Vegetarians who drink and smoke still healthier than meat eaters

I just read through the article. I am not a nutritionist. But I have been on a nutritional "journey" of sorts for the past couple of years.

I listen to podcasts and audio books on health/wellness/nutrition pretty much all day every working day.

Pretty much everything in the article (and the "research") is wrong.

If there is any correlation at all, it is simply that those vegetarians studied ate more whole foods and less processed junk. Perhaps meat eaters happen to eat more processed crap in England.

But meat doesn't cause cholesterol to go up. The body can deal with (and even produce) cholesterol if it is being fed food. Most of the western diet is not food. It's crap.

Short version: If you eat "food" that you bought in a box, bottle, or a bag at room temperature in the middle of a grocery store, it's most likely crap.

If you get most of your food around the edges (the meat and produce departments) you're likely doing much better.

Gatorade, pretzels, soda, cereal (even the "healthy" ones), chips, snacks, etc. are not food.

Suggested reading for the real truth behind modern "medicine" and food, try...

"Why We Get Sick" - Benjamin Bikman

"Genius Foods" - Max Lugavere

"Metabolical" - Robert Lustig (I'm currently listening through this one a second time.)

Our food pyramid has been backwards for decades. Foods that are called "organic" or "all natural" in the middle of the grocery store are nothing short of criminal.
 
two fingers said:
I just read through the article. I am not a nutritionist. But I have been on a nutritional "journey" of sorts for the past couple of years.

I listen to podcasts and audio books on health/wellness/nutrition pretty much all day every working day.

Pretty much everything in the article (and the "research") is wrong.

If there is any correlation at all, it is simply that those vegetarians studied ate more whole foods and less processed junk. Perhaps meat eaters happen to eat more processed crap in England.

But meat doesn't cause cholesterol to go up. The body can deal with (and even produce) cholesterol if it is being fed food. Most of the western diet is not food. It's crap.

Short version: If you eat "food" that you bought in a box, bottle, or a bag at room temperature in the middle of a grocery store, it's most likely crap.

If you get most of your food around the edges (the meat and produce departments) you're likely doing much better.

Gatorade, pretzels, soda, cereal (even the "healthy" ones), chips, snacks, etc. are not food.

Suggested reading for the real truth behind modern "medicine" and food, try...

"Why We Get Sick" - Benjamin Bikman

"Genius Foods" - Max Lugavere

"Metabolical" - Robert Lustig (I'm currently listening through this one a second time.)

Our food pyramid has been backwards for decades. Foods that are called "organic" or "all natural" in the middle of the grocery store are nothing short of criminal.
Click to expand...

Good post.

I hate--nay, loathe--research articles that only look at correlational outcome data. I mean it's neat on its' face, and it does lead investigators and researchers to see what they can study more, but there are so many things wrong.

Some meats can make your cholesterol go up, but outside of specific populations, doesn't lead to more cardiac disease.
 
Goofyfoot2001 said:
Tell that to a couple thousand years of meat eaters. Actually though, it's not the meat or the vegetables it's the low carbs. Doesn't matter which way you go for the lower carb intake.
Click to expand...
so you're saying my no meat, high cheese, high pasta and bread diet for the last 25+ years is not healthy? crap.
good think i still drink plenty of liquor and beer.
 
I went 100% carnivore for 6 months last year and felt fantastic. Daily intake was 2-2.5 lbs of mainly red meat,

My diet now is still clean but am thinking about going back to it. The only drawback was the grocery bill and my wife was stressed trying to keep up with a freezer full of meat during the pandy.
 
Found strick KETO unsustainable. Trying to do very low carb diet for next 3 monts to see if my A1C comes down. I'm a carb a holic. My body craves carbs. I'm type 2 diabetic. Most diabetics I know take injectables and eat what they want to. I'm really trying not to go down that road. I love a steak, baked potato, brocolli, glass of Rye and a good cigar. I hope to die happy instead of miserable.
 
Why do I get the feeling this "big new study" is one with a vegetarian/vegan agenda?

It's really a stupid article. Take ANY group of people who do any number of things hazardous to their health, then remove ONE hazardous item...then of COURSE you can say "HEY! This one group of people who don't do this one thing are less likely to die than this other group that still does all these OTHER things!"

What these idiots blithely neglect to point out is the fact that the vast majority of people quite often eat far more of many (if not all) kinds of food than they really should in the first place.

The key to a health diet is BALANCE and REASONABLE PORTIONS.
 
Did any of these studies include physical work in the calculations?

I remember reading in Stephen Ambrose's "Undaunted Courage" (Lewis & Clark expedition) that their dietary/food supply calculations called for 10 pounds of meat per man per day.

But then, they were pushing a large wooden boat upriver with poles to start. Later, they walked over mountains in the snow carrying iron, wood, and bagged bulk cargo while wearing cotton, wool, and leather clothes.

