I've been seeing a lot of vegans memeing that meat consumption is linked to the Type 2 Diabetes epidemic and were...

Forgot to add, even though they adjust for the western score, since the only subjects tested for red meat were those in the western group the study was not properly controlled.

Not saying the study is totally bogus, just it's not conclusive. It's like saying the drop in crime in the 90s is because of the legalization of abortion. Sure, there are studies that support it and it makes sense, but there is too much noise that can't be accounted for to be conclusive

Well processed meat is considered a tier 1 carcinogen now and red meat a "probable carcinogen" but there's not enough actual evidence yet.

>It's like saying the drop in crime in the 90s is because of the legalization of abortion. Sure, there are studies that support it and it makes sense, but there is too much noise that can't be accounted for to be conclusive
Well, the black population has basically remained static for ~50 years (thanks, abortion) and Latinos started immigrating en masse in the 80's. So the abortion thing makes sense, but also there are fewer blacks relative to the overall population size, so that affects the statistics.

Re-read the second, double-greentext-arrowed part. Even after they accounted for the other factors in the Western diet, red and processed meats were independently associated with diabetes.

>They don't control for red meat vs vegan

Same article, different research referenced:

>At baseline, diabetes prevalence was 3.2% among individuals consuming no meat, compared with 7.6% for those consuming any sort of meat on a daily basis. Those consuming meat less than weekly and those having no meat other than fish were between these extremes (6.1% and 4.8%, respectively) (Figure 1) [10]. After adjustment for body mass index, physical activity, age, sex, ethnicity, and other factors, the odds ratio of a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes among meat consumers remained approximately twice that of individuals avoiding meat. Those who consumed meat less than once per week or who limited their meat consumption to fish also remained at elevated risk, albeit not so high as for those consuming all types of meat on a daily basis.

> even though they adjust for the western score, since the only subjects tested for red meat were those in the western group the study was not properly controlled.

If they still found an association, it's likely that red meat either itself contributes to diabetes or at best aggrivates other causes of diabetes. Because we know heme iron and saturated fat are factors in the development of diabetes, it makes biological sense that red meat intake would associate with diabetes incidence.

I'm not trying to defend processed meat at all. Processed anything just sounds gross. I'm saying high quality red meat was not shown definitively in this study to cause diabetes as there is too much noise to account for.

Also, I will never give up lamb. Holy shit, butchering a little lamb and roasting the fucker on a spit is the best thing I've ever tasted

>Also, the grade of the meat is something to consider; in the same way eating some chemical filled plants is more likely to lead to problems than natural grown produce, eating low grade chemical pumped meat will be worse than eating free range meat.
The best meat ought to be worse than some pretty bad plants, Google bioaccumulation

>special pleading

There's no reason to think any fancy organic free-range grass eating sparkle meat is significantly healthier

Yeah true, I basically said the same thing that red meat seems likely to cause cancer but we can't make a positive or negative statement yet. But given the amount of suggestive data I'd avoid beef/pork and such.

Consider the following:

People who don't eat meat are generally very diligent and aware of their diet. Since most people eat red meat, many, if not the vast majority, of meat eaters pay no attention to their diet.

People who don't eat meat logically are more inclined to exercise, since they are already taking proactive steps towards their health in controlling their diet, than are people who don't control their diet and in so doing eat red meat.

People who control their diet and eat no meat are generally wealthier, as they have the money and knowledge necessary to accommodate their lifestyle, than are people who don't and are, as such, able to buy higher grade ingredients and food if dining out

I'm not saying any of these is necessarily right. But if you agree they're plausible, and I find it hard not to, then you have to admit that there are many variables in trying to definitively state that red meat causes health defects.

Also, I'm not bashing veganism. It's your choice. I think it's healthy, at the very least to the extent you are controlling your diet and paying attention to what you eat, and have no problem with it.

Higher quality control at least

If you want to avoid illness eat a balanced diet and exercise, and lay off the junk food. It's really simple.

This is Veeky Forums, I'd assume most people exercise or do some other form of sport. I think I'm doing very well in the health department, that's probably why I'm "nitpicking" at more detailed aspects of nutrition. The average person will get massive benefits from just quitting soda.

Yes eat a balanced diet. What does that mean to you though? Are you one of the good goys that eats more than 200-300mg of cholesterol every day?

>Consider the following:
>People who don't eat meat are generally very diligent and aware of their diet.

Not based on anything, but for the sake of discussion, sure

>meat eaters pay no attention to their diet.

Again, even after controlling for dietary factors, including those within the "Western diet pattern," red meat is independently associated with diabetes, meaning that even when looking at people with comparably bad diets, red meat stands out as a risk factor in diabetes.

>People who don't eat meat logically are more inclined to exercise

Are you kidding me? You say this on Veeky Forums of all places. If anything, it's the opposite. People who exercise are more likely to eat meat, thinking they need the protein. Regardless, the studies took physical activity into account.

>People who control their diet and eat no meat are generally wealthier

One of the "other factors" taken into account was income.

Of course any study has limits and unknown factors, but these aren't good reasons to doubt the research.

Type 2 diabetes is caused by too much glucose in the blood stream too often. Meat alone doesn't do this.

The average bodyfat of an American is at around 35%. They don't give a fuck about their health. Meats, pop, candies, they eat it all, all the time. It's not the meat the average American gets diabetes from. It's the extra large coke they chug to wash that burger down. The drink that has like 70 g of sugar. That being said frequently eating hot dogs and burgers will cause other health problems too. Just not diabetes.

Also, a well balanced diet with lean meats and lots of veggies is healthier than a vegan diet. Not necessarily as humane, but healthier.

Like I said, they're plausible explanations to account for the findings and nothing more. I already said that looking solely to the western group isn't ideal as the western diet has a lot of things that are more generally agreed to be bad for your health, like fried food and sweets.

When I say more inclined to exercise I mean the groups as a whole. Meat eaters includes Veeky Forums but also includes /v/ /b/ /tv/ etc. The sample size of meat eaters is so big that there is a lot of noise in the data. Again, nothing against veganism, you might be right, but the study doesn't prove that. My examples were quickly thought up as a means to show there are other possible explanations for the findings.

And yes, it's plenty good reason to question the research. Research should always be questioned and more research done to account for the questions raised. I'm not trying to be right, I'm trying for the truth.

>Like I said, they're plausible explanations to account for the findings and nothing more

In this case they aren't so plausible, since they were controlled for in the analysis. They aren't things that were overlooked.

>I already said that looking solely to the western group isn't ideal as the western diet has a lot of things that are more generally agreed to be bad for your health, like fried food and sweets.

And like I said, even within the western group, even looking at people with the same intake of fried foods and sweets, red meat was independently associated with diabetes. In the other referenced study in an overall more health-conscious population, diabetes risk was doubled between people vegans and people who eat meat daily, while people who ate meat but less than daily had an intermediate risk increase.

>When I say more inclined to exercise I mean the groups as a whole. Meat eaters includes Veeky Forums but also includes /v/ /b/ /tv/ etc.

As does non-meat-eaters, but every fitness blog or book promotes meat. I don't know how you got the idea that people who don't eat meat (which isn't necessarily even a health proposition since many vegetarians eat that way strictly for animal rights reasons and for their diet will eat all sorts of processed foods) are more likely to exercise.

I agree that the research doesn't prove the association, but there's definitely stronger evidence to say meat, especially red and processed meat, increases diabetes risk than there is to doubt it

The problem is all that information on diet and physical activity is self reported. Fat people, especially women, lie out their ass about both. And the amount of lying goes up the less they exercise and the worse they eat. So I have a tough time buying it. If they can manage to run a similar study in a prison where they feed group A vegan slop and group B meat slop and still get the same results I'll trust it.

You're closing your eyes and plugging your ears. If they did this study on prisoners you'd very obviously say "who's to say the prisoners weren't smuggling in junk food"

I'm trying to imagine someone smuggling in an entire pallet-load of krispy kreme donuts in their asshole and I just can't see it.

Idk, how much cholesterol is is a dozen eggs?

1 50 gram egg has 187 mg.

1 140 gram chicken breast has 119 mg.

1 87 gram tilapia filet has 50 mg.

Ok, so I have like 2.5g of cholesterol a day

That comes frol the new retarded documentary "what the health" who cherry picks studies and obly show one side of the equations

Its total bullshit. Overconsumption and lack of exercise is the reason for type 2 diabetes. Not sugar, nor meat.

Not the guy youre talking too, but Self reports is the lest valid way of doing it. Its notoriously bad.

People suck at estemating how much they eat and exercise.
Obese people tend to underestimate how much they eat by nearly 50% and overestimate their exercise by 50%

Youre the one who wont open your eyes. You aparently doesnt know much about studies, and should not try to interpret them.

studies are bullshit and made up, but most people still get trolled by things like "university of wisconsin" and stuff along those lines

indeed, you can find something and then a study which shows the complete opposite, it's an endless loop of bullshit, you just have to experiment yourself and see what's fake and what's not

vegans only care for one thing: attention

find me a vegan which is not a massive attention whore and I will bury you in money

Fat fuck americunts eat burgers and fries and consider ketchup a vegetable, and only move enough to use the elevators anywhere they go.
>it's the meat
I'm an American and I'm ashamed of my country

>you can find something and then a study which shows the complete opposite, it's an endless loop of bullshit

Then you look at the two studies, compare their methodologies, and see how the differences may have caused different results. That's the whole point of gathering data; so you can analyze it and make sense of it.

This is a dumb question with poor english directed at both vegans and meat eaters.
Why not just get best of both worlds? Just eat chicken and fish with basically no saturated fat so you get your "quality" protein with no saturated fat and then rest of your diet eat complex carbs?
Have there been studies that compare the harmfullness of saturated fat vs the cholesterol in the meat in case of heart disease and all that shit we die to? I mean from what ive read 70% of our cholesterol is made by our own liver and diet affects only the 30%? and thats the kind of nutrition sports players use right? Just a thought

I could live without red meat but no chicken or fish ? FUCK NO
why would i stop eating foods that have beneficial supplements in them, have fun eating your omega-3 pills vegans

It's a bit like asking why give up soda when you can drink diet soda. It's certainly better, but it's not ideal.

This, exercise forces you to consume nutrient rich foods to have the energy to keep going. Eating empty carbs with no actual benefits inhibits you from performing. Human body actually tells you what it wants if you just listen its not that hard.

>diet soda is bad
When will this meme die?

It wants whatever tastes good. What tastes good is whatever's calorie-rich and salty.

>what is aspertame

Do you feel like performing at your peak performance after a meal at mcdonalds or after a meal of rice veggies and chicken ? It should be pretty obvious.

im watching that right now lol they keep bringing up racism for some reason

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28040519/

There were found no difference between meat eaters and vegetarians.

Nothing. Everyone has an agenda.

Eat whatever the fuck you want in moderation.

Aspertame isnt dangerous. At all. Unless you use massive doses.

Err... Obviously I mean whole foods. Processed / fast food is utter garbage and should not be eaten regularly.

Like sugar

>Conflict of interest statement
>Margaret Allman-Farinelli has previously received funding from Meat and Livestock Australia Ltd. (MLA)

Worth considering.

Sugar, in normal amounts, isnt dangerous. Its the dose which makes the poison.

Some vegetables got cyanide in them, but that doesnt make them unhealthy

There are other stidies which look at vegetarians, vegans and meat eaters. And there is a difference, but there is no difference when they compare with meat eaters who also eats enough vegetables.

Believe what you want, but vegetarian diet isnt the best diet. And meat isnt bad.
Vegetarians tends to be more health concious. Which is why they end up looking better than the average guy. Who has an awefull diet.

The most comprehensive studies we have come from the Adventist cohorts in Loma Linda, California. Loma Linda is a blue zone with a high concentration of vegetarians and people with generally plant-based diets, who live comparable lives in a close knit community. Disease and mortality rates are significantly lower in vegetarians, and even lower in vegans.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/

typical correlation vs causation.

People with type 2 diabetes usually don't have any control over what they eat or how much they eat it, so they usually tend to eat meat as well as overload on sugar etc. This does not mean meat is the culprit.

>I thought it was the over consuming of simple carbs doing that shit.
Neither gives you Diabetes. Stress does.

There are several other bluesones too. And they all have meat in their diets. And pretty much all of them follow a Mediterranean style diet. With lots of vegetables, fruit, and some meat.

But they also stay active and have a big social group around them. Genetics could alsobe be a factor. As some genes make you more likely to live above the age of 100. And they could have higher concentration of these genes in the blue sones.
So trying to credit it all on them eating little to no meat is false.

>falling for the veggie jew

>creationist university
>religion encourages veganism and owns food companies like sanitarium that sell meat and dairy alternatives
Intredasting

Vegans still have no answer as to why the Mediterranean diet with its plentiful helpings of carbs, dairy, meat and fish is still the healthiest diet on the planet.

Most Vegans are American and never trust an Americans opinions on food.

not vegans

>"large population"
>out of 243,000 people in the study, the sample size of vegetarians was about 1500, the mortality data for them being based on just 80 deaths, the causes of death not even looked at
>no attempt to even make sure by the end of the study that the people labeled vegetarian because of their answers on the initial survey were actually vegetarian over the course of the study. "we were also not able to adjust for change in diet over time or estimate how long the participants had been vegetarian."
>"Compared with regular meat eaters, complete vegetarians were younger, less likely to be overweight or obese, more likely to be female, and less likely to have cardiovascular and metabolic diseases or hypertension" so we made sure to adjust all the data, making the vegetarian sample size that much smaller

Only good thing about this study is one of the author's names is "Ding Ding"

Vegans don't understand the difference between processed lunch meats and actual pastured meat. Either that or they deliberately obfusicate these studies for their political agenda. Meat, like any food, becomes less healthy the more you fuck with it by removing nutrients and adding carcinogens which is essentially what processing does (smoked bacon as an example).

Eat your free range eggs, pastured beef and chicken, and laugh at stupid vegans.

The traditional mediterranean diet is great. A whole food, plant-based diet is better.

nutritionfacts.org/video/why-was-heart-disease-rare-in-the-mediterranean/
nutritionfacts.org/video/the-mediterranean-diet-or-a-whole-food-plant-based-diet/
nutritionfacts.org/video/which-parts-of-the-mediterranean-diet-extended-life/

>Vegans don't understand the difference between processed lunch meats and actual pastured meat

One is bad, one is worse

Pretty sure it has a relationship with TLR4 - cell surface receptor involved in innate immunity. It responds to LPS produced by gram negative bacteria, and in the importance of this situation; Feutin-A bound saturated fatty acids, and where do you find plenty of saturated fatty acids? Meats.

However, omega 3 poly unsaturated fatty acids inhibit it partly by inhibiting the Luciene homodimer of TLR4 and by activating GPR120, which increases beta-ARR activity and inhibits TAK1, which is otherwise activated by MyD88 (downstream of TLR4)

Anyway, essentially TAK1 leads to inflammatory cytokines and chemokines being produced, some of which cause inhibitor phosphorylation of the tyrosine residue in the insulin receptor and they phosphorylate the serine residue which leads to a decreased function in the recetpro and insulin resistance ---> diabetes over time. Or through macrophage infiltration of adipocytes which, through other mechanics of inflammation that cause insulin resistance.

That's one primary method that meats induce insulin resistance. Your solution is to just eat less fatty meat (less intramuscular fat, cut off the fatty bits, white meats) Oh and more fish oils - salmon, anchiovies (disgusting shit), fish oil, get nuts in too - ALA etc.

Sources:

1.) Davis JE et al. (2008) TLR4 deficiency selectively protects against obesity induced by diets high in saturated fat. Obesity.
2.) J.C. Pickup, M. A. Crook (1998) Is Type II diabetes mellitus a disease of the innate immune system? Diabetologia
3.) Licio A. et al. (2015) TLR4 at the Crossroads of Nutrients, Gut microbacteria and Metabolic Inflammation. Endocrine Reviews.
4.) Meigs JB, Cupples LA, Wilson PW. (2000) Parental transmission of type 2 diabetes: the Framingham Offspring Study. Diabetes.
5.) Mohan R. Dasu et al. (2010) Increased Toll-Like Receptor Activation and TLR ligands in Recently Diagnosed Type 2 diabetes Subjects. Diabetes care.
6.) Nackiewicz D, Dan M, He W, Kim R, Salmi A, Rütti S, et al. (2014) TLR2/6 and TLR4-activated macrophages contribute to islet inflammation and impair beta cell insulin gene expression via IL-1 and IL-6. Diabetologia.
7.) NIH. (2017) Type 2 Diabetes. (Online) Available at: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMHT0024703/ (Accessed 18/05/2017)
8.) Rasheed Ahmad, Anfal Al-Mass et al. (2012). Elevated expression of the toll like receptors 2 and 4 in obese individuals: its significance for obesity induced inflammation. Journal of inflammation.
9.) Shi H, Kokoeva MV, Inouye K, Tzameli I, Yin H, Flier JS. (2006) TLR4 links innate immunity and fatty acid-induced insulin resistance. J clin Invest.
10.) Yong-Chen Lu, Wen-Chen Yeh, Pamela S. Ohashi (2008). LPS/TLR4 signal transduction pathway.
11.) Yoshida H, Watanabe W, Oomagari H, Tsuruta E, Shida M, Kurokawa M. (2013) Citrus flavonoid naringenin inhibits TLR2 expression in adipocytes. J Nutrit Biochem.
12.) Song MJ et al. (2006). Activation of Toll Like receptor 4 is associated with insulin resistance in adipocytes. Biochem Biophys Res Comm.

Also; forgot pancreatic beta cell infiltration from macrophages and pro-inflammatory cytokines causing apoptosis. Basically just don't eat saturated fats, eat poly unsaturated fats.

b4 anybody says why I would research this so much for an internet anime japanese porn board full of shirtless dudes and rippitits, this is from my masters dissertation, a small part of it.

well this the topic is a little complicated for the normal 20 years old Veeky Forums user, I'm gonna try to make it simple.

Just watch this guy explaining to you the basic science on diabetes and you can easily look this up yourself.

youtu.be/FA_iaLEsiXI?t=4m17s

>Re-read the second, double-greentext-arrowed part. Even after they accounted for the other factors in the Western diet, red and processed meats were independently associated with diabetes.

it doesn't matter. The average person is more likely to not be a vegan and to be predisposed to diabetes via their diet and lifestyle

This is effectively comparing someone who does watch what they eat carefully to someone that doesn't and then being shocked that the latter develops diet-related health issues

Which is literally the crux of every "hurr durr le vegan diet is healthier xDDDDD" paper

Nonsense. After I started paying attention to my health I got healthier this pricing how much the vegan diet works and also proving it's the best diet in the world.

Learn how statistics works and how studies should be performed, it will save your life.
I was in the same thread and the studies were inconclusive, they gathered data but they couldn't propose new arguments.

The only thing I've seen that is exclusive to meat that can be harmful is heme iron, there is a proposed mechanism for it to do harm as well and its mechanism makes perfect sense to me (I'm geochem not biochem so I'm not the best to look at it however).

My advice, which should be taken with a grain of salt and people REALLY should learn to read scientific literature, is avoid heavy nitrate foods (bacon) and red meat.
Not saying cut them out completely, but they are more likely to cause problems.
Fish will always be masterrace.

Okay, what's wrong with this study?

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3988204/

The data they gathered is important, and while their mechanisms may or may not be correct its important science.
Unfortunately this one study is meaningless by itself, it would be useful to round out a study but surveys should be very rarely used in science, that's "social science" tier, and I'm not even hating on that since it's what they have to do.

I'm not hating on the study at all, biochem/health science is fucking complicated and unfortunately surveys are a necessity.
That said I would have predicted the results from the beginning.
"High protein" to most means that they don't eat many veggies or fruits.
Veggies are healthy and fruits have antioxidants.
I'm also assuming all this meat isn't of the highest quality if its all you eat.
On its own says nothing, I want to know where these people were surveyed (ie. their culture about food) and their actual diets, a moderate protein eater should have a far more balanced diet and yes, should be less at risk for many things.

IMO (not fully substantiated by science) pescotarian is probably the healthiest diet, but with a reasonable amount of other meats these diseases should be statistically insignificant.

>I'm too dumb to understand the intricacies of case study therefore science is a meme

I'm guy and this is pretty much my argument.
I'm used to looking at science with data that is not gathered from human's self-reporting but actual measured data.
Even after all this data is carefully collected I'm still very cautious (which I should be) on making a conclusion or even saying all the data was collected perfectly.
It's difficult to say hard science is correct in its methodology so to not question self-reports is preposterous.

Reminds me of psychologists being offended when scientists seem to not respect their work.
It's important work and many of us do hope they find the truth so they can help people, it's just that methodology based on what people say is very very inconsistent.

Remember kids, science proves nothing and no conclusion becomes fact.
Science just gives us an explanation and it's the jobs of others to attack that explanation and see if they can break it.

Your post didn't even say anything. Are you that narcissistic and which tripfag are you?

>It's difficult to say hard science is correct in its methodology so to not question self-reports is preposterous.
Wow, it's amazing that I didn't just post my opinion but I also decided to discuss things in this thread where we are discussing things.

Sorry that I don't post one sentence replies to everyone and try to discuss things with my fellow Veeky Forumsizens politely.
Bravo man, you calling me a tripfag definitely BTFO my argument, even though my posts were far less of an argument and more of a discourse really.
Truly hope you're not the guy who had me read that study, I have some really cool vegan friends and I hate how many cunts ruin their image.

They studied the effect of differing protein intakes on mice to verify causation though...

>...
Don't know if you're from Veeky Forums or not but if you continue to end your sentences like that on here people won't take you seriously.
Outside of Veeky Forums if you are talking/typing like this people consider it a snarky or cunty attitude.
Truly trying to help, this doesn't make your argument less valid but if you want to discuss on Veeky Forums you have to play by certain rules for anyone to take you seriously, especially if it's protecting a minority opinion.

Will be honest I skipped the mice part when I first glanced over.
It's far more interesting than the rest of the study.
My only problem with it is the experiment is studying not the incidence of cancer but the growth of it since they injected them with cancer.
Important data nevertheless.
I'm curious if I missed the mortality rates of them too, volume is an important metric but I'm curious if the low protein mice were strong enough to outlive the others even though their tumors were smaller.

Interesting study though, and as I said it's not bullshit.
It takes many studies and a agreed upon mechanism for it to be truly a theory that stands, I still believe commonly eating red meat is bad but fish and poultry I don't know.

whatever...

There he is with his bullshit blogs.

It's just another retarded diet meme OP. Nothing to be overly concerned about
>and is likely to increase risk of cancer and nasty heart problems.
No it isn't.
>but there's not enough actual evidence yet.
There's no evidence. And even more evidence saying the opposite.
>diagnosisdiet.com/meat-and-cancer/
>chriskresser.com/red-meat-cancer-again-will-it-ever-stop/
>mensfitness.com/nutrition/what-to-eat/meat-cancer-bacon-who-report-mens-fitness-health
>rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/minger_formal_response2.pdf
>deniseminger.com/2010/08/06/final-china-study-response-html/
>deniseminger.com/2010/08/03/the-china-study-a-formal-analysis-and-response/
>deniseminger.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ >foodrenegade.com/the-china-study-discredited/
>deniseminger.com/the-china-study/
>westonaprice.org/our-blogs/the-curious-case-of-campbells-rats-does-protein-deficiency-prevent-cancer/
>westonaprice.org/our-blogs/taking-a-trip-down-memory-lane-fishing-for-our-good-friend-glutathione-in-the-waters-of-the-memory-hole-how-t-colin-campbell-helped-prove-that-protein-protects-us
>reddit.com/r/keto/comments/2qxnro/red_meat_triggers_toxic_immune_reaction_which/cnai2od/
>caloriesproper.com/red-meat-wont-kill-you-it-will-make-you-stronger/
>saragottfriedmd.com/does-meat-cause-cancer-revisiting-the-meat-igf-1-and-cancer-connection/
>authoritynutrition.com/it-aint-the-fat-people/
>authoritynutrition.com/top-8-reasons-not-to-fear-saturated-fats/
>chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-cholesterol-and-saturated-fat-are-not-the-enemy/
>breakingmuscle.com/healthy-eating/why-all-humans-need-to-eat-meat-for-health

...

It has nothing to do with what you eat, but moreso how much and when you eat.