Brian May to become Vegan!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah, the protein leaches calcium and phosphate claim.

I wonder why then that vegans are sometimes found to have lower bone mineral density than non-vegans - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16942519

Another review found that the "recommendation to intentionally restrict dietary protein to improve bone health is unwarranted, and potentially even dangerous to those individuals who consume inadequate protein" - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21102327

Again - "The results suggest that vegetarian diets, particularly vegan diets, are associated with lower BMD, but the magnitude of the association is clinically insignificant" - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571226

Again - " In agreement with both experimental and clinical intervention studies, large prospective epidemiologic observations indicate that relatively high protein intakes, including those from animal sources are associated with increased bone mineral mass and reduced incidence of osteoporotic fractures." - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16373952

There are a few better controlled studies that have confirmed the above for example - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12672913

Am I supposed to believe that a species that has eaten meat for millions of years cannot digest it properly? Even chimpanzees who don't eat much meat are able to digest meat perfectly - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajp.1350180105/abstract

I'm not a fan of Epidemiology but one of the largest studies on vegetarians vs nonvegetarians failed to find any difference in overall mortality - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19297458

Maybe a vegetarian diet isn't as healthy as it is made out to be. Maybe there is a better way. If you think you do better on a vegan diet then fine, I'm not against that. However, when vegans/vegetarians rant about the "harmfulness" of animal foods that is when I call BS on it.

The BBC did an interesting contextual analysis of the Harvard study released last year that linked an extra portion of red meat a day with a 13% increase in risk of death. Turns out that means dying at 79, for example, instead of 80.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17389938

[QUOTE] [b]Q NUT wrote:[/b]

Maybe a vegetarian diet isn't as healthy as it is made out to be. Maybe there is a better way. If you think you do better on a vegan diet then fine, I'm not against that. However, when vegans/vegetarians rant about the "harmfulness" of animal foods that is when I call BS on it.

[/QUOTE]

Spoken like a true professional. Professional consumer, that is. You're believing exactly what the meat and dairy industry you want to believe.

They stand to lose the most from the rise in popularity vegetarian and vegan diets, so the propaganda from them has never been greater than it is now.

The latest thing from their file - "soy raises your estrogen level and lowers your testosterone."

While absolutely true, the reality is it's at such a minute level. But never let the truth get in the way of a good sensationalistic story.

The same thing when everyone was freaking out over the radiation at the nuclear plants in Japan. Sure, the numbers looked big - but it was no larger than the amount of radiation that goes through your body when you get an x-ray.

People with an agenda will always make prey of the ignorant.

[QUOTE] [b]Q NUT wrote:[/b]

I wonder why then that vegans are sometimes found to have lower bone mineral density than non-vegans - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16942519
[/QUOTE]

There's no doubt that there are plenty of vegans who don't get adequate nutrition. It's a difficult diet to do right.

But when it is done right, it is undeniable that the benefits far outweigh the omnivore diet.

Meat clogs your arteries. Vegetables and soy don't.

@GratefulFan

I found the full paper of this study which was the results from "2 Prospective Cohort Studies". This illustrates the problem with Epidemiology studies - Food Frequency Questionnaires and confounding. For example this study showed that those who ate more Red Meat tended to smoke more, exercise less, less multivitamin use, more overweight etc. The authors attempted to "adjust" for these differences and in the end there was only a 13% increase risk which in Epidemiology is nothing. Futhermore guess what meat was included in the "unprocessed" category? "Hamburger" and "beef, pork, or lamb as a sandwich or mixed dish".
I'm not making this up I can send you the study if you are interested. Another interesting thing in this study is that as red meat consumption went up cholesterol went down!

In your article the writer correctly point out that "Well, no we can't say there's cause and effect here." Exactly!

@The Real Wizard

"Spoken like a true professional. Professional consumer, that is. You're believing exactly what the meat and dairy industry you want to believe."


No, I believe what I believe because of the Scientific Method. One cannot make a claim then cite poorly controlled studies as "proof". The better it adheres to the Scientific Method the more I believe it. I don't need the Meat and Dairy industry to tell me what to believe.



"They stand to lose the most from the rise in popularity vegetarian and vegan diets, so the propaganda from them has never been greater than it is now. "

So do the Statin, Soy and Whole Grain Industries.



"While absolutely true, the reality is it's at such a minute level. But never let the truth get in the way of a good sensationalistic story."

I agree. However there are people out there consuming Soy Milk and Soy Burgers thinking these are healthy alternatives. The poison is in the dose so small amounts are probably healthy.

[QUOTE] [b]Q NUT wrote:[/b]

@GratefulFan

I found the full paper of this study which was the results from "2 Prospective Cohort Studies". This illustrates the problem with Epidemiology studies - Food Frequency Questionnaires and confounding. For example this study showed that those who ate more Red Meat tended to smoke more, exercise less, less multivitamin use, more overweight etc. The authors attempted to "adjust" for these differences and in the end there was only a 13% increase risk which in Epidemiology is nothing. Futhermore guess what meat was included in the "unprocessed" category? "Hamburger" and "beef, pork, or lamb as a sandwich or mixed dish".
I'm not making this up I can send you the study if you are interested. Another interesting thing in this study is that as red meat consumption went up cholesterol went down!

In your article the writer correctly point out that "Well, no we can't say there's cause and effect here." Exactly![/QUOTE]

Thanks Q NUT. I also dug up the original study and a critical analysis of it at the time it was released so I'm familiar with the objections you noted. My point was more intended to be that there's not much risk in accepting the conclusions when for all the blaring headlines the lifelong impact of daily red meat was living to 79 instead of 80. I recently read a study that concluded that regular aspirin use, sometimes prescribed to reduce cardiovascular risks, triples your risk of a specific type of blindness. Decades of conflicting and evolving studies should inform us more than anything that there is no magic bullet and that balance and common sense, listening to your own body's feedback on your food choices and appreciating food as not only nutrition but a source of pleasure and a focus for social gathering is as likely as anything else to get you to at least 79 and a half.

@GratefulFan

Agree with everything you said there. Balance - what a novel idea! People seem to forget that there is a middle ground of varying degrees between high protein and low protein or high fat and low fat.

Another thing that should be pointed out is that most of these studies do not account for cooking methods but when they do account for it the results are often different e.g.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338220 - "boiled red meat was mainly protective"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21364608 - "The protective trends for red pan-fried meat were also borderline statistically significant."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22892841 - "Interestingly, the consumption of rare or less cooked meat was not associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer."

Of course, these are associations from uncontrolled studies so no causal claim can be made.

I think Brian wanting to become vegan is great! After all, if he claims he loves animals it's very hypocritical to eat them! To everyone who thinks you'll become sick off of a vegan diet - you're very misinformed! Do some research, many people become vegan just for the benefits. All necessary nutrients can be obtained through plants! I'm a vegan and have never felt healthier than before.