Veggies vs Meat

VegesaurusRex

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.

Wow, way to misconstrue. My reason as to why I did not put much faith in the conclusions from the study was that correlation <> causation. I said that this is common sense, and I believe it is. One doesn't need to be a statistician to know that correlations can be found just about anywhere, especially if you are looking.

Okay, if I misunderstood, what PRECISELY were you objecting to in the Campbell study. I have the book right here so if you want to cite page numbers, that would be fine.

_VoV

Ultimately this thread has little to do with continuing the scientific debate around meat consumption that started in the other thread. It's about the persecution complex that many vegetarians suffer from. I sympathize with them, it's tough to go against social norms. I experience the same push back when I tell people I eat Paleo/Primal, people often look at me in horror and tell me I'm going to die of a heart attack, they often clutch their chests too. Very dramatic.

I have nothing against vegetarians, I never said anything negative about them, I respect your choices even if I don't agree with them.

Actually, huge efforts were made to continue that debate. That's actually what I found interesting on the other thread, but thought that was the wrong venue. But, some people complained about the big words. Others posted pictures of bloody meat on a plate. That was not what this thread was created for. Bring on the debate...

VegesaurusRex

Ultimately this thread has little to do with continuing the scientific debate around meat consumption that started in the other thread. It's about the persecution complex that many vegetarians suffer from. I sympathize with them, it's tough to go against social norms. I experience the same push back when I tell people I eat Paleo/Primal, people often look at me in horror and tell me I'm going to die of a heart attack, they often clutch their chests too. Very dramatic.

I have nothing against vegetarians, I never said anything negative about them, I respect your choices even if I don't agree with them.

What exactly is paleo/primal? I have heard that term but do not know what it refers to.

xtinalovexo

I rest my case.

I love meat, I love meat that is well done.. but that just made me want to become a vegetable eater only

Same here tbh. Im pretty much a carnivore, but it has to be well done, no pinkness etc.

i think its on the rag...

tidmutt

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.

Wow, way to misconstrue. My reason as to why I did not put much faith in the conclusions from the study was that correlation <> causation. I said that this is common sense, and I believe it is. One doesn't need to be a statistician to know that correlations can be found just about anywhere, especially if you are looking.

Okay, if I misunderstood, what PRECISELY were you objecting to in the Campbell study. I have the book right here so if you want to cite page numbers, that would be fine.

I've given you all the specifics you need. He found correlations, that's not sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. By all means investigate those correlations further using better tools like randomized, controlled studies. Don't expect me to believe his personal conclusions based just on those correlations.

mcdonl

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.

artemis222

I stopped reading after the first 3 pages, I admit.

First of all, I am an omnivore not a carnivore, a vegetarian is not the same as a vegan, etc nomenclature and things....

For the whole "meat gives you cancer" idea...In my short lifespan I've come to realize that anything and everything will in some way/shape/form kill me. When I was in eighth grade I remember hearing that a group of Swedish scientists had performed a study showing that fruits and vegetables gave you cancer. In a recent study they proved that hotdogs give you cancer. What they DIDN'T tell you is that these people were required to eat only hotdogs and massive quantities of hotdogs.

I guess my point is that too much of anything can be bad for you. A vegan who doesn't do their homework on what to eat won't be eating very healthy. (As in not getting the proper amount of protein because they don't eat enough of certain veggies.) A person who eats TONS of meat and not very much else is obviously unhealthy. A person doing too much exercise is unhealthy.

In the end we're all going to grow old, we're all going to get wrinkles and we will all...eventually...die.

Wait, what were we arguing about again?

VegesaurusRex

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.

Wow, way to misconstrue. My reason as to why I did not put much faith in the conclusions from the study was that correlation <> causation. I said that this is common sense, and I believe it is. One doesn't need to be a statistician to know that correlations can be found just about anywhere, especially if you are looking.

Okay, if I misunderstood, what PRECISELY were you objecting to in the Campbell study. I have the book right here so if you want to cite page numbers, that would be fine.

I've given you all the specifics you need. He found correlations, that's not sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. By all means investigate those correlations further using better tools like randomized, controlled studies. Don't expect me to believe his personal conclusions based just on those correlations.

I guess I am asking you WHAT correlations you are referring to. Clearly there was a correlation found in several parts of China between the percentage of plants in the population's diet, and the health benefits in terms of chronic disease. The population was large and was followed for ten years. What exactly are you saying that Campbell missed?

tidmutt

What exactly is paleo/primal? I have heard that term but do not know what it refers to.

It's an approach to nutrition based on eating what we supposedly ate for the majority of our evolution, at least in our current form. There are various forms including Paleo which often excludes dairy and Primal which allows diary if you tolerate it. Personally I subscribe to Primal which allows for a greater emphasis on n=1 and I feel is not as dogmatic. It's difficult to lock down exactly what our Paleolithic diet is since it would have varied greatly depending on geographic location but in a nutshell it focuses on whole foods, a good amount of vegetables and fruits, animal protein, fat and little processed carbohydrates. Animal protein such as beef should come from pastured, grass fed animals for it's superior omega 3/6 ratio.

Saturated fat is the most controversial aspect of Primal (some versions of Paleo are leaner) and is what often causes dieticians to have fits and start speaking in tongues (my sister included).

AudgePaudge

I'm a meat eater...always will be! BTW, meat just tastes better when you kill it yourself :happy:

savage22hp

I'm a meat eater...always will be! BTW, meat just tastes better when you kill it yourself :happy:

So , you are the one killing the animals behind the restaurant .....

VegesaurusRex

What exactly is paleo/primal? I have heard that term but do not know what it refers to.

It's an approach to nutrition based on eating what we supposedly ate for the majority of our evolution, at least in our current form. There are various forms including Paleo which often excludes dairy and Primal which allows diary if you tolerate it. Personally I subscribe to Primal which allows for a greater emphasis on n=1 and I feel is not as dogmatic. It's difficult to lock down exactly what our Paleolithic diet is since it would have varied greatly depending on geographic location but in a nutshell it focuses on whole foods, a good amount of vegetables and fruits, animal protein, fat and little processed carbohydrates. Animal protein such as beef should come from pastured, grass fed animals for it's superior omega 3/6 ratio.

Saturated fat is the most controversial aspect of Primal (some versions of Paleo are leaner) and is what often causes dieticians to have fits and start speaking in tongues (my sister included).

Okay, thanks for the explanation. What period of human evolution do you revert to? Anatomically modern Humans? Archaic homo? Australopithecine? Their diets all varied and they were all forms of humans. They were, by and large, mostly vegetarian, and scavanged, eating what they could catch like worms, slugs, and mostly plants.

fteale

What exactly is paleo/primal? I have heard that term but do not know what it refers to.

It's an approach to nutrition based on eating what we supposedly ate for the majority of our evolution, at least in our current form. There are various forms including Paleo which often excludes dairy and Primal which allows diary if you tolerate it. Personally I subscribe to Primal which allows for a greater emphasis on n=1 and I feel is not as dogmatic. It's difficult to lock down exactly what our Paleolithic diet is since it would have varied greatly depending on geographic location but in a nutshell it focuses on whole foods, a good amount of vegetables and fruits, animal protein, fat and little processed carbohydrates. Animal protein such as beef should come from pastured, grass fed animals for it's superior omega 3/6 ratio.

Saturated fat is the most controversial aspect of Primal (some versions of Paleo are leaner) and is what often causes dieticians to have fits and start speaking in tongues (my sister included).

Okay, thanks for the explanation. What period of human evolution do you revert to? Anatomically modern Humans? Archaic homo? Australopithecine? Their diets all varied and they were all forms of humans. They were, by and large, mostly vegetarian, and scavanged, eating what they could catch like worms, slugs, and mostly plants.

I believe most base it on a human diet around 6-10000 years ago, which seems arbitrary to me, and not indicative of what we evolved to eat, as that is incredibly recent in evolutionary terms, but that seems to be the gist of it.

Of course, back then humans breastfed up to 5 or 6 years old, so children were getting milk, just not from cows. And in many nomadic societies it is still completely normal for all members of the family to drink a lactating mother's milk once the child is no longer exclusively breastfed. Milk isn't the enemy, but I can see the issue with COW milk.

tidmutt

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.

Wow, way to misconstrue. My reason as to why I did not put much faith in the conclusions from the study was that correlation <> causation. I said that this is common sense, and I believe it is. One doesn't need to be a statistician to know that correlations can be found just about anywhere, especially if you are looking.

Okay, if I misunderstood, what PRECISELY were you objecting to in the Campbell study. I have the book right here so if you want to cite page numbers, that would be fine.

I've given you all the specifics you need. He found correlations, that's not sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. By all means investigate those correlations further using better tools like randomized, controlled studies. Don't expect me to believe his personal conclusions based just on those correlations.

