Veggies vs Meat

_VoV

Yes. I'm taking Saskatoon off my travel plans, and putting vegan-friendly Portland, Oregon on.

I notice many meat-loving posters here added to the thread by simply adding pictures of meat or comments which translate to: 'I like the taste of meat' and be damned the health or ethical aspects of that. This, to me, is the most honest response, but of course, I would hope that at some point in their lives, they turn this idea around to see all sides of it with some depth. May or may not happen. I get that.

I love these conversations. I have never seen a person swayed one way or another. Mostly people want proof to support their own beliefs.

I am unable to give up bacon. The argument ends there.

And vegetarians are here because they are fun to poke fun at.

The day I went vegetarian was like a light switch. I went from eating meat to being vegetarian overnight. But that first day my mother cooked bacon and I recall thinking 'Maybe I'll be a vegetarian, except for bacon.' Then I thought better of it. Trust me, many vegetarians don't avoid meat because they dislike the taste. It's an ethic for me, and absolutely non-negotiable.

_binary_jester_

Yes. I'm taking Saskatoon off my travel plans, and putting vegan-friendly Portland, Oregon on.

I notice many meat-loving posters here added to the thread by simply adding pictures of meat or comments which translate to: 'I like the taste of meat' and be damned the health or ethical aspects of that. This, to me, is the most honest response, but of course, I would hope that at some point in their lives, they turn this idea around to see all sides of it with some depth. May or may not happen. I get that.

I love these conversations. I have never seen a person swayed one way or another. Mostly people want proof to support their own beliefs.

I am unable to give up bacon. The argument ends there.

And vegetarians are here because they are fun to poke fun at.

The day I went vegetarian was like a light switch. I went from eating meat to being vegetarian overnight. But that first day my mother cooked bacon and I recall thinking 'Maybe I'll be a vegetarian, except for bacon.' Then I thought better of it. Trust me, many vegetarians don't avoid meat because they dislike the taste. It's an ethic for me, and absolutely non-negotiable.

I understand. I'd feel better if they off the oinkers with pillows, but that's not enough of a reason (for me strictly) to stop eating bacon.
I just hope people make an informed decision, which is rarely the case. And whether you eat meat, veggies, moss or the green stuff that grows on my bread, as long as you are happy, you should not be judged.

rybo

This topic makes the "muscle weighs more than fat" debate actually look interesting.

_binary_jester_

This topic makes the "muscle weighs more than fat" debate actually look interesting.

My muscle weighs more than your muscle.

KimmieBrie

Yes. I'm taking Saskatoon off my travel plans, and putting vegan-friendly Portland, Oregon on.

I notice many meat-loving posters here added to the thread by simply adding pictures of meat or comments which translate to: 'I like the taste of meat' and be damned the health or ethical aspects of that. This, to me, is the most honest response, but of course, I would hope that at some point in their lives, they turn this idea around to see all sides of it with some depth. May or may not happen. I get that.

I love these conversations. I have never seen a person swayed one way or another. Mostly people want proof to support their own beliefs.

I am unable to give up bacon. The argument ends there.

And vegetarians are here because they are fun to poke fun at.

The day I went vegetarian was like a light switch. I went from eating meat to being vegetarian overnight. But that first day my mother cooked bacon and I recall thinking 'Maybe I'll be a vegetarian, except for bacon.' Then I thought better of it. Trust me, many vegetarians don't avoid meat because they dislike the taste. It's an ethic for me, and absolutely non-negotiable.

I commend anyone with ethics these days. Doing the right thing isn't always easy. What I dislike is someone preaching to me how their diet is superior, and I should change. Just like I have no respect for the Jehova's who knocked on my door and wouldn't leave after I clearly said I was Catholic and not interested - not all Jehova's - Those specifically who would not leave my premise until I had to slam the door in their face. Respect me and I'll respect you. I respect all vegetarians/vegans. That is your choice and I have mine. I never tell anyone they should eat meat or otherwise. My grandma lived till 91 eating meat and all sorts of things... cancer free... happy healthy life till the end. I wish that for everyone. Debates are interesting. Taking a superior attitude is a turn off. I am not saying that's what you specifically are doing, but some do, and it's not an attractive quality.

