Pulls from HEALTH BENEFITS AND RISK ASSOCIATED WITH ADOPTING A VEGETARIAN DIET by Wiesław Pilis, Krzysztof Stec1, Michał Zych, Anna Pilis
The potential effectiveness of vegetarian diets for dealing with obesity was observed in a study by Ton- stad et al.  conducted on a group of 22,434 men and 38,469 women where BMI was measured in six treatment groups (vegetarians, vegans, lacto-ovo-vege- tarians, semi-vegetarians, fish eaters, and meat eaters). The mean BMI was found lowest in the vegans (23.06 kg/m2) and gradually increased as follows, lacto-ovo- -vegetarians (25.7 kg/m2), fish eaters (26.3 kg/m2), semi- -vegetarians (27.3 kg/m2) and meat eaters (28.8 kg/m2, p<0.001).
Vegans also showed significant differences to meat eaters (i.e. controls) by having lower blood levels of leukocytes (p<0.05), neutrocytes (statistically insignificant), platelets (p<0.05) and urea (p<0.05) but a higher concentration of albumin (p<0.05). These values may indicate a lower content of protein in the vegetarian diet. In addition, vegetarians run the risk of having a deficiency of iron, calcium, zinc, vitamin D, and B12, as well as of amino acids.
Eating large amounts of vegetables and fruits, which form a major part of all vegetarian diet types, also has a beneficial effect on the cardiovascular system. Plant based foodstuffs (e.g. apples, onions, broccoli, berries, olives, lettuce, tomato, red pepper, grapefruit etc.) provi- de the body with multiple antioxidants. The most active of these include the antioxidant vitamins (α-tocopherol, ascorbic acid), flavonoids and carotenoids (lycopene, lutein, β-carotene, cryptoxanthin, zeaxanthin). Their biological activity are based on inhibiting the oxidation of LDL cholesterol, increasing HDL cholesterol and re-ducing total cholesterol concentrations in the circulation.
A study by Somannavar and Kodliwadmath  confirms that vegetarians have significantly higher antioxidant levels compared to those eating a mixed diet (p<0.001). Another health benefit for adopting a vegetarian diet is that blood levels of total cholesterol (T-C) and LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) are maintained correctly. The plasma lipid profiles of vegetarians and those eating a traditional diet was studied by Dourado et al  which demonstrated that the latter group had significantly higher average T-C (207.11 mg/dl) and LDL-C (143.79 mg/dl) blood concentrations compared to the former at respectively T-C; 160.06 mg/dl, LDL-C; 87.40 mg/dl (p<0.001). Both of the last aforementioned studies also show that meat eaters have a significantly higher systolic blood pressure (123.76 mmHg) compa- red to vegetarians (114.86 mmHg) (p<0.05).
The authors take the view that the high amounts of carbohydrates and low amounts of fat as seen in vegetarian diets increases cellular insulin sensitivity thereby affording some protection against diabetes. This hypothesis was checked in a study by Tonstad et al  conducted on a group of 38,469 women and 22,434 men. It was found that the incidence of type 2 diabetes occurred in the following groups in descending order of magnitude; meat eaters (7.6%), semi-vegetarians (6.1%), fish eaters (4.8%), lacto-ovo-vegetarians (3.2 %) and vegans (2.9%), (p<0.05).
As reported by Borrine et al , the body’s need for protein is associated with being provided with adequate amounts of carbohydrates. The body consumes up to twice as much protein du- ring intense exertion when insufficiently supplied with carbohydrates. A high carbohydrate intake beneficially affects muscles and regulates the level of glycogen. … Barr et al.  confirmed that the high proportion of carbohydrates in the diet is associated with obtaining better results for endurance sports.
Based on research conducted by the American Dietetic Association and Dieticians of Canada , iron intake successively increases for each of the following groups; vegans, lacto-ovo-vegetarians and meat eaters. … A loss of iron in athletes is demonstrated by gastrointestinal bleeding, increased sweating, haemo- lysis and menstrual disorders in women. In most cases, vegetarian athletes can adjust the level of iron by eating foods rich in vitamin C, citric acid, malic acid, tartaric acid, fructose and sorbitol.
Burke et al.  have stated that the administering creatinine as a dietary supplement can significantly (p<0.05) increase the physical per- formance and muscle strength of athletes that follow a vegetarian diet.
1. Properly balanced vegetarian diet leads to a lower body mass and lower BMI, compared to meat eaters. There have been attempts to use a vegetarian diet for treating obesity and overweight.
2. A higher intake of carbohydrates achieved through a vegetarian diet may be beneficial for the body by decreasing amounts of saturated fatty acids; this also results in the maintenance of lipid metabolism and lower blood pressure and reduces the incidence of arteriosclerosis, coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome.
3. Improperly applied vegetarian diets can lead to lo-wered levels of vitamin B12, producing an increase in blood levels of homocysteine, which is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity, a reduction in the blood levels of sex hormones and disruption of the menstrual cycle.
4. Controversies however remain concerning the safety of a vegetarian diet when adopted by athletes. The concerns relate to a sufficient supply of proteins, iron and creatinine together with the occurrence of irre-gular menstrual cycles, especially in hard-training women. However, some research has demonstrated that a properly balanced vegetarian diet can reduce the adverse symptoms and that such a diet can be successfully used by top level world-class athletes.
October 10 at 4:34pm
Every election, the Chicken Littles of both parties make a big deal out of how this year's election opponent is the Worst Ever and Literally Hitler, and take every single thing their opponents do and try to make it sound as terrible as possible, and so on.
Okay, but here's the thing. What does NOT happen every election cycle--and this happened months ago, not in the wake of the current bandwagon--is the entire Republican national security establishment going HOLY SHIT and repudiating the Republican candidate en masse.
Maybe I shouldn't take it for granted that everyone already looks at the world and sees (a) a level of politics that's theater and (b) a level of politics that's deadly, deadly serious.
Maybe you heard that Trump said maybe we shouldn't defend NATO countries if Russia invades. And you interpreted that as Trump expressing fed-up-ness with American military spending and our trying to defend everything in the world without getting much in return. Somebody in the newspapers seemed to be making a big deal out of it, just like they make a big deal out of Clinton emails. Clutching at their pearl necklaces and fainting about how terribly important it is that America honor its commitments to other countries, or something.
The people in the national security bureaucracy--hell, even me, even though I'm not a national security bureaucrat and have only read a handful of military history books--heard that and thought:
Members of the Washington DC establishment who privately laugh about sexual assault and insider trading, heard that and thought: "YOU DON'T DO THAT."
And I want to try to spell out why this was so terrible. But I'm not sure it will do any good for me to try to talk about that, until I can slice off and distinguish that discussion from the "that was oh such a terrible bad idea" of the pundits that you've already filtered out by now.
Which is a difference that might be difficult to convey. Because the news media and the pundits and certainly all the politicians pretend that, why, of course it's all deadly serious. It's hard to convey without me sounding like I myself think that taking bribes and grabbing genitals are not "deadly serious". And to be clear, it's not that all discussion of national security is on this separate serious level, because there's lots of pearl-clutching and professional-wrestling about national security too, in the media.
In a previous thread on my Facebook wall, about the existence of expertise, Brent Dill observed that from the perspective of somebody sufficiently ignorant, maybe there doesn't seem to be any higher expertise in the world. "Then who builds the spaceships, dammit?" I asked, and Brent Dill replied, "They just saw a TV special on how the moon landings were faked." From your perspective and my perspective, there are these sorts of entertaining TV shows about the moon landing being faked, and then above that is Real Science, where some things are pretty darned solid despite all the frothy arguments that go on about the replication crisis.
Okay, but what if all you see is the arguments over whether the moon landing was real, and as far as you know, that's all there is to see? You understand that the TV shows are entertainment, but you don't realize that there's a non-entertainment part. Or maybe you think that "did aliens build the pyramids" is real serious science and that it doesn't get any more serious than that. The Discovery Channel isn't going to tell you about it. If you're sufficiently immersed in that world, maybe it's the only world there is.
Maybe I'm assuming too much when I assume that everybody knows that politics is theater. Maybe the reason the political theater works is that people honestly don't realize it's all professional wrestling. That hypothesis doesn't seem to quite fit with people's behavior, but maybe this is one of those things I'm not likely to understand that well?
It does occur to me, though, that I might be presuming too much in supposing that other people realize that there's a Level B in politics as well. Maybe if you grow up with the modern media, it's easy to think that the Level A is all that exists and there is no deadly serious politics, that people clutching at their pearls and fainting is as serious as anything ever gets.
At this point the analogy to science breaks down, because in science, the Level B above the Discovery Channel is a virtuous place where you find the real pursuit of truth. The Level B in politics is not in the same way the repository of true concern for truly important things. But the Level B in Washington DC, the issues that people take seriously unlike insider trading, is also not just sociopaths reacting to disasters that are so bad that their own personal hometown might get a nuclear missile. The Level B does contain more stuff than that. The Level B is also not the upper ranks of the Illuminati where they discuss how to keep power and worry about things so bad that they might affect their personal stock prices, because there aren't any Illuminati and Washington DC doesn't work like that either. It's not the level at which people are just trying to do their jobs, because nobody in Washington DC is just trying to do their jobs.
But it is the level where you worry about things like the stability of the Europe-Russia border, not because a journalist is going to clutch their pearls in offense because you don't seem concerned enough, but because you actually care about the stability of the Europe-Russia border. Yes, there are people in Washington DC like that.
I said this in a comment elsewhere on Facebook, but I'm going to repeat it here, in case there's people on my Facebook wall who haven't seen it before:
> My reading of history books is admittedly biased by having read about historically interesting cases. This does tend to be cases where things went very right, or more usually, very wrong. American revolution, French revolution, World War I, World War II.
> Perhaps there are dozens of other cases where a country elected an impulsive, chaotic, populist leader and nothing whatsoever went wrong.
> But when I think of Trump, I think of Hitler, and not in the generic sense of “Hitler” meaning “bad”. I think of the British diplomats who sent Hitler a sternly worded note on the eve of Hitler’s invasion of Poland, warning that Britain would defend Poland even though they hadn’t defended Czechoslovakia. According to “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”, Hitler read the note himself instead of having his diplomatic corps explain it to him, and interpreted the standard diplomatic politesse as conciliatory and a go-ahead to invade Poland.
> I once played a four-hour live simulation/game called the National Security Decision-Making Game, which was run by various people who were ex-whatevers. There were around 80 of us simulating just 3 different countries, with myself trying to play the Secretary of Defense of the US.
> Thinking myself probably above-average intelligence for the room, I’d originally asked for a position that involved intrigue; I was given the title for Director of National Intelligence. But somebody who’d played the game before said he really wanted to be DNI, so I traded it for his Secretary of Defense position. Which I’m glad happened, because my ambitions rapidly went from world optimization to “Understand what is happening immediately around the Department of Defense.”
> By the end of NSDM, I left with a suddenly increased respect for any administration that gets to the end of 4 years without nuclear weapons being used. We did not do that well in our NSDM session. I left with a greatly increased appreciation of the real skill and competence possessed by the high-level bureaucrats like the Secretary of Defense who keep everything from toppling over, and who understand what the sternly worded diplomatic notes mean.
> I think that a lot of the real function of government is to keep things from toppling over like they did in our NSDM session, and that this depends on the functionaries including the President staying inside certain bounds of behavior–people who understand how the game is supposed to be played. It’s not always a good game and you may be tempted to call for blowing it up rather than letting it continue as usual. Avoid this temptation. Randomly blowing it up will NOT end well. It CAN be so, so much worse than it already is.
The system isn't as stable as it might look when you're just strolling along your non-melted streets year after year, without any missiles ever falling on your own hometown. I don't even know how much work it really takes to prevent everything from falling over.
If I were to try summarize very briefly why Trump's remarks on NATO crossed a HOLY SHIT line, it'd be along the lines of: "If you read the history books, you realize that it is REALLY REALLY bad to have any ambiguity about which minor powers the major powers will defend; that is how World War I and World War II both started."
And: "In the wake of the second World War that started from that kind of ambiguity, the senior leaders in both the East and the West, enemies though they may have been, decided to learn the lesson and henceforth be more clear about which countries they'd defend. Not only did Trump blow through that, he did so in a way that indicates he has no idea of how World War I started and why this is one of the things you absolutely don't do. He doesn't listen to advisors. He doesn't have advisors! God knows what other guardrails he's going to blow through!"
Trump didn't realize he was blowing through one of the deadly serious guardrails. And Trump is not actually stupid, he does not actually have an IQ below 100, he took economics at Wharton. So it's fine, it's okay, it does not make you a bad person, if you also don't know why that was so much more terrible than everything else the media is making a fuss about. Not every citizen of America needs to read The Guns of August and The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, like I did, or study a vastly larger amount of real military history, like the Republican national security bureaucracy did.
However. If you want to be in the national government, you are supposed to know that this is one of those places where you talk to one of the senior bureaucrats before deciding that it is okay to mouth off about NATO commitments, or before deciding to go ahead and invade Poland.
Even people in Washington DC who haven't read any history books understand that part, because most people in Washington DC do know that politics has a deadly serious level as well as a media theater level.
What Trump said wasn't a gaffe, it was not one of those things that you'd have to be an idiot to say in front of journalists, it was a world-threatening misstep in the real-life version of the National Security Decision-Making Game.
And now Xi Jinping is thinking about the part where Donald Trump said "Why do we have all these nukes if we can't use them?" and wondering whether China can take for granted America's possession of nuclear weapons given that America's electoral system seems to allow for a certain kind of President. That has already happened and cannot be undone. Even though Donald Trump doesn't seem to give a fuck about the NSDM, the NSDM gives a fuck about him.
Like it or not, there is in Washington DC a perceived difference between "committed sexual assault" and "violated the system guardrails that prevent World War III". Some people in Washington DC think sexual assault is a big joke, and other people honestly believe it is quite bad and would be just as swift to fire any abuser whether or not the journalists knew about it. But both of those kinds of people understand that the current culture in Washington DC dictates a difference.
And I'm glad that cultural rule exists, because the Level A culture where everybody clutches their pearls and every gaffe indicates a life-threatening level of incompetence and everything is oh so terribly serious, is not a culture where policy-making can take place. The fact that there are quiet backroom talks with no journalists present, in which at least some people are actually concerned about the Europe-Russia border, is why the Earth hasn't already blown up.
Again, it's not that all discussion of national security takes place on that level, there's lots of theater about that too, the entire Transportation Security Administration is well-known to be pure theater. But there's also cases where somebody blows through the real actual guardrails, which is when the senior bureaucrats in your own party repudiate you.
That didn't happen to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when she made a move about suggesting a no-fly zone over Syria. Because that's a kind of move people make sometimes in the NSDM. Some people disagreed with that as a Level B move, and maybe some of those people wrote Level A articles about how terribly wrong and serious it was; but nobody who understood that Level B existed went HOLY SHIT over it. From their standpoint the difference is clear-cut, even if it so happens that you can't immediately perceive that difference and what Clinton did sounds maybe arguably just as bad as what Trump did. The HOLY SHIT reaction to Trump from senior national security bureaucrats, and from a lot of smart people you know who never seemed that worked up about Mitt Romney in 2012, is one cue as to what just happened. Even though you can't tell the difference yourself and maybe shouldn't expect to be able to tell the difference yourself. Certainly the media isn't going to tell you about the difference, because everyone in the Level A theater has to pretend that all the professional wrestling is terribly, terribly serious.
Maybe you wish that Washington DC culture would take sexual assault more seriously, as something deadly serious in its own right, as serious at it is possible to be--instead of some people laughing it off, some people being frankly offended, and everyone in Washington DC tacitly understanding that this is not one of the issues that everyone has agreed to take deadly seriously even when no journalists are looking.
Maybe you look at that, and conclude that this 'deadly serious level of politics' thingy does not respect your own values and priorities. Maybe you conclude that the kind of political issues people are fighting over theatrically in the newspapers are, yes, every bit as vital to you as that so-called 'deadly serious' stuff, even if a lot of other people are treating them as entertainment.
I think you're making a dreadful mistake. Scope is real. If you ever have to choose between voting a convicted serial abuser of children into the Presidential office--but this person otherwise seems stable and collected--versus a Presidential candidate who seems easy to provoke and who has 'bad days' and doesn't listen to advisors and once said "Why do we have all these nukes if we can't use them?", it is deadly important that you vote for the pedophile. It isn't physically possible to abuse enough children per day over 4 years to do as much damage as you can do with one wrong move in the National Security Decision-Making Game.
An evil but sane NSDM player is far, far less dangerous than an impulsive one who doesn't care all that much about what the rules of NSDM are supposed to be.
That's one reason why people at my level of national security expertise and above--and there's a hell of a lot of headway above me on that one--went into HOLY SHIT mode over Donald Trump, on both sides of the aisle.