Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Thu, Sep-05-19, 01:21
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 22,457
 
Plan: LCHF/IF
Stats: 217/182/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 61%
Location: UK
Default Vegetarians and vegans have a higher risk of stroke than those who eat meat

Quote:
Vegetarians and vegans have a higher risk of stroke than those who eat meat, study finds

Vegetarians have a higher risk of stroke than those who enjoy a good steak, a major study has found.

The Oxford University research, published in the BMJ, suggests that a meat-free diet may cause lower blood levels of total cholesterol, and reduce intake of vitamins which protect against such attacks.

The study, which tracked almost 50,000 Britons for 18 years, found vegetarians and vegans had a 20 per cent higher risk of stroke than those who eat meat.

Most of the increased risk was due to a higher rate of hemorrhagic stroke. These occur when blood from an artery starts bleeding into the brain.

Vegetarians and vegans in the study had lower circulating cholesterol and lower levels of key nutrients - such as vitamin B12 and D - which could explain the link, researchers said.

However, those avoiding meat had a significantly lower chance of heart attacks, the study found.

Vegetarians were found to have a 22 per cent lower risk of heart disease, in total, while those eating fish but no meat had a 13 per cent lower risk.

Experts said some of the difference might be linked to lower weight, blood pressure, and fewer cases of conditions like diabetes among those shunning meat.

Every year, around 100,000 people in the UK will suffer a heart attack.
And around 100,000 more will experience a stroke.

Most cases are ischaemic, where the blood supply is stopped, as the result of heart disease.

But 15 per cent of cases are hemorrhagic, where a weakened blood vessel supplying the brain suddenly bursts, as the result of an aneurism or raised blood pressure.

The extra stroke risk for vegetarians is equivalent to three more cases of stroke per 1000 people over 10 years. And their reduced heart disease risk is equal to 10 fewer cases per 1000 people over the same period.

There were 2,820 cases of heart disease and 1,072 cases of stroke during the study period, including 300 cases of hemorrhagic stroke.

Researchers said said vegetarians and vegans in the study had lower circulating levels of several nutrients, including vitamin B12, vitamin D, essential amino acids and long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids which might contribute to the increased stroke risk.

Estimates suggest there are now around 1.7 million vegetarians and vegans in the UK.

Lead author Dr Tammy Tong, from the Nuffield Department of Population Health, Oxford University said further large studies were needed to confirm the findings, before advice was offered to the public.

Dr Stephen Burgess, Group Leader at the MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, said:

“In this study, after accounting for alternative risk factors, while risk of heart disease was lower in vegetarians, risk of haemorrhagic stroke was higher in vegetarians. Heart disease is more common than haemorrhagic stroke, so vegetarians did have better cardiovascular health outcomes overall despite having higher risk of haemorrhagic stroke.”

“While the differences observed were small in magnitude, this study suggests that taking up a vegetarian diet may not be universally beneficial for all health outcomes.”

In a linked editorial, Professor Mark Lawrence at Deakin University, Australia, suggests that the study’s stroke risk should be kept in perspective. “It is based on results from just one study and the increase is modest relative to meat eaters,” he said.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...at-study-finds/


Quote:
Risks of ischaemic heart disease and stroke in meat eaters, fish eaters, and vegetarians over 18 years of follow-up: results from the prospective EPIC-Oxford study

BMJ 2019; 366 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4897 (Published 04 September 2019)
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Thu, Sep-05-19, 08:45
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 11,874
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/214/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Quote:
However, those avoiding meat had a significantly lower chance of heart attacks, the study found.

Vegetarians were found to have a 22 per cent lower risk of heart disease, in total, while those eating fish but no meat had a 13 per cent lower risk.


Confusing.
Avoid meat to lower risk.
Vegetarians had 23 % lower risk.
Vegetarians that ate fish but not meat had 13% lower risk.

So fish and meat increase risk........

Confusing.

Quote:
Vegetarians and vegans in the study had lower circulating cholesterol


Yet this contributed to increase in strokes etc. We have been told for years fat clogs the arteries....

