Too much protein?
Replies
-
FunkyTobias wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Omp I suggest you come back here in 20 years time, when you've realised you really don't know it all... We never stop learning, having an open mind will help you, having a closed mind has obviously only hindered you...
The WHO says processed/red meat causes cancer. In 20 years I think meat consumption will be lower. When the scientists back in the day said that a new study says that smoking causes cancer, do you think people really wanted to believe that it does then? Same thing applies.
9. Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Tobacco smoking and asbestos are also both classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Does it mean that consumption of processed meat is as carcinogenic as tobacco smoking and asbestos?
No, processed meat has been classified in the same category as causes of cancer such as tobacco smoking and asbestos (IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to humans), but this does NOT mean that they are all equally dangerous. The IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk.
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
It's still a carcinogenic. Why play Russian roulette with your food?
If you're worried about colorectal cancer, then why are you a vegatarian? According to a study that YOU posted
RESULTS:
The standardized incidence ratio for all malignant neoplasms for all participants was 72% (95% CI: 69%, 75%). The standardized incidence ratios for colorectal cancer were 84% (95% CI: 73%, 95%) among nonvegetarians and 102% (95% CI: 80%, 129%) among vegetarians. In a comparison of vegetarians with meat eaters and after adjustment for age, sex, and smoking, the incidence rate ratio for all malignant neoplasms was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.80, 1.00). The incidence rate ratio for colorectal cancer in vegetarians compared with meat eaters was 1.39 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.91)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19279082
That's ONE type of cancer that a vegetarian can be more exposed to. We have not taken into account that meat eaters are way more exposed to plenty of more types of illness.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!
"Your" research is pulling up articles and studies over a decade old. What I'm referring to is the academic reports of scientific studies done in the last few years. Like I said, learn the difference between propoganda, popular media, and actual rigorous scientific research.
Humans have not evolved in the last 20 years so the research still holds validity. Second, haven't you realized that most studies are conducted by people who eat meat? That's propaganda for you right there.
So the only people who can do studies on the effects of meat consumption and cancer are vegetarians or vegans? You don't think that would pose a potential conflict of interest?0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!
"Your" research is pulling up articles and studies over a decade old. What I'm referring to is the academic reports of scientific studies done in the last few years. Like I said, learn the difference between propoganda, popular media, and actual rigorous scientific research.
Humans have not evolved in the last 20 years so the research still holds validity. Second, haven't you realized that most studies are conducted by people who eat meat? That's propaganda for you right there.
So the only people who can do studies on the effects of meat consumption and cancer are vegetarians or vegans? You don't think that would pose a potential conflict of interest?
No I wouldn't say that because there would be bias. I think a double-blind study would be most effective.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Omp I suggest you come back here in 20 years time, when you've realised you really don't know it all... We never stop learning, having an open mind will help you, having a closed mind has obviously only hindered you...
The WHO says processed/red meat causes cancer. In 20 years I think meat consumption will be lower. When the scientists back in the day said that a new study says that smoking causes cancer, do you think people really wanted to believe that it does then? Same thing applies.
9. Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Tobacco smoking and asbestos are also both classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Does it mean that consumption of processed meat is as carcinogenic as tobacco smoking and asbestos?
No, processed meat has been classified in the same category as causes of cancer such as tobacco smoking and asbestos (IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to humans), but this does NOT mean that they are all equally dangerous. The IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk.
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
It's still a carcinogenic. Why play Russian roulette with your food?
If you're worried about colorectal cancer, then why are you a vegatarian? According to a study that YOU posted
RESULTS:
The standardized incidence ratio for all malignant neoplasms for all participants was 72% (95% CI: 69%, 75%). The standardized incidence ratios for colorectal cancer were 84% (95% CI: 73%, 95%) among nonvegetarians and 102% (95% CI: 80%, 129%) among vegetarians. In a comparison of vegetarians with meat eaters and after adjustment for age, sex, and smoking, the incidence rate ratio for all malignant neoplasms was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.80, 1.00). The incidence rate ratio for colorectal cancer in vegetarians compared with meat eaters was 1.39 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.91)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19279082
That's ONE type of cancer that a vegetarian can be more exposed to. We have not taken into account that meat eaters are way more exposed to plenty of more types of illness.
And its the SAME type of cancer whose risk is (slightly) exacerbated by processed meat.
0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!
"Your" research is pulling up articles and studies over a decade old. What I'm referring to is the academic reports of scientific studies done in the last few years. Like I said, learn the difference between propoganda, popular media, and actual rigorous scientific research.
Humans have not evolved in the last 20 years so the research still holds validity. Second, haven't you realized that most studies are conducted by people who eat meat? That's propaganda for you right there.
So the only people who can do studies on the effects of meat consumption and cancer are vegetarians or vegans? You don't think that would pose a potential conflict of interest?
No I wouldn't say that because there would be bias. I think a double-blind study would be most effective.
LOL. So you obviously don't know what "double-blind" means.0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!
"Your" research is pulling up articles and studies over a decade old. What I'm referring to is the academic reports of scientific studies done in the last few years. Like I said, learn the difference between propoganda, popular media, and actual rigorous scientific research.
Humans have not evolved in the last 20 years so the research still holds validity. Second, haven't you realized that most studies are conducted by people who eat meat? That's propaganda for you right there.
So the only people who can do studies on the effects of meat consumption and cancer are vegetarians or vegans? You don't think that would pose a potential conflict of interest?
No I wouldn't say that because there would be bias. I think a double-blind study would be most effective.
How do you double-blind the researchers?
NVM, found the answer:
https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=OIP.Me81e79459ec897984096db6228071891o0&w=300&h=215&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!
"Your" research is pulling up articles and studies over a decade old. What I'm referring to is the academic reports of scientific studies done in the last few years. Like I said, learn the difference between propoganda, popular media, and actual rigorous scientific research.
Humans have not evolved in the last 20 years so the research still holds validity. Second, haven't you realized that most studies are conducted by people who eat meat? That's propaganda for you right there.
You are cherry picking what people are saying. No, humans haven't evolved in 20 years. But studies since then have been done to get more information, which show the original one to be mistaken. That's part of the scientific process. You know what that is, right?
As far as the studiers eating meat ... that was why I talked about the rigorous review process required to even get published. Yes, sometimes thing slip past. But it's not like meat eaters can say "so, we decided that eating meat is good, so here's our article, publish it." Whereas for a blog, or even popular media, one can pretty much do EXACTLY that.
Again, educate yourself on the difference!!!0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!
"Your" research is pulling up articles and studies over a decade old. What I'm referring to is the academic reports of scientific studies done in the last few years. Like I said, learn the difference between propoganda, popular media, and actual rigorous scientific research.
Humans have not evolved in the last 20 years so the research still holds validity. Second, haven't you realized that most studies are conducted by people who eat meat? That's propaganda for you right there.
So the only people who can do studies on the effects of meat consumption and cancer are vegetarians or vegans? You don't think that would pose a potential conflict of interest?
No I wouldn't say that because there would be bias. I think a double-blind study would be most effective.
How do you double-blind the researchers?
Or any epidemiological study, for that matter.
0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!
"Your" research is pulling up articles and studies over a decade old. What I'm referring to is the academic reports of scientific studies done in the last few years. Like I said, learn the difference between propoganda, popular media, and actual rigorous scientific research.
Humans have not evolved in the last 20 years so the research still holds validity. Second, haven't you realized that most studies are conducted by people who eat meat? That's propaganda for you right there.
So the only people who can do studies on the effects of meat consumption and cancer are vegetarians or vegans? You don't think that would pose a potential conflict of interest?
No I wouldn't say that because there would be bias. I think a double-blind study would be most effective.
How do you double-blind the researchers?
NVM, found the answer:
https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=OIP.Me81e79459ec897984096db6228071891o0&w=300&h=215&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0
I like your answer.
But I still want to know how you do it in the context OMP33 is talking about ... have one group eat meat and another eat a meat placebo, but one where no one, neither the participants nor the researchers, know which is which until after the study ends.
I'll go with FunkyTobias' answers
0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »How do you double-blind the researchers?
Easy peasy. Some participants get meals with real meat, and others get meals with placebo vegan meat substitutes that have identical flavor and texture, and neither the researchers nor the participants know who got what until after the study.
0 -
@OMP33 There were mega studies in the 80's, before you were born, that "proved" low fat diets were the healthiest option, and everyone jumped on that band wagon. Latest research has debunked the studies from back then 1000 times over.
Research and science is constantly evolving. It's prudent not to put all your eggs in the one basket just yet...0 -
JoshLikesBeer wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »How do you double-blind the researchers?
Easy peasy. Some participants get meals with real meat, and others get meals with placebo vegan meat substitutes that have identical flavor and texture, and neither the researchers nor the participants know who got what until after the study.
And since you're not going to catch cancer in a few weeks (the typical length of a double-blind intervention), the study will have to last 20 years.
No problem0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »JoshLikesBeer wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »How do you double-blind the researchers?
Easy peasy. Some participants get meals with real meat, and others get meals with placebo vegan meat substitutes that have identical flavor and texture, and neither the researchers nor the participants know who got what until after the study.
And since you're not going to catch cancer in a few weeks (the typical length of a double-blind intervention), the study will have to last 20 years.
No problem
Let's see if we can get any volunteers for that one!0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »@OMP33 There were mega studies in the 80's, before you were born, that "proved" low fat diets were the healthiest option, and everyone jumped on that band wagon. Latest research has debunked the studies from back then 1000 times over.
Research and science is constantly evolving. It's prudent not to put all your eggs in the one basket just yet...
Or one macro...0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »JoshLikesBeer wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »How do you double-blind the researchers?
Easy peasy. Some participants get meals with real meat, and others get meals with placebo vegan meat substitutes that have identical flavor and texture, and neither the researchers nor the participants know who got what until after the study.
And since you're not going to catch cancer in a few weeks (the typical length of a double-blind intervention), the study will have to last 20 years.
No problem
Let's see if we can get any volunteers for that one!
I was going to suggest getting an independent third party to puree it all into a soup-like substance. Sign me up, that sounds awesome!0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »workhardtogethard wrote: »this is all you need to read about protein controversy. Read everything by Lyle if you want science. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/protein-controversies.html/
This article gives some good insight. Now I have a better understanding of all this. Thanks for posting the link!
my pleasure, Lyle is one of the few guys you can really trust, he posts sources for everything, and he knows his stuff. His website is a gold mine of valuable information.
Lyle,Layne Norton,Alan Agaron,Eric Helms,Brad Schofield are all great sources of information as is Stuart Phillips who is a guru of protein.
Layne Norton is a goof, definitely not a good source of info.
You really dont have a clue.0 -
Has the OP responded? It seems OMP has made this thread about him0
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »
I have proper nutrition for the kind of lifestyle I live. I need carbs for the energy during my intense workouts, I need moderate protein to recover, and I don't have a need for fat because I do not train for endurance, I interval train.
So now only endurance athletes need dietary fat???
So if you don't train for endurance, you don't need brain health, healthy hormone function (including testosterone production), skin, hair and nail health, or healthy joints?
You said it....no brain health. Explains a lot.0 -
A little late to this party but since @OMP33 mentioned Chris Froome, he might find this interview from 2013 interesting.
an exerpt...CF: Yeah, if you’re breaking down muscle that is, and that’s why the weight loss process is really important. If you look at me, as Michelle pointed out, in the Vuelta that year (2011), I think my muscles were probably lighter. I was quite gangly. You wouldn’t look at me and say, ‘That’s someone who’s strong’. Whereas now, my diet is a lot more protein based. I’ve cut back on carbs completely but I’m not losing muscle.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-part-2-30394950.html
0 -
-
nutmegoreo wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »JoshLikesBeer wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »How do you double-blind the researchers?
Easy peasy. Some participants get meals with real meat, and others get meals with placebo vegan meat substitutes that have identical flavor and texture, and neither the researchers nor the participants know who got what until after the study.
And since you're not going to catch cancer in a few weeks (the typical length of a double-blind intervention), the study will have to last 20 years.
No problem
Let's see if we can get any volunteers for that one!
I was going to suggest getting an independent third party to puree it all into a soup-like substance. Sign me up, that sounds awesome!
Because this is where these threads tend to lead:
Meat or fake-meat soup
Twenty year blinded study
Any takers here?0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »JoshLikesBeer wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »How do you double-blind the researchers?
Easy peasy. Some participants get meals with real meat, and others get meals with placebo vegan meat substitutes that have identical flavor and texture, and neither the researchers nor the participants know who got what until after the study.
And since you're not going to catch cancer in a few weeks (the typical length of a double-blind intervention), the study will have to last 20 years.
No problem
Let's see if we can get any volunteers for that one!
I was going to suggest getting an independent third party to puree it all into a soup-like substance. Sign me up, that sounds awesome!
Because this is where these threads tend to lead:
Meat or fake-meat soup
Twenty year blinded study
Any takers here?
sign me up right now
want someone to force feed me
meat or fake-meat soup0 -
I like having meals with my family, though. Maybe if they could have family days at the lab, like for Thanksgiving and such, and my family comes and depending on which group I'm in we all get either turkey or tofurkey soup, then I'd do it.0
-
FunkyTobias wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!
"Your" research is pulling up articles and studies over a decade old. What I'm referring to is the academic reports of scientific studies done in the last few years. Like I said, learn the difference between propoganda, popular media, and actual rigorous scientific research.
Humans have not evolved in the last 20 years so the research still holds validity. Second, haven't you realized that most studies are conducted by people who eat meat? That's propaganda for you right there.
So the only people who can do studies on the effects of meat consumption and cancer are vegetarians or vegans? You don't think that would pose a potential conflict of interest?
No I wouldn't say that because there would be bias. I think a double-blind study would be most effective.
LOL. So you obviously don't know what "double-blind" means.
"of or relating to an experiment or clinical trial in which neither the subjects nor the researchers know which subjects are receiving the active medication, treatment, etc., and which are not: a technique for eliminating subjective bias from the test results."0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »Wetcoaster wrote: »workhardtogethard wrote: »this is all you need to read about protein controversy. Read everything by Lyle if you want science. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/protein-controversies.html/
This article gives some good insight. Now I have a better understanding of all this. Thanks for posting the link!
my pleasure, Lyle is one of the few guys you can really trust, he posts sources for everything, and he knows his stuff. His website is a gold mine of valuable information.
Lyle,Layne Norton,Alan Agaron,Eric Helms,Brad Schofield are all great sources of information as is Stuart Phillips who is a guru of protein.
Layne Norton is a goof, definitely not a good source of info.
You really dont have a clue.
Yeah because Layne Norton knows SO much because he has a PhD!! That makes him super smart!0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!
"Your" research is pulling up articles and studies over a decade old. What I'm referring to is the academic reports of scientific studies done in the last few years. Like I said, learn the difference between propoganda, popular media, and actual rigorous scientific research.
Humans have not evolved in the last 20 years so the research still holds validity. Second, haven't you realized that most studies are conducted by people who eat meat? That's propaganda for you right there.
So the only people who can do studies on the effects of meat consumption and cancer are vegetarians or vegans? You don't think that would pose a potential conflict of interest?
No I wouldn't say that because there would be bias. I think a double-blind study would be most effective.
LOL. So you obviously don't know what "double-blind" means.
"of or relating to an experiment or clinical trial in which neither the subjects nor the researchers know which subjects are receiving the active medication, treatment, etc., and which are not: a technique for eliminating subjective bias from the test results."
Congratulations. You can google definitions and copy/paste them.
Now explain how you can double-blind an epidemiological study on meat and cancer.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!
"Your" research is pulling up articles and studies over a decade old. What I'm referring to is the academic reports of scientific studies done in the last few years. Like I said, learn the difference between propoganda, popular media, and actual rigorous scientific research.
Humans have not evolved in the last 20 years so the research still holds validity. Second, haven't you realized that most studies are conducted by people who eat meat? That's propaganda for you right there.
So the only people who can do studies on the effects of meat consumption and cancer are vegetarians or vegans? You don't think that would pose a potential conflict of interest?
No I wouldn't say that because there would be bias. I think a double-blind study would be most effective.
LOL. So you obviously don't know what "double-blind" means.
"of or relating to an experiment or clinical trial in which neither the subjects nor the researchers know which subjects are receiving the active medication, treatment, etc., and which are not: a technique for eliminating subjective bias from the test results."
Congratulations. You can google definitions and copy/paste them.
Now explain how you can double-blind an epidemiological study on meat and cancer.
I would say you have a meat dish and a faux meat dish. You have an unbiased third party randomly select people to which one to eat and record who eats what. Have the researchers do their studies on the control (faux meat group because it doesn't have any carcinogens in it) and experimental (meat group because of the carcinogen) and see what changes occur in both of the groups. At the end of the study, the unbiased 3rd party reveals who ate what and record the changes that the experimental group experienced compared to the control group.
That's just my best stab at it, I'm sure a researcher could come up with a better study.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!
"Your" research is pulling up articles and studies over a decade old. What I'm referring to is the academic reports of scientific studies done in the last few years. Like I said, learn the difference between propoganda, popular media, and actual rigorous scientific research.
Humans have not evolved in the last 20 years so the research still holds validity. Second, haven't you realized that most studies are conducted by people who eat meat? That's propaganda for you right there.
So the only people who can do studies on the effects of meat consumption and cancer are vegetarians or vegans? You don't think that would pose a potential conflict of interest?
No I wouldn't say that because there would be bias. I think a double-blind study would be most effective.
LOL. So you obviously don't know what "double-blind" means.
"of or relating to an experiment or clinical trial in which neither the subjects nor the researchers know which subjects are receiving the active medication, treatment, etc., and which are not: a technique for eliminating subjective bias from the test results."
Congratulations. You can google definitions and copy/paste them.
Now explain how you can double-blind an epidemiological study on meat and cancer.
I would say you have a meat dish and a faux meat dish. You have an unbiased third party randomly select people to which one to eat and record who eats what. Have the researchers do their studies on the control (faux meat group because it doesn't have any carcinogens in it) and experimental (meat group because of the carcinogen) and see what changes occur in both of the groups. At the end of the study, the unbiased 3rd party reveals who ate what and record the changes that the experimental group experienced compared to the control group.
That's just my best stab at it, I'm sure a researcher could come up with a better study.
Except faux meat tastes nothing like real meat, and you don't catch cancer in a few weeks. That's why all research to determine causes of cancer are epidemiological -- you have to look at decades worth of data.
Now kindly explain how you would double-blind an epidemiological study.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!
"Your" research is pulling up articles and studies over a decade old. What I'm referring to is the academic reports of scientific studies done in the last few years. Like I said, learn the difference between propoganda, popular media, and actual rigorous scientific research.
Humans have not evolved in the last 20 years so the research still holds validity. Second, haven't you realized that most studies are conducted by people who eat meat? That's propaganda for you right there.
So the only people who can do studies on the effects of meat consumption and cancer are vegetarians or vegans? You don't think that would pose a potential conflict of interest?
No I wouldn't say that because there would be bias. I think a double-blind study would be most effective.
LOL. So you obviously don't know what "double-blind" means.
"of or relating to an experiment or clinical trial in which neither the subjects nor the researchers know which subjects are receiving the active medication, treatment, etc., and which are not: a technique for eliminating subjective bias from the test results."
Congratulations. You can google definitions and copy/paste them.
Now explain how you can double-blind an epidemiological study on meat and cancer.
I would say you have a meat dish and a faux meat dish. You have an unbiased third party randomly select people to which one to eat and record who eats what. Have the researchers do their studies on the control (faux meat group because it doesn't have any carcinogens in it) and experimental (meat group because of the carcinogen) and see what changes occur in both of the groups. At the end of the study, the unbiased 3rd party reveals who ate what and record the changes that the experimental group experienced compared to the control group.
That's just my best stab at it, I'm sure a researcher could come up with a better study.
Except faux meat tastes nothing like real meat, and you don't catch cancer in a few weeks. That's why all research to determine causes of cancer are epidemiological -- you have to look at decades worth of data.
Now kindly explain how you would double-blind an epidemiological study.
First I've heard there are various meats that taste like actual meat. Gardein Szechuan beefless strips taste exactly like beef; there ARE products that you can't distinguish between real or faux. Second, I never said anything about the time period of the study. If it needs years to do, then it needs years to do.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!FunkyTobias wrote: »Another "source" from a vegan propaganda site. Color me surprised.
Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!
My sister's partner is a competition cyclist here in the UK and he had managed to change my attitude towards them and their training slowing my car journeys down at the weekends. But you sir are rapidly sending me the other way back the other way. Please be quiet and stop derailing every thread you get involved in with your baseless theories and debunked science. /Rant mode off
Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.
All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that.
Don't forget the rigor that goes into the review process for academic journals. It's not like I can say "I like meat so this is what I'm going to say about eating it." It's the popular media that skews things for headlines (like WHO placing meat in the same cancer causing category as tobacco ... that's not at all what the metanalysis study said about meat.) And those who are just out to prove their point do for propaganda. It would really behoove you to learn the difference.
Maybe in college ...
"All the recent research points in the other direction, though, and you seem to be ignoring that."
And my research points in the opposite direction of yours. But ofcourse, they will never say meat is bad for you because meat eaters are on the panel of they obviously don't want to cut out their meat!
"Your" research is pulling up articles and studies over a decade old. What I'm referring to is the academic reports of scientific studies done in the last few years. Like I said, learn the difference between propoganda, popular media, and actual rigorous scientific research.
Humans have not evolved in the last 20 years so the research still holds validity. Second, haven't you realized that most studies are conducted by people who eat meat? That's propaganda for you right there.
So the only people who can do studies on the effects of meat consumption and cancer are vegetarians or vegans? You don't think that would pose a potential conflict of interest?
No I wouldn't say that because there would be bias. I think a double-blind study would be most effective.
LOL. So you obviously don't know what "double-blind" means.
"of or relating to an experiment or clinical trial in which neither the subjects nor the researchers know which subjects are receiving the active medication, treatment, etc., and which are not: a technique for eliminating subjective bias from the test results."
Congratulations. You can google definitions and copy/paste them.
Now explain how you can double-blind an epidemiological study on meat and cancer.
I would say you have a meat dish and a faux meat dish. You have an unbiased third party randomly select people to which one to eat and record who eats what. Have the researchers do their studies on the control (faux meat group because it doesn't have any carcinogens in it) and experimental (meat group because of the carcinogen) and see what changes occur in both of the groups. At the end of the study, the unbiased 3rd party reveals who ate what and record the changes that the experimental group experienced compared to the control group.
That's just my best stab at it, I'm sure a researcher could come up with a better study.
Except faux meat tastes nothing like real meat, and you don't catch cancer in a few weeks. That's why all research to determine causes of cancer are epidemiological -- you have to look at decades worth of data.
Now kindly explain how you would double-blind an epidemiological study.
First I've heard there are various meats that taste like actual meat. Gardein Szechuan beefless strips taste exactly like beef; there ARE products that you can't distinguish between real or faux. Second, I never said anything about the time period of the study. If it needs years to do, then it needs years to do.
So back to fantasy land, I see.
Point to a single double-blind study, about ANYTHING, that lasted for years.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions