PDA

View Full Version : Vegans, animal products and heart disease (CVD)



Pages : [1] 2 3

gertvegan
Oct 15th, 2004, 10:46 PM
Healthy Heart Handbook, CLICK ME. (http://heart.kumu.org/book.html)

Korn
May 22nd, 2005, 10:51 AM
Increased heart disease risk is associated with a lot of factors, like stress, smoking, alcohol, physical inactivity, diabetes, overweight and high blood pressure. Some people seem to believe that being vegans and vegetarians, who are known to have higher homocysteine levels than meat eaters, are having increased heart disease risk compared with people living on a standard diet. So I though I should start a thread about this; there are actually many studies that document that the opposite is the case.

http://www.peta.org.uk/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=116:
A study of almost 5,000 British vegetarians over seven years found that they had a ‘significantly lower’ risk of heart disease than meat-eaters (ML Burr and BK Butland, ‘Heart Disease in British Vegetarians’, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 48 (1988), pp. 830-32.)
For people who cut dairy products and eggs from their diet as well, the odds are even better. The British Medical Journal published findings from a study of lifelong vegans which concluded that they have a 57 per cent reduced risk. (M Thorogood et al., ‘Plasma Lipids and Lipoproteins in Groups With Different Dietary Practices Within Britain’, British Medical Journal, 295 (1987) pp. 351-53.)

http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=121 :
In an enormous undertaking, twelve researchers took all of the biggest and best studies to date on vegetarian mortality rates and pooled all the data together. They took a decade of mortality data from 28,000 vegetarians from Germany, California, and Britain. And found... no survival advantage for vegetarians. What about vegans though? Despite even having lower cholesterol levels than vegetarians, the vegans in the study didn't live any longer either. Vegans had the same mortality rate as meateaters.

http://www.raleys.com/cfapps/healthnotesra/healthnotes.cfm?org=raleys&ContentID=1301007 :
Vegetarians consume more antioxidants, which are found in a wide variety of plant foods. Antioxidants protect cells from oxygen-induced damage and reduce the risk for heart disease, arthritis, cancer, and other diseases.

http://www.bhj.org/books/diets/chap2.htm :
Some evidence exists that protein or dietary fibre in vegetarians may be involved in reducing coronary heart disease [...] 35-64-year-old Seventh-day Adventist vegetarian men had lower mortality than did nonvegetarians although in men over 65 and women differences were significant, even after taking smoking into account. [...]The fact that mortality and morbidity from coronary artery disease is lower in vegetarians than in non-vegetarians has also been confirmed at the Bombay Hospital.
Although this hospital caters to all the communities the patients are strictly provided with vegetarian diet only. The studies are in progress at the Bombay Hospital Institute of Medical Sciences to go into the dietary causes of coronary artery disease and our initial data from these studies shows that out of the last hundred coronary heart disease patients, only thirty six patients were vegetarians.
Are there any special substances in the vegetarian diet which give protection against coronary heart disease? In India a lot of work has already been done on the role of garlic and onion in lowering blood cholesterol. Maize bran has also been shown to have a protective effect on the cardiovascular status. Many other vegetarian foods, protective to the heart, have been discussed in another chapter.
Hence it seems evident, that vegetarianism offers definite protection from coronary heart disease.

Dr. Timothy Key (from The Cancer Epidemiology Unit at the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford, England):
In general, the mortality rates of all the subjects in all three studies are much lower than average for the UK, showing that the health of both the vegetarians and the meat-eaters in these studies is good. Comparisons of vegetarians with meat-eaters within the studies show only small differences in total mortality rates, but in all three studies mortality from ischaemic heart disease is 15-20% lower in vegetarians.

Roger R. Williams, "Diet, Genes, Early Heart Attacks, and High Blood Pressure," in Nutrition in the ‘90s: Current Controversies and Analysis, ed. Frank N. Kotsonis and Maureen A. Mackey (New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1994), 237-316.:
A high-fat, animal-based diet is the single most significant cause of death from heart disease.


1. Knutsen SF. Lifestyle and the use of health services. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994;59(suppl):1171S-1175S. 2. Key TH, Thorogood M, Appleby PM, Burr ML. Dietary habits and mortality in 11,000 vegetarian and health conscious people: results of a 17-year follow up. BMJ. 1996;313:775-779:
Studies indicate that vegetarians often have lower morbidity (1) and mortality (2) rates from several chronic” degenerative diseases than do nonvegetarians. Although nondietary factors, including physical activity and abstinence from smoking and alcohol, may play a role, diet is clearly a contributing factor.

Franklin TL, Kolasa KM, Griffin K, Mayo C, Badenhop DT. Adherence to very low fat diet by a group of cardiac rehabilitation patients in the rural southeastern United States. Arch Fam Med. 1995;4:551-554. Gould KL, Ornish D, Scherwitz L, Brown S, Edens RP, Hess MJ, Mullani N, Bolomey L, Dobbs F, Armstrong WT, Merritt T, Ports T, Sparler S, Billings J. Changes in myocardial perusion abnormalities by positron emission tomography after long-term intense risk factor modification. JAMA. 1995;274:894-901:
Vegetarian diets low in fat or saturated fat have been used successfully as part of comprehensive health programs to reverse severe coronary artery disease.

Beilin LJ. Vegetarian and other complex diets, fats, fiber, and hypertension. Am J Clin Nutr.1994;59(suppl):1130-1135:
Vegetarians tend to have a lower incidence of hypertension than nonvegetarians. This effect appears to be independent of both body weight and sodium intake.


http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2003issue2/vj2003issue2update.htm :
A large British study, with more than 2000 male and close to 9000 female participants, examined the risk of hypertension in meat eaters, fish eaters, vegetarians, and vegans. People with hypertension are at increased risk for both heart disease and stroke. Meat eaters were most likely to report that they had been diagnosed with hypertension (15% of men and 12% of women studied). Vegans were least likely to report being diagnosed with hypertension (close to 6% of men and 8% of women).


http://www.purifymind.com/WhyHow.htm
Around 50% of male meat eaters in America die of heart disease. For vegetarians the figure is 25%. For vegans it is only 4%. [...]A comparison of the mortality (death rate) of meat eaters and non-meat eaters after 12 years of follow-up was published in the British Medical Journal on 25 June 1994. The results show that after adjusting for smoking habits, body mass index (a measure of obesity) and social class (three factors known to influence mortality), the non-meat eaters experienced lower death rates for all causes of death combined, ischaemic heart disease and all cancers combined, the differences being statistically significant (meaning that they were unlikely to have arisen by chance) for all causes and all cancers combined.

http://www.animalliberation.org.au/vegoheart.html :
Vegetarians were less likely to die of heart disease, even when they were compared to a relativ ly healthy group of meat eaters selected from health shop customers. [...] Among the Californian Seventh Day Adventists, there was a clear relationship between the amo nt of meat eaten and the risk of dying of heart disease. Men aged 45-64 who ate meat daily wer 3 times more likely to die of heart disease than those who didn't eat meat (14). The difference as smaller but still significant for older men, and for women over 65.

http://www.organicpathways.co.nz/community/story/190.html
Those people who abstain from meat but continue eating eggs and dairy products still experience high rates of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and other diseases. There is evidence to suggest, for example, that the sugar in milk products, lactose, contributes to heart disease by weakening the heart muscle.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7317449/
And the vegans had low levels of C-reactive protein, an inflammatory molecule that is becoming linked with the risk of heart disease, diabetes and other chronic disease.

snaffler
May 22nd, 2005, 03:32 PM
Thanks for the info Korn, very interesting I would take my 3% colestral level as a result of being vegan as did my GP recently.

I would be more inclined to say that an animal free diet is safer for a healthy heart and I am not prepared to risk or do the alternative ;)

tails4wagging
May 22nd, 2005, 06:07 PM
I am not surprised about the meat diet contributing towards iscaemic heart disease and hypertension.

That animal fats are known to clog up arteries,causing embolisms, hypertension etc,.


At the age of 56 yrs old my blood pressure has always been within normal limits. I dont have excess mucus which causes irritating coughs etc,.

I think as vegans we eat the correct nutrients to ward off, heart disease.

Korn
May 26th, 2005, 06:08 PM
VITAMIN E WORKS AS WELL OR BETTER THAN CHOLESTEROL LOWERING DRUGS WITHOUT THE RISK AND AT MUCH LOWER COST


A three-year research study of more than 1,000 individuals with a prior history of coronary heart disease showed that 400 to 800 units of vitamin E per day, taken as a supplement, reduced the risk of heart attack by 35%, when compared to a similar group who took a placebo.




Stephens NG, Parsons A, Schofield PM, et al: Randomized controlled trial of vitamin E in patients with coronary disease: Cambridge Heart Antioxidant Study. Lancet 1996 March 23;(9004):781-786.


Harvard Medical School studies of 80,000 female and 40,000 male health-care professionals, found that 100 units of vitamin E per day reduced the risk of heart attack by approximately 35% in both groups.


Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ, Ascheno A, et al. Vitamin E consumption and the risk of coronary heart disease in men. N Engl J Med 1993 May 20;328(20):1450-1456.

Stampher MJ, Hennekens CH, Morrison JE, et al: Vitamin E consumption and the risk of coronary disease in women. N Engl J Med 1993 May 20;328(20):1444-1449.

Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ: The role of antioxidants in preventive cardiology. Curr Opin Cardiol 1997 Mar;12(2):188-194.

Dr. Ronald Klatz, president of the American Academy of Anti Aging Medicine, reports 50% risk reduction from these Harvard studies.* Dr. Klatz, states that Dr. Rimm found the risk of not taking multiple vitamin supplements equal to the risk of smoking as a cause of heart disease.* Dr. Klatz writes that the Harvard study shows supplementing with ". . . high doses of these vitamins [vitamin C, vitamin E and beta carotene] slashed the risk of heart disease by nearly 50%."



Klatz, R. Total Health: American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine Newsletter. 1997, Dec;19(4), p.28.
ANTIOXIDANTS AND CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE


Two European studies examined the relation between antioxidant levels and coronary artery disease (CAD) in three European populations.* The first study compared 50 year old Swedish and Lithuanian men to investigate why Lithuanian men have four times the risk of CAD.* Although there were only slight differences in accepted CAD risk factors between the two populations, the Lithuanians were significantly more prone to LDL oxidation.* The second study assessed 1,605 randomly selected middle-aged Finnish men for many accepted CAD risk factors and for vitamin C levels. * A follow-up eight years later showed that men with vitamin C deficiency had a 2.5-fold adjusted increase in the risk for MI (heart attack).* Low levels of vitamin C increased heart disease 250%.* Both studies suggest that CAD is not simply related to absolute lipid levels, but also to LDL oxidation, a process that can be slowed with antioxidants.



Kristenson M et al.* Antioxidant state and mortality from coronary artery disease in Lithuanian and Swedish men. British Medical Journal. * March 1, 1997; 314:629-633.

Nyyssonen K et al. Vitamin C deficiency and risk of myocardial infarction. British Medical Journal.* March 1, 1997; 314:634-8.



VITAMIN SUPPLEMENTS PROLONG LIFE


A study from the UCLA Medical Center concluded that mortality rates for people who take multiple vitamin supplements containing at least 400 mg of vitamin C per day, plus many other ingredients, had a reduction in their overall death rate of up to 65%, when compared to people who did not take high-potency vitamin supplements.* A total of 11,248 individuals were followed for 10 years.* The use of nutritional supplements containing doses of vitamin C much greater than the RDA more strongly correlated as a preventive for atherosclerosis, than were high levels of blood cholesterol or high dietary fat intake as causal factors.* An author of the study stated that this data indicate an extension of life expectancy for the average American male of approximately 6 years, resulting from vitamin supplementation alone.* An editorial accompanying that article stated that "...it is probable that a variety of antioxidants and other nutrients act in concert...increased attention should be given not only to dietary sources of these nutrients, but also to the possible benefits of dietary supplements.



Enstrom EE, Kanim LE, Klein MA: Vitamin C intake and mortality among a sample of the United States population.* Epidemiology 1992;3(3):194-202.
B-COMPLEX VITAMIN DEFICIENCY ASSOCIATED WITH RISK OF HEART DISEASE


Recent studies show that lower blood levels of vitamins B6, B12 and folic acid (folate) are associated with an increased risk of heart attacks, strokes, and other forms of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.* Those vitamins help to clear homocysteine from the blood.* Homocysteine is a byproduct of normal metabolism and elevated levels greatly accelerate atherosclerosis.* Blood levels of vitamins B6, B12, and folate were lower in people with high homocysteine and were associated with increased risk of heart disease.



Morrison HI, Schaubel D, Desmeules M et al: Serum folate and risk of fatal coronary heart disease. JAMA 1996 June 26;275(24):1893-1896.

Graham IM, Daly LE, Refsum HM, et al: Plasma homocysteine as a risk factor for vascular disease. The European Concerted Action Project. JAMA 1997 June 11; 227(22):1775-1781.

http://drcranton.com/nutrition/prnutrition.htm

Korn
May 31st, 2005, 08:53 AM
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2000/dec2000_report_b12_2.html

Heart attack and stroke

Vitamin B12 has an important role in reducing levels of homocysteine to prevent heart attack and stroke. Homocysteine is a by-product of methionine metabolism that can damage blood vessels. B12 and folate are critical for the production of the tongue-twisting enzyme, methylenetetrahydrofolatereductase, which helps convert homocysteine to methionine. Dozens of studies show that the most common cause of elevated homocysteine is inadequate folate or vitamin B12. Supplementation with these vitamins lowers homocysteine levels, but vitamin B6 and trimethylglycine (TMG) are usually also required to lower homocysteine to a healthy range.

Vitamin B12 deficiency has another effect on the heart as well. Turkish researchers recently reported that people with megalobastic anemia have abnormal electrical conductivity of the heart. The problem originates in the nerves that control heart rate. When the anemic volunteers took supplemental B12, heart rate returned to normal.

Korn
Jun 18th, 2005, 10:04 AM
This article is not written from a vegan perspective, but contains a lot of info about diet and heart disease:
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=disease&dbid=4

Korn
Jun 18th, 2005, 10:17 AM
From http://www.healthyheart.org/public/riskfactors.htm



According to Statistics Canada (1998), 47.9% of Canadians were overweight. Genes and heredity may increase an individual’s susceptibility to being overweight, however most people consume too many calories, or have low activity levels. People who have excess body weight are more likely to develop heart disease and stroke, even if they have no other risk factors. Excess weight increases the heart's work and also contributes to high blood pressure, increased triglycerides, and lowers HDL ("good") cholesterol levels. It can also make diabetes more likely to develop. Many obese and overweight people may have difficulty losing weight, but even reducing your weight by as few as 10 to 20 pounds, you can lower your heart disease risk.

How body weight is distributed is also important: Individuals who carry their extra body weight around their waist are at particular risk. According to Canadian Guidelines, waist circumference is a useful estimate of abdominal obesity and indicator of cardiovascular risk. For men, their risk increases with a waist circumference of 102 cm or greater, for women, their risk increases with a waist circumference of 88cm or greater.

Obesity is more common in non-vegans than in vegans.

StevieP
Nov 7th, 2005, 10:31 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4413144.stm

Nadine
Nov 7th, 2005, 11:19 AM
Yay! It makes a change for them to do something decent, about time too.

snaffler
Nov 7th, 2005, 05:31 PM
Those food stats are shocking kids not knowing what comes from what, what has gone wrong in the last 17 years since I left school it is scary.

cedarblue
Nov 7th, 2005, 06:29 PM
Those food stats are shocking kids not knowing what comes from what, what has gone wrong in the last 17 years since I left school it is scary.


in the jamies school dinners progs, he held up some veg, something like rhubarb and kids suggested it might be celery, potatoes, onions.... :eek:

Kevster
Nov 7th, 2005, 07:16 PM
Wow, a step in the right direction. More prevention less cure.

Nadine
Nov 7th, 2005, 08:05 PM
It does make you wonder what many parents bother to teach their children about food. It's bad enough to not know anything about the nutritional value of foodstuffs but to not even know what stuff is called or in some cases whether it's a plant or animal is astounding.

Pilaf
Nov 7th, 2005, 09:07 PM
Pffft... you're actually surprised? I've suspected for a long time that a lot of people are ignorant about a lot of things, and this only supports my views.

By the way..if they were really "doing their jobs" they'd already be promoting a vegan diet as the ONLY acceptably heart healthy lifestyle. Medicine has a long way to go, ethically. Doctors care only about money..they're capitalists of the worst sort. They want to fill people with pills to cover the symptoms of chronic diseases which, more often than not, are caused by poor dietary choices. It falls on doctors AND common citizens to be more informed about nutrition.

Karma
Nov 15th, 2005, 10:18 AM
Speak for yourselves in the US. I'm a vegan UK based junior doctor and, having just taken a year out at my own expense to study public health, epidemiology, nutrition and it's role in chronic disease etc. I now have holes in my shoes... (and now it's winter and my feet are too wide for the shoes from the vegetarian shoe shop which are quite pricey anyway... but that's another thread, sorry).

I note that the BHF aren't actually telling people not to eat meat, just not to eat gristle! So they aren't doing 'our jobs for us'.

One thing we learnt about is the difference between hypothesis generating and hypothesis confirming research. A lot of the research implicating meat and dairy per se (as opposed to too much saturated fat or whatever) is international comparisons between rates of disease, which is suggestive but not conclusive enough to base international nutritional guidelines on which have huge political and economic implications....I have been reading the dairy thread and thinking about this. Would love to get my teeth into some solid epidemiological research on, for example the link between dairy and osteoporosis, but who would fund it? There are huge biases in the research being done, because the questions being asked are only those with some opportunity of financial reward. So there's research being done by the pharmaceutical companies, the food industry, etc. but we live in an age when recommendations can only be based on hard evidence which will live up to professional scrutiny. I met some fascinating, intelligent 'professionals' during my course, but like the recent struggles over smoking in public places demonstrate, even facts don't always swing the balance away from the interests of big business just like that. But they do help. And without them there isn't a hope of winning over the doctors or the politicians etc. etc.

On another thread there was an 18 year old talking about what to do with her life and contemplating activism. I think she should think about this. Get trained, get informed, get inside and learn to talk with the big guys. The thing is, vegans have an important and valuable point, but as long as it is pitched as alternative, it will never get into the mainstream, and it will never make any real difference if it doesn't.

Happy for any feedback on this. I'm just forming my own thoughts as I write. Especially I would be interested to hear about any ongoing research in this area that I don't know about yet!

Mr Flibble
Nov 15th, 2005, 10:38 AM
On another thread there was an 18 year old talking about what to do with her life and contemplating activism. I think she should think about this. Get trained, get informed, get inside and learn to talk with the big guys.

I couldn't agree more, however I've known people in the past who've used this as an excuse not to do activism - putting it off till an arbituary point in the future.

I've never met a student (undergrad or post grad) in my life who can claim they have no time (less than 10 minutes a week to write a letter) for activism and unless their circumstances exceptional, it sounds like a poor excuse to me to claim studying as their reason for not participating. When I was a student I spent between 10-25% of my time studying maximum.

Karma
Nov 15th, 2005, 03:10 PM
True. Can do both ;)

eclectic_one
Nov 17th, 2005, 09:24 PM
A lot of the research implicating meat and dairy per se (as opposed to too much saturated fat or whatever) is international comparisons between rates of disease, which is suggestive but not conclusive enough to base international nutritional guidelines on which have huge political and economic implications!
You're right, but some research studies that have been done are mentioned in the book The China Study. Campbell actually did some direct research, at least on the link between cancer and dairy/animal protein. (He also talks about the international comparisons, as well as differences in the same "gene pool" once they move to more Western cultures. In addition, he discusses how much power the entrenched institutions--pharmaceutical companies, the dairy/meat/sugar industries, etc--have on nutritional guidelines regardless of the supporting evidence that already exists. Have you read it?

Kevster
Nov 18th, 2005, 10:58 AM
Is this new?

'Diet could prevent 2.5m cancer deaths

By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
Published: 18 November 2005
Almost 2.5 million cancer deaths worldwide could be prevented if people changed their diet and behaviour, doctors say.

Nine factors account for more than a third of the seven million cancer deaths a year which could be avoided. Reducing smoking and alcohol and eating more fruit and vegetables are the most important factors but little effort is going into promoting their life-saving effects, researchers say in the Lancet medical journal.'

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article327764.ece

Karma
Nov 18th, 2005, 01:12 PM
You can see the original article at www.thelancet.com (you have to register but anyone can) xx

eclectic_one
Nov 18th, 2005, 04:59 PM
Is this new?

'Diet could prevent 2.5m cancer deaths

By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
Published: 18 November 2005
Almost 2.5 million cancer deaths worldwide could be prevented if people changed their diet and behaviour, doctors say.

Nine factors account for more than a third of the seven million cancer deaths a year which could be avoided. Reducing smoking and alcohol and eating more fruit and vegetables are the most important factors but little effort is going into promoting their life-saving effects, researchers say in the Lancet medical journal.'

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article327764.ece
Sorry if I insinuated that Dr. Campbell is the first to make the connection, I just thought you didn't think there were studies (other than cultural comparisons) that proved a link between animal protein and any disease. One reason I really enjoyed the book is he not only mentions numerous studies (not all done by him) which prove links between animal protein and MANY diseases, he also points out why the general public (at least in the U.S.) seems oblivious to these findings and how studies are too narrow (i.e., as you mentioned earlier, only studying how fat and fiber or some single nutrient relates to disease).

Karma
Nov 18th, 2005, 05:31 PM
Are you talking to me now or to Kevster?

Will definately try and get hold of the China study at some point, but a bit lacking in time and money just now (trying to revise for big exam at the mo :( ), and have a long list of books waiting to be read already....

Tried to read this Lancet paper this afternoon... It made my brain ache and I'm not sure it says anything new. It's a kind of summary of a lot of information from lots of previous studies, which may help people to take notice I suppose??

It says (among other things) that low fruit and veg intake is estimated to have caused 5% of all deaths from cancer worldwide in 2001. So the conclusion to be drawn from this is that we should be eating more fruit and veg. No surprises there then.

I've still only had one apple so far today. The bigger question now is not what should we be doing, but why, when we know what is good for us, don't most of us do it (most visitors to this site excepted, of course!)?

Also, like a lot of the fashionable nutrition advice these days, it says eat more fruit and veg, but doesn't comment on what people should be eating less of. If you eat more fruit and veg, you have to compensate for it by eating less animal produce. But which is it that causes cancer? Or both? Nutrition is a complicated business :confused:

eclectic_one
Nov 18th, 2005, 05:57 PM
Also, like a lot of the fashionable nutrition advice these days, it says eat more fruit and veg, but doesn't comment on what people should be eating less of. If you eat more fruit and veg, you have to compensate for it by eating less animal produce. But which is it that causes cancer? Or both? Nutrition is a complicated business :confused:
I agree that it can be frustrating to see that many nutritionists might give part of the picture and not the whole picture. That is, that it would be best to cut out certain products, not just add "good" food. From some of the psychological studies I've read (that's what my degrees are in, social sciences), people often don't do what's good for them because they don't really think of the long-term cummulative effects of what they're doing. Even if you point out to them what the effects are long-term, they tend to think in less lengthy results and the short-term high/good outweighs thoughts of long-term evils. (That's part of the reason smokers don't quit, young smokers know that a lot of the extreme negatives--such as cancer--mainly manifest themselves many years down the road.) Also, we tend to rationalize what we want to do (such as when my dad says, "I can eat cholesterol-laden foods because high cholesterol is just genetic, what I eat has nothing to do with it"). And what's worse is there's problably some "expert" out there with a theory and, sometimes, iffy research that strengthens such rationalizations (like my dad says he heard a theory that if you stop eating cholesterol, your body will actually make more to get you back to your genetic cholesterol level AND he also brings up the study that eggs are good for you, even after I discovered and told him that the studies saying that were funded by the egg industry).

eclectic_one
Nov 18th, 2005, 06:10 PM
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article327764.ece
I looked at the article (guess I'm too lazy to wade through the original paper) and I think it greatly underestimates the impact of diet on health. They mention the impact of obesity, which may be related to diet, as a seperate "cause" of cancer. Now obviously there are vegans who are obese, but from other studies (i.e., the framingham study) there is less vegan/vegetarian obesity than omnivore/carnivore obesity.

Another aspect that Dr. Campbell discusses: the impact of diet is MUCH stronger if the studies eliminate animal products rather than just adding fruits, vegetables, fiber, or some other nutrient, while this study seems to only look at adding rather than subtracting food stuffs as sources of cancer. He points out that many studies just add some "miracle" solution (i.e., vitamin E or fiber supplements), then they find little or no change in the chance of cancer/heart disease/diabetes/etc and claim that "it makes little difference." One study he mentions is the Nurse's health study (done here in the U.S.) that showed little impact of fiber on colon cancer. He points out that the study participants ALL had a more carnivorous diet than the average American woman, so just eating more fiber on top of all the animal protein would do little to help, but the doctors in charge of the study said the study showed that fiber doesn't really reduce colon cancer risk! [Scientific reductionism at its worst!]