I have whip lash.....
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Thu, Sep-05-19, 15:16
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,444
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/213/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 34%
Location: Texas
Default

I wonder how much influence the healthy user bias had on these results? In western nations where religion isn't typically the main reason for a vegetarian lifestyle, people tend to opt for it because they're more health-conscious than average and believe it's a better choice. I doubt you'd find many vegetarians dining regularly at Mickey D's ordering all the same usual junk as their omnivore friends but hold the beef pattie and chicken, please. My guess is they're leading a healthier lifestyle in general. But even with that, levels of some important substances are low and health suffers.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Fri, Sep-06-19, 05:20
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 11,822
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/136/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 120%
Location: USA
Default

The science is missing. Vegan diets are dangerous. It's all misplaced ethics and propaganda.

I'm upset that the humane movement to recognize our moral obligation to animals has been hijacked, to the point where you are supposed to be vegan, or one is a monster. And then you start feeding vegan to your pets and kill them.

What an ethical puzzle, right?

Where does this leave me, a cat lover who cares for obligate carnivores, and is something of an obligate carnivore myself?
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Fri, Sep-06-19, 06:08
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 11,874
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/214/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

And here I am a Farm-to-Table sort.....the most humane treatment is when one can raise an animal with care and speed thru the process to the freezer with great care. Makes me humble to thank each for its food.

Vegan/Vegetarian ( and others) miss this learning curve when food can be picked up at the grocer's meat aisle ready to cook.

( Im not judging; just saying...)
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Fri, Sep-06-19, 09:05
Bob-a-rama's Avatar
Bob-a-rama Bob-a-rama is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,254
 
Plan: Keto (Atkins Induction)
Stats: 230/179/185 Male 5' 11"
BF:
Progress: 113%
Location: Florida
Default

I have:
  1. The teeth of an omnivore, some for tearing flesh and some for grinding cellulose
  2. The digestive enzymes of an omnivore, some for digesting fats, some for digesting oils, and some for digesting starch/sugars
  3. The alimentary canal of an omnivore. Cows and other ruminants have multiple stomachs to slowly ferment the cellulose. Horses and their kin have a mile long alimentary canal. Rabbits and others eat their own feces to run them through a second time to get the nutrients out of plants

I simply honor my body by eating an omnivorous diet. I do my best to eat meat that has been humanely raised and plants that aren't doused with excesses of herbicides and pesticides.

I don't believe a vegan diet is healthier. Vegans need B-12, choline, and other nutritional supplements that are either missing in plants or very difficult to absorb.

Now I have nothing against those who wish to be vegans, carnivores or omnivores, no matter how picky. (Those who aren't vegans and call themselves vegetarians are just picky omnivores.) I'm a picky eater myself - I don't do many carbs and don't eat many foods because I don't like the taste.

I do resent the minority of vegans/vegetarians with a "holier than thou" attitude. It's not their diet, it's their self imposed superiority that bugs me.

If it weren't for omnivores and carnivores, there would be little life on this planet.

Take the Galapagos Island's Marine Iguana. This cold blooded animal is a herbivore and once fed off the plants growing on it's island. With no predators to control the population it eventually reproduced and ate everything it could get nutrition from on the island.

With nowhere else to go it took to seaweed. But the water is cold so the little lizard goes into the water, comes out and basks in the sun to get warm again.

They kept on reproducing and soon the easy to get to seaweed has been eaten so they had to dive deeper and deeper to eat. Every bite means they have to hold their breath as long as possible to reach one bite of food, and have ther body temperature reduced by the cold water to the brink of freezing to death.

Now all they do is dive to the extreme limit of their endurance, grab a bite, go back to shore to warm back up. Those who can't dive deep enough die of either drowning or hypothermia. Thus the numbers are controlled by starvation instead of predation.

Having predators is simply part of nature's balance in a closed system.

Bob
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Fri, Sep-06-19, 09:48
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,671
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

When I think UK and fish, I think batter, deep fry...I'll need some very hard evidence to show that plain, unbattered fish "ruins" a vegan diet. Or that a low fat steak or pork chop does. Leaving room here for a lower fat diet to have some benefits versus SAD, if the carb sources are uncruddy enough...
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Fri, Sep-06-19, 12:22
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 11,874
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/214/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob-a-rama


Having predators is simply part of nature's balance in a closed system.

Bob


In Yellowstone, the park became healthy and vibrant again when the wolves were brought back to keep the large ruminant population in check. Checks and balances.

Where my mother lives, the deer decimate the vegetation, including lovely gardens and shrubs; not far away, the population is kept in check by poaching.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Fri, Sep-06-19, 14:41
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 3,072
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Interesting what you say about wolves being reintroduced to Yellowstone and the corresponding results. I know a lot of elk and deer hunters in that area (one of my brothers lives in Wyoming, and I'm out there fishing every couple years) who cursed that move, but that was a while back.

In Fairfax VA and surrounding areas, we have deer like a McDonald's parking lot has pigeons. I have deer in my yard every morning. The county authorities saw the wisdom of controlled hunts using bows as weapons due to the fact that deer are so abundant in very populated areas. Not only do they eliminate the vegetation in surrounding woods and fields, but also anything of value in our gardens. They've caused injuries and fatalities (not just their own) on the roads and highways. Not good for either species.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Sat, Sep-07-19, 08:25
Bob-a-rama's Avatar
Bob-a-rama Bob-a-rama is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,254
 
Plan: Keto (Atkins Induction)
Stats: 230/179/185 Male 5' 11"
BF:
Progress: 113%
Location: Florida
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
<...snip...>I'll need some very hard evidence to show that plain, unbattered fish "ruins" a vegan diet. <...>

If you eat fish, you are not on a vegan diet anymore (and IMHO not even a vegetarian but an omnivore).

From Merriam Webster:
Definition of vegan: a strict vegetarian who consumes no food (such as meat, eggs, or dairy products) that comes from animals

also : one who abstains from using animal products (such as leather)
Since fish are animals, you can't eat fish and be a vegan.

Vegan was coined in 1941 to separate true vegetarians from those who wanted to be included in the vegetarian "club" but insisted that eggs and milk came from vegetables instead of animals.

[satire] Since I don't eat chicken, I guess I could say I'm a Lacto-Ovo-Beefo-Porko-Fisho vegetarian

Bob
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Sat, Sep-07-19, 08:59
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,671
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

I wasn't getting semantic this time--certainly it would make the diet not vegan. It's the idea that a diet that would have been otherwise vegan would be "ruined" by adding fish to it, that it would be less healthful--not less vegan--that I was speaking to. "Plant-based" diet advocates like McDougall and Ornish etc. often point to groups that eat "mostly plants" to support an "only plant" diet.

Going back to semantical--yes, you could say that. Ovo-vegetarian includes all the things the person eats, eggs and vegetables. Omnivorous would be wrong, because there's lots of stuff the person doesn't eat. Ovo-vegetarian is a reasonable way to say that a person eats eggs and vegetables. We can say that means their not a "true" vegetarian. I don't care, I know what they eat from the terminology, that's what it's for.

Anyways, I think it's up to the vegans to make people who also eat eggs feel like they don't fit in, not us. Maybe we should be picking on carnivores who allow for a sprig of parsley next to their steak.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Sat, Sep-07-19, 11:37
bevangel's Avatar
bevangel bevangel is offline
Posts: 2,043
 
Plan: modified adkins (sort of)
Stats: 265/176/167 Female 68.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 91%
Location: Austin, TX
Default

Re semantics...

I think even obligate carnivores animals (such as cats) consume small amounts of plant matter... if nothing else, from the semi-digested remains of the stomach matter in their prey.

And even the most herbivorous of herbivores (eg, the giant panda comes to mind) occasionally wind up consuming small amounts of animal matter... if nothing else, in the form of small insects that happen to be on the leaves/grass/bamboo that they stay busy stuffing into their mouths 10+ hours per day!

As for terminology describing various levels of carnivores, although it was years ago, I vaguely recall reading somewhere where carnivores were sub-classed according to the percentage of their diet that NEEDED to come from meat or animal products.

Hyper-carnivores were those that necessarily derived something like 70% or more of their energy and nutritional requirements from meat and other animal products (eggs/milk/etc); Meso-carnivores get something like 30% to 70% of their energy and nutrition from meat or animal products. Hypo-carnivores derive less than 30% of energy and nutritional requirements from meat or other animal products.

Omnivores, by definition, are ABLE to derive the vast majority of their energy and nutritional requirements from EITHER plant matter or animal matter...and apparently can switch back and forth quite easily.

True herbivores not only don't NEED any animal matter in their diets, they may not even be able to digest it even if they occasionally consume some.

And, obligate carnivores apparently cannot digest plant matter even if they occasionally consume some. For example, cats (obligate carnivores) will occasionally be seen eating grass but it is because the grass helps them regurgitate other matter that may be causing digestive upset.

By definition then, I think humans (and all mammals including cows and deer) start life as hyper-carnivores... fulfilling pretty much 100% of our nutritional needs via milk!

Since mammalian "herbivores" are all born with the ability to digest milk (an animal product) and obtain nutrients from it, I'm never surprised when I hear about something like a dear being seen chowing down on a dead bird or rabbits eating their young. I rather suspect that the ability to digest animal products remains intact, albeit somewhat diminished in the most herbivorous of mammals.

(BTW, They always say that a mother rabbit that eats her young is reacting to external stress but I wonder if possibly the doe is simply so nutritionally depleted by the birth process that she turns to the only source of meat available to her in order to quickly replenish the nutrients she needs!)

As for the difference between vegetarians/vegans. I'm okay with using the term vegetarian to describe a human who chooses to derive most of his/her energy/nutrition from plant matter but supplements that with animal products such as milk, eggs and honey (none of which requires that the producing animal be killed) and reserving the term "vegan" for those who refuse to knowingly consume any animal product. I'm pretty sure the vegans wind up occasionally eating some insect parts in their cereals but I'm willing to respect their right to NOT knowingly consume any animal product and recognize that this definitely differentiate them from "vegetarians" who willingly eat milk/cheese/eggs or whatever.

Pretty sure that, regardless of what humans choose to eat, we all remain omnivores... ABLE to derive MOST of our energy/nutritional needs from either plants or animals.

Vegans CAN obtain MOST of their nutritional needs from plants however, to remain healthy, they MUST supplement their diets with a few nutrients that are simply not bio-available in plant matter. I've sometimes wondered if the reason that people in third world countries eating essentially vegan diets still manage to remain reasonably healthy without supplements is that their "gathered foods" tend to be much more highly "contaminated" with insect parts and other bits of animal matter than the super-cleaned processed-foods that vegans in the US and other developed countries eat.

Just some thoughts.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Sat, Sep-07-19, 13:29
Verbena Verbena is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 916
 
Plan: My own
Stats: 186/155/150 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 86%
Location: SW PNW
Default

Vegans come from a planet (as yet undiscovered by astronomers on earth) circling the star Vega.
Or have I read too many science fiction stories?





ETA: Science fiction stories

Last edited by Verbena : Sat, Sep-07-19 at 15:55.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Sat, Sep-07-19, 14:37
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 11,822
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/136/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 120%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bevangel
I've sometimes wondered if the reason that people in third world countries eating essentially vegan diets still manage to remain reasonably healthy without supplements is that their "gathered foods" tend to be much more highly "contaminated" with insect parts and other bits of animal matter than the super-cleaned processed-foods that vegans in the US and other developed countries eat.

Just some thoughts.


Out there somewhere is a paper on Jains who emigrate to Britain and suddenly get pernicious anemia. Which supports that theory.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 19:28.


Copyright © 2000-2019 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.