Archives » Environment, Conservation & Ethics

On B12........

Moderator: Greg Downing

All times are UTC-05:00

« Previous topic | Next topic »

0 people like this post

First unread post

| 42 posts |

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 »

by pleverington on Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:55 am

pleverington
Forum Contributor

Posts: 5355
Joined: 30 Jun 2004

Hey gang--well as most of you know I have been working on a more or less vegetarian diet for many reasons, not the least of which is my health! Many of the other reasons I have touched on in other threads, so here I wanted to share with you all some of the rather enlightening things I have discovered about the vitamin B12.

Everyone agrees that we have to have it. So there is no argument about that with any source I have found. However just this morning watching a plethora of videos on B12 I ran across one that made a lot more sense than most.

But to find context let me back up a bit.....I figure whatever our diets should be that diet should parallel the diet we evolved eating for the last million plus years. Not the one formulated in the last 50 years, or one hundred years, or even ten thousand years. But the rub happens with at what point did we start to eat a lot of meat cause that apparently is what most people generally believe we were meant to yet clearly we didn't always. But what most believe has repeatedly and endlessly been just as wrong as it might be right. So going back say 3 to 3.5 million years we see Australopithecus running around as the first known bipedal animal ever. We consider that our start. But it's brain was no larger than a chimps. Chimps eat, and surely Australopithecus ate, almost completely plants for a diet. Despite able to take advantage of meat if it were available, both could and do eat plants and could subside off a near total if not total plant diet.

OK well I have been taking my Vitamin B12 like a good boy thinking since I don't eat meat I have to. Then this morning I watched a video that described how we need in fact a very little amount of B12 and most B12, even if in meat, gets washed out of our bodies never having been utilized. For grins and giggles I looked at my B vitamin complex bottle and low and behold the amount of B12 in every pill was 250 mcg. But next to that number was another, and it said this 250 mcg was 4,167% of our needed daily recommended amount! So doing the math, that means we only need .06 mcg of B12 a day! (The actual recommended amount from other sources say 2 mcg...but still....)There is this amount in 100 grams of portebella mushroom! One egg, a small glass of milk, or best of all insects. My theory is telling me by just looking at the completely flat teeth of even Neanderthal, of which we have many, many examples of in the fossil record, everything we ate was needing to be ground up. Certainly insects would have qualified and would have been the major source for Vitamin B12 for our ancestors just as it is nowadays for some primates.

Vitamin B-12 (cobalamin) is an essential nutrient required for the synthesis of blood cells and the myelin sheath of the central nervous system. Only tiny amounts are needed to sustain health, and a healthy body is efficient at recycling B-12. Additionally, the body maintains a sizable store of the vitamin. The recommended daily allowance/input, or RDA/RDI, for vitamin B-12 is as follows, from NRC [1989,

Adults. A dietary intake of 1 mcg daily can be expected to sustain average normal adults. To allow for biological variation and the maintenance of normal serum concentrations and substantial body stores, the vitamin B-12 RDA for adults is set at 2.0 mcg.

Vitamin B-12 is made only by bacteria; it is not synthesized by plants or animals. The very limited (usually only trace) amount of B-12 in plants comes from uptake of the vitamin from the soil, and from surface contamination with B-12 producing bacteria. (This is discussed in detail below.) Animals concentrate B-12 from the food they eat, and, in the case of folivores, biologically active B-12 may be produced by bacteria in the fermenting chambers in the digestive system. The end result of this is that plant foods provide little (if any) B-12, and animal foods are the only reliable food sources p. 162]:for B-12.

B-12 also an essential nutrient for non-human primates. From Hamilton and Busse [1978, p. 763]:

Many captive primate species enter into hypovitaminosis B-12 [deficiency] when maintained on vegetarian diets (Hauser and Beard 1969, Oxnard 1964, 1966, 1967, Siddons 1974, Siddons and Jacob 1975)...
Vitamin B-12 is the least readily available vitamin to omnivorous primates...
Deficiency diseases have not been identified for any wild primate population (Kerr 1972, Wolf 1972).

The fact that wild primates avoid B-12 deficiency suggests that their natural diet provides adequate B-12. Inasmuch as all primates eat insects, and some insects contain B-12 (see Wakayama [1984]), this suggests insects as a possible B-12 source for some primates, along with production by fermentation bacteria as a possible source for folivorous primates (e.g., gorillas, whose consumption of insects is very small when compared to their intake of plant foods).et al.

And apparently we only digest up to 20% of the protein in meat--the rest is passed through. Too much meat also throws our pro biotic bacteria balance out of whack which is exactly what we need to utilize any B12 as it passes through the end of the small intestine. MEAT EATERS CAN HAVE A B12 DEFICIENCY JUST AS EASILY AS VEGETARIANS! Something to think about.......

This was a pretty good video I thought:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8XD2onI6PA

As usual one gets a plethora of opinions, even informed ones, on this subject that contradict so it's difficult for a lay person to sort it all out. But the thing that bothers me is the simplistic view that since meat and dairy has all the B12 we need, we should then consume mass quantities of it, where the truth is we could get all our daily needs from a small songbird size egg or a handful of insects or a half a glass of milk without having to deal with all the other cascading health, ethical, and environmental issues that such meat devouring habits result in.

I want to eat healthy here, and this thread is more about that than any of the other issues for now, so I'm looking for any informed input that would help me and others make informed decisions.

Is all this marketing pump and hype about the necessity of eating meat really actually working the other way? We get plenty of oils and fats from other sources and same for protein and B12 so how much meat do we really need. Not assuming a vegan diet for now......

Paul

Paul Leverington
"A great image is one that is created, not one that is made"

0 people like this post

by SantaFeJoe on Thu Oct 16, 2014 12:20 pm

SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor

Posts: 8622
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere Out In The Wilds

Here's something good to know about B12 and proton pump inhibitors, e.g. Prilosec, Prevacid and Protonix:

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/12/pro ... iency.html

I take a sub-lingual B12 daily because I take this type of medicine. The sublingual part is important, if you take this type of medication, for absorbency. Thanks to the advice of a wildlife photographer friend of mine, who is also an M.D., and has suffered the consequences of not taking B12 while on his medication.

