Slashdot Mirror
The Most Important Study of the Mediterranean Diet Has Been Retracted (qz.com)
Zorro shares a report from Quartz: In 2013, the New England Journal of Medicine published a landmark study that found that people put on a Mediterranean diet had a 30% lower chance of heart attack, stroke, or death from cardiovascular disease than people on a low-fat diet. It received massive media and public attention when released, and since has been cited by 3,268 other scientific papers. The study had tremendous impact on the field of nutrition and health science. Yesterday (June 13), however, the journal retracted the study -- providing a new reason for skepticism about how effective the now-popular Mediterranean diet really is.
The reasons for the withdrawal are complicated, having to do with the methodology of the study. As Alison McCook of the Retraction Watch blog writes for NPR, this retraction is the result of the work of John Carlisle, a British anesthesiologist and self-taught statistician. Carlisle has spent recent years analyzing over 5,000 published randomized controlled trials (the gold standard of medical science research) to see how likely they were to have actually been properly randomized. In 2017, he reported his results: at least 2% of the studies were problematic. One was the 2013 NEJM article on the Mediterranean diet.
The reasons for the withdrawal are complicated, having to do with the methodology of the study. As Alison McCook of the Retraction Watch blog writes for NPR, this retraction is the result of the work of John Carlisle, a British anesthesiologist and self-taught statistician. Carlisle has spent recent years analyzing over 5,000 published randomized controlled trials (the gold standard of medical science research) to see how likely they were to have actually been properly randomized. In 2017, he reported his results: at least 2% of the studies were problematic. One was the 2013 NEJM article on the Mediterranean diet.
Eat what you want in moderation. Just live your life and try to be happy.
Realized the sources to the diet were few and not 100% credible, ignored it, grabbed the recipes that sounded tasty, and continued living my life.
// I'm a good cook, I eat a lot
/// See also: Dom Delouise
/ still fat
/ still fat
Pleonasm if you're an American.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
-
* - Standard American Diet.
I want to try it.
Of course, the fact that we are and have been omnivores for millions of years has no bearing on this.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Says you. What studies prove that?
It has always been my firm belief that the key to a successful Mediterranean diet is consuming copious quantities of wine. Everything else becomes irrelevant once you've mastered that part of it.
The Mediterranean diet is flawed because it incorporates a lot of seafood.
It isn't flawed if your genome is accustomed to seafood. For example, Asians eat a great deal of seafood, and their life expectancies are above the world average. (Setting aside possible tragic societal factors such as higher suicide rate.)
The healthiest diet is a plant-based diet.
That's debatable. Getting all the nutrients you need from a vegan diet is possible, but tricky. And as Zontar the Mindless mentions on this thread, we are omnivores. Look at the teeth in our mouths and our digestive tracts. We evolved to eat food from a variety of sources. And we are predators, built for the hunt, with eyes in the front of our heads, the better to spot prey with stereo vision.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
The summary is misleading because it omits mention that the randomization errors were inconsequential. The study conclusion remains the same when the improperly randomized subjects are excluded.
from the linked article:
It turns out approximately 14 percent of the more than 7,400 study participants hadn't been assigned randomly to either the Mediterranean diet or a low-fat one. When couples joined the study together, both had been picked to follow the same diet. At one of the 11 participating study sites, the lead investigator had assigned the same diet to an entire village and didn't tell the rest of the investigators.
"This affected only a small part of the trial," says Martínez González. When the researchers reanalyzed the data excluding the nonrandomized people, the results were the same, he adds.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
And if you follow the link to the 2017 study, what becomes clear is that the poor and rich people were eating different versions of the "Mediterranean Diet". They all ate mainly foods from the list, but the proportions and variety varied between groups.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
>"The healthiest diet is a plant-based diet."
