Does red meat affect performance?

[zaskar]

Anyone here know how red meat or any meat affect cycling performance? i cut back on red meats and find my blood pressure is lower and im riding better. also seem to have more endurance on a 5 hour ride.if anyone has facts or experience with being a vegetarian please share.

 

[jyeager]

Anyone here know how red meat or any meat affect cycling performance? i cut back on red meats and find my blood pressure is lower and im riding better. also seem to have more endurance on a 5 hour ride.if anyone has facts or experience with being a vegetarian please share.

My personal experience is from my college days many years ago. I was vegetarian for at least a year while I was an endurance athlete (runner). By the time I had switched to cycling I was simply avoiding red meat (Would eat chicken and fish). Then one day I was at a picnic and had no choice but to eat 2 hamburgers. The next day on my training ride I was noticeably stronger than I'd been in months.
That doesn't mean that red meat makes everyone stronger. It could simply mean that I was deficient in iron or creatine and got a boost from the hamburgers.

 

[lumpy]

I always feel much more recovered the next day if I have red meat after a hard ride. Poultry and fish just don't have that same noticeable feeling.

Also pancakes the morning of a big ride always seem to work wonders for me!

 

[martin_j001]

I always feel much more recovered the next day if I have red meat after a hard ride. Poultry and fish just don't have that same noticeable feeling.

Also pancakes the morning of a big ride always seem to work wonders for me!

I find pretty much the same thing to be true. I crave something very high in protein after longer/harder rides--usually eggs or some kind of red meat.

 

[Beastt]

Anyone here know how red meat or any meat affect cycling performance? i cut back on red meats and find my blood pressure is lower and im riding better. also seem to have more endurance on a 5 hour ride.if anyone has facts or experience with being a vegetarian please share.

This is a great question but a rather sticky topic. I find that people tend to be defensive of diet on about the same par as politics and religion. So whatever I offer you will probably be met with a head-on assault from someone. Such is the diet controversy.

I have read about a few studies in which those who ate meat, (all meats, not just red meat), were compared to those who abstained from meat. In each case, the findings of the study were that strength was increased in those who abstained from eating meat. Perhaps not unexpectedly, most of these studies utilized endurance tests to determine the affect of the compared diets. Also note that the source for these condensed summaries was published in the late 1980s, so the tests aren't what would be considered contemporary or the final word by any stretch.

One study performed at Yale and reported in the Yale Medical Journal in 1907, tested three groups; meat-eating athletes, vegetarian athletes and sedentary vegetarians. Though the information I have is only excerpted from the actual report, it does conclude that the vegetarians, even when sedentary, scored higher than the non-vegetarian group. The director of the study made specific mention of a non-meat diet being conducive to endurance.
[Fisher, I., "The Influence of Flesh Eating on Endurance," Yale Medical Journal, 13(5):205-221, 1907]

Another study, performed by Dr, J, Ioteyko of the Academie de Medicine of Paris, compared the endurance of vegetarians and meat-eaters from all walks of life and across a variety of tests. The study concluded that vegetarians averaged two to three times the stamina shown by the meat-eaters and required only one-fifth as long to recover. Again, this is not a complete copy of the report but a very condensed summary so there isn't much to go on concerning how the study was performed, what kind of exercise the test subjects performed or any of the other necessary information to really understand the merits of the study.
[Ioteyko, J., "Enquete Scientifique sur les Vegetariens de Bruxelles," Henri Lamertin, Brussels, pg 50]

A team of Danish researchers completed a test in 1968, which tested a group of men on a variety of diets. Strength was measured on a stationary bicycle so perhaps this aligns more specifically with your concerns. The men were first fed a mixed diet of meat and vegetables, (period of time unknown), and instructed to pedal the bike to muscle failure. The average time recorded was 114 minutes. The men were then switched to a diet high in meat, milk and eggs, (for an unspecified period of time), and retested on the stationary bike. This resulted in an average of 57 minutes of pedalling before muscle failure. Lastly, the men were switched to a diet containing grains, vegetables and fruits, (again the duration of the diet is not recorded in the information I have), and turned in an average of 167 minutes of pedalling before muscle failure.
[Astrand, Per-Olaf, "Nutrition Today," no.2, 9-11, 1968]

Doctors in Belgium performed a study utilizing a grip meter to determine strength. They tested vegetarians against those eating standard diets containing meat and found that the meat-eaters could squeeze the grip meter an average of 38 times, while the vegetarians recorded an average of 69. It was again noted that the vegetarians also recovered faster.
[Schouteden, A., "Ann de Soc. Des Science Med. et Nat. de Bruxelles (Belgium) I]

I should stress that this information comes from a book which shows a decided bias toward diets devoid of animal products and certainly the studies chosen were those which fit the intent of the book. None the less, the information appears to have come from legitimate studies.

Perhaps it is notable that the results of these studies are in agreement with a number of points of human digestive physiology. More simply stated, if we can take a tip from animals, the traits and characteristics of the human digestive tract appear to place us more closely to herbivores than to carnivores or omnivores. It is also worth mentioning that based on other information, it is highly probable that for exercise involving explosive strength as opposed to endurance, the results of these studies might be expected to reverse.

For what it's worth.

 

[zaskar]

This is a great question but a rather sticky topic. I find that people tend to be defensive of diet on about the same par as politics and religion. So whatever I offer you will probably be met with a head-on assault from someone. Such is the diet controversy.

I have read about a few studies in which those who ate meat, (all meats, not just red meat), were compared to those who abstained from meat. In each case, the findings of the study were that strength was increased in those who abstained from eating meat. Perhaps not unexpectedly, most of these studies utilized endurance tests to determine the affect of the compared diets. Also note that the source for these condensed summaries was published in the late 1980s, so the tests aren't what would be considered contemporary or the final word by any stretch.

One study performed at Yale and reported in the Yale Medical Journal in 1907, tested three groups; meat-eating athletes, vegetarian athletes and sedentary vegetarians. Though the information I have is only excerpted from the actual report, it does conclude that the vegetarians, even when sedentary, scored higher than the non-vegetarian group. The director of the study made specific mention of a non-meat diet being conducive to endurance.
[Fisher, I., "The Influence of Flesh Eating on Endurance," Yale Medical Journal, 13(5):205-221, 1907]

Another study, performed by Dr, J, Ioteyko of the Academie de Medicine of Paris, compared the endurance of vegetarians and meat-eaters from all walks of life and across a variety of tests. The study concluded that vegetarians averaged two to three times the stamina shown by the meat-eaters and required only one-fifth as long to recover. Again, this is not a complete copy of the report but a very condensed summary so there isn't much to go on concerning how the study was performed, what kind of exercise the test subjects performed or any of the other necessary information to really understand the merits of the study.
[Ioteyko, J., "Enquete Scientifique sur les Vegetariens de Bruxelles," Henri Lamertin, Brussels, pg 50]

A team of Danish researchers completed a test in 1968, which tested a group of men on a variety of diets. Strength was measured on a stationary bicycle so perhaps this aligns more specifically with your concerns. The men were first fed a mixed diet of meat and vegetables, (period of time unknown), and instructed to pedal the bike to muscle failure. The average time recorded was 114 minutes. The men were then switched to a diet high in meat, milk and eggs, (for an unspecified period of time), and retested on the stationary bike. This resulted in an average of 57 minutes of pedalling before muscle failure. Lastly, the men were switched to a diet containing grains, vegetables and fruits, (again the duration of the diet is not recorded in the information I have), and turned in an average of 167 minutes of pedalling before muscle failure.
[Astrand, Per-Olaf, "Nutrition Today," no.2, 9-11, 1968]

Doctors in Belgium performed a study utilizing a grip meter to determine strength. They tested vegetarians against those eating standard diets containing meat and found that the meat-eaters could squeeze the grip meter an average of 38 times, while the vegetarians recorded an average of 69. It was again noted that the vegetarians also recovered faster.
[Schouteden, A., "Ann de Soc. Des Science Med. et Nat. de Bruxelles (Belgium) I]

I should stress that this information comes from a book which shows a decided bias toward diets devoid of animal products and certainly the studies chosen were those which fit the intent of the book. None the less, the information appears to have come from legitimate studies.

