Vegan Diets are Healthier

Thanks again Con for your participation in this debate. I will open with the link between meat, obesity and diabetes. In my rebuttal, I will address Con's critique of the WCRF/AICR cancer study. I will also address Con's comments on iron and B12. In round 4 I will show that vegans can be healthy without spreadsheets. I will also provide authoritative source which advocate vegan diets, as Con requested, in round 4. Diabetes and Obesity The seventh leading causes of death in the United States is diabetes[1]. Diabetes is itself a contributing factor to heart disease and stroke[2]. People eating vegan diets have a one-half reduction in the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes[8]. There are several reasons this may be the case. Vegans have: less obesity [2][4] lower intake of saturated fat[2] higher intake of fiber (especially soluble fiber)[2] higher intake of magnesium[2] higher intake of unrefined foods with low glycemic index[4] Excessive body weight is the most important risk factor for Type 2 diabetes[2]. Vegans, on average, have lower body mass index when compared with meat eaters[4]. Almost a third of the adults in the United States are obese[3]. About 15% of American youths are overweight while another 15% are at risk of becoming overweight[5]. In addition to an increased risk of diabetes, obesity carries with it other problems such as: Sleep apnea, pseudotumor cerebri, and Blount's disease[6] Hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and abnormal glucose tolerance[6] Obesity negatively affects adolescent socialization[6] The medical costs of obesity are estimated to be about 70 billion dollars a year[7] A reduced risk for diabetes and obesity powerfully supports the view that a vegan diet is healthier. Rebuttal Cancer Study The "latest study" Con cites (I will refer to it as a "review") on the link between cancer and meat seems to be more controversy than science. According to feedstuffsfoodlink.com, The National Cattlemen's Beef Assn (NCBA) commissioned Exponent Health Sciences (Dr. Dominik Alexander) to review the important findings of the WCRF and AICR cancer metastudy[14]. Predictably, Dr. Alexander's findings turned out to be favorable to the interests of the meat industry. The WCRF and the AICR vehemently dispute Drs. Alexander's and Truswell's review. They claim that the meat industry (specifically the National Beef Association (NBA), the National Sheep Association (NSA) and the National Farmers) "[mislead] the public by making factually inaccurate and potentially defamatory comments"[15][16]. WCRF says of the review: "WCRF is not aware of any such review. It is aware of Dr Truswell publishing a letter in the AJCN, which was printed with an accompanying letter from WCRF responding to his points. Dr Alexander published a review of the evidence on whether animal fats and animal proteins affect cancer risk. But this is not the same as a review of the link between meat and cancer as much animal fat and protein is dairy. WCRF is aware he has conducted a review of the evidence on the link between meat and cancer, but because this has not been published it is not in the public domain and so cannot be commented on."[15] I was not able to find a reputable news outlet that published any article on this review. I attribute this to the consideration that consumers of news are interested in actual health information; not in the inconsequential disputes between science and industry. The citation Con gives for this was an article on a website called "topnews.us". I was not able to find any information regarding the authority of this site. The website has no Wikipedia page which is unheard of for a news outlet. This may imply that the Wikipedia editorship concluded that topnews.us does not meet with its guidelines for notability (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The topnews.us article on this review did not mention the controversy. It might be thought that topnews.us were simply unaware of the controversy but this is not the case. In the article, they quote the WCRF press release to make it appear as if the WCRF were sympathetic to the review's findings: "In the WCRF's defense, Prof. Martin Wiseman, Project Director of the report, said, 'We say explicitly that red meat has important nutritional benefits and do not recommend avoiding it altogether'". The WCRF was actually responding to accusations the meat industry made against the WCRF which claimed they were on an "anti-meat crusade". Consider what was left out of the quote: "The implication that we are somehow a tool of the anti-meat lobby is ludicrous. We say explicitly that red meat has important nutritional benefits and we do not recommend avoiding it altogether."[15] Con's source, for some reason, tried to conceal the controversy. This topnews.us citation cannot be considered a reliable source. Furthermore, the review can't be said to have undermined the metastudy at all. I encourage the reader to examine the sources I gave for this information as it provides an interesting behind-the-scenes look at how the meat lobby works toward controlling scientific knowledge and public opinion. Iron In round 1 Con claimed that vegetarians had low stores of ferritine iron in their body. The citation Con used made it clear that this is the case for *some* vegetarians - particularly those who simply do not consume enough iron in their diet. This criticism is not relevant to the resolution since it doesn't concern a well planned vegan diet. As Con noted, vitamin C plays a key role in the absorption of iron[9]. Citric acids (found in citrus fruits) and fruit sugars (fructose) also enhance absorption[10][11]. Since vegan diets are high in these components it is easier for vegans to absorb iron. The iron found in red meat (heme) has been shown to damage the lining of the colon[12]. The vegetable world is replete with non-heme iron. Rich sources of iron include: lentils, beans, leaf vegetables, tofu, chickpeas, and black-eyed peas[13]. B12 I need to clarify what I had said about B12 in round 2. Livestock animals are contaminated with B12 producing bacteria. This is to say that they are infested with bacteria that produce B12. This does not imply that the B12 is contaminated. I was not arguing that all bacteria are bad. Please reread my comments on B12 in round 2. 1 http://www.cdc.gov... 2 http://books.google.com... (page 32) 3 http://www.cdc.gov... 4 http://care.diabetesjournals.org... (Abstract) 5 http://www.biostat.mcg.edu... 6 http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... 7 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 8 http://care.diabetesjournals.org... (Conclusions) 9 http://ods.od.nih.gov... 10 http://www.parentingscience.com... 11 http://www.vegetariannutrition.net... 12 http://www.aicr.org... 13 http://en.wikipedia.org... 14 http://feedstuffsfoodlink.com... 15 http://www.wcrf.org... 16 http://www.aicr.org...