Comparison of Postsurgical Scars Between Vegan and Omnivore Patients(pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) |
Comparison of Postsurgical Scars Between Vegan and Omnivore Patients(pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) |
I also felt like a grease grenade all the time and got tired of the diet which is why I stopped, but it was definitely superhuman for me.
I felt the worst in this sports context was when I experimented with a vegan/vegetarian diets. The effects were virtually the exact opposite. I'm sure with a nutritionist and more dedication I could have overcome many of these issues, but I found building a decent diet harder and required more effort.
For now I've found vegetarianism significantly easier and a satisfactory compromise between ethics, health, and nutritional laziness.
A lower-carb calorie-restricted diet makes me more alert and focused. On the other hand, I sleep like shit, my anxiety levels skyrocket, and I also feel moodier, particularly in the mornings. I also lose strength fairly quickly.
Eating at a surplus with carbs makes me more lethargic, lazy and less focused, but I sleep far better, and I’m in a happier, more social, mood. And of course I can make strength gains.
I tried surplus keto a while ago but didn’t enjoy it and didn’t see any of its touted benefits.
If I found a diet that was all positives like you described, I would probably hold on to it with my dear life.
What did your it consist of? Did you eat at a surplus or a deficit? And what made you quit?
Given that and the already-existing ability to create collagen/gelatin in a lab that's suitable for vegans, I've always wondered why nobody has managed to get it to market as a food.
There's already a growing group of wellness-focused people who don't want typical non-gelatin jelling ingredients like carrageenan and various gums in their foods; these provide only the jelling property and none of the nutrition of actual gelatin, and they are associated with inflammation.
Edit: Maybe all of the funding is going toward grail projects like synthetic beef patties that have an element of technical novelty, rather than the comparatively boring process of creating collagen at scale and getting FDA approval?
Found a source for the story that matches my recollection: https://aaww.org/the-vegan-marshmallow/
Outside of some pastry applications (eg. mirror cake glazing), it's pretty much only used for Jell-O and aspic, neither of which are particularly trendy at the moment.
There's gelatin and collagen in soups as part of making broth, but it's not really something that people see as an ingredient.
This study seems like it bolsters the reasoning. The market for both of these options is currently closed off to vegans.
I have a bad habit of biting my cuticles. I also happen to observe lent, effectively going vegan for 50 days every year.
Typically my cuticles heal the next day, or two at most. But every single time I enter lent, suddenly my cuticles take more than a week to heal the same amount. The difference is very obvious, to me at least.
Grew up in a family that did this and still do it because I like the structure and changes through the year.
This is unusually damning to veganism-as-it-is-practiced if not to veganism itself. It would be interesting to see these results across a wide range of diets.
Also, given that study itself measured Iron and B12, supplementing Iron and B12 may help scar healing w/o the (red) meat eating downside.
> Twenty-one omnivore and 21 vegan patients who underwent surgical excision of a nonmelanoma skin cancer
Interesting, but its a small group and stats are on the low end?
Anyway, would be interesting to get comments from doctors who trest vegans. I'm not surprised at the result (we are what we eat), so perhaps vegans really should be on vitamins.
I wanted so see the effect sizes not just p values which are unhelpful. But if the vegans are all vitamin b12 deficient, it’s not a surprise their health has consequences.
And my other question is, is there self selection going on. People who go to hospitals have worse outcomes than people who don’t, so the best thing to do is to avoid hospitals. P < 0.001. Right? No, wrong. Did they become vegans due to digestive problems or other health issue?
I’d really like to read the article to see if they considered these things.
I also smelled once a vegan cake. It's a medical miracle they can survive on such a diet.
No they aren't.
From New Oxford English Dictionary:
> omnivorous
> adjective (of an animal or person) feeding on a variety of food of both plant and animal origin.
A human may choose to walk on all fours because they're insane, but they will still be a biped.
Unfortunately I imagine an experiment to further investigate this would be hard to get past an ethics board. I.e. wounding the participants to see the effect on scar formation...
Glycine is one of the relevant aminos that is very suboptimal or even scarce in vegetarian and vegan diets. It is also going to be one of the important (and likely most common) limiting factors in tissue repair.
Proline is also needed for collagen production, but not as deficient in Glycine as far as vegetarian diets. Glycine is also highly water soluble and a small molecule; it is constantly lost in urine. The need for glycine goes way beyond collagen production. It is essential for so many biological functions.
Glycine is not considered an "essential amino" because the body produces glycine itself, hence it is overlooked by many. It turns out the body produces only enough to usually barely scrape by. My guess is if another group of vegans were given Glycine (at around 4 to 5 grams/day) supplementation the disadvantage relative to omnivores would be erased.
edit: corrected study participants number
Arguably mental health is more important when considering a choice like veganism.
also: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animals-and-us/20181...
then there is the question: do people with mental health issues tend to gravitate towards veganism or is the diet itself is causing the issues.
I would like to see a study with a large number of participants from diverse backgrounds who are meat eaters and then go vegan and see if that affects their mental health. However a meat eater who is then forced to eat soy products/meat substitutes they dislike may be unhappy for that very reason. Its a difficult test condition to say the least.
Measure them all and get happiness and health curves after 5, 10, 15 years.
It would be expensive, but probably a better use of money than a lot of other stuff.
The same seems to apply in human, with various individual anecdotal report: https://www.quora.com/Did-long-term-water-fasting-improve-an...
As for how/why it works:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7069085/
"Fasting before or after wound injury accelerates wound healing through the activation of pro-angiogenic SMOC1 and SCG2"
There are various other publications on autophagy (removing old stem cells and making new ones)
For those who are going to say "in mice", the effects of true (water only) fasting has been replicated in humans, in well done trials, in even harsher conditions than surgery: chemotherapy.
Fasting improves various things such as the severity of symptoms during chemo and the efficiency of the treatment:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5921787/
"Short term fasting during chemotherapy is well tolerated and appears to improve quality of life and fatigue during chemotherapy"
It may be counter intuitive, but there's a large body of evidence that fasting promotes healing (check the various reference of this 2018 trial: "Fasting cycles retard growth of tumors and sensitize a range of cancer cell types to chemotherapy" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22323820/ etc
To me this is the bad part. Wound diastasis means that your incision opens up again. That is IMO a bigger complication than a scar since it likely requires medical intervention and puts you at risk for infection.
I don't think a sample size of 21 is especially damning. Nor do I think that the study's authors would come to that conclusion either.
It means that this particular sample of 21 people would have to be extremely atypical under the null hypothesis of no difference. Therefore, given its low sample size (and thus wide standard error), it is 'some' evidence that the effect size is also probably quite large.
“Veganism is healthy”
To
“Veganism can be healthy if you exercise an impressive amount of restraint, discipline, and judgement in your vegan diet”
Meanwhile, I know lots of people who have given up on vegan diets because they felt like their health was declining, even with regular exercise. I'm sure with enough care and nutritional science they could have gotten it to work. But it's so much easier to just add some animal products to your diet.
I definitely favor smaller less impactful scarring, but also, so what? Calling ths "unusually damning" seems like a significant overinflation of concern.
For all we know, it may have far more significant pro-recovery characteristics associated with it. "Oh you built too much scar tissue? Your vegan diet also stitched your blood vessels back together really well."
Obviously that does not mean that eating a lot of meat is good, but having to take supplements is not good, either.
I don't think it's worth going into the extremes with this. Omnivore doesn't mean a buttload of red meat.
Unless iron is the source of the (red) meat eating downside.
Also study is compare of vegan. Not veggietarian. This mean potential beenfit from dairy. ALso potential white meat not reds. You have made a link from red meat to scar outcome where above study no created one. This is bad thinking.
Also you are say for supplementing remedy all problem on vegans. This supplements expensive need much research. Maybe hard for getting right. Why benefit from this and use vegans diet? If same results are come from meat. There am also chance for benefits not iron and b12 related but maybe collogen and other meat things.
But I started to have problems with my teeth chipping - hadn't had that before. I did some calculations and realized that there was no way I was getting anywhere close to the RDA for calcium. So I started supplementing some calcium.
After some gut problems I came to the conclusion that beans weren't working for me. I needed to quit eating legumes for a while which is highly problematic on a vegan diet as they're the major source of protein.
Now I eat a tin of sardines twice/week (and other fish occasionally) which means that technically I'm not vegan any longer. At least the addition of fish did not cause any gallbladder problems.
Sardines are great for DMAE---good brain food as well as other benefits (like plenty of calcium); good choice.
Boron deficiency is far more common than calcium deficiency, and it's very important for bone strength, or rather flexibility and cohesion. I highly recommend some Boron supplementation, since it's so easy to be deficient. Just as with all trace minerals, don't over do it (btwn 2mg and 5mg is a good dose for an avg weight adult). 3mg/day is a very common adult dose---that's what contained in 4.5 apples/day; apples are a really good source of boron.
Vit D supplementation is very important these days especially. But mega supplements (of 10k IU or higher) can cause calcium loss. It's better to take smaller doses spread more evenly/frequently than to take a huge doses every two weeks to monthly. 2000 IU per day with a meal should be fine for most avg weight adults; I see no reason to take more. 5000 IU twice a week, spread about evenly, and with a big meal is fine too. I wouldn't get any more coarse than that. Doses much larger than 5000 IU might cause calcium loss, ie. erosion.
This is despite the fact that a typical vegan diet is low in fat (which is the typical reason a vegan diet is promoted for gallbladder control). In fact, if I remember correctly, the 'lack' of fat was also the main risk; in that the occasional fact prompted a more violent reaction, thus increasing the risk for an impaction.
I can try and find the article for you if you're interested, though I remember last time I tried to find it it was no easy task trying to sift through the myriad of google results containing vegan blogs recommending vegan diets for cholecystitis... But in any case, if you're going vegan for fear of cholecystitis, be aware it may actually have the reverse outcome!
The same goes for non-vegans.
We know that the body can use collagen without digesting it first because collagen masks are used to heal burn victims. See, for example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6565829/, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3081477/
Collagen is a protein. It is made up of several "peptides" referred to as "collagen peptides." When it is first digested, collagen is broken down into collagen peptides in the gut. The type of collagen determines the ratios of these peptides. Most, but not all of these collagen peptides get further broken down into amino acids in the gut. (Contrast to whey, which gets entirely broken down into amino acids.) However, a significant portion of collagen peptides can survive digestion, or leave the gut before they are digested. (Up to 10%, depending on the original source of the collagen.) The body can utilize these peptides directly to repair skin, because skin is mostly made of...collagen. The presence of collagen peptides simply lets the body go straight to creating collagen without having to wait while peptides are created from amino acids. (The body will still do that, but it's like starting a construction project with supplies on hand vs having to wait for supplies to arrive or be built.)
Digestion doesn't work like that. Any ingested collagen is broken down to amino acids like all other proteins. Then the amino acids are re-polymerized into collagen.
Most, but not all collagen is broken down into collagen peptides in the gut. Most of those collagen peptides are then broken down into amino acids. But not all collagen peptides are broken down, and the peptides that remain can enter the bloodstream where they can be utilized as needed.
(The collagen that doesn't get broken down in the gut tends to come out the other side of the digestive tract intact, because unlike collagen peptides, collagen is too large to enter into the bloodstream and there are no organs after the intestines that can make direct use of collagen.)
Wikipedia: "as of 2011, 30 types of collagen have been identified"
Besides getting the wrong type, it could just be damaged. It also seems like an awfully big molecule to pass from the digestive tract to the blood. If that can pass through, then many poisons would also pass through.
Collagen is bigger than some viruses.
That said, you should be able to find plenty of real yogurt in the US now.
https://www.fooddive.com/news/nestle-to-acquire-majority-sta...
[To clarify: I am not qualified to judge the general healthiness of any particular diet -- any sufficiently popular diet seems to have conflicting studies showing it is "healthy" and others showing it is "unhealthy". The point I intended to make above was that most people either outright reject or remain unswayed by these kinds of studies.]
But in the couple of weeks before I could get the ultrasound I was essentially eating a vegan diet because I wasn't sure what was causing the pain and I wanted to just concentrate on only eating plants to minimize possible triggers. And then when the results came back and the surgeon told me it was time to schedule the surgery, I realized that I hadn't had any pain on my minimal diet. And so decided to give veganism a try for a month or so to see what would happen - and I continued to have no pain.
I think what it comes down to is that some animal fats cause the gallbladder to contract more vigorously - especially red meat, eggs and dairy in my case would trigger pain. I've heard about the issue you're talking about as it's been suggested that since you no longer have vigorous contractions of the gallbladder the gall tends to pool up there. On the other hand I've also heard bitter foods and beets help with this issue.
The RDA is 1000mg (goes higher as you get older, apparentlty). Broccoli is one of the higher vegan sources at about 100mg in a in a cup. Tofu (depending on how it's made) can be around 400mg in a cup. Beyond that tahini (seseme seeds) is pretty high at 420mg in 100 grams. But I wasn't consistently eating those foods every day. When I'd add up my total for a day I'd often come up with maybe 500mg.
The p-value is still the important thing because the p-value is itself affected by the sample size.
Not true (unless I misunderstood what you were trying too say). The probability that a sample will be atypical under the null is exactly the significance level, and does not depend on its size.
What does change with size is that the distribution around the statistic gets more concentrated, meaning your threshold moves to the left, towards lower effect sizes.
Which also means that for smaller sample sizes, it is harder to reach significance, unless you're dealing with a fairly large effect size.
Unfortunately a lot of papers don't provide very good data regarding what kind of meat is being eaten. At least, not in what I've read; I'd love to see something better.
Some very specifically included processed meats which, to me, invalidates the study as a study about meat. Processed meats are a completely different beast. On those grounds a significant number of studies I've read are hard to take seriously.
This could be a reason people are calling it bullshit.
I'd love to see a study involving conscientious meat eating habits in which people eat mostly vegetables, some whole meats, and otherwise avoid processed foods. This is how I'd want to eat if I ate meat, but it's rare to see balanced studies.
This does, however, make some sense: most people eat processed foods where these studies are done, so they're relevant to a broader part of the population.
They should not be used to condemn meat, though.
It was being claimed as a truth to rebut the implications a peer reviewed study, but without any data to support it.
This was the last time I looked at one of these claims: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23661158 (Article claimed 25% of vegans have low blood iron, and the study involved ..10 vegans.)
* I would not consider it a documentary as it has a clear agenda, but I found it interesting nonetheless.
Very large effects are unlikely given the number of long-term vegans who seem to maintain sufficient health. Whereas small effects might be considered a worthwhile sacrifice.
There is not good evidence that peptides larger than 2-3 amino acids can be absorbed into circulation via the gut in more than trace quantities (1). Digested collagen will be rich in certain amino acids (glycine and proline in particular), but calling something as small as a di or tripeptide a "collagen peptide" seems like an oddly arbitrary choice. I am a medical student with significant background in biochemistry, so please don't feel the need to dumb it down for me when you explain.
1. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nutrition-research-r...
See https://academic.oup.com/fqs/article/1/1/29/4791729 for a discussion of bioactive peptides.
Do you have a source where I can read more about this?
So document yourself: medline is free, and with sci-hub, you can get the full versions of anything
EDIT: actually, no, don't document yourself. Ignorance is bliss. Why would I even care? After all, it's your life! And I care even less than your doctor, since we don't even have a contractual relationship (which you have with your doctor by virtue of paying him).
Please note who wrote this paper, considering what they are famous for, as well as the results: http://web-docs.stern.nyu.edu/pa/kruger_email_ego.pdf