The China Study

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
yeah, but apparently you can't back up or cite anything you've learned as a "biologist" to support your assertions in this thread. so you're brilliant. nutritionists are stupid, and you've got nothing to back it up. and yes, you know so much more than vegetarians with better credentials than you, or am i mistaken and are you a tenured science prof at cornell? 🙄
No need for the personal attacks. I didn't personally attack you. Your credentials aren't exactly "better" than mine.

You have provided no more evidence than I have except to repeat over and over again that since you are a vegetarian that means vegetarian diets aren't hokey even though they are in direct and obvious conflict with the biology you and I both know. I was relying on the fact that you are a medical student and should know about things such as essential amino acids, essential lipids, etc. I guess you just cannot defend your position without making personal attacks and using personal anecdotes. 🙄
 
Now regarding Tobacco and the great state of Missouri

http://agebb.missouri.edu/mass/farmfact/crops/crop.htm

Here is how much Tobacco crops our worth to the state
$5.49 million

I found an interesting article regarding the tax hike.
http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2006/oct/20061023busi009.asp

This confirms my point before that our current healthcare system is not putting high enough of a priority on prevention. Comments like this “Opponents say the tax has nothing to do with preventing smoking and everything to do with funding universal health care at an expense to taxpayers of $1.7 billion.”
Do not make any sense when the average smoker spends 5$ a pack on a pack of cigarettes when it takes 5cents to produce the pack, create an addiction and slowly kill the individual along with anyone in the vicinity of the smoker through second hand smoke. This absurd argument has no foundation when you regard the scientific rigor (the sheer amount of scientifically based evidence that shows how smoking will kill you and others)
The FDA and our healthcare system needs to step up its provisions for prevention period. Votes like this that involve and ignorant, addicted, and economically liable public is bound to have a blind bias to the true health and well being of its people.
Nutrition is a way to start just like developing better smoking prevention programs.

I fully agree. Incidently, Dr. Blaine that they mention in the article about the tax is a friend of mine. It is actually Jim Blaine, they misprinted his name. He is buying me lunch soon to congratulate me for getting into OSUCOM. He is a graduate of University of Oklahoma med.

The interesting thing about the battle over the tax last year was that the main opponents weren't the tobacco farmers, but the petroleum industry. They claimed to be fighting for so called smokers' rights, ironically, while price gouging us at the pump. 🙄
 
I do think. That's the problem. Too many people don't. You guys have similar biology education as I do. Look at the things nutritionists say, and then think about the biological facts that you learned. They are in direct conflict with each other. They can't both be right.

I also realize that our biology education is very basic. I can't imagine that you and or me understand enough about biology as a scientist who has a PhD in a particular area of interest. That being said, look at the scientific data. Look at all the studies. Talk to someone that has the educational premise to perhaps put things into proper perspective and see what you end up with. For every comment you make about nutritionists and biology being in conflict I have 100 scientific studies to show other wise. When I saw a nutritionist (because I actually saw one, and attempted to learn more about it rather than glancing at a magazine article while waiting in line at a food market hehe) she said variety in your diet is most important. She recommended to me as a student more convenient healthy foods. Such as beans now this coming out of a nutritionists mouth who MUST according to you contradict biology because its nothing but rubbish. How can this be you may ask???? Here are some articles maybe not exactly 100 but enough to support her reasoning in saying this. Now according to your claims how can this be going on????? Why would a university have a nutritionist on staff for students if they are nothing but bullsh*t artists out to make a buck.
http://www.beansforhealth.org/research.html#biblio
you can pick any disease or disorder you want I hope this might help explain why I am completely disagreeing with you.

by the way I think the scientist that did these articles new more about biology than you and me. They have a PhD after there name to prove it.
 
I fully agree. Incidently, Dr. Blaine that they mention in the article about the tax is a friend of mine. It is actually Jim Blaine, they misprinted his name. He is buying me lunch soon to congratulate me for getting into OSUCOM. He is a graduate of University of Oklahoma med.

The interesting thing about the battle over the tax last year was that the main opponents weren't the tobacco farmers, but the petroleum industry. They claimed to be fighting for so called smokers' rights, ironically, while price gouging us at the pump. 🙄


That is interesting, the reason why I mentioned the farmers was because I knew that there had to be some big buisness in the area that was lobbying and or claiming to fight for personal rights because they would loose a lot of money. Suprise suprise there was one there. :wow:
 
I wanted to ask, would you support a tax on fried chicken? McDonald's fries? TGI Friday's Jack Daniels steak and shrimp platter? McDonald's fries are made with trans-fats which are just now considered pure-poison to the body. In fact, it is now recommended that butter (with it's saturated fat) be used over margarine which contains some trans-fat. NYC is banning trans-fats in restaurant use. Now why would they do that if it didn't have "unquestionable proof of causing harm to society?" And as for the the Friday's platter, it probably contains 3-4 servings on one plate which is far more than any person needs to eat in one sitting. Overeating certainly is causing harm to society wouldn't you say??

I wouldn't support a tax on any of those foods at this time. There is shakey evidence that any are a problem. I think you summed it up in your last sentence. I agree that overeating is a problem, but nutritional bad guys is not a scientific concept, nor is it useful. I just got back from eating at Red Robins, and I couldn't even finish the plate I ordered. I didn't even eat half of it. I see people all the time that devour that much in a couple of minutes, and then are still hungry. THAT is a problem, not the actual ingredients. The jury is still out on the trans fat scare. For example, I did a paper on this in my first semester of biochem (the whole class had to). The professor researches liver function, so he has a lot of knowledge of fat metabolism. He is not convinced that there is any merit to the argument that trans fats are bad for you. I am more convinced than he is, but I still am not very convinced. So, no, not every expert agrees that trans fats are "pure poison." And I couldn't care less about what a bunch of politicians in NY did. Since when do politicians get anything right? Although I think the irony is funny that the whole nation switched to margarine because the nutrition quacks told us that it was better for us than butter, and then it turns maybe it's not. 🙄 What will it be next week? Nutritionists change their minds so often. 🙄
 
Harsh are you kidding me? Chronic diseases can be reduced easier through prevention. There are no cures for heart disease (Take this pill and it will open your arteries). Diet and Exercise are the real cures. But how do you explain to individuals that fast food is not a good source of nutirion when there are no alternative options that are fast and inexpensive. Eating healthy is expensive and limited.

I think you misunderstood me, Drug companies would prefer to focus on drugs that treat long term diseases such as heart disease, AIDS etc which can mean chronic drug regimen for years rather than a pill that 'cures' AIDS or heart disease (not that this is likely with a drug).

People on pills to treat heart disease, diabetes etc are not going to be 'cured' by exercise and diet, if that was the case, there would be no market for these drugs right now. Chronic diseases can be *prevented* through programs like exercise and diet but once you get it, physicians do prescribe medications for it, and that is where the money is for many drug companies.
 
I wouldn't support a tax on any of those foods at this time. There is shakey evidence that any are a problem. I think you summed it up in your last sentence. I agree that overeating is a problem, but nutritional bad guys is not a scientific concept, nor is it useful. I just got back from eating at Red Robins, and I couldn't even finish the plate I ordered. I didn't even eat half of it. I see people all the time that devour that much in a couple of minutes, and then are still hungry. THAT is a problem, not the actual ingredients. The jury is still out on the trans fat scare. For example, I did a paper on this in my first semester of biochem (the whole class had to). The professor researches liver function, so he has a lot of knowledge of fat metabolism. He is not convinced that there is any merit to the argument that trans fats are bad for you. I am more convinced than he is, but I still am not very convinced. So, no, not every expert agrees that trans fats are "pure poison." And I couldn't care less about what a bunch of politicians in NY did. Since when do politicians get anything right? Although I think the irony is funny that the whole nation switched to margarine because the nutrition quacks told us that it was better for us than butter, and then it turns maybe it's not. 🙄 What will it be next week? Nutritionists change their minds so often. 🙄


Maybe you should read about the Vioxx story pharmacuetical companies change there minds a lot too. Hey while your at it why not the tobacco industry they had a few slipp ups. Those damm quak scientists that have an obvious biased to make money--- these are the most dangerous experts in the world. Read the data about this I'll give you 2 books to read that establish this statement

http://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Wars-P...ef=sr_1_4/105-2531037-7698827?ie=UTF8&s=books


http://www.amazon.com/Overdosed-Ame..._bbs_sr_1/105-2531037-7698827?ie=UTF8&s=books

Then you can go back to reading the scientific data that backs up what the nutritionists are saying before you go and call them quaks again.
 
I also realize that our biology education is very basic. I can't imagine that you and or me understand enough about biology as a scientist who has a PhD in a particular area of interest. That being said, look at the scientific data. Look at all the studies. Talk to someone that has the educational premise to perhaps put things into proper perspective and see what you end up with. For every comment you make about nutritionists and biology being in conflict I have 100 scientific studies to show other wise. When I saw a nutritionist (because I actually saw one, and attempted to learn more about it rather than glancing at a magazine article while waiting in line at a food market hehe) she said variety in your diet is most important. She recommended to me as a student more convenient healthy foods. Such as beans now this coming out of a nutritionists mouth who MUST according to you contradict biology because its nothing but rubbish. How can this be you may ask???? Here are some articles maybe not exactly 100 but enough to support her reasoning in saying this. Now according to your claims how can this be going on????? Why would a university have a nutritionist on staff for students if they are nothing but bullsh*t artists out to make a buck.
http://www.beansforhealth.org/research.html#biblio
you can pick any disease or disorder you want I hope this might help explain why I am completely disagreeing with you.

by the way I think the scientist that did these articles new more about biology than you and me. They have a PhD after there name to prove it.

You make a couple of assumptions there:

1. You assume that I haven't looked at the scientific data; I have.
2. You assume that I haven't talked to people with PhD's in related areas; I have.
3. You assume that my education is basic; I am a semester away from a master's degree in epidemiology. Master's degrees are not considered basic.
4. You assume I have never talked to a nutritionist; I have. In fact, I work with several in the department of the hospital I work in.

Beans are great, I like several different kinds. They certainly are a wonderful part of any varied diet; they are hardly the panacea that website seems to be suggesting. That said, they are not a replacement for meat, contrary to what many people try to say. In fact, because I am an athlete, even meats aren't adequate enough to provide complete protein for me, so I have to supplement with eggs and whey protein.
 
You make a couple of assumptions there:

1. You assume that I haven't looked at the scientific data; I have.
2. You assume that I haven't talked to people with PhD's in related areas; I have.
3. You assume that my education is basic; I am a semester away from a master's degree in epidemiology. Master's degrees are not considered basic.
4. You assume I have never talked to a nutritionist; I have. In fact, I work with several in the department of the hospital I work in.

Beans are great, I like several different kinds. They certainly are a wonderful part of any varied diet; they are hardly the panacea that website seems to be suggesting. That said, they are not a replacement for meat, contrary to what many people try to say. In fact, because I am an athlete, even meats aren't adequate enough to provide complete protein for me, so I have to supplement with eggs and whey protein.

First I didn't assume any of those things, I just mocked how a person that had any kind of background in science, epidemiology could make remarks that you do.

Considering the information out there I don't know where you get off saying what you do

And by the way here is a little something about your high protein diet
http://www.healthatoz.com/healthato...requestURI=/healthatoz/Atoz/news/hs536486.jsp

I have been an athelete all of my life it didn't take high protien diets to produce it, you can't supliment raw talent. I also have been going to school for a long enough time to make me realize I need to read the data before I come up with a statement and then I need to back it up with evidence. We will compare and then we will find out who has more scientific data to back them up on there statements. I don't care what degree you have if you can't back it up then its not doing you any good. A masters degree is pretty basic compared to a PhD you can tell because people call them DOCTORS.
 
You make a couple of assumptions there:

1. You assume that I haven't looked at the scientific data; I have.
2. You assume that I haven't talked to people with PhD's in related areas; I have.
3. You assume that my education is basic; I am a semester away from a master's degree in epidemiology. Master's degrees are not considered basic.
4. You assume I have never talked to a nutritionist; I have. In fact, I work with several in the department of the hospital I work in.

