Cholesterol (which is only found in animal products) and high levels of saturated fats have been linked with heart disease. Removing animal products from your diet, or reducing your consumption of them, can considerably reduce your chances of developing heart-related problems. Reducing your consumption of animal products can also help reduce the probability of developing certain forms of cancer. For instance, studies have shown that vegetarians have up to 40% less chance of developing bowel cancer. With heart disease and cancer being the leading causes of death in western countries, the importance of reducing our consumption of meat and animal products cannot be underestimated.
A diet combining a handful of known cholesterol-lowering plant components cut bad cholesterol by close to 30 per cent in a study by researchers at U of T and St. Michael's Hospital. The reduction is similar to that achieved by some drug treatments for high cholesterol, suggesting a possible drug-free alternative for combating the condition.
The study, published in the December 2002 issue of Metabolism, is the first to examine the effects of these dietary components in combination. Scientists have known for many years that, individually, soy proteins, nuts, viscous fibres such as those found in oats and barley, and plant sterols (a substance found in vegetable oils and also in leafy green and non-starch vegetables) have the ability to reduce blood cholesterol levels by approximately four to seven per cent. However, the study found that mixing these components together in a "combination diet" reduced levels of LDL cholesterol - the so-called "bad" cholesterol believed to clog coronary arteries - by a dramatic 29 per cent. The finding suggests this combination diet may be as effective as the first generation of a class of drugs known as statins, which have been the standard drug therapy for high cholesterol for the last 15 years.
"This opens up the possibility that diet can be used much more widely to lower blood cholesterol and possibly spare some individuals from having to take drugs," said lead author David Jenkins, a professor in U of T's Department of Nutritional Sciences and director of the Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Centre at St. Michael's Hospital.
Jenkins and his research colleagues measured the cholesterol levels of 13 people who went on the combination diet for a month. The diet followed a seven-day plan using foods available in supermarkets and health food stores, including vegetables such as broccoli, carrots, red peppers, tomato, onions, cauliflower, okra and eggplant; oats, barley and psyllium; vegetable-based margarine; soy protein from products such as soy milk and soy sausages, vegetarian cold cuts and vegetarian burgers; and almonds, among other ingredients. A typical day on the diet might include a breakfast of soy milk, oat bran cereal with chopped fruit and almonds, oatmeal bread, margarine and jam; a lunch of soy cold cuts, oat bran bread, bean soup and fruit; and a stirfry dinner with vegetables, tofu, fruit and almonds.
Jenkins cautioned that more study is needed before the combination diet will be able to give relief from the use of statins. "The take home message right now is that there is hope for a drug-free treatment for some people with high cholesterol. For us, the main feature now is to move this forward into longer-term studies," he said.
Jenkins noted, for example, that the researchers also plan to examine the effects of the combination diet after a six-month period, including a look at how well people are able to incorporate the diet into their daily lives.
"We see this as being a work in progress and we shall look at new plant components to add to the diet," said Jenkins. He added that although the combination diet is vegetarian, people who follow the principles of the diet but also take animal proteins may also see a dip in their cholesterol levels. However, he explained, "The closer they follow this diet, the closer they're going to get to a 30 per cent reduction in blood cholesterol levels."
A well-balanced vegetarian diet can provide all the nutrients needed for growth for your daughter but you do need to be careful. Meat is an important source of protein and nutrients like iron and zinc. Instead of just removing it, you need to replace it with plant foods that also contain these nutrients.
2007-07-20 11:00:59
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
If a vegetarian diet is very carefully planned, and that may require either fortified foods or supplements, it can usually be about as healthy as a good meat eating diet. I think there are a couple of benefits, but they come from eating a wide range of fruit and veg and being health conscious as vegans have to be, not omitting meat, and thus those benefits can be go without actually going veggie. Needless to say a uncarefully planned vegetarian, or especially vegan, diet can lack many essential nutrients and be very bad for your health.
There are many benefits to a diet containing meat. Many vegetarians claim that meat is unhealthy. This is a blatant fallacy.
It is well established that eating meat improves the quality of nutrition, strengthens the immune system, promotes normal growth and development, is beneficial for day-to-day health, energy and well-being, and helps ensure optimal learning and academic performance.
A long term study found that children who eat more meat are less likely to have deficiencies than those who eat little or no meat. Kids who don’t eat meat — and especially if they restrict other foods, as many girls are doing — are more likely to feel tired, apathetic, unable to concentrate, are sick more often, more frequently depressed, and are the most likely to be malnourished and have stunted growth. Meat and other animal-source foods are the building blocks of healthy growth that have made America’s and Europe's youngsters the tallest, strongest and healthiest in the world.
Meat is an important source of quality nutrients, heme iron, protein, zinc and B-complex vitamins. It provides high-quality protein important for kids’ healthy growth and development.
The iron in meat (heme iron) is of high quality and well absorbed by the body, unlike nonheme iron from plants which is not well absorbed. More than 90 percent of iron consumed may be wasted when taken without some heme iron from animal sources. Substances found to inhibit nonheme iron absorption include phytates in cereals, nuts and legumes, and polyphenolics in vegetables. Symptoms of iron deficiency include fatigue, headache, irritability and decreased work performance. For young children, it can lead to impairment in general intelligence, language, motor performance and school readiness. Girls especially need iron after puberty due to blood losses, or if pregnant. Yet studies show 75 percent of teenage girls get less iron than recommended.
Meat, poultry and eggs are also good sources of absorbable zinc, a trace mineral vital for strengthening the immune system and normal growth. Deficiencies link to decreased attention, poorer problem solving and short-term memory, weakened immune system, and the inability to fight infection. While nuts and legumes contain zinc, plant fibre contains phytates that bind it into a nonabsorbable compound.
Found almost exclusively in animal products, Vitamin B12 is necessary for forming new cells. A deficiency can cause anaemia and permanent nerve damage and paralysis. The Vitimin B12 in plants isn't even bioavailable, meaning our body can't use it.
Why not buy food supplements to replace missing vitamins and minerals? Some people believe they can fill those gaps with pills, but they may be fooling themselves. Research consistently shows that real foods in a balanced diet are far superior to trying to make up deficiencies with supplements.
Lets not forget either that protein, while it is found in plants, is better quality in animal products.
Some people also claim that we aren't designed by evolution, to eat meat. They claim that our digestive system is quite long and that we produce amylase, a starch splitting catabolic enzyme, akin to herbivores and unlike carnivores. Apparently this clearly shows that we were designed to eat plants. Such people should go and look up 'omnivore' in a dictionary. They have also been known to cite other reasons we are like herbivores and unlike carnivores: that we suck water instead of lapping it, and that we perspire through our skin, such things have nothing at all to do with whether or not we were designed to eat meat, and nothing to do with how our body handles food. I might as well say that because we, like most carnivores and unlike most herbivores, have eyes that face forwards, we must be carnivorous. Of course, that's not true for precisely the same reason.
The fact is Humans are omnivores, with the ability to eat nearly everything. By preference, prehistoric people ate a high-protein, high-mineral diet based on meat and animal sources, whenever available. Their foods came mainly from three of the five food groups: meat, vegetables and fruits. As a result, big game mammoth hunters were tall and strong with massive bones. They grew six inches taller than their farming descendants in Europe, who ate mostly plant foods, and only in recent times regained most of this height upon again eating more meat, eggs and dairy foods. We are adapted to eat meat, and it is just as natural as eating plants.
Some also claim that the digestion of meat releases harmful byproducts into our system. This is true, however such are our adaptations to eating meat that our bodies are quite able to dispose of said products without any adverse effects.
So, in summary: it isn't healthier to avoid meat. You can be healthy without meat, but likely not as healthy as if you did, assuming you kept things like the wide range of fruit and veg that a veggie diet usually entails. Too much meat can be bad, but normal amounts are no problem at all. Any health benefits that come from a veggie diet come from a wide range of fruit and veg, and being health conscious, as veggies often are; that doesn't require you to not eat meat.
I don't think a vegeterian diet benefits anyone in any way better than a better meat eating diet could at all. If you have no ethical qualms, it's quite pointless.
@ Gypsy Whitemoon
The link between dietary levels of saturated fats and cholesterol and heart diseases isn't as clear as is made out, by a long shot. You can eat no saturated fat and still have very high blood levels of it, and vice versa. Humans make saturated (alias animal) fat naturally, out of any excess calories we eat, be they saturated fat, unsaturated fat or carbohydrates. Most fats are broken down during digestion anyway. True, eating far too much often causes high blood levels of saturated fats, which can lead to atheroma and thus heart disease, but most people do not eat so much to endanger their health, and even so, high levels of saturated fats can be lowered by regular exercise much easier than dieting. In reality, high levels of saturated fats are a sign of other health related problems. For this reason there is no specific link between meat eating and blood levels of saturated fat, any more than with a veggie diet. Some vegetable fats, like those in margarines, are much worse for healthy than naturally occurring saturated fats.
