Vegetarians have more favorable levels of a number of biomarkers including cardiovascular-linked ones ? total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and apolipoprotein A and B ? than meat-eaters
Total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol concentrations for vegetarians were 21% and 16.4% lower than in meat-eaters. But some biomarkers considered beneficial ?including vitamin D concentrations ? were lower in vegetarians, while some considered unhealthy ? including triglycerides and cystatin-C levels ? were higher.
'Asked to comment on the findings, John C. Mathers, PhD, noted that they clearly confirm the importance of not reading any biomarker result in isolation.
Health is complex and individual markers tell you just part of the story," said Mathers, of the Human Nutrition Research Centre, Newcastle University, UK.'
and especially:
'He says a vegetarian diet can be nourishing but cautioned that "just because someone excludes meat from their diet does not mean necessarily that they will be eating a healthy diet."'
Of course not, and we all know we are supposed to cut down our meat intake and increase our veg.
It's a funny thing, when I was previously eating all sorts of rubbish but included (processed) meat, eggs and dairy (dairy till my doctor advised against it), no one (here) seemed interested in my diet / health. As soon as I started excluding the exploitation of animals from my diet, everyone (well the trolls especially) suddenly became concerned about my diet and my health, even though I was actually eating better (less meat, more fruit and veg).
A year+ later, I've lost some weight, still feel as fit and don't have the guilt of the animal exploitation hanging over my head that I now realise has been there for a good few years now. ;-(
Why does T r o l l think we wouldn't have been kicking his arse just as hard if he'd been boring the pants off us with tales of his two eggs, sos, a fried slice, and black pudding several times a day, every day.
I don't know (but it wasn't, it was about diets) I didn't start the thread and so have done no more than you by commenting on it?
Or if you are talking about the OP not marking the thread OT and if so I hope you are going to jump on all the other unmarked OT threads posted here?
Or are you one of those who supports the unnecessary cruelty and exploitation of animals by any chance, reading such things makes you feel guilty and so the need to try to netkop?
I guess that might depend on how soon the planet is affected and that affects you?
But *always* clearly marked as such when I start a thread.
Hey, I get people are uncomfortable when they are asked to question things they have probably been doing all their lives, still aren't illegal (although that seems to be changing fast) and so can't see the problem about it all now, but that's the point, it is a problem now and for all of us and every day, more and more people confirm it's unsustainable (our consumption of meat, eggs and dairy) and immoral.
So it's not just some trivial / diet / fad from a few hippies, it's a global movement that primarily aims to get people consider the costs and consequences of their lifestyle choices, as they relate in 2021, not how they may have related thousands of years ago.
It's not about stopping you doing something, it's about making you realise you shouldn't have been doing it in the first place.
If it really was ok, you should be able to suckle directly from a cow and kids should be able to watch how their food comes about.
Daughter has attended several 'Oureach cubes' now (where people stand in public places showing video footage of *standard* meat production practices and engage people in conversation to raise awareness) and nearly without exception, no one is 'happy' watching the footage, things done to animals, every day, by the million that are *only* being done because you are paying for it to be done.
But you should feel guilt on behalf of the rest of humanity, in the same way as people who aren't racists are expected to feel guilt and 'take the knee', and people who weren't alive in the 18th century are supposed to feel guilty about slavery.
"Celis-Morales and his team are currently conducting a further analysis to understand if the vegetarian diet is also associated with a lower risk of cancer, depression, and dementia compared with meat-eaters."
Why the form of words "understand if ... lower risk ..." rather than "find out whether ... different risk ..."?
It looks like are wading in with the lower risk as an assumption. Or that if they found a higher risk, they'd ignore it!
Also, vitamin D is a difficult one these days. We have official advice to take a supplement so we can imagine a relatively high rate of so doing. But of those who do, many vegetarians/vegans might choose a vegetarian/vegan supplement. Until fairly recently, all vegetarian/vegan supplements were vitamin D2 which appear to be significantly less desirable than D3.
If those supplementation issues were not factored in, any results are likely questionable (at best).
Sorry Bill (just to save you some time / effort if you actually expect a reply from me personally etc), you are now also on my Troll-Ignore list as it's obvious 1) you have no interest / ability re considering any alternative P'sOV and 2) (therefore) are trolling.
It was also about the caution that has to be applied to the interpretation of a very limited set of markers indicating 'health' or the suitability of a limited rather than a balanced diet, such as claiming 'my B12 levels are fine' suggesting everything else is too.
Why do you persist in writing statements and then adding a question mark?
I apologise. I thought that some people might just want to have a look at the link, which supports several of the apparently conflicting viewpoints that have been expressed.
I should have labelled it OT, btw, but that was pretty obvious from the title, anyway.
Why should you, many other don't seem to care when posting all sort of OT bs?
Yes, and some would have (like me) but as soon as other see something that might question their 'right' to exploit and kill animals for their pleasure, they react negatively (unsurprising, given how logically inconsistent they are generally being).
The wouldn't do any harm to a cat or dog and make holes in fences for hedgehogs but then have a pig gassed, simply because they like the taste of their flesh when they don't *need* to eat such?
Quite, but it wasn't that that was the issue to some (or one), it was the idea that they might *accidentally* read it and then consider their lifestyle choices. Remember, for many, 'eating' for is mostly about *their pleasure* and so is very much part of their lifestyle, even though they use examples of man having to do things *to survive* years and years ago (and long before supermarkets).
Oh, you have been doing that have you, I didn't notice ... ;-(
Well, I wouldn't be doing that though would I as I (and millions of others of course) CGAF what you (or anyone else) eat, as long as you aren't exploiting other animals (or people) whilst you do.
Just in the same way most of us don't complain about problems we are having with slaves, witch finders or where to find a decent ducking stool.
You constantly play the victim when you are the one causing the victims (even though you can't / won't see it).
But things are changing all the time and assuming you live a bit longer, you *will* see our evolution away from our assumption that it's 'ok' to eat meat and drink cows milk in the same way it's no longer considered acceptable (in many evolved countries / cultures) to smoke in enclosed public places or drop chewing gum on the ground.
And it's even the case in the Army, with soldiers pushing for vegan food and clothing. Soldiers (inc the meat eaters) who often later suffer with PTSD because of what they *need / have* to do, when it's not what they *choose / want* to do. Exactly the same with abattoir workers and livestock vets ...
I assume that you are speaking here of the vegan predilection for taking bland vegetables, and via industrial processes, turn them into something that looks like, smells like, cooks like, and tastes like the very thing they despise others for eating. Some even force it on their pet dogs.
You are the T r o l l who has admitted you don't care about animal welfare while an animal is alive. You are a good example of promoting unnecessary cruelty to animals.
You're more likely to feel guilt when you keep pets, something an ethical vegan wouldn't do, but a fanatical one would.
Given you would advocate an increased population that's a bit rich. I guess our loved ones allowing us to eat meat affects you through your show of envy.
But still inappropriate to a DIY group.
You become uncomfortable whenever I mention keeping pets are not something an ethical vegan would do. An ethical vegan would cage a dog and feed it meat.
You endorse religious practises employed in cruel animal slaughter.
No, it's jealousy we're allowed to eat meat, and by a kebab from a shop without involving the wrath of our loved ones.
Quite, it's why my children ate meat as a part of a natural balanced diet. The alternative is dire:
formatting link
"The study found that vegans had an average childhood IQ score that was nearly 10 points lower than other vegetarians (95.1 for vegans versus
104.8 for other vegetarians; P=0.04)."
Clearly a vegan diet stunts children's brain development.
Why when we can drink milk from a cup.
Do you suck on soya beans?
Does she engage in improvements in animal welfare, or dopes she consider these videos serves a purpose and relishes the cruelty in much the same way you do?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.