• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Vegan vs non-vegan


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#31 Alex Libman

  • Guest
  • 566 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 07 April 2010 - 06:58 AM

Yeah, I admit everything I wrote on this thread is uninformed politically-motivated subjective bunk. Good job calling me on it. That doesn't prove that I'm wrong though, only that I've reached my conclusions with less scientific rigor than I should have... ;)


EDIT - clarification: the quotation of me in TheFountain's post above this one was actually written by oehaut.

Edited by Alex Libman, 07 April 2010 - 07:09 AM.


#32 Skötkonung

  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 07 April 2010 - 07:01 AM

I would say that higher antioxidant status is a possible causal rather than confounding factor. Your proposed study design doesn't take into account whole grain's or legumes considerable contribution to antioxidant levels.

Yes, but comparatively, are they superior to carnosine's antioxidant and anti-glycation capability, etc?

Antioxidant activity of carnosine, homocarnosine, and anserine present in muscle and brain
"Carnosine, homocarnosine, and anserine are present in high concentrations in the muscle and brain of many animals and humans. However, their exact function is not clear. The antioxidant activity of these compounds has been examined by testing their peroxyl radical-trapping ability at physiological concentrations. Carnosine, homocarnosine, anserine, and other histidine derivatives all showed antioxidant activity. All of these compounds showing peroxyl radical-trapping activity were also electrochemically active as reducing agents in cyclic voltammetric measurements. Furthermore, carnosine inhibited the oxidative hydroxylation of deoxyguanosine induced by ascorbic acid and copper ions. Other roles of carnosine, such as chelation of metal ions, quenching of singlet oxygen, and binding of hydroperoxides, are also discussed. The data suggest a role for these histidine-related compounds as endogenous antioxidants in brain and muscle."

Carnosine and Carnosine-Related Antioxidants: A Review
"First isolated and characterized in 1900 by Gulewitsch, carnosine ( bgr-alanyl-L-hystidine) is a dipeptide commonly present in mammalian tissue, and in particular in skeletal muscle cells; it is responsible for a variety of activities related to the detoxification of the body from free radical species and the by-products of membrane lipids peroxidation, but recent studies have shown that this small molecule also has membraneprotecting activity, proton buffering capacity, formation of complexes with transition metals, and regulation of macrophage function. It has been proposed that carnosine could act as a natural scavenger of dangerous reactive aldehydes from the degradative oxidative pathway of endogenous molecules such as sugars, polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) and proteins. In particular, it has been recently demonstrated that carnosine is a potent and selective scavenger of agr,bgr-unsaturated aldehydes, typical by-products of membrane lipids peroxidation and considered second messengers of the oxidative stress, and inhibits aldehyde-induced protein-protein and DNA-protein cross-linking in neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease, in cardiovascular ischemic damage, in inflammatory diseases. The research for new and more potent scavengers for HNE and other agr,bgr-unsaturated aldehydes has produced a consistent variety of carnosine analogs, and the present review will resume, through the scientific literature and the international patents, the most recent developments in this field."

Meat is also rich in vitamin E, glutathione, selenium, and conjugated linoleic acid. Glutathione, a tripeptide (made of glutamate, cysteine, and glycine) is found mammalian cells and is a cofactor of glutathione peroxidase (GPx) an enzyme. It protects water-soluble proteins, detoxifies drugs, pollutants, poisons and oxidants such as hydrogen peroxide, and dehydroascorbic acid.




Edited by Skotkonung, 07 April 2010 - 07:05 AM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for NUTRITION to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#33 Skötkonung

  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 07 April 2010 - 07:02 AM

Yeah, I admit everything I wrote on this thread is uninformed politically-motivated subjective bunk.

Good job calling me on it.


Debunked. Next!

You might reconsider green tea. Evidence in its favor is substantial. Just drink more water or find a decaffeinated brand if you are concerned about the diuretic effects.

Edited by Skotkonung, 07 April 2010 - 07:26 AM.


#34 Skötkonung

  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 07 April 2010 - 07:11 AM

Admittedly a leap from in vivo, but still pertinent:

l-Carnosine reduces telomere damage and shortening rate in cultured normal fibroblasts
"Telomere is the repetitive DNA sequence at the end of chromosomes, which shortens progressively with cell division and limits the replicative potential of normal human somatic cells. l-Carnosine, a naturally occurring dipeptide, has been reported to delay the replicative senescence, and extend the lifespan of cultured human diploid fibroblasts. In this work, we studied the effect of carnosine on the telomeric DNA of cultured human fetal lung fibroblast cells. Cells continuously grown in 20 mM carnosine exhibited a slower telomere shortening rate and extended lifespan in population doublings. When kept in a long-term nonproliferating state, they accumulated much less damages in the telomeric DNA when cultured in the presence of carnosine. We suggest that the reduction in telomere shortening rate and damages in telomeric DNA made an important contribution to the life-extension effect of carnosine."

Carnosine, a protective, anti-ageing peptide?
"Carnosine (β-alanyl-Image -histidine) has protective functions additional to anti-oxidant and free-radical scavenging roles. It extends cultured human fibroblast life-span, kills transformed cells, protects cells against aldehydes and an amyloid peptide fragment and inhibits, in vitro, protein glycation (formation of cross-links, carbonyl groups and AGEs) and DNA/protein cross-linking. Carnosine is an aldehyde scavenger, a likely lipofuscin (age pigment) precursor and possible modulator of diabetic complications, atherosclerosis and Alzheimer's disease."

#35 Skötkonung

  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 07 April 2010 - 07:20 AM

Okay, for eggs we have vitamin A, beta-carotene, lutein, zeaxanthin, and phosvitin. Betacryptoxanthin, also found in egg yolks, protects cells from UV light, and aids in DNA repair by rejoining broken strands and removing oxidized purines by excision repairs.

The carotenoid beta-cryptoxanthin stimulates the repair of DNA oxidation damage in addition to acting as an antioxidant in human cells.
"The role of dietary antioxidants in human health remains controversial. Fruits and vegetables in the diet are associated with lower rates of chronic disease, and this is often attributed to their content of antioxidants, and a resulting protection against oxidative stress. However, large-scale human trials with antioxidant supplements have shown, if anything, an increase in mortality. We have investigated the biological properties of beta-cryptoxanthin, a common carotenoid, in cell culture model systems, using the comet assay to measure DNA damage. At low concentrations, close to those found in plasma, beta-cryptoxanthin does not itself cause damage, but protects transformed human cells (HeLa and Caco-2) from damage induced by H(2)O(2) or by visible light in the presence of a photosensitizer. In addition, it has a striking effect on DNA repair, measured in different ways. Incubation of H(2)O(2)-treated cells with beta-cryptoxanthin led to a doubling of the rate of rejoining of strand breaks and had a similar effect on the rate of removal of oxidized purines by base excision repair. The latter effect was confirmed with an in vitro assay: cells were incubated with or without beta-cryptoxanthin before preparing an extract, which was then incubated with substrate DNA containing 8-oxo-7,8-dihydroguanine; incision was more rapid with the extract prepared from carotenoid-preincubated cells. No significant increases were seen in protein content of human 8-oxoguanine DNA glycosylase 1 or apurinic endonuclease 1. The apparent cancer-preventive effects of dietary carotenoids may depend on the enhancement of DNA repair as well as antioxidant protection against damage."

For milk (can't copy a selection from the PDF):
Fatty acid and fat-soluble antioxidant concentration in milk from high and low input converted and organic systems:seasonal variation


And carnosine in vivo:
Effect of dietary carnosine on plasma and tissue antioxidant concentrations and on lipid oxidation in rat skeletal muscle.
"The effect of dietary carnosine supplementation on plasma and tissue carnosine and alpha-tocopherol concentrations and on the formation of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) in rat skeletal muscle homogenates was evaluated. Plasma, heart, liver and hind leg muscle was obtained from rats fed basal semipurified diets or basal diets containing carnosine (0.0875%), alpha-tocopheryl acetate (50 ppm), or carnosine (0.0875%) plus alpha-tocopheryl acetate (50 ppm). Dietary carnosine supplementation did not increase carnosine concentrations in heart, liver and skeletal muscle. Dietary supplementation with both carnosine and alpha-tocopherol increased carnosine concentrations in liver 1.56, 1.51- and 1.51-fold as compared with diets lacking carnosine, alpha-tocopherol or both carnosine and alpha-tocopherol, respectively. Dietary supplementation with both carnosine and alpha-tocopherol also increased alpha-tocopherol concentrations in heart and liver 1-38-fold and 1.68-fold, respectively, as compared to supplementation with alpha-tocopherol alone. Dietary supplementation with carnosine, alpha-tocopherol or both carnosine and alpha-tocopherol was effective in decreasing the formation of TBARS in rat skeletal muscle homogenate, with dietary alpha-tocopherol and alpha-tocopherol plus carnosine being more effective than dietary carnosine alone. The data suggest that dietary supplementation with carnosine and alpha-tocopherol modulates some tissue carnosine and alpha-tocopherol concentrations and the formation of TBARS in rat skeletal muscle homogenates."

#36 oehaut

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 393 posts
  • 20
  • Location:Canada

Posted 07 April 2010 - 12:03 PM

I always assumed that many vegetarians eat low quality vegetarian food - white bread, potato chips, pasta, cake etc. . . There are probably different types of vegetarians and it's hard to generalize about them as a group. I would guess that more healthy vegetarians tend to be those like Seventh Day Adventists, which have been studied to some extent. I know that does not address your desire for a high vegetable, fruit, and nut diet comparison with and without meat. I am just making a side comment.


Just like there can be different categories of meat eater... such as us here, which have clearly never been studied, and never will be. The Seventh Day Adventists have a very particular lifestyle. The level of stress is probably very low. There's no way such a non-regular group can make up for a regular citizen.

#37 oehaut

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 393 posts
  • 20
  • Location:Canada

Posted 07 April 2010 - 12:19 PM

This is what all meat eater advocate here too

Except that meat does not fall under the alkaline category.

only you add some oragnic grass-fed meat

Regardless of this.


There is correlative evidence that acidic foods may accelerate aging. And ray kurzweil advocates the alkaline diet, so there has to be something to it.


Can you cite me these evidences please? As shown below, there is collerative evidence that a more acid metabolic state is present in pathologic condition. I've not seen any evidence that acidic food may accelerate aging. Authorative call are not going to make me consider anything unless he can cite some good evidence. I've looked for it, and i've yet to find evidence in favor of the acid load hypothesis. Please share if you have any.

Here's what i've read so far on this subject

Diet, evolution and aging--the pathophysiologic effects of the post-agricultural inversion of the potassium-to-sodium and base-to-chloride ratios in the human diet

