From: gph@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Paul Houtz)
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Vegetarians and Missionaries(Was: Re: the single vegetarian)
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:30:04 GMT
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA

nkraft@bkhouse.cts.com (Norman Kraft) writes:

>Actually, I think you've missed part of my point. In such studies as those
>quoted above, and others of smaller groups, the data has shown that as
>meat consumption decreases, so do health troubles of the cardiovascular
>and typically western "excess" variety. While no large scale studies have 
>been done on truly vegan populations (if there are any), the conclusion 
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you mean "are there any truly vegan populations", the answer is "Yes".
I am vegan, and many people throughout the U.S. are vegan, and studies
could be done on us.   Also, a number of health and nutrition studies
have been done on "The Farm", a planned community of vegans in Tennesee.

Particularly, studies have been done on health of babies of over 400 vegan
mothers at the Farm.   All were determined to have babies of normal or
better than average health.
 
>certainly leads to the strong possibility that if meat products were 
>completely removed from the diet, the observed trends would continue. 
>This is not cold, hard support for using the China data to support a vegan 
>diet, but the data certainly hints at a vegan conclusion. It most assuredly
>leads me away from the "meat is good for you" argument.

  Exactly.   While Rich and Tim are correct in that it cannot be PROVEN
  that tiny amounts of animal foods are harmful to human health, one has
  to realize that very little can be "proven".   On the other hand, as
  you say, it is clear from the great preponderance of data that adding
  meat to the diet does not in any way improve human health, and the more
  meat that is added, the less healthy humans become.

>>>>	I'm an omnivore, I don't have ANY of the above diseases/conditions,
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    This is highly debatable.  I can't tell which omnivore this statement
    came from, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that an examination
    of his arterial walls would show significant amounts of atherosclerosis.
    While he may not have high blood pressure or high cholesterol, heart
    disease is a long-term problem.   A statement like this from a man
    or woman in their 20's or 30's is tantamount to a cigarette smoker
    in his 20's or 30's claiming there is nothing wrong with cigarettes
    because THEY don't have lung cancer.

    By the way, a close friend of mine was just diagnosed with terminal
    lung cancer.  He is 32 years old, and an ex-smoker.  Doctors say it
    is from his smoking.

    By the way, a close friend of mine just underwent heart surgery, for
    constriction of a cardiac artery (bypass).   He had a minor heart attack.
    He is 39 years old.   We had several arguments about meat eating vs
    vegetarianism, and one of HIS arguments was he eats a lot of meat, and
    does not have any problems with heart disease.

>>>>	and I'm quite happy, thank you.  The point being that consumption
>>>>	of animal products is not an automatic sentence to constant battles
>>>>	with disease and deterioration.

    This is possibly true.   Just as my next door neighbor is 87 years old
    and has been a heavy smoker most of his life.

    On the other hand, he is in TERRIBLE shape, constant pain, unable to
    walk.   He has made three trips to the hospital via ambulance in the
    last two months.   Just think how much longer he might have lived, and
    how much more he could have done had he not smoked.


Thanks for your posting, Norman.  I think you make the point rather well.