled out his belief that researchers were frequently manipulating data analyses, chasing career-advancing findings rather than good science, and even using the peer-review process—in which journals ask researchers to help decide which studies to publish—to suppress opposing views. “You can question some of the details of John’s calculations, but it’s hard to argue that the essential ideas aren’t absolutely correct,” says Doug Altman, an Oxford University researcher who directs the Centre for Statistics in Medicine.


If you have the time, you should check out the study that finally showed an effect for statins on cholesterol and mortality. The amount of data wrangling these people go through to sell a product is absolutely blood boiling.

[Alister]

I agree completely, starvingartist [peanut gallery goes Gasp!]

No one is more skeptical about 'arguments from authority' than I am, and it's not just because I'm an academic.

You mention statins, which they [oh-oh, the ever-present They] have been trying to force-feed us for years. This was when I 'suddenly' had high cholesterol. Which just as 'suddenly' subsided when I simply took a fishoil pill now and then.

Now I'm in 'blood-pressure' hell because of [or 'correlating with'!] a minor health incident, and they've got me up to 4 pills a day. Is the blood-pressure more problematic than the risk or side effects of the pills?

Is there a "study" that will resolve all of this? Hell, no.

Whom do we believe in matters of health? I think every poster in this thread agrees on the relevance of that question, and we're all on the same side.

[RSRD]

however, congrats for making a positive step that must take some willpower. i find myself getting more interested in this sort of thing as i get older. i defininately play better when i feel better. good luck!

Thanks Chinaski. If you live in a larger town/city with a good selection of rests. its not as hard as you think. I definitley feel better but I dont know if its translating to be playing guitar better.

[clintb]

The health and nutrition fields of study are notoriously bad when it comes to studies. Proper studies about nutrition are incredibly difficult and expensive, as a result usually only groups with a financial interest in the study set them up and fund them. Over two-thirds of all medical research is funded by pharmaceutical companies.

Here is a horrifying and sobering article about the state of medical research and studies and Dr. John Ioannidis, a doctor who has spent his career analyzing studies in the medical field:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/

I encourage everyone to read the whole thing, but here are a few choice quotes:







If you have the time, you should check out the study that finally showed an effect for statins on cholesterol and mortality. The amount of data wrangling these people go through to sell a product is absolutely blood boiling.

Actually I recently read a book that talks a lot about flawed medical studies. It also explains why "experts" are often wrong. It was a very interesting, eye-opening book. I highly recommend it.

http://www.amazon.com/Wrong-us-Scientists-relationship-consultants/dp/0316023787

[clintb]

I actually feel and look a lot better. My weight is down and my energy is up. Amazing. Glad I made the switch. I will note that living in Washington DC helps a ton. We have a gazillion rest.s that serve great vegetarian meals. But I feel better then I have in years. My runs are stronger and my workouts great.

The only debate Im having is whether to go pescitarian and do the fish thing once a month.

I've been a vegetarian for 17 years. I did it because I felt bad for the animals. I didn't notice any difference in my energy levels. I did gain weight over the years and am slightly overweight, but so are most of my peers. I simply just eat too much for a person that sits behind a computer all day.

When I got a medical checkup in my late 30s, I discovered I have very high triglycerides. I've always been one of those high carb vegetarians. I love my carbs! Unfortunately, the prescription for high triglycerides is fish oil supplements and severely restricting carbs. :(

There aren't many vegetarian-friendly restaurants around here either.

[Sid]

I was vegatarian, turned non vegetarian 6 years ago and piled on the meat....ate a LOT of red meat.....put on about 50 pounds in these 6 years.....now the doctor advises me to control my diet and go vegetarian again....so i'm reducing my meat intake to once a week....(otherwise i might go crazy)

but I cook a lot of Indian and Asian style food and there are some fantastic vegetarian recipes in these cuisines.....

I personally have found that more fibre is good on a vegetarian diet....otherwise its difficult to fill up....