Vegetarians 'Avoid More Cancers" (1 Viewer)

[nooleen]

i used to wreck everyone's head going on about factory farms, now i can just have a burger and a laugh like a normal person

 

[sweetoblivion]

Jaysus, a feminist vegetarian, there's a scary prospect.

Like Ali G said, if feminists want equality with men, soon they'll be wanting animals to vote too....

The only militant veggie I've ever met is my brother, who's going through an anarcho-punk phase so....
Any people I've ever talked to who are extremely vocal on vegetarianism/veganism are meat eaters who can't understand why someone wouldn't want to eat meat etc.

 

[Lolo]

Not sure I'd list either of those in the 'pro' column.

http://www.peta2.com/outthere/OutthereSexiestVegetarian2009.asp?c=peta2_enews

Who the feck is Kellie Pickler? She's got that Nashville Bratz Doll look about her.

I too have been in numerous arguments instigated by meat-eaters, but I've also had plenty of evangelistic vegans berating me for not being as hardcore as them.

But then I've got into arguments with people who claim to be vegetarian but eat fish, or gelatine, so I'm probably just as bad.

 

[Wobbler]

Since I read that a week ago or whatever, the whole thing has been really getting on my tits.

I mean, what does the research actually tell us? That avoiding meat reduces the risk of cancer? Nah.

I'd argue that a disproportionate number of vegetarians lead a healthy life in lots of ways.

By being a vegetarian, you automatically fall into one broad category of people - you give a shit about what you eat.

A reasonably high percentage of my social circle/family are vegetarian. I'd imagine that would be less likely to be true if I grew up on a council estate.

I doubt many (although of course there's exceptions to every rule) vegetarians are, say, heroin addicts. Or alcoholics.

Most don't eat much fast/junk food. Most get a fair amount of exercise.

So, this study got a large group of people, who fall into two categories. Category A are people who are
-probably middle class
-All give a shit about what they eat
-Drink/drug abuse is moderate or non existent
-mostly avoid fast food/convenience food
-Exercise regularly
-Don't eat meat

Category B is a broad cross section of society all of whom eat meat.

If category B developed less cancers than A, it would be very interesting, because we might be able to draw the conclusion that meat helps fight cancer. It doesn't, so now all we know is that eating meat might not help fight cancer.

 

[flashback]

Wobbler, all of what you say is correct. But, if its published work, it should have had the statisticians going over it, and pulling it apart looking for this. All these people do is pour over data looking for errors like you outline, and there are ways to minimise them or get rid of them altogether.
If it got past the reviewers it should be solid enough. If there are any issues like the ones you mentioned, there will be rafts of letters to the editor in the next edition of British Journal of Cancer.
If these go unanswered there will be a countering paper published dismissing the first.


If I were to bet money, I would say that they are right. These academic statistician types tend to be quite good, precisely this is what they spend years and years learning and doing.
This back and forward will have gone on for months if not years beofre publication, errors will usually surface in that time.

 

[Milker]

a lower animal-protein based diet is better for your state of health and as the thread says Vegetarians 'Avoid More Cancers' ...and i'd figure vegans are safer again.

upset meateaters have a reassuring 'outta my cold, dead hands' tone in arguments i've had, all of which are started by meatists.

anyone read The China Study?


edit:just read wobbler..animal protein stimulates certain cancer tumours that plant protein doesn't...it's almost like we were meant to eat veg or something.

 

[GO]

Why is everybody so afraid to die?Its no big deal.
Theres 6 billion other dudes will still be around after you're gone.
I say you might as well enjoy whatever food you like while you've got the chance.Something is gonna get you no matter what.
Like Bill Hicks says,99 per cent of non smokers die.

 

[Wobbler]

Wobbler, all of what you say is correct. But, if its published work, it should have had the statisticians going over it, and pulling it apart looking for this. All these people do is pour over data looking for errors like you outline, and there are ways to minimise them or get rid of them altogether.
If it got past the reviewers it should be solid enough. If there are any issues like the ones you mentioned, there will be rafts of letters to the editor in the next edition of British Journal of Cancer.
If these go unanswered there will be a countering paper published dismissing the first.


If I were to bet money, I would say that they are right. These academic statistician types tend to be quite good, precisely this is what they spend years and years learning and doing.
This back and forward will have gone on for months if not years beofre publication, errors will usually surface in that time.

I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with how the study was conducted and if the findings were the opposite (as I said) ie fewer meat eaters developed cancer, the findings might be interesting.

Also, I didn't read the BMJ paper, I just read the BBC report on that paper. It's quite possible that BBC quoted the more interesting inferences and left out the rather more dull ones.

You seem to be suggesting that these researchers allowed for the lifestyle variations between the two groups either by adjusting the figures to allow for the variations or choosing a control group (the meat eaters) who mimic the vegetarians in every way bar the fact that they eat meat.

I'd argue that both don't seem possible. Unless we have accurate figures for the likelihood of all these lifestyle factors to cause cancer, which we clearly don't, how can we adjust the statistics accordingly.

Finding a sample group of meat eaters who mimic the vegetarians in every other way is far too absurd to even try to discuss.

If either of the above were attemped it would surely be a major part of the study and it would be disappointing if the beeb didn't mention it.

Once again, I'm sure the study was well worth conducting and I'm sure the BMJ were right to publish it but the inferrence that the BBC reported is hugely flawed (to my mind anyway)

 

[flashback]

You seem to be suggesting that these researchers allowed for the lifestyle variations between the two groups either by adjusting the figures to allow for the variations or choosing a control group (the meat eaters) who mimic the vegetarians in every way bar the fact that they eat meat.

I'd argue that both don't seem possible. Unless we have accurate figures for the likelihood of all these lifestyle factors to cause cancer, which we clearly don't, how can we adjust the statistics accordingly.

Finding a sample group of meat eaters who mimic the vegetarians in every other way is far too absurd to even try to discuss.

If either of the above were attemped it would surely be a major part of the study and it would be disappointing if the beeb didn't mention it.

Once again, I'm sure the study was well worth conducting and I'm sure the BMJ were right to publish it but the inferrence that the BBC reported is hugely flawed (to my mind anyway)

right, so this is basically what I'm saying alright.

And, right you can't actually find a sample group that controls exactly for meat vrs veggie. Even if you could there would be two different humans, unless they were identical twins. But right, this would be more or less impossible.
This problem is not unique to this study though. Its seen in almost every paper in Biology.

So that's where the statisticians come in. Amazingly there are a massive array of techniques you can use to make exactly these errors small, or even go away completely. Things like Sampling, Bootstrapping for starters, then you go into your Bayesian stuff, and Hidden Markov Models and that sort of thing.

You look at a huge number of different dimensions of the data, and you start eliminating those that have no predictive power, you refine this until you are in a place that you can say ok, I think this is to do with eating meat, not socio economics, genetics, or whatever.

At a certain point you can say this. This will have been 90% of the paper's work, and will have taken months or years to get everyone to agree with. In these papers the actual data gathering, and hypothesis formulation is trivial. Its all about getting rid of the noise in the data.

 

[broken arm]

vegetarians are sexy

 

[Wobbler]

vegetarians are sexy

That is certainly true. Sure half of Thumped are vegetarian and we're a bunch of rides.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

vegetarians are sexy

Can't say I agree.

I cannot be the only person whose thought process when someone declares they're a vegetarian is "lecturing, high-maintenence, condescending, annoying, picky-in-restaurants, holier-than-thou, where's-the-door?"
I'm not having a go, just my honest reaction. Vegetarians are as unattractive as any zealots.


On the topic in general:
Enjoying good food is too important to give up meat.
While I agree there is benefit to cutting down on animal consumption, it's more important to cut out other stuff. Processed, fast and junk food is much worse for you than meat.
Eating more vegetables is a great idea, but healthy (and good) eating should involve supplanting the processed foods in your diet, not tossing out the meat.
I will maintain that a jar of Ragu is way worse for you than a nice cut of striploin, and if you've cut out meat but are still eating from packets and jars, you're a fucking eejit.

 

[Wobbler]

Can't say I agree.

I cannot be the only person whose thought process when someone declares they're a vegetarian is "lecturing, high-maintenence, condescending, annoying, picky-in-restaurants, holier-than-thou, where's-the-door?"
I'm not having a go, just my honest reaction. Vegetarians are as unattractive as any zealots.


On the topic in general:
Enjoying good food is too important to give up meat.
While I agree there is benefit to cutting down on animal consumption, it's more important to cut out other stuff. Processed, fast and junk food is much worse for you than meat.
Eating more vegetables is a great idea, but healthy (and good) eating should involve supplanting the processed foods in your diet, not tossing out the meat.
I will maintain that a jar of Ragu is way worse for you than a nice cut of striploin, and if you've cut out meat but are still eating from packets and jars, you're a fucking eejit.

I'd be inclined to agree with you. BUT, if you buy into the notion that eating animals is morally wrong then surely eating steak is much worse than a jar of Dolmio.

 

[broken arm]

On the topic in general:
Enjoying good food is too important to give up meat.

well, i disagree with you there. Preventing climate change is too important an issue to think that you can maintain a lifestyle of high waste and self interest.

you can't seem to seperate the issue from yourself, your body and your health but if you can't see the bigger picture maybe you're the "fucking eejit".

 

[Wobbler]

Preventing climate change is too important an issue to think that you can maintain a lifestyle of high waste and self interest.

Climate change is one very important reason why everyone (except people who already have) should dramatically reduce their meat consumption. Personal health and animal welfare issues are two more.

Cutting out meat entirely doesn't make much sense to me. Especially, if that's your one way of reducing waste.

 

[GO]

well, i disagree with you there. Preventing climate change is too important an issue to think that you can maintain a lifestyle of high waste and self interest.

you can't seem to seperate the issue from yourself, your body and your health but if you can't see the bigger picture maybe you're the "fucking eejit".

I have to disagree with you there.The Big Picture is that the earth will continue regardless.

Live Fast.Eat Meat.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

well, i disagree with you there. Preventing climate change is too important an issue to think that you can maintain a lifestyle of high waste and self interest.

you can't seem to seperate the issue from yourself, your body and your health but if you can't see the bigger picture maybe you're the "fucking eejit".

I think I said there are benefits to cutting down on animal consumption.
Eating less meat is of great value to the planet. No argument.
Every action has a moral component to it in that sense though.
Travelling, having kids, taking a crap - they all contribute to environmental destruction in their own way.
You can still do these things while still living well and responsibly though.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

Live Fast.Eat Meat.

I have said piece of striploin sizzling on a skillet as I type.

 

[Lepra]

I cannot be the only person whose thought process when someone declares they're a vegetarian is "lecturing, high-maintenence, condescending, annoying, picky-in-restaurants, holier-than-thou, where's-the-door?"
I'm not having a go, just my honest reaction. Vegetarians are as unattractive as any zealots.
.

Sure, there's plenty of generalising rubberheads out there, you're not alone.
I've never met any of these "zealots" myself but i don't hang out with saps. At least not exclusively.

 

[Milker]

ask me hole...i eat fish occassionally and i'm not gonna start eating meat to appear attractive to fuckin anyone..i'm a grown-up.

animal protein+certain cancers=faster spread of said cancers
plant protein+certain cancers=slower spread of said cancers

still i eat fish, drink milk, eat eggs, butter, mayo and bread..plenty of animal protein there but i prefer meat-free meals...the ones i or my wife cook.

bt-fuckin-w meat-eaters are by far more the zealots in my 'every bbq/group meal/christmas/wedding' experience.

happy hunting