JGL53

Hey now, don't lose your shit, Patrick. You're missing the point, i.e., that one shouldn't view ANY single study, no matter how long term or how supposedly conrolled, as some god-like 'end of debate' proof.

Even such an elaborate study as you cited can be flawed in ways that may not readily come to mind.

Your point would be proven best if, as suggested, a long term study were also done now comparing the Atkins diet or the hunter/gatherer/scavenger diet to a 'vegetarian' one. THAT might tell us something useful.

I've put 'vegetarian' and 'meat eater' in quotes, because most vegetarians, so called , are far from what we now call 'vegans' -which, to me, should logically refer to intelligent beings from the star system Vega .

So how many eggs, and how much cheese, milk, and other dairy products did the average 'vegetarian' in your cited study consume weekly for all those years. Those who conducted this survey didn't think that relevant?

The 'meat eaters', both those who eat meat several times a week and those who eat it less often, MAY have been eating a lot at fast food emporiums, consuming 'freedom' fries and other products containing excess trans fats, and/or otherwise were eating a low-fiber diet. The 'vegetarians' in the study may have just eaten healthier in general than the 'meat eaters' - that in itself could be an explanation. Did the researchers control or adjust their stats regarding questions like THAT?

What other controls or adjustment should they have had that they didn't? This is why several such studies are needed to have any confidence in alleged 'results'.

Plus, I also ask - there was a health advantage found in only ONE area? Just ONE area? I thought vegetarianism was supposed to be SO much superior to an omniverous diet. E.g., why didn't all those fruits and vegetables prevent any type of cancers? Common knowlege, backed up by government 'recommendatons', says they should have. So much for common knowledge and government recommendations, I'd say.

ps418

If you read what I wrote carefully, you'll see that I'm not missing the point at all. My point had absolutely nothing to do with the Atkins diet, or about low-carb diets generally, or about the merits or vegetarianism. My point was solely about whether the available evidence suggests that mortality rates really are greater in vegetarians than in nonvegetarian, as Nuno's source suggested. Nothing more, nothing less. And if you search the nutrition journals, you'll see that the evidence clearly does not support a higher mortality rate in vegetarians.

Patrick

Nuno Figueira

No it doesn't, but picking on a vegetarian is always fun.....Just kidding.

JGL53

((Maybe you should just 'hate the vegetarianism, but love the vegetarian." .... Also just kidding.))

I think the way 'vegetarian' is commonly used is irrational. E.g., I eat a lot of vegetables every day. How come I'm not a vegetarian?

Oh, I'm disqualified because I also eat meat? Then it's not that 'vegetarians' eat vegetables, it's that they don't eat meat. Then why don't they call themselves what they REALLY are:
non-meatatarians.

But if the word 'vegetarian' doesn't mean someone who eats vegetables in addition to other foods, shouldn't it mean someone who eats ONLY vegetables? But ninety per cent or more of so-called 'vegetarians' also eat dairy, and/or eggs. These are animal protein sources, though not meat. So again, they are not people who ONLY eat vegetables (or food from plants), they are just avoiding meat. Again, the accurate name for such people would be something like non-meatatarians or anti-meatatarians or ameatatarians. In other words, it's not what they eat, it's what they DON'T eat that distinguishes them from the norm (sorta kinda analogous to atheism).

A new word, vegan, had to be created to distinguish ACTUAL vegetarians from the fake kind, since the latter had co-oped the word.

((This is all about as rational as the so-called pro-choice vs. pro-life abortion debate. Who's not for choice AND life? What we are really taking about is pro legal abortion vs. anti legal abortion.

Or, a similar situation is how should we rationally refer to those who are descendents of the first people to migrate to and inhabit the Americas, i.e, those who came over via the Bering Straight. They aren't Indians, that's for sure. This isn't India. They are native Americans, but so is everyone, regardless of ancestry, who is born in America (e.g., I'm of Scotch/Irish/English ancestry, but I am a native American. I was born here.). The accurate name for those we used to call "Indians" would be American Aborigines. Aborigine, not 'native', means "first".))

Tara

As far as semantics, I follow your logic, but first of all 'vegetarian' does mean someone who eats vegetables along with other foods, at least in today's usage... (well, duh)
veg·e·tar·i·an·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vj-târ--nzm)
n.
The practice of subsisting on a diet composed primarily or wholly of vegetables, grains, fruits, nuts, and seeds, with or without eggs and dairy products. (dictionary.com)

... but more-so I wonder why you bother to object to a word, just a set of letters, being arbitrarily assigned a meaning. That is what our English language is after all, just symbols designated meanings. Granted, we tend to build longer sequences of letters comprised of shorter ones with the objective of these shorter sets still representing the same idea.
Because we decided to make "vegetarian" mean "non-meatatarian"... We do it all the time!

And, oops, I believe we're both digressing on this thread...

Tara

Oh, on the also off-topic subject of "bodybuilding", I've been puzzling over how bodybuilders rationalize their pursuit of a physique, which as I understand, is not really in any way functional apart from the act of lifting weights.... Of course, to a point, an increase in lean body mass and a reduction of fat has health benefits. But to go to extremes for the sake of appearance?

It seems a curious past time to me, assuming it goes beyond a point of fitness, to an aesthetic endeavor. At least the objective of running is to be able to run more easily/faster, while it seems the objective of bodybuilding isn't really to be able to lift heavy weights, but just to achieve a desired appearance.

I'm afraid bodybuilding could be mistaken as an activity with rather shallow motivation but, as always, feel free to explain to me otherwise

Godot

Bodyduilding is merely the taking of weightlifting to the nth degree. It's about wanting to be the freakiest you possibly can get. The biggest problem with bodybuilding is that it goes to the nth degree. In terms of health outcomes, I know of nothing in the literature regarding morbidity and mortality rates of bodybuilders, but I would surmise that they are higher when compared to a normal population. It's purely anecdotal, but I have seen some of the attitudes and behaviours exhibited by bodybuilders (hell, nearly any athlete in any discipline for that matter) and most of them scare the hell out of me. The shit they pull to cut weight should be criminal. But I'm digressing further...
As far as motivation goes, bodybuilding certainly is not shallow. The work and dedication required to do that sort of thing is phenomenal; you just cannot reach that pinnacle without the right sort of motivation. As far as shallow and peurile activities, I'd be willing to agree that people that commence bodybuilding/weightlifting simply for the aesthetic benefit fit the bill. The professionals are at a nother level from that type.
To turn it around to your area, Tara, what is your opinion regarding a punter who is out on the track/road because they want to lose the spare tire? Would you say that wualifies as shallow motivation?

Nuno Figueira

Well, the main "problem" is that nowadays, all bodybuilding is conotated with the freaky drug abusing 250 pounds with 4% bodyfat monsters that people see in those damned bodybuilding mags. I find it astonishing that more of them aren't droping dead. A lot of them have to be hormonal replacement theraphy for life due to their HPT axis shutting down as a consequence of constant steroid abuse, develop insulin dependent diabetes due to long term insulin abuse and get addicted to painkillers due to the pain resulting from their muscles surpassing the connective tissues hability to support the heavy loads they lift. Not to mention diuretics, which are probably the most dangerous drugs they use.

Natural bodybuilding, on the other hand, is a very healthy activity, altough I guess you could say that the pursuit of a better looking body is a rather vain and shallow one. We do spend a considerable amount of time looking in to mirrors and sometimes become a bit obsessed with our bodies, sometimes to the point of suffering from muscular dysmorphia.


About the funcionality aspect of it, though I don't think it's important at all as the health benefits alone justify lifting weights, it has it's advantages. I mean, what's the advantage of being able to run for two hours if you can't lift a car that got stuck in the sand? I once had to do this with a couple of friends and I'm sure that if I wasn't used to lifting 170 kg from the ground it would be a considerable harder task. Anyway, even from an evolutionary perpective we are probably more suited to anaerobic activities than to to long duration high impact activities like jogging that are quite stressfull on the joints. I mean do you imagine our cave man ancestours running around in a pointless manner when half the time they were hard pressed to get enough calories to mantain their bodyweight? No, they would probably be forced to sprint like crazy to run from or even chase animals, climb trees, lift heavy things....But I digress, I just can't resist this evolutionary reasoning, wonder why....

JGL53

However, I once saw a documentary on something like the National Geographic channel about a tribe in Africa who were extremely ectomorphic. One of their main sources of meat was hunting antelope using arrows tipped with a slow-acting poison. After shooting one, they sometimes had to jog after him for twenty miles or more before the poison caused a collapse. They then would just cut off the hind legs (about 75 lbs), sling them over their shoulders, and jog back home - all in 110 F degrees accross rather rough terrain!

These dudes might not do so well in Olympic power-lifting, but I bet they'd do well in the marathon or the steeple-chase, after a short peroid of training. (No wonder a disproportionate per cent of world-class distance runners are from Kenya and Ethiopia).

johngalt

The main argument that comes up in my mind is that the Atkins' Diet isn't healthy. If people would just balance their diet, they wouldn't be so fat. The other problem that comes up is what happens when the person on this diet stops and goes back to what they were doing? They will gain the weight back and be right at step 1 again.