Theoretically, we humans should be better adapted physiologically to the diet our ancestors were exposed to during millions of years of hominid evolution than to the diet we have been eating since the agricultural revolution a mere 10,000 years ago, and since industrialization only 200 years ago. Among the many health problems resulting from this mismatch between our genetically determined nutritional requirements and our current diet, some might be a consequence in part of the deficiency of potassium alkali salts (K-base), which are amply present in the plant foods that our ancestors ate in abundance, and the exchange of those salts for sodium chloride (NaCl), which has been incorporated copiously into the contemporary diet, which at the same time is meager in K-base-rich plant foods. Deficiency of K-base in the diet increases the net systemic acid load imposed by the diet. We know that clinically-recognized chronic metabolic acidosis has deleterious effects on the body, including growth retardation in children, decreased muscle and bone mass in adults, and kidney stone formation, and that correction of acidosis can ameliorate those conditions. Is it possible that a lifetime of eating diets that deliver evolutionarily superphysiologic loads of acid to the body contribute to the decrease in bone and muscle mass, and growth hormone secretion, which occur normally with age? That is, are contemporary humans suffering from the consequences of chronic, diet-induced low-grade systemic metabolic acidosis? Our group has shown that contemporary net acid-producing diets do indeed characteristically produce a low-grade systemic metabolic acidosis in otherwise healthy adult subjects, and that the degree of acidosis increases with age, in relation to the normally occurring age-related decline in renal functional capacity. We also found that neutralization of the diet net acid load with dietary supplements of potassium bicarbonate (KHCO3) improved calcium and phosphorus balances, reduced bone resorption rates, improved nitrogen balance, and mitigated the normally occurring age-related decline in growth hormone secretion--all without restricting dietary NaCl. Moreover, we found that co-administration of an alkalinizing salt of potassium (potassium citrate) with NaCl prevented NaCl from increasing urinary calcium excretion and bone resorption, as occurred with NaCl administration alone. Earlier studies estimated dietary acid load from the amount of animal protein in the diet, inasmuch as protein metabolism yields sulfuric acid as an end-product. In cross-cultural epidemiologic studies, Abelow found that hip fracture incidence in older women correlated with animal protein intake, and they suggested a causal relation to the acid load from protein. Those studies did not consider the effect of potential sources of base in the diet. We considered that estimating the net acid load of the diet (i. e., acid minus base) would require considering also the intake of plant foods, many of which are rich sources of K-base, or more precisely base precursors, substances like organic anions that the body metabolizes to bicarbonate. In following up the findings of Abelow et al., we found that plant food intake tended to be protective against hip fracture, and that hip fracture incidence among countries correlated inversely with the ratio of plant-to-animal food intake. These findings were confirmed in a more homogeneous population of white elderly women residents of the U.S. These findings support affirmative answers to the questions we asked above. Can we provide dietary guidelines for controlling dietary net acid loads to minimize or eliminate diet-induced and age-amplified chronic low-grade metabolic acidosis and its pathophysiological sequelae. We discuss the use of algorithms to predict the diet net acid and provide nutritionists and clinicians with relatively simple and reliable methods for determining and controlling the net acid load of the diet. A more difficult question is what level of acidosis is acceptable. We argue that any level of acidosis may be unacceptable from an evolutionarily perspective, and indeed, that a low-grade metabolic alkalosis may be the optimal acid-base state for humans.


Effect of diet on plasma acid-base composition in normal humans

Steady-state plasma and urine acid-base composition was assessed in 19 studies of 16 normal subjects who ingested constant amounts of one of three diets that resulted in different rates of endogenous noncarbonic acid production (EAP) within the normal range. Renal net acid excretion (NAE) was used to quantify EAP since the two variables are positively correlated in normal subjects. A significant positive correlation was observed between plasma [H+] and plasma PCO2, and between plasma [HCO3-] and plasma PCO2, among the subjects. Multiple correlation analysis revealed a significant interrelationship among plasma [H+], plasma PCO2, and NAE (r = 0.71, P less than 0.001), and among plasma [HCO3-], plasma PCO2, and NAE (r = 0.77, P less than 0.001). The partial correlation coefficients indicated a significant positive correlation between plasma [H+] and NAE, and a significant negative correlation between plasma [HCO3-] and NAE, when plasma PCO2 was held constant. These findings indicate that two factors influence the level at which plasma [H+] is maintained in normal subjects: (1) the steady-state rate of endogenous noncarbonic acid production, and (2) the setpoint at which plasma PCO2 is regulated by the respiratory system. Plasma [HCO3-] is also co-determined by these two factors. In disease states, therefore, both factors must be known before a disturbance in acid-base homeostasis can be excluded.


So, it seems clear that diet can have an effect on homeostatic acid-base. But if you read the whole papers, you're gonna realize that the author always make a leap of faith, such as in the ''high protein diet makes the kidney work harder, hence it's possible that a high-protein diet is dangerous for the kidney''.

SO they say ''We know that in most pathological condition, there is an increase in acidity. Hence, it's possible that a highly acidic diet would promote pathology.''

Unfortunatly, it remains speculation. And in the first paper, they say that high acidic diet leach more calcium, so it would be easy to jump to the conclusion that highly acidic diet promote osteoporosis, but unfortunatly

Meta-analysis of the effect of the acid-ash hypothesis of osteoporosis on calcium balance.

The acid-ash hypothesis posits that protein and grain foods, with a low potassium intake, produce a diet acid load, net acid excretion (NAE), increased urine calcium, and release of calcium from the skeleton, leading to osteoporosis. The objectives of this meta-analysis were to assess the effect of changes in NAE, by manipulation of healthy adult subjects' acid-base intakes, on urine calcium, calcium balance, and a marker of bone metabolism, N-telopeptides. This meta-analysis was limited to studies that used superior methodological quality for the study of calcium metabolism. We systematically searched the literature and included studies if subjects were randomized to the interventions and followed the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine's Panel on Calcium and Related Nutrients for calcium studies. Five of 16 studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies altered the amount and/or type of protein. Despite a significant linear relationship between an increase in NAE and urinary calcium (p < 0.0001), there was no relationship between a change of NAE and a change of calcium balance (p = 0.38; power = 94%). There was no relationship between a change of NAE and a change in the marker of bone metabolism, N-telopeptides (p = 0.95). In conclusion, this meta-analysis does not support the concept that the calciuria associated with higher NAE reflects a net loss of whole body calcium. There is no evidence from superior quality balance studies that increasing the diet acid load promotes skeletal bone mineral loss or osteoporosis. Changes of urine calcium do not accurately represent calcium balance. Promotion of the "alkaline diet" to prevent calcium loss is not justified.


So just like the high-protein diet and the kidney, when you test the said hypothesis on the actual pathology, you realise the theorical frame does not hold.

So unless you have direct studies, which I could not find, that test the hypothesis of the acid-load diet on CVD, cancer, diabetes, etc, etc, this remains speculation.

And even if meat is acid, I eat so many veggies that there's no way that my diet is acidic. I said it many time already, my diet is plant-based with some high quality animal product. It's probably like 75% vegetable and 25% animal. Maybe not even that much of animal product.