Joe

Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist. -Pablo Picasso

0 people like this post

by pm4236 on Thu Oct 16, 2014 4:48 pm

pm4236
Forum Contributor

Posts: 319
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Location: San Jose, California

pleverington wrote: I want to eat healthy here, and this thread is more about that than any of the other issues for now, so I'm looking for any informed input that would help me and others make informed decisions.

Is all this marketing pump and hype about the necessity of eating meat really actually working the other way? We get plenty of oils and fats from other sources and same for protein and B12 so how much meat do we really need. Not assuming a vegan diet for now......

Paul

Paul,

You're probably right that you can eat a vegetarian diet and get the B-12 you need (it's also true that the normal body stores something like 5-7 years of B-12 so any deficiencies you develop are likely to appear down the road, assuming you have normal stores right now.)

Problems can arise, however, because breaking down B-12 from foods is a very complex process that takes place throughout the GI tract. It can be inhibited/prevented by things like use of medications such Prilosec, various conditions that you may or may not know you have (i.e immune system issues that cause malabsorption of nutrients), etc. Since everyone's body is different, the best way to prevent issues is to do whatever you want with diet, but get a yearly blood test measuring vitamins and minerals to ensure things aren't out of whack. It's also critical to know what's normal for you because you can still have problems when your results look "normal." For example, the normal range for B-12 is roughly 211-911 (I forget the units of measurement.) So a doctor looking at a reading of 230 (with no previous B-12 test data on you) might say everything looks fine. But if that represents a 60% decline from what's normal for your body, you will be feeling like one very sick puppy. (This can quickly be resolved with B-12 shots. Oral supplementation likely won't do the job because so little is absorbed at any one time by the GI tract.)

P.S. As long as you're doing yearly mineral/vitamin tests, also do everything else: complete blood counts, Iron indices, Protein indices, Sed Rate, etc. It will save you boatloads of time (and money) if things start to go awry as life progresses and bodies age.....

Paul Bremner
SF Bay Area

Last edited by pm4236 on Thu Oct 16, 2014 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

0 people like this post

by SantaFeJoe on Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:48 pm

SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor

Posts: 8622
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere Out In The Wilds

pm4236 wrote:Paul,

(This can quickly be resolved with B-12 shots. Oral supplementation likely won't do the job because so little is absorbed at any one time by the GI tract.)

It's true that it isn't absorbed well when taken orally. Sublingually may or may not be better, but I know that some medications are absorbed very quickly when taken that way. Only about 2% of an oral supplement is absorbed when taken orally. You don't want to take it close to the time you take potassium or vitamin C, since they decrease absorption.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/drug ... l/926.html

http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/advanta ... -9022.html

Joe

Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist. -Pablo Picasso

0 people like this post

by Joel Eade on Mon Oct 20, 2014 4:52 pm

Joel Eade
Forum Contributor

Posts: 151
Joined: 27 Sep 2011

pleverington wrote: . But the rub happens with at what point did we start to eat a lot of meat cause that apparently is what most people generally believe we were meant to yet clearly we didn't always.

Paul

This is a bit of mis-quote. My point was this: There is a lack of solid scientific proof that a balanced diet containing meat is harmful to your health AND there is no proof whatsoever that 30% of your cancer risk comes from your diet. I never made any reference regarding what we were "meant to" eat. In fact I did not even respond to all the references that mention evolutionary theory and dental anatomy. My point has nothing to do with what people consumed millions of years ago.

Show me scientific proof that having meat in your diet is harmful. I am not saying obesity is healthy or eating huge amounts out of balance with other nutrients, just a balanced diet with some calories from meat. I don't think there is solid proof out there. I think you can live just fine with or without meat.

A somewhat rhetorical question: Where to animals like deer and squirrels get B12?

0 people like this post

by pleverington on Mon Oct 20, 2014 9:27 pm

pleverington
Forum Contributor

Posts: 5355
Joined: 30 Jun 2004

Joel Eade wrote:
pleverington wrote: . But the rub happens with at what point did we start to eat a lot of meat cause that apparently is what most people generally believe we were meant to yet clearly we didn't always.

Paul
This is a bit of mis-quote. My point was this: There is a lack of solid scientific proof that a balanced diet containing meat is harmful to your health AND there is no proof whatsoever that 30% of your cancer risk comes from your diet. I never made any reference regarding what we were "meant to" eat. In fact I did not even respond to all the references that mention evolutionary theory and dental anatomy. My point has nothing to do with what people consumed millions of years ago.

Show me scientific proof that having meat in your diet is harmful. I am not saying obesity is healthy or eating huge amounts out of balance with other nutrients, just a balanced diet with some calories from meat. I don't think there is solid proof out there. I think you can live just fine with or without meat.

A somewhat rhetorical question: Where to animals like deer and squirrels get B12?

Joel I think you have the threads crossed up or mixed up. When did I quote you here if you didn't post before this post? Or am I missing something? Doesn't make sense....

At any rate if you read my stuff closer you will see that I'm not saying eating some meat is going to hurt anyone. What I do say is that if you gorge yourself on meat as we do in this country for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and then add on to that, consume animal products too as in the forms of fats for frying, and dairy products in it's many manifestations, you will probably be obese and very unhealthy. This would constitute an unbalanced diet as you say, but this is how a lot of Americans and a lot of others across the world now eat. I also am only claiming that we are still built to be eating vegetables and fruits mostly, with nuts, seeds, maybe some tubers, with a sprinkling of low fat and low cholesterol insects, birds eggs, honey. I know this contradicts the article that Roger posted, but this is still what the vast majority of people in the business of health also see. All I'm really looking at is the fact that we most certainly evolved, and if we did evolve, we ate in a certain defined manner as there were no refrigerators or slaughterhouses or trucks to bring to us the megatons of meat and other products we now consume way back then. Millions of years went by eating this way. Also we did not evolve eating refined carbohydrates, so no surprise these are bad for us too. Again, we as a species only started to eat copious amounts of meat after the invention, or ability to make fire which lead the way to cooking. At what point that happened seems to be a very spread out debate amongst researchers on the timescale in my research. But if it were only one or two hundred thousand years ago that would not be sufficient time enough to evolve us from being a plant eater to becoming a meat eater. Maybe our canines are starting to grow as a result from a million years of converting to a meat diet but maybe not. Apparently there is no consensus on that. Regardless..looking at what evidence we do have by looking at our own teeth a story is told. We grind with lateral jaw movements, flat plant eating teeth all the way around to grind food down, we have alkaline saliva, weak acid in our stomachs, a long intestinal tract. You don't think these things are relevant??

