Actually, that's not true. I know vegans love to spread these lies about such things, but there is no evidence that animal products cause health problems. In fact, if you read "The China Study" (the actual study, not the spin vegan Campbell the fraud made), you'll see those who ate the most meat lived the longest, healthiest lives.
Vegan Dr. Neal Barnard claims to have reversed T2 diabetes with a low-fat, vegan diet. Yet of his 3 published studies, all showed that his vegan diet was no better than a crappy ADA with animal products, and a crappy cholesterol lowering diet with animal products. His 74 week study was p=0.43, his 22 week study was p=0.09 an his 14 week study was p=.17. Unless p<0.05, then whatever you are comparing are not statistically different. Thus, we have 3 peer-reviewed clinical studies that prove a vegan diet offers no benefits one cannot get from a diet that includes animal products.
In Dr. Gardner's A-TO-Z study, a low-carb diet (Atkins) was superior to every other diet, including the Ornish vegan diet. Fact is, the Ornish vegan diet had pretty crappy results compared to every other diet studied.
How about the Blue Zones? Well, the longest lived peoples in the world eat animal products. Okinawans eat very fatty pork and fatty fish on a consistent basis and outlive everyone. Sardinians are home to the longest lived males in the world and they eat 25% of their diet in the form of dairy. In Loma Linda, Adventists who eat fish 3x a week outlive adventists who don't eat any animal products. Mormons (who eat lots of meat) live as long or longer than Loma Linda vegan Adventists. Every Blue Zone eats a decent portion of animal products (except Loma Linda), and live longer than anyone in the world.
The trend is clear: the problem isn't animal products. The problem is processed flour and sugar, smoking, drinking, and being sedentary.
No doubt you will consider the UN saying meat is linked to cancer. Lots of problems there. You see, "linked" means correlation. Correlation cannot show causation. Nic Cage movies are strongly correlated with drownings. Do you believe Nic Cage movies cause drownings, or drownings cause Nic Cage movies? Furthermore, "meat" includes pizza, hot dogs, and hamburgers. I don't know about you, but all those include a lot of processed flour and often, processed sugar.
So the next time someone tells you "meat causes health problems" or something like that, be aware that person has no idea how science works.
reply
share
forthesafetyofpuppies
8 years ago
Note how you cite "trends" and then dismiss "links". I agree that the real evil is processed food. Refined sugar and salt, and all other manner of nasties are the real problem. As well as the quality and sourcing of the healthy stuff. It's something of a false flag debate. But that doesn't mean it isn't a valid debate. The bottom line is, it hasn't really been studied enough. That's why we have to resort to citing trends and links. It's in part what you believe.
Casein found in milk, for example, is carcinogenic. Processed red meats have been linked with bowel cancer. Etc. But you're free to believe what you want, and so am I.
___
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qssvnjj5Moo
reply
share
arutha10002
8 years ago
I cite "trends" because of two simple facts about "trends", "correlation", "links" and "associations": correlation is not causation, but lack of correlation is strong evidence for lack of causation.
For example, if I say "animal products are associated with disease", and we only have correlation, that means we ought to investigate this in a clinical study. Correlation can show us things that ought to be studied. But the correlation must be consistent. If you say "French people eat lots of animal products, and they live a long time, while Russians eat a lot of animal products and don't live a long time, then animal products are not the variable of interest. If I say, "The healthiest people in the world eat animal products," then the evidence is strong that animal products DO NOT cause health problems and disease. I cannot say that they improve health, but since they are not correlated with decreased health or increased incidence of disease, there is no correlation, therefore there cannot be causation.
Oh, and casein is not carcinogenic. Silly people always quoting T. Colin Campbell, one of the world's greatest frauds. So the story goes Campbell gave aflotoxin to mice (cancer causing agent) and fed half casein and the other half something else. Then he declared "the mice fed casein got cancer." This is true. What did he leave out? The fact that all the rats in the control group died long before the experiment was over and died before the other rats got cancer. So using vegan logic, casein causes cancer. Using vegan logic further, avoiding casein causes early mortality, while casein increases life-span and causes cancer.
Of course, neither is true. Milk and milk protein are not a common part of a rat's diet. Even if it were, rats lack the skill and equipment needed to separate the casein from the rest of the milk. The study is as silly as feeding meat to rabbits and then declaring meat isn't healthy because the rabbits got heart disease. Rabbits aren't supposed to eat meat! That rabbit study is a real study vegans use all the time to support their belief that meat is unhealthy.
So to be consistent with vegan logic, I'm going to feed a lion nothing but veggies. When the lion dies of malnutrition, I'll declare a vegan diet leads to malnutrition and death. I'll be just as credible and ethical as T. Colin Campbell!
reply
share