Does red meat affect performance?

That's simply a statement, Patch. It offers nothing of substantiative value. You openly displayed your fear of vegetarianism yet offered nothing of substance to support your view. You carelessly slung accusations about things that "might have" affected the research. Yet, in reality, you seem to be completely unfamiliar with the studies and the data. That constitutes an obvious and unreasonable fear of the information. And unreasonable fear is paranoia.

 

Gee you are a little testy today. The reason I have not put forward bogus evidence like you is the it is just bogus evidence. None of your links contain anything of substantive value. Just because something makes it into a journal doesn't mean it is right.

Sorry to have made it too hard to understand but I'll try again:
THERE IS NO SOLID EVIDENCE EITHER WAY!
All the available evidence (either for or against meat) is low level evidence that anyone who knows how to critically appraise journal papers would tell you they could drive a truck through the holes in it. That is why I am not going to regurgitate silly articles that don't actually mean anything. You should do the same.

I have no fear of vegetarianism (from which orifice did you pull that one?) All I have suggested is that in this evidence-free area, do what works for you and don't force opinions down other's throats. You should do the same.

It's great that vegetarianism works for you. Keep it up. But don't assume that just because you like it that it's right for everyone else. It's quite bizarre that you think this is "obvious and unreasonable fear". Take a few deep breaths and practise your reading comprehension before replying though as you are not helping your crusade with such silly little statements.

BTW, it is very funny that the person who takes the "my way or the highway" approach is calling the person with the "do what works for you" approach paranoid and in denial. Hilarious. I haven't seen you get this defensive before.

 

Unfortunately, you've done nothing but harm your assertions with any of this. As anyone who has spent any time on such forums would know, those who have the information tend to present that information. Those who lack information and are unable to present any credible refutation usually resort to attempts to belittle those members with whom they disagree. It's simple argumentum ad hominem rather that debate. You can't refute the information I provided so you resort to comments such as;

"Gee you are a little testy today."

"bogus evidence"

"Sorry to have made it too hard to understand"

"from which orifice did you pull that one?"

"Take a few deep breaths and practise your reading comprehension"

"silly little statements"
​

None of these comments present anything constructive to the discussion. And your original accusation that I was attempting to cram information down people's throats is completely unfounded. A question was asked in the OP and I presented available information in an attempt to provide evidence to help answer the question. I even went so far as to send most of the information to the OP in PM and still, you claim I'm attempting to cram it down your throat. There is simply nothing with which you can support such an antagonistic and unprovoked claim. I cited studies, Patch. I made no claims concerning their credibility. I simply denoted the names and basic information about each and made no attempt to force anything on anyone.

You then launched an attack on the information in such a generalized way as to make it absolutely transparent that you have no familiarity with the information in any way. You simply thrust some generalities in the direction of those studies, full-well knowing that you lacked sufficient information to make any credible refutation to the information itself.

You refer to the information as "bogus evidence", but can present nothing to substantiate such a claim. In other words, you obviously prefer not to believe the information, but lack the foundation from which to present any thing of value to discredit the information. That's not debate, Patch, nor is it constructive to the discussion. It's simple nay-saying from a position of ignorance.

No one made you come to this thread. No one made you read any of the posts and I certainly didn't post or send you the information I sent to those who asked for the information. So when you assert that I'm attempting to cram information down your throat, you reveal your unfounded concerns and undermine any attempt you might now wish to make, to suggest that you don't harbor unreasonable fears or anxieties about the information.

As far as that ignorance goes, the comment, "THERE IS NO SOLID EVIDENCE EITHER WAY!", is incredibly naive. Digestion is a physiological process. To attempt to claim that we have no evidence concerning the affects of that process as applied to various types of food is a completely indefensible assertion. Thusly, you present no defense for it, instead retreating again to unsupported statements. Humans are a physical being. We rely on physical processes to extract nutrients from physical matter and utilize those nutrients to fuel the cells which convert them into energy. Anyone attempting to say that no solid evidence exists either way is simply ignoring the evidence.

As I stated, eat what makes you happy. Deny the evidence if that is what you prefer to do. But don't attempt to cloud the issue with vague, inapplicable, generalized accusations toward information you admittedly know nothing about.

 

If it helps any I'll insert an unbiased opinion by way of referreeing.

Beastt, you're way too defensive and were never attacked personally, nor were your ideas actually discredited. Patch simply offered a balanced counter point. Your post on the subject was actually very much appreciated too, but your subsequent responses show a serious lack of character.

 

What the hell is so scientific about His opinion and rude comments?

 

I didn't see the rudeness, perhaps you can pull a quote that you consider rude?

His opinion was a sound opinion. He understands the scientific method and recognized the flaws in the methodology used in the cited studies. Now all that means is that their conclusions as suspect. They could be right, just might not be.
I'm very friendly to the vegetarian position. I have a lot of reasons to think it's healthier, but they are mostly anecdotal reasons, not scientifically derived ones.

Let me just give a simple example. For years we were told that hormone replacement therapy for menopausal women lowered the risk of heart disease. Then, just a few months ago, we find out that study was flawed and a new study that used the proper methodology has reversed those earlier findings.

I called his opinion scientific simply because he understood and articulated some of the common mistakes found in 'studies'.

 

The rudeness you don't seem to want to see was even isolated in my previous post as a series of quotations extracted from Patch's post. If you can't see the rudness involved, I can only conclude that you're allowing your bias on the topic to cloud your perceptions. I'll repost them for you;

"Gee you are a little testy today."

"bogus evidence"

"Sorry to have made it too hard to understand"

"from which orifice did you pull that one?"

"Take a few deep breaths and practise your reading comprehension"

"silly little statements"​

What I posted were very basic summaries of several studies. Not one study, nor studies conducted by one researcher or even in one area. All of the studies show similar results. And those results make perfect sense when you consider human physiology and where it places us when compared to other animals from the carnivorous, omnivorous and herbivorous categories.

To say there is no solid evidence either way isn't demonstrating an understanding of the scientific method. It's a denial of the scientific method wherein, the evidence must be allowed to stand for itself even when you don't care for what the evidence indicates.

Throwing out or ignoring the results of those following the scientific method on the basis of the few times the scientific method gives false conclusions or on the times it is misused because one prefers their pre-conceptions is counter to utilizing science and a failing to see the correlation between the studies and what is already known about physiology and digestive mechanisms. This is only a further indicator that one is more inclined to believe only what they want to believe than what the evidence indicates.

Scientific studies aren't always accurate and sometimes the researchers allow their bias into the research. But to toss out selective studies based on the idea that the results are other than what you would hope or expect is a blatant violation of the scientific method rather than an understanding of it as you have attempted to indicate.

You claim that Patch70, "recognized the flaws in the methodology used in the cited studies". And yet, Patch70 shows that he has no information about the specific methodologies utilized. I certainly didn't provide them. I don't even have them, which is why I only posted the studies and made no claim as to the validity of the results.

You give an example about heart disease and hormone replacement therapy. You also state that you're very friendly toward the vegetarian alternative but state that your reasons are mostly anecdotal. All of that is likely quite true. But that doesn't mean that nothing but anecdotal reasons exist. Check the results of the Framingham Heart Study, the International Atherosclerotic Project, the Epidemiologic Studies of Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke in Japanese Men and dozens of other studies which all show the same correlation between heart disease and diet. Anything can be denied. But when that denial runs contrary to what scientific research continually shows, to call the denial of that evidence, "understanding the scientific method", is quite obviously an attempt to color denial and illogic as reasonable.

 

I have to apologize for not noticing your quotations. And I'll confess that as I type this I have not gone back to find them, the thread is getting longish and I don't have time.

