Does red meat affect performance?

[patch70]

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?

If you want me to spell it out for you:
The original question was: "Anyone here know how red meat or any meat affect cycling performance?"

From your 1st post:
2nd paragraph - not referenced. Therefore cannot say much about it.

3rd paragraph - From 1907. (This was around the time when it was believed that consuming water whilst exercising was detrimental and that riders should put rocks in their mouths to keep well hydrated.) Can't get to the original paper but how well controlled were the groups for confounding variables? Were they randomised? No. How did they test "endurance"? Obviously not with aerobic threshold or lactate threshold or VO2 max...

4th para - no study design available.

5th para - Not randomised. Not controlled for confounding variables. Was the middle section only eating meat/eggs/milk and minimal carbs and so reduced endurance is hardly surprising. Plus this doesn't answer the question of a balanced diet with or without meat and how this affects performance.

6th para - Not randomised. Not controlled. As stated earlier, comparing health-conscious vegetarians with perhaps unhealthy or non-health conscious meat eaters is not a fair comparison and doesn't answer the question of the OP. (Could also go into the journal's impact factor if being picky).

More recently posted references - eg related to Framingham: Observational, not controlled for confounders and nothing to do with red meat and its effects on performance.
Copenhagen WW2 study - as for Framingham.
Studies looking at diet and cancer, atherosclerosis or other diseases - nothing to do with performance, not controlled for confounders. Irrelevant to the question asked.

And for all your studies, what was the author declaration about funding or other conflicts of interest? What was the diet of the authors? How 'objective' were they? (I am not suggesting the authors cannot be vegetarians, just that with any observational study, it is relatively easy to manipulate things to give the answer you want).

Until you can come up with a prospective study where two well matched groups breathing the same air, drinking the same water, eating the same vegetables etc are compared where the ONLY difference is moderate amounts of red meat or a matched non-meat source (that looks & tastes like meat) of equivalent grams in protein and amount of calories and these are cooked with the same oil, same amount of salt, eaten in the same number of overall meals per day with identical amounts of macro- & micro-nutrients and the subjects are exactly matched fitness-wise before hand etc etc, then you cannot say that there is evidence to show that red meat reduces athletic performance. Thus it would be misleading to suggest that "evidence proves a vegetarian diet is better" for the question of the OP. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Neither of us know.

 

[Beastt]

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.

Thank you, mitosis. I appreciate that you took the time to clear that up.

 

[Beastt]

Overall this is much better. It's an actual response to the information which is refreshing. However;

If you want me to spell it out for you:
The original question was: "Anyone here know how red meat or any meat affect cycling performance?"

I'm quite familiar with the opening post. If you recall, I reminded you what the primary question was in the first post only a day or so ago.

From your 1st post:
2nd paragraph - not referenced. Therefore cannot say much about it.

Thank you. That's much better than the "methodological flaws" straw man you've been tossing about.

3rd paragraph - From 1907. (This was around the time when it was believed that consuming water whilst exercising was detrimental and that riders should put rocks in their mouths to keep well hydrated.) Can't get to the original paper but how well controlled were the groups for confounding variables? Were they randomised? No. How did they test "endurance"? Obviously not with aerobic threshold or lactate threshold or VO2 max...

The hypothesis about rocks in the mouth and not drinking while exercising wasn't the result of actual studies. It came about through personal and anecdotal references so that's another strawman.

And again, suddenly you're admitting that you don't know the methodology, hence all the questions about it. Yet for two or more days you've been pointing to methodological errors as the reason for the outcome of the study. At least this is more honest. You don't know and I don't know. But I do know that all of the studies indicated the same thing. And since they were performed by different researchers over a period of more than 60 years in different facilities, that is significant.

4th para - no study design available.

Correct. Hence, no credible claim can be made for flaws in the methodology.

5th para - Not randomised. Not controlled for confounding variables. Was the middle section only eating meat/eggs/milk and minimal carbs and so reduced endurance is hardly surprising. Plus this doesn't answer the question of a balanced diet with or without meat and how this affects performance.

Though there is a little more information supplied concerning the processes followed, it is far too little to be able to claim that it wasn't controlled. You don't know that. I don't know that it wasn't. Neither of us can say for sure. So perhaps it would be more honest if you would admit that you don't know instead of claiming that you do.

6th para - Not randomised. Not controlled. As stated earlier, comparing health-conscious vegetarians with perhaps unhealthy or non-health conscious meat eaters is not a fair comparison and doesn't answer the question of the OP. (Could also go into the journal's impact factor if being picky).

Note the "perhaps unhealthy". You don't know so you're making this up. That's another straw man. As far as it being not random and other than controlled, there simply isn't enough information for you to be able to back such a claim. Again, where you lack information, you apply what you wish to believe rather than admitting that too little information is available to make a fair judgement.

Concerning Framingham, this study is widely accepted as providing very valuable information. But you are correct about the methodology. As I stated in the post where I listed these and many other studies, the information represents everything from Level-C to Level-A evidence. And all of what I listed, regardless of the level, shows the same thing. And I clearly stated what it was that it shows. Again, explain how a less healthy diet could lead to identical or greater strength if you want to maintain that this is irrelevant.

More recently posted references - eg related to Framingham: Observational, not controlled for confounders and nothing to do with red meat and its effects on performance.

This is the reason I very clearly stated; 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're welcome to refute that if you can support the idea that a less healthy diet should be expected to result in greater strength.

Copenhagen WW2 study - as for Framingham.
Studies looking at diet and cancer, atherosclerosis or other diseases - nothing to do with performance, not controlled for confounders. Irrelevant to the question asked.

Again, supplied as part of; 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.

And for all your studies, what was the author declaration about funding or other conflicts of interest? What was the diet of the authors? How 'objective' were they? (I am not suggesting the authors cannot be vegetarians, just that with any observational study, it is relatively easy to manipulate things to give the answer you want).

So what you're saying is that you don't have the answers to these factors and you don't know if they were factors, despite continually telling us that the studies were flawed in their methodology. What you're demonstrating is a desire to fabricate flaws whenever the result of a study is other than what you wish it to be.

Until you can come up with a prospective study where two well matched groups breathing the same air, drinking the same water, eating the same vegetables etc are compared where the ONLY difference is moderate amounts of red meat or a matched non-meat source (that looks & tastes like meat) of equivalent grams in protein and amount of calories and these are cooked with the same oil, same amount of salt, eaten in the same number of overall meals per day with identical amounts of macro- & micro-nutrients and the subjects are exactly matched fitness-wise before hand etc etc, then you cannot say that there is evidence to show that red meat reduces athletic performance. Thus it would be misleading to suggest that "evidence proves a vegetarian diet is better" for the question of the OP. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Neither of us know.

In all of science the conclusion must fall with the preponderance of the evidence. That's why science continues to use the word "theory" for things which have been relentlessly challenged and withstood all of the challenges. It doesn't mean they'll never be shown to be wrong, it simply means that there is no currently available information to refute the conclusions which are drawn upon the available evidence. You're suggesting that we withhold any conclusion because you don't know enough about any of the studies listed. Yet, you've provided no studies showing contrary results and all of the studies I provided are in complete agreement. The preponderance of evidence can provide only one conclusion. It's not possible to say that the conclusion is beyond error, but it certainly gives us a stronger platform than the complete lack of evidence you've provided to refute it. And when we get right down to it, no scientific conclusion, no matter how well tested can ever hold a credible claim to being completely beyond error.

Also keep in mind that the last list I provided was a very short one. It's growing daily. That's the reason the Four Food Groups was discarded in favor of the Food Pyramid. It's the reason that doctors will now tell their patients that they should consume red meat only in moderation while 50-years ago, red meat was thought to be completely healthy. It's the reason most contemporary nutritionists will admit, if not outright recommend, that avoiding meat altogether is a healthier alternative. Such information is very slow to emerge into the mainstream because it flies in the face of what so many have believed for so long. Heliocentrism wasn't immediately adopted. Some people still attempt to refute the heliocentric universe as well as the Earth as an oblate spheroid. If you follow the trend over even just the past 2 decades, you'll note a decided shift toward acceptance of vegetarian diets when only 40-years ago, many people didn't believe it was possible to subsist and remain healthy without meat.

The evidence provided by the studies stands unless you can show us errors in the methodology which are from the actual procedures rather than conjecture as to what may or may not have affected the outcome. And the fact that all the studies cross-check each other will mean that defeating any one of the studies will still be decidedly inconclusive.

Like I said in my first post, "for what it's worth".

 

[patch70]

The preponderance of evidence can provide only one conclusion.

Okay - this is my last post. This is all way too overdone now.

There is no "preponderance of evidence". If you do a PubMed search on "vegan" or "vegetarian", you come up with many articles that say both good and bad things about them. The evidence is mixed and on all sides it is not high-level evidence!

I have chosen not to lie/mislead. Thus I am not posting reams of uncontrolled, non-randomised, biased evidence to say that eating red meat does not affect performance (or anything else vaguely related). I really don't care if you think this means you win because you have presented more "evidence" than I have. As a scientist with ethics (a rare breed?), I would feel dishonest posting such info when I don't feel it is "good evidence". You seem to believe all your articles but any decent scientist or anyone trained in critical analysis or statistics would not simply take them at face value and would know how frequently misleading or deliberately biased these types of uncontrolled, non-randomised, observational studies are.

I'll leave you with one article which is kind of interesting (but not perfect):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...d&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15824171&query_hl=2
Over 21 years, vegetarians versus healthy non-vegetarians were equivalently healthy and both were better than sedentary people & smokers. Before you jump on this - there was a NON-SIGNIFICANT reduction in ischaemic heart disease in the vegetarians. (Non-significant means the difference could well have occurred by chance as it was a small difference. A bigger study might show this to be a real difference but at this stage we say they are equivalent pending further study).

If you chose to be honest - the answer to the OP's question is "Nobody really knows for sure". The evidence is inconclusive. My belief is that the differences noted in your studies are probably due to confounding variables such as lack of exercise, smoking, excessive salt, excessive fats & carbohydrates (eg McDonalds food!), bad fats like palm oil - not moderate amounts of lean meat per se.

You may also note that at no stage have I said that eating meat is better - just not worse. I have also not said that vegetarianism is worse (& I agree with your caution about B12 in strict vegans), just not clearly better than a healthy balanced diet that contains moderate amounts of lean meat.

Addit - That story about your grandfather & his blood tests; did you make that up? If not - then the doctor was trying to give platitudes to divert attention away from the delay in the results. Probably a mis-labelled specimen. The reference range for all tests done on someone with kidney stones does not change whether you are 20 or 100 years old. A normal result is a normal result and no doctor would honestly say that results are too good for your age (unless just trying to be nice & make someone feel happy). Either the results are normal as they should be or they are abnormal and may need further investigation, regardless of age. There is no super-normal!

Good bye, farewell and have a long and healthy life!

 

[Beastt]

Okay - this is my last post. This is all way too overdone now.

There is no "preponderance of evidence". If you do a PubMed search on "vegan" or "vegetarian", you come up with many articles that say both good and bad things about them. The evidence is mixed and on all sides it is not high-level evidence!

Yes there is a preponderance of evidence. I listed four studies which all showed exactly the same outcome. You've listed none. You simply attack the ones I've listed on the basis of methodology, yet you admit that you're not familiar with the methodologies used, then turn again and attack the methodologies.

I have chosen not to lie/mislead. Thus I am not posting reams of uncontrolled, non-randomised, biased evidence to say that eating red meat does not affect performance (or anything else vaguely related). I really don't care if you think this means you win because you have presented more "evidence" than I have. As a scientist with ethics (a rare breed?), I would feel dishonest posting such info when I don't feel it is "good evidence". You seem to believe all your articles but any decent scientist or anyone trained in critical analysis or statistics would not simply take them at face value and would know how frequently misleading or deliberately biased these types of uncontrolled, non-randomised, observational studies are.

Here again you attack the methodologies of the studies. All through this thread you flip-flop. One post you say the methodologies are flawed, the next post you admit that you don't have sufficient information to know the methodologies. I understand that you don't feel it's "good evidence" and I would have no problem with that if you could base it on something other than your opinion concerning what the outcome of such a study should be. Because it contrasts what you want the outcome to be, you tell me that the methodologies were flawed, then admit that you don't know the specifics of the study and therefore, aren't familiar with the methodologies, then you flop back and attempt to attack the studies based on methodologies with which you're not familiar.

I'll leave you with one article which is kind of interesting (but not perfect):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...d&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15824171&query_hl=2
Over 21 years, vegetarians versus healthy non-vegetarians were equivalently healthy and both were better than sedentary people & smokers. Before you jump on this - there was a NON-SIGNIFICANT reduction in ischaemic heart disease in the vegetarians. (Non-significant means the difference could well have occurred by chance as it was a small difference. A bigger study might show this to be a real difference but at this stage we say they are equivalent pending further study).

But bigger studies have been done -- dozens of them. And the outcome shows that vegetarians suffer only one-quarter the instance of heart attack as those who consume animal flesh. These other studies, cummulatively, show that vegans suffer one-tenth to one-fifteenth the frequency of heart attack. Studies also show vegans and vegetarians suffering only 40% of the cancer rate of the non-vegetarians. And this is the important part, Patch; we understand why this is. We're familiar with many of the mechanisms involved. Heart attack is caused by the occlussion of coronary arteries with the plaque of atherosclerosis. That plaque has been analyzed thousands of times in autopsies on people who died as a result of a heart attack. And in every single instance, the occlussion is composed primarily of saturated fats and cholesterol. All, (let me repeat that; "ALL") of the cholesterol in your diet comes from animal sources. Plants simply aren't able to produce cholesterol. Most of the saturated fat in the average western diet comes from animal sources. When you consider the true statistics from a number of wide-ranging studies, and compare them to human physiology and the mechanisms of heart attack, they clearly show the results of this single study you've presented to be contrary to what is already known.

Colon cancer is a huge problem and growing. Everywhere meat consumption is high, colon cancer rates are high. You can call that low-level evidence if you want, but it presents a direct correlation with one of the primary mechanisms of colon cancer. And everywhere meat consumption is low, colon cancer rates are correspondingly low -- just like heart disease.

Humans have a longish digestive tract. It's quite convoluted and puckered internally which doesn't promote the prompt movement of "waxy lumps". After meat has been subjected to chewing and the very weak stomach acid of a human, it becomes a plastic, wax-like mass. Meat contains zero fiber so it tends to move very slowly through the human colon. As you know, meat also tends to decay very quickly which is where the idea comes from that it literally rots in your bowel. And as it rots, it produces known carcinogens.

This doesn't happen in the digestive tract of a natural carnivore or a natural omnivore for at least three different reasons. The digestive process begins differently with acid-based saliva rather than alkaline based as is found in humans and all natural herbivores. Once in the stomach, meat is attacked by acids 20-times the strength of that found in the human stomach and other monogastric herbivores. Then it passes through a much shorter digestive tract and exits the body, not having had the time to begin to decay.

