Vegan Diets are Healthier

Interesting topic ... The Latest Study Shows Meat Does Not Cause Cancer The studies cited by Pro have been superseded by a more recent study: A new study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, however, has refuted that earlier research's claims. After conducting a thorough review of the WCRF's study, scientists Dr. Stewart Truswell, of the University of Sydney, and Dr. Dominik Alexander, of Exponent, concluded that "there is no conclusive evidence of a causal relationship" between eating meat and developing cancer". 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".http://topnews.us... The recommendations of the AICR and WCRF cited by Pro were not for a vegan diet. Pro incorrectly concluded that if a high-vegetable diet was good, that an all-vegetable diet would be better. WCRF recommended a low-meat diet, but explicitly endorsed meat consumption, saying " red meat has important nutritional benefits and do not recommend avoiding it altogether." Whatever risks posed by meat are, according to the study Pro cited, outweighed by the benefits of meat eaten in modest quantities. That's consistent with the Okinawan diet, consumed by the world's longest-lived population. They eat meat in modest quantities and live the longest. Too much is bad, but zero is also bad Consider salt. Increasing amounts of salt produce worse health. However, having no salt is fatal. The same is true of fats, proteins, and, in the extreme, even water. For many things in the diet there is an amount that is optimum for health. That is true for meat. The optimum amount appears to be around that in the Okinawan diet. As I referenced them, that view is endorsed by the National Institute for Health, the American Heart Association, and Pro's cited authority, the World Cancer Research Fund. Pro has not provided a single authoritative source that claims that a vegan diet is better than a low-meat balanced diet. Eating vegetables also causes cancer. Researchers have linked increased use of nitrate fertilisers to an alarming rise in gullet cancer in Britain....'It appears that the mass production of vegetables in the Western world since the last world war may be the underlying factor that has led to such huge increases in this form of cancer,' he added. ... McColl said it was unlikely that organic food would be any healthier, because it also contained substantial levels of nitrate, some of which came from natural fertilisers such as manure. http://www.guardian.co.uk... More generally, the list of foods causing the highest risk of cancer comprises sugar; processed meats; doughnuts, french fries, and other fried starchy foods; and chips, crackers, and cookies. http://www.naturalnews.com... Other than processed meat, all the foods declared most risky are vegan. Vegan planning is beyond the average person I suggested that only health fanaticism would motivate a vegan diet, deducing this from the burdens of diet restrictions. It did not occur to me that refusal to drink milk or catch sardines was ethically motivated. However, Pro cites good evidence, and I accept his argument. It is an ethical belief akin to the religious prohibitions. It is explained as a quasi-religious practice. This explains another troubling piece of data: in the comprehensive metastudy vegans had higher mortality rates than non-strict vegetarians, fish eaters, and occasional meat eaters. The vegans fared no better than those eating unconstrained meat diets. While it is theoretically possible to get enough protein, iron, B12, omega-3 fats, and other nutrients from vegetables, doing so essentially requires a spreadsheet. Recall the nutritionist advice I cited: "The best way to make sure you're getting enough nutrients , including protein, is to keep track of the foods you eat on a daily basis." In other words, vegans can get enough protein and other essentials, but often-enough they don't. This is similar to saying that meat-eaters can avoid being overweight by restricting their calories, but they don't. The difference is that vegans fail by lack planning, while meat-eaters fail by lack of will. Pro defined "well-planned" as "A diet which can be designed by a layperson with a reasonable amount of research." To track protein, iron, B12, saturated-fat induced cholesterol, omega-3s, and all the other stuff on a daily basis requires more research and record keeping than the average layman can sustain, and the solid evidence is that vegans don't do it. I conceded that vegans could get enough protein, and that's true. The problem is that they usually don't. Meat-eaters could restrict their intake of calories and cholesterol, they just usually don't. However, a well-planned balanced diet is within the ability of the average person. It's mainly calories and saturated fats. If the body needs iron, the practitioner of a balanced diet will crave it and is allowed to eat accordingly. Vegans need complex spreadsheets. Vegetarians vs. Vegans Pro asked why vegetarians had better health than vegans, and he conjectured that it was due to getting more B12 and omega-3s. Perhaps, but (see the original quote) the study said it was mostly because their vegetarian sample was dominated by non-smokers. Without the unrelated benefit of not smoking, the healthiest diets were those who ate modest amounts of meat or modest amounts of fish. B12 B12 is produced by the bacteria in dirt, for sure, but its consumed naturally in meat. Pro suggests that the B12 prepared for supplements is less contaminated, but he offers no evidence that "less contaminated" B12 provides better health. The human digestive system harbors a menagerie of bacteria, and B12 bacteria are compatible. http://www.vegan-nutritionista.com... Moreover, there is evidence that too much cleanliness contributes to allergies, as the immune system looks for something to attack. http://www.everydayhealth.com... Saturated-fat Vegetable Oils Pro conceded there are unhealthy vegetable oils (coconut, cottonseed, palm, etc.) that induce high cholesterol, but said they are rare. In fact, these oils are common and their use is increasing: "Palm oil is a common cooking ingredient in the tropical belt of Africa, Southeast Asia and parts of Brazil. Its increasing use in the commercial food industry in other parts of the world is buoyed by its lower cost] and the high oxidative stability (saturation) of the refined product when used for frying." http://en.wikipedia.org... In the US, they are often in imported products like instant noodles. Pro says that vegans can avoid them. That is another item to be taken into account in the "well planned vegan diet." It must go on the spreadsheet for daily monitoring for traces of meat, fish, or dairy poducts; B12; iron; protein; omega-3s; sugar; doughnuts or french fries; and cookies, chips, or crackers. That's too much to tack for any layman who is not a health fanatic, and we have agreed that vegans are not health fanatics. Summary Studies show that people who consume modest amounts of meat or fish have better health than vegans. The National Institute of Health, American Heart Association, and World Cancer Research Fund all recommend a balanced diet that includes meat. The longest-lived populations consume meat. Pro persists in comparing unplanned diets having meat with a theoretically optimum vegan diet. The planning for the idealized vegan diet is beyond the average person.