From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: low meat consumption versus vegetarianism
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 02:29:12 GMT

Ted Wayn Altar writes:

>[stuff deleted]
>To help make this point, permit me to post some more tables. 
>
>   +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   +                                                               +
>   +     RELATIVE PERCENTAGE OF LIFE STYLE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING    +
>   + TO A DECREASED LIFE EXPECTANCY FROM ATHEROSCLEROSIS & CANCER  +
>   +                                                               +
>   +           Tobacco                                 25%         +
>   +                                                               +
>   +           Meat                                    25%         +
>   +                                                               +
>   +           diary Products                          15%         +
>   +           eggs, high fat                                      +
>   +           foods                                               +
>   +                                                               +
>   +           Obesity                                 10%         +
>   +                                                               +
>   +           Lack of Exercise                        10%         +
>   +                                                               +
>   +           Stress, refined sugars,                 15%         +
>   +           other factors                                       +
>   +                                                               +
>   +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>The above chart is useful in providing one estimate of the relative
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>contribution of life style factors for an increased risk for
>atherosclerosis and cancer.  This result was first presented at an annual
>meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science by John
>Scharffenberg (M.D., M.P.H.) who is Adjunct Professor of Nutrition at Loma
>Linda University and is the Vice President of the Pacific Health Education
>Center (also published in Scharffenberg's "Problems with Meat", 1989).
>These estimates of the relative contribution of life style factors are
>based upon epidemological data.

Let's be wary of confusing the Art of Medicine with science, and with
estimating things which aren't fully understood.


>In particular, Scharffenberg employed epidemiological data educed from some
>vegetarian populations (e.g., Seventh Day Adventists).  It turns out from
>Scharffenberg's data that the best diet for human beings in terms of health
>and longevity is vegetarian.  In general, vegetarians live about 6 years
>longer than their meat eating counterparts (i.e., meat-eating Seventh Day
>Adventists).  If we select as our comparison group only those Seventh Day
>Adventists who still eat meat AND who do not smoke, it turns out that their
>total vegetarian counterparts still out live them by 3 years.  Hence, even
>when we use a somewhat CONSERVATIVE comparison group (remember, not all
>SDA's are vegetarian but on the whole they would still eat less
>meat then the average North American) and thereby control for known life
>style hazards like smoking, VEGETARIANS STILL LIVE LONGER (ABOUT 3 YEARS)
>THAN EVEN MODERATE MEAT EATERS, meat eaters who otherwise share essentially
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the same life style.  This is still a substantial difference and it would
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>appear that the hazards of meat eating are on the same level as that of
>smoking (which as we have seen shortens this comparison group's lifespan by
>about 3 years).

I'm curious about what kind of lifestyle these religious folk lead.
Do they get a lot of exercise and do a lot of physical labor, or are
they basically sedentary?  If so, they may not be representative of
the majority of the population.  And I agree that a vegetarian diet
may be better for inactive people (although not by enough to meet my
own personal definition of "significant").  I have very little faith
in inconclusive studies that are medical related.


>[more stuff deleted]
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> +  Here are some upper estimates by how much you can reduce your        +
> +  risk of heart attack if you reduce your consumption of meat, dairy   +
> +  products and eggs by a given amount:                                 +
> +                                                                       +
> +  10% reduction of consumption = 9% reduction in risk                  +
> +  50%   "       "       "      = 45%  "        "  "                    +
> +  100%  "       "       "      = 90%  "        "  "                    +
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yeah, I'd agree that they're "upper estimates." :-)  Mind if I ask for
a reference for this (note that a PETA brochure probably wouldn't be
considered a good one :-)?


>With respect to cancer, in 1982 a committee of scientists (epidemiologists,
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>oncologists, nutritionists, etc.) were commissioned by the American
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>National Cancer Institute (a very  conservative organization indeed).

Again, we seem to have a radically different view on what we call
science. :-)


>Their findings converge with the above results:
>
>   +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   +            THE LARGEST CANCER FACTORS               +
>   +            ARE THE ONES WE CAN CONTROL              +
>   +                                                     +
>   +   diet                                         35%  +
>   +   tobacco                                      30   +
>   +   viruses                                      5%   +
>   +   occupation                                   4%   +
>   +   alcohol                                      3%   +
>   +   excess sun exposure                          3%   +
>   +   environmental pollution                      2%   +
>   +   medicine and medical procedures              1%   +
>   +   food additives                               1%   +
>   +                                                     +
>   +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This doesn't look too conclusive about vegetarian diets being better.
I'll gladly pull the reference and check it out, but the word "diet"
conjures up images of doctors/nutritionists telling me not to eat
saccharine and other known carcinogens.


>The cruel probability of developing cancer sometime during one's life is
>now approaching 1 in 3.  Of those who do get cancer, 1 in 5 will die from
>it.  Even by these conservative estimates, the food we eat we consume is
>the greatest single cause of cancer.  In particular, it is meat and diary
>products in our diet that puts us at risk.

I'm not sure it's as widely believed as you seem to think.  If it
were, I'm pretty sure it would be packages of meat and not cigarette
cartons that would carry the Surgeon General's warning labels about
the product causing cancer.  We're pretty good about things like that
here in the United States.


>Given the above estimates to be correct, it is indeed curious that so much
>attention and public funding has gone into educating the public about the
>need to quite smoking, lose weight and exercise while comparative very
>little attention has been given to the problem that the eating of meat by
>itself may be as hazardous as smoking! 

Kind of makes a person wonder if the above *estimates* are indeed
correct, doesn't it?  Or are they just fringe material put together by
people for whatever agenda they might have...


>The health benefits of vegetarianism is really beyond dispute.  One can
>only wonder what might be the sociological and psychological conditions
>behind people's irrational persistence in denying the objective evidence
>that has been around for decades.  Of course, many people are even still
>denying the hazards incurred by smoking.  But better health is only one
>reason favouring a vegetarian diet.  More persuasive, I would hope, would
>be the ethical and the ecological arguments.  Expanding the circle of
>concern and caring beyond our own skins or propinquity is not only one of
>our better human possibilities, but it is a necessity for a sad planet so
>endangered by human exploitation, unbridled greed and callow disregard.

I'm afraid the jury's still out, despite your claim that "the health
benefits of vegetarianism is really beyond dispute."  And the ethical
and ecological arguments don't seem too valid to me either.  We've
discussed a few of them before.
     Like many others, I base the claim that vegetarians are more
healthy on the fact that people have become less active as we advance
and become more urbanized, and that less active people are unable to
properly burn up the fat in meat.  If a person is very active, diet
doesn't seem to be a major concern.


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--


Newsgroups: rec.food.veg