meat = shorter life

reply to post by Son of Will


That's the thing with observational studies, they can be interpreted very differently and all you do is attack people who criticise it instead of providing data, why do you do this? Intellectual honesty indeed. Simply claiming it's peer reviewed means little with an observational study and as other peers HAVE criticised it, including Michael Eades MD (that's a doctor btw) it does give an honest individual pause for thought.

You also failed to bother to respond to the other thing i mentioned, that the people with the highest life expectancy and lowest rates of disease tend to eat meat. Okinawans, sardinians, both eat meat and fish, eggs and poultry.

Do you have the intellectual honesty to respond to these other, fact based studies regarding these populations?

i see, meat=short life, vegetables= horrible agonizing death due to protein deficiency, muscle loss and brain damage. no meat + no vegetables = slow starvation leading to coma and certain death.
meat + vegetables = long healthy life with all of your bodies nutritional requirements met.
i'm going to have to think about these choices. i'm not a mathematician.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by Son of Will

 

That's the thing with observational studies, they can be interpreted very differently and all you do is attack people who criticise it instead of providing data, why do you do this? Intellectual honesty indeed. Simply claiming it's peer reviewed means little with an observational study and as other peers HAVE criticised it, including Michael Eades MD (that's a doctor btw) it does give an honest individual pause for thought.

You also failed to bother to respond to the other thing i mentioned, that the people with the highest life expectancy and lowest rates of disease tend to eat meat. Okinawans, sardinians, both eat meat and fish, eggs and poultry.

Do you have the intellectual honesty to respond to these other, fact based studies regarding these populations?

I did address the Okinawan diet, and showed why that is a fallacious argument. You are comparing it to ... nothing relevant, because there are no vegan cultures in the world.

And as I said, for every one professional you can find you criticizes it, there are dozens more that support it. I'm not attacking the people who wrote those blogs. I'm just stating the obvious - they ARE blogs. They are not published, anywhere.

Your only response to this was "It was constructed so poorly that it couldn't even be effectively criticized", or something to that effect. That's a BIG assumption, and based entirely on wishful thinking, I'm sorry to say.

Originally posted by Son of Will
The life expectancy of Chinese is 73%. Of US, its 78%. Of the world, it's 69 years.

Maybe you need a geography lesson, Okinawa is off the coast of Japan. Nothing to do with the study at hand.

Erm i know where Okinawa is but nice try at deflecting the point. I was raising the issue that the China study states protein and meat are the problem, i then pointed to the Okinawans, the ongest lived population who eat meat as a counter to that. This is how science works.

Originally posted by Son of Will
There are no vegan cultures in the world, so saying that "Okinawans eat meat yet live the longest" is exactly what you're accusing Campbell of - correlation instead of causation.

No i'm simply using one study to counter another, that's very scientific.

Originally posted by Son of Will
If Okinawans were to become entirely vegan, then perhaps they would live even longer? I suppose you didn't think about that in your confirmation-biased reality.

edit on 23-9-2010 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)

Actually there is a vegan version of the diet and they don't seem to live longer. But many hindus are vegan and don't life longer than the Okinawans. Please don't accuse me of confirmation bias without good cause. Still it's a lovely ad hom train you have going

Lets be clear on this shall we. The china study, or should i see say it's author claims that the protein is the cause of systemic illness and that meat will shorten ones life. This is utterly and directly contradicted by the okinawn studies because if the china study were correct then they would live longer than the okinawans.

Originally posted by randomname
i see, meat=short life, vegetables= horrible agonizing death due to protein deficiency, muscle loss and brain damage. no meat + no vegetables = slow starvation leading to coma and certain death.
meat + vegetables = long healthy life with all of your bodies nutritional requirements met.
i'm going to have to think about these choices. i'm not a mathematician.

What do you know - yet another completely false accusation against vegan diets.
This website refutes that BS with one click.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by Son of Will
The life expectancy of Chinese is 73%. Of US, its 78%. Of the world, it's 69 years.

Maybe you need a geography lesson, Okinawa is off the coast of Japan. Nothing to do with the study at hand.

Erm i know where Okinawa is but nice try at deflecting the point. I was raising the issue that the China study states protein and meat are the problem, i then pointed to the Okinawans, the ongest lived population who eat meat as a counter to that. This is how science works.

Originally posted by Son of Will
There are no vegan cultures in the world, so saying that "Okinawans eat meat yet live the longest" is exactly what you're accusing Campbell of - correlation instead of causation.

No i'm simply using one study to counter another, that's very scientific.

Originally posted by Son of Will
If Okinawans were to become entirely vegan, then perhaps they would live even longer? I suppose you didn't think about that in your confirmation-biased reality.

edit on 23-9-2010 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)

Actually there is a vegan version of the diet and they don't seem to live longer. But many hindus are vegan and don't life longer than the Okinawans. Please don't accuse me of confirmation bias without good cause. Still it's a lovely ad hom train you have going

Lets be clear on this shall we. The china study, or should i see say it's author claims that the protein is the cause of systemic illness and that meat will shorten ones life. This is utterly and directly contradicted by the okinawn studies because if the china study were correct then they would live longer than the okinawans.

False.

There are MANY variations of a vegan diet. Most of them entail nutrient deficiency. The CHina Study didn't study vegan cultures, but cultures with different ranges of ratios of meat/vegetables. So they mostly met their nutritional needs regardless of diets.

I don't know exactly what the vegan Hindu diet consists of, but I'm willing to bet that they probably don't know about B12, tryptophan, protein, vitamin d, and all the other things that western Vegans are fully aware of. I agree, it is important to be crystal clear on this issues.

And I wasn't deflecting the point - you were making a vague point regarding both genetic relation and diet, I was refuting the genetic relation point. As for an "ad hom train", sorry, but I call them as I see them. I notice a very clear bias in you which is interfering with your conclusions - though you may not even be aware of it.

Originally posted by Son of Will

False.

There are MANY variations of a vegan diet. Most of them entail nutrient deficiency. The CHina Study didn't study vegan cultures, but cultures with different ranges of ratios of meat/vegetables. So they mostly met their nutritional needs regardless of diets.

I don't know exactly what the vegan Hindu diet consists of, but I'm willing to bet that they probably don't know about B12, tryptophan, protein, vitamin d, and all the other things that western Vegans are fully aware of.

edit on 23-9-2010 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)

Yeah when someone uses the phrase "willing to bet" then i pretty much disregard what they have to say

You need to properly look into what has been posted, while you might cry there are no peer reviewed studies against the China Study (i have explained why, no one would waste their time on a study to refute that study), there are numerous studies which contradict various aspects of the China study.

For example, campbell claims that the protein leeches calcium from bones and this is why americans have higher fracture rates than the chinese, he however doesn't take numerous things into account, lifestyle for one. But there are other studies which show protein doesn't effect the bones when individuals have varied diets and exercise.

Originally posted by Son of Will

edit to add - I made no such confusion. I said the study "correlates" foods to various diseases. Please don't try to misconstrue my statements in order to win an argument, it doesn't speak highly of honesty or reading comprehension.

Well, you did say:

It conclusively found that milk and meat proteins are associated with an increase in dozens of long-term ailments like cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, etc. while fruits, vegetables

And...9-11 phone calls are associated with violent crimes. The sunrise is associated with morning shows. Skid marks are associated with car accidents...and there's nothing conclusive about epidemiology.

and whole grains were associated with a decrease in these ailments.

Right....except that's not what the numbers say.

If Okinawans were to become entirely vegan, then perhaps they would live even longer? I suppose you didn't think about that in your confirmation-biased reality.

I'm surprised you can even see through those rose colored glasses. T. Colin Campbell's studies are the very definition of confirmation bias. He openly admits that he scoured through the results of the China Project with one goal in mind....to find associations between animal products and disease. Sorry, this isn't what you would call...INTELLECTUAL HONESTY.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by Son of Will

False.

There are MANY variations of a vegan diet. Most of them entail nutrient deficiency. The CHina Study didn't study vegan cultures, but cultures with different ranges of ratios of meat/vegetables. So they mostly met their nutritional needs regardless of diets.

I don't know exactly what the vegan Hindu diet consists of, but I'm willing to bet that they probably don't know about B12, tryptophan, protein, vitamin d, and all the other things that western Vegans are fully aware of.

edit on 23-9-2010 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)

Yeah when someone uses the phrase "willing to bet" then i pretty much disregard what they have to say

You need to properly look into what has been posted, while you might cry there are no peer reviewed studies against the China Study (i have explained why, no one would waste their time on a study to refute that study), there are numerous studies which contradict various aspects of the China study.

For example, campbell claims that the protein leeches calcium from bones and this is why americans have higher fracture rates than the chinese, he however doesn't take numerous things into account, lifestyle for one. But there are other studies which show protein doesn't effect the bones when individuals have varied diets and exercise.

So you actually think the vegan hindus are up-to-date on all the medical literature surrounding vegan diets? And you're disregarding what I have to say? Don't be ridiculous.

Again - for the third time - your "reason" for why Campbell's study has never been refuted in peer-reviewed journals is based entirely on your wishful thinking.

"No one would waste their time on a study" - I'm deeply sorry if that's your best argument. Because it's absolute nonsense.

And then you completely skirt the entire debate and focus on some obscure claim regarding bone density. Are you sure Campbell "claims" that, or did he "suggest" it? Sounds like you're mis-characterizing his correlation as a causation. Even if he's completely wrong about that, that has literally nothing to do with whether a vegan diet is healthier than a meat diet, because both require lots of protein.

Originally posted by Son of Will
So you actually think the vegan hindus are up-to-date on all the medical literature surrounding vegan diets? And you're disregarding what I have to say? Don't be ridiculous.

Modern hindus have all the information you and i have, many of them live in the western world, or do you think Hindus only exist in India or the ones in India are all poor and without access to doctors and the internet? Anyway what is the difference? They eat varied diets just like the western vegan, unless you are suggesting vegans in the west supplement to keep their levels of certain things healthy?

Originally posted by Son of Will
Again - for the third time - your "reason" for why Campbell's study has never been refuted in peer-reviewed journals is based entirely on your wishful thinking.

"No one would waste their time on a study" - I'm deeply sorry if that's your best argument. Because it's absolute nonsense.

It's really not, understand how science works. If someone publishes a factual, experimental paper then it is easy enough to erfute, you set up the same experiment and look at the results, or you look for flaws in the experiments methodology. The china study is an observational study and therefore it cannot simply be refuted with another study unless it is funded. Have you any clue how much it would cost to fund a similar study for the sole purpose of confirming or refuting the resutls? The will for funding just isn't there.

Originally posted by Son of Will
And then you completely skirt the entire debate and focus on some obscure claim regarding bone density. Are you sure Campbell "claims" that, or did he "suggest" it? Sounds like you're mis-characterizing his correlation as a causation. Even if he's completely wrong about that, that has literally nothing to do with whether a vegan diet is healthier than a meat diet, because both require lots of protein.

edit on 23-9-2010 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)

Hey hang on, people in this thread have said correlation and causation are not the same thing and you have argued that it is the same thing, make up your mind The china study is all about correlation = causation. That is why it's an observational study.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Originally posted by Son of Will

edit to add - I made no such confusion. I said the study "correlates" foods to various diseases. Please don't try to misconstrue my statements in order to win an argument, it doesn't speak highly of honesty or reading comprehension.

Well, you did say:

It conclusively found that milk and meat proteins are associated with an increase in dozens of long-term ailments like cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, etc. while fruits, vegetables

And...9-11 phone calls are associated with violent crimes. The sunrise is associated with morning shows. Skid marks are associated with car accidents...and there's nothing conclusive about epidemiology.

Associate is synonymous with Correlate. *face-palm*

and whole grains were associated with a decrease in these ailments.

Right....except that's not what the numbers say.

There were lots of "numbers" involved in Campbell's final conclusions. I know, you're getting all of your criticisms from that online blog. But I'll take what the scientists have to say over computer programming bloggers.

If Okinawans were to become entirely vegan, then perhaps they would live even longer? I suppose you didn't think about that in your confirmation-biased reality.

I'm surprised you can even see through those rose colored glasses. T. Colin Campbell's studies are the very definition of confirmation bias. He openly admits that he scoured through the results of the China Project with one goal in mind....to find associations between animal products and disease. Sorry, this isn't what you would call...INTELLECTUAL HONESTY.

Care to offer some evidence that he did this? If what you said is true, then that constitutes fraud, and he be in serious legal trouble. Since that hasn't happened, I'm assuming the far, far more likely alternative - that you're either lying or greatly misconstruing something you read somewhere.

reply to post by Son of Will


I should point out all you have done is criticise the people who have researched the paper and found faults, you didn't criticise what they found, typical ad hom. Don't get me wrong, sometimes credentials need to be questioned, but usually what happens is someone makes an utterly stupid claim and then people quetion their credentials to seek out why they don't seem to speak with authority. However as one of these bloggers themselves says

More importantly, the strength of my argument and that of Campbell's depends not on our authority nor on our credentials, but on the evidence we use and the logic with which we use it.

Take a look at the arguments instead of just rubbishing them because the people involved are not post grad degree holders in the relative fields.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Modern hindus have all the information you and i have, many of them live in the western world, or do you think Hindus only exist in India or the ones in India are all poor and without access to doctors and the internet? Anyway what is the difference? They eat varied diets just like the western vegan, unless you are suggesting vegans in the west supplement to keep their levels of certain things healthy?

Most of them DO live in India, and are vegan for religious reasons. Therefore it is very likely that they do not follow the medical science surrounding vegan health. You're making assumptions about several things including the diversity of their diets - but so am I, so that will have to stand as a stalemate.

It's really not, understand how science works. If someone publishes a factual, experimental paper then it is easy enough to erfute, you set up the same experiment and look at the results, or you look for flaws in the experiments methodology. The china study is an observational study and therefore it cannot simply be refuted with another study unless it is funded. Have you any clue how much it would cost to fund a similar study for the sole purpose of confirming or refuting the resutls? The will for funding just isn't there.

Do you realize you've moved the goalposts here? At first, you said the study was so poorly constructed that any criticism could be easily neutralized by the author. Now you're saying (more logically, thankfully) that it would take a great deal of time and energy to create a similar epidemiological study. I agree. But regardless, there AREN'T any studies out there which refute it. See how that works? It's a simple 1 - 0 scoreboard. Doesn't mean it's right but there's nothing to say it's wrong.

Hey hang on, people in this thread have said correlation and causation are not the same thing and you have argued that it is the same thing, make up your mind The china study is all about correlation = causation. That is why it's an observational study.

What are you talking about? I've never once argued that correlation is the same as causation. The China Study is about correlation, NOT causation. I see where your problem is - you never read the book or the study to begin with, did you? I would suggest you stop listening to the accusations made by others on this thread, most of them are based on fallacious reasoning or downright lies. Campbell never claims that he has proven anything.

Get your facts straight, then you can distort them as you please. (To steal a famous member's signature)

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by Son of Will

 

I should point out all you have done is criticise the people who have researched the paper and found faults, you didn't criticise what they found, typical ad hom. Don't get me wrong, sometimes credentials need to be questioned, but usually what happens is someone makes an utterly stupid claim and then people quetion their credentials to seek out why they don't seem to speak with authority. However as one of these bloggers themselves says

More importantly, the strength of my argument and that of Campbell's depends not on our authority nor on our credentials, but on the evidence we use and the logic with which we use it.

Take a look at the arguments instead of just rubbishing them because the people involved are not post grad degree holders in the relative fields.

I am sorry you see it that way. What I have been doing is bringing PERSPECTIVE to a thread desperately in need of it. While you continue to compare online blogs with 25-year-long epidemiological studies conducted by highly reputable scientists, you're the one rubbishing the arguments of Campbell.

Did you know that he has responded to both of those online blogs? In other words, he's already refuted the refutations.

Originally posted by Son of Will

I am sorry you see it that way. What I have been doing is bringing PERSPECTIVE to a thread desperately in need of it. While you continue to compare online blogs with 25-year-long epidemiological studies conducted by highly reputable scientists, you're the one rubbishing the arguments of Campbell.

Did you know that he has responded to both of those online blogs? In other words, he's already refuted the refutations.

Firstly epidemeology can only take us so far, the only way to actually counter the study in full would be to run a second study using a control group, that is why the study cannot be used as evidence as you so wish it to be. Second i am fully aware of his responses, did you actually read them? He skipped over the difficult parts and instead tended to concentrate on the credentials of the individuals involved.

Hardly the work of an honest scientist.

More importantly you might want to check into the statistics of the study you defend so much, statistically it was pretty much a wash, the variations just were not high enough and also in one area it was shown fish protein seemed to offer a protective effect (if we assume campbells acceptance of variables is correct) while plant protein caused harm in another area. Are you aware that soy protein has been associated with increased rates of breast cancer? I'm guessing you haven't seen that, because it was an epidemeological study and as such, while it can be used in the media to scare a few people it's rather unimportant.

You dare to think you are the only one to bring perspective? How arrogant.

why are meat eaters so threatened by the thought of not eating meat?
someday it wont be finacially viable to keep mass producing this garbage, what then?
will you quietly make the change to a less harmful diet or jsut simply stop eating if you cant have ur hamburgers and chicken wings?

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by Ong Bak

 

dude, even if this WAS true, and i'm inclined to believe that it is, people are never going to stop eating meat. we cant' even get people to stop smoking awful tasting cancer causing cigarettes which shorten our lives below the mid seventies. what makes you think any significant amount of people would give up tasty, relatively safe meat.

i tinhk the common thread in both is addiction.
and ive seen some people stop consuming both once they fully understand waht is happening to thier bodies.
all it takes is that one split second where you fully realize exactly what you are putting into your body to stop.

reply to post by Son of Will


www.youtube.com...

In the above video, at 19 minutes and 17 seconds he begins to reveal his true intentions. It is fraud, but it's not legally punishable...because it's very simple to produce and interpret data (especially when you're the one producing AND interpreting it) from observational data to support any hypothesis. Selection bias, or perversion of data, is not good science.

For instance, there were some small associations between animal products and disease; however, Campbell fails to mention, evidently intentionally, that there were associations between plant proteins and cancer (which he admits to later...in the video above) and extremely strong associations between wheat consumption and heart disease/myocardial infarction....et al.

As Imagniary-dude already pointed out, this study is nothing more than a book of numbers or "correlations". Not only is it extremely difficult to interpret (unless you're unbiased and good with statistics/numbers), it's extremely unreliable in providing conclusive evidence of disease causality.

The China Project is either blindly accepted (usually by Campbell's colleagues at PCRM), due to the time consumption/difficulty in which it takes to review/interpret, or it is generally ignored because of how unreliable such studies are.

meat really good for you!
no study needed there, of course it has tons of protien and b17!
you will die without those in liek a few hours tops.
also, vegetables are poisonous.

reply to post by Son of Will

because there are no vegan cultures in the world.

Have you ever wondered why?

There is probably a reason hiding there, somewhere.