Meatless Mondays: A Healthier You, a Healthier Planet

[Rik de Kort]

I liked the part where you wrote 'POLAR BEARS' rather than 'polar bears'.

[Larry Roseman]

If there is a high degree of correlation between meat/dairy consumption and chronic illnesses, it's not fair to pick out "sources" as a confound unless there is a cause-effect relationship between things like antibiotics and the pesticides used upon heart-disease. Is there? I don't know but have not heard of this. Nor can one say that the omega-3/6 ratio is the problem without looking at that ratio within the population measured. Most likely, if from China, fish or other seafood was eaten to some degree. We're still waiting for the results of several large studies to test whether omega 3 actually improves outcomes.

Whether eating organic grassfed beef would have improved their ratio (and if that would have mattered signficently) is speculative. Grass fed meat would though probably have less marbled fat and consumer's total fat intake would have been lower (although fat alone is not a direct cause of heart disease). However, I'm not even sure that the meat wasn't grass fed given it was in China (?). Activity levels also matter, and we do know that with westernization, activity levels drop and stress goes up. Populations studies are a bit like reading tea leaves.

Looking at that herbivore/carnivore breakdown makes me wonder though. Even if we are closer to carnivore in our digestive tract length per Josh's calculation, what about the other factors like claws, lapping and panting? I do agree we're a blend looking at our teeth and other digestive capabilities.

Anyway,. I'm happy skipping meat for a day a week at least. That's all meatless Monday's is asking ... to give it a try. It's not saying meat is evil or is going to kill you, just that there are alternatives that can also be explored and enjoyed, and that we don't have to neglect them. Adding more vegetables is also important although I found that I wanted that complete short break from meat - and when I came back to it enjoyed it even more.

[Rik de Kort]

If there is a high degree of correlation between meat/dairy consumption and chronic illnesses, it's not fair to pick out "sources" as a confound unless there is a cause-effect relationship between things like antibiotics and the pesticides used upon heart-disease.

This is bad logic. You are willing to accept correlation for meat/diary consumption and chronic illness, but require causation between bad sourcing and illness. Furthermore, if there a high amount of the consumed meat/diary is of low-quality, then it's entirely fair to pick out 'sources' as a confound.

[Philip Chubb]

If there is a high degree of correlation between meat/dairy consumption and chronic illnesses, it's not fair to pick out "sources" as a confound unless there is a cause-effect relationship between things like antibiotics and the pesticides used upon heart-disease. Is there? I don't know but have not heard of this. Nor can one say that the omega-3/6 ratio is the problem without looking at that ratio within the population measured. Most likely, if from China, fish or other seafood was eaten to some degree. We're still waiting for the results of several large studies to test whether omega 3 actually improves outcomes.

Whether eating organic grassfed beef would have improved their ratio (and if that would have mattered signficently) is speculative. Grass fed meat would though probably have less marbled fat and consumer's total fat intake would have been lower (although fat alone is not a direct cause of heart disease). However, I'm not even sure that the meat wasn't grass fed given it was in China (?). Activity levels also matter, and we do know that with westernization, activity levels drop and stress goes up. Populations studies are a bit like reading tea leaves.

How is this unfair? Seems logical to me. We add hormones and antibiotics to meat and it produces a less healthy food. We feed an animal it's natural diet and it is better. Science is grea but not when it is preventing you from seeing something obvious. If you don't believe it, then be your own study and try both for a few months and then get your blood tested and compare.

[WitnessTheFitness]

Did these studies note the difference between grass fed meat and concentration camp meat?

Deficiencies? Try basic omega-3s. Yes I know about ALA and I also know about how small the conversion rate is. Especially ALA to DHA.

It's not the insane consumption rate that is the issue. It is the type.

According to "The China Study," what is causing the diseases and illnesses is the fundamental biochemical nature of animal protein itself, and the related saturated fat and cholesterol content. A grass-fed cow is still going to be overflowing with cholesterol and saturated fat, and of course the fact that it's animal protein isn't going to change. To give an example of how animal protein itself is the issue, I'll bring up osteoporosis again: High consumption of animal proteins is linked to osteoporosis because animal proteins have a high concentration of amino acids that contain sulfur, which when metabolized produce acid-generating metabolites. In other words, eating animal protein makes your blood acidic. To neutralize the acidity, the body has to use buffers, and in this process calcium is leeched out of the bones, and then secreted through urine. Which is why despite having the world's highest consumption of dairy, so much dairy we get multiple times our Daily Value of calcium, if you walk into a drug store in America you'll see entire shelves of calcium supplements.

I was going to summarize why animal proteins itself is the issue, and talk about things like how they were able to turn on and off cancer development in mice simply by changing the level of casein (milk protein) in their diet, but there is just way too much information to condense into a forum post. If you're interested in the all the details of their studies, just give the book "The China Study" a look. If you sail the pirate flag, you can have it downloaded in less than a minute. I am not a world renowned biochemist, so I'll leave the explanations to the author.

About omega 3: My only concern is getting too much omega 3, since I love the plant foods that have so much of it. Flax, chia, and hemp seeds and oils are all such awesome sources. Whether ALA or DHA is best nutritionally is kinda' a silly competition to me, as both have benefits, and it really depends on what particular study you look at. A study by Harvard of over 50,000 people found that ALA helped against depression, whereas fish oil didn't, for example. But there's really no conclusions on any side of the fence.

But if DHA is your thing, there is always algea-based DHA, in the form of algea oils. After all, how do the fish get the omega 3 into their bodies in the first place? Algea. How do cows and other mammals that we eat get omega 3 into their body? Plants! So vegs just skip the middleman and go straight to the source. Doesn't make sense to me to get omega 3 from animals that got it from plants and then processed it for their own bodies, rather than just getting it from the plants directly.

[Philip Chubb]

The cholesterol and saturated fat myth has been proved incorrect at best several times. Our ancestors would have diet from such diseases long ago if those were the issues. We should be past such myths by now. But for some reason, sadly still aren't.

That study is fairly useless for a number of reasons. More than will fit in one topic. There are other studies that prove otherwise.

Animals use ALA because try have the enzymes to convert it. Humans don't have near as much. So algae and flax and chia are subpar sources unless you are part fish or a cow. You won't be getting optimal amounts.

Edit: Forgot to respond to the part about acidity. Anybody who knows what they're talking about in terms of nutrition will tell you that the more meat you eat, the more vegetables and fiber you need to go along with it. The vegetation alkalines the body and reduces the whole osteoperosis issue.

[Joshua Naterman]

Alex, I would say that the vegetation completely eliminates and helps prevent the osteoporosis issue. Mineral density, which you really only get from plant matter and bone sauces like traditional sweet and sour, is always lacking in the common western diet.

[Joshua Naterman]

Aurele, I would like to focus for a second on your concern about meat overflowing with cholesterol:

Does anyone here have ANY idea what the percentages of total cholesterol in our system are from food and from endogenous production? Anyone?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/databriefs/calories.pdf

a 150 lb man produces about 1 gram per day according to this. 1000 mg.

1 pound of 20% fat ground beef, after cooking in a pan, is going to have around 266 mg of cholesterol. 278 if you bake it.

Obviously 2 lbs has twice as much, but it's still 34.7% of total, and that's a lot of meat.

Grass fed beef seems to be a bit lower in cholesterol, due to its lower fat content. Apparently 30-50-ish% lower than the cheapo beef, along with a vastly improved omega 6:3 ratio. from 8-12:1 down to 1.5-2:1.

Assuming 30% less we'd have 27% of total cholesterol coming from the diet if 2 lbs of meat are eaten by a 150 lb man, which would be obscenely excessive from an absorption and utilization standpoint.

So, I will definitely concede that with concerted effort it might be possible to do real harm to yourself, but consider this:

1) Fiber in the diet binds fat and cholesterol. If we are eating what we are supposed to, we are NOT going to absorb all of that stuff. Not even close. Eating the amount of veggies you're suppose to, and eating them with your meat, is going to protect you.

2) We know we need dietary cholesterol, it helps with hormone production and all available medical data that I am aware of suggests that dietary cholesterol is not an issue.

As further proof of 2, though proof is a strong word, I submit this fact: Cholesterol-lowering drugs do not limit the absorption of dietary cholesterol. They limit the body's production. For many people, dropping fats doesn't fix their cholesterol. To be honest, I am very sure that the majority those people have really bad refined food habits and are suffering from the effects of repeated large carbohydrate infusions beyond what the body needs in the moment. We know that this impacts cholesterol levels negatively, largely through the enormous surplus of palmitic acid this generates (which in turn acts to raise LDL cholesterol).

Diet is definitely the way to change your cholesterol problems, unless you're one of the few genetic anomalies out there who are honestly a little bit screwed, but the answer isn't less dietary cholesterol. It's not enough to really matter one way or the other. The answer is to drop refined foods, add in veggies, and eat whatever meat sources are your favorite if you like (so long as you don't go to excess, because that's just wasteful and stupid).

Again, have yet to read the china study but I'm going to! I love this stuff, and I thank you again for bringing this all up! I need to read more about the casein and mice as well, Coach mentioned this to me a while back and it got lost in the mess of things I had going on!

So far this has been one of the best discussions we've had in the nutrition forum!

[Stefan Hinote]

Another thing to consider is LDL and HDL numbers alone only paint part of the picture. Tests such as the VAP show the particle density size, and that is very important--though unfortunately often overlooked.

Personally I could care less if my LDL is a bit high if it's primarily large buoyant particles, and not small dense particles.

[WitnessTheFitness]

The cholesterol and saturated fat myth has been proved incorrect at best several times. Our ancestors would have diet from such diseases long ago if those were the issues. We should be past such myths by now. But for some reason, sadly still aren't.

I'm not understanding the bit about ancestors. Why would you think heart disease didn't affect previous time periods? Which studies are you talking about that prove cholesterol and saturated fats' role in heart disease to be a myth? The following organizations all regard cholesterol and saturated fat as having pivotal roles in heart disease:

The American Heart Association

Mayo Clinic

Center for Disease Control and Prevention

World Health Organization

Just do a search in the U.S. National Library of Medicine for "saturated fat heart disease" or "cholesterol heart disease" and hundreds of studies will pop up. Just taking a look at random ones in the first few pages, all showed a connection. Now, I don't disbelieve you that there are studies saying the opposite, but there's always studies contradicting studies, which is why we have organizations and researchers who do overviews of all the available literature to deem what is the most reliable information. And all of them that I'm aware of have indicated cholesterol and saturated fat intake are key in heart disease.

Animals use ALA because try have the enzymes to convert it. Humans don't have near as much. So algae and flax and chia are subpar sources unless you are part fish or a cow. You won't be getting optimal amounts.

What are optimal amounts, though, and what effects do these optimal amounts have versus lower quantities? There is no clear consensus for omega 3s. After all, if DHA reigns supreme then why did Harvard's study find that ALA reduced depression and DHA have no effect? There's just too many conflicting studies on the different types.

BUT, it doesn't really matter which one is better, since the reason you brought it up was just to say that vegetarian diets are deficient in omega 3. Since there are 8 different brands of vegan DHA, EPA, and STA supplements out there, this simply is untrue. Even if you're not into ALA, you can still get all the DHA and EPA you would from fish consumption on a veg diet

Josh, I keep wanting to respond to your replies, but there's so much to reply to I haven't had the time yet. Will definitely get back to you in the next few days, but like I said I am no nutritional biochemist so doubtful I can really engage in the topic in much depth. I think you'll find "The China Study," pretty interesting. The research and experiences by Caldwell Esselstyn are fascinating too; he's the physician that got Bill Clinton to go vegan after his quadruple bypass surgery.

[Philip Chubb]

I'm not understanding the bit about ancestors. Why would you think heart disease didn't affect previous time periods? Which studies are you talking about that prove cholesterol and saturated fats' role in heart disease to be a myth? The following organizations all regard cholesterol and saturated fat as having pivotal roles in heart disease:

The American Heart Association

Mayo Clinic

Center for Disease Control and Prevention

World Health Organization

Just do a search in the U.S. National Library of Medicine for "saturated fat heart disease" or "cholesterol heart disease" and hundreds of studies will pop up. Just taking a look at random ones in the first few pages, all showed a connection. Now, I don't disbelieve you that there are studies saying the opposite, but there's always studies contradicting studies, which is why we have organizations and researchers who do overviews of all the available literature to deem what is the most reliable information. And all of them that I'm aware of have indicated cholesterol and saturated fat intake are key in heart disease.

What are optimal amounts, though, and what effects do these optimal amounts have versus lower quantities? There is no clear consensus for omega 3s. After all, if DHA reigns supreme then why did Harvard's study find that ALA reduced depression and DHA have no effect? There's just too many conflicting studies on the different types.

BUT, it doesn't really matter which one is better, since the reason you brought it up was just to say that vegetarian diets are deficient in omega 3. Since there are 8 different brands of vegan DHA, EPA, and STA supplements out there, this simply is untrue. Even if you're not into ALA, you can still get all the DHA and EPA you would from fish consumption on a veg diet

Read what Joshua just posted about dietary cholesterol. Now something interesting is that the science/medical community are extremely slow to change anything that seems radical. So even when studies come out that do not show connections to cholesterol and heart disease, they will try not to publish them or disprove them. They are so stuck on the fact that it does. There is a book called "The Great Cholesterol Myth". You may find that interesting.

I am saying that if it is from ALA, you won't be able to convert enough of it. Is it better than nothing? Sure. Is it the best stuff? No.

[Stefan Hinote]

Here's a few snippets from some studies. Sorry for not having links to the full studies as I'm just copying this from an email between myself, and my professor.

In the “Corn Oil in Treatment of Ischaemic Heart Disease" study by Rose et al. (1965) it was shown that saturated fat replaced with polyunsaturated fat in diets for two years lowered cholesterol levels by 23 mg/dl, but increased the risk of cardiac mortality by three hundred percent.

In the “Diet-heart" study by Blacket et al. (1978) where animal fat was replaced by vegetable oil for five years, cholesterol dropped five percent, but total mortality increased by fifty percent.

In the “Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease†study by Krauss et all 2012:

During 5–23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke.

Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD.

In the “Atherosclerosis and Lipoproteins: Changes in Dietary Fat Intake Alter Plasma Levels of Oxidized Low-Density Lipoprotein and Lipoprotein(a)†study by Silaste M et al (2004):

The lipoprotein marker Lp(a) which has been long used as an indicator for an increased risk for CVD was increased by 7-9% in 37 healthy women by reducing their saturated fat intake from 36% total calories to 31%.

In the “Low-Density Lipoprotein Subclass Patterns and Risk of Myocardia Infarction†study by Austin et al. (1988):

The LDL subclass pattern characterized by a preponderance of small, dense LDL particles was significantly associated with a threefold increased risk of myocardial infarction, independent of age, ***, and relative weight. Plasma levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol were decreased, and levels of triglyceride, very low—density lipoproteins, and intermediate-density lipoproteins were increased in subjects with this LDL subclass pattern. Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that both high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride levels contributed to the risk associated with the small, dense LDL subclass pattern.

Small dense LDL particles are three times more likely to cause a heart attack than their counterparts. In the “Low-density lipoprotein subclass patterns and lipoprotein response to a reduced-fat diet in men†study by Dreon et al (1994):

There were two groups known as: Pattern A & Pattern B. Pattern A consisted of: low levels of small dense LDL, high levels of normal particle sized LDL, and high HDL levels. Pattern B consisted of: high levels of small dense LDL, and low levels of HDL. Pattern B was associated with increased risk of heart disease, and pattern A was not. When saturated fat was replaced with carbohydrates, so the pattern shifted from A to B. Subjects who ate the most saturated fat also had the largest particle size LDL.

In the “Dietary and anthropometric determinants of plasma lipoproteins during a long-term low-fat diet in healthy women†study by Boomer et al (1993):

the largest HDL particles: HDL2b provided the greatest effect against heart disease, and low-fat-high-carb diets decreased HDL2b levels.

[jl5555]

Hi Josh,

Are you writing a book on nutrition? I think you've hinted at it in the past, but after reading your posts today, I really think you've refined your writing and presentation style into something very potent and understandable for the average layman.

Write a book? What century is this? One may write a book but only in conjunction with creating a whole "system" of website, forums, food, cooking utensils, TV shows, podcasts, webinars, and of course in-person seminars with the guru himself at $1,000 a pop. Is slizzardbodies.com taken yet?

[Larry Roseman]

Here's a few snippets from some studies. Sorry for not having links to the full studies as I'm just copying this from an email between myself, and my professor.

In the “Corn Oil in Treatment of Ischaemic Heart Disease" study by Rose et al. (1965) it was shown that saturated fat replaced with polyunsaturated fat in diets for two years lowered cholesterol levels by 23 mg/dl, but increased the risk of cardiac mortality by three hundred percent.

In the “Diet-heart" study by Blacket et al. (1978) where animal fat was replaced by vegetable oil for five years, cholesterol dropped five percent, but total mortality increased by fifty percent.

In the “Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease†study by Krauss et all 2012:

During 5–23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke.

Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD.

In the “Atherosclerosis and Lipoproteins: Changes in Dietary Fat Intake Alter Plasma Levels of Oxidized Low-Density Lipoprotein and Lipoprotein(a)†study by Silaste M et al (2004):

The lipoprotein marker Lp(a) which has been long used as an indicator for an increased risk for CVD was increased by 7-9% in 37 healthy women by reducing their saturated fat intake from 36% total calories to 31%.

In the “Low-Density Lipoprotein Subclass Patterns and Risk of Myocardia Infarction†study by Austin et al. (1988):

The LDL subclass pattern characterized by a preponderance of small, dense LDL particles was significantly associated with a threefold increased risk of myocardial infarction, independent of age, ***, and relative weight. Plasma levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol were decreased, and levels of triglyceride, very low—density lipoproteins, and intermediate-density lipoproteins were increased in subjects with this LDL subclass pattern. Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that both high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride levels contributed to the risk associated with the small, dense LDL subclass pattern.

Small dense LDL particles are three times more likely to cause a heart attack than their counterparts. In the “Low-density lipoprotein subclass patterns and lipoprotein response to a reduced-fat diet in men†study by Dreon et al (1994):

There were two groups known as: Pattern A & Pattern B. Pattern A consisted of: low levels of small dense LDL, high levels of normal particle sized LDL, and high HDL levels. Pattern B consisted of: high levels of small dense LDL, and low levels of HDL. Pattern B was associated with increased risk of heart disease, and pattern A was not. When saturated fat was replaced with carbohydrates, so the pattern shifted from A to B. Subjects who ate the most saturated fat also had the largest particle size LDL.

In the “Dietary and anthropometric determinants of plasma lipoproteins during a long-term low-fat diet in healthy women†study by Boomer et al (1993):

the largest HDL particles: HDL2b provided the greatest effect against heart disease, and low-fat-high-carb diets decreased HDL2b levels.

Stefan,

The first study you quoted regarding corn oil actually didn't replace saturated fat, but added unsaturated fat (80g/day!) to the otherwise uncontrolled diet of heart disease patients. There was a 25% increase in cardiac events (per author). The only thing it proved was that corn oil isn't a treatment for CHD, which was what it was trying to determine. I couldn't find every study, nor have time to go into each in detail.

Mice studies are suspect because the cellular mechanics in humans is radically more complicated, with

different pathways and intervening steps that are possible. Both sides quote some of those.

Wiki has a strong set of references most for and some against the saturated fat heart disease controversy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascular_disease_controversy

Here are some, quoted:

A 2011 systematic review from The Cochrane Library analyzed 48 studies conducted between 1965 and 2009 and included 65,508 participants. All studies reduced or modified participants’ dietary fat or cholesterol for at least six months by at least 30 percent. It was found that reducing saturated fat by reducing and/or modifying dietary fat reduced the risk of having a cardiovascular event, such as heart attack, stroke and unplanned heart surgery, by 14 percent. Of the 65,508 participants, 7 percent had a cardiovascular event.

"The findings are suggestive of a small but potentially important reduction in cardiovascular risk on modification of dietary fat, but not reduction of total fat, in longer trials. Lifestyle advice to all those at risk of cardiovascular disease and to lower risk population groups, should continue to include permanent reduction of dietary saturated fat and partial replacement by unsaturates. The ideal type of unsaturated fat is unclear". In a summary it goes on to say "there are no clear health benefits of replacing saturated fats with starchy foods".^[2]

A 2010 systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials commissioned by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute found that substitution of poly-unsaturated fat for saturated fat led to a 19% reduction in Coronary Heart Disease.^[3]

In 2010, a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies supported by the National Dairy Council including 348,000 subjects found no statistically significant relationship between cardiovascular disease and dietary saturated fat.^[1][12]

Medical professionals don't believe and promote a health practice without any reason, so there has to be some

evidence for it. It's not only fabricated by General Mills, though it was certainly popularized by the food giants.

On the other hand most of the population studies don't control for carbs, total calories, or type of other fats eaten including ALA, Omega-3, etc. And few studies focus on an athletic population. So what they prove for us exactly is hard to cipher.

Don't worry be happy?

If you don't believe there are health benefits to going meatless for a day a week, then what about the benefits to the

environment, which turn into health benefits for humans? What goes around comes around?

[Philip Chubb]

A 2011 systematic review from The Cochrane Library analyzed 48 studies conducted between 1965 and 2009 and included 65,508 participants. All studies reduced or modified participants’ dietary fat or cholesterol for at least six months by at least 30 percent. It was found that reducing saturated fat by reducing and/or modifying dietary fat reduced the risk of having a cardiovascular event, such as heart attack, stroke and unplanned heart surgery, by 14 percent. Of the 65,508 participants, 7 percent had a cardiovascular event.

"The findings are suggestive of a small but potentially important reduction in cardiovascular risk on modification of dietary fat, but not reduction of total fat, in longer trials. Lifestyle advice to all those at risk of cardiovascular disease and to lower risk population groups, should continue to include permanent reduction of dietary saturated fat and partial replacement by unsaturates. The ideal type of unsaturated fat is unclear". In a summary it goes on to say "there are no clear health benefits of replacing saturated fats with starchy foods".^[2]

A 2010 systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials commissioned by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute found that substitution of poly-unsaturated fat for saturated fat led to a 19% reduction in Coronary Heart Disease.^[3]

Medical professionals don't believe and promote a health practice without any reason, so there has to be some

evidence for it. It's not only fabricated by General Mills, though it was certainly popularized by the food giants.

On the other hand most of the population studies don't control for carbs, total calories, or type of other fats eaten including ALA, Omega-3, etc. And few studies focus on an athletic population. So what they prove for us exactly is hard to cipher.

I would want to know what they used and what they replaced. For example did they replace grain fed meat with brocolli?

Considering that the medical communitity will ignore some studies that prove them wrong about what they think they already know, I would say the second point is not completely true.

[Craig Rackemann]

That's a good point Alex.

Not only are some studies ignored but not all studies are published in the first place, regardless of what side of the debate you're on. Have a listen to the TED Talk by Ben Goldacre on drug companies hiding the results of clinical trials.

Another important aspect is the reproducibility of clinical trials. I don't remember the exact details but there was an effort recently to replicate 53 cancer trials, and the result was that the scientists failed to reproduce the results in 47 of those.

I would hate to think that the conventional medical community are basing their treatments on the results of poorly designed trials that have been funded by companies with a vested interest in the result.

As for the environmental impacts of meat consumption, I'd be interested in people's opinions on the book The Vegetarian Myth? Maybe it's based on pseudo-science at best but does it raise any valid questions about issues like the destruction of natural habitats and river systems in order to clear land and irrigate crops?

This topic has been a fascinating read so I hope it continues.

[Stefan Hinote]

Stefan,

The first study you quoted regarding corn oil actually didn't replace saturated fat, but added unsaturated fat (80g/day!) to the otherwise uncontrolled diet of heart disease patients. There was a 25% increase in cardiac events (per author). The only thing it proved was that corn oil isn't a treatment for CHD, which was what it was trying to determine. I couldn't find every study, nor have time to go into each in detail.

Mice studies are suspect because the cellular mechanics in humans is radically more complicated, with

different pathways and intervening steps that are possible. Both sides quote some of those.

Wiki has a strong set of references most for and some against the saturated fat heart disease controversy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascular_disease_controversy

Here are some, quoted:

A 2011 systematic review from The Cochrane Library analyzed 48 studies conducted between 1965 and 2009 and included 65,508 participants. All studies reduced or modified participants’ dietary fat or cholesterol for at least six months by at least 30 percent. It was found that reducing saturated fat by reducing and/or modifying dietary fat reduced the risk of having a cardiovascular event, such as heart attack, stroke and unplanned heart surgery, by 14 percent. Of the 65,508 participants, 7 percent had a cardiovascular event.

"The findings are suggestive of a small but potentially important reduction in cardiovascular risk on modification of dietary fat, but not reduction of total fat, in longer trials. Lifestyle advice to all those at risk of cardiovascular disease and to lower risk population groups, should continue to include permanent reduction of dietary saturated fat and partial replacement by unsaturates. The ideal type of unsaturated fat is unclear". In a summary it goes on to say "there are no clear health benefits of replacing saturated fats with starchy foods".^[2]

A 2010 systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials commissioned by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute found that substitution of poly-unsaturated fat for saturated fat led to a 19% reduction in Coronary Heart Disease.^[3]

In 2010, a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies supported by the National Dairy Council including 348,000 subjects found no statistically significant relationship between cardiovascular disease and dietary saturated fat.^[1][12]

Medical professionals don't believe and promote a health practice without any reason, so there has to be some

evidence for it. It's not only fabricated by General Mills, though it was certainly popularized by the food giants.

On the other hand most of the population studies don't control for carbs, total calories, or type of other fats eaten including ALA, Omega-3, etc. And few studies focus on an athletic population. So what they prove for us exactly is hard to cipher.

Don't worry be happy?

If you don't believe there are health benefits to going meatless for a day a week, then what about the benefits to the

environment, which turn into health benefits for humans? What goes around comes around?

The corn oil group was restricted from animal fat which is predominantly saturated fat, so you end up with a control group with 70g of fat, and a corn oil group with 114g of fat and 64g of which are PUFA corn oil, leaving 50g to be from any source besides animal, dairy, eggs, and butter.

I admit it's not the best case for disproving the diet-heart hypothesis.

[Joshua Naterman]

I think that for studies to really implicate the fat, you have to keep the diet isocaloric.

Also, if you really look into the fat issue you will find that every fatty acid has its own effects. Omega-3 and omega-6 acids cause very different effects.

Stearic acid causes no change in cholesterol, palmitic acid causes unfavorable changes in cholesterol profiles, and lauric acid causes positive changes (specifically higher HDL counts).

The point I would like for everyone to keep in mind here is that all three of those are saturated fatty acids. One has no effect. One hurts us. One helps us.

Clearly, saturated fat is not any kind of accurate term to use, because it's nonspecific. That's like saying carbs are bad. We know better than that! Some are great, and some are trash. It is the same with everything.

[Razz]

Ok I stopped reading when I saw the China Study quoted. This is a waste of my time.

Maybe you will want to read this: http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/

[Parth Rajguru]

Yep. If you're going to read the China Study, atleast make sure you get both sides of the story. There are multiple opposing articles out there. Make sure you read at least 1 of them. The one Razz posted is a great one.

The China Study is NOT a study, but a book by a man who already made a conclusion before writing the book and analyzing the data. That isn't how science is done.

[WitnessTheFitness]

Like I said before, I am no chemist or researcher, so can't really argue fine points of the research side to the study. But even if there is criticism of certain parts, I'm much more interested in the practical side of how changing one's diet to include more plant-based foods benefits people. Esselstyn has spent his life treating people for heart disease, and through his own experiences with patients determined that replacing animal foods with plant-based ones was more effective than even medications for treating their heart disease. This guy has no interests in the animal welfare aspect to choosing a plant-based diet, or even an environmental one, so you can't really argue bias: all he cares about is getting medical results, and plant-base foods have done that the best for his patients. One can try to poke holes in correlations and graphs, but the real significance of these topics is how does all this apply to real people? Being able to remove heart problems in patients that are knocking on deaths door, simply by replacing animal foods with plants, is pretty telling.

Even if animal proteins are not unequivocally damaging by themselves, the fact still remains that people benefit from having increased amount of plant-based foods in their diet, which is what the diet portion to Meatless Monday is all about: Cutting back a little on the meat, and boosting up your plant food consumption. Arguing over individual studies seems kinda' fruitless to me, since we can all produce conflicting studies. You can produce studies saying meat is A-Okay, and I can produce dozens of studies with massive sample sizes showing that vegetarians live longer, and have much lower risk for many types of disease. Doesn't solve much.

But to me, the environmental portion is far more important than the health one, and there is simply no arguing about this one: the livestock industry is one of the greatest sources of pollution, greenhouse gases, deforestation--and species extinction in the process--land and freshwater use. Our consumption of livestock is simply unsustainable, pure and simply, and projections for what's going to happen when the population increases in the next century, and desire for a Western diet goes alongside the growing standard of living, are nothing short of terrifying. Simply to keep the greenhouse gas emissions at the awful levels they are now, people would have to consume 70-90g of meat in 2050. Which means nearly 1/4th of what Americans consume currently. The livestock industry currently produces more greenhouse gas emissions than the entire transportation sector: more than all the cars, planes, trucks, and ships in the world.

- Livestock accounts for about 18% of greenhouse gas emissions

- 30% of the world's land area is used for livestock production

- In the US, livestock accounts for 55% of soil erosion and sedimentation, 50% of antibiotic use, and 1/3 of freshwater pollution.

- It is a major source of freshwater use.

The reason all the largest organizations fighting to end starvation use vegetarian meals to feed people isn't because they care about animal welfare, but because meat is the least sustainable food group in existence. 2000+ gallons of water to produce a single lb of beef, and using the majority of the planet's grains simply to feed cattle, doesn't cut it when 3 billion people are affected by water shortage, and nearly 1 billion by undernourishment.

http://na.unep.net/geas/getUNEPPageWithArticleIDScript.php?article_id=92

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet

http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0680e/i0680e.pdf (pg 74 of the pdf onward are the main relevant points, although this document has great info about all aspects of the livestock industry)

http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report-48-WaterFootprint-AnimalProducts-Vol1.pdf (can read the conclusion alone for the impact on water of livestock)

All these environmental issues are far-reaching ones that require long term solutions, and cutting back consumption of meat is that major solution. We can stick our heads in the ground and pretend nothing is wrong simply because most of us live in powerhouse countries like America that will be the last one to feel the extent of the damage, but ignoring the issues so we can continue to indulge in unsustainable food practices isn't going to solve them. When it comes to either sticking one's head in the ground, or trying to help the planet one bite at a time, I know which person I'd rather be.

[WitnessTheFitness]

I am saying that if it is from ALA, you won't be able to convert enough of it. Is it better than nothing? Sure. Is it the best stuff? No.

Aren't you ignoring the bit about DHA from plant sources like algae, which has nothing to do with ALA? What studies do you have suggesting that fish oil DHA is better than DHA derived directly from algae? Plus, there are concerning sustainability issues with fish and krill oil that make algae-based derivatives the much better option in my eyes. Check out these links, and lemme know if you find any better ones, because I couldn't find too much talking about algal DHA.

http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Research/Harvard-meta-analysis-supports-benefits-of-algal-DHA-omega-3

http://www.foodprocessing.com/articles/2012/algae-dha-healthy-as-fish-oil.html

http://www.livestrong.com/article/497450-dha-in-algae/

[Ian Myers]

- Livestock accounts for about 18% of greenhouse gas emissions

- 30% of the world's land area is used for livestock production

- In the US, livestock accounts for 55% of soil erosion and sedimentation, 50% of antibiotic use, and 1/3 of freshwater pollution.

- It is a major source of freshwater use.

I know that the grass fed movement has already been mentioned, but I don't think the difference between organic grass fed and supermarket meat has been emphasized enough. One of the biggest concerns that I have is the use of antibiotics and the pesticides that are fed to the animals and indirectly to me. Lots of the pollution and all of the antibiotic desensitizing is caused solely by the grain-fed industry. Grass fed is again not a necessity, but by no means a sub-par protein source. I don't understand how water use matters if the water is not contaminated with pesticides and and the massive amounts of feces that accumulate in the packed quarters of soon to be butchered cows. The relatively clean water should just enter he cycle again, no? Buying local, grass fed meat is a much healthier alternative to grain-fed. How about herbaceous plant-derived energy mondays?

On the issue over study validity, keep in mind that many of the organizations you named are supporters of the 6+ servings of grain per day paradigm, and I don't think anyone on this forum will believe that wheat flour should be the building block of your diet.

As far as land use, realize that energy wise most vegetables are inefficient compared to grain farming acre per acre. That being said, the only truly sustainable food sources for a world of ~7 billion people and increasing desertification are grains. Grains are not part of an ideal diet for health and longevity. This is a question of health vs environmental sustainability, not good vs evil. Current technology does not allow for an Earth with 7 billion healthy individuals. Is it better to switch to grain domination and keep up the pop. growth or to support the elimination of the worlds most land efficient food source. There is no answer to that question, decide based on what you think is better for you and your loved ones. Lets just please stay away from assigning positive and negative moral values to either side unless you can produce a flawless proof giving absolutely objective moral ratings for different ideas and actions. (I don't mean to call anyone out on this, I just see the potential for an ideological debate to spring up here )

This has been an interesting thread, and has brought my lack of knowledge on the grain fed industry to my attention

[Larry Roseman]

Current technology does not allow for an Earth with 7 billion healthy individuals. Is it better to switch to grain domination and keep up the pop. growth or to support the elimination of the worlds most land efficient food source? There is no answer to that question, decide based on what you think is better for you and your loved ones

Perhaps the virtues of canabilism have been overlooked? Not only would it reduce the population along with its many associated ills, but it would increase the high quality protein intake of those lucky enough to avoid the dinner plate! Of those who aren't so lucky, they should be pleased they are saving the planet as their final act.

Animals will be saved from slaughter. Air and water won't be polluted by burying or burning their remains. Indeed vegetarians are the best tasting and healthiest for you I hear.... how coincidentally ironic!

Look, it's too good of a solution to toss out pell-mell on moral or ethical grounds.

Come on guys - I would give an arm or a leg for a vegetarian gymnast's arm or leg.

Pardon me but would you have any Grey Poupon?

Seriously, I am a fan of the movement, though not strictly Mondays - it's worth trying as it forces you to get creative, and that carries over.

[Ian Myers]

Perhaps the virtues of canabilism have been overlooked? Not only would it reduce the population along with its many associated ills, but it would increase the high quality protein intake of those lucky enough to avoid the dinner plate! Of those who aren't so lucky, they should be pleased they are saving the planet as their final act.

Animals will be saved from slaughter. Air and water won't be polluted by burying or burning their remains. Indeed vegetarians are the best tasting and healthiest for you I hear.... how coincidentally ironic!

Look, it's too good of a solution to toss out pell-mell on moral or ethical grounds.

Come on guys - I would give an arm or a leg for a vegetarian gymnast's arm or leg.

Pardon me but would you have any Grey Poupon?

Seriously, I am a fan of the movement, though not strictly Mondays - it's worth trying as it forces you to get creative, and that carries over.

I see no reason not to

I agree, if meatless Mondays means a day to try new dishes that you would not have exposed yourself to before, I'm all for it.