25 replies to this topic

[misterE]

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013 Feb;22(2):286-94.

Vegetarian Diets and the Incidence of Cancer in a Low-risk Population.

Tantamango-Bartley Y, Jaceldo-Siegl K, Fan J, Fraser G.


Abstract

BACKGROUND:
Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States. Dietary factors account for at least 30% of all cancers in Western countries. As people do not consume individual foods but rather combinations of them, the assessment of dietary patterns may offer valuable information when determining associations between diet and cancer risk.
  
METHODS:
We examined the association between dietary patterns (non-vegetarians, lacto, pesco, vegan, and semi-vegetarian) and the overall cancer incidence among 69,120 participants of the Adventist Health Study-2. Cancer cases were identified by matching to cancer registries. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was conducted to estimate hazard ratios, with "attained age" as the time variable.

RESULTS:
A total of 2,939 incident cancer cases were identified. The multivariate HR of overall cancer risk among vegetarians compared with non-vegetarians was statistically significant for both genders combined. Also, a statistically significant association was found between vegetarian diet and cancers of the gastrointestinal tract. When analyzing the association of specific vegetarian dietary patterns, vegan diets showed statistically significant protection for overall cancer incidence in both genders combined and for female-specific cancers. Lacto-ovo-vegetarians appeared to be associated with decreased risk of cancers of the gastrointestinal system.

CONCLUSION:
Vegetarian diets seem to confer protection against cancer. Impact: Vegan diet seems to confer lower risk for overall and female-specific cancer than other dietary patterns. The lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets seem to confer protection from cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.

Edited by misterE, 16 March 2013 - 04:34 PM.

[theconomist]

Vegan/non vegan is too general.
We must know what these people actually eat.
French fries and tofu burgers are considered vegan.

There's no doubt in my mind tho that a high vegetable intake and a low animal protein intake is better overall however many other factors come into play.

[hippocampus]

@theeconomist: I agree, but it could also be that omnivores eat less healthy food on average, so this isn't comparison between vegan and non-vegan diet but between healthy vegan and non-healthy (on average) non-vegan diet. It would be better to compare healthy vegan with healthy non-vegan diet. Vegans and vegetarians are also usually richer, more intelligent and educated and in sometimes more religious, all this is connected to health and longevity.

[theconomist]

hippocampus, on 16 March 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

@theeconomist: I agree, but it could also be that omnivores eat less healthy food on average, so this isn't comparison between vegan and non-vegan diet but between healthy vegan and non-healthy (on average) non-vegan diet. It would be better to compare healthy vegan with healthy non-vegan diet. Vegans and vegetarians are also usually richer, more intelligent and educated and in sometimes more religious, all this is connected to health and longevity.

Definitely.

I think the only way this debate can be tranched once and foor all is to examine the cancer incidence amongst vegans who supplement adequately eat organic unprocessed foods, calculate their nutrients etc and don't have diets that's mainly salads and on the other hand meat eaters (and a third group of fish eaters that would interest me personally since fish is the only meat I eat :p ) who eat grass feed beef in moderation, organic produce and track their nutrients etc.

I don't remember if it's Michael or Niner that wrote it but I remember reading it somewhere in this forum: as long as you're eating healthy (our definition of healthy; non processed, avoid contaminants...) track your nutrients and supplement adequately (what you're deficent in) then you'll probably be fine wether you're vegan, on paleo or keto...

We know that carbohydrates feed cancerous cells and low carb/keto can theoretically prevent the growth of tumors but we can't say that they cause cancer but that's pretty much all we know.
I doubt anyone has been able to prove that say X protein causes cancer or Y fat does. (Casein is the exception here; i'm aware of Dr.Campbell's research on casein and that's really scary stuff however in ''nature'' casein is always found alongside whey which has shown to have positive effects against cancer which leads me to wonder if they don't negate each other in milk (milk here being the stuff that comes out of mamals' breasts not the white hormone drink available commercially labelled as milk)).

[1kgcoffee]

I'm not an advocate of vegeteraniasm or veganism, but there is something to be said about The China Study. Protein intake, if cut below a certain level can give some protection against cancer and heart disease (nevermind all of the caveats)

[Sillewater]

thanks for bringing that study to our attention. The association with urinary tract cancers (though non-significant) is worrying though, but in terms of overall morbidity will definitely be lower.

Edited by Sillewater, 16 March 2013 - 11:11 PM.

[zorba990]

http://www.westonapr...ce-and-for-all/

[Sillewater]

zorba990, on 17 March 2013 - 02:27 AM, said:

http://www.westonapr...ce-and-for-all/

Lol, the Adventists don't live in China!

[misterE]

theconomist, on 16 March 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

Vegan/non vegan is too general.
We must know what these people actually eat.
French fries and tofu burgers are considered vegan.

There's no doubt in my mind tho that a high vegetable intake and a low animal protein intake is better overall however many other factors come into play.

In this study the vegan included: whole-grains, leguems, fruits, vegetables and nuts.

[platypus]

1kgcoffee, on 16 March 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

I'm not an advocate of vegeteraniasm or veganism, but there is something to be said about The China Study. Protein intake, if cut below a certain level can give some protection against cancer and heart disease (nevermind all of the caveats)

Apparently The China Study is not reporting the studies correctly:

http://www.amazon.co...howViewpoints=0

[misterE]

hippocampus, on 16 March 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

Vegans and vegetarians are also usually richer, more intelligent and educated and in sometimes more religious, all this is connected to health and longevity.

Perhaps here in the USA, but most vegans and vegetarians are dirt-poor living in third-world countries. They simply eat vegetarian out of necessity not by choice. Epidemiological data clearly shows that as these vegetarian populations switch to diet high in meat, cheese, fat and sugar, they quickly lose their health [1-7].

It's the food!



[1] Diabetes Care. 1979 Mar-Apr;2(2):161-70. Diabetes mellitus and its vascular complications in Japanese migrants on the Island of Hawaii. Kawate R, Yamakido M, Nishimoto Y.

[2] Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2004 Jan-Mar;5(1):28-35. Association between type II diabetes and colon cancer among Japanese with reference to changes in food intake. Kuriki K, Tokudome S, Tajima K.

[3] Eur J Cancer Prev. 2004 Apr;13(2):127-32. Secular trend of colon cancer incidence and mortality in relation to fat and meat intake in Japan. Kono S.

[4] J Am Coll Nutr. 2010 Apr;29(2):81-91. Imbalanced dietary profile, anthropometry, and lipids in urban Asian Indian adolescents and young adults. Gupta N, Shah P, Goel K.

[5] Nutr J. 2011 Jan 28;10:12. A cross-sectional investigation of regional patterns of diet and cardio-metabolic risk in India. Daniel CR, Prabhakaran D, Kapur K.

[6] Metab Syndr Relat Disord. 2004 Spring;2(1):14-23. The Metabolic Syndrome in Asian Indians: Impact of Nutritional and Socio-economic Transition in India. Wasir JS, Misra A.

[7] J Diabetes. 2011 Dec;3(4):278-92. Nutrition transition in India: secular trends in dietary intake and their relationship to diet-related non-communicable diseases. Misra A, Singhal N, Sivakumar B.

[misterE]

theconomist, on 16 March 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

We know that carbohydrates feed cancerous cells and low carb/keto can theoretically prevent the growth of tumors but we can't say that they cause cancer but that's pretty much all we know.
I doubt anyone has been able to prove that say X protein causes cancer or Y fat does. (Casein is the exception here; i'm aware of Dr.Campbell's research on casein and that's really scary stuff however in ''nature'' casein is always found alongside whey which has shown to have positive effects against cancer which leads me to wonder if they don't negate each other in milk (milk here being the stuff that comes out of mamals' breasts not the white hormone drink available commercially labelled as milk)).

  With cancer, any type of calories, whether it be fat, carbohydrate or protein is going to feed cancer. Protein is specially used for growth in the body. Protein intake stimulates IGF-1 production which promotes cell growth/renewal and inhibits cell death. Now normally this is good, but it can be bad if you have cancer because low levels of IGF binding-proteins (which regulate IGF-1 activity) can stimulate cancer growth. Animal-protein lowers IGFBP-1 and saturated-fat lowers IGFBP-3. Excess blood-glucose, due to insulin-resistance can also feed tumors, but the glucose isn't the problem... the insulin-resistance is. Overall diets low in animal-protein/fat and high in complex-carbohydrates and fiber prevent cancer growth by increasing insulin-sensitivity, allowing those nutrients and growth-factors to be used by healthy, non-cancerous cells.

[Mind]

misterE, on 17 March 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

hippocampus, on 16 March 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

Vegans and vegetarians are also usually richer, more intelligent and educated and in sometimes more religious, all this is connected to health and longevity.

Perhaps here in the USA, but most vegans and vegetarians are dirt-poor living in third-world countries. They simply eat vegetarian out of necessity not by choice. Epidemiological data clearly shows that as these vegetarian populations switch to diet high in meat, cheese, fat and sugar, they quickly lose their health [1-7].

It's the food!



[1] Diabetes Care. 1979 Mar-Apr;2(2):161-70. Diabetes mellitus and its vascular complications in Japanese migrants on the Island of Hawaii. Kawate R, Yamakido M, Nishimoto Y.

[2] Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2004 Jan-Mar;5(1):28-35. Association between type II diabetes and colon cancer among Japanese with reference to changes in food intake. Kuriki K, Tokudome S, Tajima K.

[3] Eur J Cancer Prev. 2004 Apr;13(2):127-32. Secular trend of colon cancer incidence and mortality in relation to fat and meat intake in Japan. Kono S.

[4] J Am Coll Nutr. 2010 Apr;29(2):81-91. Imbalanced dietary profile, anthropometry, and lipids in urban Asian Indian adolescents and young adults. Gupta N, Shah P, Goel K.

[5] Nutr J. 2011 Jan 28;10:12. A cross-sectional investigation of regional patterns of diet and cardio-metabolic risk in India. Daniel CR, Prabhakaran D, Kapur K.

[6] Metab Syndr Relat Disord. 2004 Spring;2(1):14-23. The Metabolic Syndrome in Asian Indians: Impact of Nutritional and Socio-economic Transition in India. Wasir JS, Misra A.

[7] J Diabetes. 2011 Dec;3(4):278-92. Nutrition transition in India: secular trends in dietary intake and their relationship to diet-related non-communicable diseases. Misra A, Singhal N, Sivakumar B.

Switch from eating vegetables to eating crap. Health metrics go down. No surprise to me.

[misterE]

Mind, on 17 March 2013 - 03:55 PM, said:

Switch from eating vegetables to eating crap. Health metrics go down. No surprise to me.

These studies show transitions from vegetarian-type diets (whole-grains, rice, pulses) to meat eating diets (eggs, cheese, saturated-fat). Simply to say: "eat more vegetables and less crap", does these studies injustice; because everyone opinion of "crap" varies. A lot of folks here think meat, eggs and fat is heath food! While most of us here agree that refined-foods and simple-sugar is bad, I believe and the evidence suggests that high saturated-fat diets high in meat, dairy and eggs is just as harmful if not more harmful!

Edited by misterE, 17 March 2013 - 04:13 PM.

[theconomist]

misterE, on 17 March 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

theconomist, on 16 March 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

We know that carbohydrates feed cancerous cells and low carb/keto can theoretically prevent the growth of tumors but we can't say that they cause cancer but that's pretty much all we know.
I doubt anyone has been able to prove that say X protein causes cancer or Y fat does. (Casein is the exception here; i'm aware of Dr.Campbell's research on casein and that's really scary stuff however in ''nature'' casein is always found alongside whey which has shown to have positive effects against cancer which leads me to wonder if they don't negate each other in milk (milk here being the stuff that comes out of mamals' breasts not the white hormone drink available commercially labelled as milk)).

  With cancer, any type of calories, whether it be fat, carbohydrate or protein is going to feed cancer. Protein is specially used for growth in the body. Protein intake stimulates IGF-1 production which promotes cell growth/renewal and inhibits cell death. Now normally this is good, but it can be bad if you have cancer because low levels of IGF binding-proteins (which regulate IGF-1 activity) can stimulate cancer growth. Animal-protein lowers IGFBP-1 and saturated-fat lowers IGFBP-3. Excess blood-glucose, due to insulin-resistance can also feed tumors, but the glucose isn't the problem... the insulin-resistance is. Overall diets low in animal-protein/fat and high in complex-carbohydrates and fiber prevent cancer growth by increasing insulin-sensitivity, allowing those nutrients and growth-factors to be used by healthy, non-cancerous cells.

Protein has a mixed response in relation to cancer growth.
Carbs have been linked to cancer growth to the point where keto has/is being researched as a way to aid in cancer treatment.
I do however agree that plan based protein beats animal based protein however to get adequate plant based protein would mean you'd either have to supplement with things like hemp protein or eat a lot of carbs that are found alongside plant protein in whole foods.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21673053
http://www.medscape....warticle/757713
http://cancerres.aac...71/13/4484.full
http://www.cbn.com/c...ey-to-recovery/
http://www.biomedcen...43-7075-4-5.pdf

Edited by theconomist, 17 March 2013 - 06:31 PM.

[Mind]

misterE, on 17 March 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

Mind, on 17 March 2013 - 03:55 PM, said:

Switch from eating vegetables to eating crap. Health metrics go down. No surprise to me.

These studies show transitions from vegetarian-type diets (whole-grains, rice, pulses) to meat eating diets (eggs, cheese, saturated-fat). Simply to say: "eat more vegetables and less crap", does these studies injustice; because everyone opinion of "crap" varies. A lot of folks here think meat, eggs and fat is heath food! While most of us here agree that refined-foods and simple-sugar is bad, I believe and the evidence suggests that high saturated-fat diets high in meat, dairy and eggs is just as harmful if not more harmful!

Every verified supercentenarian I have ever read or seen videos about, were omnivorous. As far as I am aware, they ALL ate meat, dairy, and saturated fat (many smoked and/or drank plenty of alcohol). A few have said that they refrained from too many sweets. Most of the longest lived and healthiest people in the world also consume enormous quantities of olive oil throughout their lives - which according to Dean Ornish should mean that they should be dead 5 times over by now.

They aren't.

Studies show that veganism is good for many metrics of health (maybe for the environment as well) but supercentenarian data would tell us that genetics is much more powerful. My take away is that I eat more vegetables, but I am under no illusion that veganism is the be all end all super duper diet that will save everyone from every disease.

[zorba990]

Mind, on 17 March 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

misterE, on 17 March 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

Mind, on 17 March 2013 - 03:55 PM, said:

Switch from eating vegetables to eating crap. Health metrics go down. No surprise to me.

These studies show transitions from vegetarian-type diets (whole-grains, rice, pulses) to meat eating diets (eggs, cheese, saturated-fat). Simply to say: "eat more vegetables and less crap", does these studies injustice; because everyone opinion of "crap" varies. A lot of folks here think meat, eggs and fat is heath food! While most of us here agree that refined-foods and simple-sugar is bad, I believe and the evidence suggests that high saturated-fat diets high in meat, dairy and eggs is just as harmful if not more harmful!

Every verified supercentenarian I have ever read or seen videos about, were omnivorous. As far as I am aware, they ALL ate meat, dairy, and saturated fat (many smoked and/or drank plenty of alcohol). A few have said that they refrained from too many sweets. Most of the longest lived and healthiest people in the world also consume enormous quantities of olive oil throughout their lives - which according to Dean Ornish should mean that they should be dead 5 times over by now.

They aren't.

Studies show that veganism is good for many metrics of health (maybe for the environment as well) but supercentenarian data would tell us that genetics is much more powerful. My take away is that I eat more vegetables, but I am under no illusion that veganism is the be all end all super duper diet that will save everyone from every disease.

This

[theconomist]

Mind, on 17 March 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

misterE, on 17 March 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

Mind, on 17 March 2013 - 03:55 PM, said:

Switch from eating vegetables to eating crap. Health metrics go down. No surprise to me.

These studies show transitions from vegetarian-type diets (whole-grains, rice, pulses) to meat eating diets (eggs, cheese, saturated-fat). Simply to say: "eat more vegetables and less crap", does these studies injustice; because everyone opinion of "crap" varies. A lot of folks here think meat, eggs and fat is heath food! While most of us here agree that refined-foods and simple-sugar is bad, I believe and the evidence suggests that high saturated-fat diets high in meat, dairy and eggs is just as harmful if not more harmful!

Every verified supercentenarian I have ever read or seen videos about, were omnivorous. As far as I am aware, they ALL ate meat, dairy, and saturated fat (many smoked and/or drank plenty of alcohol). A few have said that they refrained from too many sweets. Most of the longest lived and healthiest people in the world also consume enormous quantities of olive oil throughout their lives - which according to Dean Ornish should mean that they should be dead 5 times over by now.

They aren't.

Studies show that veganism is good for many metrics of health (maybe for the environment as well) but supercentenarian data would tell us that genetics is much more powerful. My take away is that I eat more vegetables, but I am under no illusion that veganism is the be all end all super duper diet that will save everyone from every disease.

Genetics are unfortunately very important, I think we have no illusions as to what we're aiming to achieve with our diets and supplement lifestyles; live to an age where things such as cancer and neurodegenerative diseases are eradicated/better managed and technological advancements have made it possible to substantially increase the lifespan of people. I don't doubt one moment that eating healthy is important and a healthy diet includes a lot of different things; I don't think a single variable in your diet (except maybe high sugar intake) can have that much of an effect on your lifespan.

As long as you're following the basics of healthy eating you're most likely minimizing your risks of dietary influence on lifespan; we shouldn't spend too much time tinkering with secondary things such as paelo vs vegan, macademia vs peacan etc. I think the Praeto principle applies to LE as well.

Edited by theconomist, 17 March 2013 - 08:44 PM.

[arska]

As Mind points out the best died for human is omnivore one. I think there are much more to this than eating "one-way". Perhapse the vegan diet is more concentrated in phytonutrients than the meat-lovers one. The thing is that we should look also what a diet is avoid of. By the way, the president of American Vegan Society died at 66 of a heart attack.

Edited by arska, 18 March 2013 - 11:48 AM.

[DR01D]

Mind, on 17 March 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

Studies show that veganism is good for many metrics of health (maybe for the environment as well) but supercentenarian data would tell us that genetics is much more powerful. My take away is that I eat more vegetables, but I am under no illusion that veganism is the be all end all super duper diet that will save everyone from every disease.

100% correct.  

Researchers looked at 4 ancient civilizations and found that heart disease was common in all of them.  Until the modern era most civilizations supported their populations with primarily plant based diets.
YouTube: Mummies Apparently Had Heart Disease, Clogged Arteries

The type of food we eat makes a difference but not the large difference that many vegans claim.

If you want to increase your healthspan eat a low calorie diet.  The science is clear on this.

Edited by DR01D, 25 March 2013 - 05:33 AM.

[Nootrophil]

The most relevant epidemiological studies that I have found comparing vegetarians to omnivores are the EPIC-Oxford study on British and a study on Germans.  

The beauty of these studies is that
1.) Everyone in them (or at least all those included in these papers) was self-described as "health-conscious."  
2.) They were in the developed world (UK, and Germany).  I'm not a Chinese peasant, so I find this an important control compared to the China Study.

http://ajcn.nutritio...tent/89/5/1613S

Quote

Background: Few prospective studies have examined the mortality of vegetarians.
Objective: We present results on mortality among vegetarians and nonvegetarians in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford).
Design: We used a prospective study of men and women recruited
throughout the United Kingdom in the 1990s.
Results: Among 64,234 participants aged 20–89 y for whom diet group was known, 2965 had died before age 90 by 30 June 2007. The death rates of participants are much lower than average for the United Kingdom. The standardized mortality ratio for all causes of death was 52% (95% CI: 50%, 54%) and was identical in vegetarians and in nonvegetarians. Comparing vegetarians with meat eaters among the 47,254 participants who had no prevalent cardiovascular disease or malignant cancer at recruitment, the death rate ratios adjusted for age, sex, smoking, and alcohol consumption were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.57, 1.16) for ischemic heart disease and 1.03 (95% CI: 0.90, 1.16) for all causes of death [emphasis mine]

And the 21yr study of health-conscious German vegetarian and non-vegetarians

http://cebp.aacrjour.../14/4/963.short

Quote

"Within the cohort, vegetarian compared with nonvegetarian diet had no effect on overall mortality [rate ratio (RR), 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89-1.36], . . .
It should be pointed out, however, that even among the nonvegetarians in our study, there were only 0.4% (1.6%) who reported consuming meat (meat products) daily, 6.5% (4.9%) frequently (≥3 times/wk but not daily), and 28.1% (18.7%) occasionally (more than once a month but <3 times/wk). Therefore, the meat consumption was quite moderate compared with the general population"

Across all of the studies I have seen, including these, vegetarians/vegans usually have RR of .7-.8 on deaths from ischaemic heart disease.  But who cares about that, if they die at least as rapidly from all-causes?  

I've never understood why vegetarian/vegan diets have been so heavily marketed to the public on the basis of risk reduction for heart disease and cancer.  All I care about is all-cause mortality, why would anyone care differently?  But I am curious what vegetarians are dying more from.

Does anyone know of other studies comparing health-conscious omnivores vs vegans/vegetarians?

[DukeNukem]

1kgcoffee, on 16 March 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

I'm not an advocate of vegeteraniasm or veganism, but there is something to be said about The China Study. Protein intake, if cut below a certain level can give some protection against cancer and heart disease (nevermind all of the caveats)

The China Study (the book) is both highly flawed and misleading.  The actual study itself actually showed that eating meat is more healthy, when properly interpreted.

Many many rebuttals have been written, such as this one:

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy?
http://rawfoodsos.co...fact-or-fallac/

[1kgcoffee]

I'm aware of those criticism, and had the same thoughts after reading the china study several years ago. Have you read it? The central point has nothing to do with fat, and everything to do with protein. This is clearly stated at the beginning of the book. Fat is smeared by association when it is just a red herring. The real culprit is excessive protein intake, particularly methionine and BCAAs.

Edited by 1kgcoffee, Yesterday, 07:58 PM.

[DukeNukem]

I've read the book.  It definitely has a beef against the milk protein, casein.

I've not seen any "evidence" outside of this book that non-dairy animal protein is of any note-worthy health concern.  When it comes to protein, gluten (a grain protein), especially, is the real enemy to humans.

[scottknl]

It seems to me that by the nature of the study (food questionnaires)   from the OP, it didn't include correction for calorie intake.  Since lower calories seem to confer significant protective effect against cancer, this makes this study much less conclusive to me.  If you look at the BMI numbers, they seem to coorelate to the HR's for cancer.  But of course BMI isn't always indicative of caloric intake level.

[Nootrophil]

Quote

I've read the book.  It definitely has a beef against the milk protein, casein.

Regarding this point, I've seen evidence even from Dr. Campbell's own research that many other sources of protein are similarly carcinogenic, as long as they are complete and/or methionine matched.  Vegan proteins are often not complete, which is one reason they looked so good in comparison.  Unfortunately, I dont have the time at the moment to locate that research, but if anyone else could confirm or refute that, it would be appreciated.

It's been awhile since I read The China Study.  I forget, do they analyze all-cause mortality, and if so what were the findings?  Even if they did, its plausible that the different lifestyles and causes of death of Chinese peasants compared to developed world persons might be so different (e.g. via infections) that differential all-cause mortality in China isn't a particularly good predictor for differential mortality in developed countries.

If I remember correctly, the reasoning from the book was mostly of the following form:

In the China Study, eating less meat correlated with lower heart disease and cancer rates
Therefore, people in the developed world might die less from heart disease and cancer by eating less meat

In the developed world, heart disease and cancer are the biggest killers
Therefore, people in the developed world might die less of all causes by eating less meat.

The first deduction has epidemiological support in developed world studies, particularly for ischaemic heart disease.  The second deduction is seriously called into question by the UK and German epidemiology that I cited above.

Edited by Nootrophil, Today, 10:53 AM.