MeganElixabethh

can i just say, that picture of a steak someone put up that was barely cooked made me feel a little ill...

Bentley2718

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."

Can you put that into plain simple English for us normal people?

Actually, if you want to pretend to get fancy, we can go there. A correlation is just an OLS regression with two variables (neither of which is denoted as a dependent variable. A regression does specify and independent and dependent variable, but that's really at the user's discretion, especially when there are only two variables. Putting something in a regression equation as a dependent variable in no way means that it is caused by the independent variable, only that the analyst thinks that it is (hopefully with good rationale). If you regress x on y, you can standardize to get the correlation coefficient, or, you can take the square root of the r-squared from the regression. There are a large number of applications for which I would not be particularly inclined to use either technique.

As for not letting correlations rule your life, I'll take reasonable evidence, based on research, even correlational research, over "common sense." Also, there is a fair amount of research in nutrition that uses true experiments, which provide much better evidence for causation than research that is purely correlational in nature.

Bentley2718

Some things cause other things to happen, and some things are either caused by the same thing, or just happen to look like they are related. For example, studies show that Finns who learn to speak other Nordic neighbors have 25% fewer illnesses than those who do not learn other Nordic languages. Can we therefore conclude that learning Swedish will help you stay healthy? Probably not. Most likely this is a correlation not a causation. Perhaps those Finns who learned Swedish were wealthier and better educated, and THAT was the reason why they avoided illnesses, i.e., they took more intelligent care of themselves.

One would expect a correlation to exist where there is causation. The whole correlation vs. causation issue is that you cannot claim causation based on correlation alone. Now I'm going to run away from this thread before I end up typing out lectures I already have to give in my real life.

spicy618

Has anyone noticed this thread has a negative number of posts... lol. First it was -89, now its -77. Just an observation, carry on. :flowerforyou:

_binary_jester_

Has anyone noticed this thread has a negative number of posts... lol. First it was -89, now its -77. Just an observation, carry on. :flowerforyou:

When it reaches 0, I have to eat a salad and a vegetarian has to eat a steak.

Bentley2718

Actually, I performed multivariate regression analysis on numerous occasions while at university, but I suppose that's not relevant.

Multiple regression, or multivariate regression? The difference is the number of dependent variables. Yes, I'm just being a troll now.

I'm not saying the correlations are not there, I'm sure his resident statistician did his job very well. However, that doesn't change the fact that although for example two variables may be correlated there may actually be another possible explanation for the observed correlation. I don't even know why we are discussing this to be honest, this is hardly controversial.
[\quote]
It's called a spurious correlation. Again, I'm being a troll.

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...
[\quote]
Actually, what the researcher is testing with most statistical analyses is the null hypothesis that no relationship exists. Having ruled out the null hypothesis, an alternative hypothesis can be tentatively accepted. That said, the general (non-statistical point) that in general, what researchers are trying to do is demonstrate that some things are unlikely is correct. The hypothetico-deductive method is really about ruling things out.

I'm done being a BIG OLD TROLL now.

UponThisRock

A good site to visit if you are confused by whether we are a carnivore species or a herbivore species:

http://www.peta.org/living/vegetarian-living/the-natural-human-diet.aspx

My favorite part is where they supported all their claims with evidence.

fteale

Yes. I'm taking Saskatoon off my travel plans, and putting vegan-friendly Portland, Oregon on.

I notice many meat-loving posters here added to the thread by simply adding pictures of meat or comments which translate to: 'I like the taste of meat' and be damned the health or ethical aspects of that. This, to me, is the most honest response, but of course, I would hope that at some point in their lives, they turn this idea around to see all sides of it with some depth. May or may not happen. I get that.

I love these conversations. I have never seen a person swayed one way or another. Mostly people want proof to support their own beliefs.

I am unable to give up bacon. The argument ends there.

And vegetarians are here because they are fun to poke fun at.

I have to say, these threads always make me really want to go the whole way and become a vegan. But I can't give up milk. I have tried, but I just can't.

VegesaurusRex

Yes. I'm taking Saskatoon off my travel plans, and putting vegan-friendly Portland, Oregon on.

I notice many meat-loving posters here added to the thread by simply adding pictures of meat or comments which translate to: 'I like the taste of meat' and be damned the health or ethical aspects of that. This, to me, is the most honest response, but of course, I would hope that at some point in their lives, they turn this idea around to see all sides of it with some depth. May or may not happen. I get that.

I love these conversations. I have never seen a person swayed one way or another. Mostly people want proof to support their own beliefs.

I am unable to give up bacon. The argument ends there.

And vegetarians are here because they are fun to poke fun at.

The day I went vegetarian was like a light switch. I went from eating meat to being vegetarian overnight. But that first day my mother cooked bacon and I recall thinking 'Maybe I'll be a vegetarian, except for bacon.' Then I thought better of it. Trust me, many vegetarians don't avoid meat because they dislike the taste. It's an ethic for me, and absolutely non-negotiable.

I commend anyone with ethics these days. Doing the right thing isn't always easy. What I dislike is someone preaching to me how their diet is superior, and I should change. Just like I have no respect for the Jehova's who knocked on my door and wouldn't leave after I clearly said I was Catholic and not interested - not all Jehova's - Those specifically who would not leave my premise until I had to slam the door in their face. Respect me and I'll respect you. I respect all vegetarians/vegans. That is your choice and I have mine. I never tell anyone they should eat meat or otherwise. My grandma lived till 91 eating meat and all sorts of things... cancer free... happy healthy life till the end. I wish that for everyone. Debates are interesting. Taking a superior attitude is a turn off. I am not saying that's what you specifically are doing, but some do, and it's not an attractive quality.

You know, one thing I have noticed on this board. Very few people here actually debate. Perhaps they don't know how to, or perhaps they never thought about their choices in intellectual terms. Only Mutt has talked about the substance of this debate. All the others attack the "superior attitude" of the posters, or post photographs obviously designed to be provocative, or attack someone for preaching or for "showing off" or "big words," or whatever. I honestly cannot remember seeing a situation like this since I was in grade school. Stop the ad hominem attacks, and the put down of people because of their "superior attitude." If you have a brain, use it. If you disagree with someone, state why. I really am starting to wonder if the majority of people in this country are even literate any more. Debating is much more than telling people they are not being nice, or you don't like the way they say things. Talk to the issue, not the person.

VegesaurusRex

Some things cause other things to happen, and some things are either caused by the same thing, or just happen to look like they are related. For example, studies show that Finns who learn to speak other Nordic neighbors have 25% fewer illnesses than those who do not learn other Nordic languages. Can we therefore conclude that learning Swedish will help you stay healthy? Probably not. Most likely this is a correlation not a causation. Perhaps those Finns who learned Swedish were wealthier and better educated, and THAT was the reason why they avoided illnesses, i.e., they took more intelligent care of themselves.

One would expect a correlation to exist where there is causation. The whole correlation vs. causation issue is that you cannot claim causation based on correlation alone. Now I'm going to run away from this thread before I end up typing out lectures I already have to give in my real life.

Millisant, God bless you!

Jovialation

I'm really not sure THIS is the place for controversial discussions either. I'm going to see where people who enjoy debates go.

Someone shoulda let that meat rest.

Elizabeth_C34

Yes. I'm taking Saskatoon off my travel plans, and putting vegan-friendly Portland, Oregon on.

I notice many meat-loving posters here added to the thread by simply adding pictures of meat or comments which translate to: 'I like the taste of meat' and be damned the health or ethical aspects of that. This, to me, is the most honest response, but of course, I would hope that at some point in their lives, they turn this idea around to see all sides of it with some depth. May or may not happen. I get that.

I love these conversations. I have never seen a person swayed one way or another. Mostly people want proof to support their own beliefs.

I am unable to give up bacon. The argument ends there.

And vegetarians are here because they are fun to poke fun at.

The day I went vegetarian was like a light switch. I went from eating meat to being vegetarian overnight. But that first day my mother cooked bacon and I recall thinking 'Maybe I'll be a vegetarian, except for bacon.' Then I thought better of it. Trust me, many vegetarians don't avoid meat because they dislike the taste. It's an ethic for me, and absolutely non-negotiable.

I commend anyone with ethics these days. Doing the right thing isn't always easy. What I dislike is someone preaching to me how their diet is superior, and I should change. Just like I have no respect for the Jehova's who knocked on my door and wouldn't leave after I clearly said I was Catholic and not interested - not all Jehova's - Those specifically who would not leave my premise until I had to slam the door in their face. Respect me and I'll respect you. I respect all vegetarians/vegans. That is your choice and I have mine. I never tell anyone they should eat meat or otherwise. My grandma lived till 91 eating meat and all sorts of things... cancer free... happy healthy life till the end. I wish that for everyone. Debates are interesting. Taking a superior attitude is a turn off. I am not saying that's what you specifically are doing, but some do, and it's not an attractive quality.

You know, one thing I have noticed on this board. Very few people here actually debate. Perhaps they don't know how to, or perhaps they never thought about their choices in intellectual terms. Only Mutt has talked about the substance of this debate. All the others attack the "superior attitude" of the posters, or post photographs obviously designed to be provocative, or attack someone for preaching or for "showing off" or "big words," or whatever. I honestly cannot remember seeing a situation like this since I was in grade school. Stop the ad hominem attacks, and the put down of people because of their "superior attitude." If you have a brain, use it. If you disagree with someone, state why. I really am starting to wonder if the majority of people in this country are even literate any more. Debating is much more than telling people they are not being nice, or you don't like the way they say things. Talk to the issue, not the person.

... or maybe we find this topic utterly boring since you and the other veges on here have no intention of ever changing your mind, and you have no hope of ever changing the non-veges either. I keep wondering what the heck your point is.

fteale

Yes. I'm taking Saskatoon off my travel plans, and putting vegan-friendly Portland, Oregon on.

I notice many meat-loving posters here added to the thread by simply adding pictures of meat or comments which translate to: 'I like the taste of meat' and be damned the health or ethical aspects of that. This, to me, is the most honest response, but of course, I would hope that at some point in their lives, they turn this idea around to see all sides of it with some depth. May or may not happen. I get that.

I love these conversations. I have never seen a person swayed one way or another. Mostly people want proof to support their own beliefs.

I am unable to give up bacon. The argument ends there.

And vegetarians are here because they are fun to poke fun at.

The day I went vegetarian was like a light switch. I went from eating meat to being vegetarian overnight. But that first day my mother cooked bacon and I recall thinking 'Maybe I'll be a vegetarian, except for bacon.' Then I thought better of it. Trust me, many vegetarians don't avoid meat because they dislike the taste. It's an ethic for me, and absolutely non-negotiable.

I commend anyone with ethics these days. Doing the right thing isn't always easy. What I dislike is someone preaching to me how their diet is superior, and I should change. Just like I have no respect for the Jehova's who knocked on my door and wouldn't leave after I clearly said I was Catholic and not interested - not all Jehova's - Those specifically who would not leave my premise until I had to slam the door in their face. Respect me and I'll respect you. I respect all vegetarians/vegans. That is your choice and I have mine. I never tell anyone they should eat meat or otherwise. My grandma lived till 91 eating meat and all sorts of things... cancer free... happy healthy life till the end. I wish that for everyone. Debates are interesting. Taking a superior attitude is a turn off. I am not saying that's what you specifically are doing, but some do, and it's not an attractive quality.

My grandmother lived to 91 after smoking for most of her life, drinking a bottle of whisky most nights and spending a good few years taking cocaine, but I don't think anyone would advocate those as part of a healthy life style!

VegesaurusRex

Yes. I'm taking Saskatoon off my travel plans, and putting vegan-friendly Portland, Oregon on.

I notice many meat-loving posters here added to the thread by simply adding pictures of meat or comments which translate to: 'I like the taste of meat' and be damned the health or ethical aspects of that. This, to me, is the most honest response, but of course, I would hope that at some point in their lives, they turn this idea around to see all sides of it with some depth. May or may not happen. I get that.

I love these conversations. I have never seen a person swayed one way or another. Mostly people want proof to support their own beliefs.

I am unable to give up bacon. The argument ends there.

And vegetarians are here because they are fun to poke fun at.

The day I went vegetarian was like a light switch. I went from eating meat to being vegetarian overnight. But that first day my mother cooked bacon and I recall thinking 'Maybe I'll be a vegetarian, except for bacon.' Then I thought better of it. Trust me, many vegetarians don't avoid meat because they dislike the taste. It's an ethic for me, and absolutely non-negotiable.

I commend anyone with ethics these days. Doing the right thing isn't always easy. What I dislike is someone preaching to me how their diet is superior, and I should change. Just like I have no respect for the Jehova's who knocked on my door and wouldn't leave after I clearly said I was Catholic and not interested - not all Jehova's - Those specifically who would not leave my premise until I had to slam the door in their face. Respect me and I'll respect you. I respect all vegetarians/vegans. That is your choice and I have mine. I never tell anyone they should eat meat or otherwise. My grandma lived till 91 eating meat and all sorts of things... cancer free... happy healthy life till the end. I wish that for everyone. Debates are interesting. Taking a superior attitude is a turn off. I am not saying that's what you specifically are doing, but some do, and it's not an attractive quality.

You know, one thing I have noticed on this board. Very few people here actually debate. Perhaps they don't know how to, or perhaps they never thought about their choices in intellectual terms. Only Mutt has talked about the substance of this debate. All the others attack the "superior attitude" of the posters, or post photographs obviously designed to be provocative, or attack someone for preaching or for "showing off" or "big words," or whatever. I honestly cannot remember seeing a situation like this since I was in grade school. Stop the ad hominem attacks, and the put down of people because of their "superior attitude." If you have a brain, use it. If you disagree with someone, state why. I really am starting to wonder if the majority of people in this country are even literate any more. Debating is much more than telling people they are not being nice, or you don't like the way they say things. Talk to the issue, not the person.

... or maybe we find this topic utterly boring since you and the other veges on here have no intention of ever changing your mind, and you have no hope of ever changing the non-veges either. I keep wondering what the heck your point is.

If it is so utterly boring why are you still here?

_VoV

@Elizabeth: No one is compelling you to come here. I always think when people say "Yawn. This is so boring. What's the point?" that they have some reason to stay, but may not yet have the full conscious awareness to know why it matters to them.

I don't know why you are here, if you find this topic boring and useless. Do you?

KimmieBrie

Yes. I'm taking Saskatoon off my travel plans, and putting vegan-friendly Portland, Oregon on.

I notice many meat-loving posters here added to the thread by simply adding pictures of meat or comments which translate to: 'I like the taste of meat' and be damned the health or ethical aspects of that. This, to me, is the most honest response, but of course, I would hope that at some point in their lives, they turn this idea around to see all sides of it with some depth. May or may not happen. I get that.

I love these conversations. I have never seen a person swayed one way or another. Mostly people want proof to support their own beliefs.

I am unable to give up bacon. The argument ends there.

And vegetarians are here because they are fun to poke fun at.

The day I went vegetarian was like a light switch. I went from eating meat to being vegetarian overnight. But that first day my mother cooked bacon and I recall thinking 'Maybe I'll be a vegetarian, except for bacon.' Then I thought better of it. Trust me, many vegetarians don't avoid meat because they dislike the taste. It's an ethic for me, and absolutely non-negotiable.

I commend anyone with ethics these days. Doing the right thing isn't always easy. What I dislike is someone preaching to me how their diet is superior, and I should change. Just like I have no respect for the Jehova's who knocked on my door and wouldn't leave after I clearly said I was Catholic and not interested - not all Jehova's - Those specifically who would not leave my premise until I had to slam the door in their face. Respect me and I'll respect you. I respect all vegetarians/vegans. That is your choice and I have mine. I never tell anyone they should eat meat or otherwise. My grandma lived till 91 eating meat and all sorts of things... cancer free... happy healthy life till the end. I wish that for everyone. Debates are interesting. Taking a superior attitude is a turn off. I am not saying that's what you specifically are doing, but some do, and it's not an attractive quality.

My grandmother lived to 91 after smoking for most of her life, drinking a bottle of whisky most nights and spending a good few years taking cocaine, but I don't think anyone would advocate those as part of a healthy life style!

Definitely not - and there it is - some people are seemingly lucky while others not so much. Lots of smokers get by unscathed while some who work out and maintain a "healthy" lifestyle get cancer - and I would never say smoking is healthy, it's obviously not and has been proven as such.... just look at a lung of a smoker VS not.

But you can not really narrow down cancer to red meat. The people eating red meat are eating other things as well. A hot dog and fries isn't equal to a lean sirloin and veggies. Unprocessed meats aren't the same as processed and what accompanies the "meat" has to be a factor as well. I'm not telling you to eat meat. That's your choice and I respect it.

tidmutt

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!

... Humans can't really be carnivores. The word implies that you only eat meat.

Look up the definition of carnivore;

A carnivore ( /ˈkɑrnɪvɔər/) meaning 'meat eater' (Latin, carne meaning 'flesh' and vorare meaning 'to devour') is an organism that derives its energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue,

Mainly or exclusively.

Are dogs classified as carnivores? They eat plants and grains too.

Dogs are only 10K years or so removed from wolves, wolves are carnivores. Everything I've read suggests dogs are carnivores, they are adaptable though to survive on an omnivorous diet fairly well.

tidmutt

@Tidmutt: You impress me as wanting hardcore scientific evidence for vegetarianism: prospective, controlled studies with an adequate 'N' to say once and for all whether a plant-based diet holds any health advantage over any other. That is, afterall, what sparked this discussion. It would only make sense to me that someone with such a sophisticated desire for evidence-based proof would apply the same standard to his own diet. I was expecting you would be citing all sorts of hardcore science to back up paleo. But, then you demured. What's up with that?

In part because I think this debate is centered around the China Study, not veggies vs meat as the thread title claims. Personally I didn't really set out to have a long running debate about various macro nutrient ratios, I was more interested in the debate around the China Study and the impact of assuming correlation implies causality.

Saying that, I've actually included references to quite a few published papers supporting my desire to follow a Primal diet. VeggieRexius and yourself have just kept quoting the China Study. I didn't say anything because honestly I didn't want to get into a Primal vs Veggie diet.

tidmutt

A good site to visit if you are confused by whether we are a carnivore species or a herbivore species:

http://www.peta.org/living/vegetarian-living/the-natural-human-diet.aspx

Okay, out of respect, I viewed the page. Seriously though, a page claiming evidence for why we shouldn't eat animal flesh on the PETA website... errr... really? I see no citations as well. Looks like an opinion piece to me.

tidmutt

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."

Can you put that into plain simple English for us normal people?

Actually, if you want to pretend to get fancy, we can go there. A correlation is just an OLS regression with two variables (neither of which is denoted as a dependent variable. A regression does specify and independent and dependent variable, but that's really at the user's discretion, especially when there are only two variables. Putting something in a regression equation as a dependent variable in no way means that it is caused by the independent variable, only that the analyst thinks that it is (hopefully with good rationale). If you regress x on y, you can standardize to get the correlation coefficient, or, you can take the square root of the r-squared from the regression. There are a large number of applications for which I would not be particularly inclined to use either technique.

As for not letting correlations rule your life, I'll take reasonable evidence, based on research, even correlational research, over "common sense." Also, there is a fair amount of research in nutrition that uses true experiments, which provide much better evidence for causation than research that is purely correlational in nature.

Of course, science is riddled with examples of things that are common sense that are simply not true. In fact, Quantum Physics completely defies common sense. Point is correlations are useful (and more useful than common sense) but not to assume causality, you need to do more work to prove your hypothesis based on the observed correlation is true.

tidmutt

One would expect a correlation to exist where there is causation. The whole correlation vs. causation issue is that you cannot claim causation based on correlation alone. Now I'm going to run away from this thread before I end up typing out lectures I already have to give in my real life.

Millisant, God bless you!

Right, but you've stated it in the reverse of what The China Study and other similar studies do. You are saying that when there is causation, you would expect correlation, the China Study didn't find causation, it found correlations. A correlation may or may not imply causation but the lack of correlation suggests there is no causation.

VegesaurusRex

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."

Can you put that into plain simple English for us normal people?

Actually, if you want to pretend to get fancy, we can go there. A correlation is just an OLS regression with two variables (neither of which is denoted as a dependent variable. A regression does specify and independent and dependent variable, but that's really at the user's discretion, especially when there are only two variables. Putting something in a regression equation as a dependent variable in no way means that it is caused by the independent variable, only that the analyst thinks that it is (hopefully with good rationale). If you regress x on y, you can standardize to get the correlation coefficient, or, you can take the square root of the r-squared from the regression. There are a large number of applications for which I would not be particularly inclined to use either technique.

As for not letting correlations rule your life, I'll take reasonable evidence, based on research, even correlational research, over "common sense." Also, there is a fair amount of research in nutrition that uses true experiments, which provide much better evidence for causation than research that is purely correlational in nature.

Of course, science is riddled with examples of things that are common sense that are simply not true. In fact, Quantum Physics completely defies common sense. Point is correlations are useful (and more useful than common sense) but not to assume causality, you need to do more work to prove your hypothesis based on the observed correlation is true.

Mutt, take a good look at what Millicent said. She obviously knows more about statistics than both of us put together. She certainly cleared up a few things for me, particularly when she said, " A correlation is just an OLS regression with two variables (neither of which is denoted as a dependent variable. A regression does specify an independent and dependent variable, but that's really at the user's discretion, especially when there are only two variables. Putting something in a regression equation as a dependent variable in no way means that it is caused by the independent variable, only that the analyst thinks that it is (hopefully with good rationale). " That is a beautiful, clear explanation. In my version of statistics, I always felt that all seemingly possible independent variables had to be considered before causation could be assumed. That is, you had to show lack of correlation for all other possible explanations. Of course there are always an infinite number of other possible explanations. She is saying, if I understand her correctly, that if you have a reasonable explanation of causality and the data confirms it, you probably have causality. Millicent, if you are hovering around out there please correct me if I am wrong.

Thus, if my understanding of what Millicent said is correct. Case closed. Unless you can come up with a reasonable variable that was not considered we have causation, or more precisely, probable causation. However, I would also note that she said that a controlled experiment is always preferable. Of course I agree, but that is not always possible.

fteale

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!

... Humans can't really be carnivores. The word implies that you only eat meat.

Look up the definition of carnivore;

A carnivore ( /ˈkɑrnɪvɔər/) meaning 'meat eater' (Latin, carne meaning 'flesh' and vorare meaning 'to devour') is an organism that derives its energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue,

Mainly or exclusively.

Are dogs classified as carnivores? They eat plants and grains too.

Dogs are only 10K years or so removed from wolves, wolves are carnivores. Everything I've read suggests dogs are carnivores, they are adaptable though to survive on an omnivorous diet fairly well.

And everything I have read suggests we humans are herbivores that have adapted to live on an omnivorous diet.

Jovialation

EVERYONE READ ARTICLES TO SUPPORT YOUR OPINION AND COME BACK AND PRESENT IT TO US AS FACT.

Thank you.

Elizabeth_C34

@Elizabeth: No one is compelling you to come here. I always think when people say "Yawn. This is so boring. What's the point?" that they have some reason to stay, but may not yet have the full conscious awareness to know why it matters to them.

I don't know why you are here, if you find this topic boring and useless. Do you?

I love how you and VegesaurusRex seem to accuse everyone who finds this topic boring and states so of being somehow incapable of debate. Nice way to make a big fat false generalization. My comment about this thread having no point was in response to VegesaurusRex's comment about people on MFP being seemingly incapable of debating, which comes across, at the very least, to be pompous, arrogant, and rude. It's kind of like saying, "I'm so intelligent that those of you who disagree with me or find me boring must just not be smart enough to understand me."

By the way, I hold a B.S. in applied mathematics from one of the top universities in the world, and I graduated summa cum laude (3.98 GPA). I'm also currently doing a Ph.D. in applied fisheries management and modeling at the #2 school for marine biology in the world, so the arguments about statistics, biology, and biochemistry I fully understand probably better than most. I am fully capable of a qualified and scientific debate, but this thread has absolutely no point. It's just people dribbling on ad nauseum about correlation and causation, two topics which VegesaurusRex clearly knows very little about despite lecturing the rest of us on it and ignoring anyone who brings up a point counter to his/her own personal opinion.

As someone who has no problem eating meat, I fully respect the right of anyone to choose how they eat, but do not appreciate being belittled, looked down upon, or made to feel cruel or heartless about my choice just the same as you and the other vegan/vegetarians who choose not to eat meat for ethical reasons do not wish to be belittled or made to feel like an outcast.

With that, I am done here.