I also did NOT look at the studies you mentioned, but I took Patch's word for it that he did and that his observations are correct. If they aren't then you should critique his statements on factual grounds rather than emotional ones. So assuming that he was right, my only point here will be that no study should be accepted unless they publish their methodology. Then that methodology must be scrutinized for conceptual errors (selector bias, statistically insignificant duration or sample size, not following the double-blind protocol...etc), they should publish their raw data so that their calculations can be double checked. There is a peer review process that scientific papers must go through before being published in respectable journals such as Lancet etc.
I am confident in saying that any 'scientific' study that doesn't follow this protocol SHOULD be ignored unless and until these things are verified. EVEN THEN, the conclusions MUST be repeatable in additional studies who's sole goal is to recreate the findings of the previous study. ONLY then should we be dogmatic and consider the findings to be a scientific fact.

Now notice that nowhere have I declared a vegetarian diet to be inferior. I just don't know. And perhaps there are studies out there that have proven it and I'm unaware of them. I could comment on my 'intuition', or make educated suppositions from other known facts. But that's not entirely 'scientific' (except as the basis for a theory, which then must be tested).

Take care,

Thanks for adding to a good discussion.

 

Beastt, you suffer from the syndrome of "believe everything I read that agrees with with what I already believe" and "refuse to believe anything that doesn't agree with my beliefs". You might also want to look up the word "hypocricy".

You also seem to fail to understand (still) the concept of levels of evidence. All the studies you have quoted (& that are available) are LOW levels of evidence - that means: "Interesting, warrants further study, the answer is not yet in". The evidence for eating meat is at the same low level of evidence so has the same lack of scientific significance. There is no level 1 evidence!!!!! It is all level 3 or less.

If you want to be honest to the original poster, you should say:
There is no answer to this question. Various people have tried to do studies that vaguely contribute information on the subject. However methodological flaws stop these from giving any truly useful answer either way. I prefer vegetarianism for reasons x, y & z. But there is still no RIGOROUS scientific evidence to guide you.

But obviously you'll continue to deny, to abuse, and to rant and then say that I am in denial, am abusive and don't know what I am talking about and that you know everything... Good for you.

 

Well , if heart disease and cardivascular disease etc is caused by fruit and veg. then i'd be pretty suprised, over here in blighty the gov. recomend 5 portions of fruit and veg a day not big macs dripping with fat and cheese (mmm), 10,000 years ago we would kill a host of cavemen for a mac, it's just such an effeicient way to consume calories(hence why it tastes nice) face facts : red meat ,fried eggs, fried bacon butties dripping in butter[damn my mouth is now watering like a good 'un]and all that jazz are bad for you but they taste reaaaaaaaallyy nice, fruit and veg are good for you but taste[BY COMPARISON!!!!!!!!!] blaaaaaaaaand. The human body has evolved to survive long enough to pass its genes on so fat and sugar will enevitably TASTE nice but it does'nt mean they are healthy in our unnaturally long lives of this era .
Look at what is the biggest killer in the west and then tell me it's caused by fruit and veg ,i dare you....
Eat what the hell you like but don't hoodwink yourself,right ..im off to Burger King

 

I can’t talk about researched etc. but only about my personal experience.

I went vegetarian about 18 months ago, for ethical reasons. In the process I lost about 11kg and started feeling HEAPS better. I was 98% vegan and have to say that I’ve never felt better in my life – before going vegetarian I used to get headaches about twice a week, have some sleeping problems and catch colds easily.

Almost immediately the headaches, the weakness and the sleeping problems stopped, and I wasn’t prone to catch colds that easily.

About 3 months ago I stopped being mainly vegan. I started having cheese about once-twice a week, had eggs about once a week, and had meat occasionally. Doing so it meant that my partner changed her diet as well (I’m the main cook at home). It didn’t take us more than a month to see how great the change was and to decide to go back to an almost vegan diet, this time for health reasons.

I gained about 4kg and my partner gained about the same. I started to have sleeping problems and headaches again and caught 2 colds in a very short time.

Now, I think that my physical situation going downhill so quickly also has much to do with the fact that my body got used to a very healthy diet where I never had fried food other than chips once in a blue moon, heaps of veggies, fruit, grains and pulses, almost never buying food out – making most of our food myself – so even our snacks and sweet stuff were healthy (like muffins with bananas instead of sugar and eggs, nut and oats bars with molasses etc), so our food was very low on sugar and fat – where ready made food is full of that shit. Being used to such a healthy diet I think my body got an absolute shock when suddenly I gave it ‘normal’ food. And again, after going back to a mostly vegan diet I feel heaps better, the change is just amazing, but it’s still work in progress and I still pay the price for eating things that my body doesn’t like.



My conclusion – every body works differently. After trying a few different lifestyles (eating meat, being vegetarian, 98% vegan, and mainly vegan with the occasional burger or cheese sandwich) I can say that for ME the 98% vegan diet works the best. On the other hand I have a mate that was vego for 7 years and started having beef coz he said he started to feel weak.

And about protein and iron and all of them – I had a blood check and the doctor didn’t believe me that I didn’t eat meat, eggs, fish or dairy – coz it was absolutely flawless – no deficiency in iron, protein, B12 or anything else, same with my partner. If you want you can get all these things from a plant-based diet, and it’s really simple.

I think that each one of us works the best with the diet that is the best for him or her. Till you try different diets you can’t really know what’s the best for your body, and reading researches or other people’s experiences won’t change that.

 

I placed them in the post you're referring to. If you read it enough to qualify your response, you must have seen them. I'll post them again;

And these are all from the post for which you commended Patch70 for demonstrating a knowledge of the scientific method.

Based on Patch's complete lack of any kind of reference to anything factual, I believe your assumption here was a poor one. Patch has provided nothing which might indicate that he has any information regarding any of the studies I mentioned other than what I provided which was, out of necessity, fairly slim.

That's exactly what I've done. I'm not sure how anyone could read this thread with any level of objectivity and not realize that Patch continues to post on mere opinion and emotion while I continue to provide information from many different studies/sources. I'm not sure how you've managed to get this so backward.

Well again, this is a very poor assumption. These studies were published for peer review and I listed the sources.

Perhaps it would help to clear up some misconceptions if you could review my original post, (Post #5, Page 1). But just to save you a little bit of time, here are the references I gave for the original studies I mentioned.

Fisher, I., "The Influence of Flesh Eating on Endurance," Yale Medical Journal, 13(5):205-221, 1907

Ioteyko, J., "Enquete Scientifique sur les Vegetariens de Bruxelles," Henri Lamertin, Brussels, pg 50

Astrand, Per-Olaf, "Nutrition Today," no.2, 9-11, 1968

Schouteden, A., "Ann de Soc. Des Science Med. et Nat. de Bruxelles (Belgium) I​

There seems to be something about science that has escaped you here. Science doesn't regard research data as providing facts. Science follows the best existing conclusion to explain the available evidence. It must always be prepared to have those conclusions altered or abandoned when new evidence becomes available. That's a very significant part of the scientific method. It's why we still have the theory of evolution, theory of gravity and the theory of relativity. We also have things such as the law of gravity. Note that gravity is both a law and a theory. But the two are different. The law of gravity, roughly stated; is that bodies of mass are attracted to other bodies of mass. The theory of gravity is far more involved and includes such hypothetical particles as gravitons, speaks of gravitational mechanics rather than the more simplistic properties of the law of gravity. But none of these are considered scientific fact. There are laws, hypotheses and theories but no scientific facts. This link can probably do a much better job of explaining it than I can.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

The rest of this constitutes a straw man argument. Since you don't know the specifics of the studies and Patch, upon whom you're resting your conclusions and assumptions doesn't know the specifics of the studies, no one here is qualified to claim that anything about them is bogus, unscientific, biased or accurate. It is, however, notable that the studies serve to confirm one another. But in the absence of specifics about the methodology, to carelessly sling accusations about improper methods is nothing but building a strawman upon which to place an attack.

Actually, it would be the basis for a hypothesis which then must be tested. Once the hypothesis has survived the scrutiny of reasonable challenges and peer review, the hypothesis passes to the level of theory.

I would ask that you again look at the opening post, (Post #1). Most specifically the last line which reads, "if anyone has facts or experience with being a vegetarian please share."

You have certainly done that by posting information about your personal experience. But you keep defending Patch70. So I would ask that you set some time aside to review each of his posts and ask yourself three very simple questions; Does anything he has offered comply with the premise of the thread and the request made by the opening poster? Are his personal attacks other than emotionally based?

If so, what specifically has he contributed out of other than his own personal opinion and conjecture?

 

I'm going to ask that you substantiate this, Patch. What have I read concerning diet? Give us a list. Because if you can't, there simply isn't any way for you to substantiate your claim. The fact is, you don't know what I have and haven't read. You have little clue, other than the references I've posted as to what I have or haven't been exposed to. You have only the smallest sampling of what I do accept as true and no idea of what I have read and dismissed as other than true.

Again, you're basing assumptions upon relative ignorance. You only know what references I've provided, (which I might add; out-number the references you've provided because you've provided none). Take a look at this list. I assure you it's very small compared to the total information available. But it all says the same thing about human diets and health. You can claim your levels all you want but it's obvious that this is simply a topic where you have chosen your personal preference and refuse to accept anything else.

· Gordon, T, "Premature Mortality from Coronary Heart Disease: The Framingham Study," Journal of the American Medical Association, 215:1617
· Reddy, B., "Nutrition and Its Relationship to Cancer," Advances in Cancer Research 32:237, 1980
· Bainton, C, "Deaths from coronary heart disease in persons fifty years of age and younger: A community-wide study." New England Journal of Medicine, 268:569
· Hur, Robin, Food Reform: Our Desperate Need, Heidelberg Publishers, 1975
· Kannel, W, "Incidence and Prognosis of Unrecognized Myocardial Infarction—An Update on the Framingham Study," New England Journal of Medicine, 311:1144
· Ornish, D., "Effects of Stress Management Training and Dietary Changes in Treating Isochemic Heart Disease," Journal of the American Medical Association
· "Diet and Stress in Vascular Disease," Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 176, No. 9, June 3, 1961, pg 806
· Hindhede, M., "The Effect of Food Restrictions During War on Mortality in Copenhagen," Journal of the American Medical Association, 74 (6):381, 1920
· Thuesen, L., "Beneficial effect of a low-fat low-calorie diet on myocardial energy metabolism in patients with angina pectoris," Lancet, 2:59
· Ellis, F., "Angina and Vegan Diet," American Heart Journal, 93:803
· Pritikin, N., "Diet and Exercise as a Total Therapeutic Regimen for the Rehabilitation of Patients with Severe Peripheral Vascular Disease," 52nd Annual
· Carroll, K., "Dietary Fat in Relation to Tumour Genesis," Progress in Biochemical Pharmacology, 10:308, 1975
· Ribeiro, J., "The effectiveness of a low lipid diet and exercise in the management of coronary artery disease," American Heart Journal, 108:1183, 1984
· Narins, D., in Bezkorovainy, A., Biochemistry of Nonheme Iron, New York, Plenum, 1980
· Strom, A., and Jensen, R. A., "Mortality From Circulatory Diseases in Norway, 1940-1945", Lancet, 260:126-129, 1951
· Hegsted, D., cited in Register, U.D., et al, "The Vegetarian Diet," Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 62(3):255
· Goldman, L., "The decline in ischemic heart disease mortality rates. An analysis of the comparative effects of medical interventions and changes in lifestyle," Annals of Internal Medicine, 101:825, 1984
· Editorial: "Trials of Coronary Heart Disease Prevention," Lancet, 2:803, 1982
· Sussman, Vic, The Vegetarian Alternative, Rodale Press, Emmaus, Pa.
· Armstrong, B., and Doll, R., "Environmental Factors and Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Different Countries," International Journal of Cancer, 15:617, 1975
· Gordon, T, "Diet and its relation to coronary heart disease and death in three populations," Circulation, 63:500
· Mann, G., "Food Intake and Resistance to Disease," Lancet, 1:1238, 1980
· Kallio, V, "Reduction in sudden deaths by a multifactorial intervention programme after acute myocardial infarction," Lancet, 2:1091, 1979
· Stehlin, J., "Treatment of Carcinoma of the Breast," Surg Gynecol Obstet, 149:911
· Lipid Research Clinics Program. The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial Results, I. Reduction in Incidence of Coronary Heart Disease, · Journal of the American Medical Association, 251:351, 1984
· Lipid Research Clinics Program. The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial Results, II. The Relationship of Reduction in Incidence of · Coronary Heart Disease to Cholesterol Lowering, Journal of the American Medical Association, 251:365
· Connor, W., "The Key Role of Nutritional Factors in the Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease," Preventive Medicine, 1:49
· Scrimshaw, N., "An Analysis of Past and Present Recommended Dietary Allowances for Protein in Health and Disease," New England Journal of Medicine
· Taylor, C, "Spontaneously occurring angiotoxic derivatives of cholesterol," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 32:40
· Welch, C, "Cinecoronary arteriography in young men," Circulation, 42:647
· Wynder, E., "Dietary Fat and Colon Cancer," Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 54:7
· Langlands, A., "Long Term Survival of Patients with Breast Cancer"
· Henderson, I., "Cancer of the Breast—The Past Decade," Parts 1 & 2, New England Journal of Medicine, 302:17-78, 1980
· Zampogna, A., "Relationship Between Lipids and Occlusive Coronary Artery Disease," Archives of Internal Medicine, 140:1067, 1980
· Cohn, P., "Serum lipid levels in angiographically defined coronary artery disease," Annals of Internal Medicine, 84:241
· Weisburger, J., "Nutrition and Cancer—On the Mechanisms Bearing on Causes of Cancer of the Colon, Breast, Prostate, and Stomach," Bulletin of the New York Academy
· Statement by Arthur Upton, Director—National Cancer Institute: Status of the Diet, Nutrition and Cancer Program before the Subcommittee on Nutrition
· Jenkins, P., "Severity of coronary atherosclerosis related to lipoprotein concentration," British Medical Journal, 2:388
· Kannel, W, "Cholesterol in the Prediction of Atherosclerotic Disease: New Perspectives Based on the Framingham Study," Annals of Internal Medicine, 90:85

In invite you to look them up. In fact, I ask that you please look them up. They all say the same thing whether fully, in part or through implication, concerning a vegetarian/vegan diet. It's simply healthier. And healthier tends to result in greater strength.

You should also be aware that concerning levels of evidence there is more than one rating system. The one I'm more familiar with utilizes Levels A - C. Level-A is usually said to be high quality, random and controlled trials giving weight to all significant outcomes. Level-B includes controlled studies with impartially selected study participants. Level-C would consist of expert opinions and concensus viewpoints. The above list represents all three levels of evidence from the most compelling to the least and they all say the same thing.

You simply can't claim that, Patch. You say I'm supposed to tell him that methodological flaws stop the studies from giving any truly useful answers, but you certainly have nothing with which to back that. You're simply stating your opinion when faced with studies which conclude other than what you wish to believe. If you can show us the methodologies used, and then point out flaws within, you'd be providing something useful. All you're providing is your uninformed bias. What were the methodologies? How did you obtain them? What were the specifics and the flaws in those specifics? The fact is, you simply don't know. So you assume they're flawed based on the fact that they lie in sharp contrast with what you wish to believe.

I've never claimed to know everything, Patch. In fact, I'm going to ask you to do the same thing I asked another poster to do; Go back and read my original post again, (Post #5, Page 1). The point isn't that I know everything or that there is even a need to compare what I do and don't know with anyone else. The point is that I'm providing studies, references and mechanisms while you're providing nothing but your personal opinion which, so far, has been devoid of any kind of credible references for the refutations you're attempting to present.

And finally, I find it amazing that you can suggest that I'm being abusive and even have the nerve to suggest that I'm being hypocritical. Read back across my posts. I said you were demonstrating paranoia and then substantiated that claim. Aside from that, all of the "abuse" has come from you and has been completely without substantiation.

 

I would have to say that your experiences are fairly typical for anyone who has given the different diets you've mentioned a fair try. I'm not so sure about the colds. I do know that when I switched from a vegetarian diet rich in dairy and eggs, to a nearly vegan diet, the frequency of colds changed dramatically. I went from the usual 1, 2 or 3 colds per year to one cold about every 6 or 7 years. But I also started cycling regularly about that time whereas before, I was fairly sedentary. There are simply too many factors to allow any accurate conclusion. But since a decline in the frequency of illness seems to be a common experience for those excluding or drastically reducing animal products in the diet, it is probably safe to say that there is some signficance which can be placed upon the dietary change in regard to the change in frequency of illness.

Certainly there is some truth to this. Just as some cyclists display abilities as a sprinter while others excel at climbing, power output is different and dependent to some extent on personal genetics and physiology. However, it's important not to dismiss the fact that as humans, our general physiology is similar enough to be biologically classifiable. Our digestive physiology from jaw-hinge location, mouth gape, facial muscles, jaw motion, teeth, saliva, stomach acid, length of digestive system, colon routing and texture and even our urine place us much closer to herbivores than either carnivores or omnivores.

Since the OP to the thread welcomes anecdotal information, my father was recently hospitalized for a kidney stone and, of course, they performed a blood draw and sent it to the lab before initiating any other medical procedures. There seemed an excessive delay in receiving the results so the attending physician contacted the lab. The delay had been caused when the lab tech compared the results to the patient information and found that the blood was from an 88-year old man. Now, perhaps this is just something they tell people in order to help them feel better about the fact that they require medical attention, but he was told that they assumed there was an error in the lab work because the blood was simply too healthy to have come from an 88-year old individual. He has been vegetarian since he was in his mid 30's and his doctor, unlike many others, found that to be consistent with the results on his blood. They were also shocked that at 88, he isn't on any prescription medication. Again, that's strictly anecdotal which provides nothing in the way of evidence to substantiate the benefits of the diet.

I would like, however, to take a moment to point out that while vegetarians do receive all of the necessary nutrients without any special attention to food selection other than to assure a reasonable diet with sufficient calories, vegans do have one additional concern. Vitamin B12 can be a significant problem for those who consume no animal products. And a vitamin B12 deficiency is nothing to play with. It can result in substantial damage to nerve tissues and that damage is permanent. The answer is a simple suppliment taken as little as a few times per year. The liver can store enough to last as much as 6-months because the body only requires about 1 microgram of B12 per day and it recycles 70-75% of all the B12 it uses.

While none of us have exactly the same needs, our needs don't vary as much as some might suggest. Perhaps one of the greatest variations occurs in the individual need for protein. In all of the studies I've been able to get my hands on, (excluding recommendations from body-building coaches), the least amount shown to be healthy is 2% while the greatest amount necessary for anyone is just under 10%. That's considered a very broad spectrum where nutrition is concerned.

It's a good idea to remember that we have a great number of common physiological traits and that those physiological traits specific to digestion will indicate the foods our bodies are most likely to utilize to the best potential.

I also wanted to comment on the few notations I've read on this thread concerning a perceived weakness after switching to a vegetarian diet. Certainly this won't account for every instance, but it is a common mistake people make;

Many people assume that obtaining sufficient protein on such a diet will be difficult. As a result, they tend to increase their consumption of dairy in an attempt to assure they consume sufficient protein. While this is unnecessary, it's not without a detriment. The calories displaced by the dairy are often those which are sources of iron. Since dairy contains zero iron, they can quickly find themselves iron deficient. Upon reintroducing meat into their diet, the iron deficiency is eliminated and they feel stronger again. Many take this to indicate that they need meat to be strong, when in reality, they need to consume less, (or no) dairy and continue to eat the standard vegetarian foods which will provide them with all the iron and protein they need.

 

Thank you. I try.

 

It is quite clear that you are a clone of George W. Bush.

Debating Technique #1:
"If you say WMD's enough it becomes true."
So many posts, most of them very, very long, on this subject. Plus most of your articles have nothing to do with whether "red meat affects performance".

Technique #2:
"Base your unshakeable belief in #1 on flimsy evidence."
All that you have presented can be criticised with at least a few of the following descriptions: uncontrolled, non-randomised, observational, methodological flaws, biased, outdated.
I have not produced articles that show red meat does not affect performance because they suffer from the same flaws. Why try to argue with low-level evidence?
I could also produce lots of papers showing what great drugs vioxx or thalidomide are...

Technique #3:
"If your not with us, you love al Qaeda/Saddam"
I have said, given lack of good evidence, there is no evidence-based answer to whether red meat does or does not affect performance. Thus, my recommendation has been to go with the diet that works for you.
You have said that I have displayed a "fear of vegetarianism" and am "in denial" about the "evidence".

Technique #4:
"Shoot the messenger".
According to you, I don't know anything about the subject, am in denial, "fear vegetarianism"...

Extra point:
Given your misrepresentation of what I have said, your failure to understand what I have said, and the non-relevance of some of your references, one has to question your ability to read.

 

Dubious quote: "beast,

You have demonstrating seriously good debating skills. "

Cross posting from another thread or making things up???
Either way, that is really getting desperate.

 

That is, without a doubt, the worst insult I've ever received. Fortunately, I know that it's based in complete ignorance.

As for the rest of this, it's complete argumentum ad hominem just like everything else you've posted. Stop attacking me and start attacking the evidence. If you can't do that, then you're done.

You keep claiming that these studies contain methodological flaws. Do you really expect anyone to believe that you're familiar with any of these studies or the methodologies involved?

I keep posting the actual findings of research while you keep hand-waving with, "methodological flaws", yet, when pushed to offer them, you can't because you don't know. It's your assumption and it's all based on what you want to believe rather than what the research is repeatedly showing. Given that, do you think it's proper to suggest that I'm the one wanting to "shoot the messenger"?

As to your accusation of non-relevance, give an example. Tell us why you believe it's not relevant. Then wait for a response and see whether I can demonstrate the relevance or not. If I can't, then you've gained a point.

 

From my e'mails;
Hello Beastt,


mitosis has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled -
Does red meat affect performance? - in the Health Nutrition and
Supplements forum of Cycling Forums.

This thread is located at:
http://www.cyclingforums.com/showthread.php?t=273601&goto=newpost

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
beast,

You have demonstrating seriously good debating skills.
***************

I'm not sure why it was deleted. But do you seriously think that I'm going to post tons of evidence, none of which you've even made an attempt to refute, and then assume that because someone offered me a compliment that I think you're going to change your mind?

 

To be fair, I posted that before I had read the whole thread. After reading it entirely I though the debate was more even than it seemed from reading the last few posts. So I removed it because I thought both main parties were doing a fairly good job.

I still believe your debating skills are pretty good, but I agree with another poster that you have been a little bit defensive.

Its a topic I have an interest so I will follow up some of the links provided.

Thanks for the information.