Is our attack on Peta because there are a few bad apples with them? Some of their causes are very good and I don't think we need to name call them. I don't name call vegitarians and I hope they don't name call my meat eating. Toleration is key I think.
Just to be fair. She might have been ignorant of what low carb can do, being frightened by the myths that are abounding. I know many of my family who are in the same boat. One of my sisters is in Weight Watchers and the other is a Vegan. But I wouldn't put down a person's thing, it just makes a more negative impact on Atkins about our temperment

Sorry... I was lost, pondering how someone could "have himself autopsied


LOL...

Vegetarians ane PETA are two totally different animals. PETA is very hostile towards meat eaters. They even started a campaign calling parents who feed their kids meat child abusers.

As far as I am concerned, the few good things they do, don't compare to the ignorant bad things they do.

I was a strict vegan for years, and I used to conribute to PETA. Trust me. They deserve to be called the names they are being called. They fund the Animal Liberation Front which is an organization that blows up labs, beats the crap out of people who work at such labs etc. ALF is nothing more than a group of hippie terrorists. The FBI even considers them terroristis. PETA secretly supports them.

I wonder how Ingrid Newkirk sleeps at night knowing that she supports an underground organization that inflicts physical pain on humans, and vandalizes property.

Here is a link that will explain how these people operate.

As a new member, I'm dismayed by the reaction to cherryrock's post. When I read the membership rules, I checked the box that stated I would not be verbally abusive toward other members. People have a right to their opinion, regardless of how well-informed, or how adequately you deem those views expressed. Your collective defensive reaction was, I feel, a real indication of your insecurity where it comes to the low carb lifestyle. As LC'ers, you've each trod a very well-trodden, difficult path. If you cannot use whatever wisdom you've gained from that experience to instruct others in a polite and teacherly way, perhaps it's best if you say nothing at all. I agree with another poster here, who said that she knew what was best for her body. However; no matter what I think about cherryrock's personal views, I applaud her for standing in this lion's den and stating her opinion, then providing the factual information to back up that opinion.

First of all, did you notice the age of this thread? The first post by the OP goes back several years.

Second, she did not provide ANY factual information to back up her opinions -- only other people's opinions (which happened to agree with hers!)

Third, remember this is the war-zone, and you are warned when you enter that this is less moderated and more controversial -- I paraphrase "if you are sensitive or your feelings are easily hurt, don't enter here!"

The rest of this forum is much more civil. Please don't judge the whole forum based on the war-zone!

For a summary of the relationship between food and cancer, check out Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer:a Global Perspective. There is a chart on page 370 that summarizes the whole report.

Consumption of whole plant foods: nonstarchy vegetables; allium vegetables; fruits; and foods containing fibre, folate, or lycopene offer "probable decreased risk" of several types of cancer.

Consumption of foods or supplements that contain selenium offer probable decreased risk.

Consumption of red meat and processed meat offers convincing increased risk for colon cancer.

The only animal product that decreases cancer risk is mother's milk, and possibly milk from other animals (some increased, some decreased depending on type of cancer).

There was not enough evidence for reviewers to make conclusions about other animal sources, but there seemed to be a slight positive from fish and eggs, and no effect either way from poultry.

Calorie dense foods, including fast foods, are a risk factor for obesity, and foods with low calorie density (e.g. vegetables) reduce risk.

Obesity is a convincing risk factor for many kinds of cancer, so if low carbing helps you to lose weight, then the weight loss is helping to reduce the risk.

So if this collection of metastudies was my only source of info, and I wanted to low carb, I would take in fish, poultry and eggs, and consume a lot of nonstarchy vegetables, and some low glycemic fruit. I would eliminate processed foods, red meat, cured meat, sugary foods, doughnuts and french fries.

If you'd look at the profile of the person who started this thread, you'd see this was a hit and run thread. The person has not been back since the day the thread was posted.

Exactly! And that was Aug 18, 2004!

