View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Skylar Munsch
October 22, 2013
Vegan vs. Meat: The Big Debate
Prof. Wolcott
This annotated bibliography is intended for anyone who has interest in the debate
between the vegan-vegetarian diets versus a diet rich in red meat. Included in this are various
academic sources found mostly via the Academic Search Premier, a general research database. The
overall purpose of this annotated bibliography is to cite information based on the two fore
mentioned diets and the risks and benefits of each, specifically focusing on the benefits for those
with preexisting conditions or simply want to improve overall health. It is a document dedicated to
the contrasting elements of the diets with cited sources that act solely for the purpose of allotting
the reader further information on the subject material. Also, included in this annotated
bibliography are a series of studies that have been conducted by those ranging from medical
professionals at universities to those who are employed by the government. The studies presented
have been based on both scientific data as well as observational data. Numbers are very important
when dictating the methods along with association between the risk of illness and the two diets that
will be discussed. The studies performed have been down within the past ten years and are
extremely valuable to this annotated bibliography; because this debate over the vegetarian-vegan
and red meat diets and the risks and benefits to the human body of both have only really been of
interest with the growing population of vegetarians and vegans. Those having these conversations
have varied, but several of those have stayed true to this discourse community. Dieticians along
with specialized medical professionals other than dieticians, such as those involved in sports
medicine, food scientists, and fitness experts have been involved in this discussion. There are
several conventions devoted solely to nutrition, a few namely conventions are as follows: MDA
Annual Nutrition Convention and Exposition, Food and Nutrition Conference and Expo, and
International Nutrition Diagnostics Conference.
American Dietic Association. “Position of the American Dietic Association: Vegetarian Diets”.
Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Jul2009, Vol. 109 Issue 7, p1266-1282. Up to
this point this annotated bibliography has strictly focused on the positive and negative
affects of both diets, however what about the usage of each diet, as in what community
gains the most out of following? This scientific article doesn’t have one particular author but
instead lists the American Dietic Association in its entirety. The focus of this article is to give
insight into a study performed by this society in which they proposed that with a carefully
planned vegetarian diet which included the total vegetarian or total vegan diets can be
beneficial, provide adequate nutritional intake and can aid in the prevention and or
treatment of chronic diseases, diabetes for example. Research conducted on the nutritional
intake of vegetarian and vegan foods has provided valuable resources for nutrients such as
the use of plant protein in order to supply a full day’s worth of amino acids required to
synthesize an adequate amount of protein for growth and maintenance of muscles. Also, the
risk for contracting both CVD (Cardiovascular Disease) and Ischemic Heart Disease was
lower in vegetarians than in non-vegetarians, partially due to the lower blood lipid level
which can be attributed to the higher amounts of fiber, soy, nuts and plant sterols in
accordance to lower levels of saturated fatty acids present in most meats. Vegetarians and
vegans both consume large amounts of flavonoids and phytochemicals, both plant based
and both have the same protective effects of antioxidants, which can protect against CVD by
reducing blood clots. The closing statement of this article gave a summarization that those
previously afflicted with CVD, Hypertension, or diabetes can use a vegetarian diet as a more
natural treatment. Therefore the community of those at risk or already effected by this
disease can utilize the benefits of a vegetarian or vegan diet to aid in the decrease of
cholesterol (LDL), the lipids in the bloodstream or decrease in blood sugar.
Barnard, Neal D., Katcher, Heather I., Jenkins, David J.A., Cohen, Joshua., Turner-McGrievy, Gabrielle.,
“Vegetarian and Vegan Diets in Type 2 Diabetes Management”. Nutrition Reviews. Vol. 67
Issue 5, p255-263.
Similar to the previous article this scientific article supports the idea that vegetarian and
vegan diets are beneficial in health management, however this article is specifically
designed around managing Type 2 Diabetes. Methods used in this study were observational
encounters performed by medical researchers at George Washington University of
Medicine, Washington Center for Clinical Research and at the School of Nutrition and School
of Public Health at the University of North Carolina. Dr. Neal Barnard, the main researcher
and author of this scientific article found that the risk and or management of type 2 diabetes
decreased substantially due to a vegetarian or vegan diet. The diet primarily effected weight
loss because of the reduction of saturated fat and high-glycemic-index food consumption
and a higher intake of dietary fiber and vegetable protein. However, the weight loss directly
correlated with the improvement of plasma lipid concentrations. Also it has shown to
reverse atherosclerosis, which is the build up of plaque in the arteries of the heart.
Biesalski, H. K. "Meat as a component of a healthy diet – are there any risks or benefits if meat is
avoided in the diet?" Meat Science 70 (2005): 509-524. Academic Premier. 9 Oct. 2013. To
simply state the positive effects of a vegan diet and offer no other viewpoints would make
this a biased conversation, which is why this scholarly article is included, to balance the
controversy of vegan-vegetarian diets and the consumption of red meat and the health
benefits and risks of each choice. Biesalski analyzed the argument of whether the exclusion
of meat from a diet would aid in the prevention of cancer and diabetes. His methods were
research conducted by many in the nutrition field. His findings were that meat is beneficial
for adequate protein and vitamin intake of which cannot be achieved via a vegan or
vegetarian diet. He concludes, “Meat as a component of a mixed and healthy diet contains
important and essential micronutrients. The adequate intake ensures a normal function of
the immune system, the mucous membranes and the general metabolism of substrates”
(Biesalski 524).
Daniel C.R. Cross A.J Koebnick C., Sinha R. Public Health Nutrition [Public Health Nutr] 2011 Apr;
Vol. 14 (4), pp. 575-583. This article is the turning point in this annotated bibliography for
its purpose is to address the rising percentage of meat consumption in the United States. It
explains via statistics initially gathered by Carrie Daniel, an researcher at the NIH (National
Institute of Health) and her statistics are expanded upon by Daniel, Koebnick and Sinha all
of whom are active in the fields of Nutritional Epidemiology, and the Department of
Research and Evaluation. What was discovered by the data collected by the FAO and US
Agriculture was that the meat intake type (red, white, and processed) continues to rise not
only in the US but also in the rest of the developed world. The consumption of the different
classifications of meat is also related to socioeconomic factors, since red meat has a
reputation of having a higher cost. To connect this with the other articles cited, red meat
and its effects could be contributed to socioeconomic factors. The conclusion of the article
discusses the correlation between the increase in consumption of the cheaper processed
meats and cancer and how the epidemiological evidence can corroborate this fact.
Therefore those who consume more processed meat than the average population could be
at a higher risk than those who do not due to constraints previously mentioned.
S. Stanner, et al. "Red Meat In The Diet: An Update." Nutrition Bulletin 36.1 (2011): 34-77. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 16 Oct. 2013. This is an updated article from the previous publication
of the 2005, “Red Meat in The Diet”. The evidence gathered for this article was
epidemiological based, meaning it is based upon the patterns and risks of disease in a
controlled population. This study investigated the associations between meat intake and the
possible health and or disease outcomes. Gathering accurate epidemiological data is spoken
of in depth in this article, leading into the quality of the data. Basically data must be of both
quality and accuracy in order to determine anything of value. This matters especially when
comprising data of meat consumption. This article focused quite a bit on separating
aggregated data, meaning the amount of meat consumed separated from other components
such as meat pies or pasta and meatballs. It continues on to say that meat has high
micronutrient and protein levels which is why it has been shown in studies to be more
beneficial to the human body. However meat contains a variety of fatty acids, especially
those saturated fatty acids, which can be harmful in large quantities. Also of import in
analyzing this article is the breakdown of fatty acids in different types of meat. If the species
is ruminant, meaning the animal was a cow or a sheep, then the majority of the meat is
hydrogenated, which allows it to be easily digested by the stomach and intestines,
hydrogenated vegetable oils are also used to produce the solid and semi-solid meats that
are manufactured. The article concludes with classifying the two types of meat, processed
and unprocessed and lists that it has grown increasingly difficult to separate the risks of red
meat consumption alone, that rather assigning risks to meat consumption that it be divided
by whether the meat is or is not processed.
Deckers, Jan. “Obesity, Public Health, and the Consumption of Animal Products.” Journal of
Bioethical Inquiry. Mar2013, Vol. 10 Issue 1, p29-38.
Deckers take more of the ethical approach as to why we should lower consumption of APs (animal
products). He opens his argument with an example of skewed information, “Moreover, many
governments have developed “healthy” eating advice that is skewed toward high consumption of
animal products (APs), even though many APs have been linked with obesity because they are
relatively high in total and saturated fats, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and calories”
(Deckers 29). Not only are these products associated with bodily risk factors, many of the farmed
products have derivatives of antibiotics, pesticides, dioxins, and metal compounds, as mentioned by
Deckers. Also noted in this article is the negative effects of having farm animals and a farm animal
industry, “part from causing disease directly, the farm animal sector also has come under increased
scrutiny because of its contribution to ecological changes that may trigger human disease. A highly
influential study in this regard is Livestock’s Long Shadow, published by the Livestock, Environment,
and Development Initiative, a group coordinated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (Steinfeld et al. 2006). The report argues that the farm animal sector puts great
strain on a wide range of environmental resources. These negative impacts include: soil
degradation through compacting by hoofs and agricultural machinery, erosion, the accumulation of
toxic metals, salinization, and nutrient loading (the localized accumulation of nutrients through
excessive use of manure and fertilizers); deforestation; freshwater use; and water and atmospheric
pollution (Steinfeld et al. 2006)” (Deckers 30). So not only are animal products harmful to the
human body but it is also argued from the ecological standpoint in this article as to why animal
farming is harmful to the environment. As mentioned this article differs from that of the previously
listed articles but it does offer valuable insight as to why else animal products are seen as harmful
such as the antibiotics
and even growth hormones that are administered to the animals during farming.
Hood, Sandra. “The Vegan Diet”. Practice Nurse. Vol. 35 Issue 3, p13-17.
Hood, a registered dietician, writes about what a vegan diet consists of and how it affects
the body. In contrast to the other article written by Ruxton which stated the positive effects
of meat consumption this article begins with a common misconception about how vegan
diets can potentially be harmful, “At one time, the case for a vegan diet may have appeared
problematic, but gradually, over time, it has proved to be sound and appropriate for all
stages of life. Indeed, over recent years, research has shown that people who eat a vegan
diet are healthy and may even be healthier than people who eat meat” (Hood 13). She also
includes that any diet has its possible downsides, and that the argument against a vegan diet
is the laundry list of defeciencies that are imminent possibilities, however with proper
planning there shouldn’t be an issue.
Fontana, Luigi, Timothy E. Meyer, Samuel Klein, and John O. Holloszy. "Long-Term Low-Calorie Low-Protein
Vegan Diet and Endurance Exercise are Associated with Low Cardiometabolic Risk. Rejuvenation
Research 10 (2007): 225-34. Academic Premier. 9 Oct. 2013.” In another scholarly article, Luigi
Fontana and others analyzed the long-term effects of consuming a low-calorie and low-protein
vegan diet versus performing regular endurance exercise on cardiometabolic risk factors. The
research methods used was a cross-sectional study and the cardiometabolic risk factors which were
evaluated in 21 sedentary subjects who had be consuming the low-calorie and low-protein vegan
diet for a number of years. This relates to the original topic of whether consuming a vegan diet is
actually beneficial or more harmful than consuming red meat because it evaluates the BMI (body
mass index) of those in both the sedentary and endurance runner groups. The results yielded that
the BMI of both groups was lower. It also suggested that the long-term consumption of this
particular vegan diet in combination with regular endurance exercise both decreased blood
pressure as noted in the introductory article in conjunction with this scholarly article. However
there was no indication of whether the incorporation of red meat consumption affected the
cardiometabolic health, in fact there was no mention of meat of any sort in this article. It wasn’t a
biased article it just spat out the facts of how and why a specific vegan diet functioned during the
cross-sectional study of both sedentary and endurance runners.
Liebman, Bonnie. Nutrition Action Health Letter. Jun2013, Vol. 40 Issue 5, p1-7.
This periodical is more of an overview of what other researchers have said such a Harvard School of
Public Health and Adam Bernstein a research director at the Cleveland Clinic’s Wellness Institute.
This article assigns reasons on why people should consume less meat, but not necessarily remove it
from a diet completely. The first of many is introduced with a quote from Adam Bernstein, "Eating
red meat increases the risk of dying early […] We estimated that 8 percent of deaths in women and
almost 10 percent in men could be prevented if people consumed less than half a serving per day of
red meat," (Liebman 1). This article differs from those that have been included thus far in the sense
that it details what particular meat was used in the study Bernstein performed. It included, “…a
serving was three ounces of cooked steak, hamburger, pork chop, or other unprocessed meat, but
only one ounce of sausage, ham, or other processed meat and half an ounce of bacon” (Liebman 1).
This additional information could potentially allow the reader to make a more accurate conclusion
of the efficiency and value of the study and its results. Another alarming statistic that was included
in this periodical was from the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study, it was reported from half a million
people, that after 10 years those who consumed the most red meat (approximately 5 ounces a day)
were 30% more likely to die. Another interesting statistic was included in the article involving the
consumption of lower-fat meats such as a deli-meat contained carnitine. This is a nutrient that has
the ability to accelerate atherosclerosis, or the hardening of the arteries. One might see the word
“nutrient” and question why it is so harmful to the body. Well, in the Cleveland Clinic study, it was
found that when the body further digests this nutrient a byproduct is produced, TMAO. This could
potentially be the culprit in the destruction of the heart and arteries surrounding it. A finding from
Hazen, a chair member of the Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic’s Lerner
Research Institute, “Those who had higher blood levels of TMAO were about 50 percent more likely
to have a heart attack, stroke, or other cardiovascular event over the next three years, once the
researchers took into account risk factors like high blood pressure, smoking, and high LDL
cholesterol” (Liebman 2). The study results coupled with the scientific facts present in this
document as well as in the others that have been collected it would be reasonable to assume that an
enormous amount of energy, money and time has been invested in this plants over meat debate.
McAfee, Alison J.; McSorley, Emeir M.; Cuskelly, Geraldine J.; Moss, Bruce W.; Wallace, Julie M.W.;
Bonham, Maxine P.; Fearon, Anna M. Meat Science. Jan2010, Vol. 84 Issue 1, p1-13.
This article procured via an academic database with authors accredited in their fields of
Biomedical Sciences, Biological Sciences and Food Chemistry. It was said in the abstract of
this article that there have been inconclusive findings that moderate consumption of red
meat can actually lead to severe illnesses such as CVD (cardiovascular disease). The aim of
this paper was to further elaborate on these findings and to debunk the negative
connotation red meat has when associated with long-term health. It was summarized in the
article of how certain studies such as those performed in the past are inconsistent with each
other. For example in one of the studies performed, “…Hu et al. (1999a) found a significant
positive association between servings of red meat and the risk of CHD when age was
adjusted for, but this effect became non-significant after controlling for age, BMI, smoking,
alcohol, physical activity, energy intake and family history of CHD in the multivariate
analysis (RR 1.09, (C.I. 0.9–1.3), p = 0.35). Another study reported a significant association
with beef consumption (⩾3 servings/wk) and the risk of fatal CHD; however this
association was observed only in men (Fraser, 1999). Kelemen et al. (2005) found that red
meat was associated with an increased risk of mortality from CHD, but their classification of
red meat included some processed meats. Similar inconsistencies have been observed in
other studies (Hu et al., 1999a and Steffen et al., 2005), as there is no universal agreement of
which meats can be classed as processed or red (Chao et al., 2005 and WCRF, 2007)”
(McAfee et al., 6). Basically this article concludes that there haven’t been any official studies
to draw accurate conclusions on whether the consumption of meat in general has any
correlation with health risks, aside from the obvious rise of LDL and fatty acids which was
discussed in further detail in the previous annotation.
Rohrmann, Sabine; Overvad, Kim; Bueno-de-Mesquita, H. Bas; Jakobsen, Marianne U.; Egeberg, Rikke;
Tjønneland, Anne; Nailler, Laura; Boutron-Ruault, Marie-Christine; Clavel-Chapelon, Françoise;
Krogh, Vittorio; Palli, Domenico; Panico, Salvatore; Tumino, Rosario; Ricceri, Fulvio; Bergmann,
Manuela M.; Boeing, Heiner; Li, Kuanrong; Kaaks, Rudolf; Khaw, Kay-Tee; Wareham, Nicholas J. BMC
Medicine. 2013, Vol. 11 Issue 1, p1-12.
This scientific article is centered around the effects of red meat on disease and mortality rate in those
without any predispositions to ailments such as cancer, stroke or myocardial infarction. It also
briefly compares the mortality rate of those who eat a diet rich in red meat to those who are
vegetarian. The methods utilized was the analysis of a study composed of 448,568 men and women
who, were all things considered, in relatively decent health. The study revealed that the higher the
consumption of meat there was more of a risk of mortality. Also discussed in this article were the
benefits of consuming red meat. Red meat is high in iron, protein, zinc and B-vitamins. The
bioavailability is also much higher in meat than it is in vegetarian options such as beans and
legumes. However there are associated risks such as a higher content of cholesterol and saturated
fatty acids would be present in the body which have been shown to be positively correlated with
plasma low density lipoprotein (LDL) and coronary heart disease. There were several cohort
studies mentioned in the article stating that the findings of the study revealed vegetarians have an
overall more satisfied lifestyle and the mortality rates are substantially lower compared to those
who consume red meat and have a lower satisfactory rate in lifestyle and higher level of mortality
rates. This article has shown no preference over which diet is more efficient; it listed the
possibilities of both adverse and beneficial effects for the consumption of red meat. Therefore
revealing this article as being objective.
Ruxton, Carrie. “The Role of Meat in a Balanced Diet”. Nursing Standard. Vol. 26 Issue 7, p41-48.
Carrie Ruxton, a freelance dietician, wrote this article based upon research findings showing
only the negative connotation of red meat consumption in a diet and defines that meat can
have a positive role in an healthy and balanced diet and lifestyle. It is included in a Nutrition
textbook. The article details the benefits of meat such as its high bioavailability for nutrients
like iron, protein, vitamin D and so on. However she also briefly includes that meat contains
trans fatty acids, which occur naturally in the meat or could be added by the meat plants to
produce solid fats. This article contains mostly beneficial information for nurses to be aware
of, however there isn’t much mention of the adverse effects of red meat consumption which
leads the reader to believe that Ruxton is an advocate for an omnivorous based diet, but
only in moderate amounts. She does acknowledge the data that has been collected in recent
studies but overlooks it due to lack of evidence and concludes by stating, “When consumed
as part of a balanced die, lean red meat is unlikely to increase the risk of chronic diseases
such as heart disease, obesity or colorectal cancer. These concerns mainly lie with the small
percentage of high consumers, and those who prefer fatty cuts of meat or processed meats”
(Ruxton 47).
S. Stanner, et al. "Red Meat In The Diet: An Update." Nutrition Bulletin 36.1 (2011): 34-77. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 16 Oct. 2013. This is an updated article from the previous publication
of the 2005, “Red Meat in The Diet”. The evidence gathered for this article was
epidemiological based, meaning it is based upon the patterns and risks of disease in a
controlled population. This study investigated the associations between meat intake and the
possible health and or disease outcomes. Gathering accurate epidemiological data is spoken
of in depth in this article, leading into the quality of the data. Basically data must be of both
quality and accuracy in order to determine anything of value. This matters especially when
comprising data of meat consumption. This article focused quite a bit on separating
aggregated data, meaning the amount of meat consumed separated from other components
such as meat pies or pasta and meatballs. It continues on to say that meat has high
micronutrient and protein levels which is why it has been shown in studies to be more
beneficial to the human body. However meat contains a variety of fatty acids, especially
those saturated fatty acids, which can be harmful in large quantities. Also of import in
analyzing this article is the breakdown of fatty acids in different types of meat. If the species
is ruminant, meaning the animal was a cow or a sheep, then the majority of the meat is
hydrogenated, which allows it to be easily digested by the stomach and intestines,
hydrogenated vegetable oils are also used to produce the solid and semi-solid meats that
are manufactured. The article concludes with classifying the two types of meat, processed
and unprocessed and lists that it has grown increasingly difficult to separate the risks of red
meat consumption alone, that rather assigning risks to meat consumption that it be divided
by whether the meat is or is not processed.
Thomas, Ellen, and Suzanne Schlosberg. "Garden of Vegan." Natural Health 37.5 (2007): 37-42.
Academic Premier. Web. 9 Oct. 2013. In this article both Ellen Thomas and Suzanne
Schlosberg examine the benefits of eliminating red meat from a diet and choosing the
option of eating vegan or vegetarian by consulting a Diabetes Research and research
performed by Dr. Neal Barnard, an associate professor of medicine at George Washington
University’s School of Medicine. The research methods performed were mostly self-
research via reading scholarly articles about a particular Diabetes study of which was
published by Diabetes Care and research performed by Neal Barnard. It is mentioned by
that those who participated in the study had beneficial health improvements such as,
“Within the first week [of a vegan diet], blood sugar starts to come down; within the first
month, blood pressure and cholesterol start to fall” (Barnard 32). These results found that
the vegan diet can benefit anyone, especially those with preexisting conditions such as
diabetes. The authors of this article cites mostly unbiased research material that would
allude to the possibility that it is an informational article whose purpose is to simply inform
the reader of the benefits of a vegan diet. However it does not mention the adverse affects of
a vegan diet, so the final result would be that the author has chosen a preference of the
vegan diet over a more omnivorous diet.
Tweed, Vera. Better Nutrition. Jun2013, Vol. 75 Issue 6, p39-42.
This article focuses on the possible solutions to the health risks of being a vegetarian or a
vegan such as vitamin deficiency, advice given from Virginia Messina a registered dietician
and a doctor of public health. She explains that many vegetarians and vegans have the issue
of obtaining adequate amounts of calcium and certain vitamins such as b12 due to the lack
of the bioavailability in plant based foods, but however can achieve sufficient amounts of
iron by consumption of beans, contrary to the articles condemning vegetarianism and
veganism due to inadequate iron intake. As Virginia Messina explains, “According to
Virginia Messina, RD, MPH, author of Vegan for Life, a healthy vegan diet will provide
adequate iron. Beans are a great source: ½ cup contains almost as much iron as 3 ounces of
meat. For calcium, eat plenty of leafy greens, as well as almond butter, tahini, and fortified
juices. Tofu with calcium sulfate is another source” (Tweed 39). Therefore, vegetarians and
the like can still maintain a healthy lifestyle free from meat without being restricted by
deficiencies.
Recommended