That is why I want to go vegan. I really eat meat once per fortnight or every three weeks. I keep reducing it. Maybe in time it might be possible, but even if I don’t go all the way just reducing it and thinking about more ethical sourcing is something. I like cooking as well and was trained in classic cuisine and switching to all plant based sometimes seems impossible. It just takes some effort and time, I finished my residency few weeks ago and hopefully in few months my Phd will be good enough and I might have more energy and time for rethinking my cooking and eating ethics.
Yes I know, some really exciting vegan things happening in UK and US… I remember reading this article few years ago and thinking if this cheese tastes as good as it looks I can be vegan! 
Maybe I just need to start experimenting and making my own… 
2 Likes
Good luck with the journey and your PhD.
Thanks for the link to the Bandit Barn Cat. I am definitely going to try that the next time we’re in the States. Looks like there are a couple of stockists around Tampa 
1 Like
Late reply to the thread but just to add another data point I am vegan for ethical reasons but WFPB for longevity. However the longevity data appears to put pescatarians and vegans in a pretty similar ballpark and flexitarians do decently also.
I am pretty convinced the long chain omega 3s pescatarians get are contributing to their longevity but no reason you can’t mimic with algae oil supplements.
Also think people who are WFPB especially on the higher carbohydrate side benefit from periodic prolonged fasting more than the low carb/keto crowd because forcing your body to activate that starvation ketone system acutely rather than chronically is a good form of hormesis. If you are already in light ketosis most days I’m not sure the fasting would have the same benefits. This is entirely speculation as I am not aware of any data that show high vs low carb benefits from fasting.
4 Likes
AnUser
#86
What do you think of eating oysters as an ethical vegan?
I was health vegan for a couple of years, now ethical vegan. Even eating junky my apoB stays low normal which is a nice benefit.
2 Likes
@ReppinMycin Thats an interesting idea that makes sense. I’m a big believer in “flexibility” — metabolic (burn sugar vs fat), cardiac (RHR vs Max), TOR (growth vs autophagy), ANS (sympathetic vs parasympathetic), etc. I eat a plant heavy diet with a lot of fish cycled for TOR. But the plant diversity is key: lots of phytonutrients, types of food for microbiome, slowing of digestion and filling of stomach. I also think fasting is a great tool, maybe best (as you say) for people who aren’t already “fat adapted” (body having relearned the ability to burn fat as base of metabolic).
2 Likes
Objectively I don’t see a huge ethical issue with oyster consumption but didn’t eat them before I was vegan and don’t really think it’s worth muddying the waters eg when a friend is cooking etc. Far easier to say you’re vegan than to debate all the edge cases. Eg there is no harm to animals in eating roadkill (assuming you didn’t run it over), just not for me.
Re junky vegans Yh they tend to still eat less SF than non vegans so useful to keep apo b in check but triglycerides can get high if there are loads of high glycemic carbs.
1 Like
It seems so much of what is healthy relies on giving your body a short term challenge it can adapt from. Agree with the concept of having flexibility eg. Fasted cardio followed by a substantial meal to give you that insulin spike to put you in an anabolic state to grow and adapt but then keeping fasting glucose and insulin low overnight. It can be tempting to chase as much mtor suppression as possible or as flat blood sugars as possible but if you are looking to get fitter or stronger probably not optimal.
Reading your comment reminded me I probably need to incorporate some max hr work once per week or two.
2 Likes
I’m vegan first because I don’t want to pay for the torture done to conscious animals in mass animal farming, but target WFPB. I feel lucky that this is also the most healthful diet.
A interesting video of diet fads over the years: How Long Do Health Influencers Live?
4 Likes
The carnivores in our group may hate this video, but the rest of us will (I suspect) probably enjoy this and find value in it:
Ethan Weiss, Cardiologist at UC San Francisco
HARVARD: Red Meat Raises Diabetes Risk 62%. INTERNET: Nope.
Source: https://x.com/ethanjweiss/status/1752497749700874466?s=20
8 Likes
JuanDaw
#93
Those who regularly ate the highest amounts — averaging about a serving each day — were 53% more likely to develop diabetes than those who ate the least red meat. But participants who substituted one serving per day of nuts or legumes for red meat were 30% less likely to develop diabetes.
