Meat eating vs. Vegan debate
Options
Replies
-
But they do get colorectal cancer? That's all I was saying.........please!Really? So colorectal cancer was found in this study to be higher in vegetarians? Interesting. Selecting samples is so difficult though, because you don't know their food history and what else they may be eating / not eating that may be causing these problems.
I know, sampling for something like this is tough. I'm sure there are counter studies. I always read through the sources of the study before I deem it totally accurate.
N=63,000+ and they corrected for things like age, sex, and smoking. Pretty valid overall I'd say.
The reason I posted this though was to refute the statement that vegetarians rarely got colorectal cancer, they were virtually immune.
Here's the link:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/5/1620S.full
Just a quick scan of your study and I think I found out why they came to the conclusion they did. Your study was controlled for things like smoking, for example. Now how many vegetarians do you think smoke? I've never met one. Yet your study probably eliminated meat eating smokers. Similarly, your study probably eliminated overweight chronically ill people as well. So what you were in effect doing was comparing virtually ALL Vegetyarians to some meat-eaters. Yes, I am sure there were some overweight and ill vegetarians, but probably not many. I would guess among the meat eating population, the unhealthy were to a large extent eliminated from the study do to correcting for "lifestyle." In effect, vegetarians do have a healthier lifestyle. Although I do believe in controlled studies, I think in this case it resulted in an unbalanced study. They were in effect controling for things vegetarians rarely do.
The main point I was making is that vegetarians do get colorectal cancer despite was was said earlier.
They controlled for age and sex. I think vegetarians falls into both those categories?
And btw I do know vegetarians that smoke.
Okay, I urge you to listen to this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2699384/ Cancer Incidence in British Vegetarians, which I believe was the same study you referred to. The person introducing the study explains several thingsL
1. The study was admittedly unfair to vegetarians because it eliminated all INDIRECT benefits of vegetariansim
2. Even so VEGETARIANS HAD A LOWER INCIDENCE OF CANCER THAN MEAT EATERS. Total cancer incidence was significantly lower among vegetarians than meat eaters. THIS STUDY found no difference in colorecatal cancer, but clearly most other studies have.
Please go to this link.0 -
Really? So colorectal cancer was found in this study to be higher in vegetarians? Interesting. Selecting samples is so difficult though, because you don't know their food history and what else they may be eating / not eating that may be causing these problems.
I know, sampling for something like this is tough. I'm sure there are counter studies. I always read through the sources of the study before I deem it totally accurate.
N=63,000+ and they corrected for things like age, sex, and smoking. Pretty valid overall I'd say.
The reason I posted this though was to refute the statement that vegetarians rarely got colorectal cancer, they were virtually immune.
Here's the link:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/5/1620S.full
Just a quick scan of your study and I think I found out why they came to the conclusion they did. Your study was controlled for things like smoking, for example. Now how many vegetarians do you think smoke? I've never met one. Yet your study probably eliminated meat eating smokers. Similarly, your study probably eliminated overweight chronically ill people as well. So what you were in effect doing was comparing virtually ALL Vegetyarians to some meat-eaters. Yes, I am sure there were some overweight and ill vegetarians, but probably not many. I would guess among the meat eating population, the unhealthy were to a large extent eliminated from the study do to correcting for "lifestyle." In effect, vegetarians do have a healthier lifestyle. Although I do believe in controlled studies, I think in this case it resulted in an unbalanced study. They were in effect controling for things vegetarians rarely do.
The main point I was making is that vegetarians do get colorectal cancer despite was was said earlier.
They controlled for age and sex. I think vegetarians falls into both those categories?
Agreed. The previous argument was that 'vegetarians are immune to cancers'. clearly they're not if vegetarians have been found to have it. HOWEVER, we don't know how long they were vegetarian for.
Of course any study is open to criticism, and the paper I posted like any good study does discuss potential flaws in its methodology. It's hard to control all variables and stay within ethical boundaries.
