What the Vegan Diet can and cannot do!

[EmperorPalpatine]

So, inspired by post like this https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... f=7&t=1110, I feel like my first contribution to this forum might as well be scientific in nature, as that is what I enjoy.. I've seen many vegans make health claims without providing research to prove such claims, while many of this claims are valid, many of them are equally as invalid, so as someone who has taken time to really read the literature with regards to the vegan diet, and animal product consumption, as well as diet in general, I'm just going to use this post to show what the literature says a vegan diet can, and cannot do.

A Vegan Diet Can...

Prevent, arrest, and reverse Cardiovascular Disease

Perhaps the most famous vegan feat, the reversal of Coronary Heart Disease.. This was first demonstrated famously by the likes of Nathan Pritikin, and Dean Ornish. The famous Ornish study can be seen here, however I was unable to find a free full text of the Pritikin trials. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9863851

While the vegan diet can reverse heart disease, this does nothing from an argumentative standpoint, so here are some ways meat stimulates heart disease.

Meat contains high microbial loads, which alongside being gross, they can also contribute to heart disease.
http://jpma.org.pk/full_article_text.ph ... le_id=6039

Meat also contains L-Carnitine, which is produced by the body, but when consumed in the diet, it converts to Trimethylamine-N-Oxide, which is atherogenic. They also have the potential to form Nitrosamines, which are a rather active, potent carcinogen in cigarettes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23563705
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25271725

The saturated fat is a concern, however not as large as the others, the main issue is how a very high fat meal effects the arteries, with saturated fat having slightly more potent effects, olive oil is indeed better than butter, but not by that much. Such interferes with endothelial cell function, which is crucial to overall health as shown in this article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24250251.
High fat meals damage endothelial function enough to induce and exacerbate angina : http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... eid=301511

The reason I haven't included cholesterol in here, is because the science isn't fully comprehensive on the matter oddly enough. The Framingham heart study showed no real link to cholesterol, while the Harvard nurses study found that eating one egg a day increased all cause mortality rate as much as smoking 5 cigarettes a day for eating fifteen years, however it is unknown if this happened because of the cholesterol, or because of the saturated fat, altered gut floor, or the phosphatidylcholine which also is converted into our friend Trimethylamine-N-Oxide, and thus clogs the arteries. Lastly, here are some epidemiological studies that show vegan diets coming out on top for heart disease (Note: You will often see Low fat used here in support of veganism, this is because low fat diets are almost always low in meat, and high protein diets are almost always high in meat. Since carbohydrates are almost exclusive to the plant kingdom with the exception of lactose sugar, and dairy, calories from carbohydrate are the best measure of the amount of plants in the diet. You will also see studies showing wait gain as opposed to an actual rise in serum cholesterol levels etc, this is because it is a very effective measure in determining disease risk, and it is much cheaper to test for.)
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/3/525s.full
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/92/2/398.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989112/ (This ones interesting, a meat based low carb diet increases all cause mortality, where as a plant based low carb diet decreases said risk ^_^)

lower cancer risk
A plant based diet is almost always anti-oxidant rich, which is known to help out with fighting free radicals, which are mutagenic. If you consume a starch based diet, I'd suggest eating a fair amount of berries, to get anti-oxidants, and for the highest anti-oxidant foods (Absurdly high.) try: Hibiscus tea (4 times as many anti-oxidants as traditionally brewed green tea, you can find these in Zinger products, Ie red zinger, wildberry zinger, raspberry zinger. I recommend cold brewing 3-5 packets in a large pitcher with some lemon and date sugar and sipping throughout the day.) purple cabbage, wild blueberries, walnuts, and indian goosebury, which is very cheap provided you have a store that actually sells it. Anti-oxidants should be considered the primary marker of how healthy a food is.

Meat based diets are also rich in mutagenic heterocyclic amines especially in burnt, or grilled foods, which are cancer promoting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1469314/

Meat based diets also raise Igf-1 is also a concern with those who drink a carton of soy milk a day, or use excessive amounts of a soy based protein powder. Igf-1 is the hormone that determines how tall we grow, however when increased in a transient "spiking" manner, which is what happens with meat, we don't grow taller, but our muscles, and... Cancer cells enjoy a bit of growth.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12433724
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19746296 (dairy is especially awful.)

Lastly, there is an essential amino acid called methionine, found in highest ratios in meat, and isolated soy. Many cancers have been observed to be "methionine dependant", and thus restriction of methionine through a plant-based diet, may help prevent cancer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6749653

Fight and "reverse" Type 2 diabetes

There is technically no way to reverse Type 2 diabetes, BUT... Neal Bernard has demonstrated a full reversal of diabetic symptoms, although not as drastic as with ornish's heart disease trials.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2677007/

Type two diabetes is also caused by intramyocellular lipids, which is fancy doctor speak for fat within the muscle cell. This essentially prevents insulin from being able to penetrate the muscle cell wall. The body will at first compensate by increasing insulin production, however after a while, it will stop being able to keep up, resulting in dangerous drops in blood sugar. Intramyocellular lipids increase as weight increases, and seeing as meat is correlated very strongly with weight gain, it is crucial to avoid meat, in order to escape diabetes.

These are the big 3, and the studies I have posted is the mere tip of the tip of the iceberg, feel free to type in buzzwords in google, and follow them with "nih", you will get a fair amount of clinical studies without having to navigate pubmed, which is less user friendly.

What a vegan diet cannot do (And other vegan myths)

Cure cancer.

Sadly, there are testimonials, but no reliable, or statistically significant trials show consistant cancer reversals. Sorry

Violate the first law of thermodynamics

While it would be cool if vegan foods were impossible to store fat from, but sadly, even for vegans, a calorie is still a calorie. People like durianrider and freelee have popularized the idea that unlimited sugar will not cause obesity, sadly, if you eat in a hypercaloric manner, you will gain weight, and of discussion. Forever.

Raw Food diets

There is no evidence that suggest cooked foods are inherently unhealthy, the raw foods community is based on very little science. There are short term studies showing raw foods improving health, but in the long term, raw foods can lead to nutrient deficiencies. This is because nutrients like Beta-carotene are made MUCH more bioavailable when cooked. The benefit to raw food diets is no processed foods, but we can get the best of both worlds by consuming healthy cooked foods like rice, sweet potatoes, and legumes, alongside raw fruits and veggies.

The body produces all the B12 we need

False. Yes the body does produce B12, however a huge amount of vegans are B12 deficient. B12 is needed to remove homocysteine from the body, which is a cardiovascular risk, and is also why many vegans still manage to have heart attacks. It is also important for metabolic and neurological function. I suggest a B12 supplement, or fortified food such as tofu plus.

The vegan diet can cure HIV

No.

Meat makes you pee your bones down the toilet

While meateaters do release more calcium in the urine, this is not because of the body compensating for acidity. The reason meateaters have an extremely high calcium secretion in the urine, it is because high dose calcium causes the body to downregulate calcium absorption to maintain homeostasis. Despite this being the consensus for awhile now, we will have to look elsewhere to find out why high protein diets are linked with osteoporosis.


Alright guys, that's it, If you are curious what the literature says on a specific condition, I would be happy to elaborate, or research further to see if/how the vegan diet can effect certain conditions. Alzheimer's and to a lesser extent ALS are examples of conditions which have a risk significantly reduced by a plant based diet.

Enjoy reading, I hope this helps if a debate ever comes to the health aspects of veganism!

[vegan81vzla]

it is always good to clarify on the many vegan mythology that revolves the movement. Although certainly, the vegan diet IS and CAN be healthier, that does not mean that it doesn't require some control, nor that we vegans do not get sick at all.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Great post!

[brimstoneSalad]

Great post! Although there is no "the" vegan diet. There are many vegan diets, ranging from junk foods to extremely healthy.

Cure cancer.

Sadly, there are testimonials, but no reliable, or statistically significant trials show consistant cancer reversals. Sorry

There is broad misunderstanding about what "curing cancer" means.
Only our immune systems can truly cure cancer, by effectively targeting and eliminating it. Until very recently, that has been mostly down to luck.

Chemotherapy doesn't cure cancer either, it treats it, reduces its growth, and hopefully helps stimulate remission by giving our bodies more of a fighting chance, but it can always come back.

Diets high in animal products do the opposite, feeding the cancer, increasing growth, and reducing the chances of remission.

A specially formulated specific vegan diet (low in soy, sesame, and a few others which are high in methionine) can be part of cancer treatment, just as chemo therapy is, by restricting methionine and growth hormone production.

There are also substances in many common vegetables that inhibit cancer growth beyond that in vitro, so could be promising as complementary treatments.
A mere average "vegan diet" that only excludes animal products alone isn't enough, since it would also have to be specifically low in methionine and high in those cancer growth inhibiting vegetables (and not all vegan diets are, since there is no one single vegan diet), but in no sense would consuming animal products be helpful for cancer treatment.

That is, after you already have cancer.

Before you get cancer, antioxidants can be an important part of preventing it. Of course, that has nothing to do with treatment of cancer, and antioxidants can make it more difficult for your immune system to kill the cancer (which is done through oxidization).

[EmperorPalpatine]

Great post! Although there is no "the" vegan diet. There are many vegan diets, ranging from junk foods to extremely healthy.

Correct. Very, very few studies actually address a "vegan" diet, this post was definitely not to demonstrate what can be done eating deep fried Oreos all day, moreso, what can be done with an optimal diet, and why I believe such a diet must be lacking in animal foods in order to be considered "optimal."

There is broad misunderstanding about what "curing cancer" means.
Only our immune systems can truly cure cancer, by effectively targeting and eliminating it. Until very recently, that has been mostly down to luck.

Agreed. If one were to look at a chart of the process of oncogenesis, you'd be reaching to find more than one dietary factor, (Inflammation) there are diets that can encourage cancer cell growth, however there aren't any diets that kill cancer cells enough to get rid of tumors, although plant based diets are thankfully known to be very hostile to cancer cells.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16965238
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16965238


Glad you all enjoyed

[Animus]

What do you guys think about the statement, "meat causes cancer"?

A lot of vegans say that, and meat-eaters tend to respond with correlation != causation.

As I see it, we have evidence that meat increases the risk of getting cancer, so logically meat consumption will in some cases be the actual cause of the cancer. Am I wrong?

[brimstoneSalad]

What do you guys think about the statement, "meat causes cancer"?

It is accurate.
Meat causes cancer.

Meat doesn't cause ALL cancer. There are also other causes. And it's not guaranteed to cause cancer in every case. Just like smoking a pack a day might not cause lung cancer for somebody who lives to 90.

But meat certainly causes some cancer.

A lot of vegans say that, and meat-eaters tend to respond with correlation != causation.

That's just ignorance of scientific methodology.
Studies are designed to control for variables, and establish causation by either demonstrating mechanism of action, or through clinical control of variables and administering the substance in a controlled environment.

Both are quite acceptable.

Studying diet in humans is very hard, because the latter is nearly impossible. So, you just have to do HUGE population studies and control for all conceivable variables to narrow it down to 90%+ certainty of a causative link.
Science is always provisional, and based on various degrees of certainty.
We could be 90% certain there's a correlation, and 20% certain it's causation, for example.

But in the case of meat, at least, we have ferreted out some of the mechanisms by which they cause cancer, which is a smoking gun.

Some protein passes into the colon. There, the sulfur containing protein methionine (which meat is high in) is fermented by gut microbes into a fairly potent carcinogen. The carcinogen then goes its job, mutating cells, and -ta da- causing cancer.
It's a direct link, with no important steps missing.

We also know cooked meat and cured meat offer other, additional risks.

As I see it, we have evidence that meat increases the risk of getting cancer, so logically meat consumption will in some cases be the actual cause of the cancer. Am I wrong?

You are not wrong. A causative link that shows doing X increases the risk of Y is causation, plain and simple. Anything else is deceptive rhetoric, like in the case of cigarettes "They don't cause cancer, they just increase your risk! See? Harmless!"

ALL causation is an increase in risk. My pointing a loaded gun at your head and pulling the trigger merely increases the risk if your brains being blown out. It could misfire, for example. Nothing is certain, and if you demand certainty for causation, the word loses all meaning (it's just flat out wrong to do so).

Meat and cigarettes both cause cancer. Anybody who says otherwise should be hit with a fun noodle and not allowed to watch movies for... a week.

There is a distinction between a correlation (where cause has not been established because variables have not been properly controlled for), and causation, though.

E.g. we could say "The people in this study who eat meat are more likely to get cancer"
From that, we can not say that meat causes cancer. What if the meat eaters were also smokers, or had other lifestyle considerations?
That's a correlation. It might be causation, but it might also not be.
Which is why we have to go through great pains to control for all of those variables, and have a large enough study, to confidently assert causation.

Mistaking causation for mere correlation is an error much more grave then mistaking correlation for causation.

When you call something that is established as causation NOT causation, you are absolutely wrong.
When you call an established correlation causation, you may at least accidentally be right or might be wrong (it may or may not be).

[Animus]

Meat and cigarettes both cause cancer. Anybody who says otherwise should be hit with a fun noodle and not allowed to watch movies for... a week.

Haha =D

Thanks for explaining. I was confused since I keep hearing people say there isn't causation, but we clearly understand the mechanisms..


A meat-eater just showed this study as proof that meat doesn't cause cancer:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1469314/

Does it prove anything? What can we say to a study like that? I have some possible explanation, but I don't know if they're any good.

[brimstoneSalad]

A meat-eater just showed this study as proof that meat doesn't cause cancer:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1469314/

Does it prove anything? What can we say to a study like that? I have some possible explanation, but I don't know if they're any good.

That says heterocyclic amines DO cause cancer. It's investigating possible ways to reduce their formation.

I just read the abstract, but they're basically saying "Meat causes cancer, this is a problem, let's talk about ways to reduce the cancer risk of meat so people don't get as much cancer from eating meat."

However, heterocyclic amines are just one of the carcinogenic compounds that are problematic with meat. Methionine is another, which becomes carcinogenic after digestion, and this study doesn't deal with it's reduction. Choline is also another problem. This research is just about heterocyclic amines. You can't reduce the amount of methionine or choline in meat, so nobody is going to make a study talking about how to do that.

Carnists are delusional; they constantly present studies that say the opposite of what they claim.

[Animus]

Oh my god sorry, the wrong link ended up in my clipboard...
It was supposed to be this one: http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/ear ... 2638.short

So as far as I can tell that's just purely correlational, right? Is such a dietary study completely useless since it's not based on a randomized controlled trial? I wonder what possible explanations there are for this result. Maybe it's because they eat less red and processed meat, but I would still expect the mortality rate to go up as total meat consumption increases.