I guess I am asking you WHAT correlations you are referring to. Clearly there was a correlation found in several parts of China between the percentage of plants in the population's diet, and the health benefits in terms of chronic disease. The population was large and was followed for ten years. What exactly are you saying that Campbell missed?

Any number of confounding variables. Nutrient density in the soil that those plants were grown in, the fact that those that ate more plants may also have had other lifestyle habits that are protective. He also correlated animal protein consumption with cholesterol levels and claimed this increased risk of heart disease. Why not correlate with actual incidents of CHD?

fteale

I apologise if I sound like I am criticising the concept of palaeo eating. I think it is a far more honest way to eat than the majority of people who just want food that looks like it came from a packet.

I just think from what I have seen of it in practice, it seems to be based on a very narrow and not necessarily accurate picture of a specific period of history, and not on actual biology. But still way better than thinking McDonalds is food, for sure.

tidmutt

I believe most base it on a human diet around 6-10000 years ago, which seems arbitrary to me, and not indicative of what we evolved to eat, as that is incredibly recent in evolutionary terms, but that seems to be the gist of it.

Of course, back then humans breastfed up to 5 or 6 years old, so children were getting milk, just not from cows. And in many nomadic societies it is still completely normal for all members of the family to drink a lactating mother's milk once the child is no longer exclusively breastfed. Milk isn't the enemy, but I can see the issue with COW milk.

Please, lets not complicate this thread with a debate on the merits of the Paleo diet. LOL

But just to clarify, it's an attempt to recreate the nutritional profile consumed prior to agriculture, hence why processed grain is usually eliminated with some recognition that some processes used to remove anti-nutrients such soaking, fermenting etc. make it more acceptable.

There is some great research in this area, I can't do it justice, feel free to google for more information and draw your own conclusions.

tidmutt

I apologise if I sound like I am criticising the concept of palaeo eating. I think it is a far more honest way to eat than the majority of people who just want food that looks like it came from a packet.

I just think from what I have seen of it in practice, it seems to be based on a very narrow and not necessarily accurate picture of a specific period of history, and not on actual biology. But still way better than thinking McDonalds is food, for sure.

Well, there are many "camps". Some are far less dogmatic and attempt to use Primal/Paleo as a foundation but informed by science. That's what I like about it.

VegesaurusRex

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.

Wow, way to misconstrue. My reason as to why I did not put much faith in the conclusions from the study was that correlation <> causation. I said that this is common sense, and I believe it is. One doesn't need to be a statistician to know that correlations can be found just about anywhere, especially if you are looking.

Okay, if I misunderstood, what PRECISELY were you objecting to in the Campbell study. I have the book right here so if you want to cite page numbers, that would be fine.

I've given you all the specifics you need. He found correlations, that's not sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. By all means investigate those correlations further using better tools like randomized, controlled studies. Don't expect me to believe his personal conclusions based just on those correlations.

I guess I am asking you WHAT correlations you are referring to. Clearly there was a correlation found in several parts of China between the percentage of plants in the population's diet, and the health benefits in terms of chronic disease. The population was large and was followed for ten years. What exactly are you saying that Campbell missed?

Any number of confounding variables. Nutrient density in the soil that those plants were grown in, the fact that those that ate more plants may also have had other lifestyle habits that are protective. He also correlated animal protein consumption with cholesterol levels and claimed this increased risk of heart disease. Why not correlate with actual incidents of CHD?

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?

_VoV

I apologise if I sound like I am criticising the concept of palaeo eating. I think it is a far more honest way to eat than the majority of people who just want food that looks like it came from a packet.

I just think from what I have seen of it in practice, it seems to be based on a very narrow and not necessarily accurate picture of a specific period of history, and not on actual biology. But still way better than thinking McDonalds is food, for sure.

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!

_Timmeh_

Ultimately this thread has little to do with continuing the scientific debate around meat consumption that started in the other thread. It's about the persecution complex that many vegetarians suffer from. I sympathize with them, it's tough to go against social norms. I experience the same push back when I tell people I eat Paleo/Primal, people often look at me in horror and tell me I'm going to die of a heart attack, they often clutch their chests too. Very dramatic.

I have nothing against vegetarians, I never said anything negative about them, I respect your choices even if I don't agree with them.

Actually, huge efforts were made to continue that debate. That's actually what I found interesting on the other thread, but thought that was the wrong venue. But, some people complained about the big words. Others posted pictures of bloody meat on a plate. That was not what this thread was created for. Bring on the debate...

Yes debate, not make it personal and discredit someone for their accomplishments.