Plant Based Diets

Discussion in 'Geek Food' started by tobes, Mar 7, 2018.

  1. BurningFeetMan

    BurningFeetMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    8,345
    Location:
    Veg City
    Keep in mind however, that your great-grandparents prolly did eat meat, but like, once a month. I recall stories from my nan where they only ate chicken on the last Sunday of the month, and as a child this completely dumb-founded me as I was more or less eating it all-the-time. You really need to look at the data regarding statements like that, what did all the great-grand parents die from, and does their mortality tie in with their choice of eating?

    Anywho, today's coffee break viewing;
    -

    Why would you listen to anyone who proclaims that they're vegan whilst they're boasting about loving to eat fish? ... Did you correct her and say that she's actually not vegan?

    And that's not to say that a predominantly plant-based diet can't consist of meat/dairy here or there. Or that vegans don't accidentally eat meat/milk from time to time. But for someone to just blatantly say they enjoy eating non-vegan food whilst proclaiming they're a vegan is an idiot.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2019
    vladtepes likes this.
  2. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,373
    Location:
    NW Tasmania
    I tend to lean towards diet extremists/evangelists being the idiots.
     
  3. boneburner

    boneburner Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,195
    Interesting findings regarding fructose vs glucose - and their affects on the way we use and store fat (and other stuff)


    Fructose Under Fire @ NewAtlas
     
  4. vladtepes

    vladtepes Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,230
    Location:
    Brisbane, Qld
    tps://www.theaustralian.com.au/science/no-need-to-ditch-red-meat-study/news-story/8847465c46feaf537964e8a1c9654ede#&gid=null&pid=1 [​IMG]

    A major series of scientific reviews has found little evidence that the consumption of red meat is linked with cancer, diabetes and heart disease, casting doubt on dietary guidelines that recommend curtailing consumption.

    The research published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the journal of the American College of Physicians, finds that nutritional recommendations to reduce red meat consumption are based on “weak, low-certainty evidence” and that there are very few health benefits to cutting meat consumption.

    The evidence is contrary to World Health Organisation recommendations which advise reducing the consumption of red meat. Australia’s current nutritional guidelines recommend limiting consumption to 455 grams per week, the equivalent of around three average-sized serves.

    The series of reviews were carried out by a large international research team of physicians, dietitians and public health bodies with the aim of improving the quality of nutritional guidance on red and processed meat.

    Study author Bradley Johnston, an associate professor at the Department of Community Health and Epidemiology at Dalhousie University in Canada, said the research by the NutriRECS consortium was a response to an increasing call for higher quality nutritional guidelines.

    “Based on our systematic reviews assessing the potential harms of red and processed meat consumption, there is only low certainty evidence of a very small reduction in cancer, diabetes and heart disease from reducing red meat and processed meat consumption,” Professor Johnston said.

    “Based on these reviews, we cannot say with any certainty that eating red meat or processed meat causes cancer, diabetes or heart disease.

    “People who choose not to eat meat (vegetarians) report health as one of the main reasons for avoiding it. However, any health benefits from staying away from meat are uncertain, and, if they exist at all, are very small.

    “For most people who enjoy eating meat, the uncertain health benefits of cutting down are unlikely to be worth it.”

    Veganism has been increasing in popularity around the world in recent years, especially driven by concerns around climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently encouraged people around the world to move to eating a plant-based diet to address global warming.

    However, today’s study did not consider ethical or environmental reasons for abstaining from meat in their recommendations. “These are valid and important concerns, (but they are not) concerns that bear on individual health,” the study authors said.

    Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council says it would welcome consideration of the new research in any nutritional guideline revisions. Australia’s nutritional guidelines are currently more than five years old and the council is currently seeking funding in order to update them.

    The NHMRC said previous rigorous evidence reviews “suggested a correlation between red meat consumption at greater than 100-120g per day and an increased risk of colorectal cancer and an increased risk of renal cancer”.

    The World Health Organisation International Agency for Research on Cancer has indicated that the consumption of red meat is ‘probably carcinogenic” to humans, and that processed meat is “carcinogenic”.
    But the NutriRECS consortium found in its systematic reviews that these conclusions were not sound.

    Among 12 randomised trials enrolling about 54,000 individuals, the researchers did not find a statistically significant association between meat consumption and the risk of cancer, heart disease or diabetes.

    Among cohort studies following millions of participants, the researchers did find a very small reduction in risk among those who consumed three fewer servings of red or processed meat per week. However, the association was “very uncertain”.

    The Cancer Council of Australia responded to the research by saying it continued to support recommendations that the consumption of red meat should be limited.
    Clare Hughes, chair of the Cancer Council’s Nutrition and Physical Activity Committee, said that in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer considered more than 800 studies on red meat, processed meat and cancer risk.

    “They concluded that processed meat was carcinogenic and red meat was probably carcinogenic. Eating too much red and processed meats was most commonly associated with bowel cancer.
    “The evidence was so compelling that the expert panel deemed consumption of processed meat of public health importance because of its contribution to global cancer incidence.
    “Cancer Council will continue to be guided by the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer and recommend people consume only moderate amounts of red meat and limit processed meat consumption.”

    The Heart Foundation’s chief medical advisor, Professor Garry Jennings, a cardiologist, said that “while the review adds to our understanding, overall, there is benefit from reducing excessive red meat consumption”.

    “The Heart Foundation currently recommends eating one to three unprocessed red meat meals a week following a recent review of evidence-based research published between 2010 to 2018,” Dr Jennings said.
    “The weight of evidence found high red meat consumption moderately increased the risks for heart disease and stroke and may lead to weight gain.
    “The Heart Foundation’s current guidelines recognise that when it comes to eating, the big picture matters. It is important to regularly include a variety of other foods such as vegetables, wholegrains, legumes, fish and nuts in a healthy eating pattern, while cutting down on junk and takeaway foods.

    Nutrition science is constantly evolving and while we recognise its limitations, healthy eating advice should be periodically updated to reflect the best available, evidence-based research.
    We recognise the need for further good quality nutrition research and will continue to monitor the science to inform the Heart Foundation’s healthy eating advice.”
     
  5. RnR

    RnR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    13,295
    Location:
    Brisbane
    That study is bogus - https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2019/09/30/flawed-guidelines-red-processed-meat/

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21120196
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2019
    BurningFeetMan likes this.
  6. vladtepes

    vladtepes Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,230
    Location:
    Brisbane, Qld
    Interesting RnR.

    In the end I think it's all rather pointless.
    If someone is so risk averse as to avoid eating red meat due to potential (or even real) health concerns they are really addressing something that is overall a low risk as far as how likely it is to kill them or significantly impact their health by comparison with other activities.. like driving a car.

    Also, those who love red meat will eat red meat anyway; and those who are more vegetable inclined were never eating huge amounts in the first place.
     
  7. vladtepes

    vladtepes Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,230
    Location:
    Brisbane, Qld
    I said "I think the best bit of advice I've ever heard is "Never eat anything your great- grandparents wouldn't recognise as food""

    But my statement was not about meat, it was about the difference between fresh (real) food and overly-processed muck masquerading as 'food'.

    Your nan ate meat rarely.. this didn't happen to be during the depression years did it? Because obviously affordability would have been the main issue there.

    My Dad's family is from Rockhampton so plenty of red meat eating was had there, and since., Nothing wrong with him healthwise after 75-ish years of steak-chomping :)
     
  8. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,373
    Location:
    NW Tasmania
    Yeah I would be questioning the motives and funding sources behind that study for sure. How the hell are you meant to do controlled studies on diet/nutritional impacts on large populations?
    It sounds like the climate change deniers crapping on about empirical evidence, double blind experiments etc, and then shitting on climate models not predicting a thunder storm in 4 years' time.
     
  9. BurningFeetMan

    BurningFeetMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    8,345
    Location:
    Veg City
    I whole heatedly agree that it's absolutely industry driven bogus.

    My take on it is;
    Doctors recommend that smoking 17 cigarettes a day instead of 20 won't make much of a difference, so may as well keep on smoking the 20 ciggies.


    So, are you suggesting that due to the risk of death via car accident, that I should indulge in all other non-related risky activities? That's some broken logic right there buddy, unless I've misunderstood you... Bowl cancer is real, it's a thing, and you really, really don't want it and absolutely should be making life style changes to avoid it.

    Yeah, that's one of the elephants in the room with all this stuff. So many sources, so much industry influence and money, so many sellouts and snake oil sales men - from all sides of each argument. Take Joel Fuhrman, classic snake oil sales men. Sure, he's advocates healthy plant based diet eating (which is great!), but then drops a seed of doubt into the mix regarding his science on "DHA" and oh, what do you know! He sells a "DHA" supplement on his website! What a piece of work. :mad:


    In other news, I caught the last 5 minutes of Jamie Oliver's - "Jamie's Meat Free Meals" cooking show, and was rather impressed by the vegan Pad-thai he cooked up... right until the very last second, where he cracked an egg all over it. :sick: I think back to my egg eating days, and it's weird how I used to think that they were delicious. But after being egg free for a few years now, I couldn't think of anything worse to eat.
     
  10. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,373
    Location:
    NW Tasmania

    What about 5 cigarettes instead of 20?

    "Risky" is a term that requires you to quantify it, not just equate two things because they have a risk factor. What's the actual increased risk of bowel cancer from eating, say, 1.5kg of meat a week instead of the recommended 500g? What's the risk of jumping out of a plane without a parachute compared to eating a full salami every day?

    Driving a car regularly is far more risky, so from my point of view, your use of language rather than actual facts to rebut vladtepes is as much of an issue as any broken logic. Vegans do it all the time on social media - wax lyrical with emotive, hyperbolic language to characterise things as they want people to see them; unfortunately for their religious ambitions, most people see through it.
     
  11. BurningFeetMan

    BurningFeetMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    8,345
    Location:
    Veg City
    Did... did you just accuse me of fallacy and then attack me with just that? Sooo, let's clear some things up;

    Vegans aren't religious - And if you thought that they were religious, then there's a good reason you're seeing straight through it. :lol:

    vegan

    noun: vegan; plural noun: vegans
    a person who does not eat or use animal products.
    "I'm a strict vegan"

    Hmm, even the first hit in google is kinda lame, as you're really either vegan or not... there's no "strict-ness" to it.

    Being vegan myself now for over 3 years, I ask the question - who is recommending 500g of meat a week, and why? Cause I've proven personally that it's bullshit, and hence I call it out.
     
  12. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,373
    Location:
    NW Tasmania
    A large subset of vegans behave like evangelists, so your protests about it are like Christians who get shitty about people ragging on them as shorthand for Mormons.

    WHO, Heart Foundation etc, to answer your question. How about you answer mine, in what ways are the risks of eating meat and driving a false equivalence?

    Your personal health "journey" is an anecdote. All it proves is that you had/have some weird gut stuff going on.
     
  13. BurningFeetMan

    BurningFeetMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    8,345
    Location:
    Veg City
    You’re doing it again. You don’t even realise it, but it’s tedious as fuck and makes for shit discussion.

    Weird gut stuff going on? You know what, fuck you. See you at the Melbourne Marathon starting line next week, mate.
     
  14. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,373
    Location:
    NW Tasmania
    Ok then, you do the same thing as these other vegans, so it's not really a case of separating you from them for the sake of your feelings. You post pseudo-science YouTube videos and put eating any meat in the same class as smoking etc. You run off a list of ailments that you had prior to going vegan that you don't have now, but most people don't have those ailments and aren't vegan.

    Your personal anecdote(s) and YouTube videos are actually much less scientific than the poor attempt at a meat/cancer study that those Americans did. At least they had more than one data point, though they may have a bit in common with your YouTubers, in that they make good coin out of pushing FUD.
     
  15. bart5986

    bart5986 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    Messages:
    3,803
    Location:
    Brisbane
    I think he's being extremely misleading by not giving us full disclosure.

    BFM has had specific health conditions that most likely nobody else here has. He's talked about it in the past but says nothing about it here, where its important.

    Its like if I was allergic to oranges and I made my own cult following about how oranges are killing you, when in reality its just killing me, because of the allergy.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019
  16. RnR

    RnR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    13,295
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Favourite plant based protein powder? Looking for something that can mix well with frozen berries to make the protein icecream without an iffy taste. Whey is always an option, but interested to hear if there is anything out there, taste wise, that is ok for such a purpose?
     
  17. AlliZ

    AlliZ Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2017
    Messages:
    453
    Location:
    Ask Google
    vodka?
     
    Tinian likes this.
  18. RnR

    RnR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    13,295
    Location:
    Brisbane
    I always add too much and then I don't have icecream any more... :(
     
  19. 6thgear

    6thgear Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2013
    Messages:
    1,999
    Bulk Nutrients has great proteins so says my vegan mate
     
    RnR likes this.
  20. RnR

    RnR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    13,295
    Location:
    Brisbane
    With free samples on their site... groovy!
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: