Vegetarians 'cut heart risk by 32%' page 3

[itchy166]

Yes, totally agree!

And you joined when? Just after SeekerofTruth logged out lmao.

[Winterbike]

So cutting through the voluminous words and purported facts, what I'm hearing itchy166, is that you don't trust a study run by Oxford University, from the Cancer Epidemiology Unit, supported by Cancer Research UK and the UK Medical Research Council, because you think there might be some bias. Fair enough.

But then you take as gospel, quoting as fact, whatever is written by some random guy who runs a website called "Fathead - You've been fed a load of bologna". That is the entirety of your case? That is your science?

And that is why you feel qualified to boast "Ironic having to teach someone named StudentofTruth science isn't it?".

First, appeal to authority is bullshit. Second, go work in the medical research field for a year or two (like I'm doing right now!), you'll see how much stupidity is going on. New student's study results' show that eating butter improved their blood profile a lot more than olive oil? International expert on lipids takes the mic and says ''well, we know that butter is bad, so how do you explain your results?''. Guy does a presentation for 45 minutes on Ancel Keys and the history of the lipid theory, and on how a recent-meta analysis shows that maybe saturated fat isn't the culprit? The next presenter, a nutritionist who's teaming up with him to help put a practical twist on his presentation, has ''Advice your clients to reduce saturated fat'' as her first recommendation. I could go all day long. Observational studies are only worth a damn if used to generate hypothesis for better studies.

[Winterbike]

I am fascinated that a thought of increasing the amount of vegetables eaten is seen by some here as an attack on the primal diet, to which they have a strong attachment. This Primal man wouldn't eat copious amounts of vegetables? Even in the book, a theory in itself, excluding some restrictions on particular insulin-stimulating vegetables, where does he say that eating more vegetables is harmful?

Except the study doesn't say ''eating more vegetables reduces heart attack risks by 32%''. It implies animal products are the culprit, and that's the issue at stake here.

[peril]

McNaughton got that bit wrong. They did adjust for age. However, the big lie in the article is in not considering all cause mortality as I indicated above. Given no difference there, there is absolutely no reason to change diet

[peril]

Now you're really, really grasping at straws, peril. Different papers. Different purposes.

The 2013 paper looked at heart disease risk. The 2009 one looked at actual deaths. In case you haven't thought about it, deaths take longer to happen than measurable heart disease risks. And so the lack of data on deaths prevented firm conclusions at that stage. Surprise, surprise.

Choosing to stick to the primal diet? Fair enough. So am I.

Calling what they wrote a "big lie" because they didn't write what you wanted? Pure emotive fantasy.

On the contrary, the key question is the outcome of being a vegetarian or an omnivore. The simplest, though perhaps not the best measure of that, is how long it takes us to die. Markers of one disease are irrelevant to that. Indeed, which are accepted markers are changing constantly. The 2009 paper addressed the real question for all of us and could not conclude a difference. However, it did report unusually few deaths overall, so there may have been something with their subject selection.

The 2013 paper analysed the same data but looked at markers of risk for ichaemic heart disease. I'll take the fact over the conjecture any day.

Tell me, do you have any scientific training? My PhD was on quantum mechanics. I also have proven heart disease so have a great interest in the topic. Writing about markers of heart disease when the same data clearly show no difference in overall mortality is clearly generating papers for the sake of it. Allowing such pointlessness to generate worldwide headlines is the promulgation of a lie because the undiscerning reader is neither exposed to nor likely to understand the nuances

[peril]

Seeing as you are seeking the truth, let's looks at the results:

Results: After an average follow-up of 11.6 y, there were 1235 IHD cases (1066 hospital admissions and 169 deaths). Compared with nonvegetarians, vegetarians had a lower mean BMI [in kg/m2; −1.2 (95% CI: −1.3, −1.1)], non-HDL-cholesterol concentration [−0.45 (95% CI: −0.60, −0.30) mmol/L], and systolic blood pressure [−3.3 (95% CI: −5.9, −0.7) mm Hg]. Vegetarians had a 32% lower risk (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.58, 0.81) of IHD than did nonvegetarians, which was only slightly attenuated after adjustment for BMI and did not differ materially by sex, age, BMI, smoking, or the presence of IHD risk factors.

The first sentence gives the total number of IHD events in the study but no breakdown by diet. This is of no value at all. Why is it here?

Next they present the results for markers of IHD: BMI, non-HDL cholesterol, and systolic blood pressure. The whole gist of the paper is that each of these is important.

Finally, they derive a single risk value out of these three markers.

Tell us what this means for anyone wanting to live a long and healthy life. Why? Discuss in the light of the mortality data presented in the 2009 paper

[Betorq]

Exactly. Also, like someone said before, vegetarians tend to be overall more health-conscious than the average Joe (although most vegetarians I know are pretty heavy). You can't compare a vegetarian who exercises and takes vitamins and doesn't smoke or eat junk food to someone who does all those things and also eats meat. Obviously the vegetarian will be more healthy in that case, but it probably has little or anything to do with the presence or absence of meat in the diet. In this study, it looks like they pitted young, health-conscious vegetarians against older omnivorous people unconcerned with health and then chose one factor of many upon which to base their claim.

Hey Kata. Holla from Johns Creek/Duluth... Ok, I know many vegetarians who are no more healthy than anyone else in their age/sociological demographic. They are veg-heads for diverse reasons such as: purely philosophical(animal rights activist, curious many like teenage girls), religious (Hindu) or yes health (fear of "high cholesterol" causing heart disease, stroke, cancer or shorter life etc) or health coz they feel lighter/better w/ improved health markers such as sleep, moods, sex etc. I was vegetarian & vegan in the 80s & 90s & it felt great in the beginning years. In college & in my 20s I knew many overweight, unhappy, unhealthy vegetarians who ate junk, slept poorly/erratically &/or didn't exercise & smoked up a storm.

Then there's CAFO meat eaters who... yes my gawd... they eat white bread, cookies ,cakes & fries, yet maintain an active lifestyle, they strive for & accomplish many cool things in their lives, they are highly functional in their community, with their family. Yes, generally speaking, statistically in the USA & the developed first world overall, there are always the dire realities we all know of & see for ourselves, for the unhealthy, diseased, overweight masses lumbering around Walmart & in line @ fast food drive thrus....

This "study" is pseudo-observational (and that's being generous) & not very scientific-ish to my sensibilities. But it did make a nice splash in the blogosphere, where any sensational thing sells. As my dad from retail business used to say, "It smells but it sells..."

Having said all that, I do think there are many healthy vegetarians, such as Marks own family member(s), seemingly making it work within the primal framework. There are times during the summer & spring when I briefly "go veg" for a bit of spring cleansing or for cooling down with watermelons for days on end, in the heat of summer.

In Hawaii this past Dec, I had a revelation eating just ice cream for dinner one night after a long bike ride. That some of the coolest things about being an adult now & having my own money are that I can act &/or eat like a kid, day or night, if I choose to & nobody sends me to my room nor takes away my allowance...

[BONZ]

So cutting through the voluminous words and purported facts, what I'm hearing itchy166, is that you don't trust a study run by Oxford University, from the Cancer Epidemiology Unit, supported by Cancer Research UK and the UK Medical Research Council, because you think there might be some bias. Fair enough.

But then you take as gospel, quoting as fact, whatever is written by some random guy who runs a website called "Fathead - You've been fed a load of bologna". That is the entirety of your case? That is your science?

And that is why you feel qualified to boast "Ironic having to teach someone named StudentofTruth science isn't it?".

And that, kids..... is what we call an appeal to authority. Commonly referred to as a logical fallacy.

Can you say L - O - G - I - C - A - L F - A - L - L - A - C - Y ? Great job, gang!

[BONZ]

Damnit! Gotta finish reading the thread before I start cracking jokes..... somebody always jacks my punchline!

[peril]

"My PhD was on quantum mechanics". lol. After having a good rant about the falsity of appealing to authority, peril, what's the very first thing you do under pressure? See how emotions rule our lives and our logic? Welcome to human life. Waits for predictable emotional reaction ....

I hear your desperation to live a couple of years more. And how you have clung to this theory hoping to achieve that. Good luck, it may achieve what you are aiming for. Or not. No matter. A life lived stressing about our impending death, and whether we have the perfect diet, and whether the world knows we are right, is not a life worth living, is it? We'll all be dead and buried soon enough. And in the eternity of time and space this body with its collection of thoughts and emotions is but a spec. Not even. And anything we achieve or build in this world will soon enough crumble and be forgotten as if it had never happened.

If you hadn't been so desperate to find and cling to every opinion that matched your "own" thoughts and emotions and hopes, then you would have seen that Fathead was talking out of his ar@e, out of an agenda, and not had to wait until it was shown to you. What value your proclaimed and cherished PhD if you can't see without bias, and because of this can't see such falsity without direction?

The findings of the paper are merely the findings of the paper. Pretend for a moment that they may be accurate? Shock. Pretend in your fixed thought world that the vegetarians, when the results emerge, are also shown to live longer. Shock horror. What does it mean? It may be that vegetarians had a higher proportion of people who saw life for the greater good, and through not being so caught up in desperate and narrow self-interest, had less stress which reduced their heart disease risks and mortality. It may be that more vegetarians followed a primal-style diet. Who knows. There may be a zillion other causal patterns. Does this mean the study is junk? Not at all. It is blind belief in thoughts - yes INCLUDING your thoughts and "my" thoughts - that is junk. You mock me for being a seeker of truth. Go ahead and mock, you seem to believe you are the holder of truth.

The study showed what the study showed. And only when we can look at such results without bias or agenda can we see what value the study may hold. Look first at your own bias if you want to see more clearly. Or not.

What an obnoxious and entirely incorrect response? You are knocking down strawmen. I never talked about "the falsity of appealing to authority" or made any appeal to McNaughton's arguments. Show me where I did. You also refuse to respond on the science, confining yourself to ad hominem arguments. Student of truth?

OK I give up. Hoped you might actually be serious but you are just trolling. Have fun up your own fundament