Perhaps it is notable that the results of these studies are in agreement with a number of points of human digestive physiology. More simply stated, if we can take a tip from animals, the traits and characteristics of the human digestive tract appear to place us more closely to herbivores than to carnivores or omnivores. It is also worth mentioning that based on other information, it is highly probable that for exercise involving explosive strength as opposed to endurance, the results of these studies might be expected to reverse.

For what it's worth.

Thank's Beastt, ive done searches but don't come up with much.(what's up with the search engines now).red meat is the only thing ive changed in my diet and i feel a tremendous difference. i have more energy, can ride harder, faster,and longer. i cut red meat not even thinking it would make a difference at all. i just realized how much sat fat it had and was becoming disgusted with the smell and taste of it. who knows maybe i feel better for some other reason not related.but for now i gotta think the meat, this is the longest in my 38 years i have avoided eating red meat.

 

[Beastt]

Thank's Beastt, ive done searches but don't come up with much.(what's up with the search engines now).red meat is the only thing ive changed in my diet and i feel a tremendous difference. i have more energy, can ride harder, faster,and longer. i cut red meat not even thinking it would make a difference at all. i just realized how much sat fat it had and was becoming disgusted with the smell and taste of it. who knows maybe i feel better for some other reason not related.but for now i gotta think the meat, this is the longest in my 38 years i have avoided eating red meat.

Greater energy is pretty much a standard claim when people stop eating meat or drastically reduce their consumption. I'm afraid I can't provide any personal before and after anecdotes for you. I was a vegetarian for 31 years, then switched to a vegan diet. I started riding about 2 or 3 years after the diet change and the only clearly defined change I can offer is that rather than getting colds 2 or 3 times each year, I seem to get about one every 6 or 7 years. They're usually of very short duration and some might even be an allergy since they're over in about 12 hours.

I'll send you a link in a PM if you like which outlines the physiological aspects that I talked about. I know many people disagree with what it shows and that is certainly their right. But I think it's a standard case of resistance to sudden change. We're all guilty of that. We seem to accept things better if they're changed a little at a time rather than all at once. When we see people suddenly come forward with information which challenges "common knowledge", we tend to label them crackpots and weirdos. Sometimes the label fits quite well.

I can also send you a list of world-class athletes who are all either vegetarian or vegan. It goes back several years and I'm completely unfamiliar with most of the names. But the accomplishments suggest that, at the very least, leaving meat out of the diet does nothing to harm athletic ability.

You're probably just beginning to recognize how much fat, particularly saturated-fat, is in the standard diet. I can remember sitting down to a breakfast of eggs, fried in oil, toast covered in oil, (margarine), two or three of the meat-replacement soy-based sausages and a glass of milk and thinking it was a well-balanced meal. Now when I think of a meal like that all I can imagine is how it would feel like several pounds of wet sand in my stomach. It's just amazing how much fat we get used to eating. I tend to look at the kind of diet followed by other primates, especially the larger, tailess ones, and compare the amount of fat we eat with how much they consume. It's no wonder heart attack is by far the number one killer in western countries and those beginning to adopt a similar diet.

Good luck with the diet and let me know if you want any more information. You're welcome to whatever I can dig up.

 

[zaskar]

Good luck with the diet and let me know if you want any more information. You're welcome to whatever I can dig up.

Yes please do, when you find the time send me the info. THANK YOU very much!!!

 

[jyeager]

I don't disagree at all with the negative statements @ meats, but do feel that a cyclist should have a moderate amount of quality proteins in their diet. So consider supplementing with a whey-based protein powder.
Also, experiment with creatine supplementation. It's not evident to me how valuable it would be to an endurance effort but if it doesn't hurt the endurance then it will at least help the sprinting and climbing.