Beans are great, I like several different kinds. They certainly are a wonderful part of any varied diet; they are hardly the panacea that website seems to be suggesting. That said, they are not a replacement for meat, contrary to what many people try to say. In fact, because I am an athlete, even meats aren't adequate enough to provide complete protein for me, so I have to supplement with eggs and whey protein.

it's funny you said that.
There is this guy at our gym that my bf works out with. He have been raised on soy milk, beans and salad by his hippie mother. He have never even stood close to anything that comes from an animal. Yet you should see this guy's performance. He swimms 30-40 laps and that is after he is done with weights...He is a robot. And his body looks amazing. He has the most beautiful lean muscle i have ever seen on a person. You could use him for anathomy studies couse he has muscles that i didn't even know existed.

I guess he must be some kind of different spiecies or an exception from the rule being so extremly healthy without ever eating meat or even eggs.
I would post his pic here but i don't think he would be very happy with that:laugh:
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
First I didn’t assume any of those things, I just mocked how a person that had any kind of background in science, epidemiology could make remarks that you do.

Considering the information out there I don’t know where you get off saying what you do

And by the way here is a little something about your high protein diet
[/B]http://www.healthatoz.com/healt...requestURI=/healthatoz/Atoz/news/hs536486.jsp

and yes any educated man would be able to understand that when I stated adding beans to my diet didn't mean that beans would be my only source of nutrition. I have been an athelete all of my life, I have been going to school for a long enough to make me realize I need to read the data before I come up with a statement and then I need to back it up with evidence. We will compare and then we will find out who has more scientific data to back them up on there statements. I don't care what degree you have if you can't back it up then its not doing you any good.


totally agree that high protein diet isn't good...especially for your kidneys.
 
it's funny you said that.
There is this guy at our gym that my bf works out with. He have been raised on soy milk, beans and salad by his hippie mother. He have never even stood close to anything that comes from an animal. Yet you should see this guy's performance. He swimms 30-40 laps and that is after he is done with weights...He is a robot. And his body looks amazing. He has the most beautiful lean muscle i have ever seen on a person. You could use him for anathomy studies couse he has muscles that i didn't even know existed.

I guess he must be some kind of different spiecies or an exception from the rule being so extremly healthy without ever eating meat or even eggs.
I would post his pic here but i don't think he would be very happy with that:laugh:

is he on steroids? jk.

wonder how he does it.
 
Well it has to be raw eggs and meat because that's how Rocky did it... wait that was the movies.... maybe there are other ways too, ones that we could find in other places other than movies and tv.
 
is he on steroids? jk.

wonder how he does it.

i have no idea...it has been intriguing me and my bf since ever we known him.
he is also pretty crazy...went for a year to Tibet, India etc...he is a "zen" kinda guy. I wish i could do it too...i don't like meat that much but i love fish and eggs so i would have a huge problem having to give up these from my diet🙁
 
i have no idea...it has been intriguing me and my bf since ever we known him.
he is also pretty crazy...went for a year to Tibet, India etc...he is a "zen" kinda guy. I wish i could do it too...i don't like meat that much but i love fish and eggs so i would have a huge problem having to give up these from my diet🙁

i ask cuzz im a vegetarian too ... i just dunno how he does it, cuzz i have probs maintaining bulk despite all the soy alternative protein stuff i eat ...
 
First I didn’t assume any of those things, I just mocked how a person that had any kind of background in science, epidemiology could make remarks that you do.
Well, thanks for taking the conversation down a notch and making it an ad hominem attack.
Considering the information out there I don’t know where you get off saying what you do
It's because I consider the information out there that I say what I say. I don't just believe one article, or cherry pick articles to support my statements. I take all of the available information into account. The available information supports what I say. You have studied it in your classes.
And by the way here is a little something about your high protein diet
http://www.healthatoz.com/healthato...requestURI=/healthatoz/Atoz/news/hs536486.jsp
Yes, I saw that article, too. One article that suggests that there is a link to a link to a link to an association. Well, I guess I'll avoid any food with protein in it now. 🙄
and yes any educated man would be able to understand that when I stated adding beans to my diet didn't mean that beans would be my only source of nutrition. I have been an athelete all of my life, I have been going to school for a long enough to make me realize I need to read the data before I come up with a statement and then I need to back it up with evidence. We will compare and then we will find out who has more scientific data to back them up on there statements. I don't care what degree you have if you can't back it up then its not doing you any good. A masters degree is pretty basic compared to a PhD you can tell because people call them DOCTORS.
I am not going to cherry pick articles to back up my claims. You have an education, use it.
 
i ask cuzz im a vegetarian too ... i just dunno how he does it, cuzz i have probs maintaining bulk despite all the soy alternative protein stuff i eat ...

i can ask him specifics of his diet when i see him next time. From what i know he drinks gallons of soy milk and eats a lot of greens.
 
it's funny you said that.
There is this guy at our gym that my bf works out with. He have been raised on soy milk, beans and salad by his hippie mother. He have never even stood close to anything that comes from an animal. Yet you should see this guy's performance. He swimms 30-40 laps and that is after he is done with weights...He is a robot. And his body looks amazing. He has the most beautiful lean muscle i have ever seen on a person. You could use him for anathomy studies couse he has muscles that i didn't even know existed.

I guess he must be some kind of different spiecies or an exception from the rule being so extremly healthy without ever eating meat or even eggs.
I would post his pic here but i don't think he would be very happy with that:laugh:

He probably has to work harder at it than most. It is a known fact that soy milk is loaded with phytoestrogens. That probably doesn't help build lean muscle.
 
totally agree that high protein diet isn't good...especially for your kidneys.

High protein diet is bad for the kidneys if it is extremely high, you are doing it without regular exercise, and there is inadequate fluid intake. Also, supplementing glutamine helps.
 
i can ask him specifics of his diet when i see him next time. From what i know he drinks gallons of soy milk and eats a lot of greens.

sounds good ... i drink skim milk ... not the soy milk stuff. and i sometimes eat eggs ... ive been thinkin bout protein shakes for awhile now ...

i try to drink 2-3 milks a day ... since im lactose intolerant, i take lactase ...

i also go for the Boost stuff too cuzz of the nutrience/lactose free stuff ...

cant seem to get much goin 🙁
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Well, thanks for taking the conversation down a notch and making it an ad hominem attack.
It's because I consider the information out there that I say what I say. I don't just believe one article, or cherry pick articles to support my statements. I take all of the available information into account. The available information supports what I say. You have studied it in your classes.

Yes, I saw that article, too. One article that suggests that there is a link to a link to a link to an association. Well, I guess I'll avoid any food with protein in it now. 🙄
I am not going to cherry pick articles to back up my claims. You have an education, use it.

My education suggests that having scientific articles to back it up is essential to any argument. That's why you see a list of articles used as resources in ever scientific article out there. I take all the information into account when the majority of it is establishing an argument that nutrition is a function of prevention for disease My education makes me feel obligated to go in that direction.

Cherry picking eh no its called researching, you should try it.

The original discussion was about nutrition and its effects on prevention. I stand strong behind plenty of scientific data to support this claim.

http://adam.about.com/encyclopedia/002096.htm

I suppose we should call all research cherry picking now because thats all it is.

it wouldn't be an ad hominem attack, its more a dissapointment in our education system don't take it to personal
 
sounds good ... i drink skim milk ... not the soy milk stuff. and i sometimes eat eggs ... ive been thinkin bout protein shakes for awhile now ...

If you do protein shakes, I recommend ON Whey. Most of the shakes out there taste horrible, but their vanilla ice cream flavor tastes just like the name suggests, but without the nutritional bad guys you all hate so much.
 
My education suggests that having scientific articles to back it up as essential to any argument. That’s why you see a list of articles used as resources in ever scientific article out there. I take all the information into account when the majority of it is establishing an argument that nutrition is a function of prevention for disease My education makes me feel obligated to go in that direction.

Cherry picking eh no its called researching, you should try it.
Even in a journal article, it is cherry picking. That is why journal articles have to pass a rigorous peer review process. It is well known that articles will be cherry picked to support one's conclusions in a paper. That is also why they don't just list one or two, but many. A message board on the internet just doesn't have the same academic rigor as the peer review process.

Thanks for suggesting that I try it, though. I'll consider doing that for my own research project that I'm working on right now. 🙄
 
If you do protein shakes, I recommend ON Whey. Most of the shakes out there taste horrible, but their vanilla ice cream flavor tastes just like the name suggests, but without the nutritional bad guys you all hate so much.

i used Isopure strawberry bannana.
The thing about protein shakes is that you really need to know how to mix them.
I usually use blender, put some ice in there, some frozen blueberries, bannanas or strawberries, and then protein powder and cover everything with apple or cran juice. Then you blend it and if you get your proportions right you will end up with something that is almost like jumba juice 😀

Also another great source of protein is Kashi GoLean cerial. It also contains a lot of fiber which is very good for your guts.
 
i used Isopure strawberry bannana.
The thing about protein shakes is that you really need to know how to mix them.
I usually use blender, put some ice in there, some frozen blueberries, bannanas or strawberries, and then protein powder and cover everything with apple or cran juice. Then you blend it and if you get your proportions right you will end up with something that is almost like jumba juice 😀

Also another great source of protein is Kashi GoLean cerial. It also contains a lot of fiber which is very good for your guts.

i hope all this works in looking sorta ripped.
 
Even in a journal article, it is cherry picking. That is why journal articles have to pass a rigorous peer review process. It is well known that articles will be cherry picked to support one's conclusions in a paper. That is also why they don't just list one or two, but many. A message board on the internet just doesn't have the same academic rigor as the peer review process.

Thanks for suggesting that I try it, though. I'll consider doing that for my own research project that I'm working on right now. 🙄


Hey me too I'm working on 3, two of them are my own, once again where are your peer reviewed articles I can show you plenty to support my argument. 🙄

I truly appreciate the peer reviewed process I also appreciate all the articles that I have shown and will continue to show you if needed from peer reviewed journals that establish my argument. I agree they are very important.

Here I'll give you a head start here is a link to a list of peer reviewed journals the one that I was using to "cherry pick" my reserach articles from:
http://www.eurekalert.org/links.php?jrnl=A
 
i hope all this works in looking sorta ripped.

u don't know untill you try...
it was working for me but then i am a girl and my desire for muscle is probobly a little different from that of a guy.😛
I know a lot about nutrition due to the fact that i was a certified PT & spinning instructor for some time (we were required to know and sell supplements).
I was testing a lot of things on myself. And having between 4-6 hours of crazy cycling activity a day definetly was a good condition to test things out. I gained about 10 lbs of pure muscle during that time. Of course mostly on my legs😳 .
Liquid L-carnitine also was a great supplement especially for ppl who want to gain lean muscle and trimm down the fat at the same time....and have energy to work out.
I think in today's world where everything we eat is so processed getting where you want without supplements is very very hard.
unless you are my crazy "zen" friend from the gym :laugh:
 
I thought this paper is an interesting epidemiologic approach indicating the association of a high meat diet to the markers of Coronary Artery Disease (The #1 cause of death in the US). High intake of meat, maragine, poultry, & sauces are risk factors as are low intake of vegentarian dishes, whole grain cerals, vegetables, & WINE 👍.

A high meat low vegetable diet has otherwise been associated with increased risk of Type 2 diabetes, & various cancers.
-------------------

A dietary pattern derived to explain biomarker variation is strongly associated with the risk of coronary artery disease.Hoffmann K, Zyriax BC, Boeing H, Windler E.
Department of Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam, Arthur-Scheunert-Allee 114-116, 14558 Bergholz-Rehbrucke, Germany. [email protected]

BACKGROUND: In previous studies, dietary patterns were derived in different populations without regard to a specific outcome. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to apply a new statistical method to construct a specific dietary pattern that is strongly associated with the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD). DESIGN: We applied reduced rank regression to a sample of 200 cases and 255 controls from the Coronary Risk Factors for Atherosclerosis in Women (CORA) Study. The CAD-specific dietary pattern was constructed by choosing intake data for 49 food groups as predictors and 5 established biomarkers for CAD as responses. RESULTS: A high score for the constructed dietary pattern was characterized by high intakes of meat, margarine, poultry, and sauce and low intakes of vegetarian dishes, wine, vegetables, and whole-grain cereals. After adjustment for known CAD risk factors, the relative risks from the lowest to the highest quintiles of the pattern score were 1.0, 1.1, 3.6, 6.2, and 12.3 (95% CI: 4.9, 30.9; P for trend < 0.0001). There was an approximate 4.5-fold difference in C-reactive protein and a 2-fold difference in C-peptide between the highest and lowest score quintiles of the study population. HDL-cholesterol concentrations ranged from 70 mg/dL in the lowest quintile to 49 mg/dL in the highest quintile of dietary pattern score. CONCLUSION: The new statistical method, reduced rank regression, may be a useful tool for identifying dietary patterns that simultaneously affect the concentrations of known CAD biomarkers and the risk of developing CAD.
 
I wouldn't support a tax on any of those foods at this time. There is shakey evidence that any are a problem. I think you summed it up in your last sentence. I agree that overeating is a problem, but nutritional bad guys is not a scientific concept, nor is it useful. I just got back from eating at Red Robins, and I couldn't even finish the plate I ordered. I didn't even eat half of it. I see people all the time that devour that much in a couple of minutes, and then are still hungry. THAT is a problem, not the actual ingredients.

Well I think it's good that you have self restraint when it comes to greasy foods, but many people do not and that is one of the restaurant industries' ways of luring people in by serving large portions. I've read studies that people will eat less if they are served less, it's a psychological thing. Responsibility has to start somewhere correct?

The jury is still out on the trans fat scare. For example, I did a paper on this in my first semester of biochem (the whole class had to). The professor researches liver function, so he has a lot of knowledge of fat metabolism. He is not convinced that there is any merit to the argument that trans fats are bad for you. I am more convinced than he is, but I still am not very convinced. So, no, not every expert agrees that trans fats are "pure poison." And I couldn't care less about what a bunch of politicians in NY did. Since when do politicians get anything right? Although I think the irony is funny that the whole nation switched to margarine because the nutrition quacks told us that it was better for us than butter, and then it turns maybe it's not. 🙄 What will it be next week? Nutritionists change their minds so often. 🙄

Two things, I didn't come up with the trans-fats is pure poison on my own. I got the info from my gf who is a 4th year medical student. While I was reading The China Study she attended a lecture conducted by a head cardiologist at her med-school and just related what she learned about the link between trans-fats and heart disease from the lecture. Also do you absolutely think that NYC is banning trans-fats just because of politics?? If politics were the only issue and there wasn't mounds of scientific evidence that trans-fats are bad for humans then how can the ALL POWERFUL fast-foods industry submit to the ban?? "Since when do politicians get anything right?" - answer: smoking bans (soon to an area near you).

I was relying on the fact that you are a medical student and should know about things such as essential amino acids, essential lipids, etc.

Well, I've read that if you eat a wide variety of plant-based, whole foods you can get all the essential aa's you need without meat or diary. There is a specific section addressing this in the book (and other sources as well I'd bet). If you are inferring that you must have meat in your diet to survive, or to have optimal health then you may want to do a bit more research. Take Dr. Kicia's friend for example. Though he may be a devoted gym rat more so than most people, I am guessing that he has better health than 99% of the population and is maintaining it without animal protein.


Another interesting topic I wanted to point out from the book was that the author mentioned the fallacy in researching specific nutrients in foods (what he called reductionism). One example (and I'll use a fruit as he has in the book) is the effect of vitamin C in people. Even though studies can show a lower disease risk when people eat lots of fruits containing vitamin C, the same association does not occur when people are taking vitamin C supplements alone without the fruits. This implies that nutrition should be considered in broader terms than just the vitamins and minerals certain foods contain. It has been suggested that the whole Vit C association has been played up so much by the orange growers industry to sell more oranges. Are there any other foods or nutrients that you can think of which has been extensively advertised? Milk? Red meat? Eggs? Protein? (and I am familiar with protein ads because I used to lift weights regularly and I've read the muscle mags with 50% of it's pages devoted to protein powders and amino acid supplements. Were they really trying to sell you a rock hard body or were they just trying to sell you expensive supplements that may or may not be effective once isolated from the foods it originated from??) How about fats and saturated fats? There are now loads of LOW-FAT options for condiments, cookies, meat, etc. that we can buy from the supermarket. Though it may be too early to tell but has out nation gotten any healthier by eliminating this one nutrient that is supposedly bad even though we are keeping pretty much the same "Western Diet" otherwise?
 
So I got this book for Christmas and just finished reading it. Did anyone else here have the chance to look at this? As a VERY BRIEF and incomplete summary the author presented lots of evidence as to how many major diseases such as diabetes, cancer, and heart disease can be prevented or combated with a diet of plant-based, whole foods. And that the "Western diet" we eat in the U.S. consisting of high animal protein and dairy is what is contributing to a majority of our population getting these diseases at some stage in our lives.

So I wanted to ask my fellow SDN'ers:

1) Do you think that diet has much influence on our total health? And if so, to what extent?

2) As future D.O.'s we have a duty to encourage prevention of diseases and after reading the book I feel that recommending a healthy diet based on plant-based, whole foods would accomplish that goal well. Would any of you give advice concerning diet to your patients or would you feel that you are not in a position or authority to do that?

Please let me know your thoughts on this matter, if you've read the book that's great (And I do encourage those who haven't to pick it up, it is an easy read for the most part), but if you haven't read it your opinions concerning the relationship between diet and medicine are still welcome. Thanks!

Our diet is responsible for our degenerative health problems (Heart disease, Cancer, Diabetes, etc.). It isn't the protein, it is our Western (USA) standard diet. The only reason America is so obese & has major health problems is due to processed food, fast food, chemicals in our dairy, meat, & other proteins. Hormones, growth factors, antibiotics etc. is in regular grocery store meat & dairy. If we eliminate processed (things in packages or cans), & fast food, and eat natural food (no hormones etc.) our obesity problems would end and degenerative disease rates would drop considerably. Twenty years ago when I was a kid/teen and you saw a kid who was 10-20 lbs. overweight, you'd say they were fat. Today you see kids 50-100 lbs. overweight, the 10-20 lbs. range seem normal. I never saw anyone 100 lbs. overweight, today people everywhere are 200, 300, 400, 500+ pounds. (Look at the buffet lines in Vegas). The only difference in the last 20 years is the amount of proccessed/fast food availablke, and the amount of chemicals that are being dumped into commercialized food. We have an epidemic and "our" un-natural processed food is the reason.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
No need for the personal attacks. I didn't personally attack you. Your credentials aren't exactly "better" than mine.

You have provided no more evidence than I have except to repeat over and over again that since you are a vegetarian that means vegetarian diets aren't hokey even though they are in direct and obvious conflict with the biology you and I both know. I was relying on the fact that you are a medical student and should know about things such as essential amino acids, essential lipids, etc. I guess you just cannot defend your position without making personal attacks and using personal anecdotes. 🙄

At least I provided a link. You say the ADA has no credibility, but you've provided nothing to the contrary. As for the med student thing, we had a section of biochem taught by a nutrition expect (you know, someone who really does studies on it 🙄 ). He said a well-planned vegetarian diet was perfectly healthy. Most doctors agree.

No my credentials aren't better than yours, but I know my limitations, unlike you. The guy who wrote the book does have better credentials than you. The person who taught my class has better credentials than you, and the ADA has better credentials than you.
 
It is based on what I posted before. The basic biological fact is that humans require an omnivorous diet. It is the way our bodies were designed and you cannot change that. Period. There are nutrient requirements that just cannot possibly be met by a vegetarian diet, especially for children, or those engaging in regular exercise programs. I'm not even talking cancer and all that other stuff, just common basic nutritional requirements, which is the only really important part of a diet.

So this is the crux of your argument? You've got to admit it's pretty weak compared with all the peer-reviewed articles and studies to the contrary. You're going to learn in medical school that's important to do your research before making medical opinions. I'm scared that you're going to rely on some basic principle and ignore all the research out there in treating your patients.
 
The discussion on reasoning from principles vs. extensive reviews of the literature vs. reliance on expert guidelines is interesting (& amusing). Also interesting is the healthfulness of a complete vegetarian diet vs. a low meat high vegetable diet. But I'll limit my little contributrion to this posting of the AHA Recommendations on Meat, Poultry and Fish.


AHA Recommendation

Choose fish, shellfish, poultry without the skin, and trimmed lean meats, no more than 6 ounces, cooked, per day.
Enjoy at least 2 servings of baked or grilled fish each week, especially oily fish.
Choose low-sodium, low-fat seasonings such as spices, herbs and other flavorings in cooking and at the table.
Select meat substitutes such as dried beans, peas, lentils or tofu (soybean curd) in entrees, salads or soups.
Choose from

Fish and shellfish. Shrimp and crayfish are higher in cholesterol than most types of fish, but lower in saturated fat and total fat than most meats and poultry.
Fish high in omega-3 fatty acids such as mackerel, lake trout, herring, sardines, albacore tuna and salmon. Some types of fish may contain high levels of mercury, PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), dioxins and other environmental contaminants. Shark, swordfish, tilefish (golden bass or golden snapper) and king mackerel are examples. Women who are pregnant, planning to become pregnant or nursing — and young children — should avoid eating potentially contaminated fish.
Chicken and turkey (without skin); ground turkey.
Lean beef (round, sirloin, chuck, loin). Buy "choice" or "select" grades of beef rather than "prime."
Lean or extra lean ground beef (no more than 15% fat).
Lean veal (except commercially ground).
Lean ham, lean pork (tenderloin, loin chop). Ham and Canadian bacon are higher in sodium (salt) than other meats.
Lean lamb (leg, arm, loin).
Lean cuts of emu, buffalo and ostrich. These are very low in total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol and sodium.
Wild game (rabbit, pheasant, venison, wild duck without skin). These usually have less fat than animals raised for market (duck, goose).
Processed sandwich meats (low-fat turkey, chicken, turkey ham, turkey pastrami or lean boiled ham). Check the amount of sodium; some have 25% or more of the daily value.
Shopping and preparation tips

A 3-ounce cooked portion is about the size of a deck of cards. To help you judge serving sizes, a 3-ounce portion equals:
1/2 of a chicken breast or a chicken leg with thigh (without skin)
3/4 cup of flaked fish
2 thin slices of lean roast beef (each slice 3" x 3" x 1/4")
Choose cuts of meat that have the least amount of visible fat and trim this visible fat off of meats. Buy "choice " or " select " grades of beef rather than "prime."
Instead of frying, prepare meats by baking, broiling, roasting, microwaving or stir-frying. Pour off the fat after browning.
Remove the skin and fat under the skin before cooking poultry pieces. (The exception is when roasting a whole chicken or turkey. Remove the skin before carving and serving the meat.) Choose whole turkeys that have not been injected with fats or broths.
Chill meat juices after cooking, so that you can easily skim off the hardened fat. Then you can add the juices to stews, soups and gravy.
Look for frozen dinners and entries that are low in saturated fat, cholesterol and sodium.
A one-cup serving of cooked beans, peas or lentils, or soybean curd (tofu) can replace a 2-ounce serving of meat, poultry or fish. Two ounces of peanut butter counts as 1 ounce of meat.
Organ meats are very high in cholesterol. However, liver is rich in iron and vitamins. A small serving (3 ounces) is OK about once a month.
Note: Adults over age 50 should get vitamin B-12 from lean meat, fortified foods or vitamin supplements to meet the recommended intake of 2.4 micrograms (mcg) of vitamin B-12 per day.
 
I thought this paper is an interesting epidemiologic approach indicating the association of a high meat diet to the markers of Coronary Artery Disease (The #1 cause of death in the US). High intake of meat, maragine, poultry, & sauces are risk factors as are low intake of vegentarian dishes, whole grain cerals, vegetables, & WINE 👍.

A high meat low vegetable diet has otherwise been associated with increased risk of Type 2 diabetes, & various cancers.


That sounds like a Mediterranean diet.
 
Our diet is responsible for our degenerative health problems (Heart disease, Cancer, Diabetes, etc.). It isn't the protein, it is our Western (USA) standard diet. The only reason America is so obese & has major health problems is due to processed food, fast food, chemicals in our dairy, meat, & other proteins. Hormones, growth factors, antibiotics etc. is in regular grocery store meat & dairy. If we eliminate processed (things in packages or cans), & fast food, and eat natural food (no hormones etc.) our obesity problems would end and degenerative disease rates would drop considerably. Twenty years ago when I was a kid/teen and you saw a kid who was 10-20 lbs. overweight, you'd say they were fat. Today you see kids 50-100 lbs. overweight, the 10-20 lbs. range seem normal. I never saw anyone 100 lbs. overweight, today people everywhere are 200, 300, 400, 500+ pounds. (Look at the buffet lines in Vegas). The only difference in the last 20 years is the amount of proccessed/fast food availablke, and the amount of chemicals that are being dumped into commercialized food. We have an epidemic and "our" un-natural processed food is the reason.

I believe this is more true than we realize or care to admit. I can only hope that in due time we will see more independent research come forward which demonstrates that the industrialization of our food supply is a significant contributor to degenerative disease.

One doesn't have to look very far to find evidence of it today.... trans-fats (partial hydrogenation) is an excellent example. Up until only recently, we were told to use margarine ... that it was better for you than butter ... oh so rich in polyunsaturated fat... good for the heart... blah blah blah. Now (only after the FDA got off their rear end and instituted a watered down forced labeling of trans-fats) people are finally starting to hear that, in fact, margarine, as well as all other partially hydrogenated fats (most frequently found in processed foods) are "bad" for you. The sad thing is the evidence of its affect on cholesterol and the heart had been there for quite some time… and newer research (see below) shows that the brain is affected as well.

Regardless of whether we choose a vegetarian or omnivorous diet, I think we'd all be wise to avoid processed foods at all costs. Just my 2 cents….

Acar, N., J. M. Chardigny, et al. (2003). "Modification of the dopaminergic neurotransmitters in striatum, frontal cortex and hippocampus of rats fed for 21 months with trans isomers of alpha-linolenic acid." Neurosci Res 45(4): 375-82.
Deficiency in n-3 fatty acids is known to disturb the release of dopaminergic neurotransmitters in rat brain. Since isomerization reduces the bioavailability of dietary fatty acids, the effect of the conversion of alpha-linolenic acid into trans alpha-linolenic acid on the dopaminergic neurotransmission was studied. Rats were fed for 21 months with a control diet, a diet unbalanced in cis alpha-linolenic acid and containing trans alpha-linolenic acid or the same diet in which the imbalance was corrected by increasing the levels of cis alpha-linolenic acid. After 6 and 21 months of diet, the fatty acid composition and the amounts of endogenous dopaminergic neurotransmitters was assessed in the striatum, the frontal cortex and the hippocampus. The isomerization of a part of dietary alpha-linolenic acid induced some modifications of the levels of endogenous dopaminergic neurotransmitters in all brain areas but was related to a very low incorporation of trans polyunsaturated fatty acids. Increasing the dietary levels of cis alpha-linolenic acid succeeded in correcting the endogenous neurotransmitter concentrations only in the frontal cortex but not in the striatum and the hippocampus. Thus, the levels of dopamine were lowered by 95% in the hippocampus. These results suggest that in addition to the imbalance generated by their presence, trans fatty acids may directly act on the concentration of dopaminergic neurotransmitters.
 
Well, I've read that if you eat a wide variety of plant-based, whole foods you can get all the essential aa's you need without meat or diary. There is a specific section addressing this in the book (and other sources as well I'd bet). If you are inferring that you must have meat in your diet to survive, or to have optimal health then you may want to do a bit more research.

Yes, you can get the aa's from a variety of veggies, but you still can't get B12 from them. While a lot of research has been done into B12 analogs from various plants, there is still no evidence that you can meet that requirement in a vegan diet.

Also, there is a problem with iron, While many plant sources contain iron, they also contain oxylates, phytates and tanins that prevent its absorption in the intestines. Poor Popeye spent all that time eating spinach, which would be a good source of iron were it not for the high phylate content. OTOH, meat contains iron in the form of heme, which is readily absorbed.

That said, I have no problem with mostly vegetarian diets, yet I believe that the human was meant to be an omnivore. S/he has incisors for ripping meat and molars for grinding foliage. None of that, however, addresses the epidemics of obesity, HBP, CAD and high cholesterol that are prevalent in American society. Americans need to be taught how to eat better, but that will not occur without a drastic lifestyle change. People spend so much time "on the go" that they don't have time to think about adequate nutrition. We are slowly killing ourselves and our children. Squabbling about which diet is better for you won't do much to help it.
 
A lot of you have bought into the popular diet mumbo jumbo hook line and sinker. I am, frankly, bored with this thread. I am not going to be able to convince you of the science and the facts, and you are not going to drag me into the diet fads and crazes. Think, guys, think. What nation has the most problems with weight? Us. What nation is the most frickin' obsessed with diets and dieting? Us. What nations eat what they want, and have less problems? Everyone else. It is far less related to diet, and totally related to quantity of food eaten and sedentary lifestyle. Period. Good luck in your classes with your tendency to believe the layman's explanations before the scientific basis of medicine. 🙄
 
The lay man's explantion??? I think the studies show otherwise. You know because they are done by PhD's not someone that hasn't even finished his masters yet. Not by someone who thinks he knows what he's talking about and has a problem realizing why everyone disagrees with him because aparently with all your schooling you have only learned to blow off all the scientific evidence and support done by scientific studies. The same ones that you claimed .... CLAIMED ... were saying otherwise. Learn how to look at science the right way.

Your the one that needs to think. Long and hard. Maybe when you have the experience, degree, and know how to back up your claims people might take your thoughts into consideration. PERIOD!

Thank you for all those on this thread that have the scientific perspective and know how to look at the massive amount of evidence and support for the nutrition argument and back it up, as oppose to making claims with no backing.

*As oppose to claiming that all of the PhD's that spent there professional lives doing research in the area, there years spent on education earning the right to make scientific based explanations, ARE ONLY CAPABLE OF A LAYMAN'S EXPLINATION.
 
Gee, I have a master's in Bio. I learned about the issues with dietary, AA, essential lipids, & B12. I, somehow, never thought that qualified me as an expert in nutrition.
Reasoning from principles is important, but our logical reasoning should generate ideas and, hopefully, researchable hypothesis. But tentative conclusions have to be confirmed by research.
 
A lot of you have bought into the popular diet mumbo jumbo hook line and sinker. I am, frankly, bored with this thread. I am not going to be able to convince you of the science and the facts, and you are not going to drag me into the diet fads and crazes. Think, guys, think. What nation has the most problems with weight? Us. What nation is the most frickin' obsessed with diets and dieting? Us. What nations eat what they want, and have less problems? Everyone else. It is far less related to diet, and totally related to quantity of food eaten and sedentary lifestyle. Period. Good luck in your classes with your tendency to believe the layman's explanations before the scientific basis of medicine. 🙄

Dude, you've provided no science beyond a statement that humans are omnivores. Also, you're the layman -- I'm trusting the experts here. Your amount of projection in this thread is amazing. 🙄
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Gee, I have a master's in Bio. I learned about the issues with dietary, AA, essential lipids, & B12. I, somehow, never thought that qualified me as an expert in nutrition.
Reasoning from principles is important, but our logical reasoning should generate ideas and, hopefully, researchable hypothesis. But tentative conclusions have to be confirmed by research.

Exactly and any scientist should know this. 🙂
 
My diagnosis of some of the people on this thread is severe pre-med cephalomegaly precipitated by letters of acceptance. Don't worry, it's treatable - a few weeks of anatomy or biochem usually does the trick. 😉

Just to throw a little more wood on the fire, any consideration of the optimal diet must also include a discussion of the conditions under which the food is produced. For example, debating the merits of a vegetarian vs. omnivorous diet is relatively meaningless without considering the source of the meat involved; wild or grass fed meats contain very little saturated fat and proportionally more omega 3s, while feed-lot cattle produce nice marbly steaks which are loaded with artery clogging saturated fat. Therefore, an omnivorous diet in a country in which animals are allowed to graze may end up producing completely different health effects than the same diet in a country with factory farming practices. Although I have no studies to support it, IMO, it is likely the same thing holds true for crops - there are potentially differences in mineral or vitamin content between organically grown vegetables and those grown with chemical fertilizers on demineralized soils. Healthy plants/animals = healthy diet = healthy people.

Just some food for thought...
 
Yes, you can get the aa's from a variety of veggies, but you still can't get B12 from them. While a lot of research has been done into B12 analogs from various plants, there is still no evidence that you can meet that requirement in a vegan diet.

Also, there is a problem with iron, While many plant sources contain iron, they also contain oxylates, phytates and tanins that prevent its absorption in the intestines. Poor Popeye spent all that time eating spinach, which would be a good source of iron were it not for the high phylate content. OTOH, meat contains iron in the form of heme, which is readily absorbed.

Hi scpod, thanks for bringing this up. Yes I was writing quickly before and left out some details. But when you mentioned B12 I recall reading about that in the book. Yes the author mentions that exact vitamin plus vit D as two nutrients that may deplete in the human body with a strict vegetarian diet (although if you are exposed to the sun only a short time each week then it is very unlikely that you will suffer from vit D deficiency regardless of your diet). This is a section in the book and a vitamin b12 supplement is recommended for vegetarians by the author.

I just wanted to bring this up because even though I left out this detail, the author certainly did not. The book is pretty comprehensive so there's no way I can remember every detail mentioned in it but I did gather the overall message and I think it is important. Thanks again.
 
One of the main issues with vegetarian diets is the lack of essential amino acids in the diet. Most edible plant products are missing a few, so you can't eat one kind of plant. I think legumes, however, have all the essential amino acids.
 
One of the main issues with vegetarian diets is the lack of essential amino acids in the diet. Most edible plant products are missing a few, so you can't eat one kind of plant. I think legumes, however, have all the essential amino acids.

thank you very much for the pointless post, capt. obvious.
 
Hokey diets such as this one don't even pass the sniff test. We are omnivorous animals. We require an omnivorous diet. Our anatomical and physiological design require it. Period.

Diet is important, but about 99.9% of the diet information out there is false. A "western" diet is no more disease causing than any other diet. In fact, probably less. One disease I can think of that results from certain all plant based diets is kwashiorkor. Another resulting from certain all plant diets is cirrhosis of the liver.


This post is wrong in so many ways that it's comical. I can't believe someone in 2007 can possibly hold these ignorant opinions, especially a future doctor. There is plenty of accessible information showing that humans may be designed for vegetarian diets. Obvious support for this is the similarity of the anatomy between a herbivorous animal and a human (duller teeth, long digestive tract, relative basicity of stomach acids, salivary glands, etc.) There are also an infinite number of studies showing that reducing or even removing dairy/animal products significantly reduces various cancers and diseases throughout the body. This is a known fact among the educated who have an interest in healthy eating. Lastly, the two diseases you listed are EASILY avoided by simply living in a country with sufficient food availability. These diseases are found in the poorest of the third-world countries, and the causes of the disease isn't even linked to lack of meat in the diet. There is a reason why more people are becoming vegetarian each passing year. There will always be ignorant and barbaric meat-eaters who will never change, but then again they will also die early and everyone will be happy 👍
 
One of the main issues with vegetarian diets is the lack of essential amino acids in the diet. Most edible plant products are missing a few, so you can't eat one kind of plant. I think legumes, however, have all the essential amino acids.


Noone eats one kind of plant. Diversity is essential to any diet, and is used by all educated vegetarians. You sound like the people in school that tell me that a vegetarian can't get enough protein....
 
for anyone still interested in getting more info about diet, I was informed of this NYTIMES article recently and it is pretty good IMO, if you have a some spare time, get a cup of coffee, tea, or a bottle of beer and dive in! You'll probably finish your drink before finishing the article... 🙂

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/m...70&en=76c5ef1f915b36f6&ex=1170738000&emc=eta1

btw you may have to click on "skip to article" or just scroll down a little to get to it
 
The author of The China Study gave a lecture at my undergrad in Feb. 2005. My Biomedical Ethics Professor decided to offer EC for anyone who attended and wrote a short summary of his talk. I decided to go and bought the book to read at a later time. My husband ended up reading it, loving it, and doing some independent searching on line of some of the articles cited in the book. He decided as a result to become a vegetarian. My very much meat and potatoes...educated husband has now been at it for two years and is feeling so much better. He is essentially the same weight. 5' 10" and 180, but has way more energy than before the diet. He used to have sleep apnea (and again, he was not obese), but no longer does. His cholesterol is great. He's not sleeping on the couch every chance he gets. The author of the book basically said that there were two exceptions to animal protein that seem to have a positive rather than negative effect. Those are yogurt and cold water (wild caught) fish. I thought I'd add our little experience to your thread.

Another interesting book is Food Politics. It's amazing who sits on the panels who decide RDAs.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Top Bottom