meat = shorter life

reply to post by Sourdough4life


Again, you're not linking to any peer-reviewed rebuttals. An online review doesn't carry nearly as much weight as a published article. He had no real obligation to do so, but Campbell did deliver a response to his criticism here.

reply to post by Sourdough4life


A little extreme but I get it, supply and demand is what makes the world go round.

I knew a "strict vegetarian" who practiced and read all he could for 23 years in order to live to 100.

I met him 3 years after he went to the hospital for major heartburn. After many conclusive tests, he was told of his cholesterol levels. Given five years to live as his heart was 25% clinically dead, due to the multiple heart attacks he suffered in the 15 hours prior to coming to the hospital (for heartburn) He always complained he was freezing in the heat of the summer.(circulation) He died at 42.

He stated to me: If you do not ingest it, you body will keep making cholesterol, with no shut off switch.

Originally posted by xEphon

Originally posted by Son of Will
reply to post by unityemissions

 

My point still stands - the only criticism aimed at The China Study comes in the form of blogs and anonymous internet hate sites. This is probably the 20th blogger to attack Campbell's work - it doesn't mean a great deal unless it carries some professional weight behind it.

People who are so distinguished in their scientific fields like Campbell, don't tend to respond to each and every online accusation. They respond to academic peers, people who have proven themselves to be experts on the subject. So far, not ONE peer-reviewed paper has been submitted that refutes the China Study.

Considering the vastness of the meat and dairy industries, which dwarf any grains industries (besides corn), I personally think she is being funded by one of them.

What you're saying makes absolutely no sense.
You dont need to be a "distinguished scientist" to analyze scientific data. My professors had me do it all the time at university. As hard as it may be for you to believe, scientists regularly employ confirmation bias in their studies. Ever wonder why one study will tell you one thing and a year later you get a completely different result? You got it, despite being peer review by distinguished scientist, many of these studies reach their conclusion by dismissing inconvenient data. It just so happens that this blogger took the time to point out these inconsistencies. Inconsistencies which refute the conclusion no less.

As far as no peer reviewed studies being done to refute this peer reviewed study, a simple google search resulted in 3 peer reviewed studies that state:

Meta-analysis of several prospective studies showed no significant differences in the mortality caused by colorectal, stomach, lung, prostate or breast cancers and stroke between vegetarians and “health-conscious” nonvegetarians.

Study

Sooo...what to believe...

What I said makes *perfect* sense. If you were to read it with an unbiased mind. First - the China Study was the largest epidemiological study in human health done in history. It's not the sort of half-assed publication that sees contradictory studies published a year later. When a study comes along with a data set 1/10 the size of Campbell's which refutes it, that will be interesting. But it hasn't happened yet.

And as I've already said, of course you don't need to be a distinguished scientist to make a critique of a professional's work. But it's a fact of life and modern society, the big dogs at the top of the food chain can't respond to each and every yelp from the little dogs at the bottom. That's why these sorts of blogs only get attention from uneducated laymen.

The 3 papers you cite are relevant to the general field of disease and nutrition, but do not address the China Study in any way shape or form. Keep looking, you haven't found what you think have, buddy =)

Originally posted by Son of Will
reply to post by Sourdough4life

 

Again, you're not linking to any peer-reviewed rebuttals. An online review doesn't carry nearly as much weight as a published article. He had no real obligation to do so, but Campbell did deliver a response to his criticism here.

Your inability to read is funny.

Loren cordain had a debate with colin T campbell. They both hold degrees in nutrional sciences. What more do you want?

I'm sure in your vegan dogma world the only thing that matters is vegan propaganda and peer reviewed studies(FYI there are tons of peer revieed studies showing the benefits of high fat animal foods, dairy and meat)

Maybe once your health starts to degnerate you'll come crawling back to the dark side.

Ladies and Gentlemen...

For some odd reason, the which I've never been able to figure out, this topic brings with it a considerable amount of animosity, or at least the possibility of said animosity...

Lo and behold, animosity has appeared.

Good manners are required on these forums as well as at the dinner table, people. Let's put them into practice, shall we?

Thanks so much.

Originally posted by Sourdough4life

Originally posted by Son of Will
reply to post by Sourdough4life

 

Again, you're not linking to any peer-reviewed rebuttals. An online review doesn't carry nearly as much weight as a published article. He had no real obligation to do so, but Campbell did deliver a response to his criticism here.

Your inability to read is funny.

Loren cordain had a debate with colin T campbell. They both hold degrees in nutrional sciences. What more do you want?

I'm sure in your vegan dogma world the only thing that matters is vegan propaganda and peer reviewed studies(FYI there are tons of peer revieed studies showing the benefits of high fat animal foods, dairy and meat)

Maybe once your health starts to degnerate you'll come crawling back to the dark side.

edit on 9-9-2010 by Sourdough4life because: (no reason given)

Again with the baseless insults, eh? When your arguments fall flat, is that all that remains? By the way, a live debate means even less than the blogs you've been linking to. Debate skills, charisma, social skills, these are what generally determine the outcome of a debate. If that's all you've got against Campbell, then I'm sorry for you.

And by the way, I was an avid meat eater for my entire life. Due to numerous physiological problems, I decided to go vegan. That alone has cleared up all my previous health conditions, so at least for me, it's not dogma - it's reality.

reply to post by Son of Will


I apologize, but stating that someone has to be a world renown scientist in order to dispute a conclusion reached in a study is absurd and makes no sense to me. The data is there for you to see. The criticisms of that data are there for you to fact check. If you choose to believe Campbell, despite the overwhelming inconsistencies found in his study, because it fits your model of thinking, then you're employing the same confirmation bias that was employed in this study. I even linked studies which are in contradiction to what Campbell found. There will never be a rebuttal study. Such a thing doesn't exist. Perhaps a similar study with different results, which there are plenty of already out there, sure, but nothing that you're asking for. I really don't know what else there is to say other than believe what you will.

Cheers

Originally posted by xEphon
reply to post by Son of Will

 

I apologize, but stating that someone has to be a world renown scientist in order to dispute a conclusion reached in a study is absurd and makes no sense to me. The data is there for you to see. The criticisms of that data are there for you to fact check. If you choose to believe Campbell, despite the overwhelming inconsistencies found in his study, because it fits your model of thinking, then you're employing the same confirmation bias that was employed in this study. I even linked studies which are in contradiction to what Campbell found. There will never be a rebuttal study. Such a thing doesn't exist. Perhaps a similar study with different results, which there are plenty of already out there, sure, but nothing that you're asking for. I really don't know what else there is to say other than believe what you will.

Cheers

edit on 9-9-2010 by xEphon because: (no reason given)

Again, I never stated that you have to be world-renowned to challenge something. That's a gross mischaracterization of what I said, actually. I said that having basic credentials makes it easier for one's work to get attention.

And for the record I have looked at all her data. I haven't double-checked it against the raw data - but have you? Seriously, you're accusing me of being a hypocrite for not checking her work, when YOU haven't reviewed either her work or the work she is claiming to refute? That's not a very honest stance, mate.

Dr Campbell responded to her critique, in fact. You can find it somewhere in this thread, I've already linked to it several times. But whatever, I get the strong impression that honest research is not at the top of people's agenda here - but sadly to confirm their preconceived biases.

OMNIVORE meaning we are inclined by nature to eat meat and green. Meat isnt killing us but the quality of meat we eat is. Everything in moderation..... btw what is it with meanie greenies always attacking meat eaters? I thought Stegosaurus was a sign from nature to stop pesting Tyranosaurus with " hey dude you should try this veggie burger instead".... Grow some bony plates and eat all the lush vegetation you please.... I hope you get ticks on your lip and splinters in your chest from all the tree hugging.... could you imagine a world without meat eaters? We would have to kill animals to control their populations and mass burn the carcasses.... at least we are recycling the meat back to the earth.... " plop plop fizz fizz oh what a relief it is" yourself.... good day

if you want a true study of humans being mostly vegetarian then read up on the hunze people. to get you started i provide a link
hunza people

It is believed that among these people centenarians are a common occurrence, and that it is not unusual for elderly persons to reach the venerable age of 130. It has even been reported that a significant number have survived to the incredible age of 145!

Another important point to understand is that the health of the Hunzas is not characterized by the simple absence of disease, although that in itself is quite an accomplishment. More than just not being affected by diseases that strike down so many of our peers in the prime of life, the Hunzas seem to possess boundless energy and enthusiasm, and at the same time are surprisingly serene. Compared to the average Hunza, a westerner of the same age - even one who is considered extremely fit - would seem sickly. And not only seem sickly, but actually be sick!

Well we will find ways to enjoy our inorganic lifestyles and burn the garden of eden to the ground one day forever... stem cell research, hgh etc.... I do not want to live like an animal and i am all for a future of science and technology.... cmon nano immune systems one day will have stock.... being alive will rock.... I like my steak and provologne cheese , onions , hot peppers and chipotle sauce sub way sandwich very much.... a nice cig afterwards and bong! a higher state of consciousness is achieved.... 70 is a nice number btw 120 plus hmmnn how much earthly things can you do? even the richest men after a while stop buying the newest car and buy a classic from an earlier time.... veggie burgers with meaty buns.... delicious

reply to post by loner007


Check this out for good measure... www.biblelife.org...

So the Hunzas are not totally vegetarian... Hmm. That seems to be against what a lot of vegans are preaching for meat is included in the Hunzas diet. The majority of their diet is MEAT in the winter. This further promotes the need for meats in the diet, in MODERATION. It seems to me as though the word moderation is not in a vegans vocabulary.

Studies conducted on mice, may show that mice who were given less food lived longer and were healthier than mice who were given a "healthy" diet. Though controversial, these studies all conclude that it is plausible that less food means healthier organs and muscles, resulting in longer lifespans and a fitter, happier body and mind.

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by loner007

 

Check this out for good measure... www.biblelife.org...

yeah I beginning to see the guy who promoted the hunza lied through his teeth. The link you have provided didnt do it for me as you can see from the title so i found another study which claimed the same as the one you provided. I really should have done more research on the hunzas but there you go...

I think as someone had previously stated that maybe an all vegetarian diet is imperative for some people where some people need a little meat in their diet, It all comes down to body type and many other factors, in essence it comes down to who you are and what your body needs and can handle. This is without a doubt a topic that will be discussed and debated for many years to come.
I totally respect vegetarians views on not wanting to kill animals for meat. I LOVE animals, but as a Christian, I believe I was given domain over the animals of the earth as is stated in the holy book, and I believe it is necessary for me due to my bodies needs that I need some meat in my diet. Granted I probably could do away with less meat.

Two days ago I grilled a 1" thick ribeye steak AND a pork chop, and I ate them both literally with my bare hands. It was wonderful and I would wager one cannot find the same enjoyment from eating a stalk of celery.

if you wunt inyone to take you sewrously, stop talking like dis.


There are healthy meat's and unhealthy. There is a healthy way of going about cooking your meat.

I tried an all vegetarian diet, I ended up becoming severely anemic, its all dependent on your body chemistry. I am some one who has a very hard time absorbing and processing iron and many other vitamins and minerals. I am a person who requires meat at least every day, or else I pass out and become ill. So much so that I cannot leave my own bed.

Pushing the vegetarian diet on people who genetically require meat is cruel. Not everyone needs meat but there are people who do. People like myself, who cannot handle supplements. Before any of you vegans and vegetarians rip into me, 1) I have tried the vegetarian diet 2 years of hell and damage to my body is what I got 2) I have a lot of allergies to metals which are in trace amounts in certain supplement pills 3) I cannot tolerate high amount of certain minerals and vitamins, normal for average is too much for me. 4) I love meat


These studies look at the average if there are anomalies they often get excluded what you are seeing is the people who fall within the average also, you would have to study from birth to death monitoring EXACTLY what these people are eating, making sure they all get the same amount same calories a day and so on and so forth.

reply to post by kimish


Omg are you using religious doctrine as an excuse for eating meat? Did you know Jesus was in fact a buddist that he taught buddhism? Did you know that he spent most of his years in Tibet and India and his movements was recorded by the scolars there? He was called St Issa and they still talk about him today in tibet. Also if you look at the rosary beads used by catholics and look at the rosary beads used in Tibet they have striking similiarities like the same number of beads to give one example. Also Buddhism teaches you not to eat the meat of a living animal. So in all respects if you think as a "christian" and follow the churchs doctrine you are in no way following in Jesus footsteps.

lost years of Jesus