Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

Vegans get more colon cancer than vegetarians however. Also, vegeratians get much more colon cancer than people who eat fish. It's about cutting down on high-risk foods, but turning it into some religious-level thing rather than an evidence-based thing is where people actively wreck their health over various fads and ideological food beliefs.

For example I know some vegans who swear by any and all studies showing that meat is bad, however when I showed them the study about colon cancer and vegans/vegetarians/fish-eaters they suddenly were trying to claim that studies were bullshit elite science. Oh right ... they blindly accepted study results when they confirmed their existing beliefs, but any time "studies say" something they disagree with, that's that bad evil "the man" science speaking.

There's also a big problem with reported science, because they often report the finding the publication wants to highlight without separating out confounding variables:

https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2018/09/11/Going-vegetarian-may-lower-colon-cancer-risk/1611536711171/
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/142427.php

On average, eating vegetarian may lower colon cancer risk by 19 percent and rectal cancer by 29 percent compared to non-vegetarians -- people who eat meat at least once a week. Besides eating less meat, the vegetarians in the study ate fewer sweets, snacks, refined grains and high-calorie beverages and more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans and nuts.

What if you ... eat meat but also eat whole grains and vegatables, and don't drink tons of fizzy drink and eat tons of snacks? This particular study didn't add in any controls for other food intake. Same site, another published article showing that vegetarians have the same type of cancer more often when different controls are in place in the study:

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/142427.php

Compared with meat eaters in the cohort, and after adjusting for age, sex and smoking status, the vegetarians in the cohort showed an 11 per cent lower incidence rate of all cancers.

However, for colorectal cancer, vegetarians showed a 39 per cent higher incidence rate compared with meat eaters.

Note the big difference here is that they put in proper controls, whereas the other study only compared the raw group vs group data.

Since eating fish is shown to be protective against the same cancers vegetarians are suffering from, eating fish seems like a good idea. Cut out the processed meat, a healthy diet that includes a bit of chicken and especially fish and you're probably going to outlive a strict vegetarian.

[Yoink]

Everyone gets cancer at some point, dude.

The question we were discussing was "whether there are healthy alternatives to meat which give you the required nutrients".
I don't know what your obsession with colons is about, I seem to remember you bringing this up once or twice in the past?

[Kagus]

Yea, but are meat alternatives healthy?

Oh, durr, I misunderstood. Well, a lot of them will be decently healthy, at least comparatively speaking... But it's generally more a "not bad for you" healthy than a "vital nutrients" healthy. Seitan apparently has a decent amount of iron and calcium in it, but that's about it (and I wouldn't really say that seitan tastes like meat... seitan just tastes like seitan. Texture's not half bad though).

Soy has a few uncommon riboflavinoids, whatever the fuck those are, but it's also soy, and soy isn't that great for some people (see: folks with thyroid issues). Brown rice is loaded with good shit, but most of that is locked up in the husk, which gets removed during polishing for most rice-based products.

So, eh.

[George_Chickens]

Vegans get more colon cancer than vegetarians however. Also, vegeratians get much more colon cancer than people who eat fish. It's about cutting down on high-risk foods, but turning it into some religious-level thing rather than an evidence-based thing is where people actively wreck their health over various fads and ideological food beliefs.

For example I know some vegans who swear by any and all studies showing that meat is bad, however when I showed them the study about colon cancer and vegans/vegetarians/fish-eaters they suddenly were trying to claim that studies were bullshit elite science. Oh right ... they blindly accepted study results when they confirmed their existing beliefs, but any time "studies say" something they disagree with, that's that bad evil "the man" science speaking.

Could you post those studies, if you have them at hand? I know someone who has got increasingly cultish around their diet and I'm collecting things to show them how silly they are.

[Reelya]

Could you post those studies, if you have them at hand? I know someone who has got increasingly cultish around their diet and I'm collecting things to show them how silly they are.

Here's a link explaining the research. And note, it was included as the source of the data I mentioned about, except the omitted the bits that contradicted what they wanted to say

http://www.ahchealthenews.com/2015/03/19/pescatarian-diet-cuts-risk-of-colon-cancer/

While a diet consisting of primarily fruits and vegetables is associated with a significantly lower risk of all colorectal cancer, adding fish to a diet reduces the risk of colon cancer even more. Those are the findings of a North American study involving 77,659 Seventh Day Adventist men and women who were followed for more than seven years. The study demonstrated that vegetarians, compared to non-vegetarians, had a 22 percent lower risk of developing all colorectal cancers – 19 percent lower risk for colon cancer specifically and 29 percent lower risk for rectal cancer.

The colorectal cancer risk was even lower – 43 percent — for vegetarians who also ate fish and 8 percent lower in semi-vegetarians. For vegans – those who consume no foods from animals, including milk, eggs and other dairy products — the risk for colorectal cancer was reduced by 16 percent.

Ok, this is the most objective outline of the data in question.

Vegan - 16% lower chance of these cancers.
Vegetarian - 22% lower chance of these cancers. Notice here that being strictly vegan makes you sicker.
Pescatarian - 43% lower chance of these cancers.

From this data, it's better for gut health to be vegetarian than vegan, and best to be a pescetarian.

Also, Yoink as to why this is important:

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States.

It's the second biggest killer in the USA, so medical concern about how to minimize it is justified.

Basically, articles like the previous one I posted took this data and presented it as "don't eat any meat at all" removing the context:

https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2018/09/11/Going-vegetarian-may-lower-colon-cancer-risk/1611536711171/

And a study of 77,000 adults published in JAMA Internal Medicine found that you can also lower your risk of this cancer by making changes in your diet right now, whatever your age.
...
On average, eating vegetarian may lower colon cancer risk by 19 percent and rectal cancer by 29 percent compared to non-vegetarians -- people who eat meat at least once a week. Besides eating less meat, the vegetarians in the study ate fewer sweets, snacks, refined grains and high-calorie beverages and more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans and nuts.

So, in other words it's clearly from the same study data as the other one, but they deliberately excluded the "fish eaters are healthier" point and the "vegans are less healthy" point, because they're pushing a particular agenda, and inconvenient facts needed to be jettisoned. Notably however, they do make it clear here that no effort at all was taken to control the data for other eating habits. People who make conscious decisions about what to eat are healthier, and this confounds the data unless you control for it. "meat eater" might include people who eat pizza every night and drink soda every day in the data, so it's not sufficient to just group people based on an ideology then just say "look the meat eaters are sicker - don't eat any meat". The data wasn't fine-grained enough to say that.

That's why you also have other studies showing vegetarians in fact get more of these cancers when different controls are in place:

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/142427.php

[wierd]

There are any number of non-meat sources of quality protein that are significantly healthier for you (lower in sat-fat, lower in salt, lower in sodium or nitrates).

Not all are suitable substitutes for meat as it relates to cuisine. Texture is wrong, flavor is wrong, mouth feel is wrong-- etc.

The difficulty with meat substitutes, is that the very things that make it flavorful and appealing, are the very things that make it SUPER BAD FOR YOU.

Namely, the afore mentioned sat-fat, salt, etc.


If you are willing to throw the baby out with the water, sure-- there are all sorts of vegetable protein sources one can turn to. Without question-- But that is not, and has not been the issue, since veganism is totally a thing. (QED, it *IS* possible to get that protein, because vegans exist, and dont die.)

The real issue is the "Is the food delicious, and-- does it make a suitable substitute for meat, in terms of satiety."

That is where it gets dicey, and where things get much more subjective.

[Loud Whispers]

There are any number of non-meat sources of quality protein that are significantly healthier for you (lower in sat-fat, lower in salt, lower in sodium or nitrates).

OATS are the GOAT FOOD

[Putnam]

using the most biased google search on this topic i could imagine ("colon cancer connection with vegetarianism"), i found:

Vegetarian Dietary Patterns and the Risk of Colorectal Cancers: "Vegetarian diets are associated with an overall lower incidence of colorectal cancers. Pescovegetarians in particular have a much lower risk compared with nonvegetarians. If such associations are causal, they may be important for primary prevention of colorectal cancers."

"Vegetarian diet linked to lower colon cancer risk"

"Vegetarians Have Fewer Cancers But Higher Risk Of Colorectal Cancer, Study"

and I'm bored now since the one after that just links to the first one. Seems overall mixed. Like Reelya said, though, everything points to pescetarians getting less colon cancer than strict vegetarians, so if you're going to be vegetarian best not swear off fish, apparently.

[wierd]

...

No, no no.  Goat's natural food is tree leaves and leafy herbs.  They eschew grasses, which oats are.  Humans feed them oat seeds, which are rich in nutrients that are deficited in their natural diets, and so the goats get fat as little fools on them.  Same with corn, etc.

Sheep on the other hand, they seem to prefer grasses over herbaceous plants.

Being a limey bastard and all, I can see how you might think that sheep and goats eat the same things naturally, but no bro, nope

(just teasing about the limey bastard thing.)

[Yoink]

I mean, the whole "BUT WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR PROTEIN" thing has been entirely debunked.
The acquisition of various other nutrients is still a valid concern, but with a bit of effort it's not hard to do.

... Because it's a type of cancer that pure vegetarians have been shown to be especially susceptible to by more than one study? And also because colon cancer is one of the bogeymen that meat is often blamed for as a reason to switch to a vegan diet. It's mentioned in Terry Pratchett's Wyrd Sisters novel for example.

It had nothing to do with the previous discussion, though.
And... really? I thought heart disease was a far more common reason to swear off meat. Whatever, people who turn vegan or vegetarian for health reasons are a strange breed to begin with. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Fakeedit: I've been meaning to stock up on oats sometime. Porridge is dope. (Muesli is disgusting, on the other hand. Don't even go there.)   

[Kagus]

Disney taught me that a goat's natural diet consists primarily of empty tin cans and old rubber tires.

Oats are indeed pretty great though. Barley, too. There's even this funky health drink going around that's based on roasted and fermented barley grains. I dunno, I like it, but I think it's probably just a fad.

[Rowanas]

Sausage?  Just make it yourself, if you are going for meatless.
Seriously, the spices are available in the spice aisle.


Depending on the kind of sausage you are after, you would pick appropriately from this list:

subbed sage
fenugreek/anise/fennel (they all taste the same to me, but your mileage may vary)
chili powder
paprika
garlic powder
onion powder
black pepper
white pepper
red pepper
salt
(sometimes:)
Oregano
Parsley
oregano
thyme
rosemary

Since you are going meatless, I would personally consider adding something like marmite or vegemite, since tofu is decidedly not "meaty" in its flavor profile. That would give you some of the needed umami-ness that is expected of sausage.

Ok, fenugreek is the devil's arsefluff, and marmite/vegemite are hot death.  I can't take anything else seriously, knowing how wrong you are about those two.

[Yoink]

But have you tried... pea milk?!??
I saw that in a supermarket and it was so amusingly bizarre I had to try it. Wasn't too bad, from what I remember. Tasted freaking awful in coffee but really, really nice in Nesquik.
Though I normally have my coffee black anyway, so I guess I'm not Wanda Judge.

https://youtu.be/FkBQggRBqEY

Fakeedit: you diss Vegemite again and I'll show you "hot death", buster!

[Kagus]

Want devil's arsefluff? Try some asafoetida (mmm, fetid ass...), also commonly known as "devil's dung".


Smells pretty horrid, provides a rich and subtle flavor to dishes. Very important Indian spice.

[wierd]

fenugreek is used in a LOT of mediteranean and indian (from india) cuisine.  It is a bit different than the other two, but closely related flavor.

vegemite/marmite are yeast extractives with glutamate receptor triggering compounds that have strong umami flavor profiles. They might be tricky because they tend to be a bit too salty. But a little goes a long way.

Your subjective butt-talking makes me take you less seriously.  I on the other hand, can totally back both statements up, and will, just because.



https://rawspicebar.com/blogs/spices-101/fenugreek-substitute

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/umami

4.16.6.1.6 Nucleotides

Five years after the discovery of MSG as an umami taste, Kodama, who was a senior pupil of Ikeda, found that inosine 5′-monophosphate (IMP) was an umami-tasting constituent of dried bonito, which has also been used for soup stock in Japan and East Asia. Kuninaka. further studied umami-tasting substances and found that guanosine 5′-monophosphate (GMP) obtained by the enzymatic hydrolysis of yeast RNA had an intense umami taste. GMP was also found as a constituent of dried mushrooms (Cortinellus shiitake) cultivated in Japan. Among natural nucleotides, umami-tasting compounds are 5′-nucleotides with purine as a nucleic acid base, such as IMP, GMP, and AMP. Mononucleotides with phosphate at the 2′- or 3′-position do not elicit an umami taste. Nucleosides and purine bases also do not give a savory taste. The relationship between the nucleotide structure and the intensity of umami was extensively studied. As described in Section 4.16.6.1.1, it was confirmed that IMP and GMP have synergistic action with MSG and therefore these nucleotides are used with MSG as seasonings. Both IMP and GMP are industrially produced by enzymatic transformation and fermentation technology. Interestingly, the umami taste increases in stored meat and fish compared to very fresh food. It is thought that ATP present in the meat is transformed to IMP through AMP.