Animal-based protein diets increase mortality rate : LC Research/Media Forum : Active Low-Carber Forums

#16 ^

Tue, Sep-07-10, 13:52

Angeline

Senior Member

Posts: 3,423

Plan: Atkins (loosely)
Stats: -/-/- Female 60

BF:
Progress: 40%

Location: Ottawa, Ontario

If you torture the data long enough, it will confess
--Ronald Coase

Sponsored Links

#17 ^

Tue, Sep-07-10, 13:54

maile1

Senior Member

Posts: 376

Plan: hcg
Stats: 192/142/138 Female 67 inches

BF:
Progress: 93%

Location: Vancouver, BC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angeline

If you torture the data long enough, it will confess
--Ronald Coase

+1...make that +100!

love that quote!

thanks for the link, this was on the news tonight and I told hubby I'd get back to him with why the story was likely flawed

#18 ^

Tue, Sep-07-10, 13:55

PilotGal

Registered Member

Posts: 36,355

Plan: KetoCarnivore
Stats: 206.6/178/160 Female 5'7

BF:awesome
Progress: 61%

Location: USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angeline

If you torture the data long enough, it will confess
--Ronald Coase

where's my like button?
such hogwash..... everyday there's another article trying to scare us into eating low fat and no red meat..
ugh...

#19 ^

Tue, Sep-07-10, 14:07

K Walt

Senior Member

Posts: 606

Plan: PP
Stats: 210/170/170
BF:
Progress: 100%

Location: NJ

What makes this study meaningless:

1. Food frequency questionnaires. People filled out a form every few years. Very crude method of gauging what people ate.

2. This was a statistical analysis of tabular data. NOT a controlled study, not a clinical study, NOT an examination of actual people. It wasn't an experiment.

3. The risk ratios (hazard ratios) are MINISCULE. TINY. IF there is any effect at all, it is BARELY MEASURABLE, even if you have very good, very precise data. Which we don't. See #1.

Remember, data analysis like these are ONLY useful for generating some ideas worth following up on with more rigorous experiments. Most epidemiologists (legitimate ones, anyway) ordinarily don't consider an RR of less than 3.0 or worth looking into. And even then, it's still a tenuous, weak, relationhip at best. The RRs in this study were all like 1.25 or 0.95. In real world terms, basically nothing.

If numbers like these were presented to show, say, that eating saturated fat makes you live longer, it would be immediately skewered in the press, for the above reasons. But since the effect here is in vogue and politically correct, it gets a free pass. Nobody argues the flimsy, iffy numbers.

#20 ^

Tue, Sep-07-10, 14:09

Angeline

Senior Member

Posts: 3,423

Plan: Atkins (loosely)
Stats: -/-/- Female 60

BF:
Progress: 40%

Location: Ottawa, Ontario

You can torture the data as long as you want until it confesses, but you won't convince me until you present a logical and known (that isn't speculation) metabolic pathway that explains how in heck a diet that has sustained the human race throughout most of its evolution is now killing us.

Oh yeah. I forgot. Our ancestors didn't live long enough to die of cancer

Oh wait...... they must however have occasionally died due to hunting accidents.... does that count as dying due to meat consumption? hmmmm

Last edited by Angeline : Tue, Sep-07-10 at 19:20.

#21 ^

Tue, Sep-07-10, 14:13

Angeline

Senior Member

Posts: 3,423

Plan: Atkins (loosely)
Stats: -/-/- Female 60

BF:
Progress: 40%

Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Here is Jenny's take on this study.

http://diabetesupdate.blogspot.com/...e-study-is.html

It's interesting since she has first hand knowledge of FFQ (food frequency questionnaires), having participated in a long term study that used them.

Last edited by Angeline : Tue, Sep-07-10 at 19:18.

#22 ^

Tue, Sep-07-10, 14:19

ReginaW

Contrarian

Posts: 2,759

Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72

BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%

Location: Missouri

Quote:

Originally Posted by ORNISH in article

"The protein you get from combining rice and beans is the same quality as what you get from eggs and steak. You just don't get all the other stuff that's bad for you, " says Dr. Dean Ornish, founder and president, Preventive Medicine Research Institute, who is not affiliated with this study.

110g of ground beef (85/25) + 1 large egg provides the full complement of animo acids required for a 70kg individual - for about 353 calories (with 36.8g of protein). Now that's not to say that's all a 70kg person needs in a day, but that's based on the WHO/FAO amino acid requirement minimum.

How much rice + beans do you need to eat to meet the same amino acid requirement minimum? 350g of each, cooked.....for about 956 calories (with 39.9g protein). And that still leaves one with ZERO B12 and vitamin D for the day.

So, for three times that calories you can do it for the amino acids, sure....but why, especially when doing so totally lacks two essential nutrients?

#23 ^

Tue, Sep-07-10, 14:23

kellyd23

Senior Member

Posts: 249

Plan: atkins
Stats: 262/235/140 Female 5'8"

BF:262/235/140
Progress: 22%

Location: Springville, Calif.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wifezilla

"A major study was just published in the Annals of Internal Medicine from Harvard. In approximately 85,000 women who were followed for 26 years and 45,000 men who were followed for 20 years, researchers found that all-cause mortality rates were increased in both men and women who were eating a low-carbohydrate Atkins diet based on animal protein."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-de...-_b_707005.html

From the actual study abstract...
"Results: The overall low-carbohydrate score was associated with a modest increase in overall mortality in a pooled analysis (hazard ratio [HR] comparing extreme deciles, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.24]; P for trend = 0.136). The animal low-carbohydrate score was associated with higher all-cause mortality (pooled HR comparing extreme deciles, 1.23 [CI, 1.11 to 1.37]; P for trend = 0.051), cardiovascular mortality (corresponding HR, 1.14 [CI, 1.01 to 1.29]; P for trend = 0.029), and cancer mortality (corresponding HR, 1.28 [CI, 1.02 to 1.60]; P for trend = 0.089). In contrast, a higher vegetable low-carbohydrate score was associated with lower all-cause mortality (HR, 0.80 [CI, 0.75 to 0.85]; P for trend ≤ 0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.77 [CI, 0.68 to 0.87]; P for trend < 0.001)."
http://www.annals.org/content/153/5/289.abstract

Ok...who has time to tear this apart? I am at work now and have to actually be productive

I am pretty sure we are all gonna die any way!

#24 ^

Tue, Sep-07-10, 14:27

ReginaW

Contrarian

Posts: 2,759

Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72

BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%

Location: Missouri

BTW.....a 7-ounce portion of wild alaska salmon also meets the minimum requirement for amino acids (70kg person) for just 281 calories. But who's counting?

#25 ^

Tue, Sep-07-10, 14:30

kellyd23

Senior Member

Posts: 249

Plan: atkins
Stats: 262/235/140 Female 5'8"

BF:262/235/140
Progress: 22%

Location: Springville, Calif.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Levac

Just a heads up, there's no such thing as a vegetarian Atkins diet, at least it's not written anywhere in the book I've read. The only Atkins diet I know of contains meat and lots of it. I'm just saying.

On with the topic. See here for a thorough debunking of all the bullshit thrown around about the bad meat and the good plants:
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/th...fact-or-fallac/

Incidentally, Campbell's website, www.campbellcoalition.org, is off the air. I wonder why.

Is that a fact? Are you calling vitamin B12 "stuff that's bad for you" as well? Oh but you can get it from a pill, you say. Well, what does that tell you about where we've been getting it for the past 2.5 million years with nary a bad side effect?

Ornish. Pfft.

you go boy!

#26 ^

Tue, Sep-07-10, 14:35

ReginaW

Contrarian

Posts: 2,759

Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72

BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%

Location: Missouri

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Levac

Actually there is - if one includes dairy + eggs, which vegetarians do if they're laco-ovo, such as vegetarians living in the subcontinent do.

Cream, cheese, yogurt, half-half, eggs....all provide animal based protein and all provide B12 and can also contain some vitamin D3. Add to that other protein sources allowed - Atkins book, by him - tofu....and it can be done. Would I do it that way? No. But it can be done if one is careful in their choice of protein.

#27 ^

Tue, Sep-07-10, 18:57

M Levac

Senior Member

Posts: 6,498

Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"

BF:
Progress: 5%

Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReginaW

When one includes dairy and eggs, one stops being a vegetarian and one starts being an omnivore. At least that's what the term omnivore means.

#28 ^

Tue, Sep-07-10, 19:16

Angeline

Senior Member

Posts: 3,423

Plan: Atkins (loosely)
Stats: -/-/- Female 60

BF:
Progress: 40%

Location: Ottawa, Ontario

I believe that generally a vegetarian is someone who will not eat meat, but will often eat eggs and/or milk. A person who will not eat any protein from animal sources is usually a vegan.

#29 ^

Wed, Sep-08-10, 05:56

ReginaW

Contrarian

Posts: 2,759

Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72

BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%

Location: Missouri

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Levac

When one includes dairy and eggs, one stops being a vegetarian and one starts being an omnivore. At least that's what the term omnivore means.

No, a non-vegetarian will eat FLESH from a kill and plants....a vegetarian will not eat flesh, but will eat eggs and dairy since animals do not need to be slaughtered to consume those. It's a symantic to clarify what someone eats versus what they don't choose to eat for whatever reason....omnivore, carnivore, herbivore - don't matter.....that a vegetarian won't eat meat doesn't change their humanness and thus their omnivoreness - they just don't eat meat.

You can argue all you want Martin, but one who won't eat any animal products whatsoever is a vegan....vegans are a type of vegetarian (or at least claim to be), but vegetarian isn't necessarily vegan.

#30 ^

Wed, Sep-08-10, 05:57

moggsy

Senior Member

Posts: 1,072

Plan: IF
Stats: 350/235/150 Female 5 feet 5 inches

BF:generous
Progress: 57%

Location: UK

Vegetarians =/= herbivore. It means vegetarian. Yes, they are omnivores, but that doesn't make them any less vegetarian. Vegans=forced herbivores (sort of).Vegans as a significant group haven't been around very long. Oh, I am sure that there's always been a few people following a totally plant based diet, but historically, most vegetarians consumed animal products even if they didn't eat the flesh of animals. Not that vegans are what they think they are. There's no such thing as someone who does not benefit or contribute to the consumption or utilization of animal products.

ETA: I guess I have to laugh when I see a car owning, cinema going, GM soy (with all the carbon footprint of the travel and the likely questionable human rights nature of its production) chomping vegan claiming that we should not "steal" honey from bees, eat grass-fed organic meat, pastured and free range dairy and eggs. I can understand vegetarians more. At least many of them understand that nothing's perfect, and I can understand their desire to be less cruel (or sympathise with those who just don't like the taste or idea of meat). Not saying all vegans are self-righteous and have an unearned attitude of moral superiority, but some do.

Last edited by moggsy : Wed, Sep-08-10 at 06:07.