Similarly your body on average creates four to five times more cholesterol than the average person consumes, and compensates by creating more when less is consumed. Cholesterol isn't evil, it is essential; it makes up the waterproof linings of all our cells and without it we would die. Too much can be bad, but as with saturated fats there are more healthy ways of disposing of it, like regular exercise. Anyway, it isn't so much how much cholesterol you eat that determines your blood levels, but how well your body handles it. A person who eats loads of dietary cholesterol and leads an unhealthy lifestyle can still have low cholesterol, and vice versa. Most people's bodies are able to take a large amount of cholesterol without getting atherosclerosis, but this is an ability that, like many things, decreases with age, hence why 80% of coronary disease sufferers are over 65. For this reason that eating meat gives you heart disease is very misleading, and for the most part untrue. Of course, if you do have a problem eating loads isn't a good idea, but for most people there is nothing at all to worry about.
Also, on average vegetarians do live longer and are healthier, however, this does not necessarily mean a vegetarian diet makes you live longer, and possibly the opposite is true, as there are other considerations.
"Statistical surveys do generally suggest that vegetarians, on average, live longer, healthier lives. But we should bear in mind that research has yet to isolate the presence or absence of meat in the diet as the only variable under investigation. There are always extraneous factors which can explain equally well any health differences found between vegetarians and meat eaters. For example, many vegetarians choose their diet for health reasons simply because it is accepted on many fronts that vegetarianism is healthier, rightly or wrongly. But people willing to cut out meat for health reasons are likely to be making other lifestyle decisions for health reasons. Perhaps to smoke less, drink less or exercise more frequently. Alternately stated: people unwilling to make sacrifices for the good of their health will be more likely to eat meat than those who will make those sacrifices. Thus the healthy vegetarian diet becomes self-fulfilling prophecy."
Vegetarians are, as suggested above, much less likely to smoke, binge drink, eat junk food and are generally much more health conscious that the average meat eater, meat eating being the group that contains almost all the unhealthiest of society: the poor, the uneducated and the smokers who frankly aren't likely to give two figs about veganism.
"A well-designed piece of research by using matched samples may, in theory, control for extraneous variables. But it would be virtually impossible, in the case of a large sample population studied over a lifetime, to determine whether differences found were genuine measurements of the meat/non-meat factor, or an effect of vegetarians opting for meals with higher nutritional value, irrespective of meat content.
Moreover, irrespective of parental diet, very few western vegetarians give up meat until their late teens or early adulthood. Some will make the switch later in life. For as long as the general trend in society is away from meat and towards vegetarianism, the average effect of people crossing the meat/non-meat barrier will be to reinforce this skew in the distribution, and create the illusion of a longer average life-span in vegetarians."
There are other variables as well that can skew results if not properly controlled for.
- Vegetarians are mostly women. Women have a longer average lifespan than men so on average the life span of vegetarians will be longer than that of meat eaters, they are also at less risk of numerous diseases including certain cancers and coronary diseases.
- Vegetarians are, on average, much younger than the average meat eater, because it tends to be young people who convert. Thus, as young people are at less risk from virtually all diseases and death than their older counterparts, their rates of diseases and death will be lower than the meat eating majority of the population.
As such, few studies on this subject can truthfully say they've at least tried there best to eliminate all other variables. The studies Peta show don't even try. When studies do try to control for these things they generally show little difference in longevity, if any.
@ Sicilian Love
- I've never had to worry about food poisoning from undercooked meat, and even when I've eaten undercooked meat I've never had food poisoning. It's not like you can't get salmonella from plants anyway.
- You often lose weight when you change diet, depending on what you replace it with. I've never heard which 5 pounds statement, and as such can't disprove it, but I'm going to assume it's rubbish unless I get some evidence on the matter.
- Frankly, I'd probably feel more at ease knowing I'd just consumed a dead animal.
- There's nothing wrong with a bit of fat in the diet, on the contrary, it's recommended you eat some.
- As above.
- No it's not.
2007-07-21 04:21:58
·
answer #10
·
answered by AndyB 5
·
0⤊
0⤋