The China study which has been referred to in this thread also has had many criticism for its methodology and analysis. If you're interested, here's one link
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/
will definitely read this later. need to know what this study is all about.0 -
I'm not VegesaurusRex, but I agree with you: vegetarians can get cancer, just the same as meat-eaters do. But whether the incidence, severity and mortality rates are the same would be an interesting and useful thing to know in comparing the groups.0
-
Really? So colorectal cancer was found in this study to be higher in vegetarians? Interesting. Selecting samples is so difficult though, because you don't know their food history and what else they may be eating / not eating that may be causing these problems.
I know, sampling for something like this is tough. I'm sure there are counter studies. I always read through the sources of the study before I deem it totally accurate.
N=63,000+ and they corrected for things like age, sex, and smoking. Pretty valid overall I'd say.
The reason I posted this though was to refute the statement that vegetarians rarely got colorectal cancer, they were virtually immune.
Here's the link:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/5/1620S.full
Just a quick scan of your study and I think I found out why they came to the conclusion they did. Your study was controlled for things like smoking, for example. Now how many vegetarians do you think smoke? I've never met one. Yet your study probably eliminated meat eating smokers. Similarly, your study probably eliminated overweight chronically ill people as well. So what you were in effect doing was comparing virtually ALL Vegetyarians to some meat-eaters. Yes, I am sure there were some overweight and ill vegetarians, but probably not many. I would guess among the meat eating population, the unhealthy were to a large extent eliminated from the study do to correcting for "lifestyle." In effect, vegetarians do have a healthier lifestyle. Although I do believe in controlled studies, I think in this case it resulted in an unbalanced study. They were in effect controling for things vegetarians rarely do.
The main point I was making is that vegetarians do get colorectal cancer despite was was said earlier.
They controlled for age and sex. I think vegetarians falls into both those categories?
Agreed. The previous argument was that 'vegetarians are immune to cancers'. clearly they're not if vegetarians have been found to have it. HOWEVER, we don't know how long they were vegetarian for.
Of course any study is open to criticism, and the paper I posted like any good study does discuss potential flaws in its methodology. It's hard to control all variables and stay within ethical boundaries.
The China study which has been referred to in this thread also has had many criticism for its methodology and analysis. If you're interested, here's one link
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/
To give you an example of how bad some studies are, one study found that vegetarianism was correlated with a high incidence of death from cancer. That's right. However, the study was conducted in a hospital, and those in the study had all been diagnosed with cancer. It was AFTER the cancer diagnosis that the population studied became vegetarian. Guess what? Becoming vegetarian after you get cancer doesn't save your life.
As for your comments on the China study, all studies have been criticized for something. No study can control for every possible factor. Sorry, it is not humanly possible. No study can even know what all the relevant factors are, they are all just a guess. You can usually tell what stuies are right by seeing hundreds of studies over time all saying roughly the same thing.0 -
But they do get colorectal cancer? That's all I was saying.........please!Really? So colorectal cancer was found in this study to be higher in vegetarians? Interesting. Selecting samples is so difficult though, because you don't know their food history and what else they may be eating / not eating that may be causing these problems.
I know, sampling for something like this is tough. I'm sure there are counter studies. I always read through the sources of the study before I deem it totally accurate.
N=63,000+ and they corrected for things like age, sex, and smoking. Pretty valid overall I'd say.
The reason I posted this though was to refute the statement that vegetarians rarely got colorectal cancer, they were virtually immune.
Here's the link:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/5/1620S.full
Just a quick scan of your study and I think I found out why they came to the conclusion they did. Your study was controlled for things like smoking, for example. Now how many vegetarians do you think smoke? I've never met one. Yet your study probably eliminated meat eating smokers. Similarly, your study probably eliminated overweight chronically ill people as well. So what you were in effect doing was comparing virtually ALL Vegetyarians to some meat-eaters. Yes, I am sure there were some overweight and ill vegetarians, but probably not many. I would guess among the meat eating population, the unhealthy were to a large extent eliminated from the study do to correcting for "lifestyle." In effect, vegetarians do have a healthier lifestyle. Although I do believe in controlled studies, I think in this case it resulted in an unbalanced study. They were in effect controling for things vegetarians rarely do.
The main point I was making is that vegetarians do get colorectal cancer despite was was said earlier.
