[QUOTE]In a large study published in the Journal Of The American College Of Cardiology, a team from Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health checked the relationship between plant-based diets of varying quality and the risk of developing coronary heart disease among more than 200,000 people.
The participants, who started the study free of chronic disease, were tracked for more than two decades.
Their diets were characterised as one that emphasised plant foods over animal foods; a plant-based diet emphasising healthful plant foods; or an unhealthful plant-based diet. Any of the diets could have included various amounts of animal products.
Healthful plant foods like whole grains, fruit, vegetables, nuts and legumes, as well as vegetable oils, coffee and tea, received a positive score. Plant foods like juices, sweetened drinks, refined grains, fries and sweets, along with animal foods, received a negative rating.
Those with the least healthful plant-based diet were 32 per cent more likely to be given diagnoses of heart disease. The team concluded that "not all plant foods are necessarily beneficial for health".
In other words, you don't have to become a strict vegetarian to protect your heart. Simply reducing your dependence on animal foods, and especially avoiding those high in fat, is helpful.
Short of becoming a vegan, you can add variety to your meals with a few dietary adjustments.
Responding to the Harvard study, Dr Hena Patel and Dr Kim Allan Williams Sr, cardiologists at Rush University Medical Centre in Chicago, suggested choosing one day a week to be meatless and gradually add more meatless days, while including one or more new plant-based recipes each week.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/not-all-vegan-diets-lead-to-healthy-eating?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&xtor=CS1-10#link_time=1507603091[/url]
I think with the age of health foods, it's important that people do it for the right reasons and not everything you see on the internet.
Obviously, there are healthy and unhealthy diets in both meat-eating and vegan/vegetarian diets. It's pretty common sense really. Nutrition is more nuanced than meat=bad or meat=good.
[QUOTE] In other words, you don't have to become a strict vegetarian to protect your heart. [B]Simply reducing your dependence on animal foods, and especially avoiding those high in fat[/B], is helpful.[/QUOTE]
Well looks like it's heart attack for me, then.
What You Need to Know Facebook launched Facebook Followers last year which made it simpler for visitors to follow random people on Facebook. [URL="https://www.boostfollower.com/buy-facebook-followers/"]buy facebook followers[/URL]
[highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Bot" - icemaz))[/highlight]
Look, my falafel and hot chip wraps might not be good for my heart but by god they're good for my soul.
Not to mention if you don't property know how to eat a vegan diet you're going to mess it up
Veganism is more trouble than it's worth, I never really understand what strives people to do it apart from not wanting to kill animals or actually being allergic to meat. It's silly to say it's for health reasons because you can have just as much a healthy diet with meat in it too
[QUOTE=djjkxbox;52769140]Veganism is more trouble than it's worth, I never really understand what strives people to do it apart from not wanting to kill animals or actually being allergic to meat. It's silly to say it's for health reasons because you can have just as much a healthy diet with meat in it too[/QUOTE]
Saving the environment is often a major argument. I don't see how that's more 'trouble than it's worth'...
Also, it's not necessarily the killing of animals that is an issue, but rather the living conditions of the animals before they are killed.
saving the environment is a uneducated vegan's mistake
not all arable land is made equal
some land is better at growing certain crops that others
unsurprisingly, those crops are the ones vegans depend on
in addition, a vegan diet requires somewhere in the margins of about 5x more food to receive the same amount of nutrition as a omnivorous diet. plus vitamin supplements
just think. if a diet requires 5x more food and everyone on earth suddenly switched to it, our current agricultural infrastructure simply wouldn't be able to handle it.
on top of the heaping shit tons of fertiliser and pesticides required to produce a yield sufficient enough to provide for everyone, we'd need a metric fuckton more farmland
which we don't have
because we built cities on top of it
ultimately a vegan diet is just not sustainable for a greater part of the population, let alone "green"
"Eating refined grains and sugar is bad for you." - thanks study.
I'm not sure what they expected, of course unhealthy vegan diets are going to be more unhealthy than healthy vegan diets?
[QUOTE=lintz;52769194]in addition, a vegan diet requires somewhere in the margins of about 5x more food to receive the same amount of nutrition as a omnivorous diet.[/QUOTE]
Do you have a source for that? What do you mean by "5x more food"? Are you talking about volume or weight?
It doesn't even make sense if you're basing that on weight. As an example, almonds contain 21g of protein (per 100g), whereas chicken breast contains 31g (per 100g). That's roughly a 1:1.5 ratio.
[QUOTE=lintz;52769194]
saving the environment is a uneducated vegan's mistake
not all arable land is made equal
some land is better at growing certain crops that others
unsurprisingly, those crops are the ones vegans depend on
in addition, a vegan diet requires somewhere in the margins of about 5x more food to receive the same amount of nutrition as a omnivorous diet. plus vitamin supplements
just think. if a diet requires 5x more food and everyone on earth suddenly switched to it, our current agricultural infrastructure simply wouldn't be able to handle it.
on top of the heaping shit tons of fertiliser and pesticides required to produce a yield sufficient enough to provide for everyone, we'd need a metric fuckton more farmland
[/QUOTE]
Citation needed? Don't you dare come up with some shitty non-peer reviewed biased blog post.
Also, it seems like you are ignoring the fact that animals need to be fed as well, and they need a lot more greens than humans do. So I don't see (from a pure energy-conservation-law point of view) how feeding a cow grass and then slaughtering that cow somehow is more efficient than using that land to grow vegetables, regardless how "arable" it is.
Also, yes, if you survive on avocados that came by airplane, it is obviously worse for the environment. I'm talking local foods.
You also completely ignored the point of the bad living conditions of animals. You can of course be an edgelord and go "Lol who cares they're not sentient XD".
Also, nearly everything you say can be debunked with a couple of studies:
[url]http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/EI167.1[/url] (308 citations)
[QUOTE]We conclude that [B]a person consuming a mixed diet with the mean American caloric content and composition causes the emissions of 1485 kg CO2-equivalent above the emissions associated with consuming the same number of calories, but from plant sources[/B]. Far from trivial, nationally this difference amounts to over 6% of the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. We conclude by briefly addressing the public health safety of plantbased diets, and find no evidence for adverse effects.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-014-1169-1[/url] (70 citations)
[QUOTE]The age-and-sex-adjusted mean (95 % confidence interval) GHG emissions in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents per day (kgCO2e/day) were 7.19 (7.16, 7.22) for high meat-eaters ( > = 100 g/d), 5.63 (5.61, 5.65) for medium meat-eaters (50-99 g/d), 4.67 (4.65, 4.70) for low meat-eaters ( < 50 g/d), 3.91 (3.88, 3.94) for fish-eaters, 3.81 (3.79, 3.83) for vegetarians and 2.89 (2.83, 2.94) for vegans. [B]In conclusion, dietary GHG emissions in self-selected meat-eaters are approximately twice as high as those in vegans.[/B] It is likely that reductions in meat consumption would lead to reductions in dietary GHG emissions.[/QUOTE]
I'm not here to preach to you about veganism (not vegan myself, although I try to lessen my meat consumption), but I do like me some fucking facts.
Also it's okay to use capitalisation.
[QUOTE=lintz;52769194]
in addition, a vegan diet requires somewhere in the margins of about 5x more food to receive the same amount of nutrition as a omnivorous diet. plus vitamin supplements
[/QUOTE]
Are you sure about that? As far as I know, meat is much more ineffective than vegetables.
And this source would agree [url]http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full[/url]
[QUOTE]Both the meat-based average American diet and the lactoovovegetarian diet require significant quantities of nonrenewable fossil energy to produce. Thus, both food systems are not sustainable in the long term based on heavy fossil energy requirements. However, the meat-based diet requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=djjkxbox;52769140]Veganism is more trouble than it's worth, I never really understand what strives people to do it apart from not wanting to kill animals or actually being allergic to meat. It's silly to say it's for health reasons because you can have just as much a healthy diet with meat in it too[/QUOTE]
Ecology
[editline]11th October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=lintz;52769194]in addition, a vegan diet requires somewhere in the margins of about 5x more food to receive the same amount of nutrition as a omnivorous diet. plus vitamin supplements
[/QUOTE]
This is bullshit and so is the rest of your post like holy shit what do you think cheap meat animals are fed, air?
Tip: they mostly get soy beans, antibiotics and supplements.
Well yeah if you just look at the direct production meat looks better but the fact you need to produce food to feed livestock and most of that energy is lost makes meat production far less efficient then crops. Thermodynamics just makes everything worse as you go up the food chain.
Of course it's more complex then just switching every ranch and livestock food farm over to producing regular foodstuffs given the land may not always be suitable and other concerns. It's hard to really work out how much better off land wise we would be with just crops.
[QUOTE=Rhenae;52769342]Well yeah if you just look at the direct production meat looks better but the fact you need to produce food to feed livestock and most of that energy is lost makes meat production far less efficient then crops. Thermodynamics just makes everything worse as you go up the food chain.
Of course it's more complex then just switching every ranch and livestock food farm over to producing regular foodstuffs given the land may not always be suitable and other concerns. It's hard to really work out how much better off land wise we would be with just crops.[/QUOTE]
The US and Argentina seem to be particularly blessed with land that is more or less useless for anything else than low-intensity cattle breeding. For everyone else, it seems to be a net loss.
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;52769360]The US and Argentina seem to be particularly blessed with land that is more or less useless for anything else than low-intensity cattle breeding. For everyone else, it seems to be a net loss.[/QUOTE]
Unless you artificially enhance it, but that often comes at a cost too.
I'd have bought this if they hadn't said
[quote] Any of the diets could have included various amounts of animal products.[/quote]
If that's the case it's not comparing vegan diets, it's comparing vegan vs. non-vegan diets. And because a person's diet may or may not have had animal products in it, there's no way of separating the two.
Technically, from
[quote]Plant foods like juices, sweetened drinks, refined grains, fries and sweets, along with animal foods, received a negative rating.
Those with the least healthful plant-based diet were 32 per cent more likely to be given diagnoses of heart disease.[/quote]
I have no idea what's attributed to the heart disease diagnosis. Is animal foods causing half these diagnoses? A quarter? More? So I guess yeah, unhealthy eating leads to un-health, if that's what the article's trying to say
[editline]11th October 2017[/editline]
Here's the original source, by the way -
[url]https://www.acc.org/about-acc/press-releases/2017/07/17/13/33/not-all-plant-based-diets-are-created-equal[/url]
[quote]Overall, adherence to a plant-based diet was associated with a lower risk of heart disease.[/quote]
i dont get the satisfaction in demonizing the vegan diet. A balanced constructed diet is by far a good medical, environmental and ethical viable option.
Iam vegan myself since a couple months and i have the luck to not be into meat that much so i dont really care, plus its easy to fuck the diet by being misinformed and not reaching your nutritional requirements if you just do it out of impulse. Its in no way as simple as meat=bad everything else good, i´d would argue that a normal diet could be very healthy in the right amounts.
But, please guys dont talk shit out of your ass, do your research, read the ON papers (about agriculture damage and CO2 emitions) and vastly, any diet studies that makes the relation between meat and dairy and illness of those kinds.
I dont get the point in lying your asses to justify your living. A well informed person wont judge you by that, and if they do, why do you care? they dont have any power on you.
[img_thumb]http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/accj/70/4/411/F1.large.jpg[/img_thumb]
Unhealthy plant foods are:
[quote]Plant foods like juices, sweetened drinks, refined grains, fries and sweets...[/quote]
Aren't those things eaten and drank by plenty of people on an omnivorous diet?
So when you look at the graph again, you see the animal products are nearly as bad, but those on a plant-based diet don't eat that at all.
Doesn't that mean that an omnivore is likelier to have more opportunity to eat bad things, so a higher chance of getting health problems?
It seems like that's even implied when the article says it encourages people to try meatless mondays.
On a more personal note, sites, subreddits and threads that talk about plant-based diet tend to promote whole foods.
Reading the excerpt ([url]http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/70/4/423?sso=1&sso_redirect_count=1&access_token=[/url]) of Patel and Williams' study makes this article a bit funnier to me:
[quote]Particularly vegan diets are associated with significant improvement in CVD events, lowering risk factors such as diabetes and hypertension and decreasing symptomatic and scintigraphic myordial ischemia (heart problems) and coronary artery disease; thus, revolutionizing our understanding about hearthealthy food patterns and biological mechanisms linking dietary factors and cvd. These data are strenghtened by several recent landmark publications, including Song et al.'s recent large prospective cohort study (monitoring people of a long period) of U.S. nurses and other health care professionals, describing the association between animal protein intake and cardiovascular, cancer and all-cause mortality. In this large cohort study, higher intake of animal protein (including processed red meat, unprocessed red meat, dairy, poultry, and eggs) was positively assocaited with mortality, whereas the inverse was true for high intake of plant protein. In another recent meta-analysis, kwok et all, found similar results with vegetarians experiencing a 29% lower risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality relative to nonvegetarians. These findings suggest the important of protein source and support recommendations to increase plant protein intake...[/quote]
His name didn't ring a bell, but when I saw Williams' picture, I remembered who he is.
He's the first vegan president of the American College of Cardiology.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLtvkuUZUvE[/media]
His talk about nutrition and cardiovascular mortality. It's from January though and the study the thread's article talks about is from July.
Switching to vegetarianism isn't even that bad with all the delicious fake meats put their NOW a days. I jut took the leap over this summer and I feel great and still eat delicious food. Idk of their bad for you but anybody who's vegetarian/vegan has to try Porkless Bites from gardein they're out of this world.
[QUOTE=autodesknoob;52769464]i dont get the satisfaction in demonizing the vegan diet. A balanced constructed diet is by far a good medical, environmental and ethical viable option.
Iam vegan myself since a couple months and i have the luck to not be into meat that much so i dont really care, plus its easy to fuck the diet by being misinformed and not reaching your nutritional requirements if you just do it out of impulse. Its in no way as simple as meat=bad everything else good, i´d would argue that a normal diet could be very healthy in the right amounts.
But, please guys dont talk shit out of your ass, do your research, read the ON papers (about agriculture damage and CO2 emitions) and vastly, any diet studies that makes the relation between meat and dairy and illness of those kinds.
I dont get the point in lying your asses to justify your living. A well informed person wont judge you by that, and if they do, why do you care? they dont have any power on you.[/QUOTE]
Because more than a few vegans take pleasure in being holier-than-thou and demonizing others for their choice in diet, which shouldn't matter as long as it's a balanced one.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52769112][video=youtube;5S6-v37nOtY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S6-v37nOtY[/video][/QUOTE]
Could do without the paleo bullshit "it's good just because it's old" logic, but I found the facts presented very informative
[QUOTE=TFA;52769608]Could do without the paleo bullshit "it's good just because it's old" logic, but I found the facts presented very informative[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I could have too. It was more for the facts than pushing paleo.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52769604]Because more than a few vegans take pleasure in being holier-than-thou and demonizing others for their choice in diet, which shouldn't matter as long as it's a balanced one.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't justify the behavior in any way, i think...hate plus hate equals just hate.
[QUOTE=autodesknoob;52769664]That doesn't justify the behavior in any way, i think...hate plus hate equals just hate.[/QUOTE]
Hate equals hate in the first place, so it's a moot point.
[QUOTE=djjkxbox;52769140]Veganism is more trouble than it's worth, I never really understand what strives people to do it apart from not wanting to kill animals or actually being allergic to meat. It's silly to say it's for health reasons because you can have just as much a healthy diet with meat in it too[/QUOTE]
Electric cars are more trouble than they're worth, I never really understand what strives people to do it apart from not wanting to globally run out of oil or actually getting sick from pollution. It's silly to say it's for economic reasons because you can have just as much an economical commute with diesel in it too
[QUOTE=autodesknoob;52769464]i dont get the satisfaction in demonizing the vegan diet. A balanced constructed diet is by far a good medical, environmental and ethical viable option.
Iam vegan myself since a couple months and i have the luck to not be into meat that much so i dont really care, plus its easy to fuck the diet by being misinformed and not reaching your nutritional requirements if you just do it out of impulse. Its in no way as simple as meat=bad everything else good, i´d would argue that a normal diet could be very healthy in the right amounts.
But, please guys dont talk shit out of your ass, do your research, read the ON papers (about agriculture damage and CO2 emitions) and vastly, any diet studies that makes the relation between meat and dairy and illness of those kinds.
I dont get the point in lying your asses to justify your living. A well informed person wont judge you by that, and if they do, why do you care? they dont have any power on you.[/QUOTE]
I have no issue, but like the author of the source, I have issues with the disinformation from health based diets, people buy into shit too easily, with buzzwords like dextox or green.
Personally, it can be sick if you eat everyday, and sometimes I just want to keep away from meats. I've tried vegan diets when I'm staying with vegan friends, but I got sick after a few days, and the food they cooked weren't particularly tasty...
Anyway, you can get pretty unhealthy easily if you don't watch what you eat, as the article suggest.
Asian vegan meals, especially outside ones, are unhealthy af. Fried noodles are loaded with oil, and there's often deep fried tofu skins. And its loaded with carbs as well.
[editline]12th October 2017[/editline]
But If I have to live on an indian vegan diet, hell yeah, curries and naan are fucking heavenly.
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;52769749]I have no issue, but like the author of the source, I have issues with the disinformation from health based diets, people buy into shit too easily, with buzzwords like dextox or green.
Personally, it can be sick if you eat everyday, and sometimes I just want to keep away from meats. I've tried vegan diets when I'm staying with vegan friends, but I got sick after a few days, and the food they cooked weren't particularly tasty...
Anyway, you can get pretty unhealthy easily if you don't watch what you eat, as the article suggest.
Asian vegan meals, especially outside ones, are unhealthy af. Fried noodles are loaded with oil, and there's often deep fried tofu skins. And its loaded with carbs as well.
[editline]12th October 2017[/editline]
But If I have to live on an indian vegan diet, hell yeah, curries and naan are fucking heavenly.[/QUOTE]
Asian vegan street meals are just as unhealthy as asian omnivore street meals in that case though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