 

[lwedge]

Greater energy is pretty much a standard claim when people stop eating meat or drastically reduce their consumption. I'm afraid I can't provide any personal before and after anecdotes for you. I was a vegetarian for 31 years, then switched to a vegan diet. I started riding about 2 or 3 years after the diet change and the only clearly defined change I can offer is that rather than getting colds 2 or 3 times each year, I seem to get about one every 6 or 7 years. They're usually of very short duration and some might even be an allergy since they're over in about 12 hours.

I'll send you a link in a PM if you like which outlines the physiological aspects that I talked about. I know many people disagree with what it shows and that is certainly their right. But I think it's a standard case of resistance to sudden change. We're all guilty of that. We seem to accept things better if they're changed a little at a time rather than all at once. When we see people suddenly come forward with information which challenges "common knowledge", we tend to label them crackpots and weirdos. Sometimes the label fits quite well.

I can also send you a list of world-class athletes who are all either vegetarian or vegan. It goes back several years and I'm completely unfamiliar with most of the names. But the accomplishments suggest that, at the very least, leaving meat out of the diet does nothing to harm athletic ability.

You're probably just beginning to recognize how much fat, particularly saturated-fat, is in the standard diet. I can remember sitting down to a breakfast of eggs, fried in oil, toast covered in oil, (margarine), two or three of the meat-replacement soy-based sausages and a glass of milk and thinking it was a well-balanced meal. Now when I think of a meal like that all I can imagine is how it would feel like several pounds of wet sand in my stomach. It's just amazing how much fat we get used to eating. I tend to look at the kind of diet followed by other primates, especially the larger, tailess ones, and compare the amount of fat we eat with how much they consume. It's no wonder heart attack is by far the number one killer in western countries and those beginning to adopt a similar diet.

Good luck with the diet and let me know if you want any more information. You're welcome to whatever I can dig up.

This is a great thread..... I would like to see this information as well. I'm not sure that I could go totally Vegan but I do feel better when I don't over do it with meat (red especially) and limit fat intake, the "wet sand" analogy fits very well to the feeling.

Thanks for the information. By the way, will you be editing your Avatar?


LW

 

[Beastt]

This is a great thread..... I would like to see this information as well. I'm not sure that I could go totally Vegan but I do feel better when I don't over do it with meat (red especially) and limit fat intake, the "wet sand" analogy fits very well to the feeling.

I'll pop the information into a PM for you. It should be there by the time you read this.

Thanks for the information. By the way, will you be editing your Avatar?

Yeah, I should get around to doing that. First I need to see if I have the original file or if I just need to start over.

And yes, I caught the "rolleyes". I think I'll just ignore it.

 

[lwedge]

I'll pop the information into a PM for you. It should be there by the time you read this.



Yeah, I should get around to doing that. First I need to see if I have the original file or if I just need to start over.

And yes, I caught the "rolleyes". I think I'll just ignore it.

Beastt, I got your PM, thanks for the link. The information there is very good and goes beyond the usual "I don't eat meat because it is disgusting" response that I usually get when talk to Vegans or Vegetarians about this topic.

The "rolleyes" was really directed at me, for the fact that I would ask the question in the first place.

Thanks again and stay out of the Monsoon's down there in AZ.


LW

 

[Beastt]

I find pretty much the same thing to be true. I crave something very high in protein after longer/harder rides--usually eggs or some kind of red meat.

I sometimes wonder when I hear about people craving protein, even after significant athletic exertion. Of course each person should answer only for themselves, but when you consider the protein content of common foods, you find some rather unexpectedly high figures in some foods which never seem to be what people say they want when they crave protein. I was hoping to find a good chart showing protein content of common foods but everything I could find on the web listed the protein content in grams and used all different units of measure for the serving size, making direct comparison unnecessarily tedious.

I do have a publication with some figures obtained from USDA Agriculture Handbook Number 458 which might help to demonstrate what I'm trying to point out. Here are a few foods and their protein content represented as a percentage of total calories.

Spinach.......................................... 49%
Watercress....................................... 46%
Kale............................................. 45%
Broccoli......................................... 45%
Brussels sprouts................................. 44%
Turnip greens.................................... 43%
Collards......................................... 43%
Cauliflower...................................... 40%
Mushrooms........................................ 38%
Soybean Sprouts.................................. 54%
Mungbean sprouts................................. 43%
Soybean curd..................................... 43%
Soybeans......................................... 35%
Wheat germ....................................... 31%
Pumpkin seeds.................................... 21%
Lemons........................................... 16%
Peanuts.......................................... 18%
​

Are these the foods people crave when they feel that craving for protein? Are they even among the foods they crave or do steak, hamburgers, eggs, pizza and hotdogs sound more like what people seem to want? It's different for everyone but I never hear the non-meat sources listed. And since many plant-based foods actually contain more protein, measured as a percentage of total calories, perhaps it's not the protein people are wanting.

After strenuous exercise some people tend to be very hungry. Others seem to find that they're not very hungry for an hour or two afterward. I suppose these are just general differences in physiology. But I tend to wonder if it's possible that those who say they crave protein are simply quite hungry and are looking for something "filling". Meats, eggs, poultry, cheeses and other dairy products tend to be quite high in fat content. And fat is very satisfying. It tends to be quite dense, having 9 calories per gram as compared to 4 calories per gram for protein and carbohydrates. People tend to feel more satisfied, (full), after a meal heavy in fats. It so happens that animal-based foods tend to have a lot of fat, (much of which is saturated fat), as well as cholesterol and protein. Generally speaking, plant-based foods tend to have far less fat and since plants are incapable of producing cholesterol, all of the cholesterol consumed comes from animal sources. Having less fat, plant foods tend to be less satisfying when one is feeling caloric depletion. Fat is simply a faster way to replace the calories burned.

Each person can answer only for themselves but perhaps what they're craving are calories to replace all the calories burned during considerable physical exertion.

When you examine the protein needs of the human body based on human breast milk (5%), figures published by the World Health Organization (4½%), Food and Nutrition Board (6½%) and the National Research Council (8%) and then start looking for higher claims from reputable nutrition research organizations and find that no one, (no one I've been able to locate), seems to indicate that humans can even utilize more than 10%, (even body builders and other professional athletes), you begin to wonder if the protein craze hasn't been invented, to some extent.

Just something to ponder.

 

[patch70]

Are these the foods people crave when they feel that craving for protein?

Maybe the craving is towards a good mix of essential amino acids - which you can get in meat by itself or else generally only in a combination of the foods that you mentioned. Maybe people would crave tofu, mushrooms & spinach with a peanut sauce if that came in a pre-made 'power bar'.

If you want to find 'evidence' that a diet including meat is better, you can.
If you want to find 'evidence' that a diet without meat is better, you can.
Neither of these options has particularly solid evidence. If you want to produce an answer with dietary research, it is very easy to get the answer that you want by adjusting the design of the study.

My suggestion (obviously based on dubious evidence as that is all that is available!): Go with or without meat if that is what you prefer and get a good balance. Most people could cut out a lot of rubbish from their diet, especially big volumes of simple carbohydrates (eg from sports drinks, coke etc, lollies, chocolates etc). You'll probably get more benefit in your training from getting rid of excesses of these than from adding or removing moderate amounts of meat.

 

[Beastt]

Maybe the craving is towards a good mix of essential amino acids - which you can get in meat by itself or else generally only in a combination of the foods that you mentioned. Maybe people would crave tofu, mushrooms & spinach with a peanut sauce if that came in a pre-made 'power bar'.

If you want to find 'evidence' that a diet including meat is better, you can.
If you want to find 'evidence' that a diet without meat is better, you can.
Neither of these options has particularly solid evidence. If you want to produce an answer with dietary research, it is very easy to get the answer that you want by adjusting the design of the study.

My suggestion (obviously based on dubious evidence as that is all that is available!): Go with or without meat if that is what you prefer and get a good balance. Most people could cut out a lot of rubbish from their diet, especially big volumes of simple carbohydrates (eg from sports drinks, coke etc, lollies, chocolates etc). You'll probably get more benefit in your training from getting rid of excesses of these than from adding or removing moderate amounts of meat.

Unless I'm mistaken, you and I have had this discussion before. Unless it was someone else I'm thinking of, I already pointed out that the need to combine non-animal foods in order to maintain a complete mix of amino acids was the brain-child of Frances M. Lappe in her book, Diet for a Small Planet which was published in the early 1970s. She later recanted after doing more extensive research and a re-write of the first book called, Diet for a Small Planet;Anniversay Editon, was released in the 1980s, wherein she referred to having created a combined protein myth. A large part of the second book is devoted to refuting the combining myth. Studies have shown that one need not consume all of the essential amino acids in a single meal, or even in the same day, to remain completely healthy and show no benefit to assuring a complete protein within a single meal. Other studies, cited by Dr. John McDougall, are said to show that plant proteins are superior to animal-based proteins for humans.

But, as research tends to do, this may eventually sway back the other direction. But in my lifetime I've seen vegetarian diets come from being considered an outlandish fad, fraught with hazards and the almost certainty of insufficient protein, to moderate acceptance only if great care is taken to obtain sufficient and mixed proteins, to general acceptance and even a great number of doctors coming forward to admit that the diet appears to be healthier than more customary diets.

Having said that, perhaps it's best that we take the thread back in the direction of red meat and the affect it has on athletic performance. Certainly, there is no evidence that a lack of red meat is detrimental to strength, energy or muscle coordination and there is a reasonable degree of data which suggests that it might be beneficial. The vast majority of the beneficial effects seem to surround endurance activities.

While I couldn't agree more concerning the poor nutritive value of standard diets and the need to avoid the common "junk", it might also be noted that the excesses you mention are linked directly to the leading causes of premature death in western countries. Chief among them is heart disease which is strongly linked to cholesterol and saturated fat.

 

[aa9t8]

beef "i am what is rotting in your colon"

 

[patch70]

I have read about a few studies ... <snip>

Before accepting any study as gospel, it is important to look into it a bit more. Who were the authors? From whom did they get their funding? How did they design the study?

If you are comparing vegetarians (ie generally health conscious people) with randomly selected red meat eaters (ie possibly not very health conscious at all) the benefit seen in the vegetarian may be nothing to do with red meat.

A lot of the early studies suggesting the benefits of a high carbohydrate diet were funded by groups representing wheat farmers.

Were the authors a group of vegetarians wanting to promote the diet that they have chosen - and hence designing a study or using statistical methods that will give the result that they want?

There are also plenty of studies suggesting the benefit of red meat - are they sponsored by cattle farming representative groups? Alternatively, you can look at archaeological evidence. For example - in the ruins of Chaco Canyon's Anasazi Indians, in the houses of people that ate more meat (& left more bones in the corners of their houses) the people were significantly taller than those that ate less meat. And this is in a group who ate a lot of pinyon nuts that are very high in protein so protein deficiency should not have been an issue. Further, if you travel around India, compare the average height of Sikhs (meat eaters) with Hindus (vegetarians). Big difference. Height is different to athletic performance but if you are achieving your optimal height, it would at least suggest that the diet is right for you.

The only way to get good 'evidence' is to do a randomised, double blinded trial - and this is impossible with diets! (You can't control the diets of large numbers of people long term with neither the persons being studied nor the researchers directly observing them knowing what they are eating!!!) Thus any 'evidence' we have available (supporting or not supporting red meat) is very dubious.

Thus - go with what works for you. As far as diets are concerned, one size does not fit all. People have different needs, wants and intolerances so don't let anyone pressure you to do a diet that happens to work for them. Also, don't try to force your preference down other people's throats!

 

[jyeager]

Before accepting any study as gospel, it is important to look into it a bit more. Who were the authors? From whom did they get their funding? How did they design the study?

If you are comparing vegetarians (ie generally health conscious people) with randomly selected red meat eaters (ie possibly not very health conscious at all) the benefit seen in the vegetarian may be nothing to do with red meat.

A lot of the early studies suggesting the benefits of a high carbohydrate diet were funded by groups representing wheat farmers.

Were the authors a group of vegetarians wanting to promote the diet that they have chosen - and hence designing a study or using statistical methods that will give the result that they want?

There are also plenty of studies suggesting the benefit of red meat - are they sponsored by cattle farming representative groups? Alternatively, you can look at archaeological evidence. For example - in the ruins of Chaco Canyon's Anasazi Indians, in the houses of people that ate more meat (& left more bones in the corners of their houses) the people were significantly taller than those that ate less meat. And this is in a group who ate a lot of pinyon nuts that are very high in protein so protein deficiency should not have been an issue. Further, if you travel around India, compare the average height of Sikhs (meat eaters) with Hindus (vegetarians). Big difference. Height is different to athletic performance but if you are achieving your optimal height, it would at least suggest that the diet is right for you.

The only way to get good 'evidence' is to do a randomised, double blinded trial - and this is impossible with diets! (You can't control the diets of large numbers of people long term with neither the persons being studied nor the researchers directly observing them knowing what they are eating!!!) Thus any 'evidence' we have available (supporting or not supporting red meat) is very dubious.

Thus - go with what works for you. As far as diets are concerned, one size does not fit all. People have different needs, wants and intolerances so don't let anyone pressure you to do a diet that happens to work for them. Also, don't try to force your preference down other people's throats!

Spoken like a scientist. Thanks.

 

[Beastt]

Spoken like a scientist. Thanks.

Actually, it was spoken more like one of the paranoid people I mentioned in my first post here. I very openly stated that I didn't have a lot of information regarding the studies I cited. I even bolded one of the dates because the study was so old. Then I mentioned that my source was decidedly biased.

Yet, I still get the typical paranoid response, "don't try to force your preference down other people's throats!" -- exclamation point and all. That's not the least bit scientific. Perhaps it would be worth nothing that not a single refutation was cited. All we received were vague accusations of things that might possibly have affected the outcomes. And despite being possible, nothing was given to support the idea that any of that applies to any of these studies. In fact, I'm very aware of the use of exactly the kinds of tactics suggested. But the thing you have to ask yourself about is motive. Who stands to gain from falsely promoting such a diet? The real profit is in promoting consumption, not in discouraging consumption.

An example of the kind of thing Patch70 warns about occurred in 1971 after the American Heart Association took a stand on saturated fat and cholesterol. The egg producers in the U.S. responded by forming the National Commission on Egg Nutrition which took out a number of ads in the Wallstreet Journal and a number of other media sources, claiming that there existed no scientific evidence that eating eggs, even in quantity increased the risk of heart attack.

The American Heart Association responded by requesting that the Federal Trade Commission put a stop to this false, misleading and deceptive advertising. The Federal Trade Commission examined the evidence and filed a formal complaint against the National Commission on Egg Nutrition. Despite being told by their own legal counsel that their chances of winning the lawsuit on scientific grounds was almost nil, they continued and submitted six studies in an attempt to back their position.

After hearing from panels of experts, Judge Ernest T. Barnes ruled that there exists a substantial body of competent and reliable evidence that eating eggs does indeed cause a greater risk of heart attack. He further chastised the egg industry for deceptively camouflaging their intentions by naming their organization "The National Commission on Egg Nutrition".

Of the six studies submitted by the egg industry to support their claim, three were paid for by the American Egg Board, one by the Missouri Egg Merchandising Council and one by the Egg Program of the California Department of Agriculture. Support for the sixth study was unidentified.

So while it's true that biased studies do exist, you have to look for the motive and there is simply little motive to be found in telling people that they are healthier for not buying and consuming any product.

If you really wanted to investigate, you'd find all kinds of data that lines up with the vegetarian preference. But it's obvious from your response, you're only interested in the things that tell you you're fine eating the way you prefer to eat. So eat what you want and deny all you like. No one is trying to take anything off your plate or cram anything down anyone's throat. Where does all this fear come from?

Relax

 

[patch70]

Yet, I still get the typical paranoid response

Err, who is the paranoid person? Do you own a mirror? Look in it.