What? It's not healthy to abandon a millions of years of evolution and eat radically different than our ancestors? Who would have thought it?

Hoo boy, someone mentioned in the comments that Oprah has gone Vegan, at least for a while. I was unaware of this, not being a follower of Oprah. When I googled around a bit I found that she is not only eating Vegan herself, she's forcing her entire staff of several hundred people to do the same. Poor people.

Jeez, Oprah is like the cover girl for American idiocy in eating. I used to feel sorry for her and her weight struggles, but she's lost my sympathy with this kind of BS.

Indignant comments from veg*ans included at no extra charge!

I wonder what, precisely, the factors in this statement Dr. Li makes here are: "meat eaters are known for having a significantly higher combination of cardiovascular risk factors than vegetarians."

I thought that statement was interesting, too. In the past, research showed that vegetarians did better then meat eaters when it came to cardiovascular disease, but current research has shown that saturated fat does not contribute to heart disease. In fact, I went to a Woman's Health Symposium today that focused on heart disease and the cardiologist doing the presentation said that saturated fat isn't nearly as harmful as polyunsaturated fats from plant oils. She also said we need to watch our carb intake and we should all be on a South Beach type diet.

Its interesting that this article says vegans are aparently hurting themselves by not getting sufficient protein and omega fatty acids. The fact that they have to supplement their diet should be a clear indication that veganism is not the optimal human diet.

I watched that Oprah show on veganism. She didn't force her staff to go on a week long vegan diet, she challenged them to do it. Anyone who wanted to opt out was allowed to do so. Oprah did eat vegan during the challenge but after it was over she said she was going to continue eating grass fed beef and free range chickens. Michael Polan was on the show and he stated several times, annoying the vegan guests when he said it, that there is nothing wrong with eating meat "several times a week". They also took the cameras into a Cargill slaughterhouse to show how the animals were 'processed'. They didn't show it when they actually killed the cattle, but the overall treatment was surprisingly humane and respectful. Quite a difference from the PETA videos on you tube.

One thing to keep in mind on any study of vegetarianism is "The Healthy User Bias". Because vegetarians, or vegans, may be adopting such a diet because they think it is healthy, they're probably doing other behaviors that are healthy too, versus the average omnivore off the street.

That isn't to say there aren't some vegetarians with absolutely terrible eating habits, but they're more likely to be following healthy patterns of behavior like exercising, not smoking, wearing seat-belts, seeing their doctor and a number of other things.

When you're constantly being told that eating meat is unhealthy you've got to disregard the current health trend bias against meat if you're eating it. Chances are pretty good, for the average Joe, that if you're ignoring that advice you're also ignoring other advice.

'Duo Li notes in the review that meat eaters are known for having a significantly higher combination of cardiovascular risk factors than vegetarians.'

Here's the abstract to the article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21204526

The ongoing discussiona about saturated fat don't change the difference in cardiovascular risk that has been noted between vegetarians and omnivores. You don't get a free pass for eating lean meat when it comes to that comparison.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21204526

A good summary of the health effects, and shortcomings of vegetarianism (mainly, difficulty getting B-12 and calcium if you are vegan) is this review:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16441942

The review's text in its entirely can be downloaded as a pdf (click on the icon in the upper right hand corner and then dowload from that page...)

Those reports are interesting Mathmaniac, I just wish I understood what they said. Are they saying that vegetarians and vegans have less coronary risk factors then omnivores and over all they are healthier except they lack B-12 and PUFA's?

As a group, vegetarians are healthier than omnivores - with the most support for this coming from epidemiological studies. Vegetarianism as a life style, not a diet, has been around for a long time!

What's in abundance and what is lacking is not just the conclusion to be drawn from two studies. There are a TON of studies showing pretty much the same things lacking in the vegetarian diets and vegan diets. Vegetarians can get B-12 and calcium from some sources that vegans cannot so they really must supplement.

Actually, people who low-carb miss certain things from their diet, if it's a lifesyle in the sense they do it for life.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20573800

There are a lot of data out there about vegetarians. The lack of B-12, calcium (for vegans), omega-3s. etc. isn't new. Not even to them - every vegetarian I have known has a sense of what supplements are needed. Li's article isn't telling anything new about how those things are lacking in the diet - just that there's a danger there for risk of stroke and heart problems. He was also writing about vegans, a subset of vegetarians. He is not even contradicting the previous body of studies that shows that vegetarians tend to be healthy (one study pointed out that vegetarians are as healthy as omnivores who live with the health-consciousness of vegetarians!)

Consistent in studies: vegetarians have lower BMI and lower total plasma cholesterol. Mortality from Ischemic Heart Disease (IHD) can be predicted from cholesterol levels and the rate of death from IHD is appropriately lower. The lower BMI of vegetarians also has an effect.

That is what is concluded in the study, 'Health Effects of Vegetarian and Vegan Diets.' The authors modestly conclude that, 'Overall, the health of vegetarians appears to be good.'

But read the study: it's got 2 pages of references.

I've had a quick skim through the paper Chemistry behind Vegetarianism. Li D. and both B12 and Omega 3 are required to keep plasma homocysteine low.

The mechanism of the n-3 PUFA decrease of plasma Hcy has been explained by the effect of n-3 PUFA on enzyme activity and gene expression involved in Hcy metabolism.

Remember the half life of omega 6 is a couple of years and currently high averge omega 6 ratios in most US/UK adults will take some time to change even when omega 6 seed oil consumption is eliminated while omega 3 intake is raised.

Bear in mind Omnivores don't come out of this paper terribly well either.


For those who want to lower homocysteine here are my suggestions.

Dr Davis has covered omega 3 many times and I've checked the source I use is this form Natures Answer liquid fish oil and it is.

The form of B12 I use there is some research suggesting that Folate improves B12 uptake and Maybe Coenzymated B-6 (Pyridoxal -5'-phosphate), should be in the Bvit mix.

Suggestions ome from IHERB because they offer cheapest shipping to UK. (though this may change) code ~~~~~~ saves newbies $5 but US/CANADIAN readers may get the same items cheaper elsewhere depending on local shipping.

When comparing vegetarians to non-vegetarians, you have to factor in the healthy user bias in epidemiological studies. It rarely is. When groups like vegetarian Buddhists are compared to a similar meat eating group, the health benefits of vegetarianism falls away, even with better nutrition in the vegetarian groups.

Western vegetarianism is distinct from traditional societies abstaining from meat. Veganism definitely has not been around as a lifestyle or otherwise for a long time.

ETA: A vegetarian "lifestyle" in western culture every other aspect other than eating food is simply a "health conscious" one. It does not mean that you have to be vegetarian to experience the benefits. It just means that more vegetarians who practice good health decisions than in the general population. I bet if we took a group of former fat vegetarians and vegans and compared them to a group of successful maintainers of meat eating diets (including but not exclusively made up of low carbers), you'd probably see a similar health benefits in both groups.

But this isn't the "pure" vegan type of vegetarianism, and isn't necessarily short of b12, at least (and can probably provide the minimum requirement of omega 3's if eggs are laid by free-range hens, and if milk comes from grass-fed beef).
Calcium also becomes sort of a non-issue.

Also there's the oft-repeated bit that Mormons seem to do as well as Seventh Day Adventists, and their lifestyles are to a certain degree similar, except for the meat.

I guess it isn't really beef if you're not going to eat it.

Actually, I said that vegetarianism has been around for a long time. I didn't speify 'veganism,' a subset of vegetarianism. I'm not familiar with its history. I also didn't include a macrobiotic diet in the group, which I think is a more recently created subset. And which certainly has its adherents.

I'm not a vegetarian, although nearly everyone I know has been a vegetarian at least once in life, sometimes several times. Unrelated to weight loss and cardio health. I tried it, too. I have a subscription to 'Vegetarian Times' coming in the mail soon, as a matter of fact. (I like vegetables, fruits and grains and I do eat them.)

Vegetarians do tend to be more healthy, as a group. And meat-eaters who share some of the healthy habits of vegetarians do live in similar good health to healthy vegetarians. It is not that vegetarians with healthy habits live in similar good health to meat eaters with good habits. For one thing, as mentioned, vegetarians tend to have a lower BMI and lower saturated fat intake. Both of these factors impact meat eaters as a group. As a group, meat eaters tend to have higher BMI and eat more saturated fat, no matter whatever else their habits (non smoking, alcohol, etc.)

Smoking and alcohol are some of the biggest cofounders (impacting factors) so studies tend to exclude them to make it a level playing field. It's more difficult to do that for epidemiological studies. The longer life of the religious Seventh Day Adventists has been fodder for epidemiological studies, but they REALLY don't smoke or drink alcohol (abstaining completely), if they are faithful to the tenets of the religion. Not just 'don't smoke much' or 'don't drink much.' Wikipedia says that 35% of SDAs are vegetarian. However, it is encouraged by their religion, giving that motivation.


Vegetarians in studies have a certain disadvantage in comparisons:
If I am calling myself a 'meat eater' and comparing myself to a true vegetarian who observes that diet for religious reasons, there is nothing stopping me from limitiing or minimizing my meat intake. or even abstaining from meat for a while if I feel like it. Yet, I would call myself a 'meat eater.' I can take advantage of the benefits offered from eating vegetables and fruite, staples of the vegetarian diet, all I want!

A vegetarian who is faithful (for religious reasons) to a vegetarian diet never dips into 'meat eating' just because it feels like it would be a nice change for awhile. So, there's that aspect of comparing meat-eating with vegetarianism.

If you can find numbers of people who, for religious reasons, eat meat to the exclusion of vegetables, then that would be a great thing to compare!

There are lots of meat-eaters who don't smoke or drink and yet, as a group, don't match the health of the SDAs. As a religious group, living in the U.S., the SDAs are the healthiest, yet they are ranked with other religious groups, some of which, for religious reasons, don't smoke or drink (or dance, even...)

Why mention religious groups who are vegetarians? Because there are so many (Buddhist, Greek Orthodox part-time vegetarians described below, for example). Their motives are pretty strong. You can find them in very disciplined settings and more importantly, you can find them living with the diet for nearly a lifetime - with strict adherence spanning decades.

The health benefits of 'observant' vegetarians tend to start with the definition of vegetarians by what they don't eat along with what they do. But meat eaters - omnivores, since it's difficult to find anyone who limits his diet to meat for any long term, get the benefits of vegetables. Yet they don't have as good cardiovascular health, epidemiologically (looking at populations), as vegetarians, which gives researchers plenty of reasons to try to find the decisive factors.

I don't think Mormons have the same religious beliefs about vegetarianism that SDAs do. So, whether Mormons are healthy is not an issue. They aren't strict vegetarians as a group - they do allow very limited meat even when observing the religion fairly strictly.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3046309

As for 'pure' vegetarianism: I think that a diet that has 100% perfect adherence, particularly as part of a religious lifestyle which provides motivation, is 'pure.' If a vegan thinks veganism is more pure than another vegetarian's choice of foods, that's like one low-carber criticizing another because his variation is different (and we know THAT never happens).

There is the Daniel Fast, which does go to the Bible (where words like 'pure' abound); it is vegetarian. This abstract is worth reading for the researchers' assessment of the Daniel Fast (quite popular, I saw the Daniel Fast book on Amazon) This abstract also describes Greek Orthodox vegetarianism:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21092212

Vegetarians have been studied and studied -there are thousands of studies. Although homocysteine can be elevated in vegetarians who don't supplement, that has not negated the strength of their cardiovascular health, for various reasons that have been suggested and studied and studied - and studied.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11500198

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11429429

I really have no problem with the idea that a vegetarian diet that includes eggs or milk can be healthy. The idea that meat, in and of itself, is unhealthy is poorly supported.

I think a lot of non-religious vegetarians get started on the lifestyle because they object to killing animals. Evaluating meat as a dietary component doesn't figure into it.

I personally know a lot of vegetarians/vegans who think it is healthier and that's why they're doing it. In fact, all the ones I know of got into it because of health reasons, then adopted the moral justifications as well. It was why I temporarily became a vegetarian in the 1990's.

You can't sneeze without a droplet hitting an article saying red meat is unhealthy and that eating more vegetables and grain is better.

So... personally I'd say if you're studying vegetarians you're probably studying people who, on the whole, have healthier habits in general.