When you combine the studies, the physiology and the mechanisms of disease, the case should become very clear. However, there are always those who will attempt to contaminate the evidence with faulty studies as you've mentioned. But again, you have to look for the motive. There is more motive in selling something than in not selling something. If I want you to buy my product, I stand a much better chance if I can show you that the product isn't harmful. So when studies are done which clearly show the harmful effects of the meat, egg and dairy industry's primary products, it can be expected that they will go out of their way to fund their own studies, with their own agendas of attempting to present their products as non-harmful.

I mentioned the case where the egg industry attempted to do this by submitting six studies, five of which were funded by groups with interests in the egg industry. I gave you the date, the name of the judge and the circumstances as well as the court outcome; the studies were found to be false, misleading and deceptive. The false studies do exist, but in all of my research, I've yet to see a single false or flawed study showing an outcome matching or even similar to what I have offered. There simply isn't any profit in telling people not to buy animal products.

In other studies test subjects had their cholesterol consumption levels raised to above 400mgs daily before the study's official start. This was done because it was known that once you reach such high levels, additional cholesterol alters blood syrum cholesterol levels fairly insignificantly. The outcome of the study was the conclusion that additional dietary cholesterol had a negligible effect on blood syrum cholesterol. Another utilized pure chystalline cholesterol for the study rather than a combination of cholesterol and fats. Pure cholesterol, not accompanied by fats doesn't show the same detrimental effects as cholesterol and fat combined. So the study proclaimed that the additional cholesterol, (which I believe was injected), did little to raise blood syrum cholesterol. Of course there is no natural source of pure cholesterol. It always comes accompanied by fats and together, they raise the risk of cardiovascular disease which is not only not a normal effect of aging, but completely preventable and the number one kiler, by far, of people in the United States and other countries adopting similar diets.

· The preponderance of evidence from the studies is clear.

· The physiology of the human digestive tract is clear.

· The mechanisms of the connected diseases are less clear, but understanding is growing and many of the mechanisms are well understood.

And they all say the same thing.

If you chose to be honest - the answer to the OP's question is "Nobody really knows for sure". The evidence is inconclusive. My belief is that the differences noted in your studies are probably due to confounding variables such as lack of exercise, smoking, excessive salt, excessive fats & carbohydrates (eg McDonalds food!), bad fats like palm oil - not moderate amounts of lean meat per se.

I answered honestly, Patch. And unlike your posts, I don't keep changing my story. Certainly lack of excercise, smoking and excessive salt intake are all factors. So are age, gender and genetics. But the data still implicates consumption of animal products to a very high degree.

You may also note that at no stage have I said that eating meat is better - just not worse.

But the results of dozens, (probably hundreds) of studies clearly show that it is worse.

I have also not said that vegetarianism is worse (& I agree with your caution about B12 in strict vegans), just not clearly better than a healthy balanced diet that contains moderate amounts of lean meat.

The term, "healthy balanced diet" doesn't mean anything in a discussion of what is and isn't healthy and balanced. And the more research completed on the topic, the more "moderate amounts of lean meat" become ever smaller and smaller. Most contemporary nutritionists now suggest either eliminating red meat or limiting a day's serving to 3 ounces, about the size of a deck of cards.

Addit - That story about your grandfather & his blood tests; did you make that up? If not - then the doctor was trying to give platitudes to divert attention away from the delay in the results. Probably a mis-labelled specimen. The reference range for all tests done on someone with kidney stones does not change whether you are 20 or 100 years old. A normal result is a normal result and no doctor would honestly say that results are too good for your age (unless just trying to be nice & make someone feel happy). Either the results are normal as they should be or they are abnormal and may need further investigation, regardless of age. There is no super-normal!

Unfortunately, this is typical of your claims. It's simply not true. Blood is analyzed for white-cell count to determine the degree of infection, for blood syrum cholesterol to determine the patients ability to tolerate anesthesia and for a host of other chemicals which give the surgeon and anesthesiologist necessary information to assist in determining the best means of anesthesia and any limits placed upon duration. And many of these factors do change with age. That doesn't mean that the doctor's claim was completely true. All it means is that it's possible but questionable. Yet you attempt to claim that you know more about it than is possible because you weren't in the lab and you weren't the attending physician. You simply don't know, couldn't know, but claim that you do know.

Good bye, farewell and have a long and healthy life!

Despite our differences, I hope the same for you. I hope that if nothing else, if the statistics begin to catch up to you, (1 in 2 chance of heart attack), and you do suffer an MI, you'll have the presence of mind to reflect on something of what I've offered here and begin to research this earnestly. I hate to see people suffering needlessly and most who have a heart attack do so. They restrict their fat intake but generally continue to consume the very foods which lead to their cardiovascular disease to begin with. As a result, the progress of the disease slows but it does continue to progress. This is completely unnecessary. The disease can be reversed through a diet so restricted in fat intake that it is almost impossible to achieve without eliminating animal products. But for the few who find out and will follow such a diet, their coronary arteries will begin to open as the progress of the occlusions slows to a lesser rate than the body's own attempts to remove the plaque. A case in point is Irv Robbins, (of Baskin & Robbins Ice Cream). Not only did he develop diabetes, but also suffered a very severe heart attack. Not until that happened would he listen to the very advice his own son had provided, (given him by his doctor). Now his diabetes is in remission and he feels better than he did months before his heart attack and better than most of his doctors would have guessed possible.

http://www.newveg.av.org/robbinsfather.htm

And yes, that's purely anecdotal. But even the American Heart Association admits that they are aware that a diet sufficiently low in fat and cholesterol can not only slow the progress of heart disease but reverse the progress of the disease. But they claim that most people wouldn't consider such a diet, (probably very accurate), so they don't make any open recommendations for such a diet.

No one wants to hear that the diet they have chosen and become comfortable with is unhealthy. I certainly didn't want to believe that my former vegetarian diet was other than the best. When I began to study diet in depth over 12 years ago, I wasn't very pleased with what I kept finding concerning the benefits of vegan diets. I even denied the information as being biased, put the books away and tried to ignore them for a period of weeks. Eventually I came back to them, confident that as I dug more deeply, my vegetarian diet would emerge as superior. It didn't and I didn't take it well. But no one was putting the information in my face. I continued to research because I wanted to know. And eventually I was able to put my bias behind me and just read the information. And I read a number of positive comments concerning a diet which includes meat. But the numbers were far fewer and many correlated with what I had heard about intentional, (and sometimes not so intentional), use of flawed methodologies.

Eventually I began finding quotations from people like David Stroud who openly admitted that a vegetarian diet was superior for human health. I don't know for sure, but I would guess that comment marked the end of his employment with the American Meat Institute. William Castelli of the Framingham Study also makes a number of compelling comments and observations from the tons of data collected in the largest and longest study of coronary heart disease ever undertaken. He wasn't the first director of the study and the findings of the study show no significant change as different directors have been charged with the integrity of the study.

So I finally admitted to myself that a vegan diet would probably be superior to the vegetarian diet I had been following. I decided that I could begin eliminating things at my own descretion and for my own reasons and if anything made me feel like I was deprived either physically or emotionally, it was my own project and I could backtrack to whatever degree I found necessary for my own preferences. With that in mind, I eliminated almost all animal-products from my diet and have never looked back. That's not to say I've stopped researching. I continue to read everything I can find on the subject and there is always an occassional article or study which contrasts sharply to the body of evidence. Sometimes they offer very interesting insights, but rarely, if ever, do they fail to show a decided, often unexplained bias.

You can claim that there is no preponderance of evidence but I'm not sure how you can find such a claim to be compelling. With any issue, there will be some degree of evidence and very, very rarely will the evidence be evenly divided. On the topic of diet, the evidence is heavily piled to one side and the few pieces which fall to the other side can often be shown to have started with the same bias with which they ended.

Eat what you want and continue to research. I'll be happy to look at anything you find. But the evidence is already compelling and over the years, it continues to show exactly what I've supported. I have strong reasons to suspect that this will be a continuing trend.

 

[patch70]

Okay - really really last post.

Any study that is uncontrolled, non-randomised, observational etc regardless of the specifics of the individual study, is methodologially flawed in that it can only give "potentially interesting observations" but never "proof".

You have just shown that you don't understand the biochemical (& genetic) pathways involved in lipid metabolism and its relationship to atherosclerotic plaques. There is a hell of a lot more to it than just animal fats. Look up palm oil and cholesterol in a modern biochemicistry text. Look up the various familial forms of hyperlipidaemias. (That same textbook will also talk about "essential amino acids").

As a specialist in internal medicine, part of the clinical side of my job is declaring people fit for anaesthetics so I can assure you that there is no blood test result in a 100 year old that is "too good for their age". This would only be said to make a grumpy or sad patient feel better.

The reason that you don't find studies to show that eating red meat affects athletic performance is that studies are rarely done to "prove" what is already considered to be standard and "normal". 4 studies that are poorly designed by definition don't "prove" anything.

You claim that there are lots of studies about vegetarian diets - people in the minority will always try to prove they are right. Same reason that you will find many more articles saying that Macs are better than PC's. Omnivores, being in the majority and thus doing what is "normal" in our society, don't feel the pressing need to do studies to show that what is "normal" is better than what is the "exception". You also claim that "(probably hundreds) of studies clearly show that (eating meat) is worse". None of these studies are designed well enough to show this because they don't control for every other factor apart from the consumption of meat. You & I cannot know whether it was actually the overconsumption of Calories or salt or bad oils or the lack of exercise or the smoking or the chemicals in their ketchup etc that was the real source of the difference. Until you can confirm that, there is no proof.

 

[Beastt]

Okay - really really last post.

We'll see.

Any study that is uncontrolled, non-randomised, observational etc regardless of the specifics of the individual study, is methodologially flawed in that it can only give "potentially interesting observations" but never "proof".

Again you show your lack of familiarity with science. As I stated before, NOTHING in science is ever considered proof. Science doesn't deal in proofs. Science is concerned with the conclusion which best matches the available evidence. If science were designed to deal in, or even believe in facts, we wouldn't still be dealing with the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity. Anything posing as science which claims itself as fact is other than science.

And again I see you claiming that these studies were uncontrolled and non-randomized, despite the fact that you have, in previous posts, admitted that you are not familiar with the methodologies utilized by the studies. All evidence is useful, be it low level or high level. And when the vast majority of all evidences show the same conclusion, any attempt to refute that evidence based on limited and unsupportable attacks on a small few of them is an exercise in futility.

You have just shown that you don't understand the biochemical (& genetic) pathways involved in lipid metabolism and its relationship to atherosclerotic plaques. There is a hell of a lot more to it than just animal fats. Look up palm oil and cholesterol in a modern biochemicistry text. Look up the various familial forms of hyperlipidaemias. (That same textbook will also talk about "essential amino acids").

You have just shown that you have fallen for a great number of proposals introduced for the purpose of clouding the issue, (i.e. LDL/HDL, homocystines). Though a great number of other factors are continually suggested as lending to the "mystery" surrounding cardiovascular disease, studies have conclusively shown that genetics, smoking and lack of exercise aside, consuming a diet higher in fats and cholesterol raises the risk of cardiovascular disease.

I never stated that animal foods were the only source of saturated fats, though they are the only source of dietary cholesterol. Certainly saturated fats are available in plant-based foods and most especially in processed fats such as those which are hydrogenated, leaving a chemical bond unlike that found in any naturally occurring saturated fat, which the body is unable to break through normal processes. However, dieticians and nutritionists are in complete agreement that vegan and vegetarian diets contain far less saturated fat and cholesterol. It would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

As a specialist in internal medicine, part of the clinical side of my job is declaring people fit for anaesthetics so I can assure you that there is no blood test result in a 100 year old that is "too good for their age". This would only be said to make a grumpy or sad patient feel better.

My father is not what anyone would ever classify as "grumpy or sad". Thought he has had very limited need for medical care, he is usually considered to be a model patient. I was with him when attempts to insert a foley catheter were failing badly. He had been given 10ccs of morphine and was still in intense pain but refused to complain. He continued to grip my hand, shake and grit his teeth but he never once made any complaint and when asked how the pain was, he simply nodded and said he was okay.

Certainly the information the doctor provided might have been offered as nothing more than patient care and may not have been true. But claiming that blood tests can't be expected to reveal anything based on the age of the patient seems highly questionable.

As a standard in areas consuming western diets, as people get older, their blood becomes more highly saturated with fats and cholesterol. This can even be seen in blood vials. Should you have any doubts about this, I'll post pictures of a blood sample in a vial with this yellowish plaque rising to the top of the sample. The sample is being held and described by Dr. Michael Klaper.
(Dr. Michael Klaper completed his medical internship at Vancouver General Hospital in British Columbia, Canada and undertook additional training in surgery, anesthesiology, orthopedics and obstetrics at the University of California Hospitals in San Francisco.)

The sample on the left is a normal, healthy sample after the hematocrits and plasma have been separated in a centrifuge. The sample on the right is from a patient suffering from angina and shows the fatty build up in the plasma at the top of the tube.

This shows the plaque being pulled from the coronary artery during surgery. If allowed to build up sufficiently, it will completely block the vessel or provide such a narrowing that a small blood clot can complete the occlusion. Either way, a heart attack will result.

For those who are young and therefore feel they are invulnerable to this, note that among western cultures, the beginning phases of these plaques have been observed during surgery on patients only 7 and 8 years of age. Some of the first evidence linking diet to cardiovascular disease, surfaced during the Korean war when it was found that 77% of American soldiers killed and subsequently autopsied, displayed this plaque in their arteries. It was also noted that autopsies on dead Korean soldiers showed no similar damage. When a large group of Korean soldiers were placed on the standard diet for the American Army, they began to show the unmistakable signs of developing atherosclerosis.
Enos, W., "Pathogenesis of Coronary Disease in Amercan Soldiers Killed in Korea," Journal of the American Medical Association, 158:912, 1955

The reason that you don't find studies to show that eating red meat affects athletic performance is that studies are rarely done to "prove" what is already considered to be standard and "normal". 4 studies that are poorly designed by definition don't "prove" anything.

Oh, but you do find studies and I posted information regarding some of these studies. The fact that you don't like to admit these studies exist or that you don't find them credible based on methodologies that you're not even familiar with doesn't make them go away.

You claim that there are lots of studies about vegetarian diets - people in the minority will always try to prove they are right.

People on both sides of any issue will attempt to show that they are correct. That's what you're doing here, isn't it?

Same reason that you will find many more articles saying that Macs are better than PC's. Omnivores, being in the majority and thus doing what is "normal" in our society, don't feel the pressing need to do studies to show that what is "normal" is better than what is the "exception". You also claim that "(probably hundreds) of studies clearly show that (eating meat) is worse".

The comparison of diet isn't always the driving factor behind the studies. Most are designed to isolate the factors involved with devoloping various diseases. Diet must always be a consideration, especially when the mechanisms of the disease reflect materials in the diet. I listed a few of the studies, which you hand-waved, stating they weren't methodologically sound as though you had personal knowledge of the methods used for all of them or even a representative sampling of them. Clearly that is not the case.

None of these studies are designed well enough to show this because they don't control for every other factor apart from the consumption of meat. You & I cannot know whether it was actually the overconsumption of Calories or salt or bad oils or the lack of exercise or the smoking or the chemicals in their ketchup etc that was the real source of the difference. Until you can confirm that, there is no proof.

Again, proof is not part of science. Science works through conclusions drawn to explain the evidence. The evidence in this case suggests very strongly that the extra saturated fats, cholesterol, organohalogen and chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticide residues, hormones, antibiotics and PCBs common to a standard western diet are extremely detrimental to health. Vegetarian and vegan diets significantly reduce many of these and completely eliminate the rest from the diet and offer compliance with human digestive physiology. It should be no surprise to anyone that the result is better health.

 

[patch70]

Okay you were right - I failed on the last post comment.

Just as it annoyed me greatly to have seen George W Bush repeated say that there was plenty of evidence for WMD's, it annoys me to see anyone use one side only of the "evidence" and say that there is a preponderance of evidence for their belief... You have not been objective as you have not provided any information from the studies that don't support vegetarianism. I could very easily show all the papers that say thalidomide is a good drug in pregnancy, ignore the opposing papers and say that I have a prepondeance of evidence that it is safe. If you really are not trying to change people to vegetarianism, why do you post so often in a public place about this?

So I issue you a challenge! If successful, I will happily accept that you are right about this.

Here is the challenge:

1. Gather 99 other healthy vegetarians to join you in this experiment.
2. Stop any form of exercise. (Buy a big screen TV to help with this).
3. Only consume three meals a day consisting of:
- Big Macs (minus the beef patties, cheese optional)
- Supersized fries and coke
- Thickshakes optional for a bit of calcium.
4. Half of you should take up smoking
5. Do this for 5 years.

If you do not:
1. Put on weight
2. Raise your BP
3. Develop any worsening of your lipid profile
4. Develop any impaired glucose tolerance
5. Develop any atheromata on cardiac MRI (to save you an angiogram) -

Then I will accept that the red meat was the problem and that you were right all along that vegetarianism is the major factor in avoiding diseases common amongst western cultures.

 

[wiredued]

I cut red meat out and noticed a big difference for about six months due to being high in iron and not very active. After that my activity level seemed to keep iron down along with skipping lunch on Fridays so I have red meat about once a week now. I think about one third of the people are better off as veggies and one third are regular red meat eaters and the other third can do either well. If I wasn't doing seriuos cardio I would probably give it up completely.

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.

 

[Axius]

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.

Measuring protein as a percentage of calories isn't a good way of measuring the amount of protein in a food. For example, you list broccoli as being 45% protein calories. This seems like a lot, but it would take 6 pounds of broccoli to equal how many grams of protein are in 6 ounces of chicken breast.

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%)

These numbers are incorrect. For instance, the recommended amount of protein from the World Health Organization is 0.75 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight a day. This dosn't work out to be 4½% using any of the recommended calorie intakes by the World Health organization.

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.

Research shows that sedentary people need about 0.75 to 0.83 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight a day.(0.75 to 0.83g.kg.d) Research has also shown that endurance athletes and bodybuilders need about twice as much protein as sedentary people. The studies show endurance athletes need (1.2 to 2.0.g.kg.d) and bodybuilders need 1.8.g.kg.d. This works out to be
87 grams to 145 grams of protein a day for a 160 pound cyclist.

 

[Beastt]

Measuring protein as a percentage of calories isn't a good way of measuring the amount of protein in a food. For example, you list broccoli as being 45% protein calories. This seems like a lot, but it would take 6 pounds of broccoli to equal how many grams of protein are in 6 ounces of chicken breast.

I've already fully reference my source but for the record;
["Nutritive Value of American Foods in Common Units," U.S.D.A. Agriculture Handbook #456]
Odd that they would use a method you proclaim to be a poor method for measuring the amount of protein in a food. What method do you propose as being more appropriate and what sources do you cite?

Additionally, while chicken may provide more protein per given quantity, chicken also provides significantly elevated amounts of fat and cholesterol. I would expect that an athlete in training would prefer protein sources which don't come combined with saturated fat and cholesterol. And the point isn't what contains the most protein, but what contains sufficient protein. Contrary to commonly held beliefs, you can get too much protein. And one of the key indicators is reduction of calcium in the skeletal system, often leading to osteoporosis.

These numbers are incorrect. For instance, the recommended amount of protein from the World Health Organization is 0.75 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight a day. This dosn't work out to be 4½% using any of the recommended calorie intakes by the World Health organization.

The World Health Organization established a minimum daily requirement of 32 grams per day for a 150-pound man. That works out to 128 calories per day from protein which equates to 4½% of caloric intake. The conversion was for ease of comparison.
["Protein Requirements," Food and Agriculture Organization, World Health Organization Expert Group, United Nations Conference, Rome]

If you found different numbers somewhere, I don't know what you tell you. Each of us can only present what has been published by the experts.

Research shows that sedentary people need about 0.75 to 0.83 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight a day.(0.75 to 0.83g.kg.d) Research has also shown that endurance athletes and bodybuilders need about twice as much protein as sedentary people. The studies show endurance athletes need (1.2 to 2.0.g.kg.d) and bodybuilders need 1.8.g.kg.d. This works out to be 87 grams to 145 grams of protein a day for a 160 pound cyclist.

"Research" can be found to indicate a broad range of recommended protein and just about every other nutrient. Finding accepted, peer-reviewed research, not funded by the organizations who profit from the sales of the products found to be preferred is a bit of a different matter. I've seen recommendations as high as 2.0 g/kg but these are usually recommendations from body building coaches rather than from recognized research organizations. And while it's true that body builders do have increased protein requirements, it should be noted that body builders, while possessing incredible physiques aren't necessarily examples of optimum health. Cyclists will want to avoid building such a degree of muscle mass, especially those focused on climbing and stage racing. Watch any stage race when the road tilts up and see where the bulkier riders finish. As I recall, the topic was in reference to dietary requirements for cyclists, not for body builders.

 

[Axius]

I've already fully reference my source but for the record;
["Nutritive Value of American Foods in Common Units," U.S.D.A. Agriculture Handbook #456]
Odd that they would use a method you proclaim to be a poor method for measuring the amount of protein in a food. What method do you propose as being more appropriate and what sources do you cite?

Yet the U.S.D.A chose weight measure for protein on food labels

Additionally, while chicken may provide more protein per given quantity, chicken also provides significantly elevated amounts of fat and cholesterol.

Significantly? You might want to look up Chicken Breast proximates

I would expect that an athlete in training would prefer protein sources which don't come combined with saturated fat and cholesterol. And the point isn't what contains the most protein, but what contains sufficient protein.

Everything I posted was from studies finding the sufficient amount of protein.

Contrary to commonly held beliefs, you can get too much protein. And one of the key indicators is reduction of calcium in the skeletal system, often leading to osteoporosis.

I'm well aware of the research on proteins effects on calcium loss. I am also aware of the studies showing proteins benefit to bone. Also aware of the link between inadequate protein intake and increase risk of eye cataracts.

The World Health Organization established a minimum daily requirement of 32 grams per day for a 150-pound man. That works out to 128 calories per day from protein which equates to 4½% of caloric intake. The conversion was for ease of comparison.
["Protein Requirements," Food and Agriculture Organization, World Health Organization Expert Group, United Nations Conference, Rome]

If you found different numbers somewhere, I don't know what you tell you. Each of us can only present what has been published by the experts.

Ofcourse I was refering to the last and best recommendation for protein requirements. In 1981 the World Health Organization, United Nations, and the food and agriculture Organization held a meeting of experts to establish new protein and energy requirements. They looked at all research to date. They also had new studies performed at the United Nations University for a total of four human studies. after reviewing the studies they found the amount of protein needed was 0.75 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight a day.
The Results were release in a 1985 report. One of the reasons the
WHO/UN/FAO held this meeting was due to mistakes discovered in the last WHO/UN/FAO recommended protein report in 1973. The 1985 report covers many of the mistakes made in the 1973 and and previous reports. The 1985 report fixed the mistakes done in their previous research. The studies done to come up with the 0.75g.kg.d is still considered good research by even todays standard, hence the reason the WHO/UN/FAO Hasn't release a report in the past 21 years.

"Research" can be found to indicate a broad range of recommended protein and just about every other nutrient.

Actually the studies on the protein requirements of endurance athletes is pretty consisant.

Finding accepted, peer-reviewed research, not funded by the organizations who profit from the sales of the products found to be preferred is a bit of a different matter.

The studies on endurance athletes are accepted peer reviewed research with very credible funding.

I've seen recommendations as high as 2.0 g/kg but these are usually recommendations from body building coaches rather than from recognized research organizations. And while it's true that body builders do have increased protein requirements, it should be noted that body builders, while possessing incredible physiques aren't necessarily examples of optimum health. Cyclists will want to avoid building such a degree of muscle mass, especially those focused on climbing and stage racing. Watch any stage race when the road tilts up and see where the bulkier riders finish. As I recall, the topic was in reference to dietary requirements for cyclists, not for body builders.

You mentioned bodybuilders, thats why I covered what the protein requirements of bodybuilders are. I also covered studies showing the protein requirements of endurance athletes. These studies show that endurance activity increase protein requirements by nearly 100%.The reason isn't to build muscle. The reason is that long bouts of endurance activity causes protein to be burned for energy. We used to think that protein was only burned for energy when they was a lack of carbohydrates. We now know that isn't the case. In these studies the runners/cyclists burned massive amounts of protein despite adequate carbohydrate intake.

Have you ever even read a protein requirement study? Do you know how one is done? I am not trying to put you down. If you don't know then I will be happy to explain it to you when I get a chance.