View Full Version : Dairy products are causing cancer.
I've just been reading an article in the Telegraph that a leading scientist has warned that eating dairy products like milk, cream and cheese is linked to cancers. It could explain why chinese women in China have much lower incidences of breast cancer 1:100,000 compared to 1:12 in the West because chinese diets are virtually dairy-free.
The article goes on to explain how cutting out dairy and other animal products like meat and eggs can also have a greater beneficial health impact on our health and yet CancerUK has not supported this despite the evidence.
It makes me think that if dairy is causing cancer then will dairy products stand side by side with tobacco as dangeroous substances?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/healthyeating/10868428/Give-up-dairy-products-to-beat-cancer.html
W.H.O. figures claim otherwise but who am i to contest them. As for dangerous foods, i highly doubt there are any dangerous foods, it's more likely to be all the crap and antibiotics that the animals are pumped full of and the plants sprayed with that are dangerous and cause cancer. People don't realise that not everything that gets into the food chain is safe nor do they realise the harm caused by pollution but im not one to preach so i'll get back to my cigar, bacon sandwich and half bottle of whisky laced with vicodin......
tonkatojo
13-Sep-16, 14:53
This subject comes up very often and gets ridiculed by other experts, very often these experts are only experts when their expertise is proven right but then often are proven wrong by other experts who insist they are right. Now the question is who are we to believe, I wait with abated breath (not holding it) for experts to explain.
What worries me is that dairy products do cause cancer. Why are chinese women seemingly unaffected by breast cancer? Are they super human in China but when they come to the west then they seem to suffer similiar rates to western women? It sounds preposterous. Why are the food labellers not telling us the risks involved with drinking milk and eating cheese? Could eating a slice of brie on a cracker have the same risks to our health as smoking a cigarette? We'd all be happy to give our child an ice cream but we would never give them a cigarette surely?
Shaggy, you may be right about the injections and hormones may be the reason why dairy is carcinogenic but as the product and the injections are inextricably linked(organic farming notwithstanding) then we need to say dairy is causing cancer. Our dairy is produced on factory farms now where it is common practice to inject animals to promote growth unnaturally. We should really avoid the cosy 'farmer Giles' image for farming, that doesn't really exist.
It reminds me of the tobacco industry back in 1950s to the 70s and society was in denial about the risks and health experts denied there was no link to lung cancer but epidemiology studies clearly showed a link.
What if I could share some similiar epidemiological studies with eating dairy and see if there was a health risk, should people take things a bit more seriously?
This was blatant quackery from the second I read the article. Found a couple good links by quickly googling the scientist's name.
https://davidjwbailey.com/2014/06/02/an-open-letter-to-the-daily-telegraph-about-quackery/comment-page-1/
http://www.katherinealbrecht.com/blog/that-email-about-chinese-women-not-getting-breast-cancer-has-it-wrong/
I think it would be better to believe specialist cancer scientists than a geochemist who basically has gone overboard with a correlation = causation fallacy.
But what are your studies?
This was blatant quackery from the second I read the article. Found a couple good links by quickly googling the scientist's name.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/healthyeating/10868428/Give-up-dairy-products-to-beat-cancer.html
http://www.katherinealbrecht.com/blog/that-email-about-chinese-women-not-getting-breast-cancer-has-it-wrong/
I think it would be better to believe specialist cancer scientists than a geochemist who basically has gone overboard with a correlation = causation fallacy.
But what are your studies?
Well Serenity, you gave one link and the other is my original link. It seems quackery goes both ways with Katherine Albrecht who advocates that implanted chips leads to the Mark of the Beast and has written a book on religious quackery. https://www.amazon.com/Wont-Take-Mark-Contract-Children/dp/0988280213
Everyone has a grudge and bias I suppose.
Regardless though, I want to get to the truth about dairy based upon real evidence, I haven't had time to do any research yet, it is teatime still. I just saw the article in the Telegraph and thought it was disturbing. I am prepared to come up with a lot of resistance to the thought that dairy products cause cancer given that Caithness is a farming and rural area. But I just want to get to the truth and if it is all quackery then it is quackery, the science doesn't support it. period. But if there is truth in any studies done then will you accept the studies and any conclusions?
The results of my research will probably end in three courses of action.
1. The links between dairy and cancer are not supported by science so there is nothing to worry about.
2. There is a link between dairy and cancer and the person chooses to consume dairy whilst knowing the risks.
3. There is a link between dairy and cancer and the person cuts down or eliminates the consumption of dairy products.
Well Serenity, you gave one link and the other is my original link. It seems quackery goes both ways with Katherine Albrecht who advocates that implanted chips leads to the Mark of the Beast and has written a book on religious quackery. https://www.amazon.com/Wont-Take-Mark-Contract-Children/dp/0988280213
Everyone has a grudge and bias I suppose.
Regardless though, I want to get to the truth about dairy based upon real evidence, I haven't had time to do any research yet, it is teatime still. I just saw the article in the Telegraph and thought it was disturbing. I am prepared to come up with a lot of resistance to the thought that dairy products cause cancer given that Caithness is a farming and rural area. But I just want to get to the truth and if it is all quackery then it is quackery, the science doesn't support it. period. But if there is truth in any studies done then will you accept the studies and any conclusions?
I corrected the link. I don't get the point of the ad hominen attack though? I was not calling Professor Jane Plant a quack, but that particular theory she was selling was pure quackery. The link from the above has well sourced references, even if some of her other stuff is a bit out there.
I look forward to you seeing the epidemiological studies you can find.
I corrected the link. I don't get the point of the ad hominen attack though? I was not calling Professor Jane Plant a quack, but that particular theory she was selling was pure quackery. The link from the above has well sourced references, even if some of her other stuff is a bit out there.
I look forward to you seeing the epidemiological studies you can find.
What ad hominem attack??
What ad hominem attack??
The one implying her article was of no use because of her other views. Now you are just blatantly avoiding addressing any of the points raised though.
Living causes cancer... I've never heard of a dead person contracting cancer, have you?
The one implying her article was of no use because of her other views. Now you are just blatantly avoiding addressing any of the points raised though.
Not avoiding anything, don't confuse lack of time to type with avoidance of addressing any issues. I am of the opinion that if an astro-physicist needs to have his research in his day job taken seriously then he shouldn't be seen to be giving talks on Ley lines in the evening. That said, if someone has an opinion based on science then the science should speak for itself.
Living causes cancer... I've never heard of a dead person contracting cancer, have you?
I've heard of and known many dead people who have contracted cancer before their time though.
Here is a study that seems to convey the conclusion that vegetarian and especially vegan diets give greater protection from various cancers.
RESULTS:
A total of 2,939 incident cancer cases were identified. The multivariate HR of overall cancer risk among vegetarians compared with non-vegetarians was statistically significant [HR, 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.85-0.99] for both genders combined. Also, a statistically significant association was found between vegetarian diet and cancers of the gastrointestinal tract (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.90). When analyzing the association of specific vegetarian dietary patterns, vegan diets showed statistically significant protection for overall cancer incidence (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99) in both genders combined and for female-specific cancers (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.92). Lacto-ovo-vegetarians appeared to be associated with decreased risk of cancers of the gastrointestinal system (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92).
CONCLUSION:
Vegetarian diets seem to confer protection against cancer.
IMPACT:
Vegan diet seems to confer lower risk for overall and female-specific cancer than other dietary patterns. The lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets seem to confer protection from cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23169929
I'll just throw a couple of things into the mix.
Firstly, my mother had breast cancer which resulted in a double masechtomy. Throughout her life she used talcum powder liberally around her arm pit area. In recent times it has become known that aluminium (known carcinogenic) is in talc, and many stick deodorants. Now while I think we should all be open minded with these health scares because our farmers are putting a lot of real nasties into their animals, and crops for that matter, I would say that my mum is more likely to have contracted breast cancer through smothering aluminium on her upper body than drinking a pinta. So folks look for the aluminium free deodorants I say. Why take the risk? I wonder if Chinese women use talc?
My second thought surrounds organic dairy produce. For over 10 years I have only bought organic milk. The reasons for this are that I think it's worth the extra few pence per pint to have milk that may have a few less nasties in it than bog-standard milk. I'm also told that organic pasture has a lot of clover in it and that this helps the cows to produce a lot of extra heart strengthening omega somethings in the milk. I know we can't live in a bubble and avoid all that might affect our health but a few extra pence here and there on certain key things might just help a little. Oh. and by the way I know an arable farmer who wont eat his own vegetables because he knows how nasty the chemicals are that he puts on his crops! He keeps his own organic veg patch at his farmhouse. What does that tell us all?
Oestrogen content in dairy milk seems to be a factor that is worth noting. It is well established that oestrogen can sensitize tumours. According to nutritionalfacts.org it seems that increased dairy consumption over the last decades in western diets has had a correlation with advanced pre-onset of puberty and breast development in girls. Early breast development is linked with increased incidences of breast cancer later in life. However, girls who drink soya milk or other non-dairy milks seem to display a later onset of breast development with the implication that there were fewer incidences of breast cancer in that group.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-effect-of-soy-on-precocious-puberty/
Interesting article on http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/type/breast-cancer/about/diet-and-breast-cancer
I suppose it is not good news for men who consume dairy and meat either. Research shows that Vegan men who do not eat either meat or dairy have higher testosterone levels and significantly lower levels of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) which is a risk factor in prostate cancer. This came as a shock because in popular culture it is considered to be more masculine to be a meat eater when the opposite may be true.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374537/pdf/83-6691152a.pdf
This came as a shock because in popular culture it is considered to be more masculine to be a meat eater when the opposite may be true.
Yes Garth.
I'll just throw a couple of things into the mix.
Firstly, my mother had breast cancer which resulted in a double masechtomy. Throughout her life she used talcum powder liberally around her arm pit area. In recent times it has become known that aluminium (known carcinogenic) is in talc, and many stick deodorants. Now while I think we should all be open minded with these health scares because our farmers are putting a lot of real nasties into their animals, and crops for that matter, I would say that my mum is more likely to have contracted breast cancer through smothering aluminium on her upper body than drinking a pinta. So folks look for the aluminium free deodorants I say. Why take the risk? I wonder if Chinese women use talc?
Sorry to hear about your mother, but aluminium is the fifth most abundant element on Earth.
Nobody is avoiding aluminium, whatever they're putting up their oxters.
pig whisperer
13-Sep-16, 22:50
Rheghead are you suggesting we become vegans, so apart from not eating meat eggs & dairy what else does it involve presume you wear plastic shoes etc tho I new a vegan that wore leather trousers, that confused the hell out of me
Rheghead are you suggesting we become vegans, so apart from not eating meat eggs & dairy what else does it involve presume you wear plastic shoes etc tho I new a vegan that wore leather trousers, that confused the hell out of me
I just want to know the truth about the risks to health about eating meat and dairy and I want us to come to a consensus by sharing information that is accurate and not tainted by bias or financial concerns. However, I want to add that I am not trying to sell anything and I have my own bias to this subject but try to control it. Feel free to peer-review anything that I present as evidence but falls short, I will support any kind of indications or corrections of bias.
I will be also fully supportive of anyone who acknowledges that there is a risk to consuming animal products if the risks are substantiated but chooses to continue to eat them because of a lifestyle choice. We live in a free society afterall, I'm not a preachy sort of person despite any first or past impressions to the contrary. Though if someone chooses to act in such a way that flies in full face of good evidence says a lot about a persons moral and intellectual standing.
I use the word vegan loosely as vegans who call themselves vegans have a narrow narrative or definition as to what makes a vegan. I think there is some leeway in what applies in the definition of what makes a vegan but I prefer to use the term plant-based diet rather than vegan but I used the vegan word for familiarity purposes because I've never been in a plant-based restaurant but I've been in one or two vegan restaurants. Ultimately I do not get hung up on the useage of the terms to describe people who just eat plants.
For the purpose of this thread to prevent off-topic wander, I just want to focus on the health impacts of eating dairy or/and meat rather than ethical issues regarding animal cruelty in rearing animals for food and clothing. Health was partly and probably the main reason, enironmental reasons secondly why I decided to cut out dairy and meat. I feel better for it as well.
Bystander1
14-Sep-16, 08:33
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/vegan-just-happens-to-mention-it-in-every-other-sentence-20160509108690
I feel a good way to stay healthier is to stick to a good diet of self satisfaction.
Avoid, as Begbie said in Trainspotting, those "Flipping Chemicals"
Make sure to avoid Oxygen, it's a scientific fact that anyone who ever inhaled Oxygen eventually died.
Also best to avoid the Daily Mail, not only are there scaremongering stories on the front pages every other week regarding "lethal" foodsuffs, but there is also a chemical in the newspaper's ink that penetrates the skin, causing less tolerance of people on benefits, immigrants and anybody who is squandering "taxpayer's" money.
As comedian Denis Leary once said when told by a friend that there is a chemical in beef that stays in your body for 15 years after you consume it:-
"Good, I paid for that steak, I want my money's worth"
This study shows that replacing animal food products with soya based food products like soya milk and TVP will offer protection against breast cancer, especially if young girls are introduced to soya products early in their lives. Typical reductions in the incidences of breast cancer were 30% and greater protection was observed in women who were high risk or had a family history of breast cancer.
http://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/444735
David Dobbin CEO of United Dairy Farmers warns of a milk industry in crisis as youngsters are drinking more vegetable-based milks due to the health benefits that they offer over dairy milk like lower cancer risk and lower risk of obesity. In face of that trend he suggested the dairy industry has to make dairy milk more appealing, he offered the following quote
“The problem we face is that we have some health professionals who see dairy as the enemy,”
Hang on a minute, why are we being asked to ignore scientific evidence and nutritional advice from experts and scientists? Why are we being encouraged to drink a product that has a cancer risk and contributes to obesity? Is the wealth and jobs of farmers more important than our health? It definitely makes me think of the arguments that global tobacco companies had in the 1950s-70s with their products.
http://www.fwi.co.uk/business/dairy-time-bomb-as-youngsters-shun-drinking-milk.htm
pig whisperer
14-Sep-16, 19:25
how do soya beans become milk, spread, mince etc just asking
how do soya beans become milk, spread, mince etc just asking
I'm not sure about spread, mince or TVP etc but I've made soya milk at home. Just soak the beans, mascerate and boil with water and strain out the insolubles. After cooling it is suitable to use in place of dairy milk. I think the strained bean byproduct goes on to make soya products like TVP so nothing is wasted. :)
Here is another study that further supports that drinking dairy milk is a risk factor in developing prostate cancer. Drinking vegetable based milks is not harmful.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17704029
An epidemiology study in post-war Japan shows a 25 times increase in the incidences of prostate cancer in parrallel with huge dietary changes and indicates the cancer causing characteristics of meat, dairy and eggs.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12710911
In this study it was found that a totally plant-based diet, that means cutting out all dairy and meat offered the best chances of life longevity after having been diagnosed with cancer. Cancer patients will say they'd do anything to have that extra bit of life to be with with family but would that mean they would change their diet to being a vegan?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18789600
Here is another study which suggests that if girls consume a diet that contains animal proteins then that will cause an early onset of menarche. Early menarche is related to high susceptibility to developing breast cancer and osteoporosis later in life.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20529402
English "WESTMINSTER" propganda mate....... Sturgeon has all the answers......... she is the be all and end all.............
Goodfellers
17-Sep-16, 10:25
I personally would rather eat what I enjoy and maybe just maybe shorten my life expectancy slightly. Who wants to live for ever on a diet of lettuce leaves? Not me for sure.
Ps I was a manager on a 140,000 intensive poultry unit and I had vegetarians buying my eggs over free range as my birds only ate a grain based diet. Free range birds have access to insects and worms (meat)
I personally would rather eat what I enjoy and maybe just maybe shorten my life expectancy slightly. Who wants to live for ever on a diet of lettuce leaves? Not me for sure.
Ps I was a manager on a 140,000 intensive poultry unit and I had vegetarians buying my eggs over free range as my birds only ate a grain based diet. Free range birds have access to insects and worms (meat)
Sorry but do you really think a vegan diet is just eating lettuce leaves or are you just trying to prevent people from refusing to buy your cancer causing products or trying to reinforce a false metaphore? I fully respect anyone's decision to abuse their their own body or play Russian roulette with their health but ignorance is rife about the dangers of eating animal products so I am fully prepared to conduct a large series of posts to promote the fantastic tasty, safe, quality and variable aspects of a vegan diet if you think that it is boring or you think eating animal products is safe.
I personally would rather eat what I enjoy and maybe just maybe shorten my life expectancy slightly.
The problem is that it doesn't seem to be a slight increase of risk of cancer with eating eggs.
This study shows that:
Men who consumed 2.5 or more eggs per week had an 81% increased risk of lethal prostate cancer compared with men who consumed less than 0.5 eggs per week
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21930800
The problem is that it doesn't seem to be a slight increase of risk of cancer with eating eggs.
This study shows that:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21930800
Your link says: "In conclusion, consumption of eggs may increase risk of developing a lethal form of prostate cancer among healthy men."
Your link says: "In conclusion, consumption of eggs may increase risk of developing a lethal form of prostate cancer among healthy men."
Playing Russian roulette may result in death.
Playing Russian roulette may result in death.
You don't understand what you're posting on here.
Playing Russian roulette increases the risk of death.
Your link says "consumption of eggs may increase risk of developing a lethal form of prostate cancer among healthy men."
Do you not know what "may" means?
Sorry but do you really think a vegan diet is just eating lettuce leaves or are you just trying to prevent people from refusing to buy your cancer causing products or trying to reinforce a false metaphore? I fully respect anyone's decision to abuse their their own body or play Russian roulette with their health but ignorance is rife about the dangers of eating animal products so I am fully prepared to conduct a large series of posts to promote the fantastic tasty, safe, quality and variable aspects of a vegan diet if you think that it is boring or you think eating animal products is safe.
srsly? this is what the org has turned into....hmm i will enlighten you about 99% of Joe public thoughts
who would want to live to 75-90 to do what? extend the agony of what is life basically a slow death? with a boring food regime
nah highly doubtful...im glad you eat soya ...i certainly couldn't or wouldn't want too.
Life is a roll of a dice some win some loose regardless when we go the world wont stop for us. Lol in 100 year not one of us will be remembered from Caithness anyways
You don't understand what you're posting on here.
Playing Russian roulette increases the risk of death.
Your link says "consumption of eggs may increase risk of developing a lethal form of prostate cancer among healthy men."
Do you not know what "may" means?
It seems you do not understand what risk and what hazard means.
They are two different things.
Russian roulette is a hazard and there is a risk of death attached to playing Russian Roulette. A big risk of death. But it may only cause death as it is possible play Russian roulette without dying. Russian Roulette may cause death but then it may not but you are at increased risk if you play it. If you play one game of Russian Roulette in your life then you have a 16% risk of dying from a bullet in your head. The risk to developing a fatal cancer from eating animal products throughout your life is not much different.
The 'may' in this context is the uncertainty that refers to an activity which eggeaters are also doing which may cause cancer that the non-eggeaters aren't doing that was not identified or corrected for in the study. You need to find a reason and it may be that the eggeaters are also eating dairy and meat but it may also be that eggeaters enjoy building stuff with egg boxes and painting eggshells with carcinogenic oil paints.
It seems you do not understand what risk and what hazard means.
They are two different things.
Russian roulette is a hazard and there is a risk of death attached to playing Russian Roulette. A big risk of death. But it may only cause death as it is possible play Russian roulette without dying. Russian Roulette may cause death but then it may not but you areat increased risk if you play it.
That's what I said. Playing RR increases your risk of prompt gunshot death.
The 'may' in this context is the uncertainty
Yes. You should stick to sensible stuff like that.
I think Rheghead is sharing some very interesting information on what may be the benefits of a meat and dairy free diet. Thank you Rheghead. I struggle to see any effort on his part to tell anyone what they should, or should not, eat and I, for one, am better informed. At times it can be easy to dismiss other people's thoughts out of hand with nonsense arguments just because they ARE someone else's thoughts. If life is all about scoring points and burying heads in the sand for some......then so be it. For others it might be about sharing,listening and learning to mutual benefit.
Janey
Yes. You should stick to sensible stuff like that.
I'm trying to educate myself and hopefully others about the risks involved with eating dairy and other animal products, knowledge is power and I'm disappointed if someone tries to attack the studies in an unintelligent way or even in an anti-intellectual way.
There are only two courses of action, read the thread, then acknowledge the hazard and risk of eating animal products then make a judgement on whether you act upon that knowledge or not. I'm afraid I have no time for denialists.
I think Rheghead is sharing some very interesting information on what may be the benefits of a meat and dairy free diet. Thank you Rheghead. I struggle to see any effort on his part to tell anyone what they should, or should not, eat and I, for one, am better informed. At times it can be easy to dismiss other people's thoughts out of hand with nonsense arguments just because they ARE someone else's thoughts. If life is all about scoring points and burying heads in the sand for some......then so be it. For others it might be about sharing,listening and learning to mutual benefit.
Janey
Thank you, I'm glad you are finding the thread useful.
What really puzzles me is that if there is so much scientific evidence at the academic level to suggest that consumption of animal products has an increased risk of developing cancer then why is it mainly up to vegetarian and vegan groups to promote the information? Given that these groups have a politically fringed reputation and image then surely the promotion of the risks should be taken up by the NHS or mainstream education? Why is it that health policymakers are virtually silent on this topic? Why is it when a cancer patient goes to their doctor then they are not advised to adopt a plant-based diet to slow down the development of tumours if the evidence is there? :confused
Here is another study which suggests that the introduction of a westernised diet in East Asian populations of more meat and dairy is associated with an increase in the incidence of various cancers.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22357483
Here is a study which suggests that vegetarians have significantly less incidence of heart disease and cancers than those of meateaters.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22677895
Thank you, I'm glad you are finding the thread useful.
What really puzzles me is that if there is so much scientific evidence at the academic level to suggest that consumption of animal products has an increased risk of developing cancer then why is it mainly up to vegetarian and vegan groups to promote the information? Given that these groups have a politically fringed reputation and image then surely the promotion of the risks should be taken up by the NHS or mainstream education? Why is it that health policymakers are virtually silent on this topic? Why is it when a cancer patient goes to their doctor then they are not advised to adopt a plant-based diet to slow down the development of tumours if the evidence is there? :confused
Yes, it's puzzling. I'm not sure I have an answer. The best I can come up with is that maybe for every study advocating a pro vegetarian or vegan diet there is a study advocating the consumption of animal products as part of a varied diet? If that is correct then I guess the NHS might be expected to advocate what you might call a traditional varied diet. That is until such time as the evidence becomes so overwhelming in favour of vege diets that the NHS can advocate them without fear of litigation.
Personally, I believe in a varied diet but one which does not have much meat in it (maybe 3 times a week in my case) nor too much dairy and oh, I really try to avoid non-organic root vegetables. That's very important to me but I try not to get too wound up about it. So what I'm saying is I don't think it's a good idea to have too much of anything really as even large quantities of what some people might think of as a very healthy food could be harmful. That's where I'm at these days but I try to be open-minded. Research will go on forever and a day so I guess it's sensible to remain open-minded while respecting everyone else's choices.
Just a cautionary tale of how advocating a diet too religiously can go badly wrong. My sister is a strict vegan and will not even eat chocolate because of the milk content. When she gave birth to a girl we were all concerned when my sister proposed that my new niece would be brought up on a strict vegan diet. The family saw this as a dangerous experiment for a child in development and so it proved to be. As she grew up my niece was being told by her mum that she couldn't eat this and she couldn't eat that and, frankly, she became confused and too scared to eat almost anything at all. A sort of paranoia set in. I think there were only about 3 foods that she would eat. She refused all food in school or when visiting friends houses and she became badly under-nourished. The result was that various health problems developed and she became seriously ill. At one point her Doctor only gave her months to live. Thankfully she pulled through and she has reached her teenage years but it was a close call at one point. I guess the moral of the story is that, whatever a parent's diet preferences may be, babies and children should be given a balanced diet until such time that they can reasonably make their own choices.
Janey
I cannot comment on your niece's case but there is no reason why a child can't be brought up a healthy vegan, it shouldn't have been seen as a dangerous experiment. I suspect that a child is more likely to be healthy if a vegan than for meateater because of such a poor diet in chips, and junk food etc etc. Perhaps your niece was confused not because your niece was brought up vegan but because there is a huge amount of social and peer pressure for kids to eat meat and dairy from other kids if they are meateaters, confusion only occurs when someone receives two conflicting stories. I'd imagine there must be virtually no control over kids once they are at school. I'm sure once a vegan child is identified at school then they'd be the target of plenty of ridicule at school. It shouldn't be like that, we should be supportive of people who have a healthy diet.
I believe that parents should bring up their children as they see fit and give them enough information for them to make their own decisions. If it is done right then there will be no reason for kids to want to eat meat or dairy given the health risks. It seems to me that there is no safe lower limit to the amount of animal products that a child can eat. I can say that with confidence because one of the studies mentioned showed that men who ate an average 2.5 eggs per week had an increased risk of 81% of developing prostate cancer than those that ate hardly any at all. 2-3 eggs per week is not a huge amount, it would even be considered a low intake and certainly not the egg per day brreakfast that we were encouraged to eat in the 1980s.
Aaldtimer
18-Sep-16, 08:43
1950's! https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjX8vihtZjPAhWmKcAKHRPlB8QQFgg4MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gotoworkonanegg.co.uk%2Fwatch _the_egg_adverts.html&usg=AFQjCNEdFsOqF6eva3SVzRaf8Q6q89yTRQ&bvm=bv.133178914,d.d24 :)
It's all the processed food that causes cancer in certain individuals so best to avoid supermarkets because all they sell is highly processed crap. It's not rocket science.
I'm an alcoholic, smoke 50 roll ups a day, only exercise when I change gear in the car, only eat once per day (at 5pm), prefer laying on bed than exercising...... I have seen many people get cancer who don't smoke / don't drink / don't eat junk food / take regular exercise etc etc. The thing is, it seems, the ones who DON'T imbibe in the verbotten nasties (tobacco / booze / bacon and eggs etc.) are the poor sods who get cancer!
The native American Indians smoked tobacco........ Henry the eighth enjoyed a pint or two.............
I'm not at all proud admitting that I smoke 50 a day and do a bottle of scotch per evening BUT I am 55 years old and have never been in a Hospital (tochwood).
I am no expert but ANYTHIING purchased from a supermarket (super processed) is the reason why cancer is killing us...... it's NOT passive "smoke" it's the we are being offered on the aisles.
For me, the best source of information that I can totally trust is Cancer Research UK. If you go on their website, it is easy to find all the latest on causes of cancer and the newest scientific evidence is to be found on there. You can find plenty on it about diet, exercise, 'superfoods', fads......
This below is a quote from on their site on dairy foods:
.Studies looking into the link between cancer and dairy products have not given clear results. There is evidence that dairy products could reduce the risk of bowel cancer, but we cannot say for sure that this is the case. There is no strong evidence linking dairy products to any other types of cancer. We need further research to find out more about the links between dairy products and cancer risk.
Hormones in milk
In some countries, a hormone called bovine somatotrophin (BST) is used to speed up or increase the production of milk or meat. In the UK and the rest of Europe, farmers are banned from using this hormone, and the import of meat from countries, including the US, where this hormone is used is also banned. This ban is on animal welfare grounds and not because there is any proven effect on human health. Independent health bodies including the European Union Scientific Committee have reviewed the evidence on BST and found it does not pose any harm to human health.
The Food Standards Agency regulates the content of dairy products, including milk. This set of standards makes sure these products are safe to use.'
Goodfellers
19-Sep-16, 09:31
Dairy products are causing cancer. This is very misleading statement to use as a thread title, I would have thought the word ‘may’ should be in theresomewhere.
As mentioned earlier, I was a poultry farmer for 40 yearsand have eaten a huge number of eggs and dairy produce. I devour blocks ofcheese, eat whole cartons of clotted cream with a spoon (delicious), munch myway through piles of bacon sandwiches and eat enough steak (thanks to theCastletown hotel steak nights!) to rebuild several cows each year. I am veryhealthy, normal cholesterol level, no signs of any cancer (thanks toNHSScotland for screening service).
As previous commentator said, some very healthy nonsmokers/drinkers end up riddled withcancer. Cancer often runs in families, which is why doctors are interested infamily history. This is also why some people live to a ripe old age havingsmoked/drink/ eaten ‘unhealthily’ all their life. We are all going to die, Iplan on arriving at the pearly gates having enjoyed all my life and notregretting missing out on all the delicious food this world has to offer.
I have known several vegetarians in my life, they were allyoung. As they have reached late 30’s – 40’s something seems to happen andvegetarianism goes out the window, probably the realisation that life is shortand unpredictable.
a bottle of scotch per evening
Don't worry about that.
Just stay off the egg-nog.
For me, the best source of information that I can totally trust is Cancer Research UK. If you go on their website, it is easy to find all the latest on causes of cancer and the newest scientific evidence is to be found on there. You can find plenty on it about diet, exercise, 'superfoods', fads......
This below is a quote from on their site on dairy foods:
.Studies looking into the link between cancer and dairy products have not given clear results. There is evidence that dairy products could reduce the risk of bowel cancer, but we cannot say for sure that this is the case. There is no strong evidence linking dairy products to any other types of cancer. We need further research to find out more about the links between dairy products and cancer risk.
Hormones in milk
In some countries, a hormone called bovine somatotrophin (BST) is used to speed up or increase the production of milk or meat. In the UK and the rest of Europe, farmers are banned from using this hormone, and the import of meat from countries, including the US, where this hormone is used is also banned. This ban is on animal welfare grounds and not because there is any proven effect on human health. Independent health bodies including the European Union Scientific Committee have reviewed the evidence on BST and found it does not pose any harm to human health.
The Food Standards Agency regulates the content of dairy products, including milk. This set of standards makes sure these products are safe to use.'
That's the thing though isn't it Fulmar. We have CancerUK saying that what you quoted on their website but I've put up several scientific studies that show that dairy products are a significant cancer risk factor. What do you think is going on? Why are they not telling us the full story? Why do they not go by the scientific studies? Why aren't they at the very least telling us to take a precautionary strategy by advising us not to consume animal products or cut them down? How many studies need to be published until they change their advice?