Studies have shown that a poor diet can lead to an increase chance of many diseases including cancer. For me to not put diet on the list of important factors to prevent disease is as silly as saying smoking or asbestos won't hurt you. Most will say the same belief in my experience. Seems logical and rational. But you disagree?? What you put in HAS to affect you...........Can that even be argued???

So what about the deer and the squirrel? Is that a trick question?

Paul

Paul Leverington
"A great image is one that is created, not one that is made"

0 people like this post

by Joel Eade on Tue Oct 21, 2014 11:42 am

Joel Eade
Forum Contributor

Posts: 151
Joined: 27 Sep 2011

pleverington wrote:
Joel Eade wrote:
pleverington wrote: . But the rub happens with at what point did we start to eat a lot of meat cause that apparently is what most people generally believe we were meant to yet clearly we didn't always.

Paul
This is a bit of mis-quote. My point was this: There is a lack of solid scientific proof that a balanced diet containing meat is harmful to your health AND there is no proof whatsoever that 30% of your cancer risk comes from your diet. I never made any reference regarding what we were "meant to" eat. In fact I did not even respond to all the references that mention evolutionary theory and dental anatomy. My point has nothing to do with what people consumed millions of years ago.

Show me scientific proof that having meat in your diet is harmful. I am not saying obesity is healthy or eating huge amounts out of balance with other nutrients, just a balanced diet with some calories from meat. I don't think there is solid proof out there. I think you can live just fine with or without meat.

A somewhat rhetorical question: Where to animals like deer and squirrels get B12?
We grind with lateral jaw movements, flat plant eating teeth all the way around to grind food down, we have alkaline saliva, weak acid in our stomachs, a long intestinal tract. You don't think these things are relevant??

Not to my point no.

Studies have shown that a poor diet can lead to an increase chance of many diseases including cancer. For me to not put diet on the list of important factors to prevent disease is as silly as saying smoking or asbestos won't hurt you. Most will say the same belief in my experience. Seems logical and rational. But you disagree?? What you put in HAS to affect you...........Can that even be argued???

Anything and everything can be argued that's just it....studies, as of now, offer no confirmed proof only suggestions and it is not valid to interject your beliefs or my beliefs into it no matter how logical it may seem. So I believe what you state as fact actually is not proven to be so....it makes sense to you and many others but thats it....your opinion basically.

So what about the deer and the squirrel? Is that a trick question?

When they eat plants they also eat soil around the roots (and sometimes they just eat soil) which has the bacteria to synthesize B12

Paul

0 people like this post

by pleverington on Tue Oct 21, 2014 12:30 pm

pleverington
Forum Contributor

Posts: 5355
Joined: 30 Jun 2004

Joel it's more than just opinion. Look, people who do studies are very cautious in the wording for fear of any legal retribution. So many studies have shown beyond any doubt that a slow moving intestinal tract because of low fiber is a major cause of toxic build up and that in turn causes disease. There are a lot of studies from different perspectives suggesting the same thing.
If you want to believe that what you eat has no effect on your health then you go right ahead. Or if you want to believe that it does, but has no effect on causing any cancers well you go right ahead and believe that too. If you want to label a common sense statement that eating well lowers the risk of disease including cancer as opinion then your more than welcome to do that too. If you don't care to read between the lines and don't want to get it, I'm alright with that also. Go for it...

Makes sense about the squirrel and the deer. As I also said similar above in my posts about how certain plants being low to the ground will be in close proximity to the b12 manufacturing bacteria and therefore absorb some. This is why mushrooms can contain significant b12. It might also explain how our ancestors who did have a plant diet got their b12. Not difficult to imagine Australopithecus picking up many fruits off the ground after they had fallen and then eating them, therefore getting all they needed for b12.

Paul

**your "not to my point no" response made no sense to me. You wanna clarify what you mean??

Paul Leverington
"A great image is one that is created, not one that is made"

0 people like this post

by Joel Eade on Tue Oct 21, 2014 12:46 pm

Joel Eade
Forum Contributor

Posts: 151
Joined: 27 Sep 2011

pleverington wrote: If you want to believe that what you eat has no effect on your health then you go right ahead.

I never said that, of it course it does, but I would like to separate what is proven scientifically from what just sounds right empirically

Or if you want to believe that it does, but has no effect on causing any cancers well you go right ahead and believe that too.

I never said that either, once again it boils down to specific proof. Your statement that 30% of cancer risk comes from diet is not substantiated with scientific proof. That 30% number is not a fact.

you want to label a common sense statement that eating well lowers the risk of disease including cancer as opinion then your more than welcome to do that too. If you don't care to read between the lines and don't want to get it, I'm alright with that also. Go for it..

Never said any of that either and for many disease states I agree with that. It just isn't possible to cite scientific data that puts numbers on it. Actually common sense is a matter of opinion in many instances, including this one. It is an opinion common to many but very difficult to sort out with actual proven data.

I think the jury is still out on a lot of these issues and I think moderation + balance = common sense. There are many dietary substances that can affect health but what exactly is THE most healthy diet is not yet truly proven. Keep an open mind until the proof comes in.

0 people like this post

by Joel Eade on Tue Oct 21, 2014 12:49 pm

Joel Eade
Forum Contributor

Posts: 151
Joined: 27 Sep 2011

sorry...accidental double post:(

0 people like this post

by pleverington on Tue Oct 21, 2014 1:11 pm

pleverington
Forum Contributor

Posts: 5355
Joined: 30 Jun 2004

"Bowel cancer is less common in people who eat lots of fibre. One EPIC study showed that people who ate the most fibre had a 40% lower risk of bowel cancer than those who ate the least. A review of 25 studies in 2011 also found that people who eat a lot of fibre in their diet (particularly from whole grains and cereals) had a lower risk of bowel cancer."

"Bowel and stomach cancer are more common in people who eat lots of red and processed meat. Red meat includes all fresh, minced and frozen beef, pork, lamb or veal. Processed meats have been preserved in some way other than freezing and include bacon, ham, salami, sausages, spam, corned beef, black pudding, pâté and tinned meat.

The way you cook meat may increase cancer risk. Certain chemicals are made when red and processed meats are cooked at high temperatures, such as on a barbecue. These chemicals can damage our cells, making them more likely to become cancerous"

For those interested here's a link to the EPIC site and some of their studies findings. (International Agency for Research on Cancer).

http://www.iarc.fr/en/publications/scie ... ton=Search

For those not familiar with EPIC.....

"An international research study is going on at the moment across Europe to try to answer more questions about diet and cancer. The study, called EPIC, involves 500,000 people in 10 countries. EPIC stands for European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Over many years, the researchers are recording people's food intake, monitoring their health records, and noting who gets cancer and who doesn't. Then they may be able to link certain factors in the diet with the risk of getting particular cancers. It is the largest study into diet and cancer ever carried out.

The results of EPIC could have huge implications for the prevention of cancer. To start with, the researchers are looking into common cancers such as breast, lung, bowel, prostate and stomach cancer. But the size of this study means that researchers will also be able to look into the possible role of diet in rarer cancers.

The results of the study will have implications for cancer prevention everywhere. The results will be presented at international conferences and published in journals available to researchers and health officials throughout the world. The results already available helped to inform the Cancer Research UK study looking into lifestyle factors."

There's no direct correlation, but Joel's POV rather reminds me of the Global warming argument where some don't accept all the evidence pointing to something, but instead need their backyard to become another Sahara desert in order to accept what is being said to them. Plus can we take chances or afford to gamble when it comes to the health of our planet...or ourselves? And if we gamble and we are wrong?? What would be the consequences of taking care of the planet by cutting back on loss of habitat, lowering emissions, cleaning up carbon, getting off fossil fuels? A little inconvenience maybe or a loss of gluttonous profits to a very few? What would be the terrible loss to anyone if we ate more vegetables and fruits, with seeds, whole grains, nuts, and so on...I guess the fast food giants wouldn't be too happy.

Paul

Paul Leverington
"A great image is one that is created, not one that is made"

0 people like this post

by SantaFeJoe on Tue Oct 21, 2014 1:31 pm

SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor

Posts: 8622
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere Out In The Wilds

pleverington But if it were only one or two hundred thousand years ago that would not be sufficient time enough to evolve us from being a plant eater to becoming a meat eater. Maybe our canines are starting to grow as a result from a million years of converting to a meat diet but maybe not. Apparently there is no consensus on that. Regardless..looking at what evidence we do have by looking at our own teeth a story is told. We grind with lateral jaw movements, flat plant eating teeth all the way around to grind food down, we have alkaline saliva, weak acid in our stomachs, a long intestinal tract. You don't think these things are relevant? wrote: Paul

http://explore.org/photos/4350/giant-pa ... essive.jpg

Vegetarian teeth? He also has a short digestive tract, yet exists on a vegetarian diet! Not all generalizations are correct.

Joe

Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist. -Pablo Picasso

0 people like this post

by pleverington on Tue Oct 21, 2014 2:21 pm

pleverington
Forum Contributor

Posts: 5355
Joined: 30 Jun 2004

SantaFeJoe wrote:
pleverington But if it were only one or two hundred thousand years ago that would not be sufficient time enough to evolve us from being a plant eater to becoming a meat eater. Maybe our canines are starting to grow as a result from a million years of converting to a meat diet but maybe not. Apparently there is no consensus on that. Regardless..looking at what evidence we do have by looking at our own teeth a story is told. We grind with lateral jaw movements, flat plant eating teeth all the way around to grind food down, we have alkaline saliva, weak acid in our stomachs, a long intestinal tract. You don't think these things are relevant? wrote: Paul
http://explore.org/photos/4350/giant-pa ... essive.jpg

Vegetarian teeth? He also has a short digestive tract, yet exists on a vegetarian diet! Not all generalizations are correct.

Joe

Yes and he has to eat all day to get enough nutrients because of this short digestive tract.

Obviously the giant panda has adapted to a different diet as certainly all animals had to go through during their millions of years on earth enduring any number of environmental and food choice changes at one time or another. I would suggest we are looking at animals in evolutionary transition when looking at pandas. They do still eat meat in the forms of small animals, dead animals, fish, eggs, and honey by the way. If we remember that all and everything is never in stasis, but instead on the move constantly in evolution this is an easy argument to embrace.

Joe to me I'm thinking he is a true omnivore all the way. There are many animals that are, and actually I did address this with a link to that Smithsonian site earlier on. But these teeth you have linked here are definitely not like ours.... no?? I mean I will be honest about this stuff, but here we clearly see canines designed to catch and hold prey. They may be evolutionary holdovers that have not regressed yet, but It actually proves the point that OUR teeth are primarily designed more for plant eating than anything that resembles meat eating. A short digestive tract is in line with a meat eating omnivore too.

Paul

Paul Leverington
"A great image is one that is created, not one that is made"

0 people like this post

by pleverington on Tue Oct 21, 2014 2:26 pm

pleverington
Forum Contributor

Posts: 5355
Joined: 30 Jun 2004

Joel Eade wrote:
pleverington wrote: If you want to believe that what you eat has no effect on your health then you go right ahead.

I never said that, of it course it does, but I would like to separate what is proven scientifically from what just sounds right empirically

Or if you want to believe that it does, but has no effect on causing any cancers well you go right ahead and believe that too.

I never said that either, once again it boils down to specific proof. Your statement that 30% of cancer risk comes from diet is not substantiated with scientific proof. That 30% number is not a fact.

you want to label a common sense statement that eating well lowers the risk of disease including cancer as opinion then your more than welcome to do that too. If you don't care to read between the lines and don't want to get it, I'm alright with that also. Go for it..

Never said any of that either and for many disease states I agree with that. It just isn't possible to cite scientific data that puts numbers on it. Actually common sense is a matter of opinion in many instances, including this one. It is an opinion common to many but very difficult to sort out with actual proven data.

I think the jury is still out on a lot of these issues and I think moderation + balance = common sense. There are many dietary substances that can affect health but what exactly is THE most healthy diet is not yet truly proven. Keep an open mind until the proof comes in.

Joel I changed the title a while ago if you didn't notice and the article is what it is, I'm not sitting here saying that there is a definite 30% chance of getting cancer if you eat meat or whatever you think I'm saying. Your actually not being helpful here. You seem to be arguing for arguments sake. You say moderation + balance = common sense....well what in blazes do you think I have been trying to say here???? This is exactly my point.

I think your being silly and non productive.

How bout another tact: Forget me or whatever others say, give us YOUR best definition of a healthy diet. Certainly YOU don't eat whoppers and big macks all day do you?? So what do you eat and then WHY?????? I mean do you yourself not eat sensible and for a reason if for nothing more than your own opinion that it is GOOD for you. What the heck is the argument on your part?? That I don't dot the I's and cross the T's just right?? Who cares if there is not absolutes when it comes to scientific studies on the relationship between food and cancer???. There aren't any absolutes in ANY scientific study if one wants to be goofy about it. But after so many repeated occurrences result in the same outcome we accept them as truth. This is what all these studies are telling us.

And I didn't say you said anything above as you came back on and claimed. I said what ..."I"... said...not you. It's a matter of having to not waffle and vacillate on something so as important as one's life waiting for some bottom line to tell you what to do. I'll say it again then in another way.......... if you want to wait till you have absolute definitive proof that diet can and does cause the risk of certain cancers to go up and you won't act on what evidence is telling or "suggesting" to us right now then be my guest. For me I will most probably be dead before that happens.

You may be right about the semantics, but it's an irrelevant point. We are dying off from a lot of lifestyle related diseases and diet is one of them. There is no way any sensible argument can make claim that one's diet is totally irrelevant to risks of cancers. If one gets past that then one begins to ask and solve the more important questions of what to do about it. The last option should be "do nothing". Shouldn't be even on the list. Honestly Joel what is really your point???

Now consider this point. What would happen if say a study did come out and claim red meat causes cancer. Or milk, or cheese, or bacon, or fried foods? Can you imagine the legal fallout from such claims by the mega businesses dependent on such products? The litigation would be catastrophic even if all claims were true. You must appreciate if it were just health and nothing but health issues to be considered cautions would be certainly more forthright as far as our diets are concerned. Not saying this has any bearing directly about the subject, but point is it is very risky making any claims nowadays UNLESS they are simply 100% irrefutable. Not 99% but 100%. That make sense to you at all?? But if 80 people tell me that "guy" over there is real bad and twenty percent says they don't know, guess what my actions should be ---based on that information? Same as what yours should be... And if we are both wrong what are the harmful consequences going to be?? We avoided an otherwise nice person maybe?? OK not necessary, but of no loss from where we were before.

Paul

Paul Leverington
"A great image is one that is created, not one that is made"

0 people like this post

by Mike in O on Tue Oct 21, 2014 2:38 pm

Mike in O
Forum Contributor

Posts: 2673
Joined: 22 Dec 2013

Paul your comments on canine teeth doesn't hold with primates (we are one); the canines of most primates has to do with male dominance or defensive weapons. Most of our clan can either eat meat or veggies with veggies getting the nod because a plant is easier to catch. Bears,camels, pigs, hippos all have large canines for the same reasons as primates but are mostly vegetable consumers (though some bears are mostly carnivores, sloth and polar bears being examples). The sloth bear is an anteater and the polar a seal eater and both have a carnivore array of teeth though different eating patterns.

0 people like this post

by Joel Eade on Tue Oct 21, 2014 4:23 pm

Joel Eade
Forum Contributor

Posts: 151
Joined: 27 Sep 2011

I am not attempting to be helpful (or harmful)

I thought I stated my point short and sweet.....don't propose something as fact without proof. If there is a lack of proof then let the reader know these are your own thoughts, opinions, recommendations and theories on evolution, diet and disease. Many of them are acceptable to a large number of people yet they remain without clear scientific evidence.

I have no argument with a large portion of your recommendations except I would never put forth a statement like you did and act like it is factual. Is there a link between cancer risk and diet? It certainly appears that retrospective analysis of large populations indicates there MAY be but we are not yet to the point of having proof so keep an open mind. Is diet relevant for the population as whole? Absolutely. Is obesity a major health issue? Absolutely. Is gluttony advisable? Certainly not. None of these are issues that I even tried to refute. I only ask you to please state your own ideas any way you wish but be clear what is fact and what is commonly accepted yet unproven.

I eat a variety of all foods but not really a preponderance of anything in particular. I do eat red meat when I wish. Maybe 3 or 4 servings per week. I also eat chicken, pork, turkey, fish, vegetables, fruit, bread, cereal and I drink mostly water with meals except one cup of coffee per day. I do occasionally drink a diet pepsi or 2% milk. I don't eat out much because I live in a small town without much variety in restaurants and I like to cook.

0 people like this post

by pleverington on Wed Oct 22, 2014 10:54 am

pleverington
Forum Contributor

Posts: 5355
Joined: 30 Jun 2004

Joel Eade wrote:I am not attempting to be helpful (or harmful)

I thought I stated my point short and sweet.....don't propose something as fact without proof. If there is a lack of proof then let the reader know these are your own thoughts, opinions, recommendations and theories on evolution, diet and disease. Many of them are acceptable to a large number of people yet they remain without clear scientific evidence.

I have no argument with a large portion of your recommendations except I would never put forth a statement like you did and act like it is factual. Is there a link between cancer risk and diet? It certainly appears that retrospective analysis of large populations indicates there MAY be but we are not yet to the point of having proof so keep an open mind. Is diet relevant for the population as whole? Absolutely. Is obesity a major health issue? Absolutely. Is gluttony advisable? Certainly not. None of these are issues that I even tried to refute. I only ask you to please state your own ideas any way you wish but be clear what is fact and what is commonly accepted yet unproven.

I eat a variety of all foods but not really a preponderance of anything in particular. I do eat red meat when I wish. Maybe 3 or 4 servings per week. I also eat chicken, pork, turkey, fish, vegetables, fruit, bread, cereal and I drink mostly water with meals except one cup of coffee per day. I do occasionally drink a diet pepsi or 2% milk. I don't eat out much because I live in a small town without much variety in restaurants and I like to cook.

Oh but you are attempting to be helpful so where's the truth here?? Your not being honest with yourself on that one Joel. Listen, the fact that you do try and eat sensible doesn't just speak it shouts! And your not going to convince me or anyone else that you don't believe yourself that there is not a connection between diet and cancer. The connection between some cancers and diet IS fact Joel..where have you been?? Your just making argument for it's own sake. Please post some links that definitely conclude that cancer has absolutely no connection with diet if you think that is wrong......

Did you get a chance to read at all the link I provided?? Do you understand there are 500,000 people involved with this entire specific issue of what exactly and how much diet and cancer are linked?? Do you even for a second believe that people would make such an effort if there was not even the remotest connection??? From publications put out so far by EPIC:

European Prospective Investigation into Cancer(EPIC):

PMID:24226765
" There is growing evidence of the protective role of the Mediterranean diet (MD) on cancer."

PMID:24443059
"Obesity and associated metabolic disorders have been implicated in liver carcinogenesis"

PMID:23824948
"Adiposity is a risk factor for colon cancer"

PMID:24357106
"Imbalances in tryptophan metabolism have been linked to cancer-related immune escape and implicated in several cancers, including lung cancer."

PMID:24338606"
In conclusion, this large prospective study confirms the important role of HPV and a possible contribution of CT and HHV-2 in cervical carcinogenesis.

PMID:24615266
"Results from this large prospective cohort study suggest that higher consumption of dairy products, particularly milk and cheese, may be associated with increased HCC risk"

PMID:24521535
"Whole-grain intake has been reported to be associated with a lower risk of several lifestyle-related diseases such as type 2 diabetes, CVD and some types of cancers."

PMID:24827130
"CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with high plasma concentrations of methionine, choline, and betaine may be at reduced risk of CRC(colorectal cancer)"

PMID:24722499
"CONCLUSIONS: High total and animal protein intake was associated with a modest elevated risk of type 2 diabetes in a large cohort of European adults. In view of the rapidly increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes, limiting iso-energetic diets high in dietary proteins, particularly from animal sources, should be considered"

PMID:24368432
"This large and heterogeneous European study showed inverse associations between all individual flavan-3-ol monomers, proanthocyanidins with a low polymerization degree, and the flavonol myricetin and incident T2D. These results suggest that individual flavonoids have different roles in the etiology of T2D"

PMID:23620057
"CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: This study corroborates the association between increased incidence of type 2 diabetes and high consumption of sugar-sweetened soft drinks in European adults

PMID:22618737
"These findings suggest that animal and/or plant protein may affect the risk of urothelial cell carcinoma, and examination of these associations in other studies is needed"

PMID:23180513
"The results support the potential scope for BC prevention through dietary modification"

You have to read the reports to appreciate all the total contexts. They have found certain claimed elements of our diet to NOT show an influence on cancer also. However the studies are very specific so that if vitamin d for example has no effect on breast cancer, this of course does not mean that no other vitamins might not. Gotta read the reports. They also do studies that determine if certain dietary factors affect diabetes too.

From this link: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/33/7/1674.long

"Epidemiologic evidence suggests that people with diabetes are at significantly higher risk for many forms of cancer. "

"For more than 50 years, clinicians have reported the occurrence of patients with concurrent diabetes and cancer."

"A majority of studies (despite different study designs and differing study populations) suggest that diets low in red and processed meats and higher in vegetables, fruits, and whole grains are associated with a lower risk of many types of cancer (17,28,29). Diets that are low in red and processed meat but high in monounsaturated fatty acids, fruits, vegetables, whole grain cereals, and dietary fiber may protect against type 2 diabetes, possibly through improving insulin sensitivity (30,31). Low-carbohydrate diets (which often include greater consumption of red meats and fat) have also been associated with weight loss and improvements in insulin sensitivity and glycemic control. However, randomized controlled trial evidence of dietary interventions and diabetes prevention only exists for low-fat, low-calorie, plus/minus high-fiber diets (22,32).
Several studies suggest that diets high in foods with a high glycemic index or load are associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes (28,33). However, evidence of their associations with cancer risk is mixed (28,34,35). Regardless, to the extent that energy-dense and sugary foods contribute to overweight and obesity, the American Cancer Society, the World Cancer Research Fund, and the American Institute for Cancer Research recommend limiting consumption of these foods"

Joel...... Read my friend.

These are just a handful from over 16 pages of study reports. There are many that state that certain dietary elements have not been shown to be players in any cancers, but that doesn't mean other dietary elements may not be. One has to read the actual reports to understand the full contexts.

I'm saying your argument is not helpful simply because it's not helpful. Many of my comments you seem to want to wear as if they were special to you. They are not. I have no idea exactly what your intents are, but don't mislead with false argument. There are proven connections between diet and cancer. This is fact...

Here's another one: Cancer is in all of us...correct?? Ok then what keeps it in check for most?? The immune system correct?? and if that immune system is not fed the correct nutrients what happens?? Keep this in mind then. Only a very strong immune system keeps us all from dying from cancers.

The problem I feel in your discussion is that you made your point a long time ago to which I responded and did change the title. Still that's what the article, not me said. But here you are flogging the dog still. You just can't get off the semantics stick and be forthright about a deadly serious issue. Be a realist, not some stoic stickleback. The conversation is way past your point already. You yourself do eat a sensible diet and we all know why. Who are you kidding. Yourself maybe??

But don't continue to use up valuable time arguing the same old thing. If you have some definitive anything that casts doubt that cancer and diet are not linked post it. I'm not looking to be right about anything here...I'm just looking for the truth. And the truth I have found says there is a problem.

One more thing..I'm not saying to everyone become vegetarians. My only "beef"

is that a lot of us go way overboard with the meat thing and it is killing them slowly. And it is strangling our natural environment to provide all that meat. Why people complain that we are loosing our battle to save natural environments and certain species yet fail to realize that they are part of the problem is what I think is important to bring to the forefront.

I don't really care if I'm accurate to the T on something, what I care about is the real point of a discussion. Poor dietary habits do increase a person's risk of cancer. And certainly increases the risk of other diseases, which then increase risk of cancer as in diabetes. Also inadequate or poor diet damages and weakens the immune system that then increases the risk of cancers because the body cannot fight them off.

This is what is important..

Paul

Paul Leverington
"A great image is one that is created, not one that is made"

0 people like this post

by pleverington on Wed Oct 22, 2014 11:10 am

pleverington
Forum Contributor

Posts: 5355
Joined: 30 Jun 2004

If you don't believe them then it's hopeless....

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercaus ... vity/index

Paul

Paul Leverington
"A great image is one that is created, not one that is made"

0 people like this post

by pleverington on Wed Oct 22, 2014 12:02 pm

pleverington
Forum Contributor

Posts: 5355
Joined: 30 Jun 2004

Mike in O wrote:Paul your comments on canine teeth doesn't hold with primates (we are one); the canines of most primates has to do with male dominance or defensive weapons. Most of our clan can either eat meat or veggies with veggies getting the nod because a plant is easier to catch. Bears,camels, pigs, hippos all have large canines for the same reasons as primates but are mostly vegetable consumers (though some bears are mostly carnivores, sloth and polar bears being examples). The sloth bear is an anteater and the polar a seal eater and both have a carnivore array of teeth though different eating patterns.

Hey Mike....When was the last time you went around dominating other men with your canines??? Or even barring them with a growl to intimidate them with your killer daggers? Or maybe you fought off some aggressive male by biting off his arm cause he was after your girl???

You claim to be a meat eater cause we're like other primates??? Really?? Well.......hmmmm......let's see........lets ask you a question. When was the last time you went to the fridge and pulled out a couple of pounds of hamburger, put it on a plate with a spoon embedded in it, and dug IN??? Cause carnivores and true omnivores do this. And they love it too...They PREFER raw meat over cooked. My cats are all testimony to this. Cooking the meat seems to cause a great loss of appeal over the raw state for them. No joke. Given a piece of raw chicken over cooked there is a huge difference in the feeding attitude. No one will eat raw hamburger or raw any other kind of meat unless it's a matter of survival or a dare or bet . And if your gonna come back and site sushi or something remember it's sliced so thin that it needs little grinding to digest it. Then it's smothered in some dip or sauce to alter it's flavor. Plus it's a very different meat than red meat. But grab a piece of chicken leg... raw.... and hold it in your hand for a minute, looking at it, smelling it, giving it a lick, and then tell me you just can't wait to dig in.....
Oh and don't forget about all those bacteria in raw meat that can make a homo sapien totally sick, but a true carnivore with it's high acid stomach and short intestinal tract, has absolutely no problem eating. I won't even get into the fact that a true carnivore or omnivore can eat a carcass that's been lying around for a while...

OK sorry to be a smart butt...but...we can only eat meat that's cooked. When raw meat is cooked it becomes something else despite the fact that we still call it meat. It chews different, it tastes different, it smells different, it has a different chemical makeup as the heat has changed it, it has added chemicals most of the time because of the fire or coals....etc...The cellular walls break down and allow it to be digested where other wise our guts wouldn't be able to do that. It's no longer meat. It's been transformed into something different that our bodies CAN digest. Cooking is the difference and has to take center stage in this kind of discussion. Now of course even raw meat can be eaten and certainly we would get something from it, but I'm being a realist here---nobody on earth gores around eating raw hamburger or raw anything else unless some special prep is done or they are in survival mode or they are just whacko..

We are revolted by the sight even of an animal being ripped apart with all that blood.. Not a carnivore!! A true carnivore loves that kill and has no empathy for that animal. We are built different despite the cover up repression we try and put on when we see some animal killed by another as we chalk it up to natures way. It still revolts us. I'm not including psychopaths here. Or others that have clinically low empathy. The norm for homo sapien is to jump in the water or fire and save that stranger, or help that stranded dog or baby deer from the ice hole.... It's is what we are and is our very strength attribute that allows us to adapt and dominate through social bonding. Carnivores are loners or in are small family groups..Homo sapiens group by the millions...

People need to understand they are not true carnivores and are barely able to claim to be true omnivores even. Very long canines are used in a very specific way, but short ones are used for similar mechanical operations, but the actual goal is very different. We don't run around growling at each other barring our teeth. We do not have a consciousness that our canines are there as weapons. We may bite someone, but there is no thought at all that we are going to use a specific group of teeth as the canines for example as a total weapon system. Uuh ....uh....not.

So is eating cooked meat ok?? Seems to be for sure....But that is a long ways away from being qualified as a carnivore or true omnivore. And overkill

on meat consumption is having a lot of problems in today's times. Plus we only eat the muscle part mostly where carnivores eat the hearts, livers,kidneys, brains, intestines....and every thing including eyes and bones......We don't do that nowadays for the most part.....

I understand your point was directed at the animals, but the conversation is about us. But I think when looking at nature and the animals within that nature, one has to understand that everything is in transition all the time. Unless you don't believe in evolution. You are ALWAYS going to see evolutionary holdovers and evolutionary beginnings in every species on earth. Some dramatic, most subtle. Some animals make no sense for things they still have or are showing signs of developing. This is hugely important to remember. So someday that great Panda may have four stomachs and no canines at all.. All depends how long things have been going on...or not...

Paul

Paul Leverington
"A great image is one that is created, not one that is made"

0 people like this post

by SantaFeJoe on Wed Oct 22, 2014 12:55 pm

SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor

Posts: 8622
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere Out In The Wilds

pleverington wrote:You claim to be a meat eater cause we're like other primates??? Really?? Well.......hmmmm......let's see........lets ask you a question. When was the last time you went to the fridge and pulled out a couple of pounds of hamburger, put it on a plate with a spoon embedded in it, and dug IN??? Cause carnivores and true omnivores do this. And they love it too...They PREFER raw meat over cooked. My cats are all testimony to this. Cooking the meat seems to cause a great loss of appeal over the raw state for them. No joke. Given a piece of raw chicken over cooked there is a huge difference in the feeding attitude. No one will eat raw hamburger or raw any other kind of meat unless it's a matter of survival or a dare or bet . And if your gonna come back and site sushi or something remember it's sliced so thin that it needs little grinding to digest it. Then it's smothered in some dip or sauce to alter it's flavor. Plus it's a very different meat than red meat. But grab a piece of chicken leg... raw.... and hold it in your hand for a minute, looking at it, smelling it, giving it a lick, and then tell me you just can't wait to dig in.....
Oh and don't forget about all those bacteria in raw meat that can make a homo sapien totally sick, but a true carnivore with it's high acid stomach and short intestinal tract, has absolutely no problem eating. I won't even get into the fact that a true carnivore or omnivore can eat a carcass that's been lying around for a while...

OK sorry to be a smart butt...but...we can only eat meat that's cooked. When raw meat is cooked it becomes something else despite the fact that we still call it meat. It chews different, it tastes different, it smells different, it has a different chemical makeup as the heat has changed it, it has added chemicals most of the time because of the fire or coals....etc...The cellular walls break down and allow it to be digested where other wise our guts wouldn't be able to do that. It's no longer meat. It's been transformed into something different that our bodies CAN digest. Cooking is the difference and has to take center stage in this kind of discussion. Now of course even raw meat can be eaten and certainly we would get something from it, but I'm being a realist here---nobody on earth gores around eating raw hamburger or raw anything else unless some special prep is done or they are in survival mode or they are just whacko..

People need to understand they are not true carnivores and are barely able to claim to be true omnivores even. Very long canines are used in a very specific way, but short ones are used for similar mechanical operations, but the actual goal is very different. We don't run around growling at each other barring our teeth. We do not have a consciousness that our canines are there as weapons. We may bite someone, but there is no thought at all that we are going to use a specific group of teeth as the canines for example as a total weapon system. Uuh ....uh....not.

So is eating cooked meat ok?? Seems to be for sure....But that is a long ways away from being qualified as a carnivore or true omnivore.

Paul

Seems like the same thing applies to vegetables. Most are cooked either for flavor or tenderizing. Granted some are eaten raw, but the majority of vegetables are cooked to make them taste better through additional spices,e.g. salt, pepper, stew meat etc. Even salads normally use dressing to make them taste better. They just aren't flavorful as a stand alone meal.

Regarding raw meat you say "Now of course even raw meat can be eaten and certainly we would get something from it, but I'm being a realist here---nobody on earth gores around eating raw hamburger or raw anything else unless some special prep is done or they are in survival mode or they are just whacko."
And "No one will eat raw hamburger or raw any other kind of meat unless it's a matter of survival or a dare or bet .

If you watch "New Scandanavian Cooking" with Andeas Viestad:

http://www.pbs.org/food/shows/new-scandinavian-cooking/

you will see him preparing raw reindeer meat and raw fish.

You discount sushi because it is cut thinly and needs a sauce or something:
"And if your gonna come back and site sushi or something remember it's sliced so thin that it needs little grinding to digest it. Then it's smothered in some dip or sauce to alter it's flavor. Plus it's a very different meat than red meat."
I still say that it isn't so different from salad dressing or cooking vegetables with spices or other vegetables to make them appetizing and most people also cut vegetables into smaller pieces for chewing ease, including salads. Yes, some people like a raw diet, but not many. Check your fridge.

Regarding the Panda being an omnivore, only 1% of it's diet is meat or insects. The cat and dog families are generally considered carnivores, but they also eat grass at times and coyotes eat a lot of juniper berries in this area. Hummingbirds eat insects. Does that make them omnivores? There are few animals that don't eat both meat and plants. I believe that the classification is based on what constitutes the majority on a creatures diet. And what about winter when there are few greens in the wild? How would we survive then?

Now I think I'll go out and get a Big Mac with cooked meat, lettuce, pickles, sesame seeds, wheat, cheese and that special sauce that makes it so palatable!!! Sounds like a well balanced meal to me!

Joe

Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist. -Pablo Picasso

0 people like this post

42 posts |

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 »

Return to Environment, Conservation & Ethics

On B12........

The Resource for Nature Photographers

Sign up for our newsletter

Community

Forums, Galleries, Portfolios

Membership

Editorial & Advertising

NatureScapes.net is the trusted source for nature, wildlife, and outdoor photography gear at the best prices!

Categories

On B12........

The Resource for Nature Photographers

Sign up for our newsletter

Community

Forums, Galleries, Portfolios

Membership

Editorial & Advertising

NatureScapes.net is the trusted source for nature, wildlife, and outdoor photography gear at the best prices!