![]() ![]() Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.Studies comparing eating behaviors in individuals avoiding meat and other animal products to omnivores have produced largely inconclusive findings, in part due to a failure to obtain sufficiently large samples of vegan participants to make meaningful comparisons. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by veganmontreal. Greger may be referring, watch the above video. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. They compared vegetarians only to healthy meat-eaters with healthier diets, and still, though there was onesurprising finding, which I’ll cover later, they still found the incidence of all cancers combined was lower among vegetarians. But they wanted to isolate out the meat component. By comparing vegetarians to omnivores who don’t eat a lot of meat, and have a high fruit and vegetable intake, this could reduce the chance of observing lower cancer rates in the vegetarians. It may not have been easy, but they were able to dig up thousands of meat-eaters who ate four to five servings of fruits and veggies a day-about as much as the vegetarians were eating.Īgain, this puts the vegetarians at a comparative disadvantage, by removing one of the key benefits of more plant-based diets, which is more plants. So vegetarians were compared to meat-eaters, who, on average, ate about the same amount of fruits and vegetables every day. Maybe the reason vegetarians are so healthy is not because they eat less meat, but because they eat more plants. They wanted to study meat and cancer more directly.Īnd to do that, you have to handicap the vegetarians even further. ![]() But they weren’t interested in indirect ways in which meat might cause cancer, like meat leading to obesity, leading to cancer. It effectively erases one of the reasons why eating vegetarian may reduce cancer rates. So, by comparing vegetarians only to thin meat-eaters, it undercuts one of the benefits of eating vegetarian. ![]() We know that vegetarians are significantly more likely to be thin, which we know is protective against cancer. Now controlling for obesity is not really fair to the vegetarians. Anything they could think of to factor everything else aside, and just focus in on what they were interested in-whether or not one eats meat. And for women, how many children they’ve had-which can be protective against breast cancer whether or not they were on the pill. You adjust for smoking-past smoking, current smoking, the amount of smoking, cigarette smoking, cigar smoking, pipe smoking, alcohol consumption, body mass index, physical activity level. So, you don’t just classify people into meat-eaters, fish-only eaters, and vegetarians. So, the way you get around that is you study a group of healthy meat-eaters who, for example, smoke just as infrequently as the group of vegetarians you’re trying to study-to equal things out, control for non-dietary factors. Even if they found lower cancer rates among those eating vegetarian, maybe it’s just because vegetarians exercise more, or smoke less, or inhale less diesel fumes, because they all own a Prius. The same reason it was so difficult to study cancer among coffee-drinkers is the same reason it’s so difficult to study cancer among meat-eaters. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |