The health effects of vegetarianism... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


samboct -> The health effects of vegetarianism... (5/14/2009 6:57:42 AM)

Like many myths, the health effects of vegetarianism are well known.  It's much healthier to eat vegetarian than say, an omnivores diet which includes things like red meat- right?

Well, not so fast...in the May 1, 2009 edition of Science there's an article which reports on a meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (March 31- April 4 of this year) where some new data led to some surprising conclusions.  The study presented was the first large scale study of 11,000 human skeletal remains which where pooled from 72 researchers- a meta study if you will.  These European individuals lived from 3,000 years ago till about 200 years ago.  Note that most anthropological studies on humans have been done with relatively few skeletons from burial sites- often where the sick folks got buried.  Hence, they weren't very representative of the population as a whole, but this meta study is.

What they found was that as humans transitioned from hunter gatherers to a more agrarian existence- they got sicker based on skeletal analysis.  They document shrinking sizes, (the average human male decreased from 173 cm in 400 BCE to 166 cm in the 1600s) along with diseases such as leprosy, tuberculosis, and all sorts of awful dental decay which was based on a more limited diet and one with more sugars.  The one advantage to living in towns was that they suffered less bone trauma- i.e. fewer broken bones, but living in towns definitely made people sicker.  In the Middle Ages, living on a farm led to taller individuals, generally a sign of better nutrition.  In town, if you weren't part of an elite, you were pretty sick.

My conclusions on this one- eating a restricted diet- including one heavy in grains, is not the healthiest thing to do.  Be an omnivore- eat everything.

In terms of modern day data, humans in the US are shrinking since the 1950s- coupled with increasing rates of obesity.  What does this suggest about our modern diet?   Much as I'd like to say that it shows the dangers of vegetarianism (I thought about putting this post in the politics and religion forum- it seems to me that proselytizing vegetarianism is indeed some form of religion.) I think it probably shows that modern day highly processed foods aren't a good idea either.  The data on vegetarianism is shown by the study on historical humans.  Food for thought? 


Sam  (ducking and running...)




sirsholly -> RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... (5/14/2009 7:02:49 AM)

quote:

eat everything.
ok...but it will be your fault when i end up with an ass the size of Rhode Island.




LaTigresse -> RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... (5/14/2009 7:06:13 AM)

A smaller skeleton doesn't mean less healthy.

I am not an advocate for being a vegetarian. However I do know that the typical US diet is totally fucked up. Too much animal protein and not enough fresh fruits and veggies and complex carbs. Most vegetarians do not eat a balanced diet either. It takes a concentrated effort. The kid that works downstairs is vegetarian but will eat a bag of Cheetoes for lunch.......can we say DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!




Termyn8or -> RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... (5/14/2009 7:12:11 AM)

I think vegetarianism causes certain deficiencies which, if not addressed will cause disease. I have been all over this subject before and don't have time to type it all out now, I have rabblerousing to do. However I would be happy to send you some data on the subject, which includes cites and quotes, and get this, when I looked up some of the cites they actually led to something. Studies done at universities et al all over the world. The US is woefully behind most of the world when it comes to this subject.

T




DarkSteven -> RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... (5/14/2009 7:25:36 AM)

You're joking, right?  I could have told you almost all of that without the data!

Hunter-gatherers -> more physically active.  Better exercise.  Meals more sporadic.

Agrarians -> more concentrated in towns.

It should be intuitively obvious that since the agrarians were concentrated in towns, infectious diseases could spread among them more readily.  Duh.  Also, their lower level of physical activity would result in fewer broken bones.  Um, yeah.

The study seems t assume that a hunter-gatherer's diet is primarily meat, and that an agrarian's diet is mostly crops.  That ignores the "gatherer" part.  And animal husbandry was part of agrarianism.

There's more to living in a town than diet and proximity to others.  Back then, waste treatment was pretty bad, so townspeople ran additional risks of disease from poorly disposed sewage.

The comparison is between two vastly different populations.  Diet is only one of the independent variables here.  Bad science.






sirsholly -> RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... (5/14/2009 7:26:19 AM)

there are different degrees of vegetarianism. Some will abstain from red meat and consider themselves as much a vegetarian as the next person who will eat only fruits/veggies.

It is not an easy lifestyle to maintain but it can be done if the protein needed is obtained from sources such as eggs, legumes, etc.




sirsholly -> RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... (5/14/2009 7:28:52 AM)

quote:

t should be intuitively obvious that since the agrarians were concentrated in towns, infectious diseases could spread among them more readily. Duh. Also, their lower level of physical activity would result in fewer broken bones. Um, yeah.
the broken bones would be twice as slow to heal as those of their meat eating brethern, since protein is the bodies healing agent.




CallaFirestormBW -> RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... (5/14/2009 7:31:07 AM)

You might really enjoy the work of Michael Pollan, Sally Fallon, and the Weston A. Price Society.

Dame Calla




shannie -> RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... (5/14/2009 7:37:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct
What they found was that as humans transitioned from hunter gatherers to a more agrarian existence- they got sicker based on skeletal analysis.  They document shrinking sizes, (the average human male decreased from 173 cm in 400 BCE to 166 cm in the 1600s) along with diseases such as leprosy, tuberculosis, and all sorts of awful dental decay which was based on a more limited diet and one with more sugars.  The one advantage to living in towns was that they suffered less bone trauma- i.e. fewer broken bones, but living in towns definitely made people sicker.  In the Middle Ages, living on a farm led to taller individuals, generally a sign of better nutrition.  In town, if you weren't part of an elite, you were pretty sick.

My conclusions on this one- eating a restricted diet- including one heavy in grains, is not the healthiest thing to do.  Be an omnivore- eat everything.

Sam  (ducking and running...)


This is a good argument against a diet heavy in grains, but not against a diverse vegetarian diet that includes all kinds of legumes, vegetables, fruits, and grains.




shannie -> RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... (5/14/2009 7:40:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sirsholly
ok...but it will be your fault when i end up with an ass the size of Rhode Island.


giggles ....




subtlebutterfly -> RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... (5/14/2009 7:44:31 AM)

I don't get vegetarians...they just 'cause problems to ppl inviting them over for dinner[8|][8|]




lusciouslips19 -> RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... (5/14/2009 7:54:02 AM)

The data shows that people have gotten bigger since the turn of the century not smaller. If you look at clothes, shoes, etc we have grown both weight wise and skeletally. The generations have gotten bigger and are living longer due to nutrician and medical advancements. At the turn of the century the average life span was 49 years. Now 72.




CallaFirestormBW -> RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... (5/14/2009 8:55:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19

The data shows that people have gotten bigger since the turn of the century not smaller. If you look at clothes, shoes, etc we have grown both weight wise and skeletally. The generations have gotten bigger and are living longer due to nutrician and medical advancements. At the turn of the century the average life span was 49 years. Now 72.


However, change in weight to height ratios are changing more dramatically than height alone in all populations, which is a trend that is undergoing a lot of scrutiny in the medical literature right now, along with some significant studies in publication showing that current trends on weight reduction are resulting in secondary life-span complications (including things like Vitamin D deficiency, etc.) I can also tell you that, while extraordinary measures have extended our lifespans, on the average, by 20-30 years, the quality of life in those individuals who live those extra 20 years has diminished substantially (that's one thing I do for a living, is prepare quality-of-life studies in the healthcare industry).

Where people used to die, they are now surviving, but they are surviving with increasing per-capita percentages of debilitating and productivity-compromising cardiovascular disease, insulin-resistance diabetes (as opposed to insulin-insufficiency diabetes, which is a completely different disease), single-onset and recurrent cancer, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, gout, colorectal disease (including fistulas, diverticulitis, diverticulosis, polyposis), chronic airway disease (including asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema), depression, disthesias, systemic lupus erythymatosis, multiple sclerosis, Parkinsonism, and Altzheimer's. Many of these diseases are turning out to have dietary links that are directly related to our processed-food diet and our indoor, sedentary culture. While they've been around a while, current QOL research is tending to indicate that most people who live past 50 years old in our current culture will have at -least- three debilitating diseases, and, on the average, as many as five debilitating diseases concurrently or serially from 45 years of age till death. Most of these diseases will require medical care that will cost over 2 million dollars per person over the 30-40 years of treatment that they will require (this breaks down to about $57,000 a year per person in medical costs).

Frankly, it's pretty apparent that what we've -been- doing isn't working. Maybe it -is- time to look at other options, including returning to a less processed, less industrialized method of obtaining our food.

Dame Calla




samboct -> RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... (5/14/2009 9:23:54 AM)

To DS

Umm, I'm the one who drew the vegetarian conclusions off the study- and I'll admit to being somewhat tongue in cheek.  (I share subtlebutterflys comment about how annoying it is to have to feed them.)  But I suspect that the science presented was well done- and the conclusions that they drew were that living in towns did have a high cost measured in human health- not only for the reasons you presented, but also because food was rationed to the nonelites.

Dame Calla

Man, I hope you're chiming in to the gov't with the current debate on health care.  I think your analysis is very insightful.  Intuitively- it makes a lot of sense, plus it certainly does a lot to explain the rapid rise in health care costs.


Sam




Termyn8or -> RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... (5/14/2009 9:36:12 AM)

Nobody wants the data. Maybe they suspect it was written by Nazis if it comes from me. (it was not)

And on the lifespan issue, using the average age of death is meaningless. Just to tout that we live longer on average does not mean we are in any way healthier, there are many other factors to include.

To prove that point purely by logical deduction, even IF people who died early because of mishap or war, or even a previously incurable disease were somehow treated differently in the formulation of such a statistic, there is no way to know how long they would have lived had not they met their demise in an other than natural manner. Therefore such data can not be considered conclusive.

Another missing piece of the puzzle would be a relative study, i.e. between Tar Tars and Tibetans of the same era. (just for example)

I must go to work but later I will find a small section of that data and bring it in here, judge for yourself. It has everything you want, publications in peer reviews, actual results of studies done, references to the various journals etc., in which they are contained. Each section has it's own bibliography.

T




LadyConstanze -> RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... (5/14/2009 9:41:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Like many myths, the health effects of vegetarianism are well known.  It's much healthier to eat vegetarian than say, an omnivores diet which includes things like red meat- right?

Well, not so fast...in the May 1, 2009 edition of Science there's an article which reports on a meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (March 31- April 4 of this year) where some new data led to some surprising conclusions.  The study presented was the first large scale study of 11,000 human skeletal remains which where pooled from 72 researchers- a meta study if you will.  These European individuals lived from 3,000 years ago till about 200 years ago.  Note that most anthropological studies on humans have been done with relatively few skeletons from burial sites- often where the sick folks got buried.  Hence, they weren't very representative of the population as a whole, but this meta study is.

What they found was that as humans transitioned from hunter gatherers to a more agrarian existence- they got sicker based on skeletal analysis.  They document shrinking sizes, (the average human male decreased from 173 cm in 400 BCE to 166 cm in the 1600s) along with diseases such as leprosy, tuberculosis, and all sorts of awful dental decay which was based on a more limited diet and one with more sugars.  The one advantage to living in towns was that they suffered less bone trauma- i.e. fewer broken bones, but living in towns definitely made people sicker.  In the Middle Ages, living on a farm led to taller individuals, generally a sign of better nutrition.  In town, if you weren't part of an elite, you were pretty sick.

My conclusions on this one- eating a restricted diet- including one heavy in grains, is not the healthiest thing to do.  Be an omnivore- eat everything.

In terms of modern day data, humans in the US are shrinking since the 1950s- coupled with increasing rates of obesity.  What does this suggest about our modern diet?   Much as I'd like to say that it shows the dangers of vegetarianism (I thought about putting this post in the politics and religion forum- it seems to me that proselytizing vegetarianism is indeed some form of religion.) I think it probably shows that modern day highly processed foods aren't a good idea either.  The data on vegetarianism is shown by the study on historical humans.  Food for thought? 


Sam  (ducking and running...)


I think it is a myth that vegetarianism makes you sick, eating bad food makes you sick, simple as that. A vegetarian who lives of veggy fast food is just as likely to get sick as your regular fast food addict.

As to your Middle Ages theory, I would suggest you check the facts again, if you OWNED a farm, you might have lived better and healthier, if you were a serf, you had hard work, bad food and usually died fairly early, so no difference to the town situation.

I know a few people with heart problems, a lot of their problems have been solved by switching them to a diet that is free of red meat.
Have you checked what too much animal proteins do to your arteries and heart? Most of our modern day diseases are due to nutrition, nobody would expect a car engine to run well on low quality food, yet we expect our bodies to run well on crap food.

Additionally, our bodies are all different, what might be the ideal diet for one person will not work for the next person, our metabolisms are pretty individual. I'm not a gung ho vegetarian, I never got into vegetarianism as a fashion statement, but from an early age on I didn't like eating certain types of meat, most meat causes me to feel really bad, sluggish, bloated and for me it just doesn't taste good, a pretty good sign that it is not right for my metabolism. I do like fish though, so about once week I'll have fish, but if you'd be offering me pork or lamb, I'd turn green, even the smell of it is nauseating for me.

Highly processed food is poison for your system, most people don't have enough fibers in their diet, the salad leaf in a burger (no matter if meat or veggy) doesn't make up for a balanced diet, as a whole we don't exercise enough and eat too much and the wrong food.

I think a vegetarian can live just as healthy as an omnivore, provided both approach their diet clear headed and look for balanced meals.

Actually, you know the whole data you threw up with more diseases now, you could easily link that to people now eating more meat than they used to. Think about something like gout, it was something only rich people got because they were the ones who could afford to eat meat regularly, for the poorer classes (country and city) meat was something that was served on Sunday, now people not only have it every day, a lot of them have it at least 3 times a day, and not always the most healthy kind, highly processed, etc. If you think about the way that meat is "produced", animals are given everything to grow in weight as fast as possible, drugs to stop them from getting diseases because they are living in conditions that are contrary to their normal conditions, drugs to keep them alive during the transport... Where do you think all that stuff goes? The blood stream will transport it in each and everyone of their cells and every piece of meat you eat will have it in it. Sounds very very healthy to me...

As to your point of dental decay, brush your teeth regularly, floss, keep up a good and steady dental hygiene and visit a dentist at least twice a year for checkups. It makes a hell lot of a difference because he will see a problem appearing and can treat it before your teeth start rotting away.

I dare say while my diet is very very low on meat, I'm a good deal fitter and healthier than most of my peers and I'm not following fad diets. I had eating disorders in my teens, but I haven't counted calories in years, it's fairly simple, I exercise regularly, take a bike instead of a car and walk, ignore lifts and take the stairs and I don't do fast food or ready meals. Last time my dentist needed to do something (apart from the regular check-up and polishing session with the hygienist) was 3 years ago when I broke a piece of a molar off (gotta love it if you bite on a tiny piece of stone that somehow found its way into your lunch), I don't think that including steaks or pork into my diet would make me much healthier or fitter.





lusciouslips19 -> RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... (5/14/2009 10:03:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

quote:

ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19

The data shows that people have gotten bigger since the turn of the century not smaller. If you look at clothes, shoes, etc we have grown both weight wise and skeletally. The generations have gotten bigger and are living longer due to nutrician and medical advancements. At the turn of the century the average life span was 49 years. Now 72.


However, change in weight to height ratios are changing more dramatically than height alone in all populations, which is a trend that is undergoing a lot of scrutiny in the medical literature right now, along with some significant studies in publication showing that current trends on weight reduction are resulting in secondary life-span complications (including things like Vitamin D deficiency, etc.) I can also tell you that, while extraordinary measures have extended our lifespans, on the average, by 20-30 years, the quality of life in those individuals who live those extra 20 years has diminished substantially (that's one thing I do for a living, is prepare quality-of-life studies in the healthcare industry).

Where people used to die, they are now surviving, but they are surviving with increasing per-capita percentages of debilitating and productivity-compromising cardiovascular disease, insulin-resistance diabetes (as opposed to insulin-insufficiency diabetes, which is a completely different disease), single-onset and recurrent cancer, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, gout, colorectal disease (including fistulas, diverticulitis, diverticulosis, polyposis), chronic airway disease (including asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema), depression, disthesias, systemic lupus erythymatosis, multiple sclerosis, Parkinsonism, and Altzheimer's. Many of these diseases are turning out to have dietary links that are directly related to our processed-food diet and our indoor, sedentary culture. While they've been around a while, current QOL research is tending to indicate that most people who live past 50 years old in our current culture will have at -least- three debilitating diseases, and, on the average, as many as five debilitating diseases concurrently or serially from 45 years of age till death. Most of these diseases will require medical care that will cost over 2 million dollars per person over the 30-40 years of treatment that they will require (this breaks down to about $57,000 a year per person in medical costs).

Frankly, it's pretty apparent that what we've -been- doing isn't working. Maybe it -is- time to look at other options, including returning to a less processed, less industrialized method of obtaining our food.

Dame Calla



While I agree with most of what you say it does not negate the fact that we live in a land of plenty where very few go hungry. Yes, the quality is not always so great but compared to lack of nutrician due to starvation, it is still by far better than the  late 1800s and early 20th century.




dmt -> RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... (5/14/2009 10:12:25 AM)

I think a lot of people tend to just get grossed out by animals that have slaughtered for their dining pleasure... they tend to over think the fact that whatever was put in front of them was bred for other than the purpose of assimilation to digestion, and deny the fact that they have eye teeth and canine teeth for a designed purpose...(note, I've seen the photos thrust in my face, and I've also seen the body's reaction to someone who is a carnivore try to stop meat intake all at once..) here's the thing, I will eat animal flesh as my body was designed to do. You...? do whatever the heck you want.




LadyHibiscus -> RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... (5/14/2009 10:15:38 AM)

Oreos are a vegetarian food.

Any madly unbalanced diet is going to be bad for you.  How lucky we are in the western world to be able to indulge in bizarre food habits.  So many are limited to the food that they can find locally, provide themselves, and preserve themselves. 




janiebelle -> RE: The health effects of vegetarianism... (5/14/2009 10:22:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dmt

I think a lot of people tend to just get grossed out by animals that have slaughtered for their dining pleasure... they tend to over think the fact that whatever was put in front of them was bred for other than the purpose of assimilation to digestion, and deny the fact that they have eye teeth and canine teeth for a designed purpose...(note, I've seen the photos thrust in my face, and I've also seen the body's reaction to someone who is a carnivore try to stop meat intake all at once..) here's the thing, I will eat animal flesh as my body was designed to do. You...? do whatever the heck you want.


Hey, if we were not supposed to eat animals, they wouldn't be made out of meat, right?
j




Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875