3

votes

Article about vegetarianism, and meat eating leading to cancer?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created September 30, 2011 at 1:27 AM

I'm new to paleo. I just read this and now I'm a bit confused.

The scientific basis of vegetarianism

I keep reading different articles and each person says the other way of eating is unhealthy and will lead to health problems. They all sound convincing! I just don't know what to believe anymore. Is it really safe to eat so much meat, especially if I'm too poor to get the grass fed healthy kind?

324bf94d3d6f9322d6e4dba4becfaab1

on September 30, 2011
at 04:59 PM

Matt, I did not dismiss correlation as being worthless. Correlation can be a useful indicator of where to start the real research, but by itself correlation proves nothing about causation. It is very easy to correlate things and can be easily abused if people don't understand that.

324bf94d3d6f9322d6e4dba4becfaab1

on September 30, 2011
at 04:58 PM

Matt, I did not dismiss correlation as valuable. Correlation can be a useful indicator of where to start the real research, but by itself correlation proves nothing about causation. It is very easy to correlate things and can be easily abused if people don't understand that.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on September 30, 2011
at 01:40 PM

I've been doing process and product research for the 35 years, and I'm always looking for correlation. Usually there is none, but if there is more confirmation is needed before I try to convince someone to make a change. I wouldn't have lasted long depending on correlation alone. The author of the vegan setpiece has nothing at stake, thus is satisfied with a very shallow analysis. A paleo could find similar weak r=.8 correlations of health benefits and longevity in an afternoon of googling. But in both cases the confirmation is in the practice.

7d0c3ea9bf8be00b93e6433d8f125ac3

(7540)

on September 30, 2011
at 01:32 PM

I don't really have an interest in lifting sick old folks.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on September 30, 2011
at 02:42 AM

Don't be so quick to dismiss correlation as a valuable inquiry tool. Yes, it doesn't prove causation, but often causation and correlation overlap, more often than folks who are fond of the mantra 'correlation does not imply causation' would like to admit... Yes, there's a big ole confounding variable when it comes to animal products vs health. Animal products correlate very positively with wheat/grain consumption.

Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

4 Answers

5
F4d04667059bc682540fdfd8b40f13a7

on September 30, 2011
at 01:58 AM

I stopped reading when I got to this quote: -

Epidemiologically, the intake of animal source food correlates with the country-by-country incidence of six types of cancer. Although none of the reporting countries can be assumed to have large vegan or even vegetarian populations, it appears that the less animal source food per capita, the lower the cancer rate.

So countries with lower cancer rates can't be assumed to have large vegetarian populations - but we'll assume the cancer rate is lower because they eat less animal products? Er...

2
1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on September 30, 2011
at 05:18 AM

I have tried many ways of eating and paleo is my choice for life.

In my book the wins with Paleo:

1) Avoid vegetable oils.
2) Take Vitamin D (common recomendation)
3) Keep your omega 6/3 ratio low.
4) Avoid added sugar and fructose as an additive.
5) Avoid Soy
6) Great protein sources

These all are great for your body. I am convinced that these things are critical in avoiding/fighting cancer.

For the vegetarian:

1) Vegetable consumption is a good idea in my book. (This is also consistent with Paleo lifestyle.)

Common issues I see (and they are avoidable in the vegetarian lifestyle.

1) Consumption of Soy. Very Bad.
2) Over consumption of carbs. (pastatarians)

Lack of really good Omega 3 source (Now possible through vegan compatible DHA supplements however most / a lot of vegetarians do not know/take them but should.)

The addition of eggs, pastured butter and whey could improve the vegetarian diet and in fact are consistent with some forms of the vegetarian diet.

The addition of Salmon would really help. However the DHA mentioned above helps.

For the meat part. One though is that cancer is less likely to happen with a healthy pancreas. The over consumption of protein leaves pancreatic enzymes depleted and hence no pancreatic enzymes left to ward off cancer which they do seem to be able to do.

For me a Paleo diet is the way I am going. I do limit Protein to 170g / day which is 1 gram per lean pound of body mass.

1
E95216c62a14d21c371fcbf2fed8469b

(1867)

on September 30, 2011
at 12:18 PM

Paleo/low carb controls my food addiction and workplace stress. My mother had stage IV appendix cancer and I spent three weeks with her sleeping next to her in a cancer hospital. I'm also not worried about getting the cancer because this life is so fleeting and transient and Jesus is forever. Plus, what you think about you bring out and as long as I'm able to ride my bicycle, run, lift heavy things and sick old folks, I'll keep eating this way.

7d0c3ea9bf8be00b93e6433d8f125ac3

(7540)

on September 30, 2011
at 01:32 PM

I don't really have an interest in lifting sick old folks.

1
324bf94d3d6f9322d6e4dba4becfaab1

on September 30, 2011
at 02:34 AM

Correlation has never proved causation and never will.

You can correlate just about anything if you try hard enough. For example, increased ice cream sales correlate with increased crime. So, according to veg*ns we should ban the sale of ice cream because it promotes crime, right? Obviously the sale of ice cream has nothing to do with crime. The reason the correlate is because there's more crime in the summer is because it's not freezing cold with 2 feet of snow on the ground. People don't buy ice cream as much in the winter, and people don't go out as much in the winter, so ice cream sales go down and crime goes down. They correlate, but neither is the cause of the other.

Aside from us paleos, the average person doesn't eat much meat. I eat about 15lbs of beef a week, where as the average american eats around 1.2 lbs. That's because much of the meat Americans eat is pair with grains. A plate full of spaghetti with 2 or 3 meatballs. A pizza with a few pepperonis. A burger on a bun with fries and a soda. Appetizers at restaurants are all grains, chips, bread, fries. It's easy to pawn off the problem grains cause on to meat using correlative studies because meat always comes with grain.

Facts are facts, humans are meant to eat meat. They're meant to eat almost entirely meat. It's pretty much impossible to get all the calories AND nutrition you need without eating a high carb diet if you are an active person. The human digestion system is simply not big enough to process 20-30 lbs of plant matter a day. That's why vegan bodybuilder diets contain lots of nutrient devoid non-animal fats and protein powers, because there's no way the could ever eat enough plant matter to supply their calorie needs. Gorillas, who eat 40-50 lbs of plant matter a day, look fat because they have huge digestive systems do support such a large plant matter intake. Humans have a small digestive system because they're meant to eat meat.

article-about-vegetarianism,-and-meat-eating-leading-to-cancer?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on September 30, 2011
at 01:40 PM

I've been doing process and product research for the 35 years, and I'm always looking for correlation. Usually there is none, but if there is more confirmation is needed before I try to convince someone to make a change. I wouldn't have lasted long depending on correlation alone. The author of the vegan setpiece has nothing at stake, thus is satisfied with a very shallow analysis. A paleo could find similar weak r=.8 correlations of health benefits and longevity in an afternoon of googling. But in both cases the confirmation is in the practice.

324bf94d3d6f9322d6e4dba4becfaab1

on September 30, 2011
at 04:59 PM

Matt, I did not dismiss correlation as being worthless. Correlation can be a useful indicator of where to start the real research, but by itself correlation proves nothing about causation. It is very easy to correlate things and can be easily abused if people don't understand that.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on September 30, 2011
at 02:42 AM

Don't be so quick to dismiss correlation as a valuable inquiry tool. Yes, it doesn't prove causation, but often causation and correlation overlap, more often than folks who are fond of the mantra 'correlation does not imply causation' would like to admit... Yes, there's a big ole confounding variable when it comes to animal products vs health. Animal products correlate very positively with wheat/grain consumption.

324bf94d3d6f9322d6e4dba4becfaab1

on September 30, 2011
at 04:58 PM

Matt, I did not dismiss correlation as valuable. Correlation can be a useful indicator of where to start the real research, but by itself correlation proves nothing about causation. It is very easy to correlate things and can be easily abused if people don't understand that.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!