The Vegitarian Paradox

cruizer101

Hey, Often read here but never posted, anyway I came across this book and thought it may be of some interest to some people here.

Its available as a free ebook pdf with following link
http://www.free-ebooks.net/ebook/The-Vegetarian-Paradox/pdf/view

Here is a summary of the book.
The Vegetarian Paradox reveals why vegetarians are less healthy than non-vegetarians. Why is this so? Surely a diet with plenty of fruit & vegetables should make you healthier? What’s going on? The extraordinary research that is now coming to light is clearly showing that, compared to their non-vegetarians peers, vegetarians are more at risk of cancer, dementia, obesity, heart disease, stroke, eating disorders, infertility and other ailments. This astounding new report will shock you whether or not you are vegetarian. This high quality ebook is fully referenced.

Just to say so far I have only read a small bit of it and have yet to come to any perosnal conclussion, but as I say thought it might interest some here.

flikflak

Just because someone is vegetarian it does not mean they are healthy and I think that comes most people’s stereotypical vision of a veggie. A lentil eating hippy a la Neil from the young ones - thin and unhealthy looking.

In reality a lot of vegetarians are fat. They rely heavily on cheese and fake meats to make up a lot of their meals. They don’t educate themselves on alternatives such as beans, lentils, tofu, grains and other alternatives

You could be a vegetarian and live off white bread toast with butter for brekkie, a white bread sandwich/baguette with cheese and coleslaw for lunch and sausage and mash for dinner every day and snacks of chocolate and crisps. Or rely on veggie ready meals loaded with cheese Is that healthy? Of course not.

In reality vegetarian does NOT equal healthy.

Neither does vegan if you fill yourself with cakes, cookies and other goodies.

smegmar

where would I find this book? in the comedy section?

Absurdum

cruizer101 wrote: »

The extraordinary research that is now coming to light is clearly showing that, compared to their non-vegetarians peers, vegetarians are more at risk of cancer, dementia, obesity, heart disease, stroke, eating disorders, infertility and other ailments.

I have yet to read a report or see a website that backs up any of that. Even seemingly independent websites contradict that.

One example:

"Most Americans of all ages eat fewer than the recommended number of servings of grain products, vegetables, and fruits, even though consumption of these foods is associated with a substantially lower risk for many chronic diseases, including certain types of cancer." Research has shown that people who follow a vegetarian diet are at a lower risk for obesity, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, diverticulosis, renal disease, some cancers (including lung and breast), and gallstones. Vegetarian diets have also been shown to benefit people who already have type 2 diabetes. In one study, 43% of the people with type 2 diabetes who ate a low-fat vegan diet reduced their need for diabetes medications.

http://www.medicinenet.com/vegetarian_and_vegan_diet/page3.htm#benefits

smegmar

yes clearly OP did a lot or research on the subject of the vegEtarian paradox

Slaphead07

cruizer101 wrote: »

The Vegetarian Paradox reveals why vegetarians are less healthy than non-vegetarians. Why is this so?

It's not so. Not even remotely so. I went veggie 30 years ago for reasons of conscience but noticed my health improved almost immediately. My kids were raised as veggies and are fitter, healthier and even bigger than any of their friends. Of course I won't claim my personal experience is scientific but then I'm not selling a book am I?

Censorsh!t

cruizer101 wrote: »

The extraordinary research that is now coming to light is clearly showing that, compared to their non-vegetarians peers, vegetarians are more at risk of cancer, dementia, obesity, heart disease, stroke, eating disorders, infertility and other ailments..

Wow...it looks like they took a sentence from a vegetarian promoting website and changed "vegetarians" and "non-vegetarians" around.
I don't think I'd be bothered my arse reading something which I know is a feeble attempt at proving vegetarianism to be unhealthy.

Crumble Froo

that said, i have noticed a fair cross over in the amount of vegetarians/former vegetarians who have also suffered eating disorders. i would be interested to read data around that, but at the same time, im not sure that this is the source i'd trust most for it.

Crumble Froo

Crumble Froo wrote: »

that said, i have noticed a fair cross over in the amount of vegetarians/former vegetarians who have also suffered eating disorders. i would be interested to read data around that, but at the same time, im not sure that this is the source I'd trust most for it.

I think that is a case of putting the cart before the horse though.
Turning vegetarian when your in a family scenario, usually allows you more Independence and control over your intake.
And veggies are naturally bulky and low cal. Making it easier to disguise that your not eating enough.


I glanced through this, and most of the arguments seem to say that vegetarianism has no significant advantage over meat eating.
Which is lame considering the assertive claims in the blurb.

I am interested in this claim that veggies are more likely to produce female offspring.

Tar.Aldarion

Only line in it that mattered

There are no logical reasons for the continued use of animal source food in the human diet.

Crumble Froo

Moonbaby wrote: »

I think that is a case of putting the cart before the horse though.

you mean whether vegetarians are more likely to develop eating disorders, or people with eating disorders are more likely to become vegetarian?

Turning vegetarian when your in a family scenario, usually allows you more Independence and control over your intake.

personally, i didnt turn veggie till i'd left that toxic environment.

And veggies are naturally bulky and low cal. Making it easier to disguise that your not eating enough.

not necessarily.



honestly, it's just one of those things ive noticed over the years. im relatively open about it, but i've suffered from eating disorders for the last decade, and consequently met a lot of people in similar positions, and a substantial amount of those are vegetarian or vegan.

differnet conclusions we've come to while talking about it are that it's a little control you can achieve through your eating which is more socially acceptable.

another is that quite often, people with eating disorders are often more sensitive than your average, and consequently are more affected/disgusted by the concept of the bad treatment and killing of animals in our diets.

like i say, we've discussed it often, but proper stats/studies would be quite interesting

cruizer101

smegmar wrote: »

yes clearly OP did a lot or research on the subject of the vegEtarian paradox

I'm sorry I came across something that I thought some here might find interesting to discuss.

I didn't come in here saying this was fact or that I agree with it, or saying that you should all start to eat meat.

Next time I come across something I won't bother to tell you if this is the kind of ignorant reaction I'm going to get.

sweet-rasmus

being the 'vegan and vegetarian forum' it think he was pointing out that you didn't spell vegetarian properly. can't blame him for that! wouldn't harm to fix that...

we appreciate all contributions to the forum

ztoical

Crumble Froo wrote: »

you mean whether vegetarians are more likely to develop eating disorders, or people with eating disorders are more likely to become vegetarian?

I think it's the later - people with eating disorders will often claim they are on veggie or vegan diets in order to hide the fact they aren't eating but I would put that as different to claiming a veggie diet is unhealthy. When I went veggie my mum did freak a little that it was me trying to hide an eating disorder as she's a GP and had a number of young girls in with eating disorders who had gone vegan. A girl in my class went veggie round the same time as me and I think it was very clear to people that one of us had become a vegetarian and the other was hiding an eating disorder. Before going veggie I had a limited diet of meat and patatoes, wouldn't try new foods, very picky eater but after going veggie I was so open to trying new things and developed a much better diet then I'd ever had eating meat. The other girl cut out meat but didn't replace it with anything, then she went vegan, then she started cutting out other things till she was eating onions and spuds and nothing else. She then had a total breakdown, not fun.

I really don't think anyone can make claims saying one diet is better then the other when it really does come down to each person - you diet is only one factor, genitics/family history, enviroment etc all play a part...going veggie improved my health greatly, I can't say it would do the same to the person next to me. I know omnivores who have great diets and I know ones with really crap diets, same goes for veggie and vegan friends.

Crumble Froo

great post can't disagree with a thing you said ...(except the first sentence, but only sort of)

Slaphead07

cruizer101 wrote: »

Next time I come across something I won't bother to tell you if this is the kind of ignorant reaction I'm going to get.

I'm cool with that.

Tar.Aldarion

now now everybody, be nice

Slaphead07

Sapsorrow

The problem with the scientific method (which is the basis for the credibility of the book) is that anyone can pick any wacked out theory out of their arse and find a vast body of scientific research that appears to back it up. At the end of the day a hell of a lot of research is very badly designed in the first place and the significance of the results need to be critically evaluated according ot the initial design of the study to the highest standard before we can begin to come to any sort of real conclusions and there will always be confounding factors complicating things no matter what. If you do this you'll find yourself left with very little published work to consider. I've come across some many papers that completely contradict each other in every possible way. In particular nutrition is more susceptible to confounding results than any other discipline.
Personally (as a science student) I feel that nothing is more valuable than well informed common sense and you need to find a balance between what we think we know (as science) and what we know makes sense from personal experience etc.. The value of these sorts of books (including the pro-veggi ones) is very debateable. Nutrition is far too complicated a field to reduce to a black and white perspective because every human is unique and what we eat can have very different effects on different people. Small amounts of meat and/or dairy can be healthy/necessary in certain individuals.
Some weak, deificient, unwell people such as cancer victims who would find it hard to find enough protein with their diminished appetites or cystic fibrosis sufferers, toddlers etc. Bt for the vast majority of us it is completely unecessary. The problem is that we eat far too much meat than we would have 10,000 years ago before the agricultural revolution and the chemical composition and quality of the meat we eat today is very different to what it was then no that there is something fundamentally wrong with meat as a food source.

