Veggies vs Meat
Replies
-
I rest my case.
That looks absolutely revolting!0 -
This thread was created when another thread was hijacked by meat-lovers. THAT thread was started by a woman who was looking for some advice for meatless eating. She wasn't interested in debating this question. I would say that trolls are thread disrupters, not people who are putting it out that they like spirited discussion in an honest way.
But there's nothing spirited about pictures of meat. ::yawn::
Wow, please read her posts again. She specifically mentioned the link between cancer and red meat consumption. People were responding to the OPs words, which is perfectly reasonable.0 -
Actually, the burden is not on me to disprove causation, I'm not the Ph.D who did the study and made the claims. He found the correlations, formed a hypothesis and should do everything he can to attempt to disprove it. I dare say he formed the hypothesis and then found the proof in his correlations...
Indeed he did. And he disclosed his methodology in the journal article ( I believe Nature?) If you have a problem with his methodology, AND you are sophisticated enough, then why not state exactly what your problem is? Simply calling it a correlation with nothing further doesn't make it.
I noticed you mentioned the Ph.D Biochemist. Many of the arguments I've seen for the China Study often include "he's a super scientist with a Ph.D and a squillion credentials". Seriously? That makes him no less subject to bias than any other human being, in fact, it might make him more susceptible.
I have seen numerous bad studies by Ph.D.s,, but few if any in top journals like Nature.0 -
This thread was created when another thread was hijacked by meat-lovers. THAT thread was started by a woman who was looking for some advice for meatless eating. She wasn't interested in debating this question. I would say that trolls are thread disrupters, not people who are putting it out that they like spirited discussion in an honest way.
But there's nothing spirited about pictures of meat. ::yawn::
Wow, please read her posts again. She specifically mentioned the link between cancer and red meat consumption. People were responding to the OPs words, which is perfectly reasonable.
I strongly disagree with you. Notice she stayed clear of the controversy. That is an indicator to me that debate was not the reason she started that thread.0 -
I rest my case.
That looks absolutely revolting!
Sorry but I prefer my meat medium well. I agree, this looks revolting. If the food still "bleeds" (or God forbid, moos) it's too rare.
I work with a large number of vegetarians myself (in my workplace, probably about 75% vegetarian) and I try to do one day per week vegetarian, sometimes 2. I find it really helpful for my digestion to eat that way.
Just my two cents . . .0 -
I like vegetable WITH my meat. :bigsmile:
MMM...me too!!!
Nothing like a huge pile of steamed veggies with a nicely done steak or piece of fresh Mahi!!0 -
I rest my case.
I think I just puked a little in my mouth :noway: LOL
Im a vegetarian (have been since I was 6, when I used to hide my hamburger under the car seat and eat the bun)
Why? Because I dont like the "thought of eating meat" or the "texture". Its just not for me.
Do I care that others enjoy meat- Nope! Different strokes for different folks!0 -
Okay, I see you have had Stat 101, correlation vs causation. Since you are making this argument, the burden is on you to show that there is no causation. The argument was made, by the way by a Ph.D, Biochemist who not only knows something about statistics, but who, as part of a sophisticated laboratory has a resident statistician available to check correlations. I don't really expect you will be able to do a regression analysis (for simple data, Stat 102), or Pearson product moment correlation coefficient (Stat 103) I would appreciate it, however if you could give me some RATIONAL explanation of why you think there was correlation without causation. Please, not "common sense."
I've had all those Stats classes, and based off the most important idea in Statistics ("correlation does not imply causation"), wouldn't it be YOUR burden?
Also, you can have correlation without causation. That's Stats 102, I believe.0 -
If you're a male and your partner doesn't eat meat, you need to find a new partner.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I rest my case.
[/quote
Oh dear... that's just sexy :-)0 -
I remember that original thread this morning. I think the first response was someone saying they were curious as to why the OP would consider giving up meat. Curious myself, I visited THAT person's profile and the first thing that jumped out at me was 'lapband surgery'. Yet she was questioning someone else's mere thought of giving up meat. Wow. I clicked off the thread and got on with something important. Everyone has their own thing and as someone else said, to each his own. I have noticed, however, that meat eaters by and large jump all any discussion of vegetarianism with claws and fangs bared. So maybe they really DO have a taste for blood. :-)0
-
Current events, yes.
