I am interested in feedback of people who eat fermented foods such as kimchi. I am recently diagnosed with crohns,11-13,and the first thing that I noticed from reading all the posts is one food or drug will have different affects on different people. My surgeon said I am in remission and I really want to stay that way. I am trying to figure out my triggers and basically my diet from here on in. I've had discussions with people who say fermented foods would be good for people with crohns. I would like to here from anyone. Thanks in advance.
-
Welcome to Crohn's Forum, a support group for people with all forms of IBD. While this community is not a substitute for doctor's advice and we cannot treat or diagnose, we find being able to communicate with others who have IBD is invaluable as we navigate our struggles and celebrate our successes. We invite you to join us.
Fermented foods for crohns
- Thread starter dave13
- Start date
I have been diagnosed with UC (sept) and have been trying to kick it into remission. It is frustrating for sure since doctors dont acknowledge diet as a factor at all. I have been looking into "diets" for our conditions. I would google a few of these and see which would work best for you (thats the hardest part) you can see if some of your triggers are on the lists of things to avoid. The one with the fermented food (gaps diet) starts with broths etc then adds very specific foods and fermented.
Also try googling scd, fodmap, and even paleo.
Also try googling scd, fodmap, and even paleo.
the SCD(specific carbohydrate diet) diet involves using yogurt to help manage IBD symptoms in addition to other guidelines like low intake of disacharrides, which are simple sugars like lactose and sucrose. But i found that its hard to make the yogurt myself as the book titled breaking the vicious cycle suggests, but when i do eat it, there is something about it that makes me feel fabulous.
I would recommened reading the book to get more info. i have used some of these principles to reduce my symptoms for about 4.5 years now without drugs. I always have one solid bm without blood or mucus.
also there is a treatment in FDA trials that induces remission ind IBD and may have cured UC according to professor and MD Thomas J. Borody. find out more here- http://www.crohnsforum.com/showthread.php?t=52400
I would recommened reading the book to get more info. i have used some of these principles to reduce my symptoms for about 4.5 years now without drugs. I always have one solid bm without blood or mucus.
also there is a treatment in FDA trials that induces remission ind IBD and may have cured UC according to professor and MD Thomas J. Borody. find out more here- http://www.crohnsforum.com/showthread.php?t=52400
This might help:
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/achieving-remission-of-crohns-disease/ Be sure to check out the "sources cited" under the video to get the texts for the actual studies discussed in the video.
It should be noted that there is no scientific evidence supporting SCD or paleo diets. All the positive results you hear from them are anecdotal. Research does show that more animal products = more inflammation, more cancers, greater risk of IBD and gut damage. Likewise, we also know that plant-based foods reduces inflammation, improves gut flora (which improves our immune system), reduces our risks for IBD/heart disease/cancers of the bowel, reduces our exposure to environmental pollutants like hormones and mercury and gives us healthier bowel movements.
Good luck and congratulations on your remission!
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/achieving-remission-of-crohns-disease/ Be sure to check out the "sources cited" under the video to get the texts for the actual studies discussed in the video.
It should be noted that there is no scientific evidence supporting SCD or paleo diets. All the positive results you hear from them are anecdotal. Research does show that more animal products = more inflammation, more cancers, greater risk of IBD and gut damage. Likewise, we also know that plant-based foods reduces inflammation, improves gut flora (which improves our immune system), reduces our risks for IBD/heart disease/cancers of the bowel, reduces our exposure to environmental pollutants like hormones and mercury and gives us healthier bowel movements.
Good luck and congratulations on your remission!
VeganOstomy,
the word science basically means, theories and hypothesis derived from high quality empirical observations, which are tested for their ability to predict and event through experimentation. For the most part a good test can be done by anyone, anywhere, anytime. anecdotes are the beginning of science, anecdotes are basically testimonies of peoples observations that need to be verified with a good (scientific ) test. just because someone made an anecdotal observation, doesn't mean it is worthless, but yes they are typically less reliable then a well conducted study.
It would suck for you not to investigate or attempt to verify my claims of the efficacy SCD diet principles, due to your own desire to belittle something because you judged it to be non scientific. If you read the book breaking the vicious cycle, from which the SCD diet is derived, you would know that the author is educated, and the diet was based on observations by multiple doctors and scientists over the years. The author simply applied this knowledge from the scientific literature that the widespread medical community wasn't interested in popularizing. And if you think i know nothing about how science is done, you are mistaken. im not saying everything in the book or in the diet is 100% true, but the main message of the book, reduction of disachrides absolutey is true and does reduces symptoms.
oh wait guess what, SCD diet was just studied by the university of massachusetts to manage IBD here is a link and quote-
http://works.bepress.com/barbara_olendzki/46/
Here's the problem with the study you link:
- Without the full-text, we have no idea on the methodology used. For all we know, these 11 patients were picked out of 2000 who failed. What about their previous diet?
- the study included pre/probiotics, so it wasn't just SCD here. To what influence the pre/probiotics played will never be known, since that information was excluded.
- This study doesn't appear to be peer reviewed from what I can tell.
- did they run blood tests before and after to see if stuff like cholesterol, IGF-1, CRP or other inflammatory markers were improved?
- All of the patients, except for one are either on steroids, ASA, immunosuppressants or anti-tnf therapy. In the 6-10 months time this study was done in, it's entirely possible that their treatments simply started working and the dietary changes had little to do with it.
- Were these patients scoped after the study or did they only rely on the HBI/MTLW scores? I ask this because I was in a clinical trial too and "felt better" on paper (I was in clinical remission according to the CDAI scores), but when i was scoped my disease was so much worse than six months before that I had to have my colon removed. Perhaps a 2 year follow up with these patients would be in order.
So to me, this study, while interesting, is of little value.
Again, I don't doubt that people genuinely feel better when changing their diet, but I've heard people say they feel better doing things that we absolutely KNOW cannot/does not impact the health of our guts. Maybe it's placebo, or maybe it's simply the removal of offending foods that cause a reduction of symptoms, but the totality of the information still suggests that SCD/Paleo diets aren't ideal - they can and often do cause long-term problems, which can range from constipation to heart problems.
VeganOstomy,
do you have any science to back up these claims? also, this isnt about paleo diet its about SCD and only some of the principles of it having some benefits. the diets have some differences, do not claim they are exactly the same.
also, have you ever tried applying ANY of the SCD diet principles? that would give you a little more credibility here. and also, to detail your methodology and how you went about evaluating the diet.
another quote from the study
so they admit this was simply a pilot study for the SCD diet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_experiment
ill also admit the inclusion of fiber supplements doesn't help us draw any firm conclusions about the SCD diet alone, but i provided the study as evidence to support, and not prove my position with absolute conclusiveness. At least i provided some support for my claims, in addition to my own testimony.
I'll also admit some of the points you made to critique the study were good, but it all comes down to, have you ever tried it to see if any of your symptoms improved? and thats it. Science puts theories to a good test, something im not sure you have done yourself.
I'm not saying it will cure anyone's disease nor replace meds, only that, it could help improve some of peoples symptoms. especially reducing lactose and sucrose, even if they didnt follow any other scd guidlines.
For more support for the hypothesis that reducing lactose and sucrose diet can decrease symptoms of diarhea, e coil have the ability to digest lactose through lac operon, and colonization of crohn's with adherent invasive escherichia coli( AEIC) is a significant contributer to disease state. therefore, lowering some of the food sources for these bacteria may have an effect on symptoms.
Last edited:
I love a bit of ideology masquerading as science.....
edit... sorry, shouldn't be so glib, my apologies...
Fermented foods,
I use water kefir. kombucha, kim chi and 3 different types of sauerkraut.
I swear by it but I stay away from milk probiotics -yogurt was never good for me (even SCD yogurt) and milk kefir was fine but too stinky
Investigate the GAPS diet, a more modern version of SCD with an emphasis on fermented foods.
edit... sorry, shouldn't be so glib, my apologies...
Fermented foods,
I use water kefir. kombucha, kim chi and 3 different types of sauerkraut.
I swear by it but I stay away from milk probiotics -yogurt was never good for me (even SCD yogurt) and milk kefir was fine but too stinky
Investigate the GAPS diet, a more modern version of SCD with an emphasis on fermented foods.
Last edited:
"semi-vegetarian diet"???????,
-like "almost pregnant"?, a "little bit dead"?
You criticize bad science, but then you put up a link to this distortion of science.
The 'omnivorous' diet o the control group was typical bad food,
The diet these people were told to follow was avoiding known harmful foods,
"shown to be a risk factor for IBD in or outside Japan, including sweets, bread. cheese, margarine, fast foods, carbonated beverages, and juices, were discouraged"
Meat didn't even make it onto this list!!!!
If this proves ANYTHING it is that meat wasn't the problem (they were still eating meat), it was the bread, sugar, fast food, carbonated beverages
-I'd love to see the whole list, it's probably very much like the 'perfect health diet', another take on ancestral health.
Lifestyle-related disease in Crohn’s disease: Relapse prevention by a semi-vegetarian diet
"were advised to continue with an SVD and avoid known high-risk foods for inflammatory bowel disease. "
"Pre-illness case-control studies, including those in Japan, have reported increased intake of sugar, fast foods, chocolate, and cola drinks in ]IBD, and a decrease in total fruit and vegetable fiber in CD"
"western foods including bread are a risk factor"
"Eggs and milk were used. In other words, our diet was a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet"
"Miso (fermented bean paste) soup, vegetables, fruits, legumes, potatoes, pickled vegetables, and plain yoghurt were served daily"
"Fish was served once a week and meat once every 2 wk,"
"During hospitalization, foods other than the meal service were discourage"
"Foods that have been shown to be a risk factor for IBD in or outside Japan, including sweets, bread. cheese, margarine, fast foods, carbonated beverages, and juices, were discouraged. Healthy habits were encouraged: no smoking, regular physical activity, moderate or no use of alcohol, regularity of meals, and not eating between meals"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2877178/
"our diet was a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet" with meat and fish!!!!!!!
basically a small trial with MULTIPLE variables, one of which (the one claimed to be the beneficial one (vegetarianism)) WASN'T even present.
lift your game VO, show us some science
If you do a trial with lots of variable it is scientifically DISHONEST to claim all the benefit for one variable - Particularly one that wasn't even present.