russelleaton

Hi Folks,
I very appreciate all the comments (good or bad) from you good people. I do agree that at first sight the book appears to be anti vegetarian, but if you read the book you will see that it is not. All the evidence in the book is taken from peer-reviewed studies published in mainstream medical journals, which of course you can agree with or not agree with. Of course, I agree it is possible to quote scientific studies on a selective basis to give a desired slant to an argument, but I would say this:
I have not been able to find any significant studies that compare the health of vegetarians with health-conscious non-vegetarians in the same demographic. Virtually all the studies that show vegetarians to be healthier than non-vegetarians are based on comparing vegetarians with the general population, a comparison that has no merit.

All I ask is that you fully read the book (it is not very long) before drawing any conclusions.
Russell Eaton
Author of The Vegetarian Paradox.

Mentalmiss

Are there any other free e books on that site that would make it worth registering or is it just that one.

Sapsorrow

russelleaton wrote: »

I have not been able to find any significant studies that compare the health of vegetarians with health-conscious non-vegetarians in the same demographic. Virtually all the studies that show vegetarians to be healthier than non-vegetarians are based on comparing vegetarians with the general population, a comparison that has no merit.

There have been a few but not very many and I can't provide any links to be honest, as far as I know research looking into the health biomarkers of meat eaters and vegetarians that follow a 'health food shop diet' found little difference. I only heard of this through a very reliable poster on the nutrition forum recently hence the lack of links.
Regardless of this though a vegetarian diet does promote an increased consumption of foods that are very rich in bioactive compounds, antioxidants, polyphenols, water, fibre etc and so in can be easier for people to increase their exposure to protective substances in foods if this is what their diet is exclusively based on. Meat if of good quality may not in itself be unhealthy but it's very filling and can mean that if you eat it regularly then the room left over for other foods is compromised. I eat a fairly low carb 99% vegan diet and I still struggle to meet my five a day ( a very modest guidelinf for intake and by no measn the ideal) sometimes so I can't imagine how people who consume a lot of animal products manage.
As a science student I view the scientific method as inherantly flawed and so as a vegetarian and as a health conscious person I don't tend to rely on studies to base my nutritional philosophies much.
There's so much going on in the human body it's almost to much to comprehend (anyone who's studied physiology or biochemistry to any extent can testify to this one) and no two people are exactly alike so while a meat based diet may lead to a long healthy life for some for others it may not. It's the responsibility of each person to find their own way towards health and happiness and no amount of scientific studies is going to map your path out for you.
Some people just have an implicit awareness that meat is bad for them and I do believe that for these people meat may well not suit their constitution, similarly there are those that feel meat is an absolute necessity for health and likewise they are probably right in thinking so. Ones attitude to health and disease can be a very important factor affecting our health.
We need to stop looking to science for all the answers and listen to our bodies and it's responses to what we expose it to to figure out whats good and bad for each of us. If you pay enough attention you can figure it out without any nutritionists or doctors.
Luckily just knowing the eating meat is bad for animals is enough for me not to want to eat them, it doesn't necessarily need to be bad for me too to be prohibitory. There are enough alternative nutrient sources of just about everything we need to be able to lead healthy lives without and thats the main thing. Taking a B complex once a day isn't that big a deal.
It's also much better for the environment and is much more fuel efficient things we may have no choice but to factor into the decisions we make regarding our eating habits in the future.

Sapsorrow

Also a vegetarian diet is without a doubt a difficult diet to perfect from a nutritional perspective, and there are a huge amount of vegetarians out there who are not getting it right (including myself a lot of the time and I'm nearly a qualified nutritionist!) because it's a learning curve and a steep one at that, but I like to think that most end up getting it right given time and a bit of dedication.
So that being said while there is a higher risk for nutritional deficiencies of some sorts in vegetarians who haven't quite got it right just yet doesn't mean that there is a problem with the diet when done properly and there is always a chance that this disparity is what was reflected in studies showing vegetarians to be less healthy for whateever reason. Like I mentioned earlier though it's probably just or even more easyot get a meat based diet wrong because it's too easy to eat too much meat and grain and too little veg.
I can't say it enough though the scientific literature out there is so contradictory if you actual went away and reviewed it all I'd be very suprised if you could decide one way or another whether vegetarianism or a carnivorous diet is healthier.
The does makes the poison!

Mark Hamill

khrystyna100 wrote: »

The problem with the scientific method (which is the basis for the credibility of the book) is that anyone can pick any wacked out theory out of their arse and find a vast body of scientific research that appears to back it up.

That is not a problem with the scientific method. The scientific method is, and always is: make a testable hypothesis (idea), test it, change or abandon it if it fails, rinse & repeat. The problem, in this case of this book, and all cases where people read privately published opinions of scientific studies is that those private opinions always come with agendas. People need to stop listening to non peer reviewed opinions of science, and look at the source publications themselves.

khrystyna100 wrote: »

At the end of the day a hell of a lot of research is very badly designed in the first place and the significance of the results need to be critically evaluated according ot the initial design of the study to the highest standard before we can begin to come to any sort of real conclusions and there will always be confounding factors complicating things no matter what. If you do this you'll find yourself left with very little published work to consider. I've come across some many papers that completely contradict each other in every possible way. In particular nutrition is more susceptible to confounding results than any other discipline.

Very true. I read a lot of the "scientific studies" that Actimel use to support its claims that it supports the immune system and there where studies with only 10 participants, studies on very sick people and studies that even concluded that the bacteria actually had no effect at all.

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Personally (as a science student) I feel that nothing is more valuable than well informed common sense and you need to find a balance between what we think we know (as science) and what we know makes sense from personal experience etc..

As a science student you should know that the entire point of the scientific process is to minimise the damage that personal experience does to knowledge gathering. Personal experience is subjective and what you think makes sense has no baring on what actually happens.

Sapsorrow

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That is not a problem with the scientific method. The scientific method is, and always is: make a testable hypothesis (idea), test it, change or abandon it if it fails, rinse & repeat. The problem, in this case of this book, and all cases where people read privately published opinions of scientific studies is that those private opinions always come with agendas. People need to stop listening to non peer reviewed opinions of science, and look at the source publications themselves.

You're right I didn't phrase that properly, I should have said that the problem is related to how people gather information and then interpret it. With regards peer reviewd research it is an issue that peer review groups do sometimes decide against publishing research for the wrong reasons. This is an element of science that I was very shocked to discover (through a conversation with one of my lecturers) and played a role in my disillusionment with the scientific approach to nutrition. I have heard tell of doctors and researchers alike being 'blacklisted' in the states' and being threatened with the ruin of their careers if they didn't stop probing around in areas that might be counterproductive to certain corporations interests.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Very true. I read a lot of the "scientific studies" that Actimel use to support its claims that it supports the immune system and there where studies with only 10 participants, studies on very sick people and studies that even concluded that the bacteria actually had no effect at all.

Lol ya they are one of the worst ones for all this sort of nonsense. All we can hope for is tighter legislation on supposed functional foods in the future. As far as I know the wheels are in motion in Europe to crack down on this sort of thing.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

As a science student you should know that the entire point of the scientific process is to minimise the damage that personal experience does to knowledge gathering. Personal experience is subjective and what you think makes sense has no baring on what actually happens.

Generally yes I agree with you with regards other scientific disciplines. However I think the field of nutrition is a different story. Maybe I didn't communicate my idea properly.
What I meant was that people's biology is very individualistic and in particular our biochemical responses to outside influences as well as our psycho/emotional responses to foods varies greatly. For example the obvious one here is food intolerances/allergies and even addictions. Therefore I believe an integrated approach to improving ones health/diet in which one considers the scientific evidence but also pays equal if not more attention to observing ones own responses the aspects of diet and lifestyle will be more successful.
There is no one hats fits all solution in nutrition, people are under the impresison that there is because this is the only was public health authorities can practicaly educate people about diet and lifestlye effectively without overwhelming and discouraging people with little background knowledge in the area. Basically public health nutritionists and health care authorities are faced with the problem of trying to communnicate a very complicated science in the form of simple to grasp ideas that seem easy to adopt to a generally uneducated public (in terms of nutrition) that will affect to the largest proportion of people in the community targeted.
My point above about using common sense and personal experience to help us achieve a health diet was meant ot refer to people who have an educated active interest in their health and are capable of doing it responsibly and successfully.

Mark Hamill

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Generally yes I agree with you with regards other scientific disciplines. However I think the field of nutrition is a different story. Maybe I didn't communicate my idea properly.
What I meant was that people's biology is very individualistic and in particular our biochemical responses to outside influences as well as our psycho/emotional responses to foods varies greatly. For example the obvious one here is food intolerances/allergies and even addictions. Therefore I believe an integrated approach to improving ones health/diet in which one considers the scientific evidence but also pays equal if not more attention to observing ones own responses the aspects of diet and lifestyle will be more successful.

I would have assumed that individual repsonse is part of the scientific evidence in nutrition studies. It should be obvious that since the biological response of every participant of a nutrition study isnt mapped beforehand, that individual responses are part of the error that has to be statistically taken acount for. Again the problem you end up with is not necessarily with science itself, or even the individual papers, its with any overall assumptions that are made by people who usually have little or no scientific experience themsleves. The problem with the actiamel papers whas not that they individually claimed anything they didn't have evidence for, it was the overall claim being made by actimel that wasn't fully backed up.

khrystyna100 wrote: »

There is no one hats fits all solution in nutrition, people are under the impresison that there is because this is the only was public health authorities can practicaly educate people about diet and lifestlye effectively without overwhelming and discouraging people with little background knowledge in the area. Basically public health nutritionists and health care authorities are faced with the problem of trying to communnicate a very complicated science in the form of simple to grasp ideas that seem easy to adopt to a generally uneducated public (in terms of nutrition) that will affect to the largest proportion of people in the community targeted.
My point above about using common sense and personal experience to help us achieve a health diet was meant ot refer to people who have an educated active interest in their health and are capable of doing it responsibly and successfully.

But the problem with common sense is that its stuck by the same problem that you point out that can effect educating people in nutrition. Peoples common sense is informed by what they "know" happens because of what they hear from other people. But if nutrition isn't an exact science because of the natural variation that occurs in peoples bodies that isn't taken account of, then common sense is also effected by it.

Sapsorrow

Individualism is one of if not the major setbacks in nutrition as a science, it can only be controlled for to a certain extent such as by using randomised controlled trials etc.. but no matter how well designed a study maybe and how well selected the subjects are there will always be countless confounding factors affecting the result that the designers of the study simply cannot control.
This ranges from subtle genetic differences, lifestlye factors like differences in exercise levels and other aspects that people aren't usually selected by, unknown allergies or intolerances, other aspects of the diet that contain bioactive or protective or toxic compounds the list is almost endless.
I think this is a major part of why nearly every topic in nutrition is muddled up by countless well designed studies that either contradict each other or have mixed results within their own findings.
While a low fat diet may be protective for some people against heart disease for others it may have no effect whatsoever and this is going to make using meta anaylsis to draw definate conclusions almost impossible. Statistics can only control for so much. A very good public nutrition lecturer I have always says nothing is certain in nutrition and probably never will be.
Again I think common sense was the wrong phrase for me to use there, I meant rather that people pay attention to their own physical responses to any natural changes in their diet and lifestyles to attenuate their habits gradually until eventually achieving a way of life that suits their personal constitution by a process of reflection and modification.
I was also kind of thinking about not paying too much notice to and trying to maintain a bit of perspective with regards to all the sensationalist stuff in the media and all the diet books we're constantly bombarded with that are often based on extreme dietary and lifestyle changes.

ztoical

khrystyna100 wrote: »

....and I'm nearly a qualified nutritionist!

Slightly OT but are sure it's a nutritionist your training as and not a Dietian? It's just the term "nutritionist" is not legally protected so I could turn around tomorrow and call myself a nutritionist while to call myself a Dietian I would need specified educational credentials. HSE documents use the term "Dietian" or "Dietitian/Clinical Nutritionists".

Sapsorrow

ztoical wrote: »

Slightly OT but are sure it's a nutritionist your training as and not a Dietian? It's just the term "nutritionist" is not legally protected so I could turn around tomorrow and call myself a nutritionist while to call myself a Dietian I would need specified educational credentials. HSE documents use the term "Dietian" or "Dietitian/Clinical Nutritionists".

You could call yourself a nutritionist, at the moment it is unregulated in the UK but it would be very unethical for countless reasons. The only control over the qualification is by only allowing those with a very high degree of education to register with the British dietetic association. I'm studying a degree in nutritional science in university college cork so it's a bit different. I can register with the British Dietetic Association (the foremost respected regulatory association in the UK) as a nutritionist when I graduate whereas someone doing a holistic nutrition or naturpathy course/degree obviously wouldn't. It took nearly five years of tweaking and improvements in the course curriculum for our degree to be accepted for registration with them and we finally got it last year (thanks to the brilliant people in the nutrition dept runnign the show)
A nutritionist is trained in achieving/maintaining optimal health and prevention of disease through modification of the diet, a dietician has extra training allowing them to work in disease treatment in a hospital setting, although we do study clinical nutrition aswell. The definition is a bit blurred elsewhere in Europe and the US a nutritionist and dietician are regarded as one and the same usually.
That being said a lot of people do get these degrees and still have very little ability to truely help anyone very much mainly due to a lack of a real passion/interest in the subject and not reading any material outside of what they have to to pass their exams. But with time and experience in the workfield I'm sure that changes for most.

Sapsorrow

This might interest someone...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915