They controlled for age and sex. I think vegetarians falls into both those categories?
And btw I do know vegetarians that smoke.
Okay, I urge you to listen to this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2699384/ Cancer Incidence in British Vegetarians, which I believe was the same study you referred to. The person introducing the study explains several thingsL
1. The study was admittedly unfair to vegetarians because it eliminated all INDIRECT benefits of vegetariansim
2. Even so VEGETARIANS HAD A LOWER INCIDENCE OF CANCER THAN MEAT EATERS. Total cancer incidence was significantly lower among vegetarians than meat eaters. THIS STUDY found no difference in colorecatal cancer, but clearly most other studies have.
Please go to this link.
The problem with most of these sorts of studies is that they tend to be overly focused and fail to account for other lifestyle factors. A comprehensive study of all lifestyle factors including activity levels, fitness, occupation, etc would be far more informative but very difficult to pull off. The sheer amount of data would be massive.
Failing such a comprehensive study, these focused studies are little more than anecdotal.0 -
But they do get colorectal cancer? That's all I was saying.........please!Really? So colorectal cancer was found in this study to be higher in vegetarians? Interesting. Selecting samples is so difficult though, because you don't know their food history and what else they may be eating / not eating that may be causing these problems.
I know, sampling for something like this is tough. I'm sure there are counter studies. I always read through the sources of the study before I deem it totally accurate.
N=63,000+ and they corrected for things like age, sex, and smoking. Pretty valid overall I'd say.
The reason I posted this though was to refute the statement that vegetarians rarely got colorectal cancer, they were virtually immune.
Here's the link:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/5/1620S.full
Just a quick scan of your study and I think I found out why they came to the conclusion they did. Your study was controlled for things like smoking, for example. Now how many vegetarians do you think smoke? I've never met one. Yet your study probably eliminated meat eating smokers. Similarly, your study probably eliminated overweight chronically ill people as well. So what you were in effect doing was comparing virtually ALL Vegetyarians to some meat-eaters. Yes, I am sure there were some overweight and ill vegetarians, but probably not many. I would guess among the meat eating population, the unhealthy were to a large extent eliminated from the study do to correcting for "lifestyle." In effect, vegetarians do have a healthier lifestyle. Although I do believe in controlled studies, I think in this case it resulted in an unbalanced study. They were in effect controling for things vegetarians rarely do.
The main point I was making is that vegetarians do get colorectal cancer despite was was said earlier.
They controlled for age and sex. I think vegetarians falls into both those categories?
And btw I do know vegetarians that smoke.
Okay, I urge you to listen to this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2699384/ Cancer Incidence in British Vegetarians, which I believe was the same study you referred to. The person introducing the study explains several thingsL
1. The study was admittedly unfair to vegetarians because it eliminated all INDIRECT benefits of vegetariansim
2. Even so VEGETARIANS HAD A LOWER INCIDENCE OF CANCER THAN MEAT EATERS. Total cancer incidence was significantly lower among vegetarians than meat eaters. THIS STUDY found no difference in colorecatal cancer, but clearly most other studies have.
Please go to this link.
The problem with most of these sorts of studies is that they tend to be overly focused and fail to account for other lifestyle factors. A comprehensive study of all lifestyle factors including activity levels, fitness, occupation, etc would be far more informative but very difficult to pull off. The sheer amount of data would be massive.
Failing such a comprehensive study, these focused studies are little more than anecdotal.
Look, all studies are flawed because they cannot control for everything. That does not mean they are worthless. The study I referred you to above has controlled for about as much as it is possible to control for. The author even said that it is unfair to vegetarians because it contols for all INDIRECT benefits of vegetarianism. Yet, nonetheless, it STILL found vegetarians had less cancer than meat eaters.0 -
Really? So colorectal cancer was found in this study to be higher in vegetarians? Interesting. Selecting samples is so difficult though, because you don't know their food history and what else they may be eating / not eating that may be causing these problems.
I know, sampling for something like this is tough. I'm sure there are counter studies. I always read through the sources of the study before I deem it totally accurate.
To give you an example of how bad some studies are, one study found that vegetarianism was correlated with a high incidence of death from cancer. That's right. However, the study was conducted in a hospital, and those in the study had all been diagnosed with cancer. It was AFTER the cancer diagnosis that the population studied became vegetarian. Guess what? Becoming vegetarian after you get cancer doesn't save your life.
As for your comments on the China study, all studies have been criticized for something. No study can control for every possible factor. Sorry, it is not humanly possible. No study can even know what all the relevant factors are, they are all just a guess. You can usually tell what stuies are right by seeing hundreds of studies over time all saying roughly the same thing.
I'm saying for the last time, I was merely pointing out that vegetarians do get colorectal cancer.
And I agree no study can control for everything, but interesting that you want to blow off one study and not the other.
Have a good evening.
0 -
Really? So colorectal cancer was found in this study to be higher in vegetarians? Interesting. Selecting samples is so difficult though, because you don't know their food history and what else they may be eating / not eating that may be causing these problems.
I know, sampling for something like this is tough. I'm sure there are counter studies. I always read through the sources of the study before I deem it totally accurate.
To give you an example of how bad some studies are, one study found that vegetarianism was correlated with a high incidence of death from cancer. That's right. However, the study was conducted in a hospital, and those in the study had all been diagnosed with cancer. It was AFTER the cancer diagnosis that the population studied became vegetarian. Guess what? Becoming vegetarian after you get cancer doesn't save your life.
As for your comments on the China study, all studies have been criticized for something. No study can control for every possible factor. Sorry, it is not humanly possible. No study can even know what all the relevant factors are, they are all just a guess. You can usually tell what stuies are right by seeing hundreds of studies over time all saying roughly the same thing.
I'm saying for the last time, I was merely pointing out that vegetarians do get colorectal cancer.
And I agree no study can control for everything, but interesting that you want to blow off one study and not the other.
Have a good evening.
I am blowing off a study that the author to the study himself admitted was unfair to vegetarians since it controlled out all the indirect benefits of vegetarianism. I think the author's comment and the study itself proves more than some of the studies that I cited that vegetarians have less cancer than meat eaters. The China study found virtually NO colon cancer among the vegetarian population which was huge. Yes that was an older study, but more recent studies confirm it as does your study.
Have a good evening yourself. Cheers.0 -
So wasteful, ugh. People like you are serial killers.Anyway, what I was going to ask before my topic got locked was 'What is the vegan stance on killing insects?' Either through phobia or pesticides and insecticides used on massive farms.
I know people who get really upset if you squish a bug. Sometimes if a bug is on me I freak and squish, but I don't eat it afterwards.
Or something.
Better than being a cereal killer
I was a cereal killer this morning. Felt good.
Milkless? or *Gasp* did you cereal kill AND utter rape?0 -
I'm going to have to try and find some studies to see if there are any real health benefits to eating meat that you can't get from a vegan diet. Vast majority of evidence points to vegetarian / vegan being overall better for your health. I find it disturbing that if there are so many health risks, or possible health risks that come with eating meat, that they're not taken more seriously. Then again, there are considerable health risks to eating a lot of the junk food part of our daily diets. I think that people should be educated from a young age about food.0
-
So wasteful, ugh. People like you are serial killers.Anyway, what I was going to ask before my topic got locked was 'What is the vegan stance on killing insects?' Either through phobia or pesticides and insecticides used on massive farms.
I know people who get really upset if you squish a bug. Sometimes if a bug is on me I freak and squish, but I don't eat it afterwards.
Or something.
Better than being a cereal killer
I was a cereal killer this morning. Felt good.
Milkless? or *Gasp* did you cereal kill AND utter rape?
I have almond milk. Does that count as almond rape?0 -
But they do get colorectal cancer? That's all I was saying.........please!Really? So colorectal cancer was found in this study to be higher in vegetarians? Interesting. Selecting samples is so difficult though, because you don't know their food history and what else they may be eating / not eating that may be causing these problems.
I know, sampling for something like this is tough. I'm sure there are counter studies. I always read through the sources of the study before I deem it totally accurate.
N=63,000+ and they corrected for things like age, sex, and smoking. Pretty valid overall I'd say.
The reason I posted this though was to refute the statement that vegetarians rarely got colorectal cancer, they were virtually immune.
Here's the link:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/5/1620S.full
Just a quick scan of your study and I think I found out why they came to the conclusion they did. Your study was controlled for things like smoking, for example. Now how many vegetarians do you think smoke? I've never met one. Yet your study probably eliminated meat eating smokers. Similarly, your study probably eliminated overweight chronically ill people as well. So what you were in effect doing was comparing virtually ALL Vegetyarians to some meat-eaters. Yes, I am sure there were some overweight and ill vegetarians, but probably not many. I would guess among the meat eating population, the unhealthy were to a large extent eliminated from the study do to correcting for "lifestyle." In effect, vegetarians do have a healthier lifestyle. Although I do believe in controlled studies, I think in this case it resulted in an unbalanced study. They were in effect controling for things vegetarians rarely do.
The main point I was making is that vegetarians do get colorectal cancer despite was was said earlier.
They controlled for age and sex. I think vegetarians falls into both those categories?
And btw I do know vegetarians that smoke.
Okay, I urge you to listen to this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2699384/ Cancer Incidence in British Vegetarians, which I believe was the same study you referred to. The person introducing the study explains several thingsL
1. The study was admittedly unfair to vegetarians because it eliminated all INDIRECT benefits of vegetariansim
2. Even so VEGETARIANS HAD A LOWER INCIDENCE OF CANCER THAN MEAT EATERS. Total cancer incidence was significantly lower among vegetarians than meat eaters. THIS STUDY found no difference in colorecatal cancer, but clearly most other studies have.
Please go to this link.
The problem with most of these sorts of studies is that they tend to be overly focused and fail to account for other lifestyle factors. A comprehensive study of all lifestyle factors including activity levels, fitness, occupation, etc would be far more informative but very difficult to pull off. The sheer amount of data would be massive.
Failing such a comprehensive study, these focused studies are little more than anecdotal.
Look, all studies are flawed because they cannot control for everything. That does not mean they are worthless. The study I referred you to above has controlled for about as much as it is possible to control for. The author even said that it is unfair to vegetarians because it contols for all INDIRECT benefits of vegetarianism. Yet, nonetheless, it STILL found vegetarians had less cancer than meat eaters.
Ah, my friend, I didn't say they are worthless, I said they are little better than anecdotal. It's possible that the study simply indicates that many people don't eat enough vegetables, not that meat causes cancer. There are many possible conclusions one may draw from this study, which is my real point.
It's pretty well known that most people do not get enough veggies and fiber in their diet. That is not the same as eating meat causes cancer. You see my point?
I advocate for nothing more than simple common sense. It's possible that people who do not eat meat get less cancer, but the real reason for this is not explained by this study. Do the meat eaters in the study eat as many vegetables and get as much fiber as the non meat eaters? Probably not. To conclude that meat is the cause is a serious flaw in logic.1 -
But they do get colorectal cancer? That's all I was saying.........please!Really? So colorectal cancer was found in this study to be higher in vegetarians? Interesting. Selecting samples is so difficult though, because you don't know their food history and what else they may be eating / not eating that may be causing these problems.
I know, sampling for something like this is tough. I'm sure there are counter studies. I always read through the sources of the study before I deem it totally accurate.
N=63,000+ and they corrected for things like age, sex, and smoking. Pretty valid overall I'd say.
The reason I posted this though was to refute the statement that vegetarians rarely got colorectal cancer, they were virtually immune.
Here's the link:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/5/1620S.full
Just a quick scan of your study and I think I found out why they came to the conclusion they did. Your study was controlled for things like smoking, for example. Now how many vegetarians do you think smoke? I've never met one. Yet your study probably eliminated meat eating smokers. Similarly, your study probably eliminated overweight chronically ill people as well. So what you were in effect doing was comparing virtually ALL Vegetyarians to some meat-eaters. Yes, I am sure there were some overweight and ill vegetarians, but probably not many. I would guess among the meat eating population, the unhealthy were to a large extent eliminated from the study do to correcting for "lifestyle." In effect, vegetarians do have a healthier lifestyle. Although I do believe in controlled studies, I think in this case it resulted in an unbalanced study. They were in effect controling for things vegetarians rarely do.
The main point I was making is that vegetarians do get colorectal cancer despite was was said earlier.
They controlled for age and sex. I think vegetarians falls into both those categories?
And btw I do know vegetarians that smoke.
Okay, I urge you to listen to this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2699384/ Cancer Incidence in British Vegetarians, which I believe was the same study you referred to. The person introducing the study explains several thingsL
1. The study was admittedly unfair to vegetarians because it eliminated all INDIRECT benefits of vegetariansim
2. Even so VEGETARIANS HAD A LOWER INCIDENCE OF CANCER THAN MEAT EATERS. Total cancer incidence was significantly lower among vegetarians than meat eaters. THIS STUDY found no difference in colorecatal cancer, but clearly most other studies have.
Please go to this link.
The problem with most of these sorts of studies is that they tend to be overly focused and fail to account for other lifestyle factors. A comprehensive study of all lifestyle factors including activity levels, fitness, occupation, etc would be far more informative but very difficult to pull off. The sheer amount of data would be massive.
Failing such a comprehensive study, these focused studies are little more than anecdotal.
Look, all studies are flawed because they cannot control for everything. That does not mean they are worthless. The study I referred you to above has controlled for about as much as it is possible to control for. The author even said that it is unfair to vegetarians because it contols for all INDIRECT benefits of vegetarianism. Yet, nonetheless, it STILL found vegetarians had less cancer than meat eaters.
Ah, my friend, I didn't say they are worthless, I said they are little better than anecdotal. It's possible that the study simply indicates that many people don't eat enough vegetables, not that meat causes cancer. There are many possible conclusions one may draw from this study, which is my real point.
It's pretty well known that most people do not get enough veggies and fiber in their diet. That is not the same as eating meat causes cancer. You see my point?
I advocate for nothing more than simple common sense. It's possible that people who do not eat meat get less cancer, but the real reason for this is not explained by this study. Do the meat eaters in the study eat as many vegetables and get as much fiber as the non meat eaters? Probably not. To conclude that meat is the cause is a serious flaw in logic.
True! Could be to do with bowel frequency or anything, couldn't it?! Veggies, obviously get a lot more of the good stuff because they may eat a lot more fibrous foods. It doesn't mean that eating meat causes more disease or illnesses...0 -
I do want to know if any of the vegans or vegetarians on here miss eating meat. I live in NJ and miss Taylor Ham. That is really the only thing I miss, small sacrifice I guess.
Not a bit, but I haven't eaten meat since 1979. I am extremely healthy - did a 43 mile bike ride the other weekend. Work out about 5 times a week at the gym. Have a black belt in Shaolin Kempo Karate. I have two teenage kids (whoops -one just turned 20.) I am 69 years old. I watch the meat eaters I know who are much younger than me developing their chronic illnesses and becoming more and more incapacitated. I wonder why everyone just doesn't get it.
What made you decide to give up on meat?
And again, i'm unsure whether we can really say it's meat that's the health issue here or all the other s*it that people eat daily. I just feel that if meat really was causing all these problems then dieticians and doctors would blo*dy well make a point of making it common knowledge. The whole thing is still very 'underground' in terms of publicity.
True My husband is a meatosaurus and he is in incredible shape. He does biking too (and running, and swimming, kayaking, climbing, will someone please tell thisman to come inside). His vitals are awsome, we just had a big work up done on him because he turned 35 and wanted to make sure he really was in good health. He is in waaay better shape than I am and I don't eat meat. I agree that more studies regarding health and longevity need to be completed before we can say - yes eat meat, or no don't eat it.
Please give me a break. When you're 35 it's easy to be in great shape. The trick is being in good shape at twice that age. I ate meat at 35 too. I ran marathons. I invented the beer and ice cream diet. I weighed 155 lbs ( I am about 185 now and very muscular - some of it's not muscle. however.) Anyway, a combinaton of diet and exercise is hard to beat. Bytheway, I also work full time and have no intention of ever retiring.
Sorry if you were offended. You are the one who talked about the meat eaters who are much younger than you being unhealthy, not me. I was just pointing out that there are much younger meat eaters that are totally healthy.
Please, I am not offended. It takes much more than anything you said to offend me. I am not even sure it's possible to offend me. Honestly, and I am NOT referring to you here, I read so many stupid comments on many message boards, that I have become immune to anything anyone says, even when it is offensive, which your comments were not. My point is that in general, 35 year olds today look a lot different from when I was 35. Many are out of shape. Many are diabetic. Many have a lifestyle that a sloth would envy. Many of these will never be as old as I am now.
My 80 year old grandparents are healthy and look young for their age. My grandmother has hardly any wrinkles and she is in good shape, I'll be lucky to if I end up like them at their age.0 -
Goodnight for now. I really enjoyed having such a long mass debation session with such a large group of people. I will be back tomorrow, possibly with more to discuss!0
-
Really? So colorectal cancer was found in this study to be higher in vegetarians? Interesting. Selecting samples is so difficult though, because you don't know their food history and what else they may be eating / not eating that may be causing these problems.
I know, sampling for something like this is tough. I'm sure there are counter studies. I always read through the sources of the study before I deem it totally accurate.
N=63,000+ and they corrected for things like age, sex, and smoking. Pretty valid overall I'd say.
The reason I posted this though was to refute the statement that vegetarians rarely got colorectal cancer, they were virtually immune.
Here's the link:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/5/1620S.full
Just a quick scan of your study and I think I found out why they came to the conclusion they did. Your study was controlled for things like smoking, for example. Now how many vegetarians do you think smoke? I've never met one. Yet your study probably eliminated meat eating smokers. Similarly, your study probably eliminated overweight chronically ill people as well. So what you were in effect doing was comparing virtually ALL Vegetyarians to some meat-eaters. Yes, I am sure there were some overweight and ill vegetarians, but probably not many. I would guess among the meat eating population, the unhealthy were to a large extent eliminated from the study do to correcting for "lifestyle." In effect, vegetarians do have a healthier lifestyle. Although I do believe in controlled studies, I think in this case it resulted in an unbalanced study. They were in effect controling for things vegetarians rarely do.
Interesting, so you think that vegetarianism makes you into a person less likely to smoke, be overweight, etc etc........hmmm Interesting bias.
These are your assumptions, assumptions have no place in a study which is why you must throw out other factors that could contribute to poor health.
By the way, my father is 78, has been a meat eater all his life but has always exercised regularly, wish I could post a picture of him because he looks a good 20 years younger than his years at least. He was out hiking in AZ today and had an amazing time with his hiking club. My mother on the other hand, same diet of course, looks older than her 75 years. She was not an exerciser. Neither eat much processed food the difference in their health is purely attributed to exercise (and genetics) not diet. Sorry, but that is close to a study as I can get. I do not follow many studies because frankly statistics can say darn near anything you want them to and the people reporting on them really just are looking for sensationalism or to back up a view they hold personally. I bet I could find a study that says squirrel is the purest form of lean meat...whatever. Studies such as these discussed are subjective, since you absolutely cannot have a control group for a lifetime.
I personally believe some people do benefit from a vegetarian diet, but not all do. Some people choose to become vegetarians out of personal ethical reasons, some people just didnt like the taste of meat. The reality is, every body is different and responds differently to foods. I do respect any ones decision to eat how they desire (excluding babies as previously noted). I enjoy my meat products personally, but certainly respect others right to choose their own path.0 -
Here's what I've always wondered about the meat causes cancer position.
Why is it bodybuilders can live past the age of 50? By and large this group of people consume 2 to 3 times the amount of meat and animal products that even a normal omnivore consumes, and yet they're still hanging around. If meat caused cancer wouldn't bodybuilding be the deadliest sport in the world?
And yes that was a bit sarcastic, but it is a valid point isn't it. I doubt there's a study that specifically looked at the cancer rates of former bodybuilders (no i didn't actually look), but you'd think something like there not being a 60 year old non vegetarian bodybuilder alive would kinda make itself known.0 -
Has always seemed to me that bodybuilding in of itself is a great way to delay the aging process, and by extension, death. Guess we'll know when Arnie pops his clogs what kind of effect it can have on you long term.Here's what I've always wondered about the meat causes cancer position.
Why is it bodybuilders can live past the age of 50? By and large this group of people consume 2 to 3 times the amount of meat and animal products that even a normal omnivore consumes, and yet they're still hanging around. If meat caused cancer wouldn't bodybuilding be the deadliest sport in the world?
And yes that was a bit sarcastic, but it is a valid point isn't it. I doubt there's a study that specifically looked at the cancer rates of former bodybuilders (no i didn't actually look), but you'd think something like there not being a 60 year old non vegetarian bodybuilder alive would kinda make itself known.0 -
Torture means to inflict severe phsyical or mental pain upon. That is the dictionary defintion. Shooting an animal, particularly if the shot does not immediately kill the animal fits the definition. I never saw a hunter who was sober enough to kill on the first shot.
Problem with absolutes is that it just takes one black swan......
Agreed.
To the antagonist - if you truly don't know hunters who are sober when they hunt, then you only know trophy and tourist hunters. Real hunters that hunt for food know better than to be an idiot and handle high powered firearms while under the influence. Additionally, most food hunters will at least try to hit an area where the animal will die swiftly, and if they encounter one that is wounded to the point the hunter can approach it, but hasn't died, they will kill it with a shot to head to end its suffering.
Not only that, but many (if not most) food hunters aren't barbarians. In fact, they often have a very deep respect for animals, because they know that the animals are sacrificing their lives so that the hunters may live (yes, there are still some areas and situations, even in America, where people do, in fact, have to hunt in order to keep from starving).
That said, everything that is living dies eventually. Some slowly, some swiftly. Death is a part of life, there are worse things than it (such as torture; and yes, I do believe that torture and death are two totally different things). Nearly every living thing on this planet has to deprive another of food or life in order to live (yes, even plants, as they steal the nutrients from other plants; and yes, even herbivores and those that only eat seeds, because they maim and/or kill that which they eat or deprive the seed from becoming a new plant.
So true, I could not have explained it better.0 -
Torture means to inflict severe phsyical or mental pain upon. That is the dictionary defintion. Shooting an animal, particularly if the shot does not immediately kill the animal fits the definition. I never saw a hunter who was sober enough to kill on the first shot.
Problem with absolutes is that it just takes one black swan......
Agreed.
To the antagonist - if you truly don't know hunters who are sober when they hunt, then you only know trophy and tourist hunters. Real hunters that hunt for food know better than to be an idiot and handle high powered firearms while under the influence. Additionally, most food hunters will at least try to hit an area where the animal will die swiftly, and if they encounter one that is wounded to the point the hunter can approach it, but hasn't died, they will kill it with a shot to head to end its suffering.
Not only that, but many (if not most) food hunters aren't barbarians. In fact, they often have a very deep respect for animals, because they know that the animals are sacrificing their lives so that the hunters may live (yes, there are still some areas and situations, even in America, where people do, in fact, have to hunt in order to keep from starving).
That said, everything that is living dies eventually. Some slowly, some swiftly. Death is a part of life, there are worse things than it (such as torture; and yes, I do believe that torture and death are two totally different things). Nearly every living thing on this planet has to deprive another of food or life in order to live (yes, even plants, as they steal the nutrients from other plants; and yes, even herbivores and those that only eat seeds, because they maim and/or kill that which they eat or deprive the seed from becoming a new plant.
So true, I could not have explained it better.
Not only that, but many (if not most) serial killers aren't barbarians. In fact, they often have a very deep respect for humans, because they know that the humans are sacrificing their lives so that the serial killers may get pleasure (yes, there are still some areas and situations, even in America, where people do, in fact, have to kill in order to keep from going crazy).
I guess it depends on how you say it. There are plenty of edible wild plants that can be harvested. killing animals is always a choice, not a necessity.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions