i told you so! -- science confirms eating animal products bad for you

we know what's happening. we've known for decades. however, we also have found that when we talk about the health detriments associated with eating the products of the corpse industries, people don't believe us.

for instance, they could be dying at your feet in agony, but they still won't believe you as you calmly and precisely explain to them that the heart attack they are experiencing is a direct result of their dietary and lifestyle habits.

why won't they believe you even as they pass away? because some people just can't handle an "i told you so" and hope if they die soon enough, they can make it look like they didn't hear you.

well, soon you'll be able to change all that!

this series of posts will arm you with the latest information on clinical nutrition as accumulated and presented over the past few years by dr michael greger.

now michael is not someone most people would like to face on the opposite side of a debate.

he's knowledgeable.
he's thorough.
he's got the studies.

his "i told you so" will follow even those dying to escape and resound eternally throughout hades!
soon yours can too!

there will be a study introduced (in pdf format) with an approximate frequency of one or two per week. it will be prefaced with minor commentary, highlighting the conclusion reached. if you have questions about the contents, please ask for there will be brilliant and dextrous people such as B and dan (and anyone else who wishes to help out) on hand to help answer or explain your queries or even elaborate on ideas from the study.

there will be wonderful main courses on the menu such as cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis accompanied with choice beverages like cholesterol, food poisoning, constipation and infertility. for dessert, you can have contamination, mortality, obesity. as snacks, you even get delightful tidbits such as the revelation that women find non-veg males' sweaty armpits smell worse than males who don't eat corpse products!

if you find yourself becoming intrigued by what you read here, you may want to purchase dr greger's dvds from his website. he gives all proceedings to charity. in fact, i received the collection of studies from him by making a donation to mercy for animals, an excellent and dynamic organization we both support.

ready. set. go.
revealing what the research does show.
so you know "i told you so!"

in friendship,
prad

Tags: greger, nutrition, research

2 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by pradtf on April 22, 2010 at 5:41pm

meat intake and bladder cancer

bacon (and chicken) consumption essentially doubles risk of bladder cancer found in study of more than 100 000 people.

nitrosamines are known bladder carcinogens and their concentrations are especially high in bacon. analysis of data in this "largest study to date on meat intake and bladder cancer risk" found "frequent consumption of bacon was associated with an elevated risk of bladder cancer".

in friendship,
prad

Attachments:

meatbladdercancer.pdf, 116 KB

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by B on April 22, 2010 at 11:50pm

More fun facts on nitrosamines:

Nitrosamines and food:
Nitrosamines are produced from nitrites and secondary amines, which often occur in the form of proteins… High temperatures, as in frying, can also enhance the formation of nitrosamines. These cooking styles may be responsible for thousands of cases of colon cancer per year across the world.

Nitrosamines are found in many foodstuffs, especially beer, fish, and fish byproducts, and also in meat and cheese products preserved with nitrite pickling salt. The U.S. government established limits on the amount of nitrites used in meat products in order to decrease cancer risk in the population. There are also rules about adding ascorbic acid or related compounds to meat, because they inhibit nitrosamine formation.

Nitrosamines and cancer:
In 1956, two British scientists, John Barnes and Peter Magee, reported that dimethylnitrosamine produced liver tumours in rats. Research was undertaken and approximately 90% of nitrosamine compounds were deemed to be carcinogenic…

In the 1970s, there was an increased frequency of liver cancer found in Norwegian farm animals. The farm animals had been fed on herring meal, which was preserved using sodium nitrite. The sodium nitrite had reacted with dimethylamine in the fish and produced dimethylnitrosamine

Studies have also shown that intake of nitrates and nitrosamines increases risk for stomach cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrosamines

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by st@rbwoy on April 23, 2010 at 1:50am

Thanx guys, keep it coming!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chad on April 23, 2010 at 1:55am

In The China Study, Campbell played down the effects of nitrites because of the massive quantities used in the animal studies. As Campbell put it, 270,000 pounds of bologna every day for 37 years is the amount of exposure to nitrosamines (per body weight) that the low-dose group got.

I'm sure nitrosamines should be avoided and do cause problems, but studies like the one cited in The China Study make it seem like nitrites are not the biggest threat to our health.

Thoughts?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by B on April 23, 2010 at 2:38am

studies like the one cited in The China Study make it seem like nitrites are not the biggest threat to our health.

no one's saying that they are the biggest risk to our health. the amounts of nitrites add to food have been reduced significantly since the early 80s at any rate whether or not they are a huge risk to human health. the above study just concluded that those who eat 10+ pieces of bacon a week have double the risk of bladder cancer than those who don't, they weren't able to determine that nitrosamines were the sole/primary cause but rather speculated that those and/or HcA's would've been the cause. interestingly those who ate lots of hamburger or processed meats weren't shown to be at greater risk for bladder cancer, though certainly there are plenty of other reasons not to eat that stuff.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pradtf on April 27, 2010 at 6:59pm

meat and breast cancer

bigG sent me what he calls "a bad joke":
http://ww5.komen.org/kfc.html

it has to be a joke right? but no it isn't!

so i thought we'd look at 2 studies related to breast cancer.

the first is the "Meat consumption and risk of breast cancer in the UK Women's Cohort Study" (taylor et al) while the second is "Cooked Meat and Risk of Breast Cancer ... (steck et al)

the taylor study with over 35000 women, shows that "In conclusion, women generally consuming most total meat, red and processed meat were at the highest increased risk compared with non-meat consumers". see fig 1 in the study to see the hazard correlation with meat consumption.

the steck study (1508 cases and 1556 controls) is more specialized relating to carcinogen formation as a result of certain cooking methods that generate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic amines. an interesting result from the study was that the strongest association of meat consumption and cancer were with those who also ate the least fruits and vegetables naturally suggesting what we already know that it's smart to eat fruits and vegetables even if you are eating dumb otherwise. the end of the study deteriorates into factors that may 'confound' the rather clear results, but at least their conclusion is strong: "These results support the accumulating evidence that consumption of meats cooked by methods that promote carcinogen formation may increase risk of postmenopausal breast cancer."

so as far as that bad kfc joke goes, meat is not your breast bet and you're a real boob to keep eating corpse!

in fiendship,
prad

Attachments:

meatbreastcancerbjm.pdf, 124 KB
meatbreastcancer0705.pdf, 361 KB

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pradtf on June 14, 2010 at 5:30am

:D :D
ah yes symbiosis at it's best!

here is physician yoni freedoff's comment on the matter.

in friendship,
prad

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TheBananaGirl on April 27, 2010 at 7:03pm

THis is great info Prad thank you!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by B on May 5, 2010 at 5:54am

wanna lost those pesky lbs and keep 'em off? go veg

not that this should be a surprise to many of us here, but science now confirms that veg diets, unlike low carb high corpse fare starvation diets, work for sustained weight loss, and make you a lot healthier in the process (eat your atherosclerotic-plaque-clogged-heart out doc atkins).

"Effect of a high nutrient density diet on long-term weight loss: a retrospective chart review" (sarter et al.) shows that overweight meat eaters (avg. 221 lbs) put on a high nutrient density (primarily) veg diet lost on avg. 53 lbs after 2 years.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18517106

[conclusion from abstract]
A high nutrient density (HND) vegetable-based diet offers a dietary model extremely low in saturated fat as well as refined carbohydrates and emphasizes a liberal intake of fresh fruits, vegetables, beans, and nuts… An HND diet has the potential to provide sustainable, significant, long-term weight loss and may provide substantial lowering of cardiac risk in patients who are motivated and provided with extended one-on-one counseling and follow-up visits.

in addition to winning the battle of the bulge, LDL (bad) cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure and risk for heart disease all went down on veg too.

wanna be fat? eat dead animals

4 year study of ~60,000 US men and women shows vegans weigh 40lbs less on avg than meat eaters.

[from abstract]...
RESULTS: Mean BMI was lowest in vegans (23.6 kg/m(2)) and incrementally higher in lacto-ovo vegetarians (25.7 kg/m(2)), pesco-vegetarians (26.3 kg/m(2)), semi-vegetarians (27.3 kg/m(2)), and nonvegetarians (28.8 kg/m(2)).

[normal weight bmi 20-25; overweight is 25-30; obese is 30+ iow vegans were the only dietary category within a healthy weight range; omnis border on obese]

CONCLUSIONS: The 5-unit BMI difference between vegans and nonvegetarians indicates a substantial potential of vegetarianism to protect against obesity.

the vegans in the study weren't exercising anymore than the meat eaters, in fact they were exercising less than the meat eaters and still weighed 40 lbs lighter on avg. oh and had lower incidence of type 2 diabetes than the corpse munchers.

this of course all jives with T. Colin Campbell's findings in the China Study which showed that those on a plant based diet have lower body fat, cholesterol and chronic disease while eating more calories than SAD folk.

hence science confirms that fruit won't make you fat (or give you diabetes or heart disease) but eating dead animals will :D

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by B on May 5, 2010 at 6:42am

here's the link to the abstract of the 2nd study "Type of vegetarian diet, body weight, and prevalence of type 2 diabetes" (Tonstad et al)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19351712

and the 2 studies themselves (see attached).

we've got more on veganism and weight loss coming next week (and weight gain on death eater diets). stay tuned folks!

Attachments:

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephane on May 10, 2010 at 9:50pm

The link between cancer and animal products is well documented in the scientific publications, but almost never made public. At UC San Francisco, they showed a simple vegan lifestyle with exercise can reverse prostate cancer (http://news.ucsf.edu/releases/lifestyle-and-diet-may-stop-or-revers...), and there are many more out there. When I worked for UC San Diego, I got the chance to talk with doctors in cancer research, and especially some working on colon cancer. They all said that meat and dairy consumption was the main factor for the development of colon cancer, that was well known in the community, and that actually some scientific papers had been written on it (sorry I don't have the references), but science is financed a way nowadays that to do research you need money, and to get that money you need to write an appealing proposal. And it has to appeal the people who decide and the heads of the university. The first ones wants results they can afterward sell to the general public easily, and the second want results they can used to set companies and make money. Universities are just big money making factories. Hard to do independent research now.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by B on May 11, 2010 at 7:43am

dairy/milk intake and colorectal cancer

Since Stephane mentioned the meat/dairy and colorectal cancer connection I thought I'd add an entry on it and save part 2 of veganism & weightloss for next week.

According to T. Colin Campbell colorectal cancer is the 4th most common cancer in the world and the 2nd most common in the US. Diets high in fiber and fruits and vegetables have been shown to be protective against cancer while diets high in meat and animal products increase the risk thereof. Fiber is of course not found in animal products; only whole plant foods. Thus SAD = bad news for mr./mrs. colon diet.

More recently, a longituidinal study of 5000 British and Scottish children over 50+ years has shown that high dairy (471g/day) and milk intake (only 1.2+ cups/day or 282ml) in children nearly triples risk for colorectal cancer decades later in adulthood:

"Childhood dairy intake and adult cancer risk: 65-y follow-up of the Boyd Orr cohort. (van der Pols et al 2007)"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18065592

the mechanism behind this is not understood. it may be that colorectal tumors take many decades to grow and that plenty of moo juice at a tender young age gives the cancer a head start. in any case it makes you think twice about giving GOMAD (gallon o' moo juice a day) a try, whether you're young or otherwise.

Attachments: