Veggies vs Meat
Replies
-
Yeah... Umm... lets say I read the whole thread....
I have only one point to make...
If you eat less then you burn for calories, I do not really think that anything remotely resembling a balanced diet will be bad for you... if you prefer meats over veggies, but burn more calories than you eat than I am guessing you are eating a healthy amount of meats.
Woulnd't that assume that simply being at a "healthy weight" means that you are healthy? Granted, obesity is a huge risk factor itself for many diseases, but that does not mean that there are no risk factors exist if you are at a healthy weight.
I have not seen evidence that a vegetarian diet is necessarily healthier than a non-vegetarian diet, but there is evidence that reducing animal products and increasing plant foods can make many people healthier.0 -
We were staying with my deer farmer ILs last weekend, and they were butchering a deer in the washroom (it was blowing a gale so they couldn't do it in the workshop as normal). My children went in to watch for a bit. My oldest (aged 6) who is mostly vegetarian anyway as he is very sensitive and hates the idea of killing animals said "YUCK!!!!" And now won't let anyone even eat meat in front of him. He also cried when he squashed a spider by accident when he was 3. He's a little buddhist in the making.
My 4 year old stood with his eyes on stalks saying "YUMMY!"
Clearly different people have different gut reactions to the moral side of meat eating!0 -
Cons - Requires careful planning to get adequate vitamins and minerals, as well as protein. Many have trouble getting enough B12, Iron, and D in their diets. Those who do not plan carefully or use a protein shake have problems getting adequate amounts of protein. Additionally, there are some who are 'vegetarian' that exist on a diet of donuts, potato chips, and other junk food. That is not healthy and is not being a vegetarian. That is being a junk-aholic.
Not true . I work outside in short sleeves and am required to supplement vitamin D . There is way too much emphasis placed on anecdotal information and not enough on real life experience ( from both sides of this debate ) . Studies and theories are to be taken as general trends and not unassailable truth .
Not true. We produce our own vitamin D in our bodies, through exposure to sunlight. It isn't something we require in our diet.
Tell that to all those who have low vitamin D as determined by blood test .
People with low vitamin D levels are those who have too little sun exposure. It is a major issue amongst Muslim women, for instance, as they have almost no exposure to daylight wearing a hijab. We need a certain amount of fat in our diet to produce vitamin D. Generally the best sources are butter and whole grains. But we synthesise vitamin D ourselves. Unlike vitamin C, which along with guinea pigs and fruit bats (note, frugivore species!) we are alone in the animal kingdom in NOT being able to produce ourselves.0 -
Cons - Requires careful planning to get adequate vitamins and minerals, as well as protein. Many have trouble getting enough B12, Iron, and D in their diets. Those who do not plan carefully or use a protein shake have problems getting adequate amounts of protein. Additionally, there are some who are 'vegetarian' that exist on a diet of donuts, potato chips, and other junk food. That is not healthy and is not being a vegetarian. That is being a junk-aholic.
Not true . I work outside in short sleeves and am required to supplement vitamin D . There is way too much emphasis placed on anecdotal information and not enough on real life experience ( from both sides of this debate ) . Studies and theories are to be taken as general trends and not unassailable truth .
Not true. We produce our own vitamin D in our bodies, through exposure to sunlight. It isn't something we require in our diet.
Tell that to all those who have low vitamin D as determined by blood test .
People with low vitamin D levels are those who have too little sun exposure. It is a major issue amongst Muslim women, for instance, as they have almost no exposure to daylight wearing a hijab. We need a certain amount of fat in our diet to produce vitamin D. Generally the best sources are butter and whole grains. But we synthesise vitamin D ourselves. Unlike vitamin C, which along with guinea pigs and fruit bats (note, frugivore species!) we are alone in the animal kingdom in NOT being able to produce ourselves.
I don't want to pry, but do you have a condition where you don't produce your own vitamin D? I have never heard of anyone normal having to supplement it before. I would imagine there is something else going on there.0 -
Must be the rice.......................Asians have some of the highest rates of stomach cancer...
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
See I wasn't ruffled.................My apologies to anyone who missed this thread when it disappeared yesterday. I was up to my neck in moderation requests and did not have time to purge the violations and borderline-violations from the thread, so I took the extreme shortcut of simply removing it. Clearly it was missed, and I've restored it this morning after finding the time to edit as necessary.
