Benefits of a plant based diet

This website - nutritionfacts.org has lots of interesting short videos based on scientific publications about the benefits of a plant based diet - how a plant based diet can slow cancer growth, slow aging, avoid brain parasites, etc. If you are interest in facts and figures or just overall health in general this site can help.

Slowing cancer growth on a plant based diet


Do you know fish and processed meat ages our DNA?


Something disgusting about milk


Brain parasites in meat

Study: Vegetarian diet reduces toxins the body

We ingest toxins with our food everyday, there's no way to avoid it completely. However, there is a way to lower the amount of toxins ingested - by switching to a vegetarian diet.

Sometime back, a study was conducted on 25 volunteers to find out the influence of dietary change on the levels of exposure to several environmental chemicals – in particular, antibiotics and phthalates. The volunteers were put in a 5-day temple stay in Korea (the temple serves only vegetarian food), and their urine samples were collected before and after study. The participants followed the daily routines of Buddhist monks and maintained a vegetarian diet.

It was found that the levels of 3 antibiotics and the metabolites, 4 major phthalates metabolites, and oxidative stress biomarker MDA decreased noticeably during the study.

Although the exposure to target compounds might be influenced by other behavioral patterns, these results suggest that even short-term changes in dietary behavior may significantly decrease inadvertent exposure to antibiotics and phthalates and hence may reduce oxidative stress levels.

Kyunghee Ji et. al. Influence of a five-day vegetarian diet on urinary levels of antibiotics and phthalate metabolites: A pilot study with “Temple Stay” participants. Environmental research, Volume 110, Issue 4, May 2010, Pages 375-382

Genetically modified chickens

I have been pretty amazed at the number of useless scientific researches out there that were done to only result in more destruction, to throw money and time away, or serve only for profit purposes. Things such as cloning of Dolly the sheep, or trying to come up with lab grown meat. None of these we really NEED.

Recently, another one popped up - genetically modified chickens that can't infect other birds with bird flu but can get the virus themselves and die. Seriously, what is the point of coming up with such a bird?

It's first, expensive, poor countries cannot afford it and people can still get bird flu from there and pass it to humans. And from previous experience, it's in poor countries that the flu is hard to contain. Second, it's main purpose seems to be stopping companies from losing money due to their chickens getting the flu. Third, who wants to eat such chickens? Fourth, the avian flu virus mutates very quickly and can bypass this mechanism. Fifth, new diseases are sprouting every now and then, and even if this technique is realised, who knows what other forms of pandemic we will have by then?

The direct way to solve the problem is to go to it's root: greed. Stop eating chickens, stop raising chickens.

Reference study:
Suppression of Avian Influenza Transmission in Genetically Modified Chickens
Jon Lyall et. al.
Vol. 331 no. 6014 pp. 223-226
DOI: 10.1126/science.1198020

Why we should not eat unfertilized, free range eggs

If you are thinking, "Well, unfertilized, truly free range eggs should be fine... this was from my local farm and I know exactly how well they are treated, or I raise my own hens in great conditions. No roosters, and the hens are allowed to live out their natural lifespan and not slaughtered." This makes sense, it really seems like there is no cruelty. However, there is a strange but real fact that many people do not know - unfertilized eggs can develop and hatch.

The term for this is called "Parthenogenesis". Parthenogenesis is the embryonic development of an unfertilized egg, and has been observed in many animals including turkeys and chickens.

Olsen and Marsden accidentally discovered naturally occurring parthenogenesis in turkeys at the Agricultural Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland. They found that 14% of the infertile eggs laid by Beltsville Small White (BSW) turkeys developed parthenogenetically.

Poole and Olsen observed Cornish hens for parthenogenesis. They macroscopically examined eggs incubated 10 d from 3 different strains of Dark Cornish hens. They found that 21.9% of the total hen population laid at least 1 egg that contained parthenogenetic development.

Parker and McDaniel studied chinese painted quail eggs and found that 27% of the quail population laid at least 1 egg that exhibited parthenogenetic development. Of the 81 hens that laid eggs containing embryonic development, 30 hens were responsible for laying at least 2 or more eggs that exhibited parthenogenesis. In fact, 2 hens were responsible for producing 5 embryos from 20 unfertilized eggs.
For detailed information about the study please go to this link.

Below is a screen shot of another study that shows parthenogenesis in chickens.
















Here's another screenshot of a study on parthenogenetic chicks.

It doesn't make a difference anymore whether it is a fertilized egg or not a fertilized egg. Here lies still, a potential in eating a dead embryo who didn't develop properly, or one that could hatch into a chick. Are eggs vegetarian then? I would say no. The easiest way to avoid this dilemma is don't eat eggs.

Vegan diet vital to reduce impact on environment

A recently published UN report reveals the destruction on the environment that an animal-loaded diet has. Words in italic are taken directly from the report.

Agriculture and food consumption are identified as one of the most important drivers of environmental pressures, especially habitat change, climate change, water use and toxic emissions.
Hence, what we eat has a great impact on the environment. Are we eating correctly?

Particularly impact based studies further highlight the relative importance of animal products, for which indirectly a large proportion of the world’s crops have to be produced, with e.g. a high land use as a consequence. The production of agricultural biomass, especially animal products, is and will remain an inefficient transformation process compared to most industrial processes.
Much of the land is wasted because we want to eat animals and the crops grown have to be fed to them.

Food production is the most significant influence on land use and therefore habitat change, water use, overexploitation of fisheries and pollution with nitrogen and phosphorus. In poorer countries, it is also the most important cause of emissions of greenhouse gases (CH4 and N2O). Both emissions and land use depend strongly on diets. Animal products, both meat and dairy, in general require more resources and cause higher emissions than plant-based alternatives.
This states the very clear message - to cut down on emissions and land use, quit meat and dairy.

Agricultural materials, especially animal products, are also a very important material flow in terms of their contribution to a large number of impact categories. Animal products are important because more than half of the world’s crops are used to feed animals, not people.
This is really sad and ironic that we produce so much crops to feed people but they end up fed to animals to produce that small amount of meat for people, or they end up as biofuels. Are the poor people being purposely starved to death so that we can drive our super energy burning cars and eat our hamburgers? This is really against human ethics.

Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth, increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.
Again this is very clear - away from animal products. Go vegan. Earth can't wait. The starving can't wait.

What about fish? Fish swims in the ocean so it's ok? No. Besides emissions, fish is seriously over-depleted due to us eating too much.
Over 70% of aquatic production is used for direct human consumption and the rest is used for fish oil and fishmeal. In summary, food, feed and oil uses are the main causes of aquatic biotic resource extraction.
For biotic resources, overexploitation has led to the collapse of resource stocks especially in the case of fisheries.
Fisheries. Overexploitation of resources is clearly associated with this sector, as well as relatively high emissions from industrial fisheries. This sector certainly deserves attention from an environmental impact point of view.

Click here for the full report (~5mb, pdf)

Sublingual Vitamin B12

Vitamin B12 is always an issue for vegans. I have always believe there is a plant source of vitamin B12, but due to the limited research on the Plant Kingdom for vitamin B12, it's not surprising to hear people say vitamin B12 is only found in animal products (even though it's actually from a bacteria source). Some vegans claim that by eating unclean food you will be able to get your vitamin B12 and vegans do not need extra supplement. Still, I thought it's best not to toy with this, afterall it's your health, play safe and get a supplement or fortified foods.

Vitamin B12 supplement can be taken orally or injected. Some people have problems absorbing B12 due to a lack of intrinsic factor, but I have recently come across the sublingual way of eating B12 which will bypass the gastrointestinal tract and diffuses into the bloodstream directly. This is done by placing vitamin B12 under the tongue.

Here is the research study done on the sublingual method which I took from veganhealth.org.

Delpre & Stark (1999, Israel) studied patients with B12 deficiency to see if B12 can be absorbed by holding a tablet under the tongue, known as sublingual. The theory behind sublingual is that the mucous membranes under the tongue are efficient at absorbing certain molecules, particularly if combined with something fat soluble such as a cyclodextrin. 5 patients had pernicious anemia, 7 were vegetarians, and 2 had Crohn's disease (which can prevent the absorption of B12 in the ileum). The patients held two 1000 µg B12 tablets (equaling 2,000 µg/day), made by Solgar, under their tongues for 30 minutes until completely dissolved. This was done for 7 to 12 days. Average serum B12 levels went from 127.9 ± 42.6 to 515.7 ± 235. All patients' serum B12 normalized. There were no side effects and all patients preferred this to injections. Unfortunately, Delpre & Stark did not include a control group who chewed the B12 tablets, so there is no way to know if taking the tablets sublingually was more effective than chewing and swallowing them.

Animal testing on tiny water fleas

Ecover, a supplier of environmentally friendly cleaning products tested their products on fleas. The vegan society thus denied the use of their logo on Ecover's products. The fleas are between 0.2mm to 5mm long. Besides that, the firm also takes blood from farmed rabbits for tests.

I wonder what vegans or vegetarians think of this. I know some vegans do kill insects and don't consider them animals, water fleas may not be a concern to them at all. Personally I would support the vegan society's decision to object the placement of it's logo on Ecover's products due to the fleas being animals by my reasoning. But sometimes I wonder where do we draw the line between between the term "animal" and "non-animal"? It will be even harder as the "creature-in-debate" becomes smaller, besides, sometimes scientific classification of "animal" or "non-animal" may not be applied correctly to some creatures. However, I guess we can do our best to avoid hurting others to the best of our capabilities, maybe it is not 100% but near 100% is good enough.

News source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=474749&in_page_id=1770

Synthetic human skin in replacement of animal testing

This is awesome news! L'Oreal's scientists have developed lab-grown human skin to use for cosmetic testing. This is a much more accurate way of testing as compared to animal testing. Cosmestics are tested by observing the number of cells killed on the synthetic skin - known as Episkin. I just hope the human skins were not grown with animal products.

Cow farts and global warming

One thing well known about cows is that their fart cause global warming. The best natural solution to that would be to go veg or on the very least, reduce meat consumption to reduce factory farm's production of cows. Unfortunately, there are people out there who don't see this "cause" and just see the "problem of the farts" as the cause (which is actually the effect).

Now scientists also see the farts as the cause of the problem. They are now trying to test feed the cow with garlics to reduce gas production. And then another team is trying to see if feeding them garlic will taint meat and milk. I won't be surprise if there's another research to test if meat from garlic-fed beef causes certain problems in humans etc. Such a simple problem which can be solve by reducing the production of cows is now rolled into a large snowball.

I can't imagine what effects feeding garlics to cows can have. You kill off the natural methane-producing bacteria in the gut of the cow, the population of the rest of the bacterias which live in balance with that methane-producing bacteria will change, and this may cause problems to the cow. And then what? The scientists will think of more tests or experiments to try to restore the balance. No wonder my friend say he sees a cow, a Master sees the tail of a cow, a PhD sees the hairs on the tail of the cow (well... maybe not Masters and phDs :)).

Problems are best solved at their root.

Read the news here

Picture source: fotosearch.com

Can plants recognize their own siblings?

Plants have been shown to be more competitive when they are grown alongside their unrelated neighbours as compared to their own siblings as shown in this report. It was found that plants grown beside strangers grow greater roots than those grown with their maternal siblings. It was proposed that plants secrete a protein or chemical signal specific to each plant's family. This signal can then be detected by other roots in the nearby area.

Why did I make thus post? Because I have seen elsewhere about vegetarianism being discussed regarding this issue. There are people who like to say "but being vegetarian also kills plants" or "plants are living too", now with this article we may even hear "plants can recognize their family". Does it mean that there is no point in being vegetarian since plants can also know family from non-family members? I do not think so.

First, I certainly do not think humans recognize family members and friends by mere their scent or sight etc only. That wouldn't explain things like why there are people out there who are able to read minds or communicate even when they are distance apart. What about animals? Even if they do not have the power to read minds, just being with them, we will be able to recognize how similar they are to us, it's something we know in our hearts.

Second, in terms of anatomy animals are more similar to us than plants. Well, perhaps you can say that the difference in anatomy does not mean plants cannot have the capacity to feel like us. But when we see animals being killed and a plant being pulled from the ground, the vast difference in reactions (whether or not there is any reaction from a plant), will allow us to see the 'feeling' capacity. Even the suffering of a small worm is obvious. When I was a kid, my classmate cut up a worm while we were doing some gardening in the school's garden. The suffering the worm experience was obvious from it's twisting and body. It was the same when my cousin burnt a worm which attacked his plant :s

Third, even if plants can really recognize their family members like us, it would still be better if we quit eating animals or at least lessen our intake of meat. This is due to the massive consumption of plant foods required to raise an animal. That would definitely kill more plants as well.

Singapore to look at cultivated meat?

Professor Brian Ford suggested that Singapore could look at cultivating meat in labs - and this could help avoid diseases such as Mad cow disease, avian flu etc. He said this could allow vegetarians to eat meat without inhumane treatment of animals.

Maybe scientists are trying to help, or satisfy their curiosity of making cultured meat. Whatever the reason, I think it's just a waste of resources. Why should we spent so much effort, time and money on cultivating all this just to satisfy human palate when we can easily use them to aid those people who are suffering elsewhere? The money could be better spent to help them improve their lives. Besides, contrary to what a lot of people think, there are vegetarians who don't crave meat. People often think vegetarians are missing out the good taste of food, sacrificing in order to live their ideal lifestyle. It is not always the case. Meat has a certain decomposing smell which I don't like. The other day I went to the wet market, the smell was horrible. I can't imagine how I can stand eating meat in the past. So why would I desire cultivated meat?

News here

Milk, calcium and osteoporosis

I saw an article on MSN by A. J, Cleary on her claims of milk being a good source of calcium. There was a question on milk not being a good source of calcium as the protein can leach calcium out from our body. She replied that increasing protein does leach calcium out, but this loss is offset by increased calcium absorption, so there's no net disadvantage of the extra protein. It sounds logical, but it really depends on how good our absorption of calcium is and how much calcium protein help to leach. If the net balance is positive (more calcium absorped), then it's good news. If the net balance is zero or negative, then drinking milk is just a redundant step.

Anyway, I thought why go for foods that help get rid of your calcium and give you calcium at the same time. Cleary also mentioned that you need to eat an immense amount of veggies such as broccoli to get the same calcium from milk. But then again veggies don't have that much protein as milk so do we need that much calcium? I don't know how the RDA is derived, but it is for the population in general. Will it suit vegetarians and vegans whose dietary patterns are different from omnivores?

Besides milk, other components in our diet also play a part. Meat, for example. Meat, one of the things prized for its protein content, was once the food of the wealthy. Nowadays they have been made cheap and we are eating a lot of meat than we used to do in the past, and that means we are eating more protein as well. This extra protein can cause calcium leach as well.

The diet issue aside, another important thing is to get adequate exercise. Astronauts in space don't require their bones to give them support since they float around, so they have to exercise to keep their bone density. To keep our bone density, we have to get enough exercise.

I won't start drinking milk after seeing that article, there has been some controversy in the research of milk and osteoporosis. And besides, factory farmed milk isn't healthy. My take on this issue would still be... eat a wide variety of natural foods and get enough exercise - I guess it's the only sensible thing to do when no conclusions can be reached.

Sources:
Calcium Conundrum, Health centers: Menopause, MSN
Why astronauts suffer bone loss, Medical news today
Interests and values in the RDA and nutritional guidelines for Americans

Mercury in fish and male subfertility

In one of my previous post, I mentioned about fish containing dangerous contaminants such as mercury and how it's linked to neurological problems in developing children. Methyl mercury consumption is also linked to shrinking brain cells - which was contrary to what I always hear "Fish is good for the brain"... how much can the benefits of fish consumption outweigh the adverse effects of mercury?

Anyway, I just came across a research article conducted in Hong Kong showing that mercury levels in hair samples was significantly higher in subfertile males.

In general, the researchers found the mean levels of mercury in the hair of 49 fertile males to be 3.33ppm (6ppm is the maximum level acceptable set by WHO). The mecury levels of 117 subfertile males was found to be higher at 4.23ppm.

The researchers also tested the mecury levels of 16 vegetarians (no meat, fish or shellfish) and 7 of them had a mean mercury level of 0.8ppm. The rest of the subjects had mercury levels below the detection limits set by the researchers. Overall, the mean mecury level for the 16 vegetarian subjects was 0.38ppm - which I thought was a huge contrast to even the fertile males. Maybe it could be the other co-occuring contaminants in fish affecting the fertility and not mercury, but on the safe side, best to avoid them all.

We have been told many times the benefits of fish and it's ability to reduce coronary heart disease. However, the report also mentioned that men in Eastern Finland who ate a lot of fish had a higher mortality rate (as shown by another research). It was hypothesized that this could be due to the high mercury levels in fish.

The WHO states that most people get their mercury from fish and shellfish. Maybe it's time to stop fish consumption (or at the very least.. reduce, reduce, reduce).

Research article source:
Dickman MD, Leung CK, Leong MK. Hong Kong male subfertility links to mercury in human hair and fish. Sci Total Environ. 1998 Jun 18;214:165-74.

Fish a healthy food?

I saw on MSN's website an article about the safety of fish. Fish has been said by a lot of people to be beneficial to health as compared to meat - high protein, low fat, and high in omega 3 fatty acids. Even some people call themselves "vegetarians" when they eat fish and exclude meat from their diet, although they aren't.

Unfortunately many people are blinded to the fact that nowadays, fish contains dangerous contaminants in them, and are not healthy anymore. One of the contaminants that can be found in fish is mercury. This element is toxic and linked to neurological problems in developing children. Because of it's toxicity, I doubt developmental problems is the only effect mecury can have in our bodies.

In the article, it was said that research says that the benefits of fish consumption outweigh the risks. How true is that I certainly do not know. Fish, being high in omega 3 fatty acids helps lower the risk of contracting heart disease. But we all know that a pack of cigarette a day is suicide-the-slow-way, will eating mecury in small doses everyday have the same effect?

The article lists some of the fishes with lower mecury content, but I believe, the safest choice would be to abstain from fish. Try organic flax seeds (ground) or organic flax seed oil (cold-pressed) instead if you are looking to boost your omega 3 fatty acids intake. To lower the risk of contracting heart diseases, reduce consumption of animal products, which are high in saturated fats and cholesterol.

To read the article, click here

Animal products and cancer risk

I received the Vegetarian Society (Singapore)'s e-newsletter, and coincidentally, it also mentioned about animal products and cancer, which I talk about in my previous post. Below is the excerpt taken from the VSS e-newsletter with the reference research article sources.

"A study published in the International Journal of Cancer evaluated the role of dietary nutrients and the risk of endometrial cancer among 1,204 newly diagnosed endometrial (the endometrium is the glandular mucous membrane that lines the uterus) cancer patients and 1,212 women without cancer in China. Results showed that those who consumed the most animal products had nearly four times the risk of cancer, compared with those whose diets were derived primarily from plant sources. Cancer risk increased as protein and fat from animal products was increased.

A second study, from the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, examined the association between the risk of postmenopausal breast cancer and dietary intake of plant lignans (a plant estrogen found in a variety of fruits, vegetables, and cereal products). Among those who consumed the most plant lignan, incidence of breast cancer was 17 percent lower than those who consumed the least.

Touillaud MS, Thiebaut A, Fournier A, Niravong M, et al. Dietary Lignan Intake and Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Risk by Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Status. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:475-486.

Xu W, Dai Q, Xiang Y, Zhao G, et al. Nutritional factors in relation to endometrial cancer: A report from a population-based case-control study in Shanghai, China. Int J Cancer. 2007;120:1776-1781."

Cancer and a vegetarian diet

This is another post from Kathy Freston's blog. There is actually a research article related to what Dr. Campbell said about animal protein and cancer. The research didn't talk about the connection of animal protein with cancer, but on the environment. Still, Tables 2 - 5 in the research article allows us to compare the amounts of carcinogens and toxins in non-vegetarian, vegetarian, and vegan diets, and all the values prove that less animal product = less carcinogens.
To read about the environment impact click here - link to research article provided at bottom of the page

Click here for the link to Kathy Freston's other post: A beginner guide to concious eating

Attitudes towards a meat diet, a vegetarian diet, and a vegan diet

If you are a vegetarian, what do you think a meat eater will think of your diet? I came across an interesting research article which examine the attitudes of different groups of people towards the different diets.

The four groups of people who participated were as follows: Meat eaters, Meat avoiders, Vegetarians, and Vegans.
The three types of diets which the participants were asked to give comments on were "Meat diet", "Vegetarian diet" and "Vegan diet".

Here's what they found:

• Meat eaters were the only group among the four to show any positiveness towards their own diet. The strongest belief of meat eaters towards their own diet was the "taste" and "fattening".
• The most significant belief in the other groups was negativity towards a meat diet ("unhealthy" and "cruel and barbaric". All the groups show such a belief.
• The most significant believe of meat eaters, meat avoiders and vegetarians towards a vegetarian diet was that it's "healthy". While vegans' salient belief was that it's "hypocritical". Meat eaters show the most negativity towards a vegetarian diet.
• The most significant belief of all the groups towards a vegan diet was that it's "restrictive".
• Overall, people are most negative towards the diet which are most different from their own.

If you find it all too wordy, this table clears things up :)

I realised that meat avoiders have a very positive view of a vegetarian diet, but not a vegan diet. It's interesting that so many vegans think a vegetarian diet is hypocritical. As a vegan myself, I certainly do not think so. This study is really interesting, I think it can certainly help groups promoting a veg diet.

Picture source: R. Poveya, B.Wellensb and M.Conner; Attitudes towards following meat, vegetarian and vegan diets: an examination of the role of ambivalence; Appetite (2001) 37, 15-26

Dietary patterns and environmental impact

It has often been discussed if changes in food consumption can help world sustainability. One Italian-based study compared the usual Italian diet, balanced omnivorous diets (organic and conventional) and balanced vegetarian/vegan diets (organic and conventional). The diets are accessed according to their damage to human health, ecosystems and resources using three perspectives: short-term, medium-term, and long-term adverse effects.

It was found that the normal unbalanced Italian diet had the greatest impact on the environment. Consumption of animal products within the same way of food production (either organic or conventional) also had a greater impact on the environment.

Analysis of a single type of food shows that Beef has the greatest impact on the environment, followed by fish, cheese and milk.

The different impacts of an omnivorous diet on the environment are recorded as follows:
3 to 4% of the impact on environment is due to eutrophication. Farm animals produce 19m tons of waste each year in Italy alone. The waste cannot be used as fertilizers due to their content. They enter water bodies and pollute them.

5 to 13% of the impact is due to land usage. Europe can produce enough vegetable proteins to feed its inhabitants, but not its livestock. 80% of vegetable proteins fed to European livestock come from other countries (including developing ones) and depletes their environmental resources. Growing of livestock feed meant for richer countries also aggravates desertification in Africa. Presently, 25% of the total land area in the world is undergoing desertification. The increase requirement for land use for animal husbandry is associated with deforestation. Most of the forest cleared from the Amazon (88%) is used for cattle grazing.

5 to 18% is of the impact is due to damage to respiration from inorganic compounds and 20 to 26% from fossil fuel consumption. When plants are fed to animals, much of the protein and energy content of the plants are wasted as animals make use of them for metabolism and build animal parts that are non-edible. It would thus be more efficient to consume plants directly. Animal husbandry also wastes a tremendous amount of fuel. One calorie of beef requires 40 calories of fuel and milk needs 14 calories. Grains, however, requires only 2.2 calories.

The greatest percentage of the total impact (41 to 46%) comes from water consumption. 70% of freshwater is used for agriculture and animal farming. A shift towards a more plant-based diet would help the present situation. This is because many plants, such as grains from agriculture are used as feed for grain-fed cattle. Even grazing cattle consume more water than that required for growing cereals. Water has to be used for cleaning livestock facilities as well.

Moreover, malnutrition and hunger have been linked to declining land, water, and energy resources per person. Hence, vegetarian and vegan diets help preserve environmental resources and reduce hunger and malnutrition problems in poorer nations.

Study source reference:
L Baroni, L Cenci, M Tettamanti and M Berati "Evaluating the environmental impact of various dietary patterns combined with different food production systems" European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2006), 1–8

Want better body odor? Try a vegan diet

What we eat sure affects our breath, but will it affect the way we smell? A recent study was performed to check the effect of meat consumption on body odor attractiveness. It was found that body odor was more attractive, more pleasant, and less intense on the non-meat diet - suggesting that red meat consumption has a negative impact on perceived body odor hedonicity.

The study: 17 male odor donors were on ‘‘meat’’ or ‘‘non-meat’’ diet for 2 weeks and their odor was collected and rated by 30 women. Rating was based on pleasantness, attractiveness, masculinity, and intensity. The study was repeated a month later with the same odor donors, each on the opposite diet than before.

There are of course exceptions, a meat-lover may smell great while a vegetarian/vegan may not. Body odor can be influenced by other factors as well, such as, the period of time between showers. However, since a non-meat diet helps improve the condition, why not give it a try?

Alright. Maybe you have tried before, or you say "I will never become a vegetarian!". That's fine. You don't have to be one if you can't. You can still cut down the portions of meat at each meal, or have a veg meal every week.

Try a vegan diet today!

Study source: Jan Havlicek and Pavlina Lenochova; The Effect of Meat Consumption on Body Odor Attractiveness; Chemical Senses 2006 31(8):747-752

Farmyard freaks? Perhaps its us who really are...

Genetic engineering scientists are investigating ways to remove the stress and aggression genes from animals and turn them into mere meat producing machines.

Click to read the article

What madness!? That reminds me of some of the money pumped into researches that are useless. This being one of such researches. Last time it was making meat without the animal. We are getting too greedy... so greedy for animal products that we are conceiving crazy ways to achieve all we want. Wasting all the money to do stupid things so that our taste buds can have seconds of pleasure - when the money can be used to help millions of people who are starving in another part of the world. Changing the natural order of things... zombifying the world... when we can simply become vegetarians to solved all this problems. The root problem is our greed for animal flesh, not the feeling ability of animals, the problem should be solved from its root. I hope they will fail.