An earlier study says that it is charred red meat that is the bigger factor.
Follow-up Study—researchers found that participants who most frequently ate meats and chicken cooked at high temperatures were 1.5 times more likely to develop type 2 diabetes, compared to those who ate the least. There was also an increased risk of weight gain and developing obesity in the frequent users of high-temperature cooking methods, which may have contributed to the development of diabetes. Of note, this research demonstrated that cooking methods might contribute to diabetes risk beyond the effects of meat consumption alone.
Full text below.
5 Likes
My problem with Harvard studies is they never seem to have a balanced perspective. Everything is better with plants, and the more plants the better….for everybody all the time. Either they suppress anything that doesn’t support a PBD or it is really true that everything is better in every circumstance for everybody by eating more plants. I’m personally betting on the benefits of eating more plants but I don’t trust Harvard.
4 Likes
They go into that perception of bias in the video… I recommend you check it out.
4 Likes
AnUser
#96
The bias they didn’t mention which the scientist can have is the climate change bias. Basically by reducing red meat consumption they will reduce climate change with their science. However the association showing red meat to not be optimal seems to show up year after year, so it’s unlikely it isn’t the case.
2 Likes
Then again, is there any dog research on this topic? Association studies will always suffer from cofounding factors.
AnUser
#98
I meant it’s unlikely there isn’t a real association, and instead it’s all scientist bias, whether that is causation or not is up for debate.
cl-user
#99
The Harvard Chan School of Public Health (and nutrition) are well known vegan activists. Their studies are based on an annual food frequency questionnaire which is totally biased and coarse enough so that can interpret it as they wish, which is that vegan is better than any other diet.
3 Likes
cl-user
#100
You can read the full pamphlet here Red meat intake and risk of type 2 diabetes in a prospective cohort study of United States females and males
Basically every 2 to 4 years the send a questionnaire:
Red meat intakes were assessed with semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) every 2 to 4 y since the study baselines.
In which unprocessed meat includes hamburgers and sandwiches!
Unprocessed red meats included lean or extra lean hamburger; regular hamburger; beef, pork, or lamb as a sandwich or mixed dish; pork as a main dish; and beef or lamb as a main dish.
And then they notice that the more hamburgers you eat (with the associated fries and soda) the greater your diabetes risk. Not sure you need a study for that. Anybody could have told them.
There are real reasons to be vegan if people want to. Diabetes is not one of them.
Meanwhile there are real RCT(s) showing people reverting T2D with low carb diets.
2 Likes
I would suggest reading the study before the video : https://ajcn.nutrition.org/article/S0002-9165(23)66119-2/fulltext
The study, in my opinion, gives little to support the videos click bait title. My quick take about the most interesting facet of the article is as follows - There is a strong association of red meat intake with type 2 diabetes incidence IF one also considers BMI (body mass index). This counter factor could not be excluded within the study
- from study: “Because of the likelihood that weight gain mediates at least part of the association between red meat intake and risk of T2D, we did not adjust for adiposity in the primary analysis; with adjustment for BMI, the positive association was partially attenuated but still highly significant.”
An excellent study but I thought “partially attentuated” to be much too generalized. The most interesting thing in the study (to me) is how BMI is so closely associated with eating red meat.
Another very interesting part of the study had to do with exercise. People who exercised and ate red meat had the same incidence of Type 2 diabetes as non meat eaters. That seems odd. And perhaps it is - but I see that related somehow to eating red meat and BMI.
Back to the video - it is well edited, useful interviews with study author, and does try to address the presence of bias. But if you are going to start with a click bait title, " HARVARD: Red Meat Raises Diabetes Risk 62%. INTERNET: Nope," you put yourself into a certain camp. I liked the video but it implies criticism of Harvard Nutritional Studies is based on common strategies by industries that are oblique and generally isolated findings of certain scientists. I think he is correct about that, yet I think he uses the same rhetorical devices to attack other YouTube personalities.
AnUser
#102
The association risk was higher for those who exercised more and ate red meat:
However, we observed a higher risk of T2D associated with red meat among people with higher physical activity levels (P-interaction <0.001 for total red meat and processed red meat, P-interaction =0.002 for unprocessed red meat).
2 Likes