Sorry for the bait-and-switch routine. Definitely not up to my normal standards of moderation.
Happy New Year,
Steven
MyFitnessPal Staff
I do think that picture of the very rare steak is unnecessary, and perhaps intended to taunt and incite. But, it does neither to me. Words are far more powerful than pictures, in my opinion. These pictures are just silly.
Thanks for returning it. I only wish you had removed the disgusting raw meat picture while editing! It turns my stomach every time I flick through the thread.
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'm a vegan, and will have been so for 3 years this March. I gave up animal products for ethical reasons -- mainly that I just didn't feel right with where it all came from. I could never seem to ignore the fact that i was eating somebody, ever since I was a child and I asked my mom where meat comes from, and she told me it was the muscles of animals.
I've been doing great since I gave all that stuff up. I've had friends who went vegan and didn't last long, and they blame the veganism, but I blame the fact that they were barely eating (or really trying to eat an improperly-planned Raw diet), and not taking supplments. I take supplements. People say you don't have to... but... I have to, as I've gotten low on B12 a couple times. Which, by the way, I don't understand why people see as a fatal flaw in veganism. Supplements exist, in general, to add to your diet whatever you're not getting otherwise, or need more of, and people of all diet types take them, so I don't see why "and then you have to take a B12 supplement" makes it a no-go for some people (if someone who could explain why they feel that way, feel free to!)
I do eat a lot of junk food. I love my sugar cereals and my french fries and my vegan cakes and cookies. But I also love my broccoli and my brown rice and my whole grains and beans and fruits and vegetables. I usually eat a TON of fiber, and not a lot of fat.
And all of that is my choice. And I try to respect your choices. Hell, if you're cooking bacon, I might even tell you it smells good! (I'm a vegan, not a Martian!). But scientific studies about this-that-and-the-other don't sway me. They can be so contradictory, and this doctor say this, while that doctor says that... I'll stick to making choices for myself based on what feels right to me.
I'm a big fan of personal anecdotal experience, n=1 as it's popularly referred to. Although I believe we can't draw general conclusions from it, in a way how we are impacted personally is the most critical measure of all. To me, my n=1 is the most important thing by definition. I started 2011 with the decision that I would experiment with different approaches to eating, tracking my intake for a month at a time in order to lose weight and determine which approach worked for me. I did this because I was sick of so many conflicting points of view. I'm a Software Architect, I work everyday with complex abstractions and I see everyday what science has enabled us to engineer. How is it that we can construct incredibly complex machines but yet science seems to fail us so fantastically when it comes to nutrition. Over the course of the year I learned a lot about why there is so much disagreement and quite honestly I feel it comes down to a few factors. This is just my own humble interpretation so take that for what it is:
1) The science of nutrition is incredibly complex and difficult to study for a myriad of reasons. We are a dynamic system and it's incredibly hard to control all the variables. Kind of obvious I suppose.
2) Correlation <> Causation - I knew this but I didn't realize how often epidemiological studies are published and causality implied.
3) Science Journalists have to pay the rent - Scientists study some variables, find interesting correlations, suggest a mechanism but caution that more research is needed to support the hypothesis perhaps using controlled, clinical trials. But then a science journalist comes along and writes an article with a head line screaming about a link found between X and Y because they need to write articles that sell newspapers or increase hits. People read it because well, I eat X and I don't want Y, the journalist gets paid and has a roof over their head for another month and then another study finds no correlation between X and Y when studied in a slightly different context and some other Science Journalist comes along and writes a screaming headline and Joe the Plumber scratches his head, decides it's all too confusing and stops for the 50 chicken nuggets for $10 deal because what the hell everything gives you cancer anyway and the economy sucks and it's cheap.
No wonder everyone is confused.
The reality is there is plenty of good science in the field of nutrition and we can unravel the truth even if that truth varies from person to person. I've heard mention and no, I don't have any published research to reference, that there may be a Carb phenotype and a Fat phenotype etc. This is purely conjecture as far as I know, it may be a complete fabrication but it would be fascinating if there is. Perhaps some are healthier eating more fat and others more carbs. So perhaps some are better suited to a vegetarian lifestyle and others to eating meat. I hope some brilliant nutritionists dig into this and prove or disprove.
On the topic of being vegetarian, I honestly have no desire. I feel no guilt at all for eating animals. I certainly think they should be treated "humanely" which is a stupid word really, but beyond that, it just doesn't enter my ethical radar. As I've said on many occasions, I respect those who choose to eat vegetarian and vegan, more power to you but I doubt it's something that will ever appeal to me.
I liked the picture of the steak and I know it disgusted some of you, fair enough, but honestly just don't look at it.
I'm glad the thread was brought back, thanks to Steven who I'm guessing has his work cut out for him most of the time.0 -
Boy, you are really asking for a lot of variables. You are correct in that the PERFECT Study would be to have hundreds and possibly thousands of variables. But that is not really practical As for CHD, do you realize how long you would have to follow a population to say anything about the nutrient density of the soil and heart disease?
Ah, but you just pointed out exactly why these sorts of studies are so limited. There are too many variables to control for. He even mentions in the book that his fellow researches wanted to spend the money on controlled clinical trials and were concerned about the scientific validity of his proposal (so in having the same debate we're actually in very good company). He felt it was worth looking at a larger picture... great, he did that, but then drew conclusions that are a stretch given the data. There were supposedly 8,000 statistically significant correlations found, awesome, so now there are 8,000 interesting areas to examine and tease apart and attempt to disprove.0 -
I found your comments interesting, and agree that, strictly from a nutritional standpoint, I think paleo is a more honest way of eating than the typical highly processed Western diet. I still think it could come over to the green side, and be even better!
Oh yeah, I love whole foods. There are vegetarian Primal followers although I can't tell you much more than that because I've never looked at that option closely. Primal would seriously be dull without meat, in my opinion.
Errr... just don't look at my food diary today, definitely didn't eat Primal. Damn those dinner rolls. Maybe Grok invented the dinner roll earlier than we thought? 0 -
Boy, you are really asking for a lot of variables. You are correct in that the PERFECT Study would be to have hundreds and possibly thousands of variables. But that is not really practical As for CHD, do you realize how long you would have to follow a population to say anything about the nutrient density of the soil and heart disease?
Ah, but you just pointed out exactly why these sorts of studies are so limited. There are too many variables to control for. He even mentions in the book that his fellow researches wanted to spend the money on controlled clinical trials and were concerned about the scientific validity of his proposal (so in having the same debate we're actually in very good company). He felt it was worth looking at a larger picture... great, he did that, but then drew conclusions that are a stretch given the data. There were supposedly 8,000 statistically significant correlations found, awesome, so now there are 8,000 interesting areas to examine and tease apart and attempt to disprove.
Okay, I thought you were attacking the China study in particular. You are now seeming to attack all Ecological studies. I assume you are comparing them to controlled cohort studies? If so, you are right, but very few cohort studies exist (e.g., one is the Framingham study) and they ALSO deliver the same or a very similar message as the China Study. You cannot, in my opinion deny the value of a study because every possible permutation and combination of possibilities wasn't controlled for. Your standard, if I understand you correctly, is impossible, and has never been done at least that I am aware of, in the history of the human race.0 -
I found your comments interesting, and agree that, strictly from a nutritional standpoint, I think paleo is a more honest way of eating than the typical highly processed Western diet. I still think it could come over to the green side, and be even better!
Oh yeah, I love whole foods. There are vegetarian Primal followers although I can't tell you much more than that because I've never looked at that option closely. Primal would seriously be dull without meat, in my opinion.
Errr... just don't look at my food diary today, definitely didn't eat Primal. Damn those dinner rolls. Maybe Grok invented the dinner roll earlier than we thought?
I assume then, based on your criticism of the China study that you eat (when you are on your primal diet)) precisely what is known of whatever period of human history's diet that is known. For the vast majority of human history, we were the hunted, not the hunters. We scavenged other animals kills when it was safe to do so, and we at those animals that we could catch. Considering how slow we are that would include earthworms, slugs, insects, and whatever carrion we could find. Is this close to your diet?0 -
I rest my case.
... .. ..... GAME OVER.0 -
over the holidays we watched Food Matters and Forks over Knives. When Eat right for your blood type came out, I as a blood type "O" was so happy. Because breads and I never got along, milk made my stomach very acidy, but beef of all things made my digestive system work really well. So if evolution of the human body is to be balanced with the offerings of the planet, finding a middle way for me as well as my husband who is B blood type, will be interesting.
We both are loving the "whole foods". And if as a carnivore, I can eat the "wild" animals in their purest forms, vs. their industrialized forms, I most likely will be. And I don't need a lot to keep my system humming.
Here's to each of us finding out what combination of foods and movement work best for each of us.0 -
At one point, I had something significant to say, but it was all lost! I was caught up in the dozens of responses complaining about the use of "big words." Intelligent people do not use "big words" to be pompous, or make others look or feel uneducated, they do so because they are intelligent.0
-
Boy, you are really asking for a lot of variables. You are correct in that the PERFECT Study would be to have hundreds and possibly thousands of variables. But that is not really practical As for CHD, do you realize how long you would have to follow a population to say anything about the nutrient density of the soil and heart disease?
Ah, but you just pointed out exactly why these sorts of studies are so limited. There are too many variables to control for. He even mentions in the book that his fellow researches wanted to spend the money on controlled clinical trials and were concerned about the scientific validity of his proposal (so in having the same debate we're actually in very good company). He felt it was worth looking at a larger picture... great, he did that, but then drew conclusions that are a stretch given the data. There were supposedly 8,000 statistically significant correlations found, awesome, so now there are 8,000 interesting areas to examine and tease apart and attempt to disprove.
Okay, I thought you were attacking the China study in particular. You are now seeming to attack all Ecological studies. I assume you are comparing them to controlled cohort studies? If so, you are right, but very few cohort studies exist (e.g., one is the Framingham study) and they ALSO deliver the same or a very similar message as the China Study. You cannot, in my opinion deny the value of a study because every possible permutation and combination of possibilities wasn't controlled for. Your standard, if I understand you correctly, is impossible, and has never been done at least that I am aware of, in the history of the human race.
That is exactly why most of science is expressed as theory with very few statements of law.0 -
At one point, I had something significant to say, but it was all lost! I was caught up in the dozens of responses complaining about the use of "big words." Intelligent people do not use "big words" to be pompous, or make others look or feel uneducated, they do so because they are intelligent.
Intelligence expressed in language understood by those to whom you speak is simply having an intelligent discussion ; expressed in language not commonly used to those to whom you speak and denying communication to occur is unintelligent and ,if purposely used to demonstrate knowledge, pompous. I will acknowledge that there is a problem knowing who may be reading these posts and therefore choosing the language necessary to convey the ideas you wish to express becomes difficult to say the least . I would suggest therefore to state your ideas in the simplest way possible to make the ideas understood by the greatest number of people . I also would like to say in regards to intelligence , not having a vast vocabulary isn't a marker for limited intelligence but rather an indication of limited education in the subject matter .0 -
At one point, I had something significant to say, but it was all lost! I was caught up in the dozens of responses complaining about the use of "big words." Intelligent people do not use "big words" to be pompous, or make others look or feel uneducated, they do so because they are intelligent.
I agree that some discussions require specialized vocabulary and knowledge. This thread was a continuation of an earlier one, which began with a shout-out for scientific proof for a statement made about the relationship of cancer and meat-eating. You can't discuss scientific proof without, of course, discussing the study sample, whether it is representative, if the methodology and statistics chosen to analyze the data are suitable, etc.
This discussion was never meant to over-intellectualize a subject, or make anyone feel inadequate. But, I have to say, I was pretty shocked to see the pictures of rare steaks and attached statements like 'Meat taste good. Me like.' I don't understand the thought process behind that.0 -
At one point, I had something significant to say, but it was all lost! I was caught up in the dozens of responses complaining about the use of "big words." Intelligent people do not use "big words" to be pompous, or make others look or feel uneducated, they do so because they are intelligent.
Intelligence expressed in language understood by those to whom you speak is simply having an intelligent discussion ; expressed in language not commonly used to those to whom you speak and denying communication to occur is unintelligent and ,if purposely used to demonstrate knowledge, pompous.
Honestly, I have posted on dozens of boards and when I talk about statistics, I use the terminology of statistics. This is known as using terms of art. If I am trying to develop a language for chimpanzees, I would never use these terms, because chimpanzees are incapable of understanding statistics. Most people are capable of understanding statistics, however, at least most people that I know. Another person on this board stated talking about statistics and used the terms "causation vs correlation." These are proper terms, and nobody complained about his using "big words." I have in the many boards I posted on have never been accused of using "big words" before this.
I guess my suggestion to you is if these words are meaningless to you, and you are unable or unwilling to look them up, then perhaps you should not participate in this discussion. This is a discussion on whether or not the China Study is statistically viable, and it is impossible to have this discussion without talking about statistics.0 -
Okay, I thought you were attacking the China study in particular. You are now seeming to attack all Ecological studies. I assume you are comparing them to controlled cohort studies? If so, you are right, but very few cohort studies exist (e.g., one is the Framingham study) and they ALSO deliver the same or a very similar message as the China Study. You cannot, in my opinion deny the value of a study because every possible permutation and combination of possibilities wasn't controlled for. Your standard, if I understand you correctly, is impossible, and has never been done at least that I am aware of, in the history of the human race.
Of course. Theoretically we can never know the unknowable, it's impossible to control for everything. The point is, that you do not imply causality from correlations alone. Correlation = something interesting. Now look at that something interesting in a more controlled manner. Then perhaps suggest a hypothesis for a physical mechanism explaining how X leads to Y. Now perform experiments to prove this hypothesis. We're talking the scientific method here. Studies like the China Study are observations about our physical universe, that's step 1. Constructing a hypothesis is next, which he did, but then in some cases he then draws a conclusion. That's missing a step.
Don't misunderstand I am not saying this is simple, it's far from simple and beyond my capabilities for sure. In many cases it's difficult and unethical to experiment on humans.
So let me put it another way. The China Study shows there COULD be a correlation between the risk of some diseases and the intake of green vegetables for example, but it does not prove that eating green vegetables decreases the risk of those diseases. Find the physical mechanism, perform experiments to test that hypothesis and then I'll listen.0 -
Okay, I thought you were attacking the China study in particular. You are now seeming to attack all Ecological studies. I assume you are comparing them to controlled cohort studies? If so, you are right, but very few cohort studies exist (e.g., one is the Framingham study) and they ALSO deliver the same or a very similar message as the China Study. You cannot, in my opinion deny the value of a study because every possible permutation and combination of possibilities wasn't controlled for. Your standard, if I understand you correctly, is impossible, and has never been done at least that I am aware of, in the history of the human race.
Of course. Theoretically we can never know the unknowable, it's impossible to control for everything. The point is, that you do not imply causality from correlations alone. Correlation = something interesting. Now look at that something interesting in a more controlled manner. Then perhaps suggest a hypothesis for a physical mechanism explaining how X leads to Y. Now perform experiments to prove this hypothesis. We're talking the scientific method here. Studies like the China Study are observations about our physical universe, that's step 1. Constructing a hypothesis is next, which he did, but then in some cases he then draws a conclusion. That's missing a step.
Don't misunderstand I am not saying this is simple, it's far from simple and beyond my capabilities for sure. In many cases it's difficult and unethical to experiment on humans.
So let me put it another way. The China Study shows there COULD be a correlation between the risk of some diseases and the intake of green vegetables for example, but it does not prove that eating green vegetables decreases the risk of those diseases. Find the physical mechanism, perform experiments to test that hypothesis and then I'll listen.
Of course the China study does not "prove" that eating vegetables and not meat "cures" any disease. I believe, however, that it shows a strong correlation. For what it is, it is a remarkable study, showing at least what I consider to be a correlation. You may disagree, but I would then suspect you are being uneven in your standards. For example, you follow the primal diet. Why? What study did you follow that led you to the conclusion that that was the proper diet. I assume whatever study you followed was not subject to the same complaints you are raising against the China Study.0 -
At one point, I had something significant to say, but it was all lost! I was caught up in the dozens of responses complaining about the use of "big words." Intelligent people do not use "big words" to be pompous, or make others look or feel uneducated, they do so because they are intelligent.
Intelligence expressed in language understood by those to whom you speak is simply having an intelligent discussion ; expressed in language not commonly used to those to whom you speak and denying communication to occur is unintelligent and ,if purposely used to demonstrate knowledge, pompous.
Honestly, I have posted on dozens of boards and when I talk about statistics, I use the terminology of statistics. This is known as using terms of art. If I am trying to develop a language for chimpanzees, I would never use these terms, because chimpanzees are incapable of understanding statistics. Most people are capable of understanding statistics, however, at least most people that I know. Another person on this board stated talking about statistics and used the terms "causation vs correlation." These are proper terms, and nobody complained about his using "big words." I have in the many boards I posted on have never been accused of using "big words" before this.
