Long term vegetarian diet changes human DNA raising risk of cancer and heart disease
Long term vegetarian diet changes human DNA raising risk of cancer and heart disease
Long term vegetarian diet changes human DNA raising risk of cancer and heart disease
Long term vegetarian diet changes human DNA raising risk of cancer and heart disease
VEGANS BTFO
E
G
A
N
S
B
T
F
O
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/
And here, an actual link
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12206669/Long-term-vegetarian-diet-changes-human-DNA-raising-risk-of-cancer-and-heart-disease.html
Ok, Help a dumbass out.
When use the link, what am looking for exactly?
Thank you god
being vegan causes cancer
eating meat causes cancer
everything causes cancer
>>36571794
Im alive
Does this cause cancer? Am i doomed?
LMAO I'm not saying being vegan is healthy, but the sheer retardation in that article makes me wonder if she has ever read a single scientific paper in her life
>>36571722
>That link
First time shit poster, last time poster?
>>36571757
>Telegraph
God Damn.
>>36571770
Op is the only dumbass here.
Mfw I'm not even a vegetarian and this thread triggered me.
>>36571882
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/03/09/molbev.msw049.full.pdf+html?sid=a55e56ce-8037-449a-a7f4-f00f55d56deb
>tfw I don't eat meat because I'm poor and quality meats are expensive, yet veggies are affordable and top notch
>>36571816
Living long enough causes cancer
>>36571722
How dumb can u be?
>>36572024
There are studies that directly contradict these supposed findings. Two doctors, doctors Esselstyn and Campbell have been treating their patients with a plant-based diet and have successfully not only halted the heart disease in their patients, but reversed it. They've also treated diabetes with a plant-based diet and it allowed someone who was taking shots everyday along with many pills to get off all medication. The sample size of that study (I looked at the numbers and it appeared to only be around 200 from each continent) which...is very poor, whereas a study that I am aware of which states the opposite had around 90,000 participants.
I would be more inclined to believe the results of the larger study.
>>36572464
>200 people from each continent is poor
compared to
>a doctor taking incomparable diabetic and heart disease ridden individuals with a shitty diet in one country and giving them a better diet
False comparison, invalid, unsound, does not contradict.
>90k participants
bandwagon fallacy
>>36571882
Sorry mate, Im a subscriber of this medical journal, couldn't figure out how to link it in full for non subscribers.
The Telegraph referenced the source, so it does not matter where it came from, Nice attempt at discrediting.
>>36571794
Anything that causes increased cell replication causes cancer*
>>36572464
There was also a large study conducted in Africa over 15 years, which looked at isolated tribes whose diets consisted mainly of meat. I think the diet was something like 80% meat - 20% plant. The researchers found an almost zero incidence rate of tooth decay, heart disease, lifestyle disease (diabetes/being fat), and cancer.
In the end the conclusion was that modern diet and lifestyle was the significant contributor to these diseases, and not simply "eating meat/plant causes cancer".
>>36572269
Go find costco meats or eat it sparingly, like you should.
I have had a food budget of 100$/mo and ate grass fed beef, and bulked on said diet from 175-185 over the course of a year.
>>36572631
underrated post
>>36572619
>Anything that causes increased cell replication causes cancer*
This.
Any high calorie diet, regardless if it's meat based, plant based, or whatever, stimulates the production of IGF-1, which is a known causative factor of cancer development.
>>36572631
Can you link me to said study? I linked you to my source, which was also in a medical journal.
>>36571722
dumbest shit i ever heard
for spreading false information, i hope you die of a heart attack fat fuck OP
>>36571722
Gruncle Stan, why are you shitposting on /fit/?
>>36572464
Look at the Mongols and fuck right off.
>>36573422
The Mongolians average lifespan is 68 years old, whereas the average in the United States is 78, and China is 83. If you are trying to argue that their diet makes them healthier, that simple fact doesn't support your claims.
>>36571816
Yeh, cancer is gods ctrl+alt+del for humans
LOL at vegans getting BTFO
>>36575056
Whilst living in considerab;y shittier conditions with next to no healthcare infrastructure and also on a diet consisting predominantly on animal products.
I love you, anon, but sometimes I really want to slap your shit.
>>36573413
Clearly their boat broke down so he's shitpsoting while ford fixes it
>>36575779
Vegans/vegetarians live longer on average than non-vegetarians.
>>36576199
While apparently fucking up their DNA for their children. Great going.
>>36576199
Vegans/vegetarians are also predominately westerners who live in countries with healthcare systems to keep them alive when the vitamin deficiencies they develop from being vegan/vegetarian try to kill them
>>36576219
The study posted above studied what, 1000 people? You do realize there's 7 billion people alive currently. You can't draw conclusions based on one study. The study that I posted, however, was a culmination of many different studies and it had over 70 sources.
>>36576265
>Still believing the pseudoscience in "Forks Over Knives"
>Still believing the vegan meme
>Never going to make it
>>36576265
I'm not OP, but you're definitly a faggot
>>36576296
I feel just fine, thanks. I use Cron-O-Meter to make sure that I get all the vitamins that I need and in the proper amounts.
>>36576325
Name-calling is definitely super intelligent. Thank you for your contribution.
>>36576328
That's like a fatty saying they're "perfectly healthy". lol
>>36576328
How does it feel knowing that your diet would not work in the wild? Knowing that you need to rely on vitamin capsules to survive and make your diet capable of surviving on?
>>36576368
Well since I went to the doctor last month and got my blood results back, I'd say I can be pretty confident in my assessment. My numbers were all within normal range.
>>36576382
I don't care. Because I don't live in a society where that is necessary. I live in a prosperous and stable country where I wouldn't need to resort to such measures.
>>36576342
Where the fuck do you think you are? Fuck of back to tumblr to look at your cute animal gifs.
>>36576398
Thereby proving my point that veganism and vegetarianism are only for privileged westerners that have a reliable healthcare infrastructure, showcasing that neither of these diet fit into the human evolutionary scheme.
>>36576265
1000 people is quite a fucking lot for a biological study actually
>>36576415
I don't care if you call me names, it just makes you look unintelligent. I am trying to present a reasonable counter-argument without resorting to Ad Hominem attacks.
I don't give a fuck if you're vegan/vegetarian for ethical reasons or if you're opposed to factory farming. But don't try to suffocate us with your dogshit pseudoscience memery to tickle your confirmation bias.
>>36576265
VEGANS ON SUICIDE WATCH LOL
All this damage control
Green Goblin defeated by the Meaty Master.
>>36576428
I'd be more impressed if it was in the tens of thousands.
>>36576435
Buuhuu, well I'm not. I'm just laughing my ass off to you vegan-fags.
>>36576424
There are certain tribes that are largely vegetarian/vegan that don't supplement and are perfectly fine.
>>36576450
"The study examined the diets, lifestyle, and disease characteristics of 6,500 people in 65 rural Chinese counties, comparing the prevalence of disease characteristics, excluding causes of death such as accidents."
Guess that throws out the main study for veganism, by your standards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Cornell%E2%80%93Oxford_Project
>>36576458
You have the right to do so, just as I have the right to present counter-evidence. Nothing should be accepted without questioning the validity of what is being said.
>>36576450
>>36576450
"The study examined the diets, lifestyle, and disease characteristics of 6,500 people in 65 rural Chinese counties, comparing the prevalence of disease characteristics, excluding causes of death such as accidents."
Guess that throws out the main study for veganism, by your standards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Cornell%E2%80%93Oxford_Project
>>36576473
I don't recall mentioning the China Study.
>>36576471
They also spend literally every moment of their lives searching for their next meal.
>>36572631
Thats cos those guys died at 40
Vegan is probabably good if you wanna try to live to 90 or something.
Even then youd probably still get some disease
>>36576479
Still laughing
>>36576489
You didn't. But this is the primary study that vegans typically use to support their health-based claims.
>>36576496
But your point was that it couldn't be done, that it was impossible. Now you're saying it's possible but with certain conditions?
>>36576500
See "Western Healthcare System".
>>36576505
I don't and have never used the China Study when I defend veganism to other people. There are better studies that have been done, with many more participants, such as the one that I posted earlier.
>>36576471
> largely vegetarian
> largely
You're not a vegetarian than, you're just a regular person.
>>36576506
>>36576471
"Largely" vegan or vegetarian. Not completely?
>>36576516
Are you trolling?
Western healthcare doesnt deal with prevention
>>36572619
>The Telegraph referenced the source,
They just linked to the homepage of the medical journal that it's allegedly published in like you did. That doesn't qualify as a reference. Where's the data being reported on? You can link the abstract if the full text isn't available
>>36576520
Which one? The Esselstyn and Campbell one?
>>36576537
It does deal with treatment, and overall lifespan, however. Which is what the vegans here keep harping on.
>>36576528
There have been vegetarians since Ancient Greece, it's even mentioned in Homer's The Odyssey. If it was so unsustainable, why would people continue to practice it?
>>36576549
Neither. I've done a lot of research on this, I studied it for months before I decided. You've just heard about the most popular ones because some vegan probably shoved it in your face.
>>36576608
I was asking which one you posted earlier. I only saw the Esselstyn and Campbell one.
>>36576555
I dont think even vegans argue lifespan for lifespans sake
They argue long life with good health, which veganism does marginally improve
>>36576637
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/
This was the one I posted.
>>36576544
Nevermind, I think I found it by googling
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/03/09/molbev.msw049.full.pdf+html
They looked at the genes of a "primarily vegetarian" population in India compared to people in Kansas. The Indians had higher prevalence of a gene that helps create long-chain PUFAs from short-chain PUFAs. The news article is taking a creative liberty in assuming that this translates to increased risk of cancer and heart disease because of the possibility of arachidonic acid being produced if they eat a lot of omega-6 rich vegetable oils, and this causing inflammation. While you should be avoiding refined oils anyway, the American Heart Association has put out a paper reviewing the evidence for omega-6 related inflammation and says what the other of this article is assuming is bullshit
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/119/6/902.full.pdf
>Arguments for reduced LA intakes are based on the assumption that because CHD has an inflammatory component10 and because the omega-6 fatty acid, AA, is the substrate for the synthesis of a variety of proinflammatory molecules, reducing LA intakes should reduce tissue AA content, which should reduce the inflammatory potential and therefore lower the risk for CHD.
>AA is the substrate for the production of a wide variety of eicosanoids (20-carbon AA metabolites). Some are proinflammatory, vasoconstrictive, and/or proaggregatory, such as prostaglandin E2, thromboxane A2, and leukotriene B4. However, others are antiinflammatory/antiaggregatory, such as prostacyclin, lipoxin A4, 11 and epoxyeicosatrienoic acids.12
>Importantly, because the production of AA from LA is tightly regulated,14 wide variations in dietary LA (above minimal essential intakes) do not materially alter tissue AA content.
The author of the article just seems to have a chip on her shoulder about vegetarians and pulled stuff out of her ass to make a controversial article.
>>36576702
Thanks. I appreciate the back-up.
>>36576572
Same with islam?
Shitty argument
The study compared people in Prune, India to people in Kansas. Accuracy in Nutritional studies are notoriously difficult, but drawing this conclusion seems completely retarded. Maybe people in India have higher rates of cancer because India is the most polluted shit hole in the world. There is no control, no monitoring of diets, they're not even looking at vegetarians in different parts of India, just one town, and it says the mutation takes multiple generations.
I'm not advocating one way or another, but this is a shit study and and garbage click bate
>>36577548
>Maybe people in India have higher rates of cancer because
Stop right there. The study didn't look at cancer rates or anything like that. It only looked at prevalence of a gene that aids in PUFA elongation. Any inference about cancer or heart disease is purely an assumption, not based on any collected data. There's not even a reason to think this gene is bad.
>>36577676
Exactly.
priceless
meanwhile those vegan threads always go over 300 posts
be a vegan they said....lel
>>36576265
I've posted it before, I'll post it again.
This is a study published WELL before the youtube gurus started citing sources from cherrypicking vegan wankjob doctors that have their own youtube channels.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/3/516s.full
Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies
>Data for 76172 men and women were available
>all results were adjusted for age, sex, and smoking status
>in comparison with regular meat eaters, mortality from ischemic heart disease was 20% lower in occasional meat eaters, 34% lower in people who ate fish but not meat, 34% lower in lactoovovegetarians, and 26% lower in vegans. There were no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, or all other causes combined.
People die of cancer, cardiovascular disease and stroke at old age. Diet is not a terribly significant factor.
Do you guys understand what I'm saying? Try explain your way out of this green man of jaundice gains.
reminder
stress causes cancer
air causes cancer
glass causes cancer
plastic causes cancer
wood causes cancer
any food you eat ever causes cancer
cancer causes cancer
this post causes cancer
[spoiler]you already have cancer[/spoiler]
>>36572336
Exactly.
Pescetarianism is the healthiest diet
Prove me wrong
>>36578518
Mercury
>>36578518
Pregnant women are told not to eat a lot of fish because it can damage the fetus.
>>36571722
> acting like a vegetarian diet is synonymous with a vegan diet
M'kay kiddo.
>>36571794
Given how, over time, particularly in the 19th century, that cancer rates have spiked, it would seem logical to conclude that it's peoples' diets (that have universally changed in the West) and lifestyles that have contributed to the increase. To me, returning to a diet of mostly organic and meat free from any manufactured rubbish (e.g. adding drugs to their food) is what will maintain a healthy diet. It's difficult to find the latter, unless you have your own produce, which is why being more ethical in your eating habits seems to make sense.
so I spent like 70€ for a 21days cycle of Animal Test only to get cancer from its 1500mg of arachidonic acid?
>>36572631
>Africa
>Eating 80% meat