This is doubtful. It appears the healthiest diet consists of grilled meat, plus a variety vegetables. Vegetable oil from the fleshy part of the plant (olive oil, avocado oil, palmfruit oil, coconut oil) is healthy, while vegetable oil from seeds (palm kernel oil, corn oil, soybean oil, sunflower oil, etc.) is unhealthy. Excessive heat can turn healthy fats into unhealthy trans fats, so avoid frying.
Cholesterol is a vital nutrient. You don't get high blood cholesterol from eating cholesterol. Every molecule of cholesterol in your body was manufactured by your liver. High or low, your LDL cholesterol levels don't matter. What matters is the ratio of triglycerides to HDL cholesterol. Triglycerides should be low, HDL should be high.
Avoid flour and sugar. Avoid dense carbohydrates, unless you are an athlete, then you should eat carbs in the proper proportion and at the proper time for your athletic activity.
Eggs are basically a superfood. For best results, use a relatively low-temperature method of cooking your eggs: boiled, poached, or sous vide.
High ferritin (iron) levels in the blood encourage bacterial growth and inflammation. The body doesn't really have a good way of shedding iron, so consider donating blood twice per year to get your iron levels down to the low end of the normal range.
Statins don't seem to do anything except accelerate aging.
Calcium supplements don't seem to do anything except increase the risk of heart attack.
"50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat"
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat
"High Cholesterol Tied to Lower Cognitive Decline Risk in Oldest Old"
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/893921?src=soc_tw_180317_mscpedt_news_neuro_chl&faf=1
"Higher Cholesterol Is Associated with Longer Life"
http://roguehealthandfitness.com/higher-cholesterol-associated-with-longer-life/
"High cholesterol 'does not cause heart disease' new research finds, so treating with statins a 'waste of time'"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/06/12/high-cholesterol-does-not-cause-heart-disease-new-research-finds/
First, some background:
Statistical methods are based on what are known as "stable distributions". A stable distribution is one where a subset of examples, selected randomly, will have the same characteristics as the full set. Normally this refers to a bell curve, so if you have a bell curve population and you select a sample at random, then the sample mean will tend towards the population mean and the sample width will tend towards the population width.
It is this characteristic that lets us extend measurements of characteristics from a subset to the characteristics of the whole population.
(There are a couple of other distributions that are stable, but they are fairly rare in the real world. IIRC, Nile river flooding follows a Levy distribution, and was the first instance of a stable distribution that wasn't a bell curve.)
This only works if the subset selection is random. If the selection isn't random, then the results can be skewed towards randomness (you won't see an effect that's there, the most likely outcome) or phantom effects that aren't really there.
That is the defect in the Mediterranean diet study, that the participants were not placed on one diet (or the other) at random. In particular, husband and wife participants were both placed on the same diet, and in one case an entire town of participants were placed on the same diet.
Of note: When the flawed placements are deleted from the data, the Mediterranean diet still stands and there is still a clear effect indicated by the data.
"This affected only a small part of the trial," says Martínez González. When the researchers reanalyzed the data excluding the nonrandomized people, the results were the same, he adds.
So the conclusions of the study are still strong: the diet correlates well and strongly with reduced heart attacks.
Out of an abundance of caution and professional ethics, the study was adjusted with softer language in the conclusions.
And yet, our noble MSM is reporting only that the study was retracted, comparing it to 50-ish other studies that were similarly flawed.
With predictable results, such as the post this is in reply to.
(Exercise for the reader: Is the MSM doing more harm than good here, or is it the other way around? Many, many other articles report the news with an opinion, such as "Trump meets with Kim, but it won't result in anything useful". Why couldn't NPR have a similar headline for *this* article, such as "Diet study retracted, despite being accurate"?)
Zontar is a moron who only eats shit off the internet, nevermind that troll, it knows nothing about this.
@raymoris: The quote is accurate, just not from the source article you quoted, but from the second/last one in the post from NPR which is the original source: https://www.npr.org/sections/h...
The Slashdot story has 2 separate articles that covers the topic. One from Quarts and the other from NPR which was one of the sources used for the Quarts article.
The Quarts article quotes the NPR article, but it failed to include what @Nothingburger mentioned which I agree, makes for a misleading summary and should have been included, but does not change the fact that the paper has been retracted.
I would say it that with the additional analysis that was offered by study's main author that excluding the nonrandomized people, the results were the same would imply that the paper's conclusion could still stands, but will probably need to be resubmitted with the changes to be accepted since the original submitted paper does have some issues as-is due to the nonrandomized people being included in the results.
Regardless, a 30% chance of disease either way is statistically meaningless. For instance, smoking increases your risk of lung cancer 15 to 30x that of a non smoker.
love is just extroverted narcissism
He's no moron. And yes he deserves clog arteries. And he will spend many years working towards earning them by living a life he finds fulfilling.
Would you like to comment on my smoking?
No, he's a moron, and he'll die sooner than I can care to think about him again.
Please moderate the Parent GP posts correctly by verifying the truth of those posts before you moderate up or down.
It is easy:
1. Go to the slashdot summary. There are three links in that article. Verify that the third link is to this article.
2. Scroll down in that article to, about the 17th paragraph, which begins "It turns out approximately 14 percent of the more than 7,400 study participants hadn't "
3. Compare that paragraph and next to the quoted paragraphs in the GP post to confirm that they match, confirming that the GP truthfully quotes an article linked in the /. summary.
4. Read the sentence in the parent post which states "Please kindly refrain from making up random bullshit and pretending you are quoting the article". Because in the previous step you have verified that the GP accurately quotes a linked article, yet the Parent emphatically and profanely states the opposite, conclude that the author of the parent post is a troll.
5. Moderate the parent post accordingly. It belongs at -1, Troll, down with the goatse posts.
6. Moderate the GP at least back up to what it default to when originally posted at, +2. Unless, using our own judgment, you can find a compelling reason otherwise to object to its content.
7. Consider moderating this post up as you see fit. In the humble opinion of its author, it makes a helpful point: with little effort moderators can improve /. by assessing the truth or falsity of posts before assigning mod points.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Don't eat so often. Doesn't matter how much or how little you eat, if you do it too often.
Also see intermittent fasting.
Yet, we are omnivores now and have been for millions of years. Now, I'm certainly no expert and clearly lack the education to speak as an informed individual on this topic (that was prefacing the word which comes next...) but, I like to think that I'm not entirely clueless.
Wouldn't a species living as omnivores for millions of years eventually experience evolutionary changes such as instincts to hunt as well as gather. Or possibly experience digestion system changes to handle consumption and processing of animal tissues? We have lots of organs and nasty gooey things in our bodies that facilitate energy production from meats. I'd imagine those wouldn't be there if they weren't part of our evolutionary design.
Regardless of which diet is healthier, we've evolved to process a greater spectrum of food sources. It's like when car companies were focused on developing vehicles that were able to operate on gas, alcohol or whatever else. The biproducts were different, but the vehicles were able to extra energy from a greater set of sources. It didn't mean people driving those cars absolutely had to switch to alternative fuels. Only that they weren't limited to one or the other.
I would regard a vehicle that provides a greater diversity of sources of fuel for energy production to be an improvement. I would consider an animal with such abilities to be the same, an improvement.
The Mediterranean Doesn't Exist! "The Most Important Study of the Mediterranean Has Been Retracted" -- News at 11.
... and now they're good. Are you looking at a stoplight or something? And now a message BAD AGAIN from GOOD our I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO SAY IT sponsor.
And in other news, eggs are bad for you. Oh, I've just been given a note. Eggs are now good for you. Oh, another note. Make that bad. What? Now they're good again? Are we all eating the same eggs here? What do you MEAN they're bad again? I can't even finish a sentence without you
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
In other news, eggs are once again poison, red wine is still good, but chocolate is bad, going into it's 11th year keto is still a dangerous fad, 5 few types of fats and 3 new types of cholesterol were discovered, and each of them is worse than the last.
Stay tuned for our follow up broadcast at 11, where up to 3 of those dietary facts will be reversed.
After I wrote my post, I went off to do some other things and it occurred to me there was more than one link in the summary. I figured I'd better check to see if the other link did in fact say that, because if so - well then I'm an asshole.
Indeed, I was wrong.
Thanks for being so gracious in the manner in which you pointed that out.
I'm sorry, Jodka. I was both wrong AND rude.
So it turns out that years of an undiagnosed thyroid disease has left my metabolism a shit hole.
That was something the doctors warned me about.
Would you believe I'm an avid cyclist who pursues about 3 hours a night cycling and then 30 minutes in the morning. If I can get away from the office non-sense then I squeeze in a 20-30 minute jog? Still... a little pudgy.
I also have to have one of the most vicious diet plans ever just to break even. For me... I think my metabolism is too shot for carbs and it shows when I consume them. I no longer do! I couldn't have wheat anyway so that isn't much more of a jump.
It's a slow and horrible climb to just break even. I completely understand why some people give up. It's not a life for everyone.
You are of course correct, the summary links multiple articles. I apologize. I was both wrong and rude.
Normally I have mod points but today I don't, so I can't mod myself down. :)
You're going to need to watch your own fat waistline with all that copy-pasta you're eating, troll.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support this in any way whatsoever.
As with this study, it's utter rubbish. We're studying a machine with countless variables over extended periods of time. We're experimenting purely with the fuel provided by the observed audience. We then measure statistics as if the only variable different between these massively complex organisms is Mediterranean vs. a low fat diet. We monitor superficial data to identify whether it's effective.
Even if this was a reasonable method of performing science, we're also assuming the data set is not flawed. For example. how many of the men on these diets followed them strictly when their wives weren't watching?
This entire form of research is medicine, it's not science. It's not real science. It's a pseudo-science which applies a mockery of scientific method and presents massive amounts of flawed research as being meaningful in some way or another.
Let's be clear about some things. We have absolutely no clue how the human body works. The human body does evolve a little here and there, but it's not like computer science where 10 years can mean a total reinvention of the system. Consider just the evolutionary differences that made Africans and Norwegians different and how long it took before we diverged from being little better than monkeys to two more or less different species and yet, we still share more than enough traits to swap internal organs between the bodies of an African jungle king and a Norwegian Viking (they still exist... Thursday and Friday nights in downtown Oslo.. generally after 11pm).
If we understood anything about how the human body actually worked, we wouldn't need to publish new editions of biochemistry and organic chemistry books. I read these every few years and often it feels like each new copy is telling me the previous edition was entirely wrong.
We're guessing our way through this.
From a scientific aspect, we have almost no real information on how a human cell produces energy. We have medical knowledge, but that means "We don't know shit, but it seems to work for us". We lack any real understanding of the basics of how a living cell from any organism works. We barely have the slightest idea how two cells will interact with one another.
Let's consider this... we don't even have the slightest idea what actually happens when you chew and swallow and the food hits your stomach. We don't know how the cells in your stomach acids will interact with the items you place in your stomach. And we certainly don't know which chemical and physical reactions are actually healthy or not.
We have medical knowledge which is
"We tried this... people died... we think it could be bad"
"We tried this... people seemed to die less. We have no idea why. We think it could be 'not bad' but only a schmuck would say so"
"We tried this... the person turned orange... he became president... he competed with the North Korean leader over who had the most ridiculous hair... we believe it could be bad"
Scientific knowledge is when we can say
"This complex object... such as an organic compound is made of these simple compounds"
"When exposed to this type of radiation, the compound mutates in this way"
"Here is the math to explicitly describe the transformation as well as rate of change from the initial state to the altered state"
"Here is the computer simulation of the mutation"
That is science. Medicine which is a bunch of "Let's poke it and see what happens" kind of nonsense is one step short of political science in idiocy.
That said, I'm extremely happy there are lots of people practicing medicine... they may be scientific idiots, but I'm really happy they experiment with different methods of keeping people alive until the scientists actually devise proper solutions using proper science to problems.
But to make some absolutely stupid rema
Are you suggesting that the data set involved could have more than just one variable involved?
Let me check though... otherwise the people tested were all identical clones living in a bubble right? Please tell me there were no other variables beyond Mediterranean and low-fat. Or wealth.
People didn't cheat at all on the diets did they?
Some of the people weren't secretly women?
None of the men at risk of heart disease died from getting lap dances from strippers?
I did read some nutritional research once which I did consider to be well written and properly researched.
It appears that ingesting sufficient doses of cyanide is guaranteed to bring an end to all back aches and migraines.
Oh, look, it's faggot APK pretending to not be APK.
It isn't flawed if your genome is accustomed to seafood.
Europeans ate plenty of seafood for a very long time throughout history. This was put on hold for about 1000 years when the Moors invaded and tended to kill or enslave those fishing in the Mediterranean Sea.
I'm sure many would think that on an evolutionary scale this 1000 years is not likely to affect the genetic makeup of Europeans. Access to protein is important for one's health and losing access to fishing will mean needing to seek it elsewhere. This means hunting for furry and feathered creatures, and/or domesticating goats, sheep, and cattle while often consuming their milk.
Lactose tolerance in adults is for the most part highly centered on Europe. Those that couldn't fish would need protein from milk. If they couldn't tolerate drinking milk for protein then they might kill their cow to eat the meat, but then they risk running out of protein pretty quick.
There was a trade of salted fish from northern waters but that meant a potential for rotten fish, high salt intake, and so on for moving fish so far in a time where things moved at the speed of a laden ox. Oh, and since I know someone is going to ask... I'm talking about European laden oxen, not African.
BTW, Africans did have domesticated cattle but they didn't always drink the milk. To get protein from the cattle and not kill it they'd draw blood and drink that, perhaps mixed with the milk.
Getting all the nutrients you need from a vegan diet is possible, but tricky. And as Zontar the Mindless mentions on this thread, we are omnivores. Look at the teeth in our mouths and our digestive tracts. We evolved to eat food from a variety of sources. And we are predators, built for the hunt, with eyes in the front of our heads, the better to spot prey with stereo vision.
We have evolved to eat cooked food as well. This is unique to humans. Comparisons of the human digestive system to other omnivores expose this difference.
What is a bit amazing to me is that there is a difference between what men and women have evolved to eat. Meat is a dangerous food. Not only does meat fight back until it's dead but even then it can kill you from being under cooked, or as mentioned above over salted. A man getting sick from meat means he's miserable for a while, assuming it doesn't kill him. A woman getting sick runs the risk of a miscarriage if pregnant, including same the risk of death as men. Miscarriages from eating meat over long evolutionary time spans will lead to differences in the genetics. This is why pregnant women are discouraged from eating certain foods and often feel ill when eating things they would otherwise tolerate when not pregnant. Women can better tolerate a vegetarian diet than men. That's not saying it's impossible for men to go on a vegan diet, only that men run greater health risks for doing so.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
> The healthiest diet is a plant-based diet.
Humans SUCK at digesting plants. We don't have the enzymes for it. We don't have the stomachs for it.
The vast bulk of the plants we grow for our own use are completely inedible to us.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
That eggs are bad then later they said good thing sucks. I buy two dozen eggs each week from Walmart for 24 cents each. It's basically my only protein source since I work at Microsoft with crappy pay and commuting take most of my time and a lot of money. My total cholesterol is 38 mg/dL which is only about a third of what is considered dangerously low of 120 mg/dL Eggs at least in my case don't raise your cholesterol.
Apparently there is some truth in that.
SeriousScience - Microbiome and Diet - Tim Spector
And now there is a poop study, for a diabetes trial, about how eating red grapes and olive oil changes the gut bacteria.
TLDRBIPIOAWMAWI (Too Long Didn't Read But I Printed It Out And Wiped My Ass With It).
Oh, I'm sure I've other fans in addition to our correspondent in Syracuse—including at least one, it seems, who can actually form a complete sentence. Impressive.
Needs to work on his punctuation, though.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Some people poop out half the calories they eat. Some do not.
Then there's those who clinch their anal sphincter so tightly the shit comes out of their mouths.
"Our omnivorous side"? Yep, dealing with an idiot here.
BTW, Milton Mills is a fundie/"Creation Science" nutter.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
This is how science is supposed to work...and why religion doesn't.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Measuring caloric intake is pointless unless you also measure caloric output. Actually doing that means collecting and burning your piss and shit.
Stop eating stupid your body doesn't need it
https://qz.com/1305718/the-sci... link to https://qz.com/1045037/the-med...
now whether you trust "QZ.com" is another story but they properly link to the original article : https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/n... and https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/n...
all those quick carbs we've been raised on, primarily loads of sugars and white weat, is what slowly causes insulin tolerance and type 2 diabetes, sickness of the vascular system and the heart.
I don't understand how people can still question whether a low-carb diet is actually good for you.
And I will maintain this position until another self-taught statistician refutes the claims of the first one, causing the retraction to be retracted. Seriously, though... it is a statistically proven fact that 74 percent of all statistics are 100 percent made up on the spot, 93 percent of the time, every time. Usually. Always.
Well wop can you say? There's hardly a dagoes by without some study saying something's bad for you. I take a small spic of comfort from the fact that if you average the studies out they come down to variation plus moderation.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Hawt digity dawg, ima fittin ta go git me some eggs, a shitload of bacon, sausage, some hashed browned taters, and cheesy grits, plus biscuits and gravy to celebrate the downfall of the Mediterranean diet! No more of that Greek Yogurt crap for me! Whooo hoooo! Iâ(TM)m even a have some bluburry pancaekz an syrup, an know that I is gonna live just as long! Yippie Kai-ya, motherfuckers!
The Mediterranean Doesn't Exist! "The Most Important Study of the Mediterranean Has Been Retracted" -- News at 11. And in other news, eggs are bad for you. Oh, I've just been given a note. Eggs are now good for you. Oh, another note. Make that bad. What? Now they're good again? Are we all eating the same eggs here? What do you MEAN they're bad again? I can't even finish a sentence without you ... and now they're good. Are you looking at a stoplight or something? And now a message BAD AGAIN from GOOD our I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO SAY IT sponsor.
Thank you, Lewis Black. (He said basically the same thing as you, but funny.)
Interesting that it was the original lead author who read the paper about "non-random studies" and started looking back at the data in the studies. At least in the Quartz TFA, this puts the Med diet paper author in a fairly good light - good on . you, mate...
If with "some" you mean extremely few that all suffer from a rare condition then yes you are technically correct but also irrelevant to the question at hand.
The eggs thing have scientifically just been first bad and then not bad, what the media then shouts about the matter is a completely different matter. The reason why it was first seen as bad was that scientists could see that high cholesterol in your blood is bad for your health and that egg contained large amounts of cholesterol, later after more studies the scientists found out that digested cholesterol does not increase your cholesterol blood levels and thus eggs are no longer bad (for that particular reason).
But none poop out double.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
ITYM inedible to us without some form of processing, like grinding, soaking, boiling....
Otherwise it'd make more sense to grow something else, wouldn't it?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Please learn what "copy-pasta" actually refers to, then get back to us.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Half the comments seem to be going madly off. :)
What I remember reading on retraction watch (which everyone should follow, because it's great) is that there were problems with the study. Not that the study was completely invalid or that the outcomes were now proven false. The data has to be re-analyzed based on the problems and new, if any, conclusions should be drawn from the data. If the methodological errors can be accounted for meaningfully then perhaps new, more solid, and probably less grandiose conclusions can be drawn.
One study, no matter how convincing, is just one study. The conclusions of one study are just that. Dozens of studies and lots of replications and confirmations lead to things that are closer to accuracy, but even then...
The real problem with science is that not enough time is spent in replications. They don't get published, and you can't build a career on replications. Oh, the other problem is that no one publishes null results... that's a fail. If we had studies that published null results we'd know what not to do, which is often more important than what gets published.
What it says about a diet, in this case, is really of scant importance. One size doesn't fit all in dieting anyway.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2013.808365
Yeah, you might want to read into what the issues are, and what significant parts of the study stand before going off on a rant about whatever you thought up.
And coffee
People like this are the super-heroes of science, doing tons of work to find the bad science and weed it out.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
There are no more or less risks to a vegan diet than a meat eating diet. If meat eating diet on its own without knowing specifics of the way of eating it is also unhealthy.
Source: The majority of people in the US being obese and on a meat eating diet.
Would you like to comment on my smoking?
When they get done with that, they can comment on me using bacon grease to cook with my eggs. MMmmmm...tasty bacon.
Om, nomnomnom...
I know a few non-white people who developed tolerance to lactose. They consumed increasing amounts of dairy over time and for one of them after a year he no longer had issues with it at all.
This is why pregnant women are discouraged from eating certain foods
And when they avoid certain foods we tend to end up with kids who have ridiculous allergies to those common foods. Mother avoids nuts, kid ends up with stupid life-threatening nut allergy. Meanwhile my mom ate normally and I only have a annoyingly-mild allergy to raw pineapple.
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. Vegan diets are not natural or healthy. They are stupid.
It is impossible to get enough B12, like any, from a vegan diet. The only natural sources of B12 are animal based. Without the technology to make B12 to supplement a vegan diet, someone on a vegan will become eventually sick, really sick. There is no way out of this.
Vegetables can also kill you from being undercooked. Uncooked meats and vegetables can also be perfectly fine to eat.
A contaminated food source is a contaminated food source regardless of whether or not it is meat or vegetable. Where I live it is recommended that locally grown leafy greens (lettuce, spinach, etc) are washed thoroughly and cooked because local snails and slugs carry some nasty parasites. In the last few months theres been a problem with romaine lettuce grown in certain regions of the US. In the recent past we've had highly publicized e. coli outbreaks from spinach. Most internal parasites in farmed meat have been eradicated or reduced to the point where risk is extremely low, the primary contaminant source in farmed meat is... humans. Typically at the slaughterhouse, maybe the butcher or the supermarket, or in the kitchen. Granted with wild meats you still have the risk you mentioned as those internal parasites I mentioned still exist in large enough quantities in the wild to at least be of some concern when preparing wild meats (and I'm including fish as meat here).
Also most of our foods are not naturally high in salt, at least not in harmful amounts, the bulk of salt in our food is added by other humans. Salt is funny, it's necessary for life but is also extremely effective at taking life, which is why it makes for such a great preservative, microbes really can't handle much in their environment while we not only need it, but are able to tolerate a significant quantity above what we need before we start having serious adverse effects.
It was Moops, not Moors
Or use that for the mornings hash browns, unless you share my opinion that white bread can be too white every other morning.
Or use that for the mornings hash browns, unless you share my opinion that white bread can be too white every other morning.
I don't really cook hash browns in the morning, but I do cook fried potateo's, with a mix of rosemary, dash of salt and pepper. They're quite tasty, have a very nice fluffy taste, almost melt in your mouth with a crisp outside. Give it a try sometime.
Om, nomnomnom...
A woman who's pregnant needs a lot of iron. Anaemia is particularly dangerous for pregnant women as it can cause them to bleed uncontrollably when they birth the baby. More risky than the very remote chance of listeria (more common salmonella poisoning will not cause miscarriage)
ITYM inedible to us without some form of processing, like grinding, soaking, boiling....
Or letting another animal eat it, and then eating that animal...
It's only a form of processing plant matter.
Try it! Library of Babel