Hmmmmm,,,, meat wasn't one of them.
constipation or heart problems? more please
-like "almost pregnant"?, a "little bit dead"?
You criticize bad science, but then you put up a link to this distortion of science.
The 'omnivorous' diet o the control group was typical bad food,
The diet these people were told to follow was avoiding known harmful foods,
"shown to be a risk factor for IBD in or outside Japan, including sweets, bread. cheese, margarine, fast foods, carbonated beverages, and juices, were discouraged"
Meat didn't even make it onto this list!!!!
If this proves ANYTHING it is that meat wasn't the problem (they were still eating meat), it was the bread, sugar, fast food, carbonated beverages
-I'd love to see the whole list, it's probably very much like the 'perfect health diet', another take on ancestral health.
Lifestyle-related disease in Crohn’s disease: Relapse prevention by a semi-vegetarian diet
"were advised to continue with an SVD and avoid known high-risk foods for inflammatory bowel disease. "
"Pre-illness case-control studies, including those in Japan, have reported increased intake of sugar, fast foods, chocolate, and cola drinks in ]IBD, and a decrease in total fruit and vegetable fiber in CD"
"western foods including bread are a risk factor"
"Eggs and milk were used. In other words, our diet was a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet"
"Miso (fermented bean paste) soup, vegetables, fruits, legumes, potatoes, pickled vegetables, and plain yoghurt were served daily"
"Fish was served once a week and meat once every 2 wk,"
"During hospitalization, foods other than the meal service were discourage"
"Foods that have been shown to be a risk factor for IBD in or outside Japan, including sweets, bread. cheese, margarine, fast foods, carbonated beverages, and juices, were discouraged. Healthy habits were encouraged: no smoking, regular physical activity, moderate or no use of alcohol, regularity of meals, and not eating between meals"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2877178/
"our diet was a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet" with meat and fish!!!!!!!
basically a small trial with MULTIPLE variables, one of which (the one claimed to be the beneficial one (vegetarianism)) WASN'T even present.
lift your game VO, show us some science
We know your group wasn't vegetarian (let alone vegan), so what was their diet (particularly- WHAT was excluded???????)
If you do a trial with lots of variable it is scientifically DISHONEST to claim all the benefit for one variable - Particularly one that wasn't even present.
Ditto
removal of offending foods, now there's a thought....
Hmmmmm,,,, meat wasn't one of them.
constipation or heart problems? more please
Last edited:
I wish you had read the study before criticizing it. I know it's not perfect by any stretch, but it does show an extremely high remission rate (much higher than the conventional treatment available in Japan) and illustrates a point.
Let me correct your misconceptions as it looks like you simply skimmed over the study.
They could have gone full vegan, but who wants to battle patients perceptions when the researchers really want to get into the science of it?
"Dietary westernization is characterized by increased consumption of animal protein, animal fat, and sugar, with decreased consumption of grains. A dietary study during dietary transition in Japan incriminated an increased intake of animal fat and animal protein in the increase in CD[19]"
"The same tendency has recently been reported in pediatric CD cases in Canada: a positive association with a western diet (meats, fatty foods, and desserts) and an inverse association with a prudent diet (vegetables, fruits, olive oil, grains, and nuts)"
"Diets rich in animal protein and animal fat cause a decrease in beneficial bacteria in the intestine[31,32]. "
If you have time, please investigate the sources for each of those quotes.
"Diets rich in animal protein and animal fat cause a decrease in beneficial bacteria in the intestine[31,32]. "
And
"The conventional recommended diet for IBD is a low-residue diet[37]. A fear of irritating the bowel with dietary fiber has led to a low-residue diet. However, there is no evidence that such a diet is ideal for IBD. A low-residue diet that lacks non-digestible carbohydrates might accelerate the dysbiosis in IBD. "
So while they drastically reduced animal products, they also increased plant-matter, which further provided a substrate for healthy bacteria. Since this topic IS on fermented foods for improving gut bacteria, and there are other studies apart from this which also suggest that animal products are bad for our gut bacteria and plants are good, I don't know why you aren't embracing research like this.
"our SVD encourages consumption of grains, vegetables, and fruits, while limiting intake of animal foods that tend to decrease beneficial bacteria[31,32] and other foods reported to be risk factors for IBD[20-30]. However, no food item is prohibited."
Again, the lacto-ovo veg diet was chosen so patients weren't being forced into eliminating everything from their diet without choice (there is an element of ethics at play here. Try to understand that).
And "dishonest"? Huh? They set the stage (i.e. that increased animal products and decreased plant foods are bad for IBD) and they went out to prove the hypothesis. That's how science works.
Figure 4 is very telling - the people who stayed on this semi-veg diet has nearly 100% remission after 2 years vs. about 80% relapse in the group that started eating animal products again.
"Although we designed our SVD with gut bacterial flora in mind, both plant-only (vegan) and plant-based (lacto-ovo-vegetarian, semi-vegetarian) vegetarians are shown to have low rates of cancer, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and total mortality[51,69]. Plant-based diets are recommended for prevention of cancer and other lifestyle-related chronic diseases[70]. Therefore, SVD will not only be effective for gut inflammation, but also promote the general health of IBD patients."
This is also worth noting:
There have been trials for prevention of relapse in CD with diets or supplements. Excellent results with an exclusion diet of intolerant foods[62], an unrefined-carbohydrate, fiber-rich diet[63], or fish oil supplement[64] have not been reproduced in other studies[65-67]. Therefore, none of the dietary modifications has been widely accepted. Currently, manipulation of gut microflora with probiotics and/or prebiotics has emerged as an attractive therapeutic modality in IBD[11,15,33,34]. The rationale of an SVD, i.e. enhancement of beneficial bacteria in the gut, is the same as that of probiotics and prebiotics."
So let's be honest here, the link given way above supporting SCD was all over the place: patients were still on immunosuppressants, the study and follow-up were less than one year, we know nothing of the history of those patients, etc. The semi-veg diet study was far more concise (while not perfect), and the remission results were incredibly impressive vs. all other forms of conventional treatment.
I should also make it very clear that the semi-veg diet was peer reviewed and the SCD study was not. We can talk science, but I think your criticisms are unfounded in this case.
I've taken way too much time giving you information that you already would have known if you read the study in its entirety. I cannot spend more time debating this. I think there's far more evidence supporting diets that are far from what SCD promoted and very little evidence supporting SCD. Considering it's one of the most popular diets for people with IBD, I believe we should be more skeptical of the claims.
If you're looking for a diet that naturally enhances gut flora without the need to take in dangerous stuff like kombucha (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19460826), then plant-based diets offer that.
Let me correct your misconceptions as it looks like you simply skimmed over the study.
"Considering that excessive restriction in foods can be less acceptable, a semi-vegetarian diet (SVD) could be appropriate. "
They could have gone full vegan, but who wants to battle patients perceptions when the researchers really want to get into the science of it?
Huh? It didn't make the list? It was mentioned several times over (i.e. Animal protein, animal fat)...
"Dietary westernization is characterized by increased consumption of animal protein, animal fat, and sugar, with decreased consumption of grains. A dietary study during dietary transition in Japan incriminated an increased intake of animal fat and animal protein in the increase in CD[19]"
"The same tendency has recently been reported in pediatric CD cases in Canada: a positive association with a western diet (meats, fatty foods, and desserts) and an inverse association with a prudent diet (vegetables, fruits, olive oil, grains, and nuts)"
"Diets rich in animal protein and animal fat cause a decrease in beneficial bacteria in the intestine[31,32]. "
If you have time, please investigate the sources for each of those quotes.
As stated above, that's not what previous studies have shown (re: sugar: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2822203 "One hundred and sixty two patients were randomly allocated to take a diet unrestricted in sugar and low in fibre and 190 to a diet with little or no sugar and high in unrefined carbohydrate. No clear difference in clinical course was detected among patients who accepted the two different types of dietary advice."), but in addition, this study also noted that:
"Diets rich in animal protein and animal fat cause a decrease in beneficial bacteria in the intestine[31,32]. "
And
"The conventional recommended diet for IBD is a low-residue diet[37]. A fear of irritating the bowel with dietary fiber has led to a low-residue diet. However, there is no evidence that such a diet is ideal for IBD. A low-residue diet that lacks non-digestible carbohydrates might accelerate the dysbiosis in IBD. "
So while they drastically reduced animal products, they also increased plant-matter, which further provided a substrate for healthy bacteria. Since this topic IS on fermented foods for improving gut bacteria, and there are other studies apart from this which also suggest that animal products are bad for our gut bacteria and plants are good, I don't know why you aren't embracing research like this.
Small trial yes, but they've been successfully using this diet for all Crohn's patients in their hospital since 2003!
"our SVD encourages consumption of grains, vegetables, and fruits, while limiting intake of animal foods that tend to decrease beneficial bacteria[31,32] and other foods reported to be risk factors for IBD[20-30]. However, no food item is prohibited."
Again, the lacto-ovo veg diet was chosen so patients weren't being forced into eliminating everything from their diet without choice (there is an element of ethics at play here. Try to understand that).
Again, did you read the study? Figures 1, 2, 3 and Table 4 give you the answers...
And "dishonest"? Huh? They set the stage (i.e. that increased animal products and decreased plant foods are bad for IBD) and they went out to prove the hypothesis. That's how science works.
Figure 4 is very telling - the people who stayed on this semi-veg diet has nearly 100% remission after 2 years vs. about 80% relapse in the group that started eating animal products again.
READ, READ, READ
"Although we designed our SVD with gut bacterial flora in mind, both plant-only (vegan) and plant-based (lacto-ovo-vegetarian, semi-vegetarian) vegetarians are shown to have low rates of cancer, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and total mortality[51,69]. Plant-based diets are recommended for prevention of cancer and other lifestyle-related chronic diseases[70]. Therefore, SVD will not only be effective for gut inflammation, but also promote the general health of IBD patients."
This is also worth noting:
There have been trials for prevention of relapse in CD with diets or supplements. Excellent results with an exclusion diet of intolerant foods[62], an unrefined-carbohydrate, fiber-rich diet[63], or fish oil supplement[64] have not been reproduced in other studies[65-67]. Therefore, none of the dietary modifications has been widely accepted. Currently, manipulation of gut microflora with probiotics and/or prebiotics has emerged as an attractive therapeutic modality in IBD[11,15,33,34]. The rationale of an SVD, i.e. enhancement of beneficial bacteria in the gut, is the same as that of probiotics and prebiotics."
So let's be honest here, the link given way above supporting SCD was all over the place: patients were still on immunosuppressants, the study and follow-up were less than one year, we know nothing of the history of those patients, etc. The semi-veg diet study was far more concise (while not perfect), and the remission results were incredibly impressive vs. all other forms of conventional treatment.
I should also make it very clear that the semi-veg diet was peer reviewed and the SCD study was not. We can talk science, but I think your criticisms are unfounded in this case.
I've taken way too much time giving you information that you already would have known if you read the study in its entirety. I cannot spend more time debating this. I think there's far more evidence supporting diets that are far from what SCD promoted and very little evidence supporting SCD. Considering it's one of the most popular diets for people with IBD, I believe we should be more skeptical of the claims.
If you're looking for a diet that naturally enhances gut flora without the need to take in dangerous stuff like kombucha (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19460826), then plant-based diets offer that.
VeganOstomy,
i had time to check out the link
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/achieving-remission-of-crohns-disease/
and i remember hearing about this study. i can also testify and agree the removal of meat to improve disease state in IBD. i have been meat and egg free since being diagnosed, as whenever i added this stuff back in, i declined in some ways, now its part of the routine for me. i still eat cheese though but of course never a high lactose containing foods like milk. any thing fermented is generally lower then milk, mozzerella cheese seems very low in lactose.
Some research has suggested that one way pathogens are allowed to proliferate in our intestines, are through the generation of nitrate and nitrite as a byproduct of the inflammatory process. these compounds act as fertilizers which supply pathogens with a preferred fuel of choice, allowing them to out compete more beneficial microbes. Nitrate and nitrate compounds are derived from the amino acid arginine, and are usually beneficial to killing microbes as far as i recall, but not in chronic inflammation. meat is very high in arginine so this is one precise mechanism that eliminating meat may be beneficial. also, choline compounds are found to be utlized by pathogens as well, and meat and eggs generally have higher amounts of choline then plants. i believe there are other yet undiscovered molecular pathways that meat is bad for ibd, and generally not ideal for even healthy people, at least in large amounts.
i had time to check out the link
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/achieving-remission-of-crohns-disease/
and i remember hearing about this study. i can also testify and agree the removal of meat to improve disease state in IBD. i have been meat and egg free since being diagnosed, as whenever i added this stuff back in, i declined in some ways, now its part of the routine for me. i still eat cheese though but of course never a high lactose containing foods like milk. any thing fermented is generally lower then milk, mozzerella cheese seems very low in lactose.
Some research has suggested that one way pathogens are allowed to proliferate in our intestines, are through the generation of nitrate and nitrite as a byproduct of the inflammatory process. these compounds act as fertilizers which supply pathogens with a preferred fuel of choice, allowing them to out compete more beneficial microbes. Nitrate and nitrate compounds are derived from the amino acid arginine, and are usually beneficial to killing microbes as far as i recall, but not in chronic inflammation. meat is very high in arginine so this is one precise mechanism that eliminating meat may be beneficial. also, choline compounds are found to be utlized by pathogens as well, and meat and eggs generally have higher amounts of choline then plants. i believe there are other yet undiscovered molecular pathways that meat is bad for ibd, and generally not ideal for even healthy people, at least in large amounts.
Veganostomy,
You are arguing that a diet excluding processed foods, sugar, wheat, fast foods, vegetable oils (margarine), etc and low in meat works because it is low in meat.
I am arguing that the same diet with or without meat will be beneficial and unlike yourself I have some evidence (including the study you put up)
Every one else,
If I am getting on your nerves I apologise, just skip over it to the next post, i'm done with this topic.
yes it does show a high remission rate (medically induced but maintained by the diet), but the conclusion is that avoiding a western type diet hight in sugar and processed foods will be beneficial, any conclusions drawn about vegetarianism are demonstrably false.
1- It wasn't vegetarian
2- They want everyone to associate the results with vegetarianism rather than real food
The “science of it” is that a whole bunch of things were changed and all the credit was given to one variable that was reduced NOT eliminated.
“The responsible doctor (Chiba M) also gave patients an SVD guide (Figure (Figure3)3) and advised them to continue the diet after discharge. Foods that have been shown to be a risk factor for IBD in or outside Japan, including sweets, bread, cheese, margarine, fast foods, carbonated beverages, and juices, were discouraged. “
Most epidemiological studies are pretty easy to rip apart,
for example
http://rawfoodsos.com/2012/07/01/bad-science-strikes-again/
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/high-fat-diet-linked-to-breast-cancer/#axzz2nhF0y5QA
[31] “The data indicate that animal protein consumption has little effect on the fecal bacterial profile in humans.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/832279
[32] “These findings suggest that significant reductions in anaerobic gram-positive bacilli and increased numbers of bacteroides and clostridia in the feces were induced by the intake of a western diet” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/832279
so, once again, meat is ok but processed crap is not
A real food diet including meat was beneficial....
Not at all impressed so far....
“When remission was maintained for 1 year and a patient seemed to continue the SVD medication was stopped if the patient so desired.”
No indication of whether or not they were still on medication to further confound an already compromised study?
I can keep saying it until you work it out, multiple changes to diet, none of which are the elimination of meat.
Once again, those studies....
[31] “The data indicate that animal protein consumption has little effect on the fecal bacterial profile in humans.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/832279
[32] “These findings suggest that significant reductions in anaerobic gram-positive bacilli and increased numbers of bacteroides and clostridia in the feces were induced by the intake of a western diet” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/832279
hmmmmm, help me out,
reducing meat and avoiding foods known to aggravate crohns works in prolonging remission therefore it was the reduction in meat that deserves the credit and obviously if meat is excluded totally then the results will be better?
OK, I understand your argument, there is a bit of science missing but a leap of faith covers the gaps.
But putting that aside,
We have a study that make many changes and attributes the success to just one variable (and not even a real one)
“the people who stayed on thissemi-veg real food diet has nearly 100% remission after 2 years vs. about 80% relapse in the group that started eating animal products processed/SAD/western/sugar foods again.”
There, now it's honest.
[51] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479241
[69] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479215
[70] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479215
you sure do use the word 'science' a lot,
People should be sceptical,
Try it for yourself is what I tell people.
It's not perfect but I will always be grateful to SCd and paleo because they led me to a proper understanding of food and nutrition, and to good health.
I do not follow the SCD diet (I did), now I try to emulate the 'Perfect Health Diet' and I thoroughly recommend that people check it out and try it for themselves
typical, a guy with multiple issues probably on multiple meds and he drinks kombucha, must have been that, wow, science at work......
You are arguing that a diet excluding processed foods, sugar, wheat, fast foods, vegetable oils (margarine), etc and low in meat works because it is low in meat.
I am arguing that the same diet with or without meat will be beneficial and unlike yourself I have some evidence (including the study you put up)
Every one else,
If I am getting on your nerves I apologise, just skip over it to the next post, i'm done with this topic.
I read it
yes it does show a high remission rate (medically induced but maintained by the diet), but the conclusion is that avoiding a western type diet hight in sugar and processed foods will be beneficial, any conclusions drawn about vegetarianism are demonstrably false.
Semi-vegatarian tells me two things straight away
1- It wasn't vegetarian
2- They want everyone to associate the results with vegetarianism rather than real food
The “science of it” is that a whole bunch of things were changed and all the credit was given to one variable that was reduced NOT eliminated.
While there is some reference to meat (ie 'mentioned several times') in the 'study', the dietary advice given to patients is described as follows....
“The responsible doctor (Chiba M) also gave patients an SVD guide (Figure (Figure3)3) and advised them to continue the diet after discharge. Foods that have been shown to be a risk factor for IBD in or outside Japan, including sweets, bread, cheese, margarine, fast foods, carbonated beverages, and juices, were discouraged. “
Yup, epidemiological studies, showing correlation between a western/processed/sweet/processed carb diet and various diseases. About as valid as me finding a study linking chips and soda to obesity and blaming vegetables.
Most epidemiological studies are pretty easy to rip apart,
for example
http://rawfoodsos.com/2012/07/01/bad-science-strikes-again/
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/high-fat-diet-linked-to-breast-cancer/#axzz2nhF0y5QA
So no difference between those who ate sugar and those who ate processed carbs, still no support for your argument but support for mine
Funny, the conclusions that I read from those studies were.....
[31] “The data indicate that animal protein consumption has little effect on the fecal bacterial profile in humans.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/832279
[32] “These findings suggest that significant reductions in anaerobic gram-positive bacilli and increased numbers of bacteroides and clostridia in the feces were induced by the intake of a western diet” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/832279
so, once again, meat is ok but processed crap is not
No arguments here, low-residue is useful to reduce pain but not for healing, still doesn't support your argument against meat
Once again, I embrace proper research, but I look at it and see if it is being correctly represented.
A real food diet including meat was beneficial....
Not at all impressed so far....
but it's not vegetarian, it is a real food diet
“When remission was maintained for 1 year and a patient seemed to continue the SVD medication was stopped if the patient so desired.”
No indication of whether or not they were still on medication to further confound an already compromised study?
I can keep saying it until you work it out, multiple changes to diet, none of which are the elimination of meat.
Once again, those studies....
[31] “The data indicate that animal protein consumption has little effect on the fecal bacterial profile in humans.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/832279
[32] “These findings suggest that significant reductions in anaerobic gram-positive bacilli and increased numbers of bacteroides and clostridia in the feces were induced by the intake of a western diet” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/832279
“ Try to understand that”,
hmmmmm, help me out,
reducing meat and avoiding foods known to aggravate crohns works in prolonging remission therefore it was the reduction in meat that deserves the credit and obviously if meat is excluded totally then the results will be better?
OK, I understand your argument, there is a bit of science missing but a leap of faith covers the gaps.
Actually, the way science works is by trying to disprove a hypothesis, if you try to prove a hypothesis then all you have to do is ignore or avoid information that you do not like.
But putting that aside,
We have a study that make many changes and attributes the success to just one variable (and not even a real one)
This is just what I mean by dishonest.
“the people who stayed on this
There, now it's honest.
I do, believe me, I do....
waffle, pure waffle.....check them out for yourself
[51] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479241
[69] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479215
[70] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479215
you sure do use the word 'science' a lot,
Noted, probiotics may be beneficial,
please
Yes, it sure did support a healthy diet that includes meat.
lets agree to disagree
I read it, boring and misleading as it was,
People should be sceptical,
Try it for yourself is what I tell people.
It's not perfect but I will always be grateful to SCd and paleo because they led me to a proper understanding of food and nutrition, and to good health.
I do not follow the SCD diet (I did), now I try to emulate the 'Perfect Health Diet' and I thoroughly recommend that people check it out and try it for themselves
"plant based diets' with meat and avoiding crap (honesty remember?)
typical, a guy with multiple issues probably on multiple meds and he drinks kombucha, must have been that, wow, science at work......
WOW!!! hugh, longest post ever!!
by the way, i do recall a very similar study about refined sugars and fiber manipulation and they found it reduced the number of hospitalizations in IBD over the course of a few years. I read this way far back tho, ill try to search for it again. but that is in direct opposition to the finding of the study you posted of finding no benefit.
by the way, i do recall a very similar study about refined sugars and fiber manipulation and they found it reduced the number of hospitalizations in IBD over the course of a few years. I read this way far back tho, ill try to search for it again. but that is in direct opposition to the finding of the study you posted of finding no benefit.
I'm actually arguing exactly what I wrote above, that:
"Research does show that more animal products = more inflammation, more cancers, greater risk of IBD and gut damage. Likewise, we also know that plant-based foods reduces inflammation, improves gut flora (which improves our immune system), reduces our risks for IBD/heart disease/cancers of the bowel, reduces our exposure to environmental pollutants like hormones and mercury and gives us healthier bowel movements."
I have no interest in battling you point for point. I can provide evidence for what I stated above. You are free to challenge it or state you own opinions, but perhaps you should challenge the study coordinators instead. That SCD study that was linked above is far less impressive when you know more details. I took the liberty of contacting the person in charge of that study and the results weren't very good - they will be publishing an update to that in the near future. I don't know if I have permission to share what the email to me says, so I'll leave it at that.
I will simply correct some of your errors and then present the evidence which I based my above statement on.
Yes, in addition to the drastic reduction in animal products. They weren't trying to prove vegetarianism, they were simply trying to keep patients in remission and they did that by reducing all offending foods. Had they put these patients on diets made up mostly of meat, then you might have a case to argue for.
I think you misread it, they weren't on processed carbs, they were on unrefined carbs (i.e. whole food carbs).
To be honest, I thought those references were for some more recent studies, which include a wider spectrum of bacteria which may not have been identified in 1977. Looking at the data, the "meatless" groups were taking in the same EXTREMELY low fiber intake as the "high beef" group, which obviously won't affect their gut flora significantly, since fiber and prebiotics are the main substrate for healthy bacteria to feast on.
Here is more recent data:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12820.html
"... increases in the abundance and activity of Bilophila wadsworthia on the animal-based diet support a link between dietary fat, bile acids and the outgrowth of microorganisms capable of triggering inflammatory bowel disease"
http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v66/n1/abs/ejcn2011141a.html
"Maintaining a strict vegan or vegetarian diet results in a significant shift in the microbiota while total cell numbers remain unaltered."
There are several others, but they get more complex as they single out specific compounds produced by our gut flora and why it's significant to our health.
I thought you read the study? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2877178/table/T5/
Almost all the patients were on Mesalamine (vs. immunosuppressants and steroids in the SCD study).
It should be pointed out that the CRP levels (a marker for inflammation) are significantly lower on the semi-veg diet vs. the omni diet. I had analysed a few paleo-promoted studies and found CRP levels in "healthy" paleo-dieters to be at least double that of vegans... I have no interest in digging up that research.
I did.
[51] "Research has shown that both plant-only and plant-based eating patterns have health benefits, most notably in reducing the risk of chronic, degenerative diseases."
[69] "Populations of vegetarians living in affluent countries appear to enjoy unusually good health, characterized by low rates of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and total mortality."
[70] (you gave the wrong link) states "That is why AICR recommends filling at least 2/3 of your plate with vegetables, fruit, whole grains and beans." and then they proceed to list dozens of plant-foods which "fight cancer"... no pork, chicken, venison, beef or eggs were listed.
http://www.aicr.org/foods-that-fight-cancer/
Now, back to my original statement. And this will (hopefully) be all...
"Research does show that more animal products = more inflammation, more cancers, greater risk of IBD and gut damage"
Inflammation/IBD risks:
An association between dietary arachidonic acid, measured in adipose tissue, and ulcerative colitis.
CONCLUSIONS:
Individuals with the highest relative concentrations of arachidonic acid in adipose tissue have a significantly greater risk of developing UC. Dietary modifications might therefore prevent UC or reduce disease symptoms.
Associations between meat consumption and the prevalence of degenerative arthritis and soft tissue disorders in the adventist health study, California U.S.A.
"CONCLUSIONS:
Greater meat consumption is associated with a higher prevalence of degenerative arthritis and soft tissue disorders in both male and female subjects of this population, as is hormone replacement therapy in women."
Animal Protein Intake and Risk of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: The E3N Prospective Study
"High total protein intake, specifically animal protein, was associated with a significantly increased risk of IBD..."
Dietary Intake and Risk of Developing Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review of the Literature
"CONCLUSIONS:
High dietary intakes of ... meat were associated with an increased risk of CD and UC."
How Does Meat Cause Inflammation?
A lot of information to take in if you have the time.
I can also go into MAP (Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis) which is found in animal foods and has been strongly implicated in IBD.
Cancer:
WARNING: This document is over 800 pages long.
The Associations between Food, Nutrition and Physical Activity and the Risk of Colorectal Cancer
It illustrates strong evidence that meats contribute to colon cancer and plant-foods are protective.
Egg, red meat, and poultry intake and risk of lethal prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen-era: incidence and survival.
"In conclusion, consumption of eggs may increase risk of developing a lethal form of prostate cancer among healthy men."
Role of Fat, Animal Protein, and Dietary Fiber in Breast Cancer Etiology: A Case-Control Study
"Thus a higher fat-animal protein and lower fiber diet is associated with increased cancer risk..."
"Likewise, we also know that plant-based foods reduces inflammation"
Anti-inflammatory effects of plant-based foods and of their constituents.
In conclusion, there is convincing evidence that plant foods and non-nutritive constituents associated with these foods modulate immunological and inflammatory processes.
Greater variety in fruit and vegetable intake is associated with lower inflammation in Puerto Rican adults
"In summary, the present study supports the hypothesis that variety in fruit and vegetable intake is associated with lower serum CRP"
Rheumatoid arthritis treated with vegetarian diets.
"Compared with baseline, the improvements measured were significantly greater in the vegetarians who previously benefited from the diet (diet responders) than in diet nonresponders and omnivores."
Effects of a long-term vegetarian diet on biomarkers of antioxidant status and cardiovascular disease risk.
"CONCLUSIONS:
A long-term vegetarian diet is associated with markedly higher fasting plasma AA (ascorbic acid) concentrations and lower concentrations of TAG (triacylglycerol), UA (uric acid), and hsCRP (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein). Long-term vegetarians have a better antioxidant status and coronary heart disease risk profile than do apparently healthy omnivores. Plasma AA may act a useful marker of overall health status."
Consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids, fish, and nuts and risk of inflammatory disease mortality.
"Furthermore, our data indicate a protective role of nuts, but not fish, against inflammatory disease mortality."
I can get into more details on the protective antioxidant effects of plants, the benefits of phytonutrients and the lowering of inflammatory markers when on plant-based diets, but I think I've given enough information on this topic already.
"improves gut flora (which improves our immune system)"
Already gave sources way earlier in the post.
"reduces our risks for IBD/heart disease/cancers of the bowel"
Again: The Associations between Food, Nutrition and Physical Activity and the Risk of Colorectal Cancer
It illustrates strong evidence that plant-foods are protective.
Dietary Intake and Risk of Developing Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review of the Literature
"High fiber and fruit intakes were associated with decreased CD risk, and high vegetable intake was associated with decreased UC risk."
Pinto bean consumption reduces biomarkers for heart disease risk.
"Pinto bean intake should be encouraged to lower serum TC and LDL-C, thereby reducing risk for CHD." (Note: pinto beans, along with most/all other legumes are banned from SCD and paleo-type diets).
"reduces our exposure to environmental pollutants like hormones and mercury and gives us healthier bowel movements."
An evaluation of mercury concentrations in three brands of canned tuna.
Vegetarian diets and exposure to organochlorine pollutants, lead, and mercury
"In summary, the inclusion of animal products in some forms of vegetarianism can increase the exposure of humans to persistent pollutants."
Fecal weight, colon cancer risk, and dietary intake of nonstarch polysaccharides (dietary fiber)
Diets characterized by high NSP intake (approximately 18 g/day) are associated with stool weights of 150 g/day and should reduce the risk of bowel cancer.
