Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vegetarians 'cut heart risk by 32%'

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Vegetarians 'cut heart risk by 32%'

    BBC News - Vegetarians 'cut heart risk by 32%'

    Just looking to spark a debate on this and hear peoples opinions........

    Neil

  • #2
    your first post here?
    Hmm

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi Ayla,

      I'm not sure what that tells you or what you mean by that.

      Anyhow, I have been on the primal blueprint lifestyle for nearly 2 weeks now, didn't want to post too premature on my own progress - as I wanted to post my summary (food diary) for minimum 2 weeks worth.

      The purpose of the above was exactly that, to hear peoples opinions since it's conflicting with primal research - I have my own opinion but only wanted to hear others.

      Also, I posted it because the bbc news agency is reputable - I wouldn't post an article from an unknown source.

      Neil

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by maillme View Post
        Hi Ayla,

        I'm not sure what that tells you or what you mean by that.

        Anyhow, I have been on the primal blueprint lifestyle for nearly 2 weeks now, didn't want to post too premature on my own progress - as I wanted to post my summary (food diary) for minimum 2 weeks worth.

        The purpose of the above was exactly that, to hear peoples opinions since it's conflicting with primal research - I have my own opinion but only wanted to hear others.

        Also, I posted it because the bbc news agency is reputable - I wouldn't post an article from an unknown source.

        Neil
        Hi Neil,

        I haven't been able to read the whole paper but based on what I have managed to glean, two points stand out - firstly it is based on food diaries, with 4 surveys and 7-day long diaries collected from participants over 15 years or so. The likely accuracy of the diaries and also how representative they are must be fairly questionable!

        Secondly,even if that isn't the case, as this is looking back, it can only demonstrate correlation and not causation. Having not seen the full study I don't know to what degree they go into the actual food data, but on the top level, they were asking "do you eat meat", "do you eat fish" and categorised people into 4 groups (meat, fish, vegetarian, vegan). What we don't know is what accompanies the meat. I would say (and I'm guessing), that meat may well come in a bun. With ketchup. And fries.

        Without wishing to get all superior about it, primal living is about eating non-processed good quality (as good as you can afford) food which includes meat in addition to veg, and not the bun! As a lapsed vegetarian, I eat far more vegetables, salads etc with my meat now than I ever ate as a veggy.

        So even if food diaries are accurate and even if they showed a causation between meat and heart disease, it would still not truly condemn a diet that is full of fresh unprocessed foods from both animal and plant origin.

        And that's before we consider the likelihood of someone eating burgers and chips doing any exercise!

        hope that helps, but looking forward to someone else coming along to build on this...

        Comment


        • #5
          Observational study, not a clinical trial. In other words, not science... Like NigelBailey said, the diets themselves were broken up along very arbitrary lines. It studied vegetarian diets to every other way of eating combined. So Primal and Paleo eaters were lumped into the same category as those who eat nothing but fast food. Since only one in four meals in the UK are actually home cooked ( Only ONE in every meal is now home cooked (... that's a 30 per cent drop since the eighties) | Mail Online ) the most likely culprit for the difference is again fast food. It is VERY likely that vegetarians cook a much higher percentage of their own meals.

          This study says nothing whatsoever about the health benefit (or lack thereof) of eating Primal/Paleo. It does show a LINK (but not causation) between vegetarian diets and lower heart risk VS. a SAD diet. It seems very likely that the same study could have been described this way, "Diets that depend on pre-cooked meals and not home-cooked meals are 32% more likely to cause heart disease." But that isn't the message that the authors wanted to convey.
          "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

          Comment


          • #6
            It also depends on what they consider a risk factor for heart disease. If they're basing them on the lipid hypothesis, that's reason enough to question the whole thing.

            Comment


            • #7
              Thanks everyone for responding - this is the kind of things i was hoping to read.

              thanks again,
              Neil

              Comment


              • #8
                Sorry Neil, usually people come here to post things like this as their first post purely for drama (or spam).
                There are lots of articles that are against the primal way of life, you just have to pick which to believe really.
                Trying it for yourself is the best way to know

                Comment


                • #9
                  I totally agree - i'm 2 weeks now....it's been quite tough for me....but I can see the benefits.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Pretentious moniker and a holier than than attitude. I'm guessing you're not very old.

                    If you read the responses more carefully, you'll find some very obvious criticisms of the study. There is no indication that there will be benefit in including more vegetables into a whole food diet because there is no establishment of cause
                    Four years Primal with influences from Jaminet & Shanahan and a focus on being anti-inflammatory. Using Primal to treat CVD and prevent stents from blocking free of drugs.

                    Eat creatures nose-to-tail (animal, fowl, fish, crustacea, molluscs), a large variety of vegetables (raw, cooked and fermented, including safe starches), dairy (cheese & yoghurt), occasional fruit, cocoa, turmeric & red wine

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The authors didn't say that because that isn't the message they were trying to get across. There isn't any real evidence in this study to scientifically say anything actually. It certainly doesn't compare Paleo to vegetarianism.

                      I have no emotional attachment or religious faith in eating paleo/primal whatsoever. I just prefer real science to observational studies.

                      For example, this headline would be technically correct if 4 meat-eaters and 3 vegetarians out of a million in each group had a heart attack.

                      I am a real big fan of science as long as its REAL science. In fact, a "more thinking response" is one that understands that an observational study isn't scientific nor can one draw any meaningful conclusions from them.

                      I would never dissmiss a properly done clinical trail, and if you can find one that compares paleo to vegetarian AND concludes that vegetarian is healthier, I will reconsider my new found eating pattern in a clogged-up heartbeat.

                      Oh, don't take my word for it, read from someone who read the study and not just the sensationalist headlines.

                      Fat Head The Latest “Meat Kills!” Study
                      "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by peril View Post
                        Pretentious moniker and a holier than than attitude. I'm guessing you're not very old.

                        If you read the responses more carefully, you'll find some very obvious criticisms of the study. There is no indication that there will be benefit in including more vegetables into a whole food diet because there is no establishment of cause
                        Ironic having to teach someone named StudentofTruth science isn't it? I guess there are are different definitions of truth - I prefer my truths to be measurable
                        "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It is science but it is not conclusive. These studies can only indicate designs for more controlled studies. No conclusion can be drawn from them. Google "observational study" and learn
                          Four years Primal with influences from Jaminet & Shanahan and a focus on being anti-inflammatory. Using Primal to treat CVD and prevent stents from blocking free of drugs.

                          Eat creatures nose-to-tail (animal, fowl, fish, crustacea, molluscs), a large variety of vegetables (raw, cooked and fermented, including safe starches), dairy (cheese & yoghurt), occasional fruit, cocoa, turmeric & red wine

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I read Tom Naughton's take on this study this morning. Certainly casts some doubt on the conclusions.

                            Fat Head The Latest “Meat Kills!” Study
                            My PB Journal
                            Started June 2010

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by StudentofTruth
                              Interesting that offence is taken. Emotions determining thoughts rather than cool logic?

                              Shoot the messenger of different opinions with personal attacks? The moniker says "student", not "holder" of truth. Reading what you want to read into a name?

                              Looking at a huge population - 40,000 people - and finding a huge survival difference depending on proclaimed eating habits is not science? And is to be dismissed outright? Wow.
                              I have repeatedly dismissed the study using grade 8 science. Have you even bothered to read the study? Or my counter-points to its conclusions? Did you follow the link to the third party link I provided? Do you know what an observational study is?
                              Your argument keeps spouting the headline as gospel, but you won't take the time to look into what the headline means.

                              I have shown how 32% isn't a huge difference (from the design of the study it could be less than a rounding error), I have explained that the study DOES NOT compare primal/paleo to vegetarianism (so it doesn't mean anything to us), I have provided a link to someone who provides a thorough analysis of the study. How much more logic do you want?

                              Since you didnt follow the link it seems, here's some more problems/results from the study:

                              - "Risk factors such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes may be mediating factors through which vegetarianism affects the risk of IHD; therefore, the analyses were not adjusted for these variables."

                              - "Since clinical studies have shown that low-carb, meaty diets can control and often reverse diabetes, I seriously doubt eating meat causes diabetes. So what we’re likely seeing here is that the vegetarians consume less sugar than the meat-eaters – once again, comparing health-conscious people to the population as a whole."

                              - "Then there’s the age problem. Here’s the breakdown of the study participants with their average ages at the time they were enrolled:

                              6,831 non-vegetarian men, average age = 49.5
                              22,610 non-vegetarian women, average age = 46.3

                              3,771 vegetarian men, average age = 41.8
                              11,349 vegetarian women, average age = 38.4

                              With a little Excel magic, I determined that the overall average age of the meat-eaters at the beginning of the study was 47 years old. The overall average age of the vegetarians at the beginning of the study was 39 years old." "The researchers compared their medical records 11 years later. At that point, the average meat-eater was 58 years old and the average vegetarian was 50 years old. Now take a look at the chart below, which shows CDC figures on heart-disease deaths rates by age bracket.

                              The heart-disease death rate in the 55-64 year-old-bracket is more than double the rate in the 45-54 year-old-bracket. The meat-eaters were far more likely to fall into the age group where the rate of heart-disease death more than doubles."

                              And MY Favorite:

                              - "The mortality of both the vegetarians and the nonvegetarians in this study is low compared with national rates. Within the study, mortality from circulatory diseases and all causes is not significantly different between vegetarians and meat eaters, but the study is not large enough to exclude small or moderate differences for specific causes of death, and more research on this topic is required."

                              You can believe the study if you wish, and good luck to you. I prefer to base my choices on "cool logic" instead of sensationalist headlines.
                              "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X