Are people not required to have knowledge of current events in the "real world"?
Condescending posts that scream "look at me, I can use big words to make other people look uneducated", no.0 -
Current events, yes.
Are people not required to have knowledge of current events in the "real world"?
Condescending posts that scream "look at me, I can use big words to make other people look uneducated", no.
I'm not agreeing with being condescending, but if you don't understand it, why don't you look it up? Perhaps there is no other way to express the information.0 -
I remember that original thread this morning. I think the first response was someone saying they were curious as to why the OP would consider giving up meat. Curious myself, I visited THAT person's profile and the first thing that jumped out at me was 'lapband surgery'. Yet she was questioning someone else's mere thought of giving up meat. Wow. I clicked off the thread and got on with something important. Everyone has their own thing and as someone else said, to each his own. I have noticed, however, that meat eaters by and large jump all any discussion of vegetarianism with claws and fangs bared. So maybe they really DO have a taste for blood. :-)
Or a major guilt complex they try to hide by attacking first?0 -
I've had all those Stats classes, and based off the most important idea in Statistics ("correlation does not imply causation"), wouldn't it be YOUR burden?
Actually you would be right 99% of the time. But the person who started this statistical thread did so with a bare claim that "common sense" showed that Campbell's study was flawed in that he found only correlation not causation. Since he made that claim, I think the burden is on him to explain WHY.0 -
I started looking through the thread but it did not seem to me to answer a really good question! Personally I am an omnivore! Why? Because I like meat, veg etc - a balanced diet. I was semi veggie for 14 years - I still ate poultry and sea food. I went on meat after illness and as long as it is low fat I am fine! That said full fat cheese upsets my system!! I think humans are omnivores. After that however, it is about personal taste, etc. I do have issue with e.g. vegans who wear leather shoes! I think if someone decides to be vegetarian, that is their own personal choice. They should not enforce their rules on others. So we come to the dinner party! I have no problem, if someone is kind enough to invite me to their home to share a meal, to eat whatever is put before me. I am not keen on turnip and swede! I was invited to a dinner once and was served a winter veg stew - containing parsnip, carrot, turnip, swede and potato! I ate the lot! I think ultimately we choose what we want to eat. My 14 years of semi veg were great! I learnt to cook! I put variety into my diet! I think we should be open to new/different ideas! It makes eating so much more enjoyable!0
-
Current events, yes.
Are people not required to have knowledge of current events in the "real world"?
Condescending posts that scream "look at me, I can use big words to make other people look uneducated", no.
For your information, some guy on the old thread (Nine... something or other) kept hounding the OP of that thread for peer-reviewed literature to back up a casual comment she made about meat-eating in relationship to cancer. So, this thread is an attempt to forward that discussion while leaving the other thread to its proper purpose.0 -
So the burden is on the POSTER to prove why a study is flawed because a guy with a Ph.D. only found CORRELATION and not causation.I've had all those Stats classes, and based off the most important idea in Statistics ("correlation does not imply causation"), wouldn't it be YOUR burden?
Actually you would be right 99% of the time. But the person who started this statistical thread did so with a bare claim that "common sense" showed that Campbell's study was flawed in that he found only correlation not causation. Since he made that claim, I think the burden is on him to explain WHY.
If you're going to make assumptions and blanket statements based off of a CORRELATION, then the study is obviously flawed. That's Stats 101, right there. Data Interpretation.0 -
You presuppose that eating from both food groups is mutually exclusive, and it is not.Okay, another string got hijacked by meat eaters which wasn't fair to the OP who was just trying to get vegetarian recipes. However, my wife did not want to be messed with by the meat lovers so I suggested opening this thread. Let's talk about the merits of vegetarianism, or if you prefer, carnivorism. And let's talk about why we are all vegetarians by design, or if you prefer, carnivores. Let's throw in physiology, anthropology, and paleo-ism. Open team tag match. GO!
All foods are permissible but in moderation and proper proportion.
And any science presented that comes close to validating the virtues of exclusive meatless food intake is offset by how fabulous meat tastes on the grill.
Life is to be lived!0 -
Everything can be expressed in simpler terms. An inability to simplify the material is more an indication of a lack of understanding of the subject.
Current events, yes.
Are people not required to have knowledge of current events in the "real world"?
Condescending posts that scream "look at me, I can use big words to make other people look uneducated", no.
I'm not agreeing with being condescending, but if you don't understand it, why don't you look it up? Perhaps there is no other way to express the information.
As one of my lecturers in college always said; "if you can't explain something in another way, then you don't know what you are actually speaking about".0 -
YES!0 -
I think she wins the debate with this one. Veggies with meat is the way to go!0
-
So the burden is on the POSTER to prove why a study is flawed because a guy with a Ph.D. only found CORRELATION and not causation.
If you're going to make assumptions and blanket statements based off of a CORRELATION, then the study is obviously flawed. That's Stats 101, right there. Data Interpretation.
Yup. He is the one claiming the study is flawed. His reason: common sense. If you truly buy that as a legitimate criticism, then you didn't learn much from your statistics course.0 -
http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/wiki/index.php?title=Taxonomy
Just in case anyone tries spouting the teeth rubbish again.
Yes, I know this is a website easily found by google, but it comes to the same conclusion I did after studying human evolution for 3 years at university.0 -
Actually, the burden is not on me to disprove causation, I'm not the Ph.D who did the study and made the claims. He found the correlations, formed a hypothesis and should do everything he can to attempt to disprove it. I dare say he formed the hypothesis and then found the proof in his correlations...
Indeed he did. And he disclosed his methodology in the journal article ( I believe Nature?) If you have a problem with his methodology, AND you are sophisticated enough, then why not state exactly what your problem is? Simply calling it a correlation with nothing further doesn't make it.
I noticed you mentioned the Ph.D Biochemist. Many of the arguments I've seen for the China Study often include "he's a super scientist with a Ph.D and a squillion credentials". Seriously? That makes him no less subject to bias than any other human being, in fact, it might make him more susceptible.
I have seen numerous bad studies by Ph.D.s,, but few if any in top journals like Nature.
I can honestly say I do not have the level of knowledge to challenge his study directly. Who would listen anyway? I don't have a Ph.D. However, I do have a brain and I can think critically and I can read. It doesn't take a Ph.D to understand why relying on univariate correlations is a mistake. It's a complex universe, numerous variables interact in unexpected ways, we cannot know everything. This is why controlled studies are so much more powerful in that at least some variables can be controlled for.
Although you can pick holes in some aspects of the study like food recall questionnaires there re is probably some very interesting data in there. It's the interpretation that is questionable.
Edit: Removed a somewhat snippy comment. LOL0 -
Stats can be skewed to favor what you want it to.So the burden is on the POSTER to prove why a study is flawed because a guy with a Ph.D. only found CORRELATION and not causation.
If you're going to make assumptions and blanket statements based off of a CORRELATION, then the study is obviously flawed. That's Stats 101, right there. Data Interpretation.
Yup. He is the one claiming the study is flawed. His reason: common sense. If you truly buy that as a legitimate criticism, then you didn't learn much from your statistics course.0 -
I am an omnivore, so please feel free to bash me from both sides:bigsmile:
Go a few days without any food at all and you won't care what it is as long as it kept you alive. I don't care how devoted a vegatarian you are you would be thankful for an unethically sourced rabbit and I dare say would even kill it and cook it yourself to ward of starvation.
Being able to choose what we eat or don't eat is a luxury.0 -
Life is to be lived!
Absolutely. By animals as well as by us. That is my entire philosophy.0 -
Being able to choose what we eat or don't eat is a luxury.
Yes. Absolutely it is. But given that in the Western world we have that luxury, isn't it better to do less harm and not kill to satisfy our wants?0 -
It doesn't take a Ph.D to understand why relying on univariate correlations is a mistake. It's a complex universe, numerous variables interact in unexpected ways, we cannot know everything. This is why controlled studies are so much more powerful in that at least some variables can be controlled for.
Univariate correlations? The most frequent criticism of the Campbell study that I have seen was that he looked a too many variables, not too few.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions