5 ms·

>It’s very clear that the more meat you eat, the earlier you die. Cut out as much meat as you can. Absolute nonsense. The only thing that has a clear relations

by zngtk4 17y ago

>It’s very clear that the more meat you eat, the earlier you die. Cut out as much meat as you can. Absolute nonsense. The only thing that has a clear relationship with extending lifespan is calorie restriction. The rest is very very unclear. This guy finds a population, finds one thing they do that supports his preconceived notions of what makes you live longer, and then says that this population's behavior in this respect proves that this action makes you live longer. So he finds a vegetarian culture that lives long and says OK vegetarianism makes you live longer. He finds a culture that drinks a lot of alcohol and says OK, alcohol doesn't limit longevity. He finds a culture that eats a balanced diet, a culture that exercises a lot, etc. etc. None if this is really any type of proof, and if you examine many different cultures, you will find his evidence is contradicted by other cultures (meat eating cultures that live longer and have fewer health problems than nearby vegetarian cultures, for instance). Our knowledge of what helps humans to live the longest possible life is, sadly, very limited still.

jshen 17y ago
there are many peer reviewed and exhaustive studies that show that meat consumption is related to a shorter life. check out the china study for starters.
- zngtk4 17y ago
  There are zero controlled studies showing this, however, and all of these studies are epidemiological/observational. It's confounded by things such as the fact that many of the groups that are vegetarian also essentially engage in calorie restriction (which has been shown in controlled animal studies to work). Meat eating, however, hasn't even been shown in animal studies to necessarily be bad, because it entirely depends on the animal (feed meat to a rabbit, bad things happen, feed grains to a cat, bad things happen). Cultures that engage in significant meat eating also tend to eat a lot of sugar, trans-fats, and other things. These studies are far from conclusive as a result. Observational studies that are peer reviewed and exhaustive can yield results that are entirely opposite reality. Dozens of peer reviewed, exhaustive observational studies told doctors that hormone replacement therapy reduced the incidence of heart attacks. Only after 16,000 women were enrolled in a double-blind controlled trial of hormone-replacement therapy in the 90s (after 6 million women had received the therapy) did we learn that heart disease, breast cancer, stroke, and dementia actually were more common in people receiving hormone replacement therapy vs placebo. In other words, the exact opposite. Epidemiology is only of value in formulating hypotheses, not in proving anything.
  - Devilboy 17y ago
    | There are zero controlled studies showing this... There are animal studies that looks pretty compelling to me. The China Study refers to some of these.
    - zngtk4 17y ago
      Which animal studies prove that eating meat will decrease longevity in humans? Sure, if you feed meat to rabbits, or other vegetarian animals, but there are just as many animals that are essentially incapable of eating not only grains but even vegetables.
      - Devilboy 17y ago
        They used omnivorous animals. Yes it's not concrete proof that it will translate to humans but if you take all the evidence together - the animal trials, the cellular-level experiments and the observations in humans - it's enough to convince the author of The China Study. And more importantly it convinced me.
        anamax 17y ago
        > And more importantly it convinced me. Huh?
        zngtk4 17y ago
        And which type of omnivorous animals? And which type of fat? Saturated fat has little effect on rats, but polyunsaturated fat induces tumors in rats according to to many studies. Low-fat, high calorie diets lead to more tumors than high-fat, low calorie diets in rats (in fact the high-fat, low calorie diets essentially stopped tumor production entirely). This latter was a major study in the journal Cancer Research. Only in high calorie diets was high-fat worse than low-fat, and in low calorie diets, high-fat was better than low-fat. Atherosclerosis is often observed in pigs, cats, dogs, sheep, cows, horses, reptiles, rats, and baboons when fed exclusively vegetarian diets. Monkeys in captivity often become fat and diabetic on high-fiber, low-fat, no-cholesterol diets. It's entirely possible that a no-meat diet is best for humans, but I don't think we're anywhere near the understanding needed to say this -- and his recommendation to avoid fish as well would be viewed as dangerous by much of the medical and scientific community. What we really need are controlled studies, which are entirely possible to do.
jackchristopher 17y ago
And what do we mean by meat? I'm sure toxin filled fish effects you differently from fresh. Or grass-fed (natural diet) chicken is different nutritionally than industrial chicken. zngtk4 is basically saying that nutrition science is sampling at too low at resolution to make definitive claims, I buy that. How many times can you flip-flop on eggs until we stop listening? Obviously they're something else going on. The argument that they're generally "bad" is too low rez. Not to mention how we were told to eat margarine over butter for 50+ years, and it turned out to be one of the worse things to consume.
- jodrellblank 17y ago
  And what do we mean by vegetarian? There's got to be a massive difference between living on bread, potato, cake and nut-roast and living on salad, fruit and steamed greens. "Not eating meat" really doesn't say much about what you do eat. Raw foodists claim there's a lot of denaturing and damage done to proteins, enzymes and more when food is cooked. There are differences in composition between food that is cooked until done and food that is cooked until blackened (e.g. on a barbecue). Some claim there is measurable damage done when food is blended compared to chopped or juiced 'gently'. There is lots of skepticism about microwave cooking versus traditional ovens. As well as eggs, popular advice zig-zags on soy and types of fats. So... >> zngtk4 is basically saying that nutrition science is sampling at too low at resolution to make definitive claims, I buy that. I buy it too.
radu_floricica 17y ago
The guy is as close to an expert in this field as it gets right now. If he says lots of meat is bad, I tend to believe him. One day we'll know exactly how and why, but right now I trust him. And a bit of speculation: lots of heavy metals accumulate up the food chain. If you eat an onion, that's one onion's worth of heavy metals extracted from the ground. But if you eat a chicken leg, it's a few kilograms worth of plant that accumulated in it. And when you feed them animal protein it concentrates even further. Over a lifetime it's probably a difference of an order of magnitude between a meat-eater and a vegetarian.

by zngtk4 17y ago

jshen 17y ago

there are many peer reviewed and exhaustive studies that show that meat consumption is related to a shorter life. check out the china study for starters.

zngtk4 17y ago
There are zero controlled studies showing this, however, and all of these studies are epidemiological/observational. It's confounded by things such as the fact that many of the groups that are vegetarian also essentially engage in calorie restriction (which has been shown in controlled animal studies to work). Meat eating, however, hasn't even been shown in animal studies to necessarily be bad, because it entirely depends on the animal (feed meat to a rabbit, bad things happen, feed grains to a cat, bad things happen). Cultures that engage in significant meat eating also tend to eat a lot of sugar, trans-fats, and other things. These studies are far from conclusive as a result. Observational studies that are peer reviewed and exhaustive can yield results that are entirely opposite reality. Dozens of peer reviewed, exhaustive observational studies told doctors that hormone replacement therapy reduced the incidence of heart attacks. Only after 16,000 women were enrolled in a double-blind controlled trial of hormone-replacement therapy in the 90s (after 6 million women had received the therapy) did we learn that heart disease, breast cancer, stroke, and dementia actually were more common in people receiving hormone replacement therapy vs placebo. In other words, the exact opposite. Epidemiology is only of value in formulating hypotheses, not in proving anything.
- Devilboy 17y ago
  | There are zero controlled studies showing this... There are animal studies that looks pretty compelling to me. The China Study refers to some of these.
  - zngtk4 17y ago
    Which animal studies prove that eating meat will decrease longevity in humans? Sure, if you feed meat to rabbits, or other vegetarian animals, but there are just as many animals that are essentially incapable of eating not only grains but even vegetables.
    - Devilboy 17y ago
      They used omnivorous animals. Yes it's not concrete proof that it will translate to humans but if you take all the evidence together - the animal trials, the cellular-level experiments and the observations in humans - it's enough to convince the author of The China Study. And more importantly it convinced me.
      - anamax 17y ago
        > And more importantly it convinced me. Huh?
      - zngtk4 17y ago
        And which type of omnivorous animals? And which type of fat? Saturated fat has little effect on rats, but polyunsaturated fat induces tumors in rats according to to many studies. Low-fat, high calorie diets lead to more tumors than high-fat, low calorie diets in rats (in fact the high-fat, low calorie diets essentially stopped tumor production entirely). This latter was a major study in the journal Cancer Research. Only in high calorie diets was high-fat worse than low-fat, and in low calorie diets, high-fat was better than low-fat. Atherosclerosis is often observed in pigs, cats, dogs, sheep, cows, horses, reptiles, rats, and baboons when fed exclusively vegetarian diets. Monkeys in captivity often become fat and diabetic on high-fiber, low-fat, no-cholesterol diets. It's entirely possible that a no-meat diet is best for humans, but I don't think we're anywhere near the understanding needed to say this -- and his recommendation to avoid fish as well would be viewed as dangerous by much of the medical and scientific community. What we really need are controlled studies, which are entirely possible to do.

jackchristopher 17y ago

And what do we mean by meat? I'm sure toxin filled fish effects you differently from fresh. Or grass-fed (natural diet) chicken is different nutritionally than industrial chicken. zngtk4 is basically saying that nutrition science is sampling at too low at resolution to make definitive claims, I buy that. How many times can you flip-flop on eggs until we stop listening? Obviously they're something else going on. The argument that they're generally "bad" is too low rez. Not to mention how we were told to eat margarine over butter for 50+ years, and it turned out to be one of the worse things to consume.

jodrellblank 17y ago
And what do we mean by vegetarian? There's got to be a massive difference between living on bread, potato, cake and nut-roast and living on salad, fruit and steamed greens. "Not eating meat" really doesn't say much about what you do eat. Raw foodists claim there's a lot of denaturing and damage done to proteins, enzymes and more when food is cooked. There are differences in composition between food that is cooked until done and food that is cooked until blackened (e.g. on a barbecue). Some claim there is measurable damage done when food is blended compared to chopped or juiced 'gently'. There is lots of skepticism about microwave cooking versus traditional ovens. As well as eggs, popular advice zig-zags on soy and types of fats. So... >> zngtk4 is basically saying that nutrition science is sampling at too low at resolution to make definitive claims, I buy that. I buy it too.

radu_floricica 17y ago

The guy is as close to an expert in this field as it gets right now. If he says lots of meat is bad, I tend to believe him. One day we'll know exactly how and why, but right now I trust him. And a bit of speculation: lots of heavy metals accumulate up the food chain. If you eat an onion, that's one onion's worth of heavy metals extracted from the ground. But if you eat a chicken leg, it's a few kilograms worth of plant that accumulated in it. And when you feed them animal protein it concentrates even further. Over a lifetime it's probably a difference of an order of magnitude between a meat-eater and a vegetarian.