VeganOstomy,
nice studies posted here. i was wondering if you were aware that dietary fatty acids like linoleic acid, stearic acid etc, has antibacterial properties? you are probably aware of teh antibacterial properties of other fatty acids like lauric acid from coconut oil or capyrilic acid, but i just recently wondered if these studies that linked high fat diets to development of IBD could be one of teh mechanism that could detroy the gut flora leading to IBD. Another scenario would be the combination of a low fiber high fat diet which would reduce good bacteria to low levels, then the high fat would kill them off completely? so many different variables and scenarios that could lead to the development of IBD i guess, but the high fat variable could be due to the antibacterial properties. i haven't spent that much time exploring this possibility yet it only just occured to me.
i have spent most of my time researching how antibiotics can damage flora and fecal transplants induce remission and may have cured UC here is my thread if you are interested- http://www.crohnsforum.com/showthread.php?t=52400
nice studies posted here. i was wondering if you were aware that dietary fatty acids like linoleic acid, stearic acid etc, has antibacterial properties? you are probably aware of teh antibacterial properties of other fatty acids like lauric acid from coconut oil or capyrilic acid, but i just recently wondered if these studies that linked high fat diets to development of IBD could be one of teh mechanism that could detroy the gut flora leading to IBD. Another scenario would be the combination of a low fiber high fat diet which would reduce good bacteria to low levels, then the high fat would kill them off completely? so many different variables and scenarios that could lead to the development of IBD i guess, but the high fat variable could be due to the antibacterial properties. i haven't spent that much time exploring this possibility yet it only just occured to me.
i have spent most of my time researching how antibiotics can damage flora and fecal transplants induce remission and may have cured UC here is my thread if you are interested- http://www.crohnsforum.com/showthread.php?t=52400
I'm aware of certain antimicrobial properties of some fatty acids, but I've yet to see anything that suggests that this would have a measurable impact in vivo (in a living organism). In vitro (petri dish), you can come up with a lot of interesting data - like the fact that avocados cause DNA significant damage, but we don't see avocado lovers dropping dead because of it. Or that garlic kills a wide array of cells, including bacteria and cancer, but we don't know if it has the same effect when consumed.
I've seen a few studies which suggest that specifically high fat/low fiber alters the gut flora and produces inflammatory responses - in mice and pigs, but I don't know if any studies specifically test for high fat in humans. For example, we know that meat is often high fat, but if we removed the meat and substituted it for avocado's or nuts, would there still be an inflammatory response, since the fat content is still high? Not that I've seen - in fact, even adding high-fat plant foods (i.e. nuts) seems to reduce inflammation. That does, however, come with a caveat - refined fats don't often produce the same results, but some rich in omega-3 MAY have anti-inflammatory benefits (there is still debate about this when we are talking about oils).
I use to be interested in fecal transplants, since I was in the position to be in a clinical trial, but my GI advised against that, since my disease had be so severe and fecal transplants often aggravate severe IBD, so we left it at that. There is promise in mild-moderate cases, where fecal transplants have been shown to induce remission - I'm sure you know more about it than I do, since you've done a LOT of research it seems
I'd be interested in seeing studies regarding the QUALITY of stool used, and if we can enhance the donor's stool by putting them on a high-fiber diet.
This is kinda fun, I like the point by point posts but they do get a bit long,
and I lied, i'm not done either.....
I've seen lots of the meat-cancer studies and they are flawed.
For those interested in the problems with claiming epidemiology proves anything.....
Red meat & mortality & the usual bad science
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2012/03/red-meat-mortality-the-usual-bad-science/
“As I always consider conflict of interest, it would be remiss of me to end without noting that one of the authors (if not more) is known to be vegetarian and speaks at vegetarian conferences, and the invited ‘peer’ review of the article has been done by none other than the man who claims the credit for having turned ex-President Clinton into a vegan – Dean Ornish”
Chocolate & Red Meat Can Be Bad for Your Science
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...nce-why-many-nutrition-studies-are-all-wrong/
“And I pointed out that every time that these Harvard researchers had claimed that an association observed in their observational trials was a causal relationship—that food or drug X caused disease or health benefit Y—and that this supposed causal relationship had then been tested in experiment, the experiment had failed to confirm the causal interpretation—i.e., the folks from Harvard got it wrong. Not most times, but every time.”
or this analysis., a real published bit of science
Red meat and colorectal cancer: a critical summary of prospective epidemiologic studies
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2010.00785.x/abstract
“Colinearity between red meat intake and other dietary factors (e.g. Western lifestyle, high intake of refined sugars and alcohol, low intake of fruits, vegetables and fibre) and behavioural factors (e.g. low physical activity, high smoking prevalence, high body mass index) limit the ability to analytically isolate the independent effects of red meat consumption. Because of these factors, the currently available epidemiologic evidence is not sufficient to support an independent positive association between red meat consumption and colorectal cancer.”
As far as paleo and health, I have no concerns (I eat lots of vegies with my meat, and don't eat processed meats (or foods)). I'm not worried about studies on people who eat a diet diametrically opposed to my own (ie SADvsPaleo)
All I am doing is pointing out that you have produced evidence supporting a real food diet which includes meat, and as such it is evidence that a real food diet (including meat) is beneficial.
I'm not arguing that the diet doesn't work, it looks like a great diet, but its efficacy has nothing to do with it's vegetarianism (which it is not). I'm stating that you have provided evidence that a real food diet (which in this case includes meat) is beneficial and I agree.
They changed MULTIPLE factors and assign the credit to reducing meat, and try to get as much association with the word 'vegetarian' as they can .
deliberately misleading
There is no way to tell if all the foods omitted are offending, or which ones are or are not offending, it is flawed and claims relating to meat are flawed and have no scientific basis, I really don't understand how you can argue this point.
Nobody (except for a tiny few wackos (paleo and junk food alike)) is suggesting an all meat diet and you keep trying to infer that I (we?) are suggesting that we should all give up vegetables.
Remember that honesty thing we talked about?.
“an increase in a particular bacteria 'supports' a link between dietary fat, bile acids and the outgrowth of microorganisms capable of triggering inflammatory bowel disease”
in english – maybe, just maybe if you eat nothing but meat you might get an overgrowth of 'bad' bacteria which might make it more likely to get IBD.....
that's not science and it's not even vaguely relevant to this discussion.
http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v66/n1/abs/ejcn2011141a.html
"Maintaining a strict vegan or vegetarian diet results in a significant shift in the microbiota while total cell numbers remain unaltered."
Once again , obviously a different balance of bacteria will develop depending on diet (and other factors), but this doesn't prove or even support anything
I wouldn't hold my breath.
Hugh said “No indication of whether or not they were still on medication to further confound an already compromised study?”
2 people on the SVD came off their meds. My observation still stands and is still valid, the medication confounds the study with another layer.
The determination to classify it as SVG (semi-vegetarian) vs Omni (omniverous) is what I take issue with.
If you call it what it is (Real foods vs Any old shit) then we are in total agreement.
Ohh yeah, I saw something last month that proves i'm right, but I have no interest either.
hugh said:
waffle, pure waffle.....check them out for yourself
[51] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479241
[69] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479215
[70] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479215
Lets let the viewer decide that one.....
At least they still have the decency to use phrases like “appear to“, “Current evidence suggests”, “likely to account in part”
The following indicates (like most metabolic diseases) it is related to carbohydrate intake rather than meat intake
“Ironically, the higher your insulin levels, the more your body is stimulated to make increased levels of arachidonic acid.”
http://www.cbn.com/health/naturalhealth/drsears_arachidonicacid.aspx
But either way, it is speculation and grasping at straws
Fry it up in vegetable oil and slap some white bread around it and it still counts as meat on the study
Fry it up in vegetable oil and slap some white bread around it and it still counts as meat on the study
Fry it up in vegetable oil and slap some white bread around it and it still counts as meat on the study
But seriously,
You want to compare Vegetarian to the SAD, i'm on your side,
You want to compare SVD to SAD, i'm on your side,
You want to compare Vegan to SAD, well, i'm a bit on your side with the proviso that attention needs to be paid to getting proper micronutrient levels.
But you want to use a real food diet that includes meat to argue against a real food diet that includes meat?
You want to use bad science (epidemiology presented as fact) with no relationship to the diet that you are arguing against? (SAD vs Real Food Diet)
Sorry, I might be slow but I have just worked out that you are a not capable of understanding the distinction that i am making.
But you have no basis to compare Paleo to SVD because every study you pull up is irrelevant. Simple as that.
Showing the benefits of plants is irrelevant, we are both advocating a diet rich in plants.
Showing studies that show possible correlations (in need of proper scientific enquiry) relating to a sad toxic diet doesn't help much either
and I lied, i'm not done either.....
Nice quote, looks good on the surface but really shallow. No references, no source, just opinion?
I've seen lots of the meat-cancer studies and they are flawed.
For those interested in the problems with claiming epidemiology proves anything.....
Red meat & mortality & the usual bad science
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2012/03/red-meat-mortality-the-usual-bad-science/
“As I always consider conflict of interest, it would be remiss of me to end without noting that one of the authors (if not more) is known to be vegetarian and speaks at vegetarian conferences, and the invited ‘peer’ review of the article has been done by none other than the man who claims the credit for having turned ex-President Clinton into a vegan – Dean Ornish”
Chocolate & Red Meat Can Be Bad for Your Science
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...nce-why-many-nutrition-studies-are-all-wrong/
“And I pointed out that every time that these Harvard researchers had claimed that an association observed in their observational trials was a causal relationship—that food or drug X caused disease or health benefit Y—and that this supposed causal relationship had then been tested in experiment, the experiment had failed to confirm the causal interpretation—i.e., the folks from Harvard got it wrong. Not most times, but every time.”
or this analysis., a real published bit of science
Red meat and colorectal cancer: a critical summary of prospective epidemiologic studies
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2010.00785.x/abstract
“Colinearity between red meat intake and other dietary factors (e.g. Western lifestyle, high intake of refined sugars and alcohol, low intake of fruits, vegetables and fibre) and behavioural factors (e.g. low physical activity, high smoking prevalence, high body mass index) limit the ability to analytically isolate the independent effects of red meat consumption. Because of these factors, the currently available epidemiologic evidence is not sufficient to support an independent positive association between red meat consumption and colorectal cancer.”
As far as paleo and health, I have no concerns (I eat lots of vegies with my meat, and don't eat processed meats (or foods)). I'm not worried about studies on people who eat a diet diametrically opposed to my own (ie SADvsPaleo)
Thanks for the help, but for evidence to be of any use it has to relate to the claims made,
All I am doing is pointing out that you have produced evidence supporting a real food diet which includes meat, and as such it is evidence that a real food diet (including meat) is beneficial.
I'm not arguing that the diet doesn't work, it looks like a great diet, but its efficacy has nothing to do with it's vegetarianism (which it is not). I'm stating that you have provided evidence that a real food diet (which in this case includes meat) is beneficial and I agree.
That's my point to
They changed MULTIPLE factors and assign the credit to reducing meat, and try to get as much association with the word 'vegetarian' as they can .
deliberately misleading
that's a deliberate misrepresentation, my argument is that the diet keeps people on remission by “reducing all offending foods.”.
There is no way to tell if all the foods omitted are offending, or which ones are or are not offending, it is flawed and claims relating to meat are flawed and have no scientific basis, I really don't understand how you can argue this point.
You are correct, My mistake – no difference between sugar and (most likely) grains - (almost the same degree of badness to a paleo mind
Which is what i'm saying, a healthy real food diet with lots of good fibre (with or without meat) will benefit gut bacteria.
So the study shows that gut bacteria differs between an all meat and an all plant diet, OK, that sounds pretty sensible, but seriously, there is nothing there for you to claim support for your argument.
Nobody (except for a tiny few wackos (paleo and junk food alike)) is suggesting an all meat diet and you keep trying to infer that I (we?) are suggesting that we should all give up vegetables.
Remember that honesty thing we talked about?.
“an increase in a particular bacteria 'supports' a link between dietary fat, bile acids and the outgrowth of microorganisms capable of triggering inflammatory bowel disease”
in english – maybe, just maybe if you eat nothing but meat you might get an overgrowth of 'bad' bacteria which might make it more likely to get IBD.....
that's not science and it's not even vaguely relevant to this discussion.
http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v66/n1/abs/ejcn2011141a.html
"Maintaining a strict vegan or vegetarian diet results in a significant shift in the microbiota while total cell numbers remain unaltered."
Once again , obviously a different balance of bacteria will develop depending on diet (and other factors), but this doesn't prove or even support anything
Probably not useful anyway, science is a long way away from unravelling the function of each bacteria, let alone the complex interactions between hundreds of symbiotic organisms in a homoeostatic equilibrium and then discerning the implications on our immune system and health in general.
I wouldn't hold my breath.
Hugh said “No indication of whether or not they were still on medication to further confound an already compromised study?”
it wasn't that interesting.
2 people on the SVD came off their meds. My observation still stands and is still valid, the medication confounds the study with another layer.
I'm not arguing that it is a bad diet, I think it's a great diet.
The determination to classify it as SVG (semi-vegetarian) vs Omni (omniverous) is what I take issue with.
If you call it what it is (Real foods vs Any old shit) then we are in total agreement.
Ohh yeah, I saw something last month that proves i'm right, but I have no interest either.
hugh said:
waffle, pure waffle.....check them out for yourself
[51] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479241
[69] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479215
[70] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479215
right, “Discussants at the Third International Congress on Vegetarian Nutrition” got together and decided that vegetarian diets are great, published a paper saying that vegetarian diets are great, and now other vegetarians can reference that paper and say “Look, a published scientific paper that proves vegetarian diets are great”........
Lets let the viewer decide that one.....
again, the Discussants at the Third International Congress on Vegetarian Nutrition got togeather and asked themselves if they thought vegetarianism was great, came back with a resounding yes, published a paper saying that 's what they think, and now it can be referred to as a published scientific paper. What a crock of shit
At least they still have the decency to use phrases like “appear to“, “Current evidence suggests”, “likely to account in part”
the AICR is a vegetarian based cancer information charity, and as such is not really a good reference.
We are complex organisms, the function of each part affects the whole, and the function of the whole affects each part. Excess arachidonic acid stored in adipose tissue is as likely (if not more so) to be a result of a faulty metabolism that by eating too much of a substance. Considering that arachidonic acid is a vital pufa it is more likely that some part of our metabolism is responsible for retaining it in a greater quantity than is optimum.
The following indicates (like most metabolic diseases) it is related to carbohydrate intake rather than meat intake
“Ironically, the higher your insulin levels, the more your body is stimulated to make increased levels of arachidonic acid.”
http://www.cbn.com/health/naturalhealth/drsears_arachidonicacid.aspx
But either way, it is speculation and grasping at straws
Once again – epidemiological study relating to a SAD diet showing a correlation, and no distinction between real food or processed food (chicken nuggets, pink slime and corndogs are (apparently) meat.)
Fry it up in vegetable oil and slap some white bread around it and it still counts as meat on the study
Once again – epidemiological study showing a correlation, and no distinction between real food or processed food (chicken nuggets, pink slime and corndogs are (apparently) meat.)
Fry it up in vegetable oil and slap some white bread around it and it still counts as meat on the study
Once again – epidemiological study showing a correlation, and no distinction between real food or processed food (chicken nuggets, pink slime and corndogs are (apparently) meat.)
Fry it up in vegetable oil and slap some white bread around it and it still counts as meat on the study
No, you have worn me down and I am now convinced , not by the validity of your argument but by the shear volume of irrelevant crap that you want me to wade through....
But seriously,
You want to compare Vegetarian to the SAD, i'm on your side,
You want to compare SVD to SAD, i'm on your side,
You want to compare Vegan to SAD, well, i'm a bit on your side with the proviso that attention needs to be paid to getting proper micronutrient levels.
But you want to use a real food diet that includes meat to argue against a real food diet that includes meat?
You want to use bad science (epidemiology presented as fact) with no relationship to the diet that you are arguing against? (SAD vs Real Food Diet)
Sorry, I might be slow but I have just worked out that you are a not capable of understanding the distinction that i am making.
But you have no basis to compare Paleo to SVD because every study you pull up is irrelevant. Simple as that.
Showing the benefits of plants is irrelevant, we are both advocating a diet rich in plants.
Showing studies that show possible correlations (in need of proper scientific enquiry) relating to a sad toxic diet doesn't help much either
Last edited:
"AICR Is a vegetarian based cancer information charity. "
I have nothing more to add to this topic, but I'd love to know where you heard that from.
The AICR is part of the World Cancer Research Fund and I've found no link between them and any vegetarian organization. If "vegetarian based" simply implies they recommend a diet consistent with the research findings, then I might agree.
I also find it ironic that you would have a problem with that, even if it were true, considering sites that promote "real food" I the form of high animal-food consumption routinely make it a habit of using industry funded research to make their case. At least with studies supporting less-meat, more plants, you have multiple organizations, reputable medical establishments and international teams all coming to the same conclusion without the Lettuce Association paying for their studies.
I have nothing more to add to this topic, but I'd love to know where you heard that from.
The AICR is part of the World Cancer Research Fund and I've found no link between them and any vegetarian organization. If "vegetarian based" simply implies they recommend a diet consistent with the research findings, then I might agree.
I also find it ironic that you would have a problem with that, even if it were true, considering sites that promote "real food" I the form of high animal-food consumption routinely make it a habit of using industry funded research to make their case. At least with studies supporting less-meat, more plants, you have multiple organizations, reputable medical establishments and international teams all coming to the same conclusion without the Lettuce Association paying for their studies.
I'm at a loss here.
You won't accept a supported by vegetarian researchers (perhaps they are vegetarian because the evidence pointed them to the diet), but then you post a study funded by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, a paleo promoter and an author who actually wrote an article against the consumption of fruit claiming the daily recommendations are a conspiracy?
I'm curious to know why you'd do that.
This is pretty pointless,
We can both find authors who are saying what we want to hear,
and post links to refute each others links,
and criticise each other for doing so....
A bit less hypocrisy and you would have a better argument.
from their website.....
Dr. T. Colin Campbell, the author of The China Study, was with AICR at our very beginning, serving as our Senior Science Advisor.
http://www.aicr.org/about/advocacy/the-china-study.html
And that makes them a vegetarian lobby group?
Campbell was a meat eater when he worked with AICR and his original motive for the China Study was to show that animal products positively supported human health and his research led him to a different conclusion. He became vegan close to 10 years after working with the AIRC.
He's also been a member and advisor for several other organizations, including the National Academy of Science, one of the most prestigious science organizations in the world. Are they a vegetarian lobby group too?
You dismiss the evidence supporting plant based diets because of your own dietary preferences, not because it's harmful or unhelpful. You'd rather support someone who says fruit is fueling the obesity epidemic (yes, one of the people you linked did say this), but not someone who demonstrates that fruit, vegetables, legumes and whole grains are health promoting.
Full disclosure here: I don't view animals as food. The first question i ask myself when new data comes in is "if given the option, can this be done without exploiting animals", and the answer always seems to be "yes", so I make the conscious choice to avoid using animals. You can give your evidence and I can give mine, but with all other things being equal why would I choose to kill and eat animals if I don't have to?
You can find support for plant-based diets in almost all the large health organizations, from international dietetic associations, to cancer charities, to heart and stroke charities to the U.N advisory boards, and that happens despite the heavy financial support from animal food industries. Why would they do that? I'm going to go out on a long and say because they can't hide from the evidence. None of these groups suggest eating more red meat, lard, organ meats or eliminating whole-food starches.
I'm just baffled at this point.
Wow, I am impressed
You do a great line of misdirection, disinformation, and irrelevant links,
and the mock-indignation, that's just wonderful.
Since we're having so much fun i'll work my way through some more points and please let me know if I make any more mistakes.
Off we go........
"AICR s a vegetarian based cancer information charity. "
oops, maybe I should have said
“a vegetarian friendly cancer information charity”?
or maybe a
“ a vegan promoting cancer information charity”?
or would you rather
“ a plant-based died based cancer information charity”?
I never said lobby group, I have no idea how much effort they put into affecting change at a political level.
They are a charity focused on the dissemination of information relating to the prevention of cancer through many and varied dietary and lifestyle changes including a plant based diet.
They appear to be a wonderful organisation and I have no beef ( ) with them (apart from the prominent links to sites promoting veganism).
After trawling through dozens on links that you put up looking for something vaguely relevant it is not surprising that I would fail to fully investigate one of them after finding statements like this:
“Our methods and specific conclusions differ from Dr. Campbell’s in several ways, but our bottom-line message is the same” http://www.aicr.org/about/advocacy/the-china-study.html
SO, If their ”bottom-line message” is the same as Campbell's, does that make them a “Vegan based Cancer Information Charity”?
Apparently not,
-Their message is to reduce red meat and eliminate processed meat from your diet. And reduce meat to about 1/3 (or less) of your diet (still well within the paleo spectrum, by the way)
quackery considered scientific opinion. “Our methods and specific conclusions differ”.
There have been many thoughtful words written about possible flaws in Campbell's 'research' [4] and I don't think we need to spend a lot of time on it to work out that we disagree.
Of the dozens of studies and links you put up NONE were relevant to the study designed to 'prove' the effectiveness of SVD (yes, designed to prove).
The study compared an omnivorous diet with an omnivorous diet and ignored the real differences between the two (one was real food based and the other was not.)
The links might be relevant if we were talking about the difference between a diets that includes or exclude vegetables.
Likewise, a trial that excludes gluten and meat in arthritic patients doesn't support your argument.
My own 'dietary preferences' are for 2/3 plant matter so I too eat a 'plant based diet'.
This makes your argued superiority of a plant based diet irrelevant.
I can admit that there is much wrong in the paleo world (carbophobia?), but there is a strong acknowledgement of the benefits of vegetables and your attempts to deny that are dishonest and do not add creditability to your argument, There is much wrong in the vegan world too[5].
As far as the cancer theme you are so attached to....
Studies show a negative correlation between fish and (some) cancers, so by your 'scientific' standards, this 'proves' that fish prevents cancer [1].
Fish was a meat last time I looked, flesh hacked from the tortured carcass of a dead animal.
A more restrained, less ideologically driven person would say that the studies 'suggest' that fish consumption may have a preventative effect on the development of certain cancers.
Studies show no correlation between chicken and cancer [2].(once again, chicken is flesh hacked from the tortured carcass of a dead animal), Nowadays chicken food has a much higher 'cancer-causing arsenic' content so these figures might begin to change soon, we will have to wait for future studies before we can inaccurately claim a cause rather than a correlation.
To quote the cancer council of NSW (why not, got to pick one and hope that they are not stooges)
“The consumption of red meat and processed meat is convincingly associated with a modest increased risk of bowel cancer.”
Firstly, this isn't proof, it is a strong association showing a modest risk that we would be well advised to take under consideration.
To use the wording typical of these studies “Consumption of fresh red meat and processed meat seemed to be associated with an increased risk of rectal cancer. Consumption of chicken and fish did not increase risk.”
You can see how careful they are to stress that there is a correlation, not a causation.
My first point (other that the standard disclaimer that epidemiological studies do not provide proof, they just show correlation) is that processed meat is bad from any viewpoint, just google pink slime or liquid smoke, were talking McD's and microwave meals here.
What percentage of the respondents who ticked the “processed meats” box were referring to a home cured organically grown ham or pickled herrings?
The second point is that when a respondent ticks the box marked 'red meat', they are including hamburger, which apparently accounts for about half of all beef consumption in america and is hardly 'unprocessed' (made with added flour, textured vegetable protein, amonia treated beef trimmings (pink slime), advanced meat recovery and other fillers (?)[3]
and like I said “Fry it up in vegetable oil and slap some white bread around it and it still counts as meat on the study”
Hardly grass fed eye fillet.
Likewise, any comparison between a microwave meat meal and real meat is about as valid as comparing an apple to a fast food apple pie.
There is “limited suggestive evidence”[3a] of a link between red meat and some other cancers and I haven't bothered with links because I'm sure that someone else can post dozens of studies 'suggesting' links, along with dozens of articles claiming proof based on studies showing suggested links.
The same note [#] pointing out the limits of epidemiology applies, as does the fact that most of the 'red meat' is processed garbage with multiple health damaging factors.
And while we are on the subject of epi studies, how bout these? - must be the meat lobby
“A significant positive relation was found between mortality rate and the consumption of dietary corn and wheat flour.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.2910530606/abstract
“Several recent large prospective cohort studies have failed to demonstrate the presumed protective effect of fruit, vegetable, and dietary fiber consumption on colorectal cancer risk.”
“Relatively high consumption of cereal fiber does not appear to lower the risk of colorectal cancer.”
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/93/7/525.short
I was rereading the posts and this made me laugh......
SVD vs SCD,
i'll try to get to that on the next post
Footnotes
In the spirited of honesty and full disclosure I must add a couple of disclaimers,
Firstly I have just skimmed the net looking for 'sciency' support, not analysed each one in detail looking for flawed methodology or logical inconsistencies.
Secondly, epidemiological studies 'suggest' links and the role of science is to investigate these links, the job of science reporters is to make grand claims of proof based on these studies, and the job of gullible ideologues is to parrot these claims as proof.[6]
Thirdly, I haven't vetted them to see if they are 'stooges' of the meat lobby, or anybody else who is unacceptable as a reference because their opinions differ from VO's.
[1] “Conclusion: This study suggests that the consumption of even relatively small amounts of fish is a favorable indicator of the risk of several cancers, especially of the digestive tract.”
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/1/85.full
“Results: There was a consistent pattern of protection against the risk of digestive tract cancers with fish consumption”
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/1/85.full
“For fish consumption, there is limited suggestive evidence that it may be linked to a reduced risk of breast, bowel and prostate cancer.”
http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/175...nutrition-advice/meat-fish/meat-and-cancer-3/
“Leaders of a study say that just one three-ounce portion of fish a week could reverse the effect of a deadly inherited gene which can cause an aggressive form of the disease”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/90918/Oily-fish-can-stop-cancer
“Eating poultry had no impact but the risk for people who ate one portion or more of fish every other day was nearly a third lower than those who ate fish less than once a week. “
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4088824.stm
All this is merely 'suggestive' and requiring of 'proper' studies to see if the hypothesis that they generate are valid [6]
[2] I did see a study claiming to 'suggest' that chicken with the skin off was not associated with cancer risk but chicken with the skin on may increase risk of prostrate cancer, not sure where it went though.
”There is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions on poultry intake and cancer risk.”,
http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/175...nutrition-advice/meat-fish/meat-and-cancer-3/
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger#Hamburgers_today
[3a] http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/175...nutrition-advice/meat-fish/meat-and-cancer-3/
[3b] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15342453
[4] I humbly submit these to provide VO with the opportunity to feign exasperation, indignation and bewilderment, anyone else can just read them and consider the merits for themselves. I'm not really interested in opening up another blind alley.
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-vs-the-china-study
http://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/
[5]http://naturalhygienesociety.org/diet-veganbaby.html
http://naturalhygienesociety.org/diet3.html#19
another opportunity for a exasperation, indignation and bewilderment, “it's not typical of vegans, it doesn't accurately represent veganism, it's a blatant misrepresentation” yaddayaddayadda – what goes around, comes around....
Might have gone a bit far there?
The point i completely missed but was clear in my head was.....
To dismiss and ignore an article by a well respected science journalist ,(with a masters degree in journalism, winner of the Science in Society Award of the National Association of Science Writers three times and was awarded an MIT Knight Science Journalism Fellowship for 1996-97.) simple because you can misquote and misrepresent him, rather than because you read the article and found some issue with his reasoning is pretty shallow and shows the level of your interest in science.
Likewise, refusing to read an explanation of what makes recommendations based on faulty science because the author is 'paleo' is about as narrow minded and shows a deep seated (almost religious?) fear of information contradicting your existing world view....
If the article is too much then just scroll down to the summary
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2012/03/red-meat-mortality-the-usual-bad-science/ ,
Not sure how i jumped to misplaced and inappropriate links to vegan follies.
[6]”Observational research can only suggest relationships, however. Experimental research is needed to determine cause and effect.”
“In drawing conclusions about diet-disease relationships it is important to know not only what epidemiology is, but also what it is not:
Statistical significance should not be mistaken for evidence of a strong association
Association does not prove causation
Evidence or belief that there is a causal relationship does not always justify taking some kind of action
By its very nature, epidemiology can generate false positive results. For this reason it has been blamed for generating findings that are often sensationalized in the media.“
http://www.foodinsight.org/Newslett..._Conclusions_about_Diet_Disease_Relationships
“Let’s say you were trying to understand why some people become alcoholics while others don’t. You interview 10,000 alcoholics and 10,000 non-alcoholics by giving them questionnaires about their daily habits. These questions are based on the researchers’ beliefs about what might cause alcoholism in the first place. Note thatit is impossible to ask about a risk factor you haven’t thought of. A standard type of question would look like this: “How often have you eaten pretzels in the past 2 years?” If you find that alcoholics reported eating significantly more pretzels over the past 2 years than the non-alcoholics, the next day the following headline might appear in the Huffington Post: ”Eating pretzels increases risk of alcoholism.” The story that follows the headline would advise people to eat fewer pretzels to reduce their risk of alcoholism. Absurd.”
http://diagnosisdiet.com/epidemilogical-studies/
“Epidemiology is concerned with theincidenceof disease in populations and does not address the question of the cause of an individual’s disease. This question, sometimes referred to as specific causation, is beyond the domain of the science of epidemiology.”
Green MD, Freedman DM
Blah, blah, blah.......
You do a great line of misdirection, disinformation, and irrelevant links,
and the mock-indignation, that's just wonderful.
Since we're having so much fun i'll work my way through some more points and please let me know if I make any more mistakes.
Off we go........
Thank you for putting words in my mouth but I am quite capable in being inaccurate without your help
"AICR s a vegetarian based cancer information charity. "
oops, maybe I should have said
“a vegetarian friendly cancer information charity”?
or maybe a
“ a vegan promoting cancer information charity”?
or would you rather
“ a plant-based died based cancer information charity”?
I never said lobby group, I have no idea how much effort they put into affecting change at a political level.
They are a charity focused on the dissemination of information relating to the prevention of cancer through many and varied dietary and lifestyle changes including a plant based diet.
They appear to be a wonderful organisation and I have no beef (
) with them (apart from the prominent links to sites promoting veganism).After trawling through dozens on links that you put up looking for something vaguely relevant it is not surprising that I would fail to fully investigate one of them after finding statements like this:
“Our methods and specific conclusions differ from Dr. Campbell’s in several ways, but our bottom-line message is the same” http://www.aicr.org/about/advocacy/the-china-study.html
SO, If their ”bottom-line message” is the same as Campbell's, does that make them a “Vegan based Cancer Information Charity”?
Apparently not,
-Their message is to reduce red meat and eliminate processed meat from your diet. And reduce meat to about 1/3 (or less) of your diet (still well within the paleo spectrum, by the way)
There is no need to add Campbell's biography, I am pleased that the AICR makes a small effort to distance themselves from his
There have been many thoughtful words written about possible flaws in Campbell's 'research' [4] and I don't think we need to spend a lot of time on it to work out that we disagree.
I dismiss the 'evidence supporting plant based diets' because it is irrelevant.
Of the dozens of studies and links you put up NONE were relevant to the study designed to 'prove' the effectiveness of SVD (yes, designed to prove).
The study compared an omnivorous diet with an omnivorous diet and ignored the real differences between the two (one was real food based and the other was not.)
The links might be relevant if we were talking about the difference between a diets that includes or exclude vegetables.
Likewise, a trial that excludes gluten and meat in arthritic patients doesn't support your argument.
My own 'dietary preferences' are for 2/3 plant matter so I too eat a 'plant based diet'.
This makes your argued superiority of a plant based diet irrelevant.
I can admit that there is much wrong in the paleo world (carbophobia?), but there is a strong acknowledgement of the benefits of vegetables and your attempts to deny that are dishonest and do not add creditability to your argument, There is much wrong in the vegan world too[5].
As far as the cancer theme you are so attached to....
Studies show a negative correlation between fish and (some) cancers, so by your 'scientific' standards, this 'proves' that fish prevents cancer [1].
Fish was a meat last time I looked, flesh hacked from the tortured carcass of a dead animal.
A more restrained, less ideologically driven person would say that the studies 'suggest' that fish consumption may have a preventative effect on the development of certain cancers.
Studies show no correlation between chicken and cancer [2].(once again, chicken is flesh hacked from the tortured carcass of a dead animal), Nowadays chicken food has a much higher 'cancer-causing arsenic' content so these figures might begin to change soon, we will have to wait for future studies before we can inaccurately claim a cause rather than a correlation.
To quote the cancer council of NSW (why not, got to pick one and hope that they are not stooges)
“The consumption of red meat and processed meat is convincingly associated with a modest increased risk of bowel cancer.”
Firstly, this isn't proof, it is a strong association showing a modest risk that we would be well advised to take under consideration.
To use the wording typical of these studies “Consumption of fresh red meat and processed meat seemed to be associated with an increased risk of rectal cancer. Consumption of chicken and fish did not increase risk.”
You can see how careful they are to stress that there is a correlation, not a causation.
My first point (other that the standard disclaimer that epidemiological studies do not provide proof, they just show correlation) is that processed meat is bad from any viewpoint, just google pink slime or liquid smoke, were talking McD's and microwave meals here.
What percentage of the respondents who ticked the “processed meats” box were referring to a home cured organically grown ham or pickled herrings?
The second point is that when a respondent ticks the box marked 'red meat', they are including hamburger, which apparently accounts for about half of all beef consumption in america and is hardly 'unprocessed' (made with added flour, textured vegetable protein, amonia treated beef trimmings (pink slime), advanced meat recovery and other fillers (?)[3]
and like I said “Fry it up in vegetable oil and slap some white bread around it and it still counts as meat on the study”
Hardly grass fed eye fillet.
Likewise, any comparison between a microwave meat meal and real meat is about as valid as comparing an apple to a fast food apple pie.
There is “limited suggestive evidence”[3a] of a link between red meat and some other cancers and I haven't bothered with links because I'm sure that someone else can post dozens of studies 'suggesting' links, along with dozens of articles claiming proof based on studies showing suggested links.
The same note [#] pointing out the limits of epidemiology applies, as does the fact that most of the 'red meat' is processed garbage with multiple health damaging factors.
And while we are on the subject of epi studies, how bout these? - must be the meat lobby
“A significant positive relation was found between mortality rate and the consumption of dietary corn and wheat flour.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.2910530606/abstract
“Several recent large prospective cohort studies have failed to demonstrate the presumed protective effect of fruit, vegetable, and dietary fiber consumption on colorectal cancer risk.”
“Relatively high consumption of cereal fiber does not appear to lower the risk of colorectal cancer.”
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/93/7/525.short
I was rereading the posts and this made me laugh......
Bought me back to the real question
SVD vs SCD,
i'll try to get to that on the next post
Footnotes
In the spirited of honesty and full disclosure I must add a couple of disclaimers,
Firstly I have just skimmed the net looking for 'sciency' support, not analysed each one in detail looking for flawed methodology or logical inconsistencies.
Secondly, epidemiological studies 'suggest' links and the role of science is to investigate these links, the job of science reporters is to make grand claims of proof based on these studies, and the job of gullible ideologues is to parrot these claims as proof.[6]
Thirdly, I haven't vetted them to see if they are 'stooges' of the meat lobby, or anybody else who is unacceptable as a reference because their opinions differ from VO's.
[1] “Conclusion: This study suggests that the consumption of even relatively small amounts of fish is a favorable indicator of the risk of several cancers, especially of the digestive tract.”
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/1/85.full
“Results: There was a consistent pattern of protection against the risk of digestive tract cancers with fish consumption”
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/1/85.full
“For fish consumption, there is limited suggestive evidence that it may be linked to a reduced risk of breast, bowel and prostate cancer.”
http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/175...nutrition-advice/meat-fish/meat-and-cancer-3/
“Leaders of a study say that just one three-ounce portion of fish a week could reverse the effect of a deadly inherited gene which can cause an aggressive form of the disease”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/90918/Oily-fish-can-stop-cancer
“Eating poultry had no impact but the risk for people who ate one portion or more of fish every other day was nearly a third lower than those who ate fish less than once a week. “
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4088824.stm
All this is merely 'suggestive' and requiring of 'proper' studies to see if the hypothesis that they generate are valid [6]
[2] I did see a study claiming to 'suggest' that chicken with the skin off was not associated with cancer risk but chicken with the skin on may increase risk of prostrate cancer, not sure where it went though.
”There is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions on poultry intake and cancer risk.”,
http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/175...nutrition-advice/meat-fish/meat-and-cancer-3/
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger#Hamburgers_today
[3a] http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/175...nutrition-advice/meat-fish/meat-and-cancer-3/
[3b] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15342453
[4] I humbly submit these to provide VO with the opportunity to feign exasperation, indignation and bewilderment, anyone else can just read them and consider the merits for themselves. I'm not really interested in opening up another blind alley.
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-vs-the-china-study
http://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/
[5]
http://naturalhygienesociety.org/diet3.html#19
another opportunity for a exasperation, indignation and bewilderment, “it's not typical of vegans, it doesn't accurately represent veganism, it's a blatant misrepresentation” yaddayaddayadda – what goes around, comes around....
Might have gone a bit far there?
The point i completely missed but was clear in my head was.....
To dismiss and ignore an article by a well respected science journalist ,(with a masters degree in journalism, winner of the Science in Society Award of the National Association of Science Writers three times and was awarded an MIT Knight Science Journalism Fellowship for 1996-97.) simple because you can misquote and misrepresent him, rather than because you read the article and found some issue with his reasoning is pretty shallow and shows the level of your interest in science.
Likewise, refusing to read an explanation of what makes recommendations based on faulty science because the author is 'paleo' is about as narrow minded and shows a deep seated (almost religious?) fear of information contradicting your existing world view....
If the article is too much then just scroll down to the summary
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2012/03/red-meat-mortality-the-usual-bad-science/ ,
Not sure how i jumped to misplaced and inappropriate links to vegan follies.
[6]”Observational research can only suggest relationships, however. Experimental research is needed to determine cause and effect.”
“In drawing conclusions about diet-disease relationships it is important to know not only what epidemiology is, but also what it is not:
Statistical significance should not be mistaken for evidence of a strong association
Association does not prove causation
Evidence or belief that there is a causal relationship does not always justify taking some kind of action
By its very nature, epidemiology can generate false positive results. For this reason it has been blamed for generating findings that are often sensationalized in the media.“
http://www.foodinsight.org/Newslett..._Conclusions_about_Diet_Disease_Relationships
“Let’s say you were trying to understand why some people become alcoholics while others don’t. You interview 10,000 alcoholics and 10,000 non-alcoholics by giving them questionnaires about their daily habits. These questions are based on the researchers’ beliefs about what might cause alcoholism in the first place. Note thatit is impossible to ask about a risk factor you haven’t thought of. A standard type of question would look like this: “How often have you eaten pretzels in the past 2 years?” If you find that alcoholics reported eating significantly more pretzels over the past 2 years than the non-alcoholics, the next day the following headline might appear in the Huffington Post: ”Eating pretzels increases risk of alcoholism.” The story that follows the headline would advise people to eat fewer pretzels to reduce their risk of alcoholism. Absurd.”
http://diagnosisdiet.com/epidemilogical-studies/
“Epidemiology is concerned with theincidenceof disease in populations and does not address the question of the cause of an individual’s disease. This question, sometimes referred to as specific causation, is beyond the domain of the science of epidemiology.”
Green MD, Freedman DM
Blah, blah, blah.......
Last edited:
- Location
- Detroit, MI
Dave13, this seems to have digressed into something beyond your question.
I ferment everything under the sun. It makes more sense to me than taking probiotic in a bill form (how can living bacteria survive in capsules?) If you are still interested in fermentation, let me know and I can give you some tips on getting started!
Olive
I ferment everything under the sun. It makes more sense to me than taking probiotic in a bill form (how can living bacteria survive in capsules?) If you are still interested in fermentation, let me know and I can give you some tips on getting started!
Olive
Hi Olive,
I'm going to give kimchi a try.I have recipes from co-workers I'll use as a guide line for this first batch.I figure I can experiment a little.I can't make it too hot though,my wife wont eat it.I like mine with a little heat to it.I seem to handle it fine.I was also thinking some ginger carrots and horseradish.What's your favorite recipe?
I'm going to give kimchi a try.I have recipes from co-workers I'll use as a guide line for this first batch.I figure I can experiment a little.I can't make it too hot though,my wife wont eat it.I like mine with a little heat to it.I seem to handle it fine.I was also thinking some ginger carrots and horseradish.What's your favorite recipe?
My husband has been extremely ill with Crohn's for over 25 years, and has tried several medications , with little benefit .
By chance he started eating Kimchi recently and the improvement in his health has been remarkable .
He eats it every day .