What does the World Health Organisation say?
What does the World Health Organisation say?
They say this as their key statement for breast cancer
Early detection in order to improve breast cancer outcome and survival remains the cornerstone of breast cancer control.
Detection yes but they are very mute on the causes of breast cancer. I always thought that prevention is better than cure.
I've put up several studies that strongly suggest that eating animal products are a significant risk factor in causing breast cancer. That is a bit of a shortcoming from WHO I think.
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine state
Recent scientific studies have suggested that dairy products may be linked to increased risk for prostate cancer, testicular cancer, and possibly for ovarian and breast cancers.Prostate cancer has been linked to dairy products in several studies. In Harvard’s Physicians Health Study, including more than 20,000 male physicians, those who consumed more than two dairy servings daily had a 34% higher risk of developing prostate cancer than men who consumed little or no dairy products. Several other studies have shown much the same thing.
A recent analysis of studies examining a relationship between dairy product consumption and ovarian cancer risk found that for every 10 grams of lactose consumed (the amount in one glass of milk), ovarian cancer risk increased by 13 percent.
In Asia, where whole grains, vegetables, fruits, tofu, soymilk, and other soy products are commonly consumed and milk is not a normal part of the diet, people are generally healthier and breast cancer is much rarer than in the United States and Europe.
http://www.pcrm.org/health/cancer-resources/ask/ask-the-expert-dairy-products
In Asia, where whole grains, vegetables, fruits, tofu, soymilk, and other soy products are commonly consumed and milk is not a normal part of the diet, people are generally healthier and breast cancer is much rarer than in the United States and Europe.
There's a boat leaving today.
Goodfellers
20-Sep-16, 13:02
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) isa non-profit research and advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., which promotes a vegan plant-based diet
I am sure the egg industry council or the replacement forthe milk marketing board could espouse all the benefits of eggs/milk. Everyorganisation has an agenda to promote.
Again, in all your links the word ‘MAY’ alwaysappears with the ‘research’. Riding my motorbike everyday may reduce mylifespan but I am still going to do it.
Goodfellers
20-Sep-16, 13:04
Does anyone know why typed words end up linked when posted. Tried typing in Word then copy and pasting but still does it. Really annoying
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) isa non-profit research and advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., which promotes a vegan plant-based diet
I am sure the egg industry council or the replacement forthe milk marketing board could espouse all the benefits of eggs/milk. Everyorganisation has an agenda to promote.
Again, in all your links the word ‘MAY’ alwaysappears with the ‘research’. Riding my motorbike everyday may reduce mylifespan but I am still going to do it.
I'm sure the the egg industry council or the replacement for the milk marketing board would sing a different tune but I'd be interested in their scientific studies (if any) to back up their statements. I'm trying to focus on the science, it is up to you to do what you want with the information, if you have devcided to continue to eat eggs and dairy then that is your decision, I will support your decision, it is your life afterall. As physicians though, the PCRM are oath-bound to give advice in the best interests of patients and public health and as a plant-based diet looks to be the best diet in terms of health then I cannot criticise them for their position. It worries me why the advice is watered-down in our own mainstream health organisations. They are supposed to adhere to the science as well and give people the best advice based upon that research.
I'd also give a caveat in the interpretation of the wording there. Science works by testing models and that means running experiments or studies based on sets of data and under certain criteria and testing them to see what results come out of the experiment. The criteria in most of these experiments or epidemiological studies is people's eating habits in relation to dairy, meat and eggs and testing against people who don't eat these products and the results show that people who eat animal products have a significant incidence of cancer rates than in the control group the vegans etc.
What the reports do not claim credit for is sets of factors or influences that may be outside the scope of the experiment, for example it may be that people who eat animal products might also smoke more , inhale glue, play Monopoly or whatever. But you have to take a reasonable judgement why that doesn't apply to the control group. You have to think if it is not the dairy, meat and eggs then what could account for the differences in cancer rates given that the scientists are testing a mechanism to those cancers as well and not just some random correllation. The deduction to any alternative mechanism has to be reasonable and logical.
So the language that can only be used in the conclusions is 'may cause because of other factors that be outside the scope of the experiment or study, the uncertainty may be real or it may be totally illusory depending on how much emphasis you may wish to place on what has not been deemed worthy of testing. So we must be careful not to confuse the emphasis of a scientific 'may' with a 'may' that we would use in everyday language. I've seen too many anti-intellectual arguments (from people who really should know better) who question the science in relation to other fields of study like Evolution and Climate Science, like "Yeah but Evolution is only a theory, right?" and "Climate Science is bunkum because they can't be 100% certain the IPCCC Report, they only claim fossil fuels is only likely to warm to the atmosphere above 2 degrees, so I will continue to drive my SUV." and the big one "Science can't disprove God because the Big Bang may have been the start of the Universe". It is the job of individuals and policy-makers to interpret the science and spread the word but in relation to eating dairy, meat and eggs it seems the message is not getting through.
What the reports also do not claim is the impeccable quality of the data so caution needs to be administered here if you think it is not too bad to be eating animal products. Because the criteria is dependent on who only 'claim' to be vegan but I've had often heard people who talk about their cousin or friend who went vegan once but who sneaked a sausage when nobody was looking. I also know that it is almost impossible to totally avoid eating animal products altogether because of poor food labelling and genuine mistakes or intentional acts to deceive in food preparation. As there seems to be no safe lower limit to the amount of animal products that we can eat then we can be reasonable to assume that a lot of cancers in the vegan populations are due to eating animal products as well.
As I say, I completely trust the advice of Cancer Research UK and have good reason to do so. I also know that any links to do with foods are incredibly difficult to prove either way. The generation of a cancer in any individual person is incredibly complex as at the end of the day, it stems from a mutation in a single cell. These mutations, that occur as cells divide, frequently occur in all of us but generally, they are identified and knocked out by the immune system. We each have micro tumours going about, it is just that we do not know it and most don't develop into a full blown cancer. As one ages, the mutations increase while the efficiency of the immune system in detecting and knocking them for six decreases. This is why one of the greatest cancer risk factors is simply that of aging and none of us can do anything about that. Of course, there are the well known factors that we all know about that have been proved to increase risk and are (sometimes) connected with particular cancers.
As regards whether to eat animal products or not, it is worthwhile remembering if one is unduly worried about it that human beings evolved as omnivores and we each carry in our jaw the evidence for this in the form of a pair of canine teeth. Also, cancers occur in all vertebrates and have even been identified in invertebrates.
I was once told by an oncologist that if 'they' ie the medics and scientists knew of a particular and for definite risk factor or specifically, food you should or should not eat to protect, prevent, treat cancer, did I not think that 'they' would be shouting it from the roof tops? They would, as it would save them an absolute fortune and solve a lot of the problems of the NHS in one stroke!
At the end of the day, one has to personally weigh up the risks etc and decide what to do or not to do and for me, like I said at the beginning, it CR UK that I trust as they exist only to save lives that are currently being placed in turmoil and sacrificed to cancer.
As I say, I completely trust the advice of Cancer Research UK and have good reason to do so. I also know that any links to do with foods are incredibly difficult to prove either way. The generation of a cancer in any individual person is incredibly complex as at the end of the day, it stems from a mutation in a single cell. These mutations, that occur as cells divide, frequently occur in all of us but generally, they are identified and knocked out by the immune system. We each have micro tumours going about, it is just that we do not know it and most don't develop into a full blown cancer. As one ages, the mutations increase while the efficiency of the immune system in detecting and knocking them for six decreases. This is why one of the greatest cancer risk factors is simply that of aging and none of us can do anything about that. Of course, there are the well known factors that we all know about that have been proved to increase risk and are (sometimes) connected with particular cancers.
As regards whether to eat animal products or not, it is worthwhile remembering if one is unduly worried about it that human beings evolved as omnivores and we each carry in our jaw the evidence for this in the form of a pair of canine teeth. Also, cancers occur in all vertebrates and have even been identified in invertebrates.
I was once told by an oncologist that if 'they' ie the medics and scientists knew of a particular and for definite risk factor or specifically, food you should or should not eat to protect, prevent, treat cancer, did I not think that 'they' would be shouting it from the roof tops? They would, as it would save them an absolute fortune and solve a lot of the problems of the NHS in one stroke!
At the end of the day, one has to personally weigh up the risks etc and decide what to do or not to do and for me, like I said at the beginning, it CR UK that I trust as they exist only to save lives that are currently being placed in turmoil and sacrificed to cancer.
You are quite correct that age increases the number of mutations at the cellular level so therefore it is important that we adopt a suitable diet to reflect that vulnerability to cancer as we age. That means if you want the best preventative measure from cancer then a plant-based diet is the best answer. Studies show that aging populations could benefit the most from adopting a plant-based diet especially because of thel ower saturated, trans fat content but also the oestrogen in meat and dairy may be having an effect or keeping the level higher than the body needs it as we age, post-menopausal women have lower oestrogen levels etc etc. The question that every older person must ask themselves is 'why should I continue to eat meat and dairy if it will put me at greater risk of getting cancer?', life is precious especially if we want to see our grandkids grow up.
You mentioned cancer charities and how much you trust them and so you should. Lets take BreastCancerUK for an example, it is a charity dependent on subscription donations. It lists on its science and research page (http://www.breastcanceruk.org.uk/science-and-research) a list of risk factors that thought to cause breast cancer (with even less certainty than the risks with meat and dairy I might add) and yet no mention of the breast cancer risks associated with eating animal products? What is going on? There is enough scientific evidence for the link as I've just established. Well the answer is that well-established charities like it are also compared to businesses in the way they do their business. What would be the effect on their donorship if they now told everyone that they should stop eating meat and dairy? The response will be exactly the same resistance that every vegan gets who promotes a plant-based diet as a prudent action to prevent cancer. The response will be exactly what you have said, we need to 'weigh up the risks and decide what to do or not to do and for me'. That's a polite way of saying "thanks but no thanks for telling me but I'm going to do what I want to do because I like what I'm doing". The end result for the charity is a reduced level of donor subscriptions a reduced global spread for its message...just for trying to address the number 1 cause of breast cancer to its members. You couldn't make it up, actually. People don't like being told what to do...even less they don't like people being 'oh holier than thou' and being on the moral pedestal. Changing people's behavior is hard, most health organisations won't tackle the main issues with eating meat and dairy because of the entrenched social, political, environmental and economic issues and people's lack of willing to change their habits. But the answer is really simple, stop eating meat, dairy and eggs if you want to have the best chance of a longer happier and healthier life.
Goodfellers
21-Sep-16, 08:32
But the answer is really simple, stop eating meat, dairy and eggs if you want to have the best chance of a longer happier and healthier life.
Maybe longer/healthier but you cannot claim happier for everyone. Many intelligent people will weigh up the pros/cons and still choose to continue eating food they enjoy. I do remember reading recently that wholesale prices of meat are rising due to the economic power of the Chinese, who for thousands of years have eaten a plant based diet. Now they (the average Chinese worker) have more disposable income, they want to eat meat. Why? Because they like the taste. Apparently this is also adding to global warming as more forests are being cleared to raise cattle and adding to world food shortage as (I think) it takes 10kg of grain to produce 1kg of meat. As Frasier on Dad’s Army said ‘We’re all doomed, doomed I say ’.
I personally think that scientific claims need to be treated as opinions in most cases, rather than fact. Travel back in time several centuries and the greatest scientific minds would swear on their mother’s life that the world was flat and that Earth was the centre of the Universe. We laugh at their poor understanding of the world around them. Who’s to say in centuries to come, residents of Earth will not look back and laugh at our understanding of science?
Neil Howie
21-Sep-16, 22:48
In this study it was found that a totally plant-based diet, that means cutting out all dairy and meat offered the best chances of life longevity after having been diagnosed with cancer. Cancer patients will say they'd do anything to have that extra bit of life to be with with family but would that mean they would change their diet to being a vegan?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18789600
Hi,
just picking on one of the posts. I can't read the article in full, and it is difficult to know how accurate the reporting was or if there was a particular reason for the high egg consumption for a particular sample, e.g. they were in hospital.
Plus the link between eggs and prostrate cancer may be specific, due to the antigen. There is no idea of the positive effects, e.g. if it also has a 25% less risk of Alzheimers, and 15% less risk of stomach cancer.
Also what is meant by 81% increase in risk? Is it relative risk or absolute risk - does my risk of developing lethal prostrate cancer go from 0.007% to 0.012%?
My "go to" place for news articles like these is the NHS site, and as it happens there is a post here on the very thing! link (http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/09September/Pages/eggs-in-diet-prostate-cancer-risk.aspx)
to quote
The study and data analysis also has several limitations. First, the number of deaths and cases of lethal prostate cancer were small (only 199 out of 27,607 men in the whole cohort, and 123 out of 3,127 in the case-only cohort [those who initially developed localised disease]). This small number increases the likelihood that the results are due to chance. Second, the researchers say that the group of men included in the study generally ate low amounts of the foods of interest, which limits the "power" (or ability to detect a difference) of the analysis.
Furthermore, while the researchers controlled statistically for a number of possible confounders, it is difficult to say whether other factors could account for this relationship. The researchers say that men in the study who consumed more red meat or eggs tended to have a higher BMI, exercise less and were more likely to smoke and have a family history of prostate cancer. Additionally, it is probably difficult to control completely for other dietary effects and focus the analysis on a single component of a person’s diet.
This study points to possible associations between diet and risk of prostate cancer. The aforementioned limitations, however, weaken the strength of these conclusions, along with the fact that previous research has looked at this question and found no association. While an 81% increased risk sounds like a high and definitive figure, it is probably best to wait for more conclusive research before cutting eggs out of your diet. There are existing dietary and lifestyle guidelines for reducing cancer risk, such as limiting your consumption of energy-dense foods such as meat and increasing your consumption of fruits, vegetables and wholegrains.
But the answer is really simple, stop eating meat, dairy and eggs if you want to have the best chance of a longer happier and healthier life.
Maybe longer/healthier but you cannot claim happier for everyone. Many intelligent people will weigh up the pros/cons and still choose to continue eating food they enjoy. I do remember reading recently that wholesale prices of meat are rising due to the economic power of the Chinese, who for thousands of years have eaten a plant based diet. Now they (the average Chinese worker) have more disposable income, they want to eat meat. Why? Because they like the taste. Apparently this is also adding to global warming as more forests are being cleared to raise cattle and adding to world food shortage as (I think) it takes 10kg of grain to produce 1kg of meat. As Frasier on Dad’s Army said ‘We’re all doomed, doomed I say ’.
I personally think that scientific claims need to be treated as opinions in most cases, rather than fact. Travel back in time several centuries and the greatest scientific minds would swear on their mother’s life that the world was flat and that Earth was the centre of the Universe. We laugh at their poor understanding of the world around them. Who’s to say in centuries to come, residents of Earth will not look back and laugh at our understanding of science?
I'm glad that you are doing your own form of research on the other impacts of meat and dairy production but don't fall into the trap of because you don't like a fact then it is better to ignore it. I accept that is a natural human reaction to something that we would like to bury from our conciousness but be warned that those environmental studies have been put together by respected authors and peer-reviewed as valid. That said I'm focussing more on the health issues of eating dairy and meat, I'll probably move on to the other issues in the full goodness of time. Whether you want to eat meat or not, I'm not bothered, but I just want to have that discussion, sharing information never hurt anyone. But if you are armed with information that a meat-eating diet is damaging your health, your planet and your pocket then you have to ask why you continue to do it. Personally I'd be happier if the countryside is more natural and sustainable.
Also what is meant by 81% increase in risk? Is it relative risk or absolute risk - does my risk of developing lethal prostrate cancer go from 0.007% to 0.012%?
Well the risks of dying from prostate cancer are very much higher than that. From your own quote from the study there is a 0.72% risk of dying from it some 100 times higher than you suggested.
The Bazian critique also points to other factors as being contributory to prostate cancer like obesity in general. Well to state the obvious, if you are cutting out meat, dairy and eggs from your diet then you are going a long way to shedding a lot of pounds. That's one of the positive aspects of a plant-based diet, it is low on the bad fat and high in the good fat so BMIs will improve. It is a shame that Bazian failed to reinforce that point.
Another study to reinforce the notion that a diet rich in green leafy vegetables can reduce the risks of breast cancer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20724470
A risk factor with oesophageal cancer is acid reflux or heartburn, a very common digestive complaint. To reduce your exposure to acid reflux then the advice is to cut out processed meat and eat more vegetables as processed meat like bacon and pies can/will bring on heartburn.
http://www.healthline.com/health/gerd/esophageal-cancer#RiskFactors4
Here is a peer-reviewed physician's guide to plant-based diets.
Plant-based diets have been associated with lowering overall and ischemic heart disease mortality; supporting sustainable weight management; reducing medication needs; lowering the risk for most chronic diseases; decreasing the incidence and severity of high-risk conditions, including obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and hyperglycemia; and even possibly reversing advanced coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes.
Cancer activity reduction via several mechanisms, including inhibiting tumor growth, detoxifying carcinogens, retarding cell growth, and preventing cancer formation
Protection against certain diseases, such as osteoporosis, some cancers, CVD, macular degeneration, and cataracts
That is quite a big list health benefits of adopting a plant-based diet.. One thing that stood out for me is the prevention of osteoporosis, we've been conditioned since kids that milk is essential for bone growth when it appears that the opposite is true.
http://www.thepermanentejournal.org/issues/2016/summer/6192-diet.html
Bill Fernie
24-Sep-16, 14:28
Over 12 years ago I put some links in the links section of the web site under the heading Milk or Not Milk - http://www.caithness.org/links/milkornotmilk.htm
Oddly although not many links they are all still are working Some fairly biased stuff on both sides and one of them links to many other American web sites.
Over the years the arguments have come and gone on both sides but I always err on the side of caution when vested interests are concerned and even health related places who may have other things to say but may also have vested interests in the medical or pharmaceutical industries.
Perhaps balance and not over indulging in anything is common sense - even with what we have brought up to believe is good for us. I do think milk is good if you lack other sources of nutrition in your diet from fresh foods and particularly for children. Probably so after wartime when many foods were in short supply. However as we get older perhaps fresh fruit and vegetables are more important and less milk and fats generally would be good thing.
Being brought up with milk and all its many variations in foods does kind of colour your outlook after all we have had many decades of brain-washing about what to buy and what is good for us from TV etc
Moderation seems likely to be the best course. And of course I do wonder about that Hot chocolate I had last night before retiring to sleep.
The debate will rage on for along time to come as it does on Red Wine, Beer, Fruit Juices etc - when water beats them all for most of us if we are really thinking healthy.
Mostly if we were to just buy fresh fruit and vegetables and a few nuts we would survive and be thinner and healthier. And probably wealthier if we did not buy any so called value added products that only add profits to companies rather than benefits for us.
Would life be longer but duller - we can all decide for ourselves.
In the long run too much of anything is bad for us. Pity as we mostly like everything that's on offer from time to time.
Just be sensible and cut down on it all what ever it is and you will probably do yourself good and enjoy it more...........................
I also like to think of the history or rather the pre-history of drinking milk to put the whole dairy industry into context. Human Beings are the only animal that consume another species' lactations. But Humans have been evolved for about 150,000 years and archaeological evidence only supports that we have been drinking milk in just the last ~8000 years, possibly a little longer in the middle east. My opinion is that this is a fairly recent event or change in our dietary history as a species in relative terms and especially only a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms as some human populations are still incapable of digesting milk. Our bodies are still trying to cope with drinking milk. It is like our species as a whole is trying to tell us that drinking milk is unnatural and should be obsolete because the health risks are catching up with us as we get older. In the ancient past, we humans needed to just get old enough to create the next generation and live long enough until they were old enough to look after themselves and then we could die. Health issues in old age were never an important issue but it is catching up with us in the modern world.
Right I've read the thread, apart from the long obsessive posts (obviously) and on balance, I'm persuaded that I need the nutritional and health value of these bacon and eggs. I'll get the milk benefits in the coffee afterwards.
Right I've read the thread, apart from the long obsessive posts (obviously) and on balance, I'm persuaded that I need the nutritional and health value of these bacon and eggs. I'll get the milk benefits in the coffee afterwards.
We can get all our nutritional and health values from plants You don't need the nutritional value in meat, dairy and eggs if there are safer alternatives from plants. What is no longer a need then becomes a choice by definition. Don't try to convince me and others that eating animal products is a necessity because you are only deceiving yourself.
If that is your choice then fine, I support you but making choices require you to go through a decision-making process of weighing up the pros and cons. In this thread I've pointed out just the cancer risks of dairy and eggs. But that is not the full story, I will go on to stack up the environmental, health and economic reasons against animal products. If the claims are valid then why do people still choose to eat them? It must become apparent that people are only capable of seing things from their own perspective and not further than their plate.
tonkatojo
25-Sep-16, 12:04
We can get all our nutritional and health values from plants You don't need the nutritional value in meat, dairy and eggs if there are safer alternatives from plants. What is no longer a need then becomes a choice by definition. Don't try to convince me and others that eating animal products is a necessity because you are only deceiving yourself.
Your statement above works both ways, why should you bother convincing me or others when for centuries our ancestors ate what was available and proof of that working is we the human race still habit this planet, probably in more numbers than necessary.
Your statement above works both ways, why should you bother convincing me or others when for centuries our ancestors ate what was available and proof of that working is we the human race still habit this planet, probably in more numbers than necessary.
It is because of that increasing population that makes the case for a plant-based diet more imperative for sustainability. Overpopulation arguments are just over-used reasons for unsustainability as a meateating diet requires 18 times more land for agriculture than for a plant-based diet. 30% of the Earth's land surface has already been given over to the purpose of raising animals for food, more meateaters and dairy eaters will require the destruction of wild places for food production. This means a huge land area has been robbed of the natural biodiversity that the Earth developed by itself and which we would value to be in had it been kept natural in the first place.
Goodfellers
25-Sep-16, 12:28
Rhehead
You ask;
If the claims are valid then why do people still choose to eat them?
I have said it before and I will say it again.........Because we like the taste. What plant smells or tasted like fried bacon?
Don't try to convince me and others that eating animal products is a necessity
Don't tell me what to do, or not to do.
And don't mendaciously invent statements by me, that fried breakfast is a necessity, thankyou very much.
But I wouldn't try to convince an internet vegan zealot of anything. You're not here to be convinced. You came to preach and stayed to repeat huge quotes.
Don't tell me what to do, or not to do.
I am not, if you think I am then the problem is yours alone. I am having a discussion about the health risks of eating dairy, eggs and meat. I am presenting the scientific evidence that supports the risks.
Rhehead
You ask;
If the claims are valid then why do people still choose to eat them?
I have said it before and I will say it again.........Because we like the taste. What plant smells or tasted like fried bacon?
I've never known anyone to give up eating animals because of the taste but plant-based food is also delicious. I also know from personal experience that when I gave up smoking then my food tasted better, the same thing happened when I gave up animal products, my food tasted much better, i think it had something to do with the fats in meat blocking the taste receptor signals. After a short period on a plant-based diet, a lot of other people do report that the smell of animal product taste stale and that fruit and vegetables taste much better. Foodies often talk about tasting higher notes in their food and drink, I think that happens when people eat a plant-based diet. I can only agree with that to the point that animal products do not look and feel like food anymore. Bacon is a taste-deadener to the cost of appreciating other foods. and may explain why meateating kids struggle with eating vegetables.
I am having a discussion about the health risks of eating dairy, eggs and meat. I am presenting the scientific evidence that supports the risks.
You are preaching, campaigning and exaggerating.
You are preaching, campaigning and exaggerating.
This issue is not about preaching, campaigning or exagerating. It is about education though, the science speaks for itself. Are you just opposed to yourself having a plant-based diet or are you opposed to anyone doing it for themselves?
Goodfellers
25-Sep-16, 16:07
Rheghead, can you explain why the population of emerging economies chose to switch to a meat based diet if all they are used to is a plant based diet and their taste buds have not yet been corrupted ?
Tonga is another example where the population were recently given access to cheap 'meat' and the plant based diet went out the window. I am sure you will have read the article, but for everyone else, here is a link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35346493
the science speaks for itself
Then let it. You're not a scientist.
Rheghead, can you explain why the population of emerging economies chose to switch to a meat based diet if all they are used to is a plant based diet and their taste buds have not yet been corrupted ?
Tonga is another example where the population were recently given access to cheap 'meat' and the plant based diet went out the window. I am sure you will have read the article, but for everyone else, here is a link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35346493
Well if there wasn't a better indictment about what i having been saying then I do not know what is. It proves to me that people cannot think logically when it comes to their food.
Another study to show the health benefits of a plant-based diet. Strangely enough, it says the benefits of a vegetarian diet are stronger in men.
In summary, vegetarians have consistently shown to have lower risks for cardiometabolic outcomes and some cancers across all three prospective cohorts of Adventists. Beyond meatless diets, further avoidance of eggs and dairy products may offer a mild additional benefit. Compared to lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets, vegan diets seem to provide some added protection against obesity, hypertension, type-2 diabetes; and cardiovascular mortality. In general, the protective effects of vegetarian diets are stronger in men than in women. At present, there are limited prospective data on vegetarian dietary patterns and body weight change, obesity and neurological disorders. Large dietary intervention trials on the effects of vegetarian diets on obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular outcomes are warranted to make meaningful recommendations for nutritional planning, assessment, and counseling.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/#!po=43.1034
The World Health Organisation and Oxfam are working on a scheme to improve the diet of a Cannibal tribe in South America.
The conclusion they have reached is that the only way for their diet to be healthier is if they stick to eating Vegans only.
Vegan Volunteers are being sought to put themselves forward in the name of helping Cannibals to live a longer, healthier and happier life.
An early stumbling block has been Cannibals who prefer the taste of meat eating people. "There's just no flavour off these Veg Munchers" has been a typical comment.
Neil Howie
29-Sep-16, 19:30
Program on BBC 1 tonight made for this thread?
9.00pm, the truth about meat
Program on BBC 1 tonight made for this thread?
9.00pm, the truth about meat
Well I only saw the second half of the programme so I'll catch up with the first half on iplayer.
Two points though...
It was clear that the overwhelming conclusion of the programme was that consumption of red meat should be be reduced to two days of the week if you are to avoid the worst chances of heart disease and cancer, that was not in dispute. If you regularly consume meat most days then you will be doing your body a service by following the guidelines.
Secondly, the programme makers were obviously in cahoots with the meat industry during the making of the programme in presenting a sanitised process of killing and butchery. We didn't even see the dispatch. Why? What are they afraid of? Well the truth is that people who see the killing process are put off eating meat because they don't want animals to feel pain and suffering. They suddenly make the connection between the meat on their plate and sentient animals who feel pain and suffering like we do. If the process was actually humane then you should be able to let your 5 year old see it, but it isn't. They talked about making the pre-killing process like waiting in a stress-free departure lounge, fresh hay and straw was seen to be on the ground, maybe they receive a duty-free buttercup on the way through the abbatoir? What a wonderful image to clear our conciences but it wasn't out of any love for the animal, the sanitised presentation was out of getting the best quality for the meat as stress makes the meat tough unpalatable and profits are affected.
Is fried goolies as good as they say?
I think that you are getting off topic though, Rheghead and yes, I agree that there are reasons to do with taking the life of an animal at an abbatoir which might make one give up meat eating but that is not the same as the health one.
The evidence of a link between high red meat consumption (especially processed meat) and bowel cancer is established in my view but not that cutting meat out altogether is preventative. I return to what I said earlier. I certainly know of one life long vegan who developed bowel cancer and I would imagine that came as an added huge shock.
We, human beings, evolved as hunter gatherers who ate shellfish, fish and hunted and ate wild animals. There is no getting away from that. I have heard the argument advanced that eating meat enabled the cultural, artistic and intuitive and imaginative aspects of human culture to flourish as time was 'freed up' from the constant search for food just to survive. As it happens, despite what you have said in earlier posts, longevity is increasing overall in the UK and we are all living longer. With advanced age comes the increased risk of cancer (due to complex factors related to aging) as probably, we should not be be living as long as we now do and certainly we did not survive as long in pre-history.
One thing that does now seem to be established is the very real connection between alcohol consumption and cancer risk. But you are not banging on at people for drinking are you! Why not compare the risk of eating your breakfast egg with drinking a large glass of red wine every night. I am willing to bet that it is not the cackleberries that present the greater risk!
We, human beings, evolved as hunter gatherers who ate shellfish, fish and hunted and ate wild animals. There is no getting away from that. I have heard the argument advanced that eating meat enabled the cultural, artistic and intuitive and imaginative aspects of human culture to flourish as time was 'freed up' from the constant search for food just to survive.
It wasn't eating meat that freed up people to multi-task from constantly searching for food, it was agriculture and specifically it was growing crops to create food and granaries to store food throughout the year.
As it happens, despite what you have said in earlier posts, longevity is increasing overall in the UK and we are all living longer. With advanced age comes the increased risk of cancer (due to complex factors related to aging) as probably, we should not be be living as long as we now do and certainly we did not survive as long in pre-history.
But longevity in recent years has nothing to do with eating meat, in fact eating meat is a threat to longevity.
One thing that does now seem to be established is the very real connection between alcohol consumption and cancer risk. But you are not banging on at people for drinking are you! Why not compare the risk of eating your breakfast egg with drinking a large glass of red wine every night. I am willing to bet that it is not the cackleberries that present the greater risk!
I'm a teetotaller, you will most likely not take any drinking advice from a teetotaller because I'd come across as holier than thou. But i am sure I could start preaching if you really want me to?
Another study that suggests that milk products; aggravate acne, increases BMI and increases insulin resistance. Probably not good to consume milk if you want to avoid type 2 diabetes and have a good body.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23975508
Abstract
Acne appears to represent a visible indicator disease of over-activated mTORC1 signalling, an unfavour-able metabolic deviation on the road to serious common Western diseases of civilisation associated with increased body mass index and insulin resistance. Exaggerated mTORC1 signalling by Western diet explains the association of acne with increased body mass index, insulin resistance, and early onset of menarche. Both, a high glycaemic load and increased consumption of milk and milk products, staples of Western diet, aggravate mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 signalling. This review of the literature summarises present evidence for an association between acne, increased body mass index, insulin resistance and Western diet. By dietary intervention with a Palaeolithic-type diet, the dermatologist has the chance to attenuate patients' increased mTORC1 signalling by reducing glycaemic load and milk consumption, which may not only improve acne but may delay the march to more serious mTORC1-driven diseases of civilisation.
Acne is a good thing to have if you're obsessed with longevity of life....
Acne sufferers live longer, research suggests (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/09/28/acne-sufferers-live-longer--research-suggests/)
Acne is a good thing to have if you're obsessed with longevity of life....
Acne sufferers live longer, research suggests (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/09/28/acne-sufferers-live-longer--research-suggests/)
They drank their milk.
Acne is a good thing to have if you're obsessed with longevity of life....
Acne sufferers live longer, research suggests (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/09/28/acne-sufferers-live-longer--research-suggests/)
No that isn't the conclusion of that study. The study suggested that people who suffer from acne may live longer lives. The mechanism cause for long life isn't the acne. However, people who suffer from acne may get benefit or relief from acne if they refrain from consuming dairy products and they will almost certainly live healthier and longer lives.
No that isn't the conclusion of that study. The study suggested that people who suffer from acne may live longer lives.
Suddenly, he knows what "may" means!
The mechanism cause for long life isn't the acne. However, people who suffer from acne may get benefit or relief from acne if they refrain from consuming dairy products and they will almost certainly live healthier and longer lives.
Aw damn he's back to making stuff up.
'By dietary intervention with a Palaeolithic-type diet, the dermatologist has the chance to attenuate patients' increased mTORC1 signalling by reducing glycaemic load and milk consumption, which may not only improve acne but may delay the march to more serious mTORC1-driven diseases of civilisation.'
Hate to say it but a palaeolithic diet definitely would have included eating meat!
The only argument I have with your postings is that they are simplistic on a topic that is incredibly complex. There actually is evidence that people who eat a lot of red meat are at increased risk of various cancers but not that moderate consumption is an issue. There is a definite connection too between obesity and cancer. It is the second greatest risk factor after smoking. But it does not follow that eating dairy products or red meat in moderation is going to 'cause cancer' or necessarily make you fat. There are many more factors involved in whether a person is obese or not as most of us already know as there is in whether someone develops cancer.
All vertebrate animals get cancers. Is it simply a matter of them eating the wrong diet then, in your view. If we could only persuade all the carnivores to become vegans, would they be risk free- no, of course not .Equally, are the herbivores eating the wrong diet because some of them develop cancer. No, anymore than it is true of people. Sadly, vegetarians and vegans get cancer too and in any individual, no scientist or medic is going to appoint a definitive cause unless there is overwhelming evidence such as high exposure to radiation or workplace asbestos or something like that. Also, if a person develops cancer, believe me the last thing that they need in dealing with the disease and its treatment is to be led to believe that its somehow their fault and that is the logical conclusion of your posts with regard to eating meat and dairy products.
Cancer generation is incredibly complex and you simply cannot say, as this thread is headed, that 'dairy products cause cancer'.
I would urge anyone who is concerned about all of this to look at the Cancer Research UK website where you can find all the up to date information backed up peer reviewed research.
By dietary intervention with a Palaeolithic-type diet, the dermatologist has the chance to attenuate patients' increased mTORC1 signalling by reducing glycaemic load and milk consumption, which may not only improve acne but may delay the march to more serious mTORC1-driven diseases of civilisation.'
The only argument I have with your postings is that they are simplistic on a topic that is incredibly complex.
There is nothng complex about how giving up eating meat and dairy products will improve your health and the environment. It doesn't take a change in government, it doesn't take a revolution, it doesn't take any medication, it doesn't take any effort and it certaily doesn't take any more money. If you think it does take then then you are ideologically bonded to eating those products by social conditioning thoughout your life.
'By dietary intervention with a Palaeolithic-type diet, the dermatologist has the chance to attenuate patients' increased mTORC1 signalling by reducing glycaemic load and milk consumption, which may not only improve acne but may delay the march to more serious mTORC1-driven diseases of civilisation.'
Hate to say it but a palaeolithic diet definitely would have included eating meat!
The only argument I have with your postings is that they are simplistic on a topic that is incredibly complex. There actually is evidence that people who eat a lot of red meat are at increased risk of various cancers but not that moderate consumption is an issue. There is a definite connection too between obesity and cancer. It is the second greatest risk factor after smoking. But it does not follow that eating dairy products or red meat in moderation is going to 'cause cancer' or necessarily make you fat. There are many more factors involved in whether a person is obese or not as most of us already know as there is in whether someone develops cancer.
All vertebrate animals get cancers. Is it simply a matter of them eating the wrong diet then, in your view. If we could only persuade all the carnivores to become vegans, would they be risk free- no, of course not .Equally, are the herbivores eating the wrong diet because some of them develop cancer. No, anymore than it is true of people. Sadly, vegetarians and vegans get cancer too and in any individual, no scientist or medic is going to appoint a definitive cause unless there is overwhelming evidence such as high exposure to radiation or workplace asbestos or something like that. Also, if a person develops cancer, believe me the last thing that they need in dealing with the disease and its treatment is to be led to believe that its somehow their fault and that is the logical conclusion of your posts with regard to eating meat and dairy products.
Cancer generation is incredibly complex and you simply cannot say, as this thread is headed, that 'dairy products cause cancer'.
I would urge anyone who is concerned about all of this to look at the Cancer Research UK website where you can find all the up to date information backed up peer reviewed research.
Are you just opposed to cutting out meat and dairy from your diet or are you opposed to everyone doing it?
I've nothing more to say, Rheg. You just carry on!
I've nothing more to say, Rheg. You just carry on!
OK no problems. The thing that disturbs me with your 'palaeo' diet angle was that I thought you were selling me an ideology of this is how our ancestors survived so we must do the same. Well the paleo diet is actually a fad diet. some of it is good some of it is bad. It also calls for no dairy, wheat and a whole host of other products. But the whole premise is that we should eat like our ancestors before the advent of farming. Since the vast majority, i think 90%+ of our animal products come from factory farms then the ideology is stretching it just a tad. We are not exactly up to the task of gathering into groups and taking down the next mammoth that comes our way.
pig whisperer
02-Oct-16, 12:40
Think this topic has been done to death, everything in moderation would be a sensible idea, Rheg you speak with the zeal of the newly converted, we all make decisions in life. either right or wrong & hammering us on the head with your reports sometimes has a negative effect
Think this topic has been done to death, everything in moderation would be a sensible idea, Rheg you speak with the zeal of the newly converted, we all make decisions in life. either right or wrong & hammering us on the head with your reports sometimes has a negative effect
I think you only want to close down this debate because you find it conflicts with your own personal choices. On the other hand, I think knowledge is fantastic, it doesn't cost anything and you can do anything with it except destroy it.
Goodfellers
05-Oct-16, 09:39
I know this thread has been done to death, but just been reading BBC News http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37549578
An interesting line says
Humans probably evolved hunger genes to cope in times of famine, say experts.
When food is scarce it makes sense to eat and store more fat to fend off starvation.
Lead researcher Prof Sadaf Farooqi, from the Wellcome Trust Medical Research Council Institute of Metabolic Science at the University of Cambridge, said the findings suggest that at least part of our food preferences are down to biology rather than free will.
"Even if you tightly control the appearance and taste of food, our brains can detect the nutrient content
Apart from palm oil, I don't know of any plants that can give the body the fats we want/need. I just have to accept I am genetically programmed to eat fat and cannot use free will to escape my love of dairy & meat.
I know this thread has been done to death, but just been reading BBC News http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37549578
An interesting line says
Humans probably evolved hunger genes to cope in times of famine, say experts.
When food is scarce it makes sense to eat and store more fat to fend off starvation.
Lead researcher Prof Sadaf Farooqi, from the Wellcome Trust Medical Research Council Institute of Metabolic Science at the University of Cambridge, said the findings suggest that at least part of our food preferences are down to biology rather than free will.
"Even if you tightly control the appearance and taste of food, our brains can detect the nutrient content
Apart from palm oil, I don't know of any plants that can give the body the fats we want/need. I just have to accept I am genetically programmed to eat fat and cannot use free will to escape my love of dairy & meat.
This is the crucial issue though. Biologically, we are living in constant Summer with central heating, shelter, and food all year round. We don't go through famine through the winter, we do not need to build up body fat to keep us going. We have invented and adapted beyond the biological need to adapt to famine and feast.
I have seen it written on a few websites that consuming animal protein has the comparable health risks to smoking a cigarette. Well I think it is pretty conclusive from the studies that I have linked to that there is a cancer risk. However cigarettes are addictive and people who are addicted to cigarettes will not see that they are addicted and they will actually play down the risks that are associated with smoking. But that can't be the case with eating dairy products as they are not addictive.......or so we thought but can we be sure about that? Could there be something in dairy that make us addicted to them? Well if you look at people's responses to a vegan's lifestyle you get the same impression that there is an addictive element because dairy-eaters are largely hostile, which is very similar to a smoker who claims they are lectured to by a non-smoker. It would not then be unreasonable to think there is an addictive element to animal products. In fact it is overly obvious to me that this may be the case because they will not listen, they know best and they will not be lectured by people who know better, despite all the evidence of health benefits. So i decided to investigate...
Well there does seem to be an addictive element. When casein, the main protein in dairy products is broken down by the digestive tract, a by-product is released into the body. It is an opiate called casomorphin. Just like a smoker is a slave to nicotine, a dairy eater is equally slave to their 'fix'. This chemical is in charge of their free-will, they are not in charge. It seems to me that dairy-eaters are unable to make a rational decision to cut down their intake of dairy to avoid the health risks because they need their 'high'. Only going cold turnip will get them weaned off their addiction but that takes support and knowledge.
To an addict of dairy products it would be absurd to have a plant-based diet like a vegan.
http://yumuniverse.com/addiction-to-cheese-is-real-thanks-to-casomorphins/
Why was the cheesemaker lopsided?
Because he only had one stilton.
A study by the British Medical Journal challenges the conventional wisdom that drinking plenty of milk helps to strengthen bones. In fact the study suggests that the opposite is true and drinking plenty of milk actually increases the risk of fracture, especially in women. The authors of the study recommend caution when interpreting the results and recommend further study.
http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g6015
However in total contrast, another study showed that women who drank soya milk instead showed the opposite trend, their risk of fracture and osteoporosis actually decreased.
The suggestion seems to be very clear, if you want strong bones then avoid animal based sources of calcium and eat and drink plant based sources of calcium like soya milk and green leafy vegetables.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3218100/
Neil Howie
22-Oct-16, 23:13
just catching up with this thread,
per post #88 and the link there, as I have previously mentioned you have emphasized the possible benefits of a vegetarian diet without looking at the risks. From the same study:
Vegans may have a greater challenge in meeting the nutritional adequacy for vitamin B12, protein, and calcium compared to lacto-ovo-vegetarians and meat-eaters...
Vitamin B12 deficiency may increase CVD risk factors [70 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/#B70-nutrients-06-02131)], and is associated for a wide range of neurological disorders [71 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/#B71-nutrients-06-02131)].
Kevin Milkins
23-Oct-16, 00:41
Staying alive seems to have become so scientific that I feel like ending it all.;)
Staying alive seems to have become so scientific that I feel like ending it all.;)
That sounds like a healthy option seeing as most damage done to the body comes from the byproducts of burning oxygen.
just catching up with this thread,
per post #88 and the link there, as I have previously mentioned you have emphasized the possible benefits of a vegetarian diet without looking at the risks. From the same study:
Vegans may have a greater challenge in meeting the nutritional adequacy for vitamin B12, protein, and calcium compared to lacto-ovo-vegetarians and meat-eaters...
Vitamin B12 deficiency may increase CVD risk factors [70 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/#B70-nutrients-06-02131)], and is associated for a wide range of neurological disorders [71 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/#B71-nutrients-06-02131)].
There are no vitamin or nutrient deficiencies with a vegan diet.
Vitamin B12 is not produced by any plant or animal and is only produced by bacteria. So the thrust of the message is , yes, vegans need to source vitamin B12, but that just means that everyone, even meateaters need to source vitamin B12 from their diet. It is not really that difficult to think about.
But what is really going to bake your noodle is that the meat industry regularly injects vitamin B12 into their animals as a supplement because it is recognised that livestock is not getting enough vitamin B12 in their diet. In other words and as a consequence, meateaters take supplements in their food chain to get enough vitamin B12.
Neil Howie
24-Oct-16, 23:56
There are no vitamin or nutrient deficiencies with a vegan diet.
Vitamin B12 is not produced by any plant or animal and is only produced by bacteria. So the thrust of the message is , yes, vegans need to source vitamin B12, but that just means that everyone, even meateaters need to source vitamin B12 from their diet. It is not really that difficult to think about.
But what is really going to bake your noodle is that the meat industry regularly injects vitamin B12 into their animals as a supplement because it is recognised that livestock is not getting enough vitamin B12 in their diet. In other words and as a consequence, meateaters take supplements in their food chain to get enough vitamin B12.
I don't bake my noodles thanks!
Well it may be sold to farmers that their livestock are deficient in B12 but are they really? In some cases the supplementation will be giving them excess B12.
I'm not worried about sourcing my B12, I'm just worried about yours!
I don't bake my noodles thanks!
Well it may be sold to farmers that their livestock are deficient in B12 but are they really? In some cases the supplementation will be giving them excess B12.
I'm not worried about sourcing my B12, I'm just worried about yours!
Don't worry about mine. I'm getting plenty of B12. B12 deficiency is prevalent in meateater diets. It is non discriminatory.
There is nothng complex.
There's a complex in your heat-oppress'd brain, mate.
Another study which suggests that there may be a link between the consumption of cows milk with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12948848
Sleep apnoea in children is associated with higher levels of bovine casomorphin from milk which may explain the SIDS
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21478761
Sleep apnoea in childrenhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21478761
At last an end to the snoring children scourge.
At last an end to the snoring children scourge.
The link between snoring and consuming dairy products is very real. Snoring kids may sound trivial or even humorous but apnoea is the cessation of breathing during sleep and is an extreme form of snoring.
http://www.snore.net/cows-and-snoring/
Also, as dairy products are linked to snoring, snoring is also linked to a higher risk of getting cancer. We only need to put the pieces together and dairy products are linked to cancer. As always, dairy isn't the only reason for snoring or getting cancer, but if you want to reduce the risk of snoring or getting cancer then cutting out the dairy would be a prudent thing to do. You'd be doing your bodies a good service in many other areas as well, like diabetes and heart trouble.
Here is NHS-sourced confirmation that snoring is linked to a higher risk of cancer.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/05may/Pages/snoring-sleep-apnoea-cancer-risk.aspx
For God's sake, mate, is this your life?
There must be some job you could hold down.
For God's sake, mate, is this your life?
There must be some job you could hold down.
Just remember, I only offer the Truth.
You have two choices.
You can ignore my posts and stay in Wonderland. You can wake up tomorrow morning and continue to think that every cow, sheep and pig is happy because they live on Auld Macdonald's Farm. You can pour milk on your cornflakes and eat your hamburgers and think that the food is nourishing and good for your body. You can also think that farmers are protecting the environment because the fields look green and neat. You can believe that we are stewards of all Creation.
Or, you can read my posts and come with me on a journey to learn about what is really going on in our food production. You will learn about the real treatment and suffering of animals on our farms. You will learn about the real health risks from eating dairy and meat products. And you can also learn about how animal agriculture is destroying the planet; by stealing land from animals who should have a right to live here amongst us; about how animal production is a major contributor to climate change and possibly is the number one cause; and how animal agriculture is poisoning our seas and rivers.
But before you decide, remember this.....I only offer you the Truth...
Can't decide whether you're a Hippy or a Baptist. Maybe both, which is scary.
If I were you I would stop using that Internet as well. All those servers are adding to global warming and it's nothing but a vehicle for peddling pornography.
Might as well ban the wheel as well while we're at it - I'm sure there must be something offensive to you about it too.
Can't decide whether you're a Hippy or a Baptist. Maybe both, which is scary.
If I were you I would stop using that Internet as well. All those servers are adding to global warming and it's nothing but a vehicle for peddling pornography.
Might as well ban the wheel as well while we're at it - I'm sure there must be something offensive to you about it too.
I'm neither a Baptist or a hippy. But I am interested which you should choose, Wonderland or the Truth?
Then you must be the usual white settler come to tell the country yokels the wise ways of the world.
Bystander1
30-Oct-16, 14:54
Then you must be the usual white settler come to tell the country yokels the wise ways of the world.
Sounds more like Moses - come to lead us all the promised Land .
In a study of chronically constipated children who had not responded to treatment with laxatives, the kids were fed cows milk for a period of time with no difference in symptoms but when they were alternately fed with soymilk then 68% showed improvement no longer constipated symptoms.
http://www.drgreene.com/qa-articles/milk-constipation/
In contrast, you seem to have responded very well to the laxative treatment.
Dairy milk sales are falling sharply as young people are recognising the health benefits of almond and soya milks as healthy substitutes. Dairy experts are openly calling the trend as a demographic time bomb and a threat to a way of life that they have become comfortable with. Little do they know is that the fall in sales of dairy milk could usher in a generation of healthy teenagers who will look young well into their later years. The other benefits would be environmental, more biodiversity and cleaner rivers. It is a win-win situation.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/sales-milk-could-plummet-its-8786992
Here is another study which suggests that high intakes of lactose and dairy products, particularly milk, are associated with an increased risk (twice as likely) of serous ovarian cancer.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/80/5/1353.abstract?ijkey=f32e0c0c9e1a6d310919598b1448fb e4cc588fe3&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
You are forgetting the humiliating sexual assault those poor dairy cattle go through on a daily basis.
getting lined up aside each other and having their breasts pulled like that.
Doctors are inviting the Chicago Cubs to cut dairy produce from their diets because according to a study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5073921/) men who drink the most milk increase their risk of getting prostate cancer by 50%.
http://www.pcrm.org/media/news/doctors-urge-cubs-to-help-men
Bystander1
09-Nov-16, 08:38
So what about the Chigaco Scouts, Guides & Brownies. ?. Seems a bit selective to pick on the poor wee Cubs ?
From Cancer Research UK
Milk and dairy are good sources of calcium and protein which are needed as part of a healthy, balanced diet. Calcium is important for teeth and bone health.
Studies looking into the link between cancer and dairy products have not given clear results. There is evidence that dairy products could reduce the risk of bowel cancer, but we cannot say for sure that this is the case. There is no strong evidence linking dairy products to any other types of cancer. We need further research to find out more about the links between dairy products and cancer risk.
Read more at http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/diet-and-cancer/food-controversies#VupzjfcxoumzlVxO.99
I'll bet rheg is a real scream at a party.
did you hear the one about the constipated child..............
Kevin Milkins
09-Nov-16, 12:27
I have met Rheghead and he is a steady sensible person, however that doesn't mean I would agree with all he says, but I also think that is no excuse to be rude because your opinion is different.
Can't be long now until he's copied and pasted the entire Internet on here.
You obviously haven't read him calling Councillor Willie Mackay a rapist then!
Maybe he misread his business card - it said "WILLIE MACKAY - THERAPIST"
(wrong type of Counsellor / Councillor)
Kevin Milkins
09-Nov-16, 17:28
You obviously haven't read him calling Councillor Willie Mackay a rapist then!
No, I didn't read that, but I tend not to read too much about things I have no interest in.
As I said, I have met Rheghead and I doubt if he would set out to deliberately offend or upset anyone.
From Cancer Research UK
Milk and dairy are good sources of calcium and protein which are needed as part of a healthy, balanced diet. Calcium is important for teeth and bone health.
Studies looking into the link between cancer and dairy products have not given clear results. There is evidence that dairy products could reduce the risk of bowel cancer, but we cannot say for sure that this is the case. There is no strong evidence linking dairy products to any other types of cancer. We need further research to find out more about the links between dairy products and cancer risk.
Read more at http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/diet-and-cancer/food-controversies#VupzjfcxoumzlVxO.99
It is very interesting why CancerResearchUK play down the cancer risks that are associated with dairy products despite all the scientific studies on this thread that suggest something different is true. I like to compare this phenomenon of denial to Greenpeace's refusal to assign 15-20% of anthropological greenhouse gases to animal agriculture like beef and dairy. Why would a major international environmental organisation like Greenpeace ignore animal agriculture which is scientifically accepted as a major contributor to Climate Change? Why would Greenpeace be more keen to advise you to recycle your egg cartons instead of the blatantly obvious?
Why won't they say, 'cut out the dairy and meat and you can cut your carbon footprint by up to 20%'?
The answer to that question is hidden by how they operate. They are charities which rely on subscriptions and donations. It is safer for them to blame something that everyone agrees is to blame like deforestation, more runways, fossil fuels and poor insulation. They also need a bogieman like the Koch brothers to firm up their message. Heck, they don't even tell you that 70% of the Amazonian Rainforest is being felled to make space for grazing for the meat industry, they'd prefer to tell you it is down to mining or palm oil production! So they are not going to tell you to make lifestyle choices which are deemed to be unpopular because they fear their donations will suffer. You only have to read the negative comments on this thread to realise that there would be a serious backlash if household-name charities started to tell everyone to cut out dairy and meat from their diet.
Bing bong. Medication time.
Neil Howie
09-Nov-16, 22:05
The link between snoring and consuming dairy products is very real. Snoring kids may sound trivial or even humorous but apnoea is the cessation of breathing during sleep and is an extreme form of snoring.
http://www.snore.net/cows-and-snoring/
OK this is probably your least scientific post/link.
And there's a whiff of the fanatic in the air....
The link between mucus and milk, I think comes from Ayurvedic medicine, but clinical trials have found no link:
We conclude that no statistically significant overall association can be detected between milk and dairy product intake and symptoms of mucus production in healthy adults, either asymptomatic or symptomatic, with rhinovirus infection.
link (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2154152)
OK this is probably your least scientific post/link.
And there's a whiff of the fanatic in the air....
The link between mucus and milk, I think comes from Ayurvedic medicine, but clinical trials have found no link:
We conclude that no statistically significant overall association can be detected between milk and dairy product intake and symptoms of mucus production in healthy adults, either asymptomatic or symptomatic, with rhinovirus infection.
link (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2154152)
I'm afraid that does not disprove the link between milk and mucus or snoring/apnoea. The people in the study were already suffering from a cold and the mucus levels were detected to be up to 30g. Now even I would concede that mucus secretions due to the consumption of milk would be difficult to detect in amongst the secretions detected when someone had a cold.
I have met Rheghead and he is a steady sensible person, however that doesn't mean I would agree with all he says, but I also think that is no excuse to be rude because your opinion is different.
He's a crank.
Kevin Milkins
10-Nov-16, 00:17
I disagree, I take him to be an intelligent bloke that enjoys robust debate.
He believes passionately in what he is saying and supports his ideas with passion and research, but many try to discredit him with snide one liners.
I don't agree with much of his argument, particularly as I spent many years in the dairy industry milking cows, but he has his right to put what point he believes in and does it eloquently.
He's a crank.
No, he's definitely a crank.
White Settler Hippy. Exposed to too much radiation I think.
Exposed to too much radiation I think.
Or not enough.
I disagree, I take him to be an intelligent bloke that enjoys robust debate.
He believes passionately in what he is saying and supports his ideas with passion and research, but many try to discredit him with snide one liners.
I don't agree with much of his argument, particularly as I spent many years in the dairy industry milking cows, but he has his right to put what point he believes in and does it eloquently.
We can both be right.
Crank (informal): an eccentric or odd person, esp someone who stubbornly maintains unusual views.
2little2late
11-Nov-16, 12:03
I know. Why don't we stop eating and drinking altogether? That way we won't put ourselves at risk of cancer, although unfortunately for the majority of us we will all die of starvation.
2little2late
11-Nov-16, 12:11
Rheghead are you suggesting we become vegans, so apart from not eating meat eggs & dairy what else does it involve presume you wear plastic shoes etc tho I new a vegan that wore leather trousers, that confused the hell out of me
There is no such thing as a vegan.31072
I know. Why don't we stop eating and drinking altogether? That way we won't put ourselves at risk of cancer, although unfortunately for the majority of us we will all die of starvation.
I disagree with this. We can still eat well. 70% of crops are fed to animals who are butchered for meat. I have heard that it takes about 10lbs of plant protein to produce 1lb of animal protein. If we gave up eating meat and dairy then there would be a surplus capacity to produce food which is both nourishing and doesn't pose a significant cancer risk.
Goodfellers
14-Nov-16, 10:28
This is a post on Richard Gere's FB page https://www.facebook.com/RGereOnline/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED&fref=nf
"My friend's mom has eaten healthy all her life. Never ever consumed alcohol or any "bad" food, exercised every day, very limber, very active, took all supplements suggested by her doctor, never went in the sun without sunscreen and when she did it was for as short a period as possible- so pretty much she protected her health with the utmost that anyone could. She is now 76 and has skin cancer, bone marrow cancer and extreme osteoporosis.
My friend's father eats bacon on top ...of bacon, butter on top of butter, fat on top of fat, never and I mean never exercised, was out in the sun burnt to a crisp every summer, he basically took the approach to live life to his fullest and not as others suggest. He is 81 and the doctors says his health is that of a young person.
People you cannot hide from your poison. It's out there and it will find you so in the words of my friend's still living mother: " if I would have known my life would end this way I would have lived it more to the fullest enjoying everything I was told not to!"
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Eat the delicious food. Walk in the sunshine. Jump in the ocean. Say the truth that you’re carrying in your heart like hidden treasure. Be silly. Be kind. Be weird. There’s no time for anything else."
Bad choice of role model here. We all know what Richard Gete gets up to with furry quadrupeds.
Bad choice of role model here. We all know what Richard Gete gets up to with furry quadrupeds.
But who raped who?
The dairy industry and some UK cancer charities have been guilty of overly promoting the 'protective properties' to just one kind of cancer. colorectal cancer, that dairy products may provide. However, eating processed meat increases the risk of colorectal cancer, to give some context, just one sausage per day could increase your risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. So whilst I support that dairy products may reduce the risk of developing colorectal cancer, I have to say that the risk of developing this cancer is one that is of the dairy and meat industry's own making in the first place.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/world-health-organization-says-processed-meat-causes-cancer
What about vapour trails?
There is evidence to link eating a lot of red meat and processed meat with a slightly higher risk of developing colorectal cancer amongst any particular group of people. But this will (and always does, with cancer) depend upon individual genetic/mutation factors which determine whether a person will develop cancer. My frustration with your postings on this thread are that you make something that is incredibly complicated- ie the generation of cancer in any particular individual, sound simplistic. It is simply wrong to say that eating one sausage each day necessarily increases individual risk- it may do but equally, it may not. In any event, the last time I looked, milk and dairy did not fall under the heading of red and processed meat.
I challenge you to phone or email Cancer Research UK (they are always approachable) and discuss it with them and put the answers you receive on here. Unlike yourself, (I presume), they are the ones actually studying cancer and evaluating research which includes putting absolutely everything and every study to properly conducted and peer reviewed scrutiny.
My frustration with your postings on this thread are that you make something that is incredibly complicated- ie the generation of cancer in any particular individual, sound simplistic. It is simply wrong to say that eating one sausage each day necessarily increases individual risk- it may do but equally, it may not. In any event, the last time I looked, milk and dairy did not fall under the heading of red and processed meat.
There is nothing complicated in eating meat and dairy will raise your risk in developing cancer. It is not my words. Take your frustration out on the World Health Organisation whose own research agency has categorised red meat as a probable carcinogen. I have repeated study after study that suggests eating red meat and dairy is associated with higher rates of cancer. Your post reminds me about what tobacco companies would say about cigarettes.
I will repeat the words in the article;
Twenty-two experts from 10 countries reviewed more than 800 studies to reach their conclusions. They found that eating 50 grams of processed meat every day increased the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. That’s the equivalent of about 4 strips of bacon or 1 hot dog. For red meat, there was evidence of increased risk of colorectal, pancreatic, and prostate cancer.
I'm sorry but you can ignore that evidence if you wish, you can even get frustrated by it, I do not care, all I am concerned about is that you should have the best evidence before you so that you can make your own choices about your own lifestyle.
Are you connected with the meat and dairy industry?
I challenge you to phone or email Cancer Research UK (they are always approachable) and discuss it with them and put the answers you receive on here. Unlike yourself, (I presume), they are the ones actually studying cancer and evaluating research which includes putting absolutely everything and every study to properly conducted and peer reviewed scrutiny.
I'm afraid i won't be doing that. Cancer Research UK is not an impartial organisation towards the meat and dairy industry. Tesco has the largest corporate donation agreement with Cancer Research UK with some £12,000,000 going towards Cancer Research UK(CRUK) per year. Whilst I do not begrudge the money or question the validity of the cause, I realise that amount of genorosity does not come without any strings attached as the body of evidence weighs in against the dairy and meat industry.
Tesco is the biggest UK retailer of dairy and meat products in the UK. They are happy to plough those £millions into CRUK so long as CRUK does not mention cutting out meat or dairy products from Tesco's customer diets. They're keen on messages like increase consumption of fruit and vegetables though. The generosity of Tesco is based upon protecting its own profits and CRUK is happy to take the money. It is a stitch-up.
https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/tesco-raises-record--12m-for-cancer-research-uk.html
I am not connected with the meat and dairy industry in any way. What I am concerned about is scientific truth. There is a link with red meat consumption to colorectal cancer within populations but cancer involves individuals. Milk and dairy are not red or processed meat and the link between that and cancer is unproven. More research is needed. That does not mean that every person eating red and processed meat will develop cancer, some will, others will not. We all know plenty of folk who live to a ripe old age having eaten these foods all their life and they have not developed cancer. However, aging is one of the greatest risk factors and cancer incidence is also increasing simply because we are all tending to live longer, whatever we eat. Most colorectal cancer starts as a benign polyp that can be sitting there for years and then, for some reason, undergoes a mutational change and becomes cancerous. Many people develop polyps and there is absolutely nothing an individual can do regarding diet or lifestyle to prevent them from happening. The mutational changes occur at a cellular level and are incredibly complex in and no one has proved that eating a sausage causes that change to happen. If one wishes to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer, sure, cut out red and processed meat or eat them sparingly but do not think that you are then safe from that particular cancer because you are not. I know one vegan and others who are vegetarians who have sadly developed colorectal cancer. The 'protection' on an individual level is very small. Also, Rheghead, in the pursuit of truth, point me to the scientific study that proves that eating red or processed meat sparingly increases the risk of colorectal cancer? How many sausages are safe? Is it ok to eat them once a year with the Christmas turkey, for example?
I find your view of Cancer Research UK utterly sad, to be honest. As they point out, their own people get cancer too and all they are in business to do is to devise ways of preventing and treating it effectively and the answers do lie in scientific research and many lives are being saved because of that.
I find your view of Cancer Research UK utterly sad, to be honest. As they point out, their own people get cancer too and all they are in business to do is to devise ways of preventing and treating it effectively and the answers do lie in scientific research and many lives are being saved because of that.
How would you feel if CRUK was sponsored by British and American Tobacco with £millions and they instructed CRUK not to mention 'stop smoking' or 'cigarettes cause cancer' and instead they recommended more 'fresh air' or 'fewer puffs'? Because that is what is happening with CRUK in relation to the carcinogenic red meat and dairy products because of their sponsorship with Tesco..
I am not connected with the meat and dairy industry in any way. What I am concerned about is scientific truth. There is a link with red meat consumption to colorectal cancer within populations but cancer involves individuals. Milk and dairy are not red or processed meat and the link between that and cancer is unproven. More research is needed.
I have posted countless scientific papers that have been peer-viewed that suggest eating meat and dairy is related to developing cancer. It is obvious to me that I need to post more papers to convince you.
I need to post more papers to convince you.
No, it's alright - we're already fully aware you're a crank.
Let's all post some links...
The Vegetarian Gene: A Plant-Based Diet Causes Lasting Genetic Mutations That Could Increase Cancer Risk (http://www.medicaldaily.com/vegetarian-plant-based-diet-genetic-mutation-cancer-risk-380079)
please no more posters, no more!!!!
No, it's alright - we're already fully aware you're a crank.
I'm only a crank if you deny the science.
You live and you die..... please stop whining like a cry baby.
Here is another global study which shows a correlation between dairy and meat consumption with breast cancer, uteri cancer and ovarian cancer. The study suggests that the oestrogen in dairy and meat products are very much responsible for developing cancer. It seems women are very much at risk.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16125328
Yet another study which shows a significant correlation between dairy products and endometrial cancer in post-menopausal women.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21717454
Goodfellers
25-Nov-16, 20:23
Aaaaggggghhhhhh!!!!!
We can’t take anymore….where do I sign to pledge never to eat dairy again…………………..
Aaaaggggghhhhhh!!!!!
We can’t take anymore….where do Isign to pledge never to eat dairy again…………………..
You're gonna sign it and still eat cheese, aren't you!
Goodfellers
25-Nov-16, 20:26
Oh yeah......just please make him stop..... :-)
pig whisperer
25-Nov-16, 23:03
Can anyone help, I think I am addicted to this thread, I keep hoping that it will be closed & disappear, but no, there it is & I have to read it, I have to confess that I will still eat cheese , drink milk & spread butter on my toast oh well it may be closed tomorrow,
Can anyone help, I think I am addicted to this thread, I keep hoping that it will be closed & disappear, but no, there it is & I have to read it, I have to confess that I will still eat cheese , drink milk & spread butter on my toast oh well it may be closed tomorrow,
What's the big deal? Why is posting scientific papers on the carcinogenic properties of meat and dairy products so offensive for you?
Another study that shows that oral administration of low fat dairy milk to rats promoted mammary tumours in lab rats.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15122580
pig whisperer
25-Nov-16, 23:49
I said I was addicted not offended I am going to be strong & read no more as you are just repeating the same thing ad nauseam, might be a good time to stop
I am recovering from stomach cancer, had 2/3rds of my stomach removed, I dont drink milk, I love cheese , like butter, and I love meat , there is no way will I believe dairy products cause cancer, sorry Rheg , you have gone on too long about this, your becoming boring, I understand you have a personal issue with cancer and for that I am sorry. But rheg give this thread a rest
I said I was addicted not offended I am going to be strong & read no more as you are just repeating the same thing ad nauseam, might be a good time to stop
Yeah he's milking it now.
Goodfellers
26-Nov-16, 13:50
Yeah he's milking it now.
He will say that's 'udder' rubbish and keep 'pinting' us in the direction of his research. Time to 'teater' off and enjoy my bacon sarnie dripping with butter
I know this thread isn't boring because it receives a lot of attention and trolling comments.
BTW. Here is a epidemiological study that clearly shows that the consumption of dairy and meat products are major risk factors to developing type 2 diabetes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22442749
with all these life shortening foodstuffs going around and the amount of them that i have consumed over the last half-century, i reckon i should have died about 30 years ago.....but now seeing as i haven't died, Rheg is trying to kill us all through boredom
with all these life shortening foodstuffs going around and the amount of them that i have consumed over the last half-century, i reckon i should have died about 30 years ago.....but now seeing as i haven't died, Rheg is trying to kill us all through boredom
I have seen a lot of boring threads come and go on caithness.org. They are fairly typical of each other, they feature mundane subjects, have no replies and virtually no informative content. This is the exact opposite, it gets lots of attention and it is full of scientific information on a range of public health issues.
You may want to label it boring to shut it down for your own agenda but 'boring' it certainly isn't.
i have no agenda nor do i want anyones threads closed. last time i checked, freedom of speech wasn't stifled on the org although there are a few users who would prefer it so. You carry on posting your threads Rheg, just don't expect an answer from me if i do indeed die from boredom.....or cancer....or any other life threatening illness caused by eating or breathing :-)
You seem to be under the illusion that people click on those links. Has the tumour spread to your brain ?
Another scientific epidemiological study in China that shows consumption of meat increases the risk of colon cancer and foods such as fruit and vegetables reduce the risk.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12646508
and diet may have contributed to the rising incidence
And we're back to where Rhegheadproblem doesn't know what "may" means.
And we're back to where Rhegheadproblem doesn't know what "may" means.
Scientifically speaking, cigarettes may cause lung cancer but government warnings on cigarette packets include the phrase 'Smoking causes fatal lung cancer'. It isn't just me. Eating processed meat like a burger is as bad as smoking cigarettes in terms of risk. Let me not be the ultimate authority on how to use the word 'may', you can go on and think the risk is acceptable, if you want to.
By comparison, scientifically speaking, fossil fuels may be responsible for climate change, but fossil fuels are causing the climate to change. Scientifically speaking, exposure to asbestos may cause asbestosis, but asbestos does cause asbestosis. Vibratiing machinery may cause vibration white finger, but what else would cause vibration white finger?
In essence, there are two distinct uses of 'may', one for science and one for the everyday language, you are confusing the two.
Kevin Milkins
26-Nov-16, 23:25
[QUOTE) but what else would cause vibration white finger?
[/QUOTE]
I find lying in the bath for too long causes that with me.
Another study showing that eating meat and fats is associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19056595
Another study which shows that eating meat and fats is associated with an increased risk of skin cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17490979
Rheghead ... interesting links. I suspect that "greater consumption of fibre" may be one of the main factors in reducing cancer (mentioned in one of the links regarding the Chinese study). China has greatly increased their meat eating since the 1970/80's as well as their intensive (some (I) would call barbaric) intensive farming methods and the very heavy reliance on antibiotic use within this industrial production method. This could be affecting the bacteria relationship within the farmed animals and have a consequent ongoing affect on the humans who consume the meat.
There was an interesting article on the BBC website regarding a possible causal relationship between certain gut bacteria and Parkinson's disease http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38173287 so it may be the same with certain cancers being stimulated by poor / unbalanced diets that are mostly meat based (especially processed meats such as bacon, or from animals that have been heavily treated with antibiotics and growth hormones) that "may" affect the bacteria environment within the stomach and gut.
The combination of heavy antibiotic use (and in the USA growth hormones) within industrial farming methods along with lack of fibre in a persons diet could create the correct environment for certain "bad" bacteria in the stomach/gut that triggers a chemical release that stimulate cancer cells.
Just a guess
R
Rheghead ... interesting links. I suspect that "greater consumption of fibre" may be one of the main factors in reducing cancer (mentioned in one of the links regarding the Chinese study).
I eat a lot of fibrous meat, so that's quite reassuring.
but what else would cause vibration white finger?
I find lying in the bath for too long causes that with me.[/B]
I read a compensation firm's advert in the Daily Record, which asked whether I had "Worked with a Vibrating Tool in the last 20 years"
I rang them up and asked whether the guy Neil, why was a bit of an alkie, counted?
Turned out I had the wrong end of the stick
I also found this study as part of my ongoing investigations, which was also quite interesting. We associate smoking with lung cancer but this study shows that eating dairy and beef products are also associated with an increased risk of developing lung cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25416035
Goodfellers
09-Dec-16, 21:00
Come on................its FIVE whole days since I last read a study informing me that everything I eat is going to shorten my life............any chance of some reading material to brighten my life just before Christmas??
I also found this study as part of my ongoing investigations, which was also quite interesting. We associate smoking with lung cancer but this study shows that eating dairy and beef products are also associated with an increased risk of developing lung cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25416035
If you smoke a cheeseburger you are totally Donald ducked
Human beings are not natural meateaters. And humans have only consumed dairy since the birth of agriculture a mere 10,000 years ago. Whereas humanity is much older, human beings have been around for about 150,000+ years during which we ate a mainly or exclusively a vegetarian diet.
We are the only creature to consume the lactic secretions of another species, and certainly, we are the only creature to consume milk into adulthood. If you think about that for a minute then you may be able to realise how unnatural consuming dairy products really is. What is unnatural is usually bad for us and i am convinced that is why our bodies are trying to tell us that via incidence of cancer, heart disease and diabetes. Our meat eating and dairy consumption is a choice or learned behavior, it certainly isn't instinctive.
Our physiology is definitely that of a herbivore. Our closest relatives the great apes are almost exclusively vegetarian, some 2-3% of the chimpanzee diet is from animals and about 60% of that comes from insects. We have herbivore dentition. The length of our gut is long like a herbivore some 10 times longer than our body unlike a carnivore which is 3 times longer. Our jaw opening is limited compared to carnivores who can really open there jaws wider than their heads. We have hands not claws. We sweat, we do not pant like carnivores. Carnivores lap their water, herbivores generally sip their water like we do. Carnivores can generate vitamin C from their bodies, herbivores like us need to have it in our diet. We mix our food with saliva which has lots of enzymes in it, carnivores do not chew their food and there are no digestive enzymes in their saliva. Our stomachs consists of 25% of the volume of our digestive tract like most herbivores, carnivores have larger stomach in relation to their digestive tracts, some 60% of the total volume. The pH of carnivore stomachs is about pH1 compared to ours which is comparable to other herbivores, some pH4. Our livers are not optimised to deal with the retinol vitamin A that comes from animal products. This vitamin A can be harmful to humans in large quantities. However, carotinid vitamin A that is found in plants is completely beneficial to the human body. In fact palaeontologists have discovered that early humans suffered from hypervitaminosis A toxicity because of the meat eating. Also, athersclerosis is the hardening of the arteries with cholesterol. Only hervivores who are fed animal products seem to be affected from this disaese. Carnivores are unaffected by athersclerosis. So it seems we are behavoral omnivores which betrays our herbivore physiology.
As you can see the list of confirmatory evidence that we are herbivore by physiology is extensive, so the next time you hear a meateater defending their carnist diet by pointing to their canines then you will find their ignorance particulary amusing...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/shattering-the-meat-myth_b_214390.html
Goodfellers
11-Dec-16, 10:20
Very interesting read this time Rheghead.......................But can you explain why humans have been growing in size since our diet included large amounts of fat and dairy? .......Life expectancy has also risen......explanation as to why would be appreciated. I saw in the newsagent that the Express (it would have to be them) now have a headline 'EAT UP, FAT IS GOOD FOR YOU'. I didn't buy the paper, so cant comment on the article.
https://thedustylaboratory.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/happy-to-eat-lard.jpg?w=271&h=493
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/evolution-of-diet/
Key phrase:
'Meat played a starring role'
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/evolution-of-diet/
Key phrase:
'Meat played a starring role'
The Palaeo diet is actually a relaunch of the Atkins diet which has been thoroughly debunked.
Very interesting read this time Rheghead.......................But can you explain why humans have been growing in size since our diet included large amounts of fat and dairy? .......Life expectancy has also risen......explanation as to why would be appreciated. I saw in the newsagent that the Express (it would have to be them) now have a headline 'EAT UP, FAT IS GOOD FOR YOU'. I didn't buy the paper, so cant comment on the article.
First you need to establish if being 'bigger' is a good thing. Are we healthier for being 'bigger'? Also is being 'bigger' due to eating meat and dairy or because of better access to a more varied diet, say more vegetables and fruit? Without references to the article, I can't comment either.
I respectfully suggest that you actually read the national Geographic article as from your reply, you clearly have not done so. I believe you would find it interesting if you do.
This is really alarming. I'm actually one who likes milk and other dairy products and I'm not aware that these can worsen cancer. By the way, I read about a connection between dairy intake and the risk of developing prostate and ovarian cancers. Perhaps, when it is taken too much.
This is really alarming. I'm actually one who likes milk and other dairy products and I'm not aware that these can worsen cancer. By the way, I read about a connection between dairy intake and the risk of developing prostate and ovarian cancers. Perhaps, when it is taken too much.
I think you should panic, immediately. We all have.
I read about a connection between dairy intake and the risk of developing prostate and ovarian cancers.
have your cheese sarnie and glass of milk safe in the knowledge that you can't catch both.
klarke_79
13-Dec-16, 15:48
in todays age cancer is no longer a monthly item of talk its daily, have lots people I care about been taken, but to be honest I don't care to the point of you got it have to deal with it, if you look back to all the diseases that's been killing mankind for centuries this is just another one. would never wish any harm to a soul. but another point people do care about the disease but are sick of been bombarded with it. TV, Leaflets etc. like Africa, we have been sending money for years through comic relief, still no change, and every year we send more, if this money was used in the UK ie to fight cures fro cancer there would be more scientists and more experiments (NOT ON ANIMALS). Does not seem matter what we eat.
The Horseman
13-Dec-16, 22:46
About 40 years ago in the U.K., I was told that by a Doctor that milk and cheese contributed to Kidney Stones.
30 years later this was changed, and now they blame Red Meat......not milk!
in todays age cancer is no longer a monthly item of talk its daily, have lots people I care about been taken, but to be honest I don't care to the point of you got it have to deal with it, if you look back to all the diseases that's been killing mankind for centuries this is just another one. would never wish any harm to a soul. but another point people do care about the disease but are sick of been bombarded with it. TV, Leaflets etc. like Africa, we have been sending money for years through comic relief, still no change, and every year we send more, if this money was used in the UK ie to fight cures fro cancer there would be more scientists and more experiments (NOT ON ANIMALS). Does not seem matter what we eat.
Exactly, lets take that argument a little further though, what is the point of having medicine or an NHS? We have to go sometime...
Another study that suggests that dairy products are associated with prostate cancer.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/101/1/87.abstract
High intakes of dairy products, milk, low-fat milk, cheese, and total, dietary, and dairy calcium, but not supplemental or nondairy calcium, may increase total prostate cancer risk.
There are many articles on here that suggest rhegheads post contribute significantly to terminal boredom
Boring? He's only said the same thing exactly 92 times in this thread.
Actually, even post #1 was slightly boring.
Another study that shows there is a risk of prostate cancer with consumption of dairy products.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17704029
Since i have been researching this topic, there is a huge body of scientific evidence that suggests consuming dairy products substantially increases the risk of getting a whole range of cancers.
Cancer Research UK say the evidence is unclear but then we found out that Tesco, the UK's largest retailer of dairy produce has this charity in its pocketsies by entering the biggest corporate donor arrangement in UK history with CRUK. You couldn't make it up, it is like if British and American Tobacco sponsored a lung cancer charity. :~(
The Horseman
20-Dec-16, 23:41
Recent stats show that Scotland has one of the worst diets in the World, ranking 40 out of 50. And with some of the worst tooth decay......FYI...
Goodfellers
21-Dec-16, 10:49
This is going to make someone on here's day :-) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38370057
I'm off to dig a 6ft hole as we are all doomed
Recent stats show that Scotland has one of the worst diets in the World, ranking 40 out of 50. And with some of the worst tooth decay......FYI...
They need less sweets, more meats.
Have just come back from my GP, who was giving me the results of a Bone Scan I had to detect Osteoporosis and measuring my bone density, the result is I have not got Osteoporosis, but a little thinning of my bones, and at my age that is not a big deal. Her recommendations take more Calcium and the best source of that is Dairy Products, so Rheghead, I will no longer be listening to you witter on about them causing Cancer. I have recovered from Stomach Cancer, and as a result I will be taking more Dairy products in my daily diet, my GP does not cherry pick from the internet as you do.
The Horseman
22-Dec-16, 21:16
Hello Mr Golach.
How u b?
Glad u have recovered.......
Have just come back from my GP, who was giving me the results of a Bone Scan I had to detect Osteoporis and measuring my bone density, the result is I have not got Osteoporosis, but a little thinning of my bones, and at my age that is not a big deal. Her recommendations take more Calcium and the best source of that is Dairy Products, so Rheghead, I will no longer be listening to you witter on about them causing Cancer. I have recovered from Stomach Cancer, and as a result I will be taking more Dairy products in my daily diet, my GP does not cherry pick from the internet as you do.
The countries with the highest incidence of osteoporosis are the countries with the highest consumption of dairy products.
Perhaps that is a freak coincidence.
The countries with the highest incidence of osteoporosis are the countries with the highest consumption of dairy products.
Perhaps that is a freak coincidence.
They're the countries where people live long enough to get osteoporosis.
They're the countries where people live long enough to get osteoporosis.
Have come osteoporosis is not linked with those countries that enjoy long life but do not consume lots of of dairy like China?
The countries with the highest incidence of osteoporosis are the countries with the highest consumption of dairy products.
Perhaps that is a freak coincidence.
but I have been diagnosed with not having osteoporosis , what and why should I care, I am still going to use dairy products as I have all my long life
Have come osteoporosis is not linked with those countries that enjoy long life but do not consume lots of of dairy like China?
They eat more dog.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/diet-and-cancer/food-controversies "There is evidence that dairy products could reduce the risk of bowel cancer," you takes your pick..
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/diet-and-cancer/food-controversies "There is evidence that dairy products could reduce the risk of bowel cancer," you takes your pick..
Happy new year moderation in everything :lol:[smirk]:)
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/diet-and-cancer/food-controversies "There is evidence that dairy products could reduce the risk of bowel cancer," you takes your pick..
There has been several studies which show that eating meat significantly increases the risk of getting colon cancer, eating dairy does seem to alleviate the risk of colon cancer but it doesn't seem to rid the chance of colon altogether, if you are vegan in the first place then your chances are much better.
but I have been diagnosed with not having osteoporosis , what and why should I care, I am still going to use dairy products as I have all my long life
I thought you were out of this discussion?
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/diet-and-cancer/food-controversies "There is evidence that dairy products could reduce the risk of bowel cancer," you takes your pick..
Cancer Research UK have entered the biggest corporate charity arrangement in British history with the largest retailer of dairy and meat products in the UK (Tesco). That is like British and american tobacco co sponsoring a major lung cancer charity.
ancer Research UK have entered the biggest corporate charity arrangement in British history with the largest retailer of dairy and meat products in the UK (Tesco). That is like British and american tobacco co sponsoring a major lung cancer charity.
And of course, as we all know, this is the ultimate conspiracy and the money raised will not be going into research into the causes and treatment of cancer (on no, silly, naive me for thinking that!) but into making sure that all folk in the UK consume vastly more quantities of dairy produce with the sinister boffins in the laboratories behind it all, willing us all on to develop cancer at ever earlier ages. Hey ho, Happy New Year everyone and hope that you stay healthy and happy, whatever you happen to be eating.
Keep up to date with things at Reay Hall.
Goodfellers
01-Jan-17, 11:22
I imagine Tesco are also one of the largest sellers of fruit and veg too. I wonder if some of the profits from these sales go to CRUK
ancer Research UK have entered the biggest corporate charity arrangement in British history with the largest retailer of dairy and meat products in the UK (Tesco). That is like British and american tobacco co sponsoring a major lung cancer charity.
And of course, as we all know, this is the ultimate conspiracy and the money raised will not be going into research into the causes and treatment of cancer (on no, silly, naive me for thinking that!) but into making sure that all folk in the UK consume vastly more quantities of dairy produce with the sinister boffins in the laboratories behind it all, willing us all on to develop cancer at ever earlier ages. Hey ho, Happy New Year everyone and hope that you stay healthy and happy, whatever you happen to be eating.
Keep up to date with things at Reay Hall.
Conspiracy theories are just that, they're not based in fact.. But it is a fact that Tesco have entered the biggest corporate donation arrangement with Cancer research UK in UK history.
It seems to me to be common sense to prevent cancer in the first place than it is to cure it.
Choosing to eat a plant-based diet basically comes down to a loaded choice. Are you prepared to choose a diet which nourishes you in a less harmful way to yourself, your family and your planet, or do you wish to keep on eating animal products which are destroying your health, your family and your planet because you just like the taste of them and are not willing to listen to the facts or are unwilling to change your ways for a greater good. It is that simple of a choice. We have words that accurately describe people who take the latter option, they are not exactly flattering but they have to take it on the chin.
wavy davy
02-Jan-17, 22:43
Choosing to eat a plant-based diet basically comes down to a loaded choice. Are you prepared to choose a diet which nourishes you in a less harmful way to yourself, your family and your planet, or do you wish to keep on eating animal products which are destroying your health, your family and your planet because you just like the taste of them and are not willing to listen to the facts or are unwilling to change your ways for a greater good. It is that simple of a choice. We have words that accurately describe people who take the latter option, they are not exactly flattering but they have to take it on the chin.
There are also words, most very short, which describe someone who tries to push their opinions/life choices down other people's throats (no pun intended).
There are also words, most very short, which describe someone who tries to push their opinions/life choices down other people's throats (no pun intended).
And who, in fact, does not have the scientific back up for his claims in a highly complex field of study and who even refuses to acknowledge that human beings, as a species, evolved as omnivores.
Back on the urban myth that we have evolved as omnivores, here is another study which shows why our herbivore physiology is incompatible with a meateating diet. Unlike true omnivores like dogs bears and raccoons, the human body treats meat consumption and ingestion not with digestion but with a triggering of a toxic immune response which raises the risk of getting cancer, diabetes and other inflamatory problems.
Abstract
A well known, epidemiologically reproducible risk factor for human carcinomas is the long-term consumption of "red meat" of mammalian origin. Although multiple theories have attempted to explain this human-specific association, none have been conclusively proven. We used an improved method to survey common foods for free and glycosidically bound forms of the nonhuman sialic acid N-glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc), showing that it is highly and selectively enriched in red meat. The bound form of Neu5Gc is bioavailable, undergoing metabolic incorporation into human tissues, despite being a foreign antigen. Interactions of this antigen with circulating anti-Neu5Gc antibodies could potentially incite inflammation. Indeed, when human-like Neu5Gc-deficient mice were fed bioavailable Neu5Gc and challenged with anti-Neu5Gc antibodies, they developed evidence of systemic inflammation. Such mice are already prone to develop occasional tumors of the liver, an organ that can incorporate dietary Neu5Gc. Neu5Gc-deficient mice immunized against Neu5Gc and fed bioavailable Neu5Gc developed a much higher incidence of hepatocellular carcinomas, with evidence of Neu5Gc accumulation. Taken together, our data provide an unusual mechanistic explanation for the epidemiological association between red meat consumption and carcinoma risk. This mechanism might also contribute to other chronic inflammatory processes epidemiologically associated with red meat consumption
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25548184
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?257190-Dairy-products-are-causing-cancer&p=1158876#post1158876
Here is a Telegraph article of the study for those who struggle with the esoteric language of science reports.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11316316/Red-meat-triggers-toxic-immune-reaction-which-causes-cancer-scientists-find.html
Neil Howie
04-Jan-17, 20:09
The countries with the highest incidence of osteoporosis are the countries with the highest consumption of dairy products.
Perhaps that is a freak coincidence.
my bold :
Osteoporosis is a major health problem, especially in elderly populations, and is associated with fragility fractures at the hip, spine, and wrist. Hip fracture contributes to both morbidity and mortality in the elderly. The demographics of world populations are set to change, with more elderly living in developing countries, and it has been estimated that by 2050 half of hip fractures will occur in Asia. This review conducted using the PubMed database describes the incidence of hip fracture in different regions of the world and discusses the possible causes of this wide geographic variation. The analysis of data from different studies show a wide geographic variation across the world, with higher hip fracture incidence reported from industrialized countries as compared to developing countries. The highest hip fracture rates are seen in North Europe and the US and lowest in Latin America and Africa. Asian countries such as Kuwait, Iran, China, and Hong Kong show intermediate hip fracture rates. There is also a north–south gradient seen in European studies, and more fractures are seen in the north of the US than in the south.
The factors responsible of this variation are population demographics (with more elderly living in countries with higher incidence rates) and the influence of ethnicity, latitude, and environmental factors. The understanding of this changing geographic variation will help policy makers to develop strategies to reduce the burden of hip fractures in developing countries such as India, which will face the brunt of this problem over the coming decades.
abstract (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3004072/)
We did evolve as ominivores. The archaeological evidence for that is irrefutable. We also possess a pair of canine teeth in our jaw! If we were herbivores, our dentition would reflect that and it does not. Those are the FACTS.
As for your study, I have yet to meet a 'human-like' mouse- in other words, a strain of laboratory animals already highly modified that would not have evolved naturally. Also, I have yet to see one that eats meat. No wonder the poor things got liver cancer.
I wonder if you listened to radio 4 this morning and the study that links living near a busy road to the development of Alzheimers dementia. On there the difference between 'association' with a disease and 'causal effect' was made clear and that the study is useful at population level. That equally applies to the things that you bang on about on here. An illustration of this concept was made as follows. People with depression may tend to wear dark clothing but wearing dark clothing does not cause them to have the depression. We evolved to eat meat sparingly. You have never been able to show me the evidence that proves that doing that 'causes' cancer and that is because there isn't any. Also, you totally fail to take into account, among many other things that there are racial differences at play in susceptibility to particular forms of cancer. Cancer is generated at gene level involving loci on genes, the immune system and many other fators. It is incredibly complex and yet you offer black and white simplistic so-called 'causes' and 'preventative measures'. It is not like that- ask any vegan who has sadly developed cancer.
pig whisperer
05-Jan-17, 21:23
I know a vegan who has osteoporosis & he developed this in his 40s,
my bold :
Osteoporosis is a major health problem, especially in elderly populations, and is associated with fragility fractures at the hip, spine, and wrist. Hip fracture contributes to both morbidity and mortality in the elderly. The demographics of world populations are set to change, with more elderly living in developing countries, and it has been estimated that by 2050 half of hip fractures will occur in Asia. This review conducted using the PubMed database describes the incidence of hip fracture in different regions of the world and discusses the possible causes of this wide geographic variation. The analysis of data from different studies show a wide geographic variation across the world, with higher hip fracture incidence reported from industrialized countries as compared to developing countries. The highest hip fracture rates are seen in North Europe and the US and lowest in Latin America and Africa. Asian countries such as Kuwait, Iran, China, and Hong Kong show intermediate hip fracture rates. There is also a north–south gradient seen in European studies, and more fractures are seen in the north of the US than in the south.
The factors responsible of this variation are population demographics (with more elderly living in countries with higher incidence rates) and the influence of ethnicity, latitude, and environmental factors. The understanding of this changing geographic variation will help policy makers to develop strategies to reduce the burden of hip fractures in developing countries such as India, which will face the brunt of this problem over the coming decades.
abstract (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3004072/)
Eating dairy is predicted to increase in the east because the desire to eat those products. How many cases could be reduced if they kept to a vegan diet because animal derived calcium seems to increase the risk of ostoeporosis.
We did evolve as ominivores. The archaeological evidence for that is irrefutable. We also possess a pair of canine teeth in our jaw! If we were herbivores, our dentition would reflect that and it does not. Those are the FACTS.
As for your study, I have yet to meet a 'human-like' mouse- in other words, a strain of laboratory animals already highly modified that would not have evolved naturally. Also, I have yet to see one that eats meat. No wonder the poor things got liver cancer.
I wonder if you listened to radio 4 this morning and the study that links living near a busy road to the development of Alzheimers dementia. On there the difference between 'association' with a disease and 'causal effect' was made clear and that the study is useful at population level. That equally applies to the things that you bang on about on here. An illustration of this concept was made as follows. People with depression may tend to wear dark clothing but wearing dark clothing does not cause them to have the depression. We evolved to eat meat sparingly. You have never been able to show me the evidence that proves that doing that 'causes' cancer and that is because there isn't any. Also, you totally fail to take into account, among many other things that there are racial differences at play in susceptibility to particular forms of cancer. Cancer is generated at gene level involving loci on genes, the immune system and many other fators. It is incredibly complex and yet you offer black and white simplistic so-called 'causes' and 'preventative measures'. It is not like that- ask any vegan who has sadly developed cancer.
How many studies does it take to convince you that eating meat and dairy products increases the risk of developing cancer?
It is not fiction, it is fact.
Have you considered that you are not willing to listen because you like meat and dairy so much or your livelihood depends on selling those products?
Here is another study which shows that casein the main protein in milk promotes the growth of cancerous tumours.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25237656
Milk in the UK is allowed a somatic cell count of up to 400,000 per millilitre.
Somatic cells are white blood cells (think of pus) which are released by the cow in response to a bacterial infection like mastitis which is a particularly painful infection caused my milking.
Milk in the UK is allowed a somatic cell count of up to 400,000 per millilitre.
Somatic cells are white blood cells (think of pus) which are released by the cow in response to a bacterial infection like mastitis which is a particularly painful infection caused my milking.
why are you milking then?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.