ITT we discuss the optimal diet: A Whole Food Plant Based Diet - Page 3

I was looking more for the specific ones KC checked out, because I assumed he would target valid studies and what not. Call it a momentary lapse of judgement during boredom at work forgetting this isnt the place for discussion of such.

Quote

09-26-2018 , 09:49 PM

#52

Rexx14

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 7,215

PJ,

I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

Quote

09-26-2018 , 09:57 PM

#53

Montecore

RPElf = +EV

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 82,114

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJo336

PJ,

That Greger at best selectively interprets and at worst outright lies about results from peer reviewed studies isn't really in dispute. The way you frame your question makes it seem like you think there are studies that actually support the extreme parts of his schtick - there aren't. Completely reading any study he cites should be more than enough to realize he's not exactly arguing with good faith or impartiality.

Quote

09-26-2018 , 10:05 PM

#54

PJo336

THRILLHOUSE!

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 22,158

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montecore

Eh, I didn't mean for it to sound that way. I literally posted while talking to someone at work, on Tapatalk and couldn't even figure out how to get the quote trimmed. I would reiterate I don't really have faith in my ability to dissect a scientific study for inaccuracy, but on the flip side people saying "CHERRYPICKING THO!" does very little to help my education as well.

I would estimate anyone making a living off of nutrition has some bias mixed in, so that wouldn't really be shocking of him, but I would like to see what you are looking at to lead you to believe he "outright lies". That again isn't a personal attack, or direct support of Greger, I want to learn how to get from A to B. I'll save you the sarcasm though and just tell myself to google it

Quote

09-26-2018 , 10:06 PM

#55

Montecore

RPElf = +EV

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 82,114

PJ,

The link DT posted earlier will give you the broad strokes.

Quote

09-26-2018 , 10:14 PM

#56

PJo336

THRILLHOUSE!

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 22,158

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexx14

PJ,

I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

I have nothing but anecdotal evidence and rudimentary reading of random studies. The latter does basically nothing for me, since I can find a study telling me eggs will kill you, and then produce one saying they're great for you. It's quite a confusing industry to follow, and it generates a ton of emotional responses to further cloud things.

Some of my favorite videos/blogs are where a person dissects a study and describes exactly why the study design doesn't prove what it intends. They're very hard to find though.

Anecdotally, I think dietary cholesterol is bad for you. The only reason I really believe that is a for fun experiment of taking blood tests pre and post vegan eating. My cholesterol dropped from 210 (lol American) total to 179 in 2 months, which is the lowest I've ever measured it. Again though, I can't really cite anything to support that, but if it works for me seems good enough?

I'd imagine, as with most things, the correct answer is somewhere in between doritos and taco bell, and vegan. Even when I think I am eating "healthy" I'm still pretty far off on micronutrients on a site like Cronometer. It's tough business eating well. I happily settle for limiting dairy and meat, but not completely eliminating

I will say as someone more on the fringe of veganism than most, the vegan culture seems to actively push me away, which always makes me both giggle and annoyed since I seem like the target audience for their message.

Quote

09-26-2018 , 10:16 PM

#57

PJo336

THRILLHOUSE!

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 22,158

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJo336

I will say as someone more on the fringe of veganism than most, the vegan culture seems to actively push me away, which always makes me both giggle and annoyed since I seem like the target audience for their message.

I'll expand on this a bit by pointing out a vegan spamming Greger videos to responders is a great example.

"I think Greger is a quack"

"Did you see this Greger video though?!?"

Quote

09-26-2018 , 11:09 PM

#58

ILOVEPOKER929

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 30,276

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJo336

The latter does basically nothing for me, since I can find a study telling me eggs will kill you, and then produce one saying they're great for you. It's quite a confusing industry to follow, and it generates a ton of emotional responses to further cloud things.

It is quite a confusing industry but keep in mind that confusion is deliberately manufactured:

As long as people are confused they'll throw up their arms and just go back to eating whatever they want, and that's the point.

As far as eggs go tho, there is no confusion on that front. When the USDA-- I.E. the #1 propaganda organ whose job is literally to brainwash people to keep eating eggs--says eggs are not healthy, that's the strongest form of evidence you're ever gonna get on the topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJo336

I'd imagine, as with most things, the correct answer is somewhere in between doritos and taco bell, and vegan. Even when I think I am eating "healthy" I'm still pretty far off on micronutrients on a site like Cronometer.

I don't know anything about cronometer, but for me personally, the best way to make sure I'm getting the micronutrients I need is to drink a smoothie every day. Think of a smoothie as a way to get all the good stuff in that is not convenient otherwise. Throw in some broccoli sprouts, kale, beets, turmeric, ginger, ground flax seeds, berries, and then add other fruit to make sure it tastes good. Fruit like pineapple, cherries, mango, are great at covering up "unpalatable" tastes. If you have kids this is also a great way to sneak them their veggies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJo336

It's tough business eating well. I happily settle for limiting dairy and meat, but not completely eliminating

For me the toughest part about eating well is the time. If you do this right you'll have to prepare a lot of meals yourself. The key to managing that time is to make food for multiple days. Make a big pan of plant-based chili and freeze what's left for the future. Make some whole grain pasta (or pasta made out of beans and lentils) loaded with veggies and oil free tomato sauce, and you can eat that over 2 or 3 days and freeze the rest for some other time. Same with oatmeal. Make enough where you can eat some over the next 2 or 3 days. I do the same with smoothies too. I don't make a smoothie every day. I make enough to last around 3 days with minor touch ups. Also buy a pressure cooker. We use the Insta Pot. It's a godsend. Makes cooking a lot easier and quicker.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJo336

I say forget about veganism. Follow the evidence and do what's best for your health. Most vegans aren't that healthy anyways.

Quote

09-26-2018 , 11:31 PM

#59

gregorio

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 39,313

What's not healthy about eggs? Egg or cholesterol intakes do not appear to be associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, so I guess it's something else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILOVEPOKER929

As far as eggs go tho, there is no confusion on that front. When the USDA-- I.E. the #1 propaganda organ whose job is literally to brainwash people to keep eating eggs--says eggs are not healthy, that's the strongest form of evidence you're ever gonna get on the topic.

[youtube]

Obviously not watching your Youtubes, but I just downloaded the USDA 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and it is full of recommendations that include eggs. For example, eggs are mentioned in their "Key Recommendations for healthy eating patterns":

Quote:

A healthy eating pattern includes:

A variety of vegetables from all of the subgroups—dark green, red and orange, legumes (beans and peas), starchy, and other fruits, especially whole fruits
Grains, at least half of which are whole grains
Fat-free or low-fat dairy, including milk, yogurt, cheese, and/or fortified soy beverages
A variety of protein foods, including seafood, lean meats and poultry, eggs, legumes (beans and peas), and nuts, seeds, and soy products
Oils

There is even a meats, poultry, and eggs subgroup

Quote:

The recommendation for the meats, poultry, and eggs subgroup in the Healthy U.S.-Style Eating Pattern at the 2,000-calorie level is 26 ounce-equivalents per week. This is the same as the amount that was in the primary USDA Food Patterns of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines. For those who eat animal products, the recommendation for the protein foods subgroup of meats, poultry, and eggs can be met by consuming a variety of lean meats, lean poultry, and eggs.

Last edited by gregorio; 09-26-2018 at 11:58 PM.

Quote

09-27-2018 , 12:14 AM

#60

ILOVEPOKER929

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 30,276

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregorio

What's not healthy about eggs? Egg or cholesterol intakes do not appear to be associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, so I guess it's something else.

For those genuinely interested in the health effects of eggs see below:

A short write-up on Eggs.

Some Videos to check out:

Below is part of the transcript of the above video:

Quote:

For decades, “on the basis of concerns from the American Heart Association and consumer groups, the Federal Trade Commission carried out successful legal action—upheld by the Supreme Court—to compel the egg industry to cease and desist from false and misleading advertising that eggs had no harmful effects on health.”

See, “[a]nti-cholesterol attacks on eggs…resulted in severe economic loss…through a reduction in egg consumption.” So, the egg industry created a National Commission on Egg Nutrition “to combat the anti-cholesterol, anti-egg publicity” with ads like this, exclaiming, “There is…no scientific evidence whatsoever that eating eggs in any way increases the risk of heart attack”—which the U.S. Court of Appeals found “patently false and misleading.”

Even the tobacco industry wasn’t that brazen—instead, just trying to introduce the element of doubt, arguing that the relationship between smoking and health remains an open question. The egg ads made seven claims, each of which, in truth and in fact, was determined to be [bleep].

The Court determined the egg industry ads “were and are, false, misleading, [and] deceptive.” In fact, legal scholars view what the tobacco industry tried to do as the same as what the American Egg Board’s National Commission on Egg Nutrition tried to do. As with the egg ads, the tobacco industry did “more than just espouse one side of a genuine controversy,” but just denied “the existence of scientific evidence.”

Over the last 36 years, the American Egg Board has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to convince people eggs are not going to kill them—and, it’s working. “In combination with aggressive nutrition[al] science and public relations efforts, research shows that the advertising has been effective in decreasing consumers’ concerns over eggs and cholesterol/heart health.” This is from their internal strategy documents I got a hold of.

Currently, they’re targeting moms. Their approach is to “[s]urround moms wherever they are.” They pay “integration fees” for egg product placement in TV shows. To integrate eggs into The Biggest Loser, for example, could be a million dollars. But getting some kids’ “Storytime/Reading program” to integrate eggs may only take half a million, though. The American Egg Board keeps track of who is and is not a “friend-of-eggs.” They pay scientists $1,500 to sit and answer questions like “What studies can help disassociate eggs from [cardiovascular disease]?”

From the beginning, their arch nemesis was the American Heart Association, over which they fought a major battle over cholesterol. In documents retrieved through the Freedom of Information Act, we see even the USDA repeatedly chastising the egg industry for misrepresenting the American Heart Association position.

In a draft letter to magazine editors, the egg industry tried to say that the “American Heart Association changed its recommendations to approve an egg a day [in 2000] and eventually eliminated its number restrictions on eggs [in 2002]”—to which the head of USDA’s poultry research and promotion programs had to explain, “The ‘change’ in 2000 wasn’t a change at all; nothing in the guidelines or recommendations was changed.”

What happened is that “in response to a question posed by [someone planted in] the audience, [Heart Association] reps acknowledged that” even though eggs are the most concentrated source of cholesterol in the diet, since an individual egg has less than 300 milligrams of cholesterol, technically, an egg could fit under the 300 milligram daily limit. And, in 2002, they just eliminated the specific mention of eggs, for consistency’s sake. But, the American Heart Association insists that they haven’t changed their position, and continue to warn consumers about eggs.

For me at least, the very fact that the USDA--you know, not some vegan hippy crazy fanatical zealot doctor, but an organization that has a direct interest in people continuing to eat eggs forever--says that eggs are not healthy is damning enough evidence to not eat them. But for others that need more than that I hope the above blog and videos helps you out.

Quote

09-27-2018 , 12:18 AM

#61

ILOVEPOKER929

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 30,276

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregorio

What's not healthy about eggs? Egg or cholesterol intakes do not appear to be associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, so I guess it's something else.
Obviously not watching your Youtubes, but I just downloaded the USDA 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and it is full of recommendations that include eggs. For example, eggs are mentioned in their "Key Recommendations for healthy eating patterns":
There is even a meats, poultry, and eggs subgroup

Yes it's literally the USDA's job to keep us brainwashed into thinking meat and eggs are healthy so that we keep eating them. That is why this video is so damning:

Thank you freedom of information act.

Quote

09-27-2018 , 12:30 AM

#62

Rexx14

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 7,215

Links to studies and such would probably generate more interest and debate fwiw.

Quote

09-27-2018 , 12:47 AM

#63

ILOVEPOKER929

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 30,276

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexx14

Links to studies and such would probably generate more interest and debate fwiw.

The links to the studies each video references are below the video. Problem is that's not true when I embed from youtube. You'd have to watch the video from the actual site, nutritionfacts.org, instead.

For example. Here's the video on Eggs and Arterial Function.

In order to get links to the studies referenced you'd have to watch it at the site:

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/egg...rial-function/

Below the video, click on sources. This is what you'll get (it's all hyperlinked at the site):

Quote:

DL Katz, MA Evans, H Nawaz, VY Njike, W Chan, BP Comerford, ML Hoxley. Egg consumption and endothelial function: A randomized controlled crossover trial. Int J Cardiol .2005 99(1):65 – 70.

V Njike, Z Faridi, S Dutta, AL Gonzalez-Simon, DL Katz. Daily egg consumption in hyperlipidemic adults--effects on endothelial function and cardiovascular risk. Nutr J. 2010 9:28.

PN Hopkins. Effects of dietery cholesterol on serum cholesterol: a meta-analysis and review. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992 55(6):1060-70.

SC Lucan. Egg on their faces (probably not in their necks); the yolk of the tenuous cholesterol-to-plaque conclusion. Atherosclerosis. 2013 227(1):182- 183.

JH O’Keefe Jr, L Cordain, WH Harris, RM Moe, R Vogel. Optimal Low-Density Lipoprotein Is 50 to 70 mg/dl: Lower Is Better and Physiologically Normal. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 43(11):2142-2146.

D Steinberg. Thematic review series: The pathogenesis of atherosclerosis: An interpretive history of the cholesterol controversy, part III: Mechanistically defining the role of hyperlipidemia. J Lipid Res. 2005 46(10):2037-2051.

JD Spence, DJA Jenkins, J Davignon. Egg yolk consumption, smoking and carotid plaque: Reply to letters to the Editor by Sean Lucan and T Dylan Olver et al. Atherosclerosis. 2013 227(1):189 – 191.

Hope that helps.

Quote

09-27-2018 , 10:39 AM

#64

downtown

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 12,446

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20633314

Quote:

CONCLUSIONS:
We did not find a significant positive association between egg consumption and increased risk of mortality from CHD or stroke in the US population. These results corroborate the findings of previous studies.

http://examine.com/nutrition/are-eggs-healthy/
Is a much better and unbiased view of eggs, which, gasp, advises moderation.

---

The main problem with the ad nauseum video posting and extremism is not that any one point is wrong per se, it's that it quashes scientific discussion of what is actually optimal (given x goal, which OP has totally overlooked in favor of the one answer for all, which is cult-like and off putting). E.g. perhaps for me, I should eat more veggies, more chicken, more dairy. See also studies of lacto-ovo vegetarians with better health outcomes than vegans that OP has ignored - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479225 linked in the earlier takedown of OP's site. Oh but I forgot cheese is poison and the same as heroin. K.

I'll never get there reading or watching vegan cheerleading that doesn't engage in serious discussion.

Quote

09-27-2018 , 02:56 PM

#65

ChiddyBang

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 2,873

Mostly skimming, but thread reminds me of the flat earth thread.

Quote

09-27-2018 , 04:03 PM

#66

ILOVEPOKER929

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 30,276

Quote:

Originally Posted by downtown

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20633314

Quote:

When you click on 'author information' in the abstract you get this

Quote:

Health Sciences Practice, Exponent Inc., 1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20036, USA. cscrafford@exponent.com

Exponent Inc is not a credible source:

Quote:

Opponents say Exponent’s scientists and engineers routinely bend conclusions to the needs of clients, noting that the company in the 1990s supported the tobacco industry in denying the lung cancer risk of secondhand smoke. The firm’s forte, they say, is “doubt science”—muddying the waters by attacking research showing evidence of harm, highlighting or exaggerating scientific uncertainties about health hazards, and calling for more research to delay action. The result, critics say, is a pro-industry imprint on scientific literature.

A FairWarning analysis of technical databases turned up more than 1,850 peer-reviewed articles, letters and book chapters written or co-authored by Exponent scientists and engineers since the start of 2000. Because there is no single, all-inclusive index of technical writings, the count is certain to be low. Many Exponent articles focused on biomedical topics, such as the design of medical devices. Hundreds more were funded by corporations and trade groups seeking to sway regulators and juries by questioning concerns about everything from asbestos and pesticide exposure, to oil and chemical pollution, to consumption of sugary sodas, candy , eggs and red meat.

Full disclosure?

Industry sponsorship of research is typically disclosed in science and engineering journals, but at the end of articles. That’s problematic, critics say, because many people– students, journalists and others–read only the brief summaries, called abstracts, that are available online at no cost. Most never see the full articles with disclosure statements because they usually cost about $35 apiece, an issue previously examined by the Center for Public Integrity.

Earlier this year, five Democratic U.S. Senators called on the National Library of Medicine to disclose funding sources or other potential conflicts in all articles in its free online database, PubMed. The senators’ letter stated that PubMed users should be provided “with the basic information necessary to form their own judgments about any research article’s scientific objectivity and impartiality.”

Exponent officials refused FairWarning’s interview requests, but the firm has staunchly defended its scientific credibility. According to its website: “The Exponent name is recognized for its integrity, objectivity, independence, and professionalism…We employ the best and the brightest from the major academic institutions around the world as well as technical specialists from a variety of industries.”

Or as Fiona Mowatt, an Exponent toxicologist, testified in an asbestos case in 2015: “I believe that we aren’t in the business of exonerating the industry; I’m in the business of looking at what the science says.”

Critics counter that this quest for truth leads down predictable paths. In his 2008 book, “Doubt is Their Product,” David Michaels, now assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, criticized Exponent and several of its science-for-hire rivals. “While some might exist,” Michaels wrote, “I have yet to see an Exponent study that does not support the conclusion needed by the corporation or trade association that is paying the bill.”

Source.

What's curious to me is you seem to already know Exponent Inc isn't very credible given your 2nd site which you say is "much better and unbiased". My question is why even site that BS exponent study to begin with then?

BTW is there a way where I can see who funded that study. My cursory internet search only came up with this:

Quote:

First, look at the FULLTEXT of that "study". You will notice that its Lead Author, "CG Scrafford" is footnoted as being associated with: "Health Sciences Practice, Exponent Inc., 1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20036, USA"

Notice this---> "Exponent Inc." Carolyn G Scrafford, Nga L Trana, Leila M Barraj and Pamela J Mink

ALL of these authors are employees of Exponent, and being paid to conduct "scientific studies" by the NATIONAL EGG BOARD and the EGG NUTRITION CENTER to promote that "eggs are fine...

Source.

But that's not a credible source. That's just a copy/paste from the comments section of an article. Even tho I highly suspect it is true that Exponent is being paid by Big Egg so to speak given that it's literally their job to pump out industry approved "science", I still wish I had a credible source. Is there somewhere on Pubmed that shows this? Either way a study made by Exponent is really all I need to be extremely skeptical to say the least.

Quote:

Originally Posted by downtown

http://examine.com/nutrition/are-eggs-healthy/
Is a much better and unbiased view of eggs, which, gasp, advises moderation.

Once again, it is worth noting that this "unbiased" study also relies on the industry friendly "science" of Exponent Inc. See footbnote 13. Again I would love to know if there is a way to see who funded the other studies that support this article. I strongly suspect I'm gonna get the pattern shown at the 1:02 mark of this video:

Quote:

Originally Posted by downtown

I find it ironic that you claim to be interested in a "scientific discussion" when all you've referenced so far are industry supported egg studies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by downtown

Oh but I forgot cheese is poison and the same as heroin. K.

Yes cheese is a low grade poison and one of the worst foods you can possibly eat and is more related to heroin than you think. I mean seriously, are there really people here who think cheese is health promoting? Like is this actually something that needs to be debated!?!? If so, should we debate whether sewage water is healthy too? My god.

Quote:

Originally Posted by downtown

I'll never get there reading or watching vegan cheerleading that doesn't engage in serious discussion.

With the studies you have cited it is clear already you are not interested in a serious discussion.

Quote

09-27-2018 , 04:13 PM

#67

downtown

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 12,446

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/dea...e-by-veganism/

Quote

09-27-2018 , 04:22 PM

#68

downtown

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 12,446

Quote:

low fat dairy can be protective against some types of cancer

Not even cheesin' u.

Quote

09-27-2018 , 04:27 PM

#69

downtown

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 12,446

Quote:

Originally Posted by downtown

The main problem with the ad nauseum video posting and extremism is not that any one point is wrong per se, it's that it quashes scientific discussion of what is actually optimal (given x goal, which OP has totally overlooked in favor of the one answer for all, which is cult-like and off putting). E.g. perhaps for me, I should eat more veggies, more chicken, more dairy. See also studies of lacto-ovo vegetarians with better health outcomes than vegans that OP has ignored - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479225 linked in the earlier takedown of OP's site. Oh but I forgot cheese is poison and the same as heroin. K.

I'll never get there reading or watching vegan cheerleading that doesn't engage in serious discussion.

Bolded for truth.

Pretty convenient how you skip all of examine.com, which is not a study, it's research review without an agenda, bc "industry funding!"

Magic handwaving from a zealot. Who would have thought?!

Quote

09-27-2018 , 05:39 PM

#70

ILOVEPOKER929

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 30,276

Quote:

Originally Posted by downtown

I didn't skip it. I noted that it also relied on the super shady Exponent inc study.

Last edited by ILOVEPOKER929; 09-27-2018 at 05:45 PM.

Quote

09-28-2018 , 01:13 PM

#71

nuclear500

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 10,516

BTW;

How do you solve the B12 problem with a WFPB diet?

Or are you just assuming supplementation and intentionally fortified foods? IE unnatural foods?

Quote

09-28-2018 , 02:46 PM

#72

ILOVEPOKER929

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 30,276

Quote:

Originally Posted by nuclear500

BTW;

How do you solve the B12 problem with a WFPB diet?

Or are you just assuming supplementation and intentionally fortified foods? IE unnatural foods?

You supplement. It's as simple as that. BTW part of the reason vegans aren't all that healthy is they tend to slack on their B12. This is a serious issue. If one doesn't take their B12 they can undermine/ruin all the progress made by switching to a WFPB diet. What good is being on the only diet proven to reverse our #1 killer, heart disease--something drugs/surgery cannot do--if you severely harm/kill yourself by not taking your B12.

For more information about B12: Click here.

A relevant video on the subject showing that the heart disease reversal properties of a WFPB diet can be completely undermined by not taking B12:

Transcript of the video for those who don't wanna/can't watch:

Quote:

This is not the only study to look at the arterial walls of those eating plant-based diets. This new study from China, for example, found that compared to omnivores, those that ate egg-free and meat-free diets had all the typical benefits of eating more plant-based: lower body mass index, blood pressure, triglycerides, total cholesterol, bad cholesterol; fewer free radicals; maybe better kidney function, better blood sugar control, etc. But, does all that translate to actual differences in their arteries? Yes. Indeed, the omnivores had comparatively thickened arterial linings—all of which suggests about a tripling in the probability of developing cardiovascular disease. They therefore “recommend that more vegetables should be eaten instead of meat,” and it’s “never too late” to improve one’s diet.

Having said that, if those on plant-based diets don’t get enough vitamin B12, levels of an artery-damaging compound called homocysteine can start to rise in the bloodstream, and may counteract some of the benefits of eating healthy. In this study from Taiwan, the arteries of vegetarians were just as stiff as those of the omnivores, and they had the same level of thickening in their carotid arteries—perhaps because of the elevated homocysteine levels in their blood.

“The negative findings of these studies should not be considered as evidence of neutral cardiovascular effects of vegetarianism, but do indicate an urgent need for modification of vegan diets through vitamin B12 fortification or supplements.” “[V]itamin B12 deficiency is a very serious problem, leading ultimately to anemia, neuropsychiatric disorders, irreversible nerve damage,” and these high levels of artery-damaging homocysteine in the blood. “Prudent vegans should include sources of vitamin B12 in their diets.”

One study of vegetarians whose B12 levels were really hurting even had thicker, more dysfunctional arteries than the omnivores. How do we know B12 was to blame? Well, when they were given B12 supplements, they got better. Their arterial lining started to shrink back, and the proper functioning of their arteries returned.

Without B12-fortified foods or B12 supplements, when omnivores are switched to a vegan diet, they develop vitamin B12 deficiency. Yes, it may take dropping down to around 150 picomoles per liter to develop classic signs of B12 deficiency—like the anemia, and our spinal cord rotting from the inside out. But, way before that, we may start getting increased risk of cognitive deficits and brain shrinkage, stroke, depression, and nerve and bone damage, as well as having our homocysteine shoot through the roof. And, that may “attenuate the beneficial effects of a vegetarian diet on cardiovascular health.” “The beneficial effects of vegetarian diets on [cholesterol and blood sugars] need to be advocated,” but, at the same time, “efforts to correct vitamin B12 deficiency in vegetarian diets can never be overestimated.”

Quote

09-28-2018 , 02:52 PM

#73

Didace

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 19,852

ILP929,

Try supporting your position with a variety of sources. Perhaps even some studies that have been peer reviewed.

Quote

09-28-2018 , 03:18 PM

#74

kidcolin

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 109,033

We weren't designed to consume b12 tho.

Quote

09-28-2018 , 03:24 PM

#75

TTGL

grinder

Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 468

I am pro cheese for sure. Slow digesting proteins, delicious saturated fats, lots of vitamins and high satiety. Pretty crucial part of my “optimal” diet

Quote

Page 3 of 78

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 13 23 53

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 3 of 78

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 13 23 53

Last