Well, you are using examples that are clearly not on point. There is a difference between an reasonably intelligent conclusion drawn about a relatively grey subject and absurdity.
I would hope that someone as bright as you would be able to tell the difference.
It's fine to challenge a persons conclusion in an intelligent way however with something of this magnitude it is not going to be easy to do that without posting point and counter point studies.
If your reasons are moral in nature, I urge you to read this post, and others on this blog: Let Them Eat Meat : Veganism is Not the Lifestyle of Least Harm, and “Intent” Does Nothing For AnimalsOriginally Posted by Pwned
The author writes about veganism and morals more eloquently than I ever could. Think of him like the Ex Dubio of veganism morals.
What appears absurd to you may not to me so who is going to be the judge of absurdity when it comes determining the value of conclusions that are at odds with available empirical data?
Something of this magnitude? I am not sure why this particular subject is subject to different rules than others. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim that vegetarianism/veganism is intrinsically healthier than a diet that includes meat and other animal products.It's fine to challenge a persons conclusion in an intelligent way however with something of this magnitude it is not going to be easy to do that without posting point and counter point studies.
Why it's absurd is that there is not one scientific validation for the sun revolving around the earth.
Parallel that to meat vs vegetarians and you will see there is a lot in the way of conflicting data.
Examples should be congruent.
Also, I didn't say healthier, I said preferred for the reasons stated: environmental impact, limited suffering etc...
Poking holes in studies is an essential part of the scientific method, and as such is useful in the extreme.
Poking holes in a study is not extremely easy to do unless the studies are extremely poorly designed (and I say that as someone who has many years of formal education in research design and hypothesis testing).
Fair point Sanction. I recant.
Now you are using different standards, ones I agree with. I can get behind conclusions that are based on science. But earlier, you seemed to indicate that the science didn't really matter so long as your conclusions were based on your own observations and experiences.
I observe and experience the sun moving in the sky in a manner almost exactly like the Moon, a body I know is in orbit around the Earth. Thus, by the standard you set earlier, my conclusion that the sun orbits the Earth is valid and not absurd.Looking at data, ones own experiences and observation is what allows us to draw conclusions.
I find very little conflicting data. Just about every study I have ever seen on the matter has concluded that there is no clear health benefit from avoiding meat consumption.Parallel that to meat vs vegetarians and you will see there is a lot in the way of conflicting data.
And I have agreed that moral reasons are really the only legitimate ones for pursuing a vegan lifestyle.Also, I didn't say healthier, I said preferred for the reasons stated: environmental impact, limited suffering etc...
PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20456. Epub 2011 Jun 6.
Red and processed meat and colorectal cancer incidence: meta-analysis of prospective studies.
Chan DS, Lau R, Aune D, Vieira R, Greenwood DC, Kampman E, Norat T.
Source
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
The evidence that red and processed meat influences colorectal carcinogenesis was judged convincing in the 2007 World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute of Cancer Research report. Since then, ten prospective studies have published new results. Here we update the evidence from prospective studies and explore whether there is a non-linear association of red and processed meats with colorectal cancer risk.
METHODS AND FINDINGS:
Relevant prospective studies were identified in PubMed until March 2011. For each study, relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted and pooled with a random-effects model, weighting for the inverse of the variance, in highest versus lowest intake comparison, and dose-response meta-analyses. Red and processed meats intake was associated with increased colorectal cancer risk. The summary relative risk (RR) of colorectal cancer for the highest versus the lowest intake was 1.22 (95% CI = 1.11-1.34) and the RR for every 100 g/day increase was 1.14 (95% CI = 1.04-1.24). Non-linear dose-response meta-analyses revealed that colorectal cancer risk increases approximately linearly with increasing intake of red and processed meats up to approximately 140 g/day, where the curve approaches its plateau. The associations were similar for colon and rectal cancer risk. When analyzed separately, colorectal cancer risk was related to intake of fresh red meat (RR(for 100 g/day increase) = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.05-1.31) and processed meat (RR (for 50 g/day increase) = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.10-1.28). Similar results were observed for colon cancer, but for rectal cancer, no significant associations were observed.
CONCLUSIONS:
High intake of red and processed meat is associated with significant increased risk of colorectal, colon and rectal cancers. The overall evidence of prospective studies supports limiting red and processed meat consumption as one of the dietary recommendations for the prevention of colorectal cancer.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Jun 15;97(12):906-16.
Meat, fish, and colorectal cancer risk: the European Prospective Investigation into cancer and nutrition.
Norat T, Bingham S, Ferrari P, Slimani N, Jenab M, Mazuir M, Overvad K, Olsen A, Tjønneland A, Clavel F, Boutron-Ruault MC, Kesse E, Boeing H, Bergmann MM, Nieters A, Linseisen J, Trichopoulou A, Trichopoulos D, Tountas Y, Berrino F, Palli D, Panico S, Tumino R, Vineis P, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Peeters PH, Engeset D, Lund E, Skeie G, Ardanaz E, González C, Navarro C, Quirós JR, Sanchez MJ, Berglund G, Mattisson I, Hallmans G, Palmqvist R, Day NE, Khaw KT, Key TJ, San Joaquin M, Hémon B, Saracci R, Kaaks R, Riboli E.
Source
International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 Cours Albert Thomas, 69 372 Lyon cedex 08, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Current evidence suggests that high red meat intake is associated with increased colorectal cancer risk. High fish intake may be associated with a decreased risk, but the existing evidence is less convincing.
METHODS:
We prospectively followed 478 040 men and women from 10 European countries who were free of cancer at enrollment between 1992 and 1998. Information on diet and lifestyle was collected at baseline. After a mean follow-up of 4.8 years, 1329 incident colorectal cancers were documented. We examined the relationship between intakes of red and processed meat, poultry, and fish and colorectal cancer risk using a proportional hazards model adjusted for age, sex, energy (nonfat and fat sources), height, weight, work-related physical activity, smoking status, dietary fiber and folate, and alcohol consumption, stratified by center. A calibration substudy based on 36 994 subjects was used to correct hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for diet measurement errors. All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS:
Colorectal cancer risk was positively associated with intake of red and processed meat (highest [>160 g/day] versus lowest [<20 g/day] intake, HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.88; Ptrend = .03) and inversely associated with intake of fish (>80 g/day versus <10 g/day, HR = 0.69, 95 % CI = 0.54 to 0.88; Ptrend<.001), but was not related to poultry intake. Correcting for measurement error strengthened the associations between colorectal cancer and red and processed meat intake (per 100-g increase HR = 1.25, 95% CI =1.09 to 1.41, Ptrend = .001 and HR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.19 to 2.02, Ptrend = .001 before and after calibration, respectively) and for fish (per 100 g increase HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.57 to 0.87, Ptrend<.001 and HR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.77, Ptrend = .003; before and after correction, respectively). In this study population, the absolute risk of development of colorectal cancer within 10 years for a study subject aged 50 years was 1.71% for the highest category of red and processed meat intake and 1.28% for the lowest category of intake and was 1.86% for subjects in the lowest category of fish intake and 1.28% for subjects in the highest category of fish intake.
CONCLUSIONS:
Our data confirm that colorectal cancer risk is positively associated with high consumption of red and processed meat and support an inverse association with fish intake.
Display Settings:
- Abstract
Send to:
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Mar 1;98(5):345-54.
Meat intake and risk of stomach and esophageal adenocarcinoma within the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC).
González CA, Jakszyn P, Pera G, Agudo A, Bingham S, Palli D, Ferrari P, Boeing H, del Giudice G, Plebani M, Carneiro F, Nesi G, Berrino F, Sacerdote C, Tumino R, Panico S, Berglund G, Simán H, Nyrén O, Hallmans G, Martinez C, Dorronsoro M, Barricarte A, Navarro C, Quirós JR, Allen N, Key TJ, Day NE, Linseisen J, Nagel G, Bergmann MM, Overvad K, Jensen MK, Tjonneland A, Olsen A, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Ocke M, Peeters PH, Numans ME, Clavel-Chapelon F, Boutron-Ruault MC, Trichopoulou A, Psaltopoulou T, Roukos D, Lund E, Hemon B, Kaaks R, Norat T, Riboli E.
Source
Department of Epidemiology, Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain. cagonzalez@ico.scs.es
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Dietary factors are thought to have an important role in gastric and esophageal carcinogenesis, but evidence from cohort studies for such a role is lacking. We examined the risks of gastric cancer and esophageal adenocarcinoma associated with meat consumption within the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort.
METHODS:
A total of 521,457 men and women aged 35-70 years in 10 European countries participated in the EPIC cohort. Dietary and lifestyle information was collected at recruitment. Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine associations between meat intake and risks of cardia and gastric non-cardia cancers and esophageal adenocarcinoma. Data from a calibration substudy were used to correct hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for diet measurement errors. In a nested case-control study, we examined interactions between Helicobacter pylori infection status (i.e., plasma H. pylori antibodies) and meat intakes. All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS:
During a mean follow-up of 6.5 years, 330 gastric adenocarcinoma and 65 esophageal adenocarcinomas were diagnosed. Gastric non-cardia cancer risk was statistically significantly associated with intakes of total meat (calibrated HR per 100-g/day increase = 3.52; 95% CI = 1.96 to 6.34), red meat (calibrated HR per 50-g/day increase = 1.73; 95% CI = 1.03 to 2.88), and processed meat (calibrated HR per 50-g/day increase = 2.45; 95% CI = 1.43 to 4.21). The association between the risk of gastric non-cardia cancer and total meat intake was especially large in H. pylori-infected subjects (odds ratio per 100-g/day increase = 5.32; 95% CI = 2.10 to 13.4). Intakes of total, red, or processed meat were not associated with the risk of gastric cardia cancer. A positive but non-statistically significant association was observed between esophageal adenocarcinoma cancer risk and total and processed meat intake in the calibrated model. In this study population, the absolute risk of development of gastric adenocarcinoma within 10 years for a study subject aged 60 years was 0.26% for the lowest quartile of total meat intake and 0.33% for the highest quartile of total meat intake.
CONCLUSION:
Total, red, and processed meat intakes were associated with an increased risk of gastric non-cardia cancer, especially in H. pylori antibody-positive subjects, but not with cardia gastric cancer.
Def studies out there but everything is debatable of course...
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002 Mar;56 Suppl 1:S19-24.
Meat consumption and cancer of the large bowel.
Truswell AS.
Source
Human Nutrition, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. S.Truswell@bioch.usyd.edu.au
Abstract
Since the major reviews on diet and cancer by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) and by the British Department of Health's Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (COMA) in 1997 and 1998, additional epidemiological studies relating (red) meat consumption and colorectal cancer have been published or found by search. These are collected here. Thirty adequate case-control studies have been published up to 1999 (from 16 different countries). Twenty of them found no significant association of (red) meat with colorectal cancer. Of the remaining 10 studies reporting an association, some obtained statistical significance only in rectal or colon cancers, another only in men, not women, or found a stronger association with pasta and rice, or used an inadequate food list in the food frequency questionnaire. Fifteen cohort studies have now been published. Only in three were significant associations of (red) meat found with colorectal cancer. Two of these positive studies were from the same group in the USA (relative risk 1.7). The results of the third positive study appear to conflict with data from part of the vegetarians follow up mortality study. Here, five groups of vegetarians (in three different countries) with socially matched controls were followed up (total 76 000 people). Mortality from colorectal cancer was not distinguishable between vegetarians and controls. While it is still possible that certain processed meats or sausages (with a variety of added ingredients) or meats cooked at very high temperature carry some risk, the relationship between meats in general and colorectal cancer now looks weaker than the 'probable' status it was judged to have by the WCRF in 1997.
PMID: 11965518
Proc Nutr Soc. 2006 Feb;65(1):35-41.
Health effects of vegetarian and vegan diets.
Key TJ, Appleby PN, Rosell MS.
Source
Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building. tim.key@ceu.ox.ac.uk
Abstract
Vegetarian diets do not contain meat, poultry or fish; vegan diets further exclude dairy products and eggs. Vegetarian and vegan diets can vary widely, but the empirical evidence largely relates to the nutritional content and health effects of the average diet of well-educated vegetarians living in Western countries, together with some information on vegetarians in non-Western countries. In general, vegetarian diets provide relatively large amounts of cereals, pulses, nuts, fruits and vegetables. In terms of nutrients, vegetarian diets are usually rich in carbohydrates, n-6 fatty acids, dietary fibre, carotenoids, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E and Mg, and relatively low in protein, saturated fat, long-chain n-3 fatty acids, retinol, vitamin B(12) and Zn; vegans may have particularly low intakes of vitamin B(12) and low intakes of Ca. Cross-sectional studies of vegetarians and vegans have shown that on average they have a relatively low BMI and a low plasma cholesterol concentration; recent studies have also shown higher plasma homocysteine concentrations than in non-vegetarians. Cohort studies of vegetarians have shown a moderate reduction in mortality from IHD but little difference in other major causes of death or all-cause mortality in comparison with health-conscious non-vegetarians from the same population. Studies of cancer have not shown clear differences in cancer rates between vegetarians and non-vegetarians. More data are needed, particularly on the health of vegans and on the possible impacts on health of low intakes of long-chain n-3 fatty acids and vitamin B(12). Overall, the data suggest that the health of Western vegetarians is good and similar to that of comparable non-vegetarians.
PMID:16441942
Good studies! Unfortunately they are not really proof of anything. US citizens eat almost 2X as much meat as in the UK and I think over 2X as the Australians. I'd certainly concede that a relatively low meat diet is probably not much different than a Vegan one, but in the US we eat quite a lot compared to other countries.
Can you find any on cardiovascular effects?
Last edited by Pwned; November 3rd, 2011 at 12:32 PM.
Epidemiological studies are never "proof" of anything. But both of these studies do challenge the purported association between meat consumption and disease.
It depends on what sort of meat you are looking at. Australians consume almost as much beef as we do (35 vs 41kg/person/year) and consume 10x the amount of lamb as Americans. Europeans eat far more pork than either the US or Australia. We eat a lot more poultry than either.US citizens eat almost 2X as much meat as in the UK and I think over 2X as the Australians.
Yep. The first study to make a distinction between red meat and processed meats determined that there was no increased CVD or diabetes association from red, unprocessed meat.
Circulation. 2010 Jun 1;121(21):2271-83. Epub 2010 May 17.
Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Micha R, Wallace SK, Mozaffarian D.
Source
Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. rmicha@hsph.harvard.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Meat consumption is inconsistently associated with development of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and diabetes mellitus, limiting quantitative recommendations for consumption levels. Effects of meat intake on these different outcomes, as well as of red versus processed meat, may also vary.
METHODS AND RESULTS:
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence for relationships of red (unprocessed), processed, and total meat consumption with incident CHD, stroke, and diabetes mellitus. We searched for any cohort study, case-control study, or randomized trial that assessed these exposures and outcomes in generally healthy adults. Of 1598 identified abstracts, 20 studies met inclusion criteria, including 17 prospective cohorts and 3 case-control studies. All data were abstracted independently in duplicate. Random-effects generalized least squares models for trend estimation were used to derive pooled dose-response estimates. The 20 studies included 1 218 380 individuals and 23 889 CHD, 2280 stroke, and 10 797 diabetes mellitus cases. Red meat intake was not associated with CHD (n=4 studies; relative risk per 100-g serving per day=1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.23; P for heterogeneity=0.36) or diabetes mellitus (n=5; relative risk=1.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.46; P=0.25). Conversely, processed meat intake was associated with 42% higher risk of CHD (n=5; relative risk per 50-g serving per day=1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.07 to 1.89; P=0.04) and 19% higher risk of diabetes mellitus (n=7; relative risk=1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.11 to 1.27; P<0.001). Associations were intermediate for total meat intake. Consumption of red and processed meat were not associated with stroke, but only 3 studies evaluated these relationships.
CONCLUSIONS:
Consumption of processed meats, but not red meats, is associated with higher incidence of CHD and diabetes mellitus. These results highlight the need for better understanding of potential mechanisms of effects and for particular focus on processed meats for dietary and policy recommendations.
Also, I am seeing data showing that we consume 40% more "meat" overall though which I guess pork and chicken than the Aussies?
Cool study. Do you know what they consider "processed" is it just the standard hot dogs and bologna? Is something like say Taco Bell processed or red meat?
Really shocked by the diabetes inclusion. I wonder though if that is just an additional factor of diet. People who consume more processed meats (lower economic I assume) also consumer more refined foods...
We eat almost twice as much poultry as anyone else.
Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk of Incident Coronary Heart Disease, Stroke, and Diabetes Mellitus“Red meat” was defined as unprocessed meat from beef, hamburgers, lamb, pork, or game and excluding poultry, fish, or eggs; “processed meat” was defined as any meat preserved by smoking, curing, or salting or addition of chemical preservatives, such as bacon, salami, sausages, hot dogs, or processed deli or luncheon meats, and excluding fish or eggs; and “total meat” was defined as the total of these 2 categories.
Negative finding for cardiovascular disease and red meat (processed meat was included in the meat that was consumed):
"Red Meat Intake Is Associated with Metabolic Syndrome and the Plasma C-Reactive Protein Concentration in Women."
Leila Azadbakht and Ahmad Esmaillzadeh 2009
Abstract
Although red meat consumption has been related to the prevalence of diabetes, few data are available showing the
relation among red meat intake, inflammation, and metabolic syndrome.We aimed to identify the association between red
meat intake, metabolic syndrome, and circulating concentrations of C-reactive protein (CRP) as a surrogate measure of
inflammation. In a cross-sectional study of 482 Tehrani female teachers aged 40–60 y, we used a FFQ to assess red meat
intake. Anthropometric measures, blood pressure, fasting plasma glucose, lipid profiles, and plasma CRP concentrations
were evaluated according to standard methods. Metabolic syndrome was defined as recommended by National
Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Red meat intake (mean 6 SEM) was 45.9 6 3.0 g/d.
After statistically controlling for potential confounders, geometric mean plasma CRP concentrations across increasing
quintile categories of red meat intake were 1.46, 1.66, 1.73, 1.89 6 1.89, and 2.03 mg/L (P-trend , 0.01). In the crude
model, individuals in the top quintile of red meat intake had greater odds of having metabolic syndrome compared with
those in the bottom quintile [odds ratio (OR): 2.33; 95% CI: 1.24, 4.38, P-trend , 0.01]. This association remained
significant even after adjustment for potential confounders (OR, 2.15; CI, 1.18, 4.01; P-trend ,0.01). Adjustment for CRP
did not affect this association (OR, 2.06; CI, 1.16, 3.98; P-trend ,0.01). In conclusion, increased red meat consumption is
cross-sectionally associated with greater risk of metabolic syndrome and inflammation. Further prospective investigations
will be needed to confirm this finding. J. Nutr. 139: 335–339, 2009.
Eating low quality industrial / processed meat is probably not a good idea (I personally avoid industrial red meat) but the statistics some people rely on to blame meat for X or Y aren't solid and a major problem with those is that they rely on food questionnaires.
Until we have a proposed mechanism of how meat makes us sick / gives us cancer / whatever that we can make experiments from, those epidemiological studies are to be taken with a big grain of salt (and salt too has been condemned with shaky epidemiological data).
And there are a couple of hunter-gatherer tribes in Africa who eat red meat and they don't have the problems often associated in studies that look at western population eating red meat.
I understand why the vegan gurus need to make health claims about their way of eating - because if it's only about animal cruelty / industrial farming there will always be people who don't care about animal welfare so they "need" objective health reasons that apply to everyone - but if you don't eat meat because you refuse to participate in the industrial slaughter then just say so, * you * don't need to justify your diet with dubious health claims, just tell the truth about why you do it. That's what Mike Mahler does, he doesn't push particular health claims about his vegan diet or against meat, his motives are upfront and he doesn't need to make stuff up.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks