Vegetarians 'get fewer cancers', but have higher rate of colorectal cancer

[loco]

Pearl claimed that he stopped using steroids in 1963 and had not used them, since that time. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, that counts as “natural” to me. And, he was a vegetarian, when he reached his all-time best of 241 lb., on his way to winning his fourth Mr. Universe title.

MCWAY, I am not saying that a vegetarian natural bodybuilder or power lifter couldn't gain lots of muscle and strength, especially one that consumes dairy and eggs.  We are talking about saturated fats and cholesterol, both found in dairy and eggs, raising testosterone levels in men.

But all this is irrelevant to this thread.

Sorry my comment in response to DonkeyKong's joke got my own thread off topic!   

[MCWAY]

First off you put on 21lbs because you were new to lifting weights.  It had very little to do with the fact that you didn't eat meat.  Secondly, vegetarians are no more healthier than their meat eating counterparts. 

.

Depends on who you ask, particularly those who've monitored a religious denomination, known for promoting vegetarianism (7th-Day Adventists), and found that they live an average of 11 years longer than their meat-eating counterparts.

As for my 21 lbs, the reason I put on that weight is that (regardless of how "new" I was to lifting weights) I consumed the right quantity and quality protein. The body isn't just going to grow on junk food or lack of good protein, simply because someone starts lifting weights for the first time. That's why so many newbies QUIT, after only a few months of training.

The point here was/is that I know FIRSTHAND, how to put on size and strength, with a vegetarian diet. I have not done such as a vegan. However, given that I have far more knowledge about diet and nutrition now than I did as a high-school teenager (and especially given that the supplements of today are FAR superior to those of the late 80s/early 90s), I am quite confident that I can do such, if necessary.

I NEVER seen a healthy looking vegan in my life.  Especially females.  There is something about vegetarians and vegans that just never seem healthy.  Something about their skin, their hair, etc.  The human body was NEVER meant to be a vegan or a vegetarian.  Are entire digestion system is set up to eat meat and flesh.  Now you can debate me whether or not that system was set up to eat raw food vs. cooked food.  The most vocal proponent from the vegetarian and running movement, forget his name dropped dead from a heart attack at an early age if I remember correctly? 

And, for every one of him, there are at least TEN meat-eaters who drop dead of heart attacks. When people find that a vegetarian dies of a heart attack, it's a bit of a surprise. When a heavy meat-eater does, it ain't a shock to anyone.

Indigenous cultures all over the world for thousands of years ate meat, dairy products, grains etc.  While there were lots of cultures that didn't rely or eat much meat there is no historical precedent of vegans in any part of history.  Most cultures had some sort of "animal product" and in my opinion eggs and milk are animal products.  Vegetarians and vegans are annoying.  The only argument I can agree with is the political arguments of being a vegan or vegetarian because the health arguments are bullshit.  A raw food diet consisting of raw meat, raw dairy, raw eggs, and everything else raw is FAR superior than a vegan/vegetarian diet.  The only reason vegetarians appear to be heallt

You didn't finish your thought. Nonetheless, if those vegans you described are unhealthy, it's because their diets SUCK!! You can have a sorry vegan diet, just as easily as you can have a sorry meat-eating diet.

At the end of the day, you need quality carbs, complete proteins, and healthy fats. You can get those WITHOUT eating meat. But, you need to know how and what to eat. In the particular case of protein, you need to know which veggies to combine with other veggies or grains. If you do that consistently, your muscle gains will be IDENTICAL to those of a meat-eater.

Pearl, Cahling, and Hilligenn are prime examples of that. Because they knew how to construct their diets and eat properly, they CONTINUED to gain mass and strength, when they got rid of the meat in their diets.

[MuscleMcMannus]

I could own you on just about every point you've made.  But I've done it so many times it's gotten deathly boring.  trust me you do not want to debate me on this issue.  You will look like a lackey fool. 

Argentina, with higher beef consumption, has lower rates of colon cancer than the US. Mormons have lower rates of colon cancer than vegetarian Seventh Day Adventists (Cancer Res 35:3513 1975)

There is a helluva lot more to diet than avoiding meat.  Vegetarians are like brainwashed fundamental religious fanatics. 

Health writers may denigrate animal foods with insouciance but, in fact, the scientific literature offers very little in the way of long-term studies on the value of a vegetarian diet. Dr. Russell Smith, a statistician, analyzed the existing studies on vegetariansim1 and discovered that while there have been ample investigations which show, quite unsurprisingly, that vegetarian diets significantly decrease blood cholesterol levels, studies evaluating the effects of vegetarian diets on mortalities continue to be few in number. In fact, Smith speculated that the available data from the many existing prospective studies are being shelved because they reveal no benefits of vegetarianism. For example, mortality statistics are strangely absent from the Tromso Heart Study in Norway which showed that vegetarians had slightly lower blood cholesterol levels than nonvegetarians.2

In a review of some 3,000 articles in the scientific literature, Smith found only two that compared mortality data for vegetarians and nonvegetarians. One was a 1978 study of Seventh Day Adventists (SDAs). Two very poor analyses of the data were published in 1984, one by H. A. Kahn and one by D. A. Snowden.3 The publication by Kahn rather arbitrarily threw out most of the data and considered only subjects who indicated very infrequent or very frequent consumption of the various foods. They then computed "odds ratios" which showed that mortality increased as meat or poultry consumption increased (but not for cheese, eggs, milk or fat attached to meat.)

When Smith analyzed total mortality rates from the study as a function of the frequencies of consuming cheese, meat, milk, eggs and fat attached to meat, he found that the total death rate decreased as the frequencies of consuming cheese, eggs, meat and milk increased. He called the Kahn publication "yet another example of negative results which are massaged and misinterpreted to support the politically correct assertions that vegetarians live longer lives."

The analysis by Snowden published mortality data for coronary heart disease (CHD), rather than total mortality data, for the 21-year SDA study. Since he did not eliminate the intermediate frequencies of consumption data on meat, but did so with eggs, cheese and milk, this represents further evidence that both Kahn and Snowden based their results on arbitrary, after-the-fact analysis and not on pre-planned analyses contingent on the design of their questionnaire. Snowden computed relative risk ratios and concluded that CHD mortality increased as meat consumption increased. However, the rates of increase were trivial at 0.04 percent and 0.01 percent respectively for males and females. Snowden, like Kahn, also found no relationship between frequency of consumption of eggs, cheese and milk and CHD mortality "risk."

Citing the SDA study, other writers have claimed that nonvegetarians have higher all-cause mortality rates than vegetarians4 and that, "There seems little doubt that SDA men at least experience less total heart disease than do others. . ."5 The overpowering motivation to show that a diet low in animal products protects against CHD (and other diseases) is no better exemplified than in the SDA study and its subsequent analysis. While Kahn and Snowden both used the term "substantial" to describe the effects of meat consumption on mortalities, it is more obvious that "trivial" is the appropriate descriptor. It is also interesting that throughout their analyses, they brushed aside their totally negative findings on foods which have much greater quantities of fat, saturated fat and cholesterol.

[MCWAY]

I could own you on just about every point you've made.  But I've done it so many times it's gotten deathly boring.  trust me you do not want to debate me on this issue.  You will look like a lackey fool. 

That is but mere wishful thinking on your part. I posted on this thread, simply to put in my perspective on the matter. But, if you want to stroke your ego, thinking that you can "own" me, knock yourself out.

Argentina, with higher beef consumption, has lower rates of colon cancer than the US. Mormons have lower rates of colon cancer than vegetarian Seventh Day Adventists (Cancer Res 35:3513 1975)

There is a helluva lot more to diet than avoiding meat.  Vegetarians are like brainwashed fundamental religious fanatics. 

Ummm....genius, didn't I just mention that earlier? Apparently, you have a bone to pick with religious people or vegetarians who are such for religious purposes, to the point where in your silly attempt to "own" someone you've merely repeated something I've already said.

You can be a vegetarian/vegan and STILL have a sorry diet. Same applies to meat eaters. Your diet has to be a complete one just for general health and well-being, let alone building muscle. What you have not demonstrated is the necessity for eating meat and building mass.

You can quote all of the scientific studies you want. At the end of the day, the examples of bodybuilders and trainers who have build size and strength on a vegetarian diet pretty much cut your claims to the ground.

Health writers may denigrate animal foods with insouciance but, in fact, the scientific literature offers very little in the way of long-term studies on the value of a vegetarian diet. Dr. Russell Smith, a statistician, analyzed the existing studies on vegetariansim1 and discovered that while there have been ample investigations which show, quite unsurprisingly, that vegetarian diets significantly decrease blood cholesterol levels, studies evaluating the effects of vegetarian diets on mortalities continue to be few in number. In fact, Smith speculated that the available data from the many existing prospective studies are being shelved because they reveal no benefits of vegetarianism. For example, mortality statistics are strangely absent from the Tromso Heart Study in Norway which showed that vegetarians had slightly lower blood cholesterol levels than nonvegetarians.2

In a review of some 3,000 articles in the scientific literature, Smith found only two that compared mortality data for vegetarians and nonvegetarians. One was a 1978 study of Seventh Day Adventists (SDAs). Two very poor analyses of the data were published in 1984, one by H. A. Kahn and one by D. A. Snowden.3 The publication by Kahn rather arbitrarily threw out most of the data and considered only subjects who indicated very infrequent or very frequent consumption of the various foods. They then computed "odds ratios" which showed that mortality increased as meat or poultry consumption increased (but not for cheese, eggs, milk or fat attached to meat.)

When Smith analyzed total mortality rates from the study as a function of the frequencies of consuming cheese, meat, milk, eggs and fat attached to meat, he found that the total death rate decreased as the frequencies of consuming cheese, eggs, meat and milk increased. He called the Kahn publication "yet another example of negative results which are massaged and misinterpreted to support the politically correct assertions that vegetarians live longer lives."

The analysis by Snowden published mortality data for coronary heart disease (CHD), rather than total mortality data, for the 21-year SDA study. Since he did not eliminate the intermediate frequencies of consumption data on meat, but did so with eggs, cheese and milk, this represents further evidence that both Kahn and Snowden based their results on arbitrary, after-the-fact analysis and not on pre-planned analyses contingent on the design of their questionnaire. Snowden computed relative risk ratios and concluded that CHD mortality increased as meat consumption increased. However, the rates of increase were trivial at 0.04 percent and 0.01 percent respectively for males and females. Snowden, like Kahn, also found no relationship between frequency of consumption of eggs, cheese and milk and CHD mortality "risk."

Citing the SDA study, other writers have claimed that nonvegetarians have higher all-cause mortality rates than vegetarians4 and that, "There seems little doubt that SDA men at least experience less total heart disease than do others. . ."5 The overpowering motivation to show that a diet low in animal products protects against CHD (and other diseases) is no better exemplified than in the SDA study and its subsequent analysis. While Kahn and Snowden both used the term "substantial" to describe the effects of meat consumption on mortalities, it is more obvious that "trivial" is the appropriate descriptor. It is also interesting that throughout their analyses, they brushed aside their totally negative findings on foods which have much greater quantities of fat, saturated fat and cholesterol.

Congratulations!!! You've (once again) repeated what I've said beforehand: You can abstain from meat and STILL have a sorry diet. File that under the "tell us something we don't know" category.

And, where in all of this have you made the point that you need meat in order to build muscle?

You foolishly claimed that the only (or primary) reason that I gained size and strength on a vegetarian diet was because I was new to lifting weights. That is patently false.

The reason I had the success I did, as did the aforementioned bodybuilders, is because I got the quality and quantity of protein, carbs, and good fats necessary to promote growth, period. Whether that comes from animal or plant sources makes little difference.

[MuscleMcMannus]

That is but mere wishful thinking on your part. I posted on this thread, simply to put in my perspective on the matter. But, if you want to stroke your ego, thinking that you can "own" me, knock yourself out.

Ummm....genius, didn't I just mention that earlier? Apparently, you have a bone to pick with religious people or vegetarians who are such for religious purposes, to the point where in your silly attempt to "own" someone you've merely repeated something I've already said.

You can be a vegetarian/vegan and STILL have a sorry diet. Same applies to meat eaters.


Congratulations!!! You've (once again) repeated what I've said beforehand: You can abstain from meat and STILL have a sorry diet. File that under the "tell us something we don't know" category.

And, where in all of this have you made the point that you need meat in order to build muscle?

You foolishly claimed that the only (or primary) reason that I gained size and strength on a vegetarian diet was because I was new to lifting weights. That is patently false.

The reason I had the success I did, as did the aforementioned bodybuilders, is because I got the quality and quantity of protein, carbs, and good fats necessary to promote growth, period. Whether that comes from animal or plant sources makes little difference.

DUDE I'm replying to your bullshit claim that 7th DA are healthier than their meat eating counterparts, especially regarding your claims on colon cancer.  The other shit I'm not going to bother replying to because it's bullshit.  Your entire premise is that vegetarians, regardless of what's better for bodybuilding, live longer and have a lower mortality rate.  It's not true and when spew that bullshit it makes you sound like some religious fanatical nutjob except in the area of nutrition.  Vegetarians are no more healthier nor live any longer than their meat eating counterpart.  Yes both can have shitty diets.  But quality of food being equal, exercise etc.  Vegetarians are not healthier and I could post tons of research saying that in fact they are unhealthier.  But I let you keep drinking the kool aid.  It's not my problem what you believe.

[MCWAY]

DUDE I'm replying to your bullshit claim that 7th DA are healthier than their meat eating counterparts, especially regarding your claims on colon cancer.  The other shit I'm not going to bother replying to because it's bullshit.  Your entire premise is that vegetarians, regardless of what's better for bodybuilding, live longer and have a lower mortality rate.  It's not true and when spew that bullshit it makes you sound like some religious fanatical nutjob except in the area of nutrition.  Vegetarians are no more healthier nor live any longer than their meat eating counterpart.  Yes both can have shitty diets.  But quality of food being equal, exercise etc.  Vegetarians are not healthier and I could post tons of research saying that in fact they are unhealthier.  But I let you keep drinking the kool aid.  It's not my problem what you believe.

And for every thing you post, I can counter with tons of research, supporting vegetarianism. Bottom line is that, at the end of the day, it all comes down to knowing your nutritional stuff.

Again, it appears you have some sort of beef (pun intended) with vegetarians, especially those who are such for religious reasons. You claimed that you've never met a healthy one in your life. Well, I've met plenty of them; I've also met plenty of such who weren't so healthy.

[MuscleMcMannus]

And for every thing you post, I can counter with tons of research, supporting vegetarianism. Bottom line is that, at the end of the day, it all comes down to knowing your nutritional stuff.

Again, it appears you have some sort of beef (pun intended) with vegetarians, especially those who are such for religious reasons. You claimed that you've never met a healthy one in your life. Well, I've met plenty of them; I've also met plenty of such who weren't so healthy.

Like your 7th Day Adventist claim?  LMAO!  Look I have no problem with vegentarians.  But when they spew their bullshit about living longer and being healthier that's what gets on my nerves.  All things being equal they are not healthier nor do they live longer.  And that is the premise of the entire vegetarianism argument.  Yes I take issue with anyone that eats a certain way that is not historically accurate nor physiologically accurate due to religious reasons.  I do have the UTMOST respect for vegetarians that do it for political reasons i.e. to protest the way the agriculture industry treats animals, how they are slaughtered etc.  That I CAN understand. 

[MCWAY]

Like your 7th Day Adventist claim?  LMAO!  Look I have no problem with vegentarians.  But when they spew their bullshit about living longer and being healthier that's what gets on my nerves.  All things being equal they are not healthier nor do they live longer.  And that is the premise of the entire vegetarianism argument.  Yes I take issue with anyone that eats a certain way that is not historically accurate nor physiologically accurate due to religious reasons.  I do have the UTMOST respect for vegetarians that do it for political reasons i.e. to protest the way the agriculture industry treats animals, how they are slaughtered etc.  That I CAN understand. 

In other words, your issue is with religious folks, regardless of their diets (which is what I suspected from the start, based on your statements).

The article that Loco cited points out that vegetarians get fewer cancers but also singles out an anomaly about a particular cancer that seems to be higher among this group. That runs in line with other studies, involving vegetarianism and better health, in general.

Vegetarians, regardless of motivation for being such, cite their lifestyle as being healther than that of their meat-eating counterparts. Therefore, your stance makes no sense, outside your personal problem with religious people.

[MuscleMcMannus]

In other words, your issue is with religious folks, regardless of their diets (which is what I suspected from the start, based on your statements).

The article that Loco cited points out that vegetarians get fewer cancers but also singles out an anomaly about a particular cancer that seems to be higher among this group. That runs in line with other studies, involving vegetarianism and better health, in general.

Vegetarians, regardless of motivation for being such, cite their lifestyle as being healther than that of their meat-eating counterparts. Therefore, your stance makes no sense, outside your personal problem with religious people.

Actually you are making the religious deal out to be bigger than it is, trust me.  I could care less about religion and eating for religious purposes.  But yes I find some of the historical religious significance funny.  Hindus don't eat cow, Jews eat kosher,  It's all silly in my opinion.  Anyways, that's my entire point.....vegetarians claiming their lifestyle is healthier THAT's BULLSHIT and untrue and none of the research proves it.  It's all fluff and manipulation of statistics like I posted earlier in regards to your 7th Day Adventist data.  It's manipulated to fit a person's own bias.  Like I said study the ancient cultures of the world...........Eskimo, Masai, Hunza, Polynesians, Samoans, Swiss of the Loeschantal valley, etc. etc.  NONE of them were vegetarians.  And they all enjoyed long life and were free of disease and chronic health problems..........cancer, heart disease, arthritis, etc.