I guess my suggestion to you is if these words are meaningless to you, and you are unable or unwilling to look them up, then perhaps you should not participate in this discussion. This is a discussion on whether or not the China Study is statistically viable, and it is impossible to have this discussion without talking about statistics.
It seems to have evolved into a more intellectually elite symposium on a specific statistically presented study and therefore not as interesting as it could have been with many people contributing knowledge from life experience in regards to the merits of specific dietary choices . I will therefore accept your advice and leave the discussion , not because I don't understand the statistical language, but because I find it boring as hell .0 -
At one point, I had something significant to say, but it was all lost! I was caught up in the dozens of responses complaining about the use of "big words." Intelligent people do not use "big words" to be pompous, or make others look or feel uneducated, they do so because they are intelligent.
Intelligence expressed in language understood by those to whom you speak is simply having an intelligent discussion ; expressed in language not commonly used to those to whom you speak and denying communication to occur is unintelligent and ,if purposely used to demonstrate knowledge, pompous.
Honestly, I have posted on dozens of boards and when I talk about statistics, I use the terminology of statistics. This is known as using terms of art. If I am trying to develop a language for chimpanzees, I would never use these terms, because chimpanzees are incapable of understanding statistics. Most people are capable of understanding statistics, however, at least most people that I know. Another person on this board stated talking about statistics and used the terms "causation vs correlation." These are proper terms, and nobody complained about his using "big words." I have in the many boards I posted on have never been accused of using "big words" before this.
I guess my suggestion to you is if these words are meaningless to you, and you are unable or unwilling to look them up, then perhaps you should not participate in this discussion. This is a discussion on whether or not the China Study is statistically viable, and it is impossible to have this discussion without talking about statistics.
It seems to have evolved into a more intellectually elite symposium on a specific statistically presented study and therefore not as interesting as it could have been with many people contributing knowledge from life experience in regards to the merits of specific dietary choices . I will therefore accept your advice and leave the discussion , not because I don't understand the statistical language, but because I find it boring as hell .
Okay0 -
I assume then, based on your criticism of the China study that you eat (when you are on your primal diet)) precisely what is known of whatever period of human history's diet that is known. For the vast majority of human history, we were the hunted, not the hunters. We scavenged other animals kills when it was safe to do so, and we at those animals that we could catch. Considering how slow we are that would include earthworms, slugs, insects, and whatever carrion we could find. Is this close to your diet?
Everyone is a Paleontologist these days. LOL I can't tell you how often people say "but cavemen all died at like 25".
You can look for Loren Cordain's work to find a some research on the Paleolithic diet. Incidently, his work in the 70s was used as a basis for supporting the lipid hypothesis since he proposed that we ate fairly lean. Later he revised his estimate for fat intake up when he factored in organ meats and consuming the entire animal.
Here is a paper of his:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/3/682.full
The intake would have varied considerably as I mentioned before based on geographic location. Coastal populations would have consumed abundant seafood, those in high altitudes more animal protein and those in equatorial regions more plants.
Another interesting one (although just the abstract):
http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1086/381662
Discussing "meat-adaptive genes".
Honestly, we could debate endless since this is something that's very difficult to determine exactly. My opinion based on reading various sources is that we ate large amounts of meats AND vegetables and some fruit which would not have been nearly as available (or as laden with sugar) as it is now. We did not eat twinkies, wonderbread or donuts. This is the essence of the Primal diet. Pretty simple really.0 -
At one point, I had something significant to say, but it was all lost! I was caught up in the dozens of responses complaining about the use of "big words." Intelligent people do not use "big words" to be pompous, or make others look or feel uneducated, they do so because they are intelligent.
Intelligence expressed in language understood by those to whom you speak is simply having an intelligent discussion ; expressed in language not commonly used to those to whom you speak and denying communication to occur is unintelligent and ,if purposely used to demonstrate knowledge, pompous.
Honestly, I have posted on dozens of boards and when I talk about statistics, I use the terminology of statistics. This is known as using terms of art. If I am trying to develop a language for chimpanzees, I would never use these terms, because chimpanzees are incapable of understanding statistics. Most people are capable of understanding statistics, however, at least most people that I know. Another person on this board stated talking about statistics and used the terms "causation vs correlation." These are proper terms, and nobody complained about his using "big words." I have in the many boards I posted on have never been accused of using "big words" before this.
I guess my suggestion to you is if these words are meaningless to you, and you are unable or unwilling to look them up, then perhaps you should not participate in this discussion. This is a discussion on whether or not the China Study is statistically viable, and it is impossible to have this discussion without talking about statistics.
It seems to have evolved into a more intellectually elite symposium on a specific statistically presented study and therefore not as interesting as it could have been with many people contributing knowledge from life experience in regards to the merits of specific dietary choices . I will therefore accept your advice and leave the discussion , not because I don't understand the statistical language, but because I find it boring as hell .
Listen, there is nothing to stop you or anyone else from contributing to the discussion of veggies vs meat. But I would certainly agree that the sub thread on The China Study has evolved into a discussion of statistical methodology, and that is hard to discuss if you are not fairly familiar with the subject.0 -
Re: paleo. I respect the desire to limit processed foods, like refined flour, sugar, etc. Personally, I think there are awful vegan diets which are too junk-food intensive, merely plant-based. French fries, potato chips, vegan cupcakes, etc. are plants, but have very little in common with kale, for instance.
But with all that said, small amounts of processed foods are probably all right, IF they don't trigger binges for more of the stuff. My mother was born in 1913, and told me cakes were rare home endeavors, and mixed by the strongest arm in the house, not more than once a week. I just think things like sweet desserts and salty snacks are too convenient and too plentiful.0 -
I assume then, based on your criticism of the China study that you eat (when you are on your primal diet)) precisely what is known of whatever period of human history's diet that is known. For the vast majority of human history, we were the hunted, not the hunters. We scavenged other animals kills when it was safe to do so, and we at those animals that we could catch. Considering how slow we are that would include earthworms, slugs, insects, and whatever carrion we could find. Is this close to your diet?
Everyone is a Paleontologist these days. LOL I can't tell you how often people say "but cavemen all died at like 25".
You can look for Loren Cordain's work to find a some research on the Paleolithic diet. Incidently, his work in the 70s was used as a basis for supporting the lipid hypothesis since he proposed that we ate fairly lean. Later he revised his estimate for fat intake up when he factored in organ meats and consuming the entire animal.
Here is a paper of his:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/3/682.full
The intake would have varied considerably as I mentioned before based on geographic location. Coastal populations would have consumed abundant seafood, those in high altitudes more animal protein and those in equatorial regions more plants.
Another interesting one (although just the abstract):
http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1086/381662
Discussing "meat-adaptive genes".
Honestly, we could debate endless since this is something that's very difficult to determine exactly. My opinion based on reading various sources is that we ate large amounts of meats AND vegetables and some fruit which would not have been nearly as available (or as laden with sugar) as it is now. We did not eat twinkies, wonderbread or donuts. This is the essence of the Primal diet. Pretty simple really.
I will look at these, but from your description they appear anecdotal or hypothetical. Also there is the problem of what stage of evolution do you look at to find what the "historical" human diet was. Australopithecus, for example would be the ancestor I would choose to show how our genome developed. Even then Australopithecus had 98% of our genome. If you go back to only 10,000 years ago, you are scarcely talking about evolution, but more like recent humans. Again, as you say Anatomically Modern Humans' diets varied considerably depending upon where they lived. The vast majority were vegetarian, however. If you go back 6,000 years to the Fertile Crescent, they relied mostly on Barley and other grains. Eventually they became pastoralists, but the mainstay of their diet was still grains.0 -
Of course the China study does not "prove" that eating vegetables and not meat "cures" any disease. I believe, however, that it shows a strong correlation. For what it is, it is a remarkable study, showing at least what I consider to be a correlation. You may disagree, but I would then suspect you are being uneven in your standards. For example, you follow the primal diet. Why? What study did you follow that led you to the conclusion that that was the proper diet. I assume whatever study you followed was not subject to the same complaints you are raising against the China Study.
I never said it wasn't remarkable, it's a monumental effort no doubt. I never said it didn't show correlations but the issue is that causality was implied from the correlations. That is not appropriate. It's intuitive and tempting to believe that correlation = causation because humans naturally look for patterns but thousands of years of science has demonstrated otherwise. It's an inconvenient truth.
I try to think critically about my own choices and avoid bias, it's very difficult to do so, but I try nonetheless. My sister is a highly educated dietician who constantly questions my diet so I really have no choice but to attempt to justify it pretty regularly to someone who knows far more about biochemistry than I do. There are no studies that compare a Primal/Paleo diet to other common diets, I wish there was. There is lots of science covering aspects of it though such as reduction in the consumption of refined carbohydrates, increased consumption of vegetables, consumption of grass fed beef, wild caught fish (muddy one that one), avoidance of some polyunsaturated fats, consumption of saturated fat (that's a whole other argument - lol).
When I looked at starting on this WOE (Way Of Eating) I looked at it like this:
1) I would eat a lot more veggies (I suspect we'll agree on that one being good)
2) I would focus on eating "cleaner" meat (grass fed beef for example)
3) Increase consumption of omega 3
4) Increase fish consumption
5) Remove the majority of refined carbs that offer little other than cheap calories
Based on that, it was a no-brainer. Saying that, I was comparing it to my standard low-fat, high carb diet I was eating and not to a vegetarian or vegan diet.0 -
It seems to have evolved into a more intellectually elite symposium on a specific statistically presented study and therefore not as interesting as it could have been with many people contributing knowledge from life experience in regards to the merits of specific dietary choices . I will therefore accept your advice and leave the discussion , not because I don't understand the statistical language, but because I find it boring as hell .
Nah, hang around. We're talking about other more interesting things too. The statistical side of the discussion has mostly moved on now.
I do agree that sometimes we can forget to adjust the language appropriately and I agree that a great teacher can take complex ideas and present them in simple terms. I am not an expert statistician by any means, just studied some at University and I like to read. I am well versed in software engineering theory though and I find myself sometimes sounding pompous about that at times, it's easy to forget when you converse at that level all day long with your peers. You honestly do it without realizing it and on the odd occasion I do it even when I am aware just because I sometimes like to be an *kitten*. LOL 0 -
I assume then, based on your criticism of the China study that you eat (when you are on your primal diet)) precisely what is known of whatever period of human history's diet that is known. For the vast majority of human history, we were the hunted, not the hunters. We scavenged other animals kills when it was safe to do so, and we at those animals that we could catch. Considering how slow we are that would include earthworms, slugs, insects, and whatever carrion we could find. Is this close to your diet?
Everyone is a Paleontologist these days. LOL I can't tell you how often people say "but cavemen all died at like 25".
You can look for Loren Cordain's work to find a some research on the Paleolithic diet. Incidently, his work in the 70s was used as a basis for supporting the lipid hypothesis since he proposed that we ate fairly lean. Later he revised his estimate for fat intake up when he factored in organ meats and consuming the entire animal.
Here is a paper of his:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/3/682.full
The intake would have varied considerably as I mentioned before based on geographic location. Coastal populations would have consumed abundant seafood, those in high altitudes more animal protein and those in equatorial regions more plants.
Another interesting one (although just the abstract):
http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1086/381662
Discussing "meat-adaptive genes".
Honestly, we could debate endless since this is something that's very difficult to determine exactly. My opinion based on reading various sources is that we ate large amounts of meats AND vegetables and some fruit which would not have been nearly as available (or as laden with sugar) as it is now. We did not eat twinkies, wonderbread or donuts. This is the essence of the Primal diet. Pretty simple really.
But we ate mince pies, right? I couldn't live without mince pies.0 -
Re: paleo. I respect the desire to limit processed foods, like refined flour, sugar, etc. Personally, I think there are awful vegan diets which are too junk-food intensive, merely plant-based. French fries, potato chips, vegan cupcakes, etc. are plants, but have very little in common with kale, for instance.
But with all that said, small amounts of processed foods are probably all right, IF they don't trigger binges for more of the stuff. My mother was born in 1913, and told me cakes were rare home endeavors, and mixed by the strongest arm in the house, not more than once a week. I just think things like sweet desserts and salty snacks are too convenient and too plentiful.
Totally agree, I have a cheat day. We're surrounded by those foods and they taste good (that's why we're surrounded by them) so why not. There is evidence for example that we ate grain even prior to agriculture but it wasn't refined and we didn't eat it in the quantities we do now. Point is, even if you are a Paleo/Primal adherent a buttery croissant every now and then is just fine.
I like mine with peanut butter (macadamia butter if I can get it) which would probably make a French pastry chef swear. 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