Edited by oehaut, 07 April 2010 - 12:32 PM.


#38 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 07 April 2010 - 04:49 PM

 

There is correlative evidence that acidic foods may accelerate aging. And ray kurzweil advocates the alkaline diet, so there has to be something to it.

I've heard Ray Kurzweil paints his toe nails pink. Apparently there is correlative evidence that specimens with painted nails outlives those w/ more boring nails. YMMV, but this is interesting.

Edited by kismet, 07 April 2010 - 04:50 PM.


#39 Application

  • Guest
  • 153 posts
  • 99
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 08 April 2010 - 08:49 AM

I would say that higher antioxidant status is a possible causal rather than confounding factor. Your proposed study design doesn't take into account whole grain's or legumes considerable contribution to antioxidant levels.

Yes, but comparatively, are they superior to carnosine's antioxidant and anti-glycation capability, etc?

Antioxidant activity of carnosine, homocarnosine, and anserine present in muscle and brain
"Carnosine, homocarnosine, and anserine are present in high concentrations in the muscle and brain of many animals and humans. However, their exact function is not clear. The antioxidant activity of these compounds has been examined by testing their peroxyl radical-trapping ability at physiological concentrations. Carnosine, homocarnosine, anserine, and other histidine derivatives all showed antioxidant activity. All of these compounds showing peroxyl radical-trapping activity were also electrochemically active as reducing agents in cyclic voltammetric measurements. Furthermore, carnosine inhibited the oxidative hydroxylation of deoxyguanosine induced by ascorbic acid and copper ions. Other roles of carnosine, such as chelation of metal ions, quenching of singlet oxygen, and binding of hydroperoxides, are also discussed. The data suggest a role for these histidine-related compounds as endogenous antioxidants in brain and muscle."

Carnosine and Carnosine-Related Antioxidants: A Review
"First isolated and characterized in 1900 by Gulewitsch, carnosine ( bgr-alanyl-L-hystidine) is a dipeptide commonly present in mammalian tissue, and in particular in skeletal muscle cells; it is responsible for a variety of activities related to the detoxification of the body from free radical species and the by-products of membrane lipids peroxidation, but recent studies have shown that this small molecule also has membraneprotecting activity, proton buffering capacity, formation of complexes with transition metals, and regulation of macrophage function. It has been proposed that carnosine could act as a natural scavenger of dangerous reactive aldehydes from the degradative oxidative pathway of endogenous molecules such as sugars, polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) and proteins. In particular, it has been recently demonstrated that carnosine is a potent and selective scavenger of agr,bgr-unsaturated aldehydes, typical by-products of membrane lipids peroxidation and considered second messengers of the oxidative stress, and inhibits aldehyde-induced protein-protein and DNA-protein cross-linking in neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease, in cardiovascular ischemic damage, in inflammatory diseases. The research for new and more potent scavengers for HNE and other agr,bgr-unsaturated aldehydes has produced a consistent variety of carnosine analogs, and the present review will resume, through the scientific literature and the international patents, the most recent developments in this field."

Meat is also rich in vitamin E, glutathione, selenium, and conjugated linoleic acid. Glutathione, a tripeptide (made of glutamate, cysteine, and glycine) is found mammalian cells and is a cofactor of glutathione peroxidase (GPx) an enzyme. It protects water-soluble proteins, detoxifies drugs, pollutants, poisons and oxidants such as hydrogen peroxide, and dehydroascorbic acid.




You are asking whether the antioxidant power of the carnosine in meat is greater than the phytochemicals in plant foods?

In my limited reading on the subject, I didn't see any evidence that carnosine is qualitatively superior to plant derived dietary antioxidants. Did you? On the other hand (quantitatively), It seems pretty universally accepted that total measurable antioxidant levels are much higher in all kinds of plant foods. Among many examples, this study published in 2010 found:

When classifying the samples into the three main classes the difference in antioxidant content between plant- and animal-based foods become apparent. The results here uncover that the antioxidant content of foods varies several thousand-fold and that antioxidant rich foods originate from the plant kingdom while meat, fish and other foods from the animal kingdom are low in antioxidants. Comparing the mean value of the 'Meat and meat products' category with plant based categories, fruits, nuts, chocolate and berries have from 5 to 33 times higher mean antioxidant content than the mean of meat products. Diets comprised mainly of animal-based foods are thus low in antioxidant content while diets based mainly on a variety of plant-based foods are antioxidant rich, due to the thousands of bioactive antioxidant phytochemicals found in plants which are conserved in many foods and beverages.


Edited by Application, 08 April 2010 - 09:03 AM.


#40 Skötkonung

  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 08 April 2010 - 09:09 AM

You are asking whether the antioxidant power of the carnosine in meat of meat is greater than the phytochemicals in plant foods?

In my limited reading on the subject, I didn't see any evidence that carnosine is qualitatively superior to plant derived dietary antioxidants. Did you? On the other hand, It seems pretty universally accepted that total measurable antioxidant levels are much higher in all kinds of plant foods. Among many examples, this study published in 2010 found:

When classifying the samples into the three main classes the difference in antioxidant content between plant- and animal-based foods become apparent. The results here uncover that the antioxidant content of foods varies several thousand-fold and that antioxidant rich foods originate from the plant kingdom while meat, fish and other foods from the animal kingdom are low in antioxidants. Comparing the mean value of the 'Meat and meat products' category with plant based categories, fruits, nuts, chocolate and berries have from 5 to 33 times higher mean antioxidant content than the mean of meat products. Diets comprised mainly of animal-based foods are thus low in antioxidant content while diets based mainly on a variety of plant-based foods are antioxidant rich, due to the thousands of bioactive antioxidant phytochemicals found in plants which are conserved in many foods and beverages.

Yes, but you're missing the point. Meat and animal products also provide other benefits, such as inhibiting glycation, etc. Obviously, vegetarians / vegans have higher plasma AGES (one, two). Surely many plants contain glycation inhibitors as well (ECGC for instance), but they don't appear to work as well as carnosine in the context of a meat containing diet. And context is important in an open system like the human body. The additional benefits of meat / animal products exist in addition to their antioxidant capabilities and may have a synergistic effect with plant borne compounds. Not to mention, just because a food has a high antioxidant status, it doesn't necessarily translate to superior endogenous antioxidant capability or reduction of disease (note the vegetables / fruit only modestly reduce cancer post). The Inuit, which consume an entirely meat based diet, have significantly lower rates of cancer than their Western contemporaries. Using your conventional wisdom, without the benefits of fruits and vegetables, one would assume this couldn't be possible. Furthermore, back to my original nutri-genomics post, some people cannot utilize beta-carotene (a supposedly potent antioxidant). Once can only speculate that this extends to other substances as well.

This is the point I am trying to make: Is a animal protein + vegetable / fruit diet superior to a vegetable protein + vegetable / fruit diet, if both diets contain equal calories and fruits / vegetables? Are we losing some synergy or creating micronutrient deficiencies when we remove meat? If we really want to know which diet is better un-supplemented, then these are the questions that need to be asked.

Edited by Skotkonung, 08 April 2010 - 09:17 AM.


#41 Application

  • Guest
  • 153 posts
  • 99
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 08 April 2010 - 09:42 AM

Yes, but you're missing the point. Meat and animal products also provide other benefits, such as inhibiting glycation, etc. Obviously, vegetarians / vegans have higher plasma AGES (one, two). Surely many plants contain glycation inhibitors as well (ECGC for instance), but they don't appear to work as well as carnosine in the context of a meat containing diet. And context is important in an open system like the human body. The additional benefits of meat / animal products exist in addition to their antioxidant capabilities and may have a synergistic effect with plant borne compounds. Not to mention, just because a food has a high antioxidant status, it doesn't necessarily translate to superior endogenous antioxidant capability or reduction of disease (note the vegetables / fruit only modestly reduce cancer post). The Inuit, which consume an entirely meat based diet, have significantly lower rates of cancer than their Western contemporaries. Using your conventional wisdom, without the benefits of fruits and vegetables, one would assume this couldn't be possible. Furthermore, back to my original nutri-genomics post, some people cannot utilize beta-carotene (a supposedly potent antioxidant). Once can only speculate that this extends to other substances as well.

This is the point I am trying to make: Is a animal protein + vegetable / fruit diet superior to a vegetable protein + vegetable / fruit diet, if both diets contain equal calories and fruits / vegetables? Are we losing some synergy or creating micronutrient deficiencies when we remove meat? If we really want to know which diet is better un-supplemented, then these are the questions that need to be asked.


I realize that you have brought up a number of issues. I was rather narrowly addressing your claim that vegans superior antioxidant status could be a confounding factor in possible improved outcomes. I was not arguing that antioxidant status is the key. Rather, if it proves important, its role would be causal rather than confounding. I think your overall question is valid and studies theorizing that lower taurine levels could be behind observed higher AGEs in vegans despite overall lover dietary consumption of AGEs could indicate a possible advantage to vegans supplementing with taurine.

Edited by Application, 08 April 2010 - 09:52 AM.


#42 oehaut

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 393 posts
  • 20
  • Location:Canada

Posted 08 April 2010 - 12:48 PM

This is the point I am trying to make: Is a animal protein + vegetable / fruit diet superior to a vegetable protein + vegetable / fruit diet, if both diets contain equal calories and fruits / vegetables? Are we losing some synergy or creating micronutrient deficiencies when we remove meat? If we really want to know which diet is better un-supplemented, then these are the questions that need to be asked.


Exactly this. But now, how are we gonna answer this? ;) There is never gonna have such study, and we are left with mechanecal speculation or prospective data that don't apply to our context. TO be fair, if we're base on this (epidemiology and in vitro), it would looks like vegan diet is superior to a diet containing meat.

As kismet said, it more or less looks to me like a bet right now.

#43 NDM

  • Guest
  • 343 posts
  • 7
  • Location:North America

Posted 08 April 2010 - 02:04 PM

When considering the case for/against meat, please remember this study...

Proc Biol Sci, 2003 Oct 22;270(1529):2147-50.

Oral creatine monohydrate supplementation improves brain performance: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial.

Rae C, Digney AL, McEwan SR, Bates TC.

Creatine supplementation is in widespread use to enhance sports-fitness performance, and has been trialled successfully in the treatment of neurological, neuromuscular and atherosclerotic disease. Creatine plays a pivotal role in brain energy homeostasis, being a temporal and spatial buffer for cytosolic and mitochondrial pools of the cellular energy currency, adenosine triphosphate and its regulator, adenosine diphosphate. In this work, we tested the hypothesis that oral creatine supplementation (5 g d(-1) for six weeks) would enhance intelligence test scores and working memory performance in 45 young adult, vegetarian subjects in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over design. Creatine supplementation had a significant positive effect (p < 0.0001) on both working memory (backward digit span) and intelligence (Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices), both tasks that require speed of processing. These findings underline a dynamic and significant role of brain energy capacity in influencing brain performance.

PMID: 14561278

Edited by NDM, 08 April 2010 - 02:06 PM.


#44 Skötkonung

  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 08 April 2010 - 05:21 PM

This is the point I am trying to make: Is a animal protein + vegetable / fruit diet superior to a vegetable protein + vegetable / fruit diet, if both diets contain equal calories and fruits / vegetables? Are we losing some synergy or creating micronutrient deficiencies when we remove meat? If we really want to know which diet is better un-supplemented, then these are the questions that need to be asked.


Exactly this. But now, how are we gonna answer this? ;) There is never gonna have such study, and we are left with mechanecal speculation or prospective data that don't apply to our context. TO be fair, if we're base on this (epidemiology and in vitro), it would looks like vegan diet is superior to a diet containing meat.

As kismet said, it more or less looks to me like a bet right now.

Definitively, I think we can make the supposition that an un-supplemented strict vegetarian, particularly vegan, diet will cause micro-nutrient deficiencies. Lack of B12 will cause homocystein to rise, lack of taurine and other similar compounds may cause excess glycation. I've seen some studies indicating zinc (and several other minerals), sufficient n3 PUFA, and iodine could be lacking [source]. Likely these problems are indicative of sub-optimal health.

So, I think we can conclude that an un-supplemented diet for vegan, and possibly vegetarian, is sub-optimal. Lacto-ovo vegetarian is probably not at risk.

However, once you start adding in supplements, you smooth over any nutritional deficiencies. It then becomes a question of whether meat is harmful. Maybe we should look for studies showing that meat within the context of a otherwise balanced, healthy diet is dangerous? My personal opinion is you won't see much difference between the two in terms of mortality / health statistics.

#45 James Cain

  • Guest, F@H
  • 229 posts
  • 57
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 20 May 2010 - 02:34 PM

Here are two papers I've had laying around the computer. It just goes to show that, unfortunately, variables such as these are difficult to account for and lead to unresolvable debates such as this one. Food for thought (yes, pun intended!). From my years of browsing the literature and experimenting with various diets I think a (lower carb) plant based diet with the inclusion of quality animal products is the way to go. While there is wiggle room, if one were to swing too far in either direction then any benefits of that extreme would be outweighed by low nutritional variety and deficiencies.


Methodological considerations for characterizing potential antioxidant actions of bioactive components in plant foods . [PMID: 12628499]
The study of free radicals and antioxidants in biology is producing medical revolution that promises a new age of health and disease management. From prevention of the oxidative reactions in foods, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics to the role of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in chronic degenerative diseases including cancer, autoimmune, inflammatory, cardiovascular and neurodegenerative (e.g. Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, Downs syndrome) and aging challenges continue to emerge from difficulties associated with methods used in evaluating antioxidant actions in vivo. Our interest presently is focused on development of neurodegeneration models based on the integrity of neuronal cells in the central nervous system and how they are protected by antioxidants when challenged by neurotoxins as well as Fenton chemistry models based on the profile of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) for the assessment of antioxidant actions in vivo. Use continues to be made of several in vitro analytical tools to characterise the antioxidant propensity of bioactive compounds in plant foods and supplements. For example, the oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC), ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP), total oxidant scavenging capacity (TOSC), the deoxyribose assay, assays involving oxidative DNA damage, assays involving reactive nitrogen intermediates (e.g. ONOO(-)), Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC) and the 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) assay. There is need to agree governance on in vitro antioxidant methods based on an understanding of the mechanisms involved. Because some of the assays are done in non-physiological pH values, it is impossible to extrapolate the results to physiological environment. The consensus of opinion is that a mix of these tools should be used in assessing the antioxidant activities in vitro. The proof of bio-efficacy must emanate from application of reliable in vivo models where markers of baseline oxidative damage are examined from the standpoint of how they are affected by changes in diet or by antioxidant supplements.

Interindividual differences in response to plant-based diets: implications for cancer risk. [PMID: 19297461]
Genetic differences in taste preference, food tolerance, and phytochemical absorption and metabolism all potentially influence the effect of plant-based diets on cancer risk. Diet is a mixture of carcinogens, mutagens, and protective agents, many of which are metabolized by biotransformation enzymes. Genetic polymorphisms that alter protein expression or enzyme function can modify risk. Genotypes associated with more favorable handling of carcinogens may be associated with less favorable handling of phytochemicals. For example, glutathione S-transferases detoxify polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and metabolize isothiocyanates, which are chemopreventive compounds in cruciferous vegetables. A polymorphism in the GSTM1 gene results in lack of GSTM1-1 protein. Pharmacokinetic studies suggest that lack of GSTM1 enzyme is associated with more rapid excretion of the isothiocyanate sulforaphane; therefore, individuals who have this genetic variation may derive less benefit from consuming cruciferous vegetables. Flavonoids are conjugated with glucuronide and sulfate and are excreted in urine and bile. Polymorphisms in UDP-glucuronosyltransferases and sulfotransferases may contribute to variability in phytochemical clearance and efficacy. Genetic polymorphisms in enzymes that metabolize phytochemicals may account in part for variation in disease risk and also have to be considered in the context of other aspects of human genetics, gut bacterial genetics, and environmental exposures.

#46 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 20 May 2010 - 06:03 PM

Definitively, I think we can make the supposition that an un-supplemented strict vegetarian, particularly vegan, diet will cause micro-nutrient deficiencies.



this is absolutely not true, there is -no- evidence that suggests that [ovo-lacto] vegetarian diets are lacking in any MN. comparing a vegetarian diet to a vegan diet is almost as far fetched as comparing a omnivorous diet to a vegetarian diet. vegan diets have significant risk of MN deficiency but [healthy] vegetarian diets do NOT.


So, I think we can conclude that an un-supplemented diet for vegan, and possibly vegetarian, is sub-optimal. Lacto-ovo vegetarian is probably not at risk.


using the blanket term vegetarian generally refers to ovo-lacto which are at -no- risk for mn deficiency.

#47 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 20 May 2010 - 07:11 PM

Considering the fact that 80% of a raw vegans diet is raw fruits and vegetables, I hardly see where the argument that even a vegan diet is nutrient deficient when properly executed. There are certain things that have to be supplemented (like B vitamins), but I think this goes without saying on any kind of vegetarian diet.

#48 tunt01

  • Guest
  • 2,308 posts
  • 414
  • Location:NW

Posted 20 May 2010 - 08:06 PM

idk. i get tons of b-vitamins from vegetables. it's really things like calcium, b12, zinc that i risk running short on.

#49 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 20 May 2010 - 08:26 PM

this is absolutely not true, there is -no- evidence that suggests that [ovo-lacto] vegetarian diets are lacking in any MN. comparing a vegetarian diet to a vegan diet is almost as far fetched as comparing a omnivorous diet to a vegetarian diet. vegan diets have significant risk of MN deficiency but [healthy] vegetarian diets do NOT.

Actually, I think there is, but it depends whether we talk about average intakes of vegetarians, deficient vs sub-optimal/marginal, what is a supplement? (fortified foods, targeted consumption of specific foods, extracts and isolates, etc), general or life extension "LE" vegetarian diets (which even if they're 'ovo-lacto' in many cases will contain max. 1 egg/d and mostly low fat dairy; to me that's a "usual" LE veg* diet), ad lib or CR, how we define 'micronutrient', other standards we want to apply, ...

It is probably safe to assume that the average vegetarian, whether of the 'junkfood' or 'healthy' diet variety, will suffer from a range of imbalances and modest deficiencies without using CRON-o-meter, just different ones compared to omnivorous diets.

One oft-mentioned issue: "Whereas vegetarian diets are generally rich in n-6 fatty acids, they may be marginal in n-3 fatty acids."

I suppose zinc and iron could be problematic, although, the ADA does not cite many specific or definitive studies. E.g. due to marginal intake, very high phytate and copper intake (LE vegetarian diets) or blood loss/menstruation, respectively.
Iodine may be tricky without planning (keep in mind: LE vegetarian diet - probably no added salt and iodine intake in veg* seafood may vary dramatically).

B12 can be marginal in a vegetarian or health-conscious ovo-lacto veg. diet: "The vitamin B-12 status of some vegetarians is less than adequate due to not regularly consuming reliable sources of vitamin B-12...Lacto-ovo-vegetarians can obtain adequate vitamin B-12 from dairy foods, eggs, or...fortified foods and supplements"

Calcium will be marginal in a vegetarian (non-ovo/lacto) diet unless you have a very well-designed eating plan.

Then there's the issue of semi-essential nutrients which I think most people were talking about when they mentioned "micronutrient deficiencies", potential candidates include e.g. carnitine, carnosine, creatine, taurine, choline and a few others.

All those (potential!) problems and shortcomings are causally linked with any type of high plant food diet (not just veg* diets of any kind).

(The few quotes are from: Position of the American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian Diets. 2010)

Edited by kismet, 20 May 2010 - 08:45 PM.


#50 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 20 May 2010 - 09:21 PM

1-There is no such thing as an 'average' vegetarian. Which is part of the problem here. I am trying to eliminate the junk foodetarian model from this discussion because that is where people are getting their preposterous notions about vegetetarian diets and lack of nutrient assimilation.

2-If you eat 80% raw fruits and vegetables, supplement with a well rounded vitamin/nutrient mix like orthocore and get a decent amount of healthy macronutrients you will be just dandy on a vegetarian or even vegan diet.

The reason I am doing an aqua-vegetarian diet at this time (including some seafood) is because I simply cannot afford the exotic protein sources of a full fledged vegan diet. In order to sustain me on a vegan diet I would have to spend an extra 80$ a month on protein supplements alone. These sources ARE there and as soon as I can afford them I will opt for a raw food vegan diet fully. Right now my diet is pretty close to a raw food diet with shrimp, some salmon and eggs added for protein, just because it makes no sense for me to work out as much as I do and as hard as I do without building something from it.

#51 hypnotoad

  • Guest
  • 125 posts
  • 15

Posted 20 May 2010 - 10:33 PM

Seems to me, based on hunter gatherer evidence I've read in various places, that human can live healthy robust lives free of western degenerative problems on widely divergent meat-to-plant macro nutrient ratios. Plants vs animals is not the problem, natural vs processed/refined is the key issue.

You can be healthy eating 90% plants and 10% meat or 90% meat and 10% plants.. It's my own personal opinion that going 100% either way is often problematic, and that the further extreme you go in either direction, the more meticulous you have to be to get the correct required nutrients in sufficient quantities.

For example, simply referring to the Inuit as proof you can be a pure carnivore is misleading because they were not eating modern crappy meat sources, rather they ate several sources of wild meat and fish including bone marrow, livers, hearts, and other organs. Living off wimpy corn-fed hamburger and factory-farmed chicken is a far cry from the Innuit or Masi and thus including veggies, fish oils etc is wise.

Conversely, going pure vegan means you must pay meticulous detail to what sources of fat/cholesterol-producing items you are getting as well as enough foods to be getting adequate complete protein and other assorted vitamins normally hard to find in most plants.

So I think both sides CAN be healthy so long as they do it right - that means avoid processed, refined carbs and sugar and processed vegetable oils etc. The most rational approach to me is to not get all fundamentalist with a diet in either direction and ensure a 100 percent inclusion of everything you need by having both, although just how much of each source is up to your personal preferences. The problem is that a lot of people don't pay close enough attention to the details, and going heavy vegan/carnivore without knowing all the problem areas is a recipe for malnutrition.

"Raw" vegans and paleo-eaters at least have something in common insomuch as they try to avoid processed and refined sugars and include a lot of veggies and fruits which is good. I think a heavy bread/pasta/vegetable oil eating vegetarian is actually less likely to be healthy (despite eating more type of foods) than a meticulous and careful raw vegan. Vegan or meat-heavy Paleo alone gives you a huge advantage over the standard american diet of cokes, candy, french fries, fried chicken, pizza etc.

So I don't think there has to be an "us vs them" rivalry. I think we should both spend less time arguing with each other and more time gently working towards educating others (ie. interested friends and family) as to why modern processed refined crap is so harmful.

Edited by hypnotoad, 20 May 2010 - 10:40 PM.


#52 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 20 May 2010 - 10:42 PM

Well I think we can also mix and match diets. My problem is not with people choosing to eat meat, it is with them saying that meat consumption is the only possible avenue to a healthy life and in the same breath ridicule vegetarians as being misguided when in fact all the evidence shows properly executed vegetarian diets as being superior to any other. I will agree that paleo is the healthiest ANIMAL BASED diet available. But I still think animal based diets are very much pro-aging based on DHT, IGF-1 and other variables/studies i've dabbled in.

#53 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 20 May 2010 - 11:08 PM

It is probably safe to assume that the average vegetarian, whether of the 'junkfood' or 'healthy' diet variety, will suffer from a range of imbalances and modest deficiencies without using CRON-o-meter, just different ones compared to omnivorous diets.



yea, thats the key... that nearly EVERYONE is going to be lacking certain MN if their diet isnt studied and somewhat planned out, vegetarian or not. When i talk about diets being adequate or not, as they relate to the type of people who frequent these forums, i'm talking about a researched, strategic diet that doesnt take huge amounts of effort to adhere to... not the SAD style eating, be it vegetarian or not. No one is going to be able to eat as they please and hit 100% RDA on everything, vegetarian or not.

having to plan in sources of zn, b12 etc does not somehow make the vegetarian diet intrinsically lacking... no more than having to plan in sources of mn, mg & cu would make a omnivorous diet somehow intrinsically lacking. i'm a vegetarian & personally have never had any problem hitting 100% every day, even with a fairly diverse diet.

i do not, however, think that unsupplemented vegan diets are healthy.

the question of whether or not to be a vegetarian is PURELY ethical imo... its kind of pointless to argue for or against it based simply on health reasons, because in truth, both vegetarian and omnivorous diets can be perfectly healthy.



The reason I am doing an aqua-vegetarian diet at this time (including some seafood) is because I simply cannot afford the exotic protein sources of a full fledged vegan diet.


consuming animal flesh in any form excludes your from being a vegetarian. aqua-vegetarian or pescetarian are misnomers.... there is no such thing. consuming flesh, in any form, makes you an omnivore.

Edited by ajnast4r, 20 May 2010 - 11:11 PM.


#54 hypnotoad

  • Guest
  • 125 posts
  • 15

Posted 20 May 2010 - 11:29 PM

consuming animal flesh in any form excludes your from being a vegetarian. aqua-vegetarian or pescetarian are misnomers.... there is no such thing. consuming flesh, in any form, makes you an omnivore.



But those terms do give and indication of a person's overall approach or general eating habits.

FYI I think the term "paleo" is very broad when you take into account that Innuit and the Kitavans are both "paleo" Perhaps something like "Carno-Paleo" or "Vege-Paleo" needs to come into use to denote if you a meat-heavy paleo eater or a veggie/fruit focused paleo eater, the assumed caveat is that both terms are assumed to refer to omnivorous diets that include different ratios of meats to plants but both eschew refined sugars, wheat/grains, processed oils etc.

Edited by hypnotoad, 20 May 2010 - 11:34 PM.


#55 Forever21

  • Guest
  • 1,918 posts
  • 122

Posted 21 May 2010 - 02:43 AM

Beautiful thread.

For those who posted "evidence-based" materials, what would you say the best way of eating look like (including supplementation)?


Edited by Forever21, 21 May 2010 - 03:26 AM.


#56 Forever21

  • Guest
  • 1,918 posts
  • 122

Posted 21 May 2010 - 03:16 AM

Yeah, I admit everything I wrote on this thread is uninformed politically-motivated subjective bunk.

Good job calling me on it.


Debunked. Next!

You might reconsider green tea. Evidence in its favor is substantial. Just drink more water or find a decaffeinated brand if you are concerned about the diuretic effects.


I think he's Mormon.

I've tried convincing Mormon friends for years that tea is not devil's food. I gave up a long time ago.

#57 Kristjan

  • Guest
  • 48 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Reykjavík

Posted 21 May 2010 - 07:05 AM

What the hell? A vegetarian that eats dairy, eggs and fish?

Why not just call yourself a non-meat eater? That seems more accurate to me.

Calling yourself a vegetarian, while eating fish and eggs is extremely hypocritical in my opinion.

#58 Forever21

  • Guest
  • 1,918 posts
  • 122

Posted 21 May 2010 - 07:59 AM

What the hell? A vegetarian that eats dairy, eggs and fish?

Why not just call yourself a non-meat eater? That seems more accurate to me.

Calling yourself a vegetarian, while eating fish and eggs is extremely hypocritical in my opinion.



I'm a virgin and love sex too.

#59 Skötkonung

  • Guest
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 21 May 2010 - 08:07 AM

While I love the low-carb paleo style diet, I wouldn't prescribe it to my 60-something parents.

I think a diet with a lot of wild caught fish, lots of leafy greens, naturally occurring animal and plant fats, some nuts, low-sugar fruit and berries, and nutrient rich tubers is probably ideal. Throw in some raw dairy / artisan cheese for good measure.

That's the route I've been pushing my parents. I've got them switch out white potato for sweet potatoes, some canola oil based spread for organic pastured butter, and to ditch the sodium and preservative laden processed meats. No more bread at dinner and to do a steak salad for lunch. One step at a time I guess. It has already done wonders for my mothers lipid profile.

Edited by Skötkonung, 21 May 2010 - 08:09 AM.


#60 Kristjan

  • Guest
  • 48 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Reykjavík

Posted 21 May 2010 - 08:22 AM

While I love the low-carb paleo style diet, I wouldn't prescribe it to my 60-something parents.

I think a diet with a lot of wild caught fish, lots of leafy greens, naturally occurring animal and plant fats, some nuts, low-sugar fruit and berries, and nutrient rich tubers is probably ideal. Throw in some raw dairy / artisan cheese for good measure.

That's the route I've been pushing my parents. I've got them switch out white potato for sweet potatoes, some canola oil based spread for organic pastured butter, and to ditch the sodium and preservative laden processed meats. No more bread at dinner and to do a steak salad for lunch. One step at a time I guess. It has already done wonders for my mothers lipid profile.


I switched my family to a paleo diet a few months ago.

They still eat a bit more dairy and fruit than I would think optimal, but still my siblings both lost 5-6 kilos and they're 11-12 years old and weren't severely overweight to begin with. They've been eating quite a lot also, not restricting calories in any way.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users