I went to the site. Didn't get into the metastudy, but did get into a monster of a report on the methodology used in the metastudy, and the criteria by which various studies were weighted:

Quoted from the SLR Specification Manual of the World Cancer Research Fund;

"For the reviews usually addressed by Cochrane 2 and NHS CRD1, the question is
generally of efficacy of interventions. In this context the currently generally accepted
hierarchy of evidence is used, which places randomised controlled trials above
observational evidence because they are LESS OPEN TO BIAS. This is entirely appropriate.
However the questions at the heart of the systematic reviews to be commissioned by
WCRF International are aetiological – that is they are seeking to identify causes of
cancer. For aetiological questions, the inference of causation must be based upon
evidence of different types and drawn from different sources – observational,
intervention, clinical and laboratory, in order to provide a basis for considering the
conceptual frameworks of Bradford Hill 3 and others 4.
Thus the process outlined in this manual aims to conduct a comprehensive review of
all types of evidence relating to the question of relevance – using an inclusive
approach rather than a hierarchy to access the data."

In other words, mere association with cancer in observational studies is given equal weight with more solid types of evidence. I guess bias matters less when your looking for a dietary scapegoat than when you're looking for a cure.

And do you think that poster might have opted to post additional comments to the board, subsequent to her initial post, had her assertions not been attacked offensively and one-sidedly? I'm only saying that what is called for, (no matter where one stands on the low-carb lifestyle), is a little moderation and understanding of those who may have a difference of opinion. That's all. Personally I'm still straddling the fence over the low carb/higher carb issue, though generally leaning toward low-carb these days. However, being still basically undecided, it would have been nice to have a view over both sides of the fence.

If it's a view of both sides of the fence you'd like, you can do a search of the War Zone using the word 'PETA' and get quite a few threads since this topic has been discussed many, many times here on this forum. The OP of this thread was not the first and I'm sure won't be the last to share her views on eating meat with us.

You might also want to review the sticky at the top of this forum which starts out with the following:



Members who begin threads in this forum should be prepared for a spirited (and sometimes heated) debate; that is the purpose of this forum.
The OP was challenged to provide sound references (not just opinion articles) regarding her assertions and chose to leave rather than do so. Her last visit to this forum was 90 minutes after she started this thread while the discussion was still quite civil and she has not signed on since.

Cherry - yes, your opinion is welcome but understand that you are spouting what we're heard the detractors all say. I used to be a detractor - now I understand how Atkins (or LC WOE) is better for me. I also have a wheat/gluten/yeast/sugar allergy - as a vegetarian, I was so sick all the time because of it. Like any good report, you MUST keep your references together. I don't consider MSN a "good reference" - as a historian (and archaeologist), I have to use peer reviewed journals and studies that are concrete and tested over and over again. ONE study or even several small studies with limited parameters do not necessarily make the point of the study valid. Since the medical information changes daily, sometimes HOURLY, based on what the cable channels want to run, then you will find multiple and conflicting studies that are then popularized.

Good studies will require you to READ and THINK. Then you must find the corroborating evidence and be ready to change your mind when the information is before you. It doesn't mean that you starting eating meat, however, you have to realize that many, many people on this forum were once vegetarians, or even vegans, and it totally ruined their health. It has taken me SIX years (after 8 years of a superiority complex as a vegetarian) to become healthy again. That was a lot of wasted time being sick.

I encourage you to continue to read and weigh the evidence, not merely react from propaganda promulgated by either "side". Write it down, work it out in your head - then see where the evidence leads you. No plan is "perfect" - it takes dedication to be a vegan but takes as much dedication to go LC as a WOE/WOL, too. Cheers!

Good information.

Ma'am, my point was that the poster has not returned to the forum since about 45 minutes after starting the thread. That was it. No need to flame me. I don't even know what the thread is about. I was merely stating a fact.

My husband and I were on Dr McDougall's diet for 6 months and both got so weak we could hardly do anything. I cooked fresh foods, no processed meals, and I chopped so many veggies I got fearful of the knives as I got cut several times. I got too tired to continue. My muscles were weak and I had chest pains towards the end that I had to quit. We are both feeling much better on low carb. If you continue your vegan diet or go back to it be very careful. My dietpower software said I was getting 50 grams of protein and my dh 75 grams.