I'm of the completely-unsupported-by-research-or-education opinion that you can eat pretty much anything other than poison as long as you burn those calories. An object in motion tends to stay in motion. An object at reast tends to get heart disease.
 
Good for them.

Doesn’t mean I believe it or am going to change a single thing about my diet, though.
 
jimmyjames8 said:
Found strick KETO unsustainable. Trying to do very low carb diet for next 3 monts to see if my A1C comes down. I'm a carb a holic. My body craves carbs. I'm type 2 diabetic. Most diabetics I know take injectables and eat what they want to. I'm really trying not to go down that road. I love a steak, baked potato, brocolli, glass of Rye and a good cigar. I hope to die happy instead of miserable.
Click to expand...

EVERYONE is a carboholic. We need sugar. It fuels the brain. The issue is how and where to get the carbs.
 
two fingers said:
I just read through the article. I am not a nutritionist. But I have been on a nutritional "journey" of sorts for the past couple of years.

I listen to podcasts and audio books on health/wellness/nutrition pretty much all day every working day.

Pretty much everything in the article (and the "research") is wrong.

If there is any correlation at all, it is simply that those vegetarians studied ate more whole foods and less processed junk. Perhaps meat eaters happen to eat more processed crap in England.
Click to expand...
Bingo. The only study that has any validity is a study done of Indian people where the choice between meat and not meat is cultural/religious, not ideological. Life style factor between the two groups in India are the same. Where as in the west, their are drastic life style differences.
What the Indian study found was that there was not statistically significant difference in health outcomes between meat and no meat groups.

Other studies in the west found higher incidence of mental health disorders among vegetarians and vegans, More so in Vegans.
We don't assimilate nutrients from vegetables as well as we do from meats.
There was a study done on iron retention in athletic women. It found that women retained iron from red meat better than from artificial supplements or vegetable sources.
 
Chuckman said:
EVERYONE is a carboholic. We need sugar. It fuels the brain. The issue is how and where to get the carbs.
Click to expand...
We need glucose. We do NOT need sugar. The difference is remarkable. The terms "carbs", "glucose", and "sugar" are NOT interchangeable. Metabolically, they are hardly even related. They do completely different things to your liver, brain, kidneys, and a whole host of other organs/systems in the body. Some are ingested while others are produced by the body itself using any number of fuels.

You do not need one gram of sugar at all. Not a single gram. Ever. You can ingest and/or produce carbs/glucose any number of ways. Other than special/rare occasions, sugar (the ultra processed white and/or brown powder found in boxes and bags at the grocery store and in snacks) should he considered mild poison.

Your brain (and any other organ/system in your body) can thrive if you never ingest another spec of sugar for the rest of your life.

There is not one single thing "more healthy" about a soda with "real cane sugar" than drinking the antifreeze some call diet sodas. They just kill you slowly in different ways.

Again, on rare/special occasions, birthday cake or a cold Pepsi on the back porch won't do you in.
 
two fingers said:
We need glucose. We do NOT need sugar. The difference is remarkable. The terms "carbs", "glucose", and "sugar" are NOT interchangeable. Metabolically, they are hardly even related. They do completely different things to your liver, brain, kidneys, and a whole host of other organs/systems in the body. Some are ingested while others are produced by the body itself using any number of fuels.

You do not need one gram of sugar at all. Not a single gram. Ever. You can ingest and/or produce carbs/glucose any number of ways. Other than special/rare occasions, sugar (the ultra processed white and/or brown powder found in boxes and bags at the grocery store and in snacks) should he considered mild poison.

Your brain (and any other organ/system in your body) can thrive if you never ingest another spec of sugar for the rest of your life.

There is not one single thing "more healthy" about a soda with "real cane sugar" than drinking the antifreeze some call diet sodas. They just kill you slowly in different ways.

Again, on rare/special occasions, birthday cake or a cold Pepsi on the back porch won't do you in.
Click to expand...

Glucose IS sugar; a simple monosaccharide. Fructose is also a monosaccharide, from fruit. It is natural in fruit, but added to processed foods. Sucrose is a combination of glucose and fructose; it's table sugar. No monosaccharides can be broken down any further than their basic chemical structure so they get absorbed and metabolized quickly.

Sucrose is a disaccharide. It must be broken down, and the glucose gets used rapidly while the fructose kinda stays put a while.
 
DCGallim said:
No Grandma you can’t.
Click to expand...

this aint up for debate sonny

Granny.jpg
 
Chuckman said:
Glucose IS sugar; a simple monosaccharide. Fructose is also a monosaccharide, from fruit. It is natural in fruit, but added to processed foods. Sucrose is a combination of glucose and fructose; it's table sugar. No monosaccharides can be broken down any further than their basic chemical structure so they get absorbed and metabolized quickly.

Sucrose is a disaccharide. It must be broken down, and the glucose gets used rapidly while the fructose kinda stays put a while.
Click to expand...
We can go back and forth over nuanced nomenclature. My point is that you have zero need to INGEST "sugar". Your body will produce enough "sugar" from the "sugar free" foods you eat. Your brain will not suffer if you never eat another gram of table sugar. Your body will not be in trouble if you never consume fructose again in your entire life. There is a tremendous difference between "needing" something and needing to INGEST something. Many of the things we need, the body will produce (vitamin D from sunlight as an example.... it's not enough but more than zero). You can eat raw steak and your body will turn part of it into "sugar" for fuel.

Many use the excuse of our body/brain "needing" something as an excuse to INGEST that thing.... e.g. sugar/fructose/glucose/carbs. I eat some carbs (relatively few, but not a constant state of ketosis). But I fuel my brain a body in fantastic ways. They are not "craving" carbs/sugar/fructose/glucose.

That was my only point.
 
two fingers said:
We can go back and forth over nuanced nomenclature. My point is that you have zero need to INGEST "sugar". Your body will produce enough "sugar" from the "sugar free" foods you eat. Your brain will not suffer if you never eat another gram of table sugar. Your body will not be in trouble if you never consume fructose again in your entire life. There is a tremendous difference between "needing" something and needing to INGEST something. Many of the things we need, the body will produce (vitamin D from sunlight as an example.... it's not enough but more than zero). You can eat raw steak and your body will turn part of it into "sugar" for fuel.

Many use the excuse of our body/brain "needing" something as an excuse to INGEST that thing.... e.g. sugar/fructose/glucose/carbs. I eat some carbs (relatively few, but not a constant state of ketosis). But I fuel my brain a body in fantastic ways. They are not "craving" carbs/sugar/fructose/glucose.

That was my only point.
Click to expand...

If you don't ingest any carbohydrates at all, eat pure keto or pure Atkins, your body still needs glucose, but it can convert protein and fat, and even muscle, into glucose for your organs. So yes, you're right that you don't need to ingest carbohydrates/sugar.

Table sugar, white sugar, is interchangeably used by native Americans with flour as "The white man's poison". They use none of either in their diets, and when they started to when we forced them, they got very sick. Table sugar is indeed awful and there is no dietary reason to get it.

No need to throw out the baby with the bath water, ain't no shame in getting fructose through fruit. But people often confuse table sugar with glucose, because we tell family of diabetics that when they start going south, to have them munch on a Snickers or drink orange juice.
 
I'm so happy that the veg folks are healthier....by no means would I want my food to threaten their food so let me go hunt my food to protect their food.....there, now they can be happy.
 
Gotta die of something, might as well eat what tastes good to me while Im here

FB_IMG_1466368708279.jpg
 
Windini said:
I'm of the completely-unsupported-by-research-or-education opinion that you can eat pretty much anything other than poison as long as you burn those calories.
Click to expand...


Your position is, in fact, supported by nearly all (honest) research and 100% of medical education.
 
So, in India, where the choice between meat and no meat is cultural, not political or fitness cult, Vegetarians have higher rates of obesity.
www.nutraingredients-asia.com

Meat and morbidity: Why are Indian vegetarians more likely to be obese than their omnivorous counterparts?

Vegetarian diets in India are more often linked to a higher rate of morbid obesity than non-vegetarian diets, according to a cohort study published in The Journal of Metabolic Surgery and Allied Care.
www.nutraingredients-asia.com www.nutraingredients-asia.com

Then there are studies showing eating meat is healthier for women.
indianexpress.com

Women who eat meat less prone to disease: study

Results show that women from Kashmir who consumed up to five non-vegetarian meals a week were found to be at a lesser risk of these diseases irrespective of whether they were suffering from PCOS or were healthy, in comparison to women in Delhi who followed a vegetarian diet.
indianexpress.com indianexpress.com
 
Chuckman said:
If you don't ingest any carbohydrates at all, eat pure keto or pure Atkins, your body still needs glucose, but it can convert protein and fat, and even muscle, into glucose for your organs. So yes, you're right that you don't need to ingest carbohydrates/sugar.

Table sugar, white sugar, is interchangeably used by native Americans with flour as "The white man's poison". They use none of either in their diets, and when they started to when we forced them, they got very sick. Table sugar is indeed awful and there is no dietary reason to get it.

No need to throw out the baby with the bath water, ain't no shame in getting fructose through fruit. But people often confuse table sugar with glucose, because we tell family of diabetics that when they start going south, to have them munch on a Snickers or drink orange juice.
Click to expand...
Check into aging, JNK1 enzymes, Maillard reaction, and other age-related factors. While metabolically they are only slightly different, fructose is much worse for aging than other "sugars".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom