the great vegetarian debate

[samseva]

Although I am not for vegetarianism (nor against) and not for die-hard meat-eating (this I am against), I do advocate that having three medium to large portions of meat a day is completely absurd.

[Spiny Norman]

Years ago I was doing some hill-walking during the lambing season, and near one town some children were watching the lambs being all cute and bouncy, their parents were saying stuff like "Oooh, aren't they sweet, shall we take one home?"
Later I saw the same family tucking into a nice lamb dinner at the local restaurant! People are strange.

[Sam Vara]

their parents were saying stuff like "Oooh, aren't they sweet, shall we take one home?"
Later I saw the same family tucking into a nice lamb dinner at the local restaurant!

Not at all incompatible if one has a cynical turn of mind...

[Spiny Norman]

their parents were saying stuff like "Oooh, aren't they sweet, shall we take one home?"
Later I saw the same family tucking into a nice lamb dinner at the local restaurant!

Not at all incompatible if one has a cynical turn of mind...

There's a kind of disconnect involved. It's like the way people dote on pet cats and dogs and treat them like one of the family, but don't care that countless pigs and cows to be slaughtered so they can some meat on their plate.

[Sam Vara]

their parents were saying stuff like "Oooh, aren't they sweet, shall we take one home?"
Later I saw the same family tucking into a nice lamb dinner at the local restaurant!

Not at all incompatible if one has a cynical turn of mind...

There's a kind of disconnect involved. It's like the way people dote on pet cats and dogs and treat them like one of the family, but don't care that countless pigs and cows to be slaughtered so they can some meat on their plate.

No, sorry - what I meant is that they were probably considering taking it home in order to slaughter and eat it!

[Spiny Norman]

No, sorry - what I meant is that they were probably considering taking it home in order to slaughter and eat it!

Oh, I see, I never thought of that! I heard recently on the news that sheep rustling is quite a big problem in the UK, so maybe that's what they were!

[Ron-The-Elder]

Used to hear jokes like that from hunters during deer season, such as "Let's go kill Bambie", and etc.

In our family we are definitely omnivores: Two cats, one dog, and two humans. The cats really don't have a choice, nor does the dog, but my wife and I do except for our Type II diabetes, which pretty much condemns us to a low carbohydrate diet. Prepared "leg of lamb" for dinner just the other night, with sides of potatoes, carrots, and onions. Didn't have any mint jelly, so we substituted sugar free orange marmalade.

Last night I grilled a t-bone steak for my wife and dog. The cats ate mixed fish (sardines) right out of the can. I had a stuffed pepper.

I cannot argue that the food was not killed specifically for me, so I guess that my karmic effects will have to endure a few thousand years in the hell realms for my dietary choices. But, life has to eat life (vegetable or animal) in order to live.

[Mkoll]

Type II diabetes, which pretty much condemns us to a low carbohydrate diet.

I think that should really be a low refined carbohydrate diet. According to many studies, whole grains are associated with reduced risk of T2D; here are 3 of them.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/76/3/535.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24158434

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23803885

So are fruits and veggies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24257723

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25377009

So eating more whole grains, fruits, and veggies are associated with reduced risk of T2D and eating more meat is associated with increased risk of T2D (as I showed 2 pages ago). I think most of us can put 2 and 2 together here...

[Spiny Norman]

Prepared "leg of lamb" for dinner just the other night, with sides of potatoes, carrots, and onions. I cannot argue that the food was not killed specifically for me, so I guess that my karmic effects will have to endure a few thousand years in the hell realms for my dietary choices.

No, you'll be reborn as a sheep.

[lostitude]

Type II diabetes, which pretty much condemns us to a low carbohydrate diet.

I think that should really be a low refined carbohydrate diet. According to many studies, whole grains are associated with reduced risk of T2D; here are 3 of them.

I agree... It has been a long time now that low-carb diets have been dropped for diabetes in general whatever its type. Only high-GI food (and oily/fatty food) should be eaten with caution, i.e. not in isolation outside of meals and in reasonable quantities, but even they are not even banned anymore.

Regarding the correlation between diabetes and meat consumption... citing studies really mean nothing. You have to take into account the actual amount of meat consumed, what else was consumed (or neglected) on the side, what kind of environment (physical activity, pollution, etc.) the subject lived in, how healthy were they in the first place, and so on. You can probably find other such studies that find no correlation between meat and diabetes.
As a general rule, and what all the science shows is that whatever is eaten should be eaten in moderation. Extremes are just as bad in nutrition as they are in religion.

[lostitude]

What are your sources? Did you both arrive at that conclusion by common sense? This is the first time I am hearing this.

An infant or small child is growing rapidly, much faster than at any other stage in their life. Adults normally don't grow at all or if they do if it is very small amounts from perhaps 18 to 25 years old. Can you name any other species which drinks milk and eats dairy products beyond the age of one?

The fact that our growth is minimal compared to infants doesn't make saturated fat unhealthy. The logic just doesn't add up; there are false and missing premises.

I get the argument for dairy, as normally we lose the enzymes to effectively digest milk, but even then, that doesn't make the macronutrients from the milk unhealthy.

If I remember correctly, infants need fat mainly for nerve and brain development. Nerve cells are made up of a lot more fat than other cells, because it is this fat (and cholesterol) that make them so flexible as to allow such thing as neurotransmitters to circulate. Once the nervous system has matured to a certain stage, the needs go down dramatically.
However I completely agree with samseva that saturated fat are definitely part of a healty diet. They should of course be limited, but is there ANY food that should not be limited? I think not.
As a side note, I don't think cow milk should be compared with human milk, as their nutritional profiles are completely different. Cow milk contains almost no fat compared with human milk.

[lostitude]

mkoll: "A diet rich in meat has been reported to contribute to the risk of type 2 diabetes. The present study aims to investigate the association between meat consumption and incident type 2 diabetes in the EPIC-InterAct study, a large prospective case-cohort study nested within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study."

Interesting study. Both my wife and I are type II diabetics. We were advised to lose weight, and to diet in accordance with The Atkins diet, which is primarily animal protein and fats. Neither one of us has lost any significant amount of weight, because of our ages, as we are both +/- 70 and find it very punishing to do levels of exercise without getting injured. It takes days for us to recover from a three or four hour hike, where in our youths we used to run miles and miles and miles, and then mow the lawn.

Sorry for the third posting in a row, but I would really advise you Ron-The-Elder to seek a second opinion. As a dietitian I have never heard any competent AND up-to-date diabetologist recommend the Atkins diet for diabetes at your age. When you're around 70 the usual recommendations are to avoid gaining weight (and certainly not embark on an ambitious weight-loss program with the possible deficiencies that often go with that), continue moderate physical activity and eat a reasonable balanced diet with no specifically forbidden food category. This is what I hear most often, so I would recommend you get a second opinion, it would probably be better for your health and your spirits!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... betes.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (not to scare you, but just so you know!)

[samseva]

As a side note, I don't think cow milk should be compared with human milk, as their nutritional profiles are completely different. Cow milk contains almost no fat compared with human milk.

The nutritional profiles of bovine and human breast milk are very similar. Furthermore, the fat content of milk, before being mechanically reduced, is almost exactly the same as human breast milk—approximately 4%.

[Mkoll]

Regarding the correlation between diabetes and meat consumption... citing studies really mean nothing. You have to take into account the actual amount of meat consumed, what else was consumed (or neglected) on the side, what kind of environment (physical activity, pollution, etc.) the subject lived in, how healthy were they in the first place, and so on.

All three of the studies cited adjusted for many of those confounds. It seems to be a standard practice in nutritional science.

You can probably find other such studies that find no correlation between meat and diabetes.

But by your very own words, that would "mean nothing."

Anyway, that's not a good argument. An AGW denier could say: "You could find studies that find no correlation between human activities and global warming." And technically, he'd be right. But it's a bad argument because the overwhelming majority of the evidence says otherwise. We have to look at where the preponderance of the evidence points.

Here is some more of that preponderance, providing more evidence for the association between processed red meat, red meat, meat, iron and excess protein with diabetes:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25838035 (risk for T2D from both processed and regular red meat, higher with processed)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22391937 (T1D in children associated with higher total meat consumption)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23651531 (higher red meat associated with T2D in Japanese men, but not women)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23354681 ("Several prospective studies have reported that risk of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is elevated in meat consumers, especially when processed meats are consumed. Elevated risks of coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke in meat consumers have also been reported.")

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20479151 ("CONCLUSIONS: Consumption of processed meats, but not red meats, is associated with higher incidence of CHD and diabetes mellitus."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22277554 ("CONCLUSION: The consumption of processed meat, such as spam, but not unprocessed red meat, was associated with higher risk of diabetes in AIs, a rural population at high risk of diabetes and with limited access to healthy foods.")

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22850191 ("In conclusion, results from the present large population-based prospective study indicate that high protein intake is associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes.")

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25799813("Diabetes mellitus is a common health problem of the world. Iron may be a part of the cause of the disease and its complications.")

OK, that's enough work though I could go on and on. So looking over the evidence I've presented so far, it seems virtually certain that processed red meat is associated with diabetes and fairly certain that unprocessed red meat is associated with it. Excess meat and protein in general may be implicated. The heme-iron found in high amounts in red meat may play a role because it can lead to excess iron in the body—this excess is associated with other diseases as well.

I've presented a few studies showing reduced risk from whole grains, fruits, and veggies and could present many, many more. So putting 2 and 2 together...

1. Eat more whole grains, fruits, and veggies (thereby automatically reducing intake of animal products assuming unchanged caloric intake)
2. ?
3. PROFIT

[Ron-The-Elder]

lostitude wrote: "As a dietitian I have never heard any competent AND up-to-date diabetologist recommend the Atkins diet for diabetes at your age. When you're around 70 the usual recommendations are to avoid gaining weight (and certainly not embark on an ambitious weight-loss program with the possible deficiencies that often go with that), continue moderate physical activity and eat a reasonable balanced diet with no specifically forbidden food category. This is what I hear most often, so I would recommend you get a second opinion, it would probably be better for your health and your spirits!"

Followed Dr. Ornish's diet for years and did very well, but I was running five miles both morning and night, and cycling hundreds of miles on the weekends. Experienced multiple (hundreds) of effusive strokes over two or three episodes in my late sixties to the right hemisphere of the brain, developed aortic stenosis about age seventy and can no longer do the aerobic exercise. So, my exercise is limited to walking the dog for a few miles a few times per week, mowing the grass, raking leaves, and shoveling snow. The dietitians I have consulted over the years are all over the map, but all agree that raw complex carbs are the right way to go, and that a diet high in animal protein is best for diabetics. All agree that processed & refined carbs should be avoided. Not sure which dietitian to consult, who would disagree with this approach.