Veggies vs Meat

savage22hp

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 .

_VoV

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 .

Okay

tidmutt

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.

VegesaurusRex

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.

_VoV

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.

VegesaurusRex

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.

tidmutt

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.

tidmutt

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

fteale

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.

tidmutt

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.

VegesaurusRex

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.

Okay, but was your choice informed by a study? Remember you are criticizing a fairly sophisticated study, because it doesn't cover all possibilities and it may have only SEEMED like there was causality between eating veggies and lowering your risk of certain diseases. Yet, you are saying you chose a diet based upon what you read. What was more convincing about what you read than the China study? Are you using the same standard in promoting a diet for yourself as you are in discounting the China Study? If not, why? The China study may not be deductive reasoning, but it is damn convincing, and people who follow its advice generally feel they are benefiting.

pucenavel

I rest my case.

How can you eat meat that is that OVERCOOKED!! If it's not still cold in the middle, it's not worth eating.

maryjay51

uponthisrock knows what he is talkin' about ...add some sauteed mushrooms and onions to that please

2Bgoddess

Pardon the bump for later perusal

Elizabeth_C34

One word to rule them all: BACON

tidmutt

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.

Primal/Paleo diets attempt to reconstruct the nutritional profile of a human diet prior to agriculture.

It's a difficult area to study, the tools don't give us exact results and it's probably not exactly a priority in terms of funding. Modern hunter gathers are sometimes used as a proxy but that has it's issues as well of course. I've seen stable isotope studies for example looking at the mineral composition of bone suggesting high protein intake.

Here is one:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440399905204

There are others. It's obviously not conclusive but then neither is support for a vegetarian diet based on paleolithic evidence.

One debate is how much our genome could have adapted since we were able to harvest grain in large quantities (10,000 years or so I believe). If you believe we have evolved sufficiently to consume the large amounts of grain we now consume then the Paleo diet is null and void. Of course, it's complicated by the fact that we eat grain that has been cross bread, genetically modified and highly refined in many cases and that has happened more recently.

VegesaurusRex

I rest my case.

How can you eat meat that is that OVERCOOKED!! If it's not still cold in the middle, it's not worth eating.

You know you can actually score more points by using words, not provocative photos. Try expressing yourself with language if you can. What exactly do you think you are accomplishing putting up a photo of a stake? Seriously.

Elizabeth_C34

I rest my case.

How can you eat meat that is that OVERCOOKED!! If it's not still cold in the middle, it's not worth eating.

You know you can actually score more points by using words, not provocative photos. Try expressing yourself with language if you can. What exactly do you think you are accomplishing putting up a photo of a stake? Seriously.

Stake:



Steak:

VegesaurusRex

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.

Primal/Paleo diets attempt to reconstruct the nutritional profile of a human diet prior to agriculture.

It's a difficult area to study, the tools don't give us exact results and it's probably not exactly a priority in terms of funding. Modern hunter gathers are sometimes used as a proxy but that has it's issues as well of course. I've seen stable isotope studies for example looking at the mineral composition of bone suggesting high protein intake.

Here is one:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440399905204

There are others. It's obviously not conclusive but then neither is support for a vegetarian diet based on paleolithic evidence.

One debate is how much our genome could have adapted since we were able to harvest grain in large quantities (10,000 years or so I believe). If you believe we have evolved sufficiently to consume the large amounts of grain we now consume then the Paleo diet is null and void. Of course, it's complicated by the fact that we eat grain that has been cross bread, genetically modified and highly refined in many cases and that has happened more recently.

And I frankly doubt you have any prospective longitudinal studies of that time period, as you do for the modern China Study. May I suggest that even if you have a few dozen studies relying upon analysis of what certain individuals consumed during your selected period, you are relying upon anecdotal inferences, and that certainly has far less value, in my opinion than a longitudinal study of a huge population followed for years. Also, if you know your paleoanthropology, you know that in the period 10000 to 6000 BCE, agriculture developed, at least in Mesopotamia. But then, you could say agriculture developed with Horticulturalists who preceded this period. You have to go back to the Hunter Gatherers.

VegesaurusRex

I rest my case.

How can you eat meat that is that OVERCOOKED!! If it's not still cold in the middle, it's not worth eating.

You know you can actually score more points by using words, not provocative photos. Try expressing yourself with language if you can. What exactly do you think you are accomplishing putting up a photo of a stake? Seriously.

Stake:



Steak:

Okay, I said Stake instead of Steak. Both will stop your heart from beating.