The Meat Eaters Excuse
BeatGenie
meat, because we have the ability to. We have frontal lobes, we have thumbs,
that means we can kill animals for our personal gain. Even though it's obvious
our systems aren't set up at all for any animal product digestion. But here's
my point... if we have the ability to kill animals, which we do, I think we
should reverse it. We have the ability NOT to kill animals for our personal
gain, and still survive. You actually survive better without animal products in
your system. Raising any animal for food is going to inedibly cause suffering.
I'd say getting your head cut off counts as suffering. Don't any of you want to
cause less suffering instead of more suffering? I think that's an inborn human
trait. Why are you ignoring it?
Scott
BeatGenie <beat...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990804033132...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
> I've noticed the excuse meat eaters give in this group is that we should
eat
> meat, because we have the ability to. We have frontal lobes, we have
thumbs,
> that means we can kill animals for our personal gain. Even though it's
obvious
> our systems aren't set up at all for any animal product digestion.
But it is very obvious that we have digestive tracts that are ideally suited
to digest both plant and animal material.
But here's
> my point... if we have the ability to kill animals, which we do, I think
we
> should reverse it. We have the ability NOT to kill animals for our
personal
> gain, and still survive. You actually survive better without animal
products in
> your system.
You survive better with a balanced diet of moderation in all aspects.
Raising any animal for food is going to inedibly cause suffering.
don't you mean that everything edible causes suffering.
Kveldulf
BeatGenie wrote in message <19990804033132...@ng-fe1.aol.com>...
>I've noticed the excuse meat eaters give in this group is that we should
eat
>meat, because we have the ability to.
Only because it is typical for vegetarians to leap to the "we aren't amde to
eat meat" argument.
You see, we use it more as a defense.
We have frontal lobes, we have thumbs,
>that means we can kill animals for our personal gain.
Well......yeah?
Even though it's obvious
>our systems aren't set up at all for any animal product digestion.
Really? I don't see that as obvious. When you grow and extra stomach and a
mouth full of huge, blocky, flat teeth.........let me know.
But here's
>my point... if we have the ability to kill animals, which we do, I think we
>should reverse it. We have the ability NOT to kill animals for our personal
>gain, and still survive.
t h a t i s BRILLIANT!
OH MY GOD! THAT IS THE GREATEST IDEA I HAVE.............LOL
You actually survive better without animal products in
>your system.
No proof.
<Raising any animal for food is going to inedibly cause suffering.
Life causes suffering.
>I'd say getting your head cut off counts as suffering. Don't any of you
want to
>cause less suffering instead of more suffering? I think that's an inborn
human
>trait. Why are you ignoring it?
I am just trying to ignore you. But I can't seem to pull it off.
Kveldulf
Scott wrote in message <7o9em8$34j$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>...
>eat
>thumbs,
>> that means we can kill animals for our personal gain. Even though it's
>obvious
>> our systems aren't set up at all for any animal product digestion.
>
>
suited
>to digest both plant and animal material.
>
YES.
>But here's
>> my point... if we have the ability to kill animals, which we do, I think
>we
>> should reverse it. We have the ability NOT to kill animals for our
>personal
>> gain, and still survive. You actually survive better without animal
>products in
>> your system.
>
>You survive better with a balanced diet of moderation in all aspects.
>
>
>Raising any animal for food is going to inedibly cause suffering.
>
>don't you mean that everything edible causes suffering.
Actually, I think he meant indelibly.
The Good Reverend
Opinions of this author are the author's own, unless someone wants to pay
him for them. Theft of the author's ideas will be considered plagarism and
violators will be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law, since he's
broke and has five friends who just passed the bar exam.
* * * * * * * * * *
On 4 Aug 1999, BeatGenie wrote:
> I've noticed the excuse meat eaters give in this group is that we should eat
> meat, because we have the ability to.
I've noticed that the excuse vegiNazis give in the group is that we should
not eat meat because we are morally bereft if we do. Oh, and we have the
ability to not eat meat.
> We have frontal lobes,
Well, some of us, anyway...
> we have thumbs,
> that means we can kill animals for our personal gain.
Yup. You hear how Bill Gates got rich? Killin' possum, yup, sureree Bob...
> Even though it's obvious
> our systems aren't set up at all for any animal product digestion.
Bullshit. Are you a doctor? An expert in human physiology and diet? Are
any of your so-called vegan healthfood experts trained as a doctor? Are
you going to keep making unfounded claims with no hard evidence backed by
a certified, FDA approved doctor?
No, no, no, and...yes. It is the Beater of the Genie, after all.
> But here's
> my point... if we have the ability to kill animals, which we do, I think we
> should reverse it. We have the ability NOT to kill animals for our personal
> gain, and still survive.
> You actually survive better without animal products in
> your system.
Yeah. Show me a study that lasts longterm conducted by a health institute
where people ate absolutely no animal products or byproducts for their
entire lifetime and were empirically compared to people who ate primarily
meat, and people who ate rare amounts of meat, and people who ate medium
amounts of meat. Then I'll believe you.
> Raising any animal for food is going to inedibly cause suffering.
> I'd say getting your head cut off counts as suffering.
Ah. So writing "moron" on your forehead in indelible ink and sending you
out on the streets of Seattle would count as causing human suffering, yes?
Sorry. i just think it'd be counted as something pretty funny.
> Don't any of you want to
> cause less suffering instead of more suffering?
Suffering builds character. If everything were easy, nothing would be fun.
Love is nothing without hate.
My best lesson in theater came from my mentor. He said, "Nothing is funny
without some pain, and there is nothing painful that doesn't have
something funny about it."
> I think that's an inborn human
> trait. Why are you ignoring it?
The Marquis de Sade would not agree with you. Nor would Ivan the Terrible,
or the Borgias, or Machiavelli, or Caesar, or Stalin. Wanting to ease the
pain of another is not a human characteristic that's bred into your mind.
You learn it from your surroundings.
Which would mean that my mocking of people who reveal themselves to be
idiots would cause them, to some degree, suffering. Your telling Violet
(someone who did nothing to you personally or say anything bad about you,
to my knowledge) that she was a dumb bitch, means that you caused her
suffering.
Which means your little thought about how people are all born to be nice
to each other is about as full of philosophical truth as a rat's asshole
is full of Chanel Number 5.
The Good Reverend
LtlHippo
without some pain, and there is nothing painful that doesn't have
something funny about it.">>
Let's see. Watching my best friend in pain and dying from cancer. Nope, don't
see anything funny about that.
Barb-Animal lover, nature lover, camper, and mom.
The Good Reverend
"Five million years of evolution to produce YOUR brain and intellect,
hundreds of wars and countless civil actions to allow you the freedom to
say anything as eloquently and as elegantly as you want, and
the best you can come up with is 'Fuck You?' Frankly, I'm disappointed."
Love comes in all shapes and sizes. Mine's in a Styrofoam Happy Meal.
_________________________________________________________________________
Opinions of this author are the author's own, unless someone wants to pay
him for them. Theft of the author's ideas will be considered plagarism and
violators will be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law, since he's
broke and has five friends who just passed the bar exam.
* * * * * * * * * *
> <<My best lesson in theater came from my mentor. He said, "Nothing is funny
> without some pain, and there is nothing painful that doesn't have
> something funny about it.">>
>
> Let's see. Watching my best friend in pain and dying from cancer. Nope, don't
> see anything funny about that.
Feh. Not to discount your pain, but I have a story that is quite painful
as well for me to recall.
My very dear uncle was dying from stomach cancer, and in his last days,
they were giving him morphine to ease the pain.
Now, here's the kicker. He hated cats. With a passion. When he married
again ( a year or so before he died) he married a woman who loved cats and
had three of them. The cats loved him, too, and were continually underfoot
and on top of him, especially when he was taking a nap. Several games of
kitty baseball (there's the windup, there's the pitch...and it's a
high-fly tabby to center field!) occurred during this time. The morphine
started to give him hallucinations, and he knew that we knew he was seeing
things. We talked a little bit about them.
So when I was helping him to the bathroom, he grinned at me and poked me
in the ribs. Pointed to the wastebasket, and said, "Look. There's a cat in
the wastebasket." And proceeded to give the wastebasket an almighty kick
that sent it spinning into the hallway, emptying the contents everywhere.
I had to sit on the toilet myself to keep from falling down laughing.
He died two days later.
The Good Reverend
BeatGenie
cholesterol. Meat does (except venison, which is kinda hard to get a hold of)
>You actually survive better without animal products in
>>your system.
>
>No proof.
Scott
> You are supposed to have 0 cholestorol in your diet. Vegetables have no
> cholesterol. Meat does (except venison, which is kinda hard to get a hold
of)
more and more research showing that cholesterol in one's diet does not lead
to heart disease
BeatGenie
>
>> I've noticed the excuse meat eaters give in this group is that we should
>eat
>> meat, because we have the ability to.
>
>I've noticed that the excuse vegiNazis give in the group is that we should
>not eat meat because we are morally bereft if we do. Oh, and we have the
>ability to not eat meat.
So, as soon as someone because a vegetarian, they become a 'vegiNazi.' I'm sure
you refer to any assertive woman as a 'femiNazi.' You are a pig.
>> We have frontal lobes,
>
>Well, some of us, anyway...
That's really funny.
>> we have thumbs,
>> that means we can kill animals for our personal gain.
>
>Yup. You hear how Bill Gates got rich? Killin' possum, yup, sureree Bob...
What?
>> Even though it's obvious
>> our systems aren't set up at all for any animal product digestion.
>
>Bullshit. Are you a doctor? An expert in human physiology and diet? Are
>any of your so-called vegan healthfood experts trained as a doctor? Are
>you going to keep making unfounded claims with no hard evidence backed by
>a certified, FDA approved doctor?
Theres alot of evidence that a plant based diet is 1,000,000 times healthier
for you.
>Ah. So writing "moron" on your forehead in indelible ink and sending you
>out on the streets of Seattle would count as causing human suffering, yes?
>
>Sorry. i just think it'd be counted as something pretty funny.
What the fuck is this supposed to mean?
>> Don't any of you want to
>> cause less suffering instead of more suffering?
>
>Suffering builds character. If everything were easy, nothing would be fun.
>Love is nothing without hate.
I'm refering to the animals suffering.
>My best lesson in theater came from my mentor. He said, "Nothing is funny
>without some pain, and there is nothing painful that doesn't have
>something funny about it."
So, you're a drama fag?
>> I think that's an inborn human
>> trait. Why are you ignoring it?
>
>The Marquis de Sade would not agree with you. Nor would Ivan the Terrible,
>or the Borgias, or Machiavelli, or Caesar, or Stalin. Wanting to ease the
>pain of another is not a human characteristic that's bred into your mind.
>You learn it from your surroundings.
I could care less about these people. Einstein wouldn't have said this.
>Which would mean that my mocking of people who reveal themselves to be
>idiots would cause them, to some degree, suffering. Your telling Violet
>(someone who did nothing to you personally or say anything bad about you,
>to my knowledge) that she was a dumb bitch, means that you caused her
>suffering.
Yes. She insulted me first. I don't attack someone, unless they provoked me.
>Which means your little thought about how people are all born to be nice
>to each other is about as full of philosophical truth as a rat's asshole
>is full of Chanel Number 5.
We're all born equal. As babies, we cause no suffering.
The Good Reverend
"Five million years of evolution to produce YOUR brain and intellect,
hundreds of wars and countless civil actions to allow you the freedom to
say anything as eloquently and as elegantly as you want, and
the best you can come up with is 'Fuck You?' Frankly, I'm disappointed."
* * * * * * * * * *
On 4 Aug 1999, BeatGenie wrote:
> >I've noticed that the excuse vegiNazis give in the group is that we should
> >not eat meat because we are morally bereft if we do. Oh, and we have the
> >ability to not eat meat.
>
> So, as soon as someone because a vegetarian, they become a 'vegiNazi.' I'm sure
> you refer to any assertive woman as a 'femiNazi.' You are a pig.
No, as soon as a vegetarian starts ragging on me for my eating meat and
insulting my intelligence with madeup quotes and misinformation without
ever doing anything to prove me anything conclusive, yet still calls me
immoral for it - that's a VegiNazi. Like a MoralsNazi, ChristianNazi,
FashionNazi, FoodNazi, SoupNazi, TheaterNazi...
> >> Even though it's obvious
> >> our systems aren't set up at all for any animal product digestion.
> >
> >Bullshit. Are you a doctor? An expert in human physiology and diet? Are
> >any of your so-called vegan healthfood experts trained as a doctor? Are
> >you going to keep making unfounded claims with no hard evidence backed by
> >a certified, FDA approved doctor?
>
> Theres alot of evidence that a plant based diet is 1,000,000 times healthier
> for you.
Prove it. Not by citing useless vegan feelgood books, but with empirical
scientific evidence and studies.
> >Ah. So writing "moron" on your forehead in indelible ink and sending you
> >out on the streets of Seattle would count as causing human suffering, yes?
> >
> >Sorry. i just think it'd be counted as something pretty funny.
>
> What the fuck is this supposed to mean?
That writing MORON on your forehead and sending you through downtown
Seattle would be amusing, as well as a socially accurate description.
> >> Don't any of you want to
> >> cause less suffering instead of more suffering?
> >
> >Suffering builds character. If everything were easy, nothing would be fun.
> >Love is nothing without hate.
>
> I'm refering to the animals suffering.
Ah. So now we're to an inborn human tendency to be kind to animals?
Ever burn ants with a magnifying glass when you were a kid?
> >My best lesson in theater came from my mentor. He said, "Nothing is funny
> >without some pain, and there is nothing painful that doesn't have
> >something funny about it."
>
> So, you're a drama fag?
Proudly. But then again, I'm a straight drama fag, and my career in
theater gave me a lot more public speaking experience and social skills
than the sweaty-pit football boys and the "sensitive, arty" children who
think Anime babes are cuter than RL women and that Xena, the Warrior
Princess is the epitome of the fantasy girlfriend. Trust me, little one,
theater, speech, and dance team were fantastic. Especially since you got
to hang out in coed changing rooms. Where else could you possibly get
opportunities like that in high school?
Unfortunately, those who believe that the physical and "artistic" world
are the end all-be-all of creation are missing out a great deal on their
lives. And the absolute lack of tact and your tendency to use prejudicial
language to be derogatory towards me is probably the best indication of
your lack of social skills and intelligence.
But then again, this is coming from The Beater of the Genie, someone who
says he's all for human compassion and understanding, then proceeds to
scream his head off at someone who points out his idiocy.
> >> I think that's an inborn human
> >> trait. Why are you ignoring it?
Why are YOU ignoring it? You say you're for it, then you say you're not
for it. Decide one way or another and get over it, instead of bitching
about people who call you out on your lack of decision.
> >The Marquis de Sade would not agree with you. Nor would Ivan the Terrible,
> >or the Borgias, or Machiavelli, or Caesar, or Stalin. Wanting to ease the
> >pain of another is not a human characteristic that's bred into your mind.
> >You learn it from your surroundings.
>
> I could care less about these people. Einstein wouldn't have said this.
Einstein did not rule a significant portion of the world. Einstein,
however, helped created the atomic bomb, which caused a magnificent amount
of human suffering and environmental suffering in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Einstein also loved bratwurst.
> >Which would mean that my mocking of people who reveal themselves to be
> >idiots would cause them, to some degree, suffering. Your telling Violet
> >(someone who did nothing to you personally or say anything bad about you,
> >to my knowledge) that she was a dumb bitch, means that you caused her
> >suffering.
>
> Yes. She insulted me first. I don't attack someone, unless they provoked me.
>
> >Which means your little thought about how people are all born to be nice
> >to each other is about as full of philosophical truth as a rat's asshole
> >is full of Chanel Number 5.
>
> We're all born equal. As babies, we cause no suffering.
>
Has absolutely no relevance to the fact that your theories are still empty
and substanceless.
Enjoy.
John Mercer
> You are supposed to have 0 cholestorol in your diet. Vegetables have no
> cholesterol. Meat does (except venison, which is kinda hard to get a hold of)
Wow. Three falsehoods in a row (assuming that we define cholesterol
broadly)!
That's impressive!
>
> >You actually survive better without animal products in
> >>your system.
> >
> >No proof.
Yep. But that doesn't stop "ethical" veg*ns from lying through their
teeth and claiming that they have proof.
--
John Mercer
Scott
healthier
> for you.
BeatGenie
whoever made the alphabet is responsible for the bible.
>Einstein did not rule a significant portion of the world. Einstein,
>however, helped created the atomic bomb, which caused a magnificent amount
>of human suffering and environmental suffering in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
>Einstein also loved bratwurst.
>The Beater of the Genie, someone who
>says he's all for human compassion and understanding, then proceeds to
>scream his head off at someone who points out his idiocy.
For the last time. She insulted me first. She was making fun of my poetry. The
poetry that I didn't even bring into the conversation. How is poetry idiotic?
>Ah. So now we're to an inborn human tendency to be kind to animals?
>Ever burn ants with a magnifying glass when you were a kid?
Nope.
>That writing MORON on your forehead and sending you through downtown
>Seattle would be amusing, as well as a socially accurate description.
You are a pig.
James Hepler
BeatGenie wrote:
>
> You are supposed to have 0 cholestorol in your diet. Vegetables have no
> cholesterol.
Are you sure?
> Meat does (except venison, which is kinda hard to get a hold of)
Venison is easy to get a hold of. All you have to do is shoot a deer or
know someone who did.
James Hepler
John Mercer
> The Good Reverend wrote:
> >On 4 Aug 1999, BeatGenie wrote:
> >
> >> I've noticed the excuse meat eaters give in this group is that we should
> >eat
> >> meat, because we have the ability to.
Nice straw man!
There's a great reason to eat venison instead of organic rice--it causes
far less animal suffering and deaths per pound on your plate.
But you don't really care about the animals.
> >I've noticed that the excuse vegiNazis give in the group is that we should
> >not eat meat because we are morally bereft if we do. Oh, and we have the
> >ability to not eat meat.
>
> So, as soon as someone because a vegetarian, they become a 'vegiNazi.'
No, he specified vegiNazis. Clearly, not all veg*ns are members of that
class; some admit that they choose veg*nism for esthetic reasons and
avoid lying.
You clearly are a vegiNazi, though.
> I'm sure you refer to any assertive woman as a 'femiNazi.'
You seem to be sure about many things of which you are obviously
incredibly ignorant, like nutritional epidemiology.
> You are a pig.
Your empty ad hominems provide insight into your lack of character and
ethics.
---snip---
>
> Theres alot of evidence that a plant based diet is 1,000,000 times healthier
> for you.
You're lying. The preponderance of evidence indicates that diet is not
very important.
I'll bet you've never even looked at any evidence.
---snip---
> >
> >Suffering builds character. If everything were easy, nothing would be fun.
> >Love is nothing without hate.
>
> I'm refering to the animals suffering.
No, you're only referring to eating the evidence. You don't really care
about reducing actual animal suffering. You're an ethical fraud.
Which causes more animal suffering--a pound of venison or a pound of
organic rice?
> >My best lesson in theater came from my mentor. He said, "Nothing is funny
> >without some pain, and there is nothing painful that doesn't have
> >something funny about it."
>
> So, you're a drama fag?
So, you're a homophobic bigot?
---snip---
--
John Mercer
BeatGenie
>organic rice?
They're probably just about equal. Hunters are irresponsible people though.
I've heard horror stories of hunters torturing their 'prey'. And I've also seen
a dead deer in a ditch in the middle of town. I wonder how it got there.
>> You are a pig.
>
>Your empty ad hominems provide insight into your lack of character and
>ethics.
>
>
But 'The Good Reverend' calling me a moron was alright?
>You clearly are a vegiNazi, though.
How so? Am I forcing you to become a vegetarian? No.
Thought Insertion
> to digest both plant and animal material.
Why do you use the term ideally suited?
>
>
> You survive better with a balanced diet of moderation in all aspects.
>
Yes, one that includes a wide variety of grains, fruits, nuts, veggies, etc.
Thought Insertion
> >your system.
>
> No proof.
>
A HEALTHY WAY TO LIVE
According to the American Dietetic Association (ADA), the nation’s authority on
dietary matters, vegetarian diets are
associated with reduced risk for a number of chronic diseases that plague
Americans, including obesity, coronary
artery disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, colorectal cancer, lung
cancer, and kidney disease (ADA Position
on Vegetarian Diets, J of ADA, v97 No. 11, 1997). In fact, vegan diets, which
contain only foods from plants, may be
the healthiest diets of all.
Cancer Prevention
Leading cancer authorities agree that plant foods protect against cancer.
Plant foods are loaded with nutrients (like vitamin C, vitamin E, and
beta-carotene) that have been shown to inhibit cancer in a number of ways.
Plants also contain phytochemicals like isoflavones and lycopene, some of
which have been shown to inhibit cancer cell and tumor growth directly (Nutr
Cancer, 1992;18:1?29). These phytochemicals are not found in animal
foods.
Animal foods like meat, on the other hand, contain compounds that raise the
risk for cancer. Chicken is higher than red meat in heterocyclic amines,
which are compounds that directly increase cancer risk (Cancer Res,
1995;55(20):4516).
Vegetarians have lower death rates from cancer, specifically colon and lung
cancer (V. Messina, MPH, RD & M. Messina, PhD, The Dietitian’s Guide to
Vegetarian Diets, 1996). The high fiber content of a vegetarian diet is one
reason, but there are probably other factors. Vegetarian women have lower
blood levels of estrogen, which may help protect them from breast cancer
(ADA, 1997).
A Diet with Heart
The risk for heart disease is linked to diets high in saturated fat, which is
found mostly in animal foods and processed foods. Heart disease is much less
common among vegetarian men, with vegans having the lowest risk of
all (The Dietitian’s Guide to Vegetarian Diets, 1996). Vegetarian diets have
been shown to be more effective for treating and reversing heart disease than
traditional dietary approaches, including eating low-fat meats (JAMA,
1995;274:894). Besides their lower levels of saturated fat ? and no cholesterol
? plant foods also contain antioxidants, which directly protect against fatty
build-up in the arteries.
In addition to animal fat and cholesterol, animal protein also may raise the
risk for heart disease. This may be one reason why diets based on low-fat meats
are not as protective as diets based on plant foods (Am J Clin Nutr,
1989;50:280).
Bone Health
Many factors affect bone health including exercise, adequate calcium and
vitamin D intake, high sodium intake, and
smoking. Eating too much protein (particularly animal protein, as it tends to
be higher in sulfur) makes the blood more
acidic, causing calcium to be leached from the bones and raising the risk for
osteoporosis (Calcif Tissue Int,
1994;44:335). Vegan diets tend to be lower in protein, but since there are
currently no studies on the calcium needs of
vegans, it is advisable to meet the recommended intake.
Some calcium-rich plant foods, like calcium-set tofu and calcium-fortified
soymilk, are also rich in isoflavones (found only
in soyfoods) which may help to make bones stronger (Soybeans: Chem, Tech &
Util, 1997). So, a serving of
calcium-fortified soymilk ? which contains just as much calcium as a glass of
cow’s milk ? is an excellent choice.
Contamination
Residues of antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, herbicides, heavy metals, and
other non-degrading toxins from the
environment accumulate up the food chain and into animal products. Non-seafood
meats and dairy account for over
90% of human exposure to the toxic chemical dioxin, and fish accounts for 7%
(Food Chemical News, 11/11/95).
Salmonella, E. coli, and other bacterial contamination of animal products can
be fatal in children, pregnant women,
nursing mothers, and the aged (USDA Fact Sheet, 3/90). Salmonella poisoning can
come from anything animal foods
and their juices touch (Food For Life, Neal Barnard, MD, 1993). According to
Time Magazine (10/17/94), "The
conservative estimate is that bad chicken kills at least 1,000 Americans each
year."
Numerous strains of pathogenic bacteria are developing resistance to many
classes of antibiotics. Evidence indicates that
this is due to the widespread use of these antibiotics in factory-farmed
animals (Infection Cntrl & Hosp Epid, 7/94)
Vegan Nutrition
Like all diets, vegan diets must be appropriately planned in order to be
nutritionally adequate (ADA, 1997). The
following nutrients are those that people most often have questions
about or that need some specific attention.
Protein If a vegan consumes adequate calories and eats a variety
of foods, it
is virtually impossible not to get enough protein. This is true
for vegan
athletes as well. Vegans do not need to combine foods at each
meal to get
"complete protein" (ADA, 1997). As Michael Klaper, MD, says, "The
concept
of vegetable protein being ‘incomplete’ is a myth. All grains,
legumes,
vegetables, nuts, and seeds have all the essential amino acids."
All foods
have different amounts of each of the essential amino acids, so a
variety of
protein sources should be consumed throughout the day. A
satisfying meal
for those who feel they are craving protein is one containing a
legume (e.g.,
beans, tofu, tempeh, veggie burger/hotdog, peanuts) and a grain
(e.g., rice,
corn, whole wheat bread).
People with different dietary styles have different protein
needs. In The
Vegetarian Way (1996), Virginia Messina, MPH, RD and Mark
Messina, PhD,
recommend that vegans eat 1 g of protein for every 2.2 lbs. of
ideal body
weight per day.
Calcium There is insufficient scientific evidence for setting a
Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA), so an Adequate Intake
(estimated
daily intake by healthy people) has been set instead: 1200 mg
(over age 50),
1000 mg (ages 19?50), 1300 mg (ages 9?18), 800 mg (ages 4?8), and
500
mg (ages 1?3). Green leafy vegetables, as well as fortified
soymilk and
orange juice, have significant amounts.
Iron RDA is 10 mg for adult men and postmenopausal women, and 15
mg
for premenopausal women. Vegetarians are no more likely to be
iron-deficient than non-vegetarians. Iron from plants is
generally not
absorbed as well as iron from other sources, but vitamin C helps
iron
absorption (they must be eaten at the same meal), and vegans tend
to have
very high intakes of vitamin C (The Dietitian’s Guide to
Vegetarian Diets,
1996).
Zinc RDA is 15 mg for adult men, 12 mg for adult women. Bran
flakes and
other cereals have 1?5.0 mg/C. Most legumes, corn, and peas have
about
1.0 mg per 1 D2 C. Cashews, peanuts, peanut butter, pumpkin
seeds, and
sunflower seeds all have about 1 mg per 2 T.
Vitamin D Produced by sunshine on bare skin (without sunscreen).
Light-skinned people need 15 to 20 minutes of sunshine on their
hands,
arms, and face, 2 to 3 times a week. People living in cloudy
climates need
somewhat more than this, and dark-skinned people need up to six
times this
amount of sun. Extra amounts are stored for over the winter.
People who do
not get this exposure can get vitamin D in fortified soymilk and
other foods,
and supplements (ADA, 1997).
Vitamin B-12 B-12 is produced only by bacteria living in animals
and the
soil. Fresh produce used to be a source of B-12, but it is no
longer reliable
because of modern treatment. RDA is 2 µg. Health professionals
recommend
that vegans eat B-12 fortified foods (such as fortified breakfast
cereals or Red
Star brand’s Vegetarian Support Formula nutritional yeast) or
take a B-12
supplement.
Fats Higher fat foods like soy products, nuts, seeds, nut and
seed butters,
avocados, and small amounts of vegetable oils (especially canola
and olive)
can be part of a healthy vegan diet. Some studies show that diets
which
include these foods have health benefits compared to very low-fat
diets.
These higher fat foods are especially important to help vegan
children meet
nutrient and calorie needs (The Dietitian’s Guide to Vegetarian
Diets, 1996).
Vegans should be sure to include a daily source of linolenic acid
(the
omega-3 essential fatty acid). The biological requirement is
about 1 g for a
2,000 calorie/day diet (Am J Clin Nutr, 1987;045:66). It is in
walnuts (1.9
g/oz), tofu & soybeans (.8?1.0 g/C), canola oil (1.6 g/T), and
flax seeds (2.1 g/T; grind and add to other dishes, or
use flaxseed oil).
For more information, Vegan Outreach carries The Vegetarian Way, an
in-depth discussion of the vegan diet,
including nutrient charts, pregnancy, children, teens, elderly,
athletes, diabetics, meal-planning, and recipes
($24 incl. s/h).
What Do
Vegans Eat?
VEGANS EAT A WIDE VARIETY OF FOODS: pastas, rice, breads, bagels, and other
grain dishes; nuts, seeds, and their
butters; soyfoods like tofu and tempeh; seitan and other gluten products; fresh
and dried fruits; beans and legumes;
potatoes; and vegetables. Many different meals can be made by combining these
vegan staples with the sauces, salsas,
and dressings that are available.
In addition to the popular veggie burger, a growing
number of prepared vegan selections are appearing in
supermarkets. Vegan entrées can be found at many
Mexican, Indian, Thai, Chinese, Japanese, Korean,
Middle Eastern, Ethiopian, Italian, and pizza restaurants;
as well as many fast-food restaurants (e.g., Taco Bell,
Subway).
Natural food stores carry vegetarian cookbooks as well as
vegan foods that replace meats and dairy products. Baked
goods requiring eggs can be made using Ener-G® Egg Replacer, corn starch (2 T
per egg), or one banana per egg in
cakes. Soy, rice, and nut milks can be used in recipes calling for milk. Other
dairy substitutes ? including vegan cheeses,
yogurts, and frozen desserts ? can be purchased or prepared at home with
recipes like those in The Uncheese Cookbook
(available from Vegan Outreach, $14 incl. s/h). "Traditional" recipes, and an
excellent section on seitan ("wheat meat")
and other meat substitutes, can be found in Vegan Vittles ($14 incl. s/h).
Vegan Outreach’s Vegan Starter Pack includes a
cheese substitute and other recipes.
Simple meal ideas include:
Breakfast
Oatmeal or other hot cereals
Bagel/toast with jelly
Cereal or granola with soy/rice milk
Fruit smoothies
Pancakes
Lunch/Dinner
Peanut butter and jelly
Grain/soy burgers
Foney Baloney® sandwich
Vegetarian hotdogs
Soups or chili (over pasta)
Baked/mashed potatoes or french fries
Stir fry ? tofu or tempeh, and veggies over rice or
pasta
Pasta and tomato sauce
Bean burrito
Pizza without cheese
Lasagna with tofu instead of cheese
Baked tempeh or tofu sandwich
Snacks/Dessert
Pretzels, popcorn
Peanuts, almonds, walnuts
Chips and salsa
Bananas, apples, oranges
Raisins, figs, dried apricots
Sunflower seeds, pumpkin seeds
Clif Bars®
Pies, cookies, cake
>
> <I am just trying to ignore you. But I can't seem to pull it off.
If you want to ignore Beatgenie's posts, then why don't you not read them, or
un-sub from alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Health information taken from www.veganoutreach.org
Thought Insertion
> But there is
> more and more research showing that cholesterol in one's diet does not lead
> to heart disease
>
Please cite this research, It would be interesting reading.
Kveldulf
BeatGenie wrote in message <19990804155404...@ng-cq1.aol.com>...
>You are supposed to have 0 cholestorol in your diet. Vegetables have no
of)
>
Cholesterol doesn't give you bad cholesterol. Saturated fats do.
Kveldulf
Scott wrote in message <7oa65b$e42$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>...
>> cholesterol. Meat does (except venison, which is kinda hard to get a hold
>of)
>more and more research showing that cholesterol in one's diet does not lead
>to heart disease
>
Thank you. It is saturated fat that "can" lead to heart disease.
Kveldulf
BeatGenie wrote in message <19990804173025...@ng-fq1.aol.com>...
>Claiming that Einstien is responsible for the Atomic bomb is like saying
>whoever made the alphabet is responsible for the bible.
>
No.......? Einstein IS responsible for the creation of the bomb.
>>Einstein did not rule a significant portion of the world. Einstein,
>>however, helped created the atomic bomb, which caused a magnificent amount
>>of human suffering and environmental suffering in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
>>Einstein also loved bratwurst.
>
>>The Beater of the Genie, someone who
>>says he's all for human compassion and understanding, then proceeds to
>>scream his head off at someone who points out his idiocy.
>
>For the last time. She insulted me first. She was making fun of my poetry.
The
>poetry that I didn't even bring into the conversation. How is poetry
idiotic?
>
>>Ah. So now we're to an inborn human tendency to be kind to animals?
>>Ever burn ants with a magnifying glass when you were a kid?
>
>Nope.
>
>>That writing MORON on your forehead and sending you through downtown
>>Seattle would be amusing, as well as a socially accurate description.
>
>You are a pig.
Kveldulf
BeatGenie wrote in message <19990804191734...@ng-fe1.aol.com>...
>>Which causes more animal suffering--a pound of venison or a pound of
>>organic rice?
>
>They're probably just about equal. Hunters are irresponsible people though.
>I've heard horror stories of hunters torturing their 'prey'. And I've also
seen
>a dead deer in a ditch in the middle of town. I wonder how it got there.
>
There are crazy people everywhere and being a hunter is not a prerequisite.
Apparently there are crazy vegans, for example.
Kveldulf
One can be a vegetarian and eat pizza, ice cream, etc...
Thought Insertion wrote in message
<37A8EB84...@uclink4.berkeley.edu>...
The Good Reverend
"Five million years of evolution to produce YOUR brain and intellect,
hundreds of wars and countless civil actions to allow you the freedom to
say anything as eloquently and as elegantly as you want, and
the best you can come up with is 'Fuck You?' Frankly, I'm disappointed."
On 4 Aug 1999, BeatGenie wrote:
> >Which causes more animal suffering--a pound of venison or a pound of
> >organic rice?
>
> They're probably just about equal. Hunters are irresponsible people though.
> I've heard horror stories of hunters torturing their 'prey'. And I've also seen
> a dead deer in a ditch in the middle of town. I wonder how it got there.
Yup. Me too. I bet the guy who hit it in the middle of main street
wondered how the hell it got there as well.
Deer have a tendency to wander cities, especially in the Northwest. I've
hit several, and what you do is get out, inspect the damage, and move on.
You DO NOT SWERVE to miss an animal (unless it's a moose, in which case
you better damn well swerve.)
Of course, had you been driving for any length of time, you would know
these things.
> >> You are a pig.
Whoo...this is like.."Hey, Violet, you're a dumb bitch!"
Let's break the whole Violet/BG thing down real quick.
Hepler/Violet talk about poetry, specifically Violet's poetry at the end
of her email messages. Hepler says he used that specific line of poetry to
try to woo some woman at the same age BeatGenie (aka Ross the
hyperactively sensitive one) is now.
Violet responds that she would probably ignore any such git who tried to
woo her with poetry, that wily Canuck of a babe.
BeatGenie suddenly thinks they're making fun of the Ginsberg-esque ripoff
poetry he has on his web site, written when he was 14 years old (two years
ago) and begins calling Violet a dumb bitch.
BeatGenie steadfastly refuses to believe that Violet hadn't insulted him.
His entire self-absorbed personality, however, doesn't stop him from
continuing to spew unfactuated garbage to the newsgroup, which gets
countered from several people.
Ah, well. Probably trying to work off that teenaged sexual tension or
something by spewing on a NG.
Me, personally, I work in a lab and have very little else to do on the
night shift. Plus I don't sleep much.
> >Your empty ad hominems provide insight into your lack of character and
> >ethics.
>
> But 'The Good Reverend' calling me a moron was alright?
When it's an accurate description of the individual involved, yes. I may
be a pig, but you're stupid, and at least I can lose weight.
> >You clearly are a vegiNazi, though.
Yup. This assessment is absolutely correct, IMHO.
The Good Reverend
violet
> Violet responds that she would probably ignore any such git who tried to
> woo her with poetry, that wily Canuck of a babe.
I believe I rather like that description.. ;)
Violet
John Mercer
> >Which causes more animal suffering--a pound of venison or a pound of
> >organic rice?
>
> They're probably just about equal.
You don't have a clue.
My estimates have the organic rice causing 1500-fold higher vertebrate
animal deaths than the venison.
That's without contrasting the immense suffering caused by drowning and
being shredded alive to that of being shot in the heart.
> Hunters are irresponsible people though.
Thanks for admitting that the animals have nothing to do with it, and
that your religion is primarily about hating people.
By the way, your statement is false. Only some hunters are.
> I've heard horror stories of hunters torturing their 'prey'.
Oh. Were they true?
When you write "hunters," are you referring to cats?
> And I've also seen
> a dead deer in a ditch in the middle of town. I wonder how it got there.
They often are hit by cars.
You do seem to love to condemn people based on little or no evidence,
though.
> >> You are a pig.
> >
> >Your empty ad hominems provide insight into your lack of character and
> >ethics.
> >
> >
>
> But 'The Good Reverend' calling me a moron was alright?
>
> >You clearly are a vegiNazi, though.
>
> How so?
You lie.
> Am I forcing you to become a vegetarian? No.
You'd like to.
--
John Mercer
John Mercer
> > But there is
> > more and more research showing that cholesterol in one's diet does not lead
> > to heart disease
> >
>
> Please cite this research, It would be interesting reading.
For starters, try Hu et al., NEJM 337:1491.
It has references to other studies that show the same thing.
You'll never see a veg*n priest acknowledging the existence of such
research, though.
--
John Mercer
John Mercer
> BeatGenie wrote in message <19990804155404...@ng-cq1.aol.com>...
> >You are supposed to have 0 cholestorol in your diet. Vegetables have no
> >cholesterol. Meat does (except venison, which is kinda hard to get a hold
> of)
> >
>
> Cholesterol doesn't give you bad cholesterol. Saturated fats do.
Not so much as trans fats, though. The biggest source of those in the
Western diet is partially-hydrogenated VEGETABLE oil.
--
John Mercer
John Mercer
> > You actually survive better without animal products in
> > >your system.
> >
> > No proof.
> >
>
> A HEALTHY WAY TO LIVE
>
> According to the American Dietetic Association (ADA), the nation's
> authority on dietary matters,
How do you figure?
> vegetarian diets are associated with reduced
> risk for a number of chronic diseases that plague Americans, including
> obesity, coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus,
> colorectal cancer, lung cancer, and kidney disease (ADA Position on
> Vegetarian Diets, J of ADA, v97 No. 11, 1997).
They list references that they claim support this conclusion, explicitly
Key et al., BMJ 313:775. Unfortunately, their claim is patently false,
as they are blatantly misrepresenting the data from the Key et al.
paper.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7060/775
If you'll look at it, you'll see that the only significant difference
they saw was an INCREASE in mortality from breast cancer among veg*ns.
> In fact, vegan diets, which
> contain only foods from plants, may be
> the healthiest diets of all.
Maybe monkeys will fly out of your butt at 2PM tomorrow. Can you prove
that they won't?
> Cancer Prevention
>
> Leading cancer authorities agree that plant foods protect against cancer.
I eat plenty of plant foods. That's hardly a cogent argument to
eliminate meat from my diet, however.
Are you stupid enough to buy into such fallacious arguments and
monotonicity bias?
> Plant foods are loaded with nutrients (like vitamin C, vitamin E, and
> beta-carotene) that have been shown to inhibit cancer in a number of ways.
How is that an argument against eating meat?
> Plants also contain phytochemicals like isoflavones and lycopene, some of
> which have been shown to inhibit cancer cell and tumor growth directly (Nutr
> Cancer, 1992;18:1?29). These phytochemicals are not found in animal
> foods.
>
> Animal foods like meat, on the other hand,
That cute phrase right there is a lie.
> contain compounds that raise the risk for cancer.
So do vegetable foods, so the statement is meaningless and designed to
deceive.
It worked on you!
> Chicken is higher than red meat in heterocyclic amines,
> which are compounds that directly increase cancer risk (Cancer Res,
> 1995;55(20):4516).
>
> Vegetarians have lower death rates from cancer, specifically colon and lung
> cancer (V. Messina, MPH, RD & M. Messina, PhD, The Dietitian's Guide to
> Vegetarian Diets, 1996).
Not a citation to the primary literature.
The study of Key et al. says otherwise, probably because they made a
much better attempt to match their controls.
> The high fiber content of a vegetarian diet is one
> reason,
For what?
> but there are probably other factors. Vegetarian women have lower
> blood levels of estrogen, which may help protect them from breast cancer
> (ADA, 1997).
"ADA, 1997" is not a citation.
Why did Key et al. find an increase in breast cancer mortality among
veg*ns in their health-conscious cohort, then?
>
> A Diet with Heart
>
> The risk for heart disease is linked to diets high in saturated fat,
You forgot trans fat.
> which is
> found mostly in animal foods and processed foods.
The major source of trans fat in the Western diet is
partially-hydrogenated vegetable oil.
Perhaps that is why it was not mentioned?
> Heart disease is much less
> common among vegetarian men,
False.
> with vegans having the lowest risk of
> all (The Dietitian's Guide to Vegetarian Diets, 1996).
Real scientists cite the primary literature. Pseudoscientists cite
self-help books, written for profit, that misrepresent the primary
literature.
> Vegetarian diets have been shown to be more effective for treating and
> reversing heart disease than traditional dietary approaches, including
> eating low-fat meats (JAMA, 1995;274:894).
The authors are simply lying. The study cited did not even attempt to
isolate diet as a variable. Four factors were changed--only one of them
was dietary. Therefore, it is dishonest to portray any one of them as
causal.
> Besides their lower levels of saturated fat ? and no cholesterol
> ?
Is dietary cholesterol correlated with increased risk of heart disease
any more?
> plant foods also contain antioxidants, which directly protect against fatty
> build-up in the arteries.
>
> In addition to animal fat and cholesterol, animal protein also may raise the
> risk for heart disease.
Why did Hu et al. find no correlation at all between animal *fat* intake
and heart disease incidence, then?
> This may be one reason why diets based on low-fat meats
> are not as protective as diets based on plant foods (Am J Clin Nutr,
> 1989;50:280).
That's funny, given that the authors state in the abstract: "The partial
substitution of lean meat for plant protein in a fat-modified diet did
not negate the overall cardiovascular-risk lowering of the
lactoovovegetarian diet."
> Bone Health
>
> Many factors affect bone health including exercise, adequate calcium and
> vitamin D intake, high sodium intake, and
> smoking. Eating too much protein (particularly animal protein, as it tends to
> be higher in sulfur) makes the blood more
> acidic, causing calcium to be leached from the bones and raising the risk for
> osteoporosis (Calcif Tissue Int,
> 1994;44:335). Vegan diets tend to be lower in protein, but since there are
> currently no studies on the calcium needs of
> vegans, it is advisable to meet the recommended intake.
>
> Some calcium-rich plant foods, like calcium-set tofu and calcium-fortified
> soymilk, are also rich in isoflavones (found only
> in soyfoods) which may help to make bones stronger (Soybeans: Chem, Tech &
> Util, 1997). So, a serving of
> calcium-fortified soymilk ? which contains just as much calcium as a glass of
> cow's milk ? is an excellent choice.
So why do veg*n women give birth to sons with hypospadias more often
than nonveg*n women?
> Numerous strains of pathogenic bacteria are developing resistance to many
> classes of antibiotics. Evidence indicates that
> this is due to the widespread use of these antibiotics in factory-farmed
> animals (Infection Cntrl & Hosp Epid, 7/94)
That's not a usable citation; this is a common technique used by
dishonest pseudoscientists who do not want their readers checking up on
them.
But hey, I think I found it anyway (using EndNote), and predictably, the
authors deliberately misrepresent the secondary literature!
"As in human medicine, exposure to antibiotics has lead to the emergence
of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in animal populations."
That says that BOTH are a cause. Why did your beloved priests lie by
omission and not mention the use of antibiotics in hospitals?
---snip---
>
> VEGANS EAT A WIDE VARIETY OF FOODS:
But many don't, and claim that the lack of meat is what's nutritionally
important.
---snip---
>
> Health information taken from www.veganoutreach.org
You misspelled "misinformation and pseudoscientific BS."
--
John Mercer
BeatGenie
>hit several, and what you do is get out, inspect the damage, and move on.
>You DO NOT SWERVE to miss an animal (unless it's a moose, in which case
>you better damn well swerve.)
>
>Of course, had you been driving for any length of time, you would know
>these things.
You shouldn't swerve if there's another car coming the other way. You should
slam your fucking brakes on though. Unless there's someone behind you.
>Whoo...this is like.."Hey, Violet, you're a dumb bitch!"
>
>Let's break the whole Violet/BG thing down real quick.
>
>Hepler/Violet talk about poetry, specifically Violet's poetry at the end
>of her email messages. Hepler says he used that specific line of poetry to
>try to woo some woman at the same age BeatGenie (aka Ross the
>hyperactively sensitive one) is now.
>
>Violet responds that she would probably ignore any such git who tried to
>woo her with poetry, that wily Canuck of a babe.
>
>BeatGenie suddenly thinks they're making fun of the Ginsberg-esque ripoff
>poetry he has on his web site, written when he was 14 years old (two years
>ago) and begins calling Violet a dumb bitch.
>
>BeatGenie steadfastly refuses to believe that Violet hadn't insulted him.
>His entire self-absorbed personality, however, doesn't stop him from
>continuing to spew unfactuated garbage to the newsgroup, which gets
>countered from several people.
>
>Ah, well. Probably trying to work off that teenaged sexual tension or
>something by spewing on a NG.
>
>Me, personally, I work in a lab and have very little else to do on the
>night shift. Plus I don't sleep much.
I'm sorry. You have WAY TOO much time on your hands. You should try and do
something more productive.
Kveldulf
John Mercer wrote in message <1dw23gt.173e9cm1r9aua7N@[204.200.84.228]>...
David
>I've noticed the excuse meat eaters give in this group is that we should eat
>meat, because we have the ability to. We have frontal lobes, we have thumbs,
>that means we can kill animals for our personal gain. Even though it's obvious
>our systems aren't set up at all for any animal product digestion. But here's
>my point... if we have the ability to kill animals, which we do, I think we
>should reverse it.
We also have the ability to give them life--and we do. In fact, the
animals that you feel we shouldn't kill, wouldn't be alive if the "killers"
didn't give them that life to begin with. So your argument about
"killing" them does not apply to animals in the food industry, since
without it they would *not* live at all.
> We have the ability NOT to kill animals for our personal
>gain, and still survive. You actually survive better without animal products in
>your system. Raising any animal for food is going to inedibly cause suffering.
>I'd say getting your head cut off counts as suffering.
There is no reason why the animals *have* to suffer when they
are slaughtered. If they do, the method should be changed. That
is the solution to the problem--not for the animals to miss out on
what life they are now getting to have.
> Don't any of you want to
>cause less suffering instead of more suffering?
Apparently *some* of us do. Don't any of *you* want to
encourage better lives for the animals that you are talking about?
> I think that's an inborn human
>trait. Why are you ignoring it?
Those animals *obviously!!* are only alive because they are
raised for food. Why are you ignoring that??
The Good Reverend
Opinions of this author are the author's own, unless someone wants to pay
him for them. Theft of the author's ideas will be considered plagarism and
violators will be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law, since he's
broke and has five friends who just passed the bar exam.
* * * * * * * * * *
The Master Debater, AKA The Beater of the Genie, AKA Pumper of the
Porpoise, the one, the only, the underaged socially-deprived child
BeatGenie wrote:
> You shouldn't swerve if there's another car coming the other way. You should
> slam your fucking brakes on though. Unless there's someone behind you.
Duh. You might really screw up your front if you whack a 100 lb deer, just
like would if you ran over someone's grandma. How long have you been
driving, kiddo? A month?
> I'm sorry. You have WAY TOO much time on your hands. You should try and do
> something more productive.
Hi pot, I'm kettle. Nice to meet you. At least I have a social life that's
more involved than listening to angry music and feeling angsty while
popping pimples.
The Good Reverend
Mariel Shaw
This is a discussion of ethics and animals - ergo, to call The Good Reverend
"a pig" is an insult to the pig.
- Mariel -
P.S. Thanks to everyone who responded to my original post.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Kveldulf
The Good Reverend wrote in message ...
>
>Opinions of this author are the author's own, unless someone wants to pay
>him for them. Theft of the author's ideas will be considered plagarism and
>violators will be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law, since he's
>broke and has five friends who just passed the bar exam.
>
>* * * * * * * * * *
>
>
>The Master Debater, AKA The Beater of the Genie, AKA Pumper of the
>Porpoise, the one, the only, the underaged socially-deprived child
>BeatGenie wrote:
>
>> You shouldn't swerve if there's another car coming the other way. You
should
>> slam your fucking brakes on though. Unless there's someone behind you.
>
>Duh. You might really screw up your front if you whack a 100 lb deer, just
>like would if you ran over someone's grandma. How long have you been
>driving, kiddo? A month?
He is 16. The most he can possibly have is a permit right?
Or is the age 16?
>
>> I'm sorry. You have WAY TOO much time on your hands. You should try and
do
>> something more productive.
>
>Hi pot, I'm kettle. Nice to meet you. At least I have a social life that's
>more involved than listening to angry music and feeling angsty while
>popping pimples.
>
Angry Hindu music no less. (is that possible?)
>The Good Reverend
>
Jon S.
So, here's the quick breakdown (without John Mercer's taunts.) If you
search on deja.com, you'll find a few faq's from "diderot" explaining
how organic rice farms are filled with tons of little frogs which eat
the bugs along with all kinds of other rodents and waterfowl on up the
food chain.
When the rice "fields" are drained and the huge combines come in to
harvest the grain, apparently, many, many little frogs meet their
deaths along with some of the other animals including a few mammals
and birds. It's apparently worse in organic farms because they
haven't been pesticided to kill off all of the bugs and frogs at
birth. Most likely, the pesticided fields don't ever really have
enough bugs to support the base of the food chain in the first place.
Later, when the fields are reflooded to grow more rice, many mice and
other rodents are killed that have come into the area.
Of course, when you figure out vertebrate deaths per pound, John comes
up with a figure of 1500 deaths for rice vs. 1 death for "venison".
Whether these values are 100% right or not is immaterial.
But, you should know that, at least for organic rice grown and
harvested this way, you might be causing more harm than you realize.
Of course, the argument then is that you should eat deer because it
causes less total deaths than organic rice. But, I don't feel like
tackling that unique question because there are so many other commonly
available foods you could substitute in the equation other than deer
and organic rice.
Since this topic has come up again, does anyone know people in the
various farming niches that could come up with more data on the
collateral deaths for different foods?
Thanks,
Jon
On Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:30:33 -0600, um...@montana.edu (John Mercer)
wrote:
Jon S.
post. I admit it. Now back to your regularly scheduled reply. Thank
you.
On Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:30:43 -0600, um...@montana.edu (John Mercer)
wrote:
>They list references that they claim support this conclusion, explicitly
>Key et al., BMJ 313:775. Unfortunately, their claim is patently false,
>as they are blatantly misrepresenting the data from the Key et al.
>paper.
>
>http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7060/775
>
>If you'll look at it, you'll see that the only significant difference
>they saw was an INCREASE in mortality from breast cancer among veg*ns.
Another of John Mercer's repeated blatant misrepresentations to answer
a supposed blatant misrepresentation! Oh, the pomposity! Oh, the
horror!
Seriously...
Two quotes from the BMJ study...
"Conclusions: In this cohort of health conscious individuals, daily
consumption of fresh fruit is associated with a reduced mortality from
ischaemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and all causes
combined. "
"A vegetarian diet was also associated with a significant increase in
mortality from breast cancer. However, the confidence interval was
wide, and the result might be due to chance, perhaps combined with
differences in parity. In the Oxford Vegetarian Study, for example,
37% of vegetarian women aged 40 and above were nulliparous, compared
with 28% of meat eating women (unpublished data). Other studies have
reported no association between vegetarian diet and risk of breast
cancer or mortality.23 24 25 "
If you follow the links to references 23, 24, and 25, you will find
that, indeed, these studies have shown no breast cancer association.
We've covered this study many times on this group. It is flawed
because of its ultra loose definitions and controls on who is
"vegetarian".
Please read the study yourselves folks and then decide.
Why should you read it yourself? Because every few weeks, John Mercer
brings it up from rhetorical question hell (tm) on another
unsuspecting poster.
Later in the post I'm quoting, John Mercer says...
>The study of Key et al. says otherwise, probably because they made a
>much better attempt to match their controls.
They didn't make a good enough attempt, IMHO.
Again, here's a quote.
"LIMITATIONS
"We followed the cohort for a mean of 17 years. The long follow up has
the advantages of yielding a large number of deaths and of ensuring
that dietary habits were recorded, on average, long before the onset
of symptoms of the diseases studied. The disadvantage is that dietary
habits will have changed during the follow up. The validation study
suggested that subjects' diets did change during the first few years
of follow up in respect to vegetarian diet and consumption of
wholemeal bread, but these changes are a combination of real change
plus imperfect repeatability and therefore overestimate the extent of
change. Changes in dietary habits would be expected to result in
underestimation of any associations found."
"Another limitation is that the questionnaire was short and did not
include several important food groups (for example, dairy products,
fish, alcoholic drinks), did not allow us to estimate energy intake,
and did not include other factors known to be associated with health
(exercise, socioeconomic status, past smoking habits). We were
therefore unable to explore whether the significant associations
observed were partly due to confounding by other dietary or
non-dietary variables."
If you read further, you will find that all people did was fill out a
questionaire with a check mark for "vegetarian" among the choices.
That's it. That was the entire control. A small sample follow-up
study revealed that only 2/3's of the original people were still
following the same dietary habits years later. So, not only was
"vegetarian" not defined or clinically assessed, but, most likely,
2/3's of the people who said they were vegetarians originally weren't
by the end of the study!
If that's a "much better attempt", well, then both attempts were
failures.
And later, Mercer again says...
>Why did Key et al. find an increase in breast cancer mortality among
>veg*ns in their health-conscious cohort, then?
And John, why did they tell people that their own results were
conflicting with many other similar studies. You know this perfectly
well. (See the quotes above from the study.)
You know John, with all of your accusations back and forth, and even
some of your very valid points as to the fallacies of some of these
studies, you keep bringing up crap like this. Why don't you mention
the 3 referenced studies every time you bring up this dead horse you
keep trying to kill?
Jon
John Mercer
> Please note that I have copiously snipped in order to produce this
> post. I admit it. Now back to your regularly scheduled reply. Thank
> you.
>
> On Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:30:43 -0600, um...@montana.edu (John Mercer)
> wrote:
> >They list references that they claim support this conclusion, explicitly
> >Key et al., BMJ 313:775. Unfortunately, their claim is patently false,
> >as they are blatantly misrepresenting the data from the Key et al.
> >paper.
> >
> >http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7060/775
> >
> >If you'll look at it, you'll see that the only significant difference
> >they saw was an INCREASE in mortality from breast cancer among veg*ns.
>
> Another of John Mercer's repeated blatant misrepresentations to answer
> a supposed blatant misrepresentation!
Nope. The subject was veg*nism.
> Oh, the pomposity! Oh, the
> horror!
>
> Seriously...
No, Jon, you mean "dishonestly."
>
> Two quotes from the BMJ study...
Yep. But I provided my readers with all the necessary context.
> "Conclusions: In this cohort of health conscious individuals, daily
> consumption of fresh fruit is associated with a reduced mortality from
> ischaemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and all causes
> combined. "
That's right. When I wrote "only," I was referring to veg*nism as a
variable.
Your removal of context and accusation of misrepresentation is
profoundly unethical, but that's par for the course from someone who
pretends to be morally superior because he is vegetarian and "concerned
about animal rights."
> "A vegetarian diet was also associated with a significant increase in
> mortality from breast cancer.
So where's the misrepresentation in writing, "the only significant
difference they saw was an INCREASE in mortality from breast cancer
among veg*ns.
> However, the confidence interval was
> wide,
Indeed it is.
> and the result might be due to chance, perhaps combined with
> differences in parity.
But that's pure speculation, as the authors did not inquire about
parity. It's very possible that there were no differences in parity
within their cohort.
> In the Oxford Vegetarian Study, for example,
> 37% of vegetarian women aged 40 and above were nulliparous, compared
> with 28% of meat eating women (unpublished data).
What was the width of the confidence interval there, Jon?
> Other studies have
> reported no association between vegetarian diet and risk of breast
> cancer or mortality.23 24 25 "
>
> If you follow the links to references 23, 24, and 25, you will find
> that, indeed, these studies have shown no breast cancer association.
They FOUND no association.
So what were their confidence intervals? Were the controls as
well-matched as those in the Key study?
> We've covered this study many times on this group. It is flawed
> because of its ultra loose definitions and controls on who is
> "vegetarian".
Nope. It's the best one out there. It's far LESS flawed than the studies
that the veg*n priests cite that show an advantage for veg*ns.
> Please read the study yourselves folks and then decide.
>
Please read 23, 24, and 25 and explain why their selection of subjects
was superior to that used by Key et al.
> Why should you read it yourself? Because every few weeks, John Mercer
> brings it up from rhetorical question hell (tm) on another
> unsuspecting poster.
And they all collapse in fits of apoplexy and dishonesty, like you do.
> Later in the post I'm quoting, John Mercer says...
> >The study of Key et al. says otherwise, probably because they made a
> >much better attempt to match their controls.
>
> They didn't make a good enough attempt, IMHO.
They made a much better attempt than the studies that showed no
association.
But you haven't bothered to read them before pronounding them superior
to this one, have you?
> Again, here's a quote.
>
> "LIMITATIONS
>
> "We followed the cohort for a mean of 17 years. The long follow up has
> the advantages of yielding a large number of deaths and of ensuring
> that dietary habits were recorded, on average, long before the onset
> of symptoms of the diseases studied. The disadvantage is that dietary
> habits will have changed during the follow up. The validation study
> suggested that subjects' diets did change during the first few years
> of follow up in respect to vegetarian diet and consumption of
> wholemeal bread, but these changes are a combination of real change
> plus imperfect repeatability and therefore overestimate the extent of
> change. Changes in dietary habits would be expected to result in
> underestimation of any associations found."
>
> "Another limitation is that the questionnaire was short and did not
> include several important food groups (for example, dairy products,
> fish, alcoholic drinks), did not allow us to estimate energy intake,
> and did not include other factors known to be associated with health
> (exercise, socioeconomic status, past smoking habits). We were
> therefore unable to explore whether the significant associations
> observed were partly due to confounding by other dietary or
> non-dietary variables."
No study can look at all the variables.
> If you read further, you will find that all people did was fill out a
> questionaire with a check mark for "vegetarian" among the choices.
> That's it. That was the entire control.
You apparently have trouble with the definition of that word.
> A small sample follow-up
> study revealed that only 2/3's of the original people were still
> following the same dietary habits years later.
Ah, so you were lying when you claimed "that all people did was fill out
a questionaire..."
> So, not only was
> "vegetarian" not defined or clinically assessed, but, most likely,
> 2/3's of the people who said they were vegetarians originally weren't
> by the end of the study!
>
No, Jon, 1/3. You're so upset that you can't even do 3rd grade math.
> If that's a "much better attempt", well, then both attempts were
> failures.
>
I see. Then anyone claiming anything about nutritional epidemiology must
be a fraud, then.
> And later, Mercer again says...
> >Why did Key et al. find an increase in breast cancer mortality among
> >veg*ns in their health-conscious cohort, then?
>
> And John, why did they tell people that their own results were
> conflicting with many other similar studies.
Because they did. Their study was better, however. That's why it was in
BMJ and not a more speciallized journal.
> You know this perfectly
> well. (See the quotes above from the study.)
>
Obviously.
See that I provided a URL for the study.
> You know John, with all of your accusations back and forth, and even
> some of your very valid points as to the fallacies of some of these
> studies, you keep bringing up crap like this. Why don't you mention
> the 3 referenced studies every time you bring up this dead horse you
> keep trying to kill?
Because this one is better-controlled, and I refer my audience to the
full text..
It's not a matter of voting, Jon. It's not a dead horse. This study (and
all the others, if you would bother to read them) show that the
correlations between diet and disease are incredibly weak, which
contradicts the statements of veg*n priests.
--
John Mercer
Jon S.
Can't you keep your argument the same throughout the whole thread? At
the start, you throw assertions at people about why vegetarians
supposedly get more breast cancer, and then by the end, you say at the
end (in full context below)...
>This study (and
>all the others, if you would bother to read them) show that the
>correlations between diet and disease are incredibly weak, which
>contradicts the statements of veg*n priests.
There it is. It ain't about the study, it's about the elusive "veg*n
priests." Nice to see that you _KNOW_ full well that this study is a
crock of crap with no statement of causality, and that all of these
supposed "correlations" are dubious at best. Why the hell then, do
you use this ONE, FLAWED study OVER AND OVER AGAIN to demostrate your
singular supposed point? It exposes YOUR anti-vegetarian agenda more
than the "veg*n priest" agenda. Sure, you'll hide behind the shield
of saying that you've never claimed that vegetarianism causes more
cases of breast cancer, but you'll keep saying stuff like...
>If you'll look at it, you'll see that the only significant difference
>they saw was an INCREASE in mortality from breast cancer among veg*ns.
Why bother pointing out a flawed rewrite full of half truths with
another half truth? (For the record, anyone with deja news
(www.deja.com) can find this thread and read the original context.)
And for the record, yes, I mistakenly wrote 2/3's instead of 1/3's in
one spot. Sue me. Anyone can read the BMJ article for themselves at:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7060/775
The abstract links at the end are a steady stream of studies who's
primary conclusions are pro-fresh veggies and fresh fruit and anti
meat and eggs. Especially for heart disease. I encourage everyone to
read them. Take them with a grain of salt because most are
correlation and not causation. But clearly, a "healthy" diet rich in
fruits and vegetables appears to be more "healthy".
Let's do some math from the BMJ article.
There were 65 TOTAL breast cancer deaths from the time span 1973 to
1995 of the study (not quite 22 years). Table 1 says that 43% of the
women in the study were vegetarians at the start, and, from a followup
of less than 300 people out of the +10,000 only 6 years into the
study, nearly 1/3 of the original vegetarians were no longer
vegetarian. But, let's be generous and say that 50 of the deaths were
from vegetarians. Expected deaths for vegetarians were around 30 or
less by my guestimates. So, if there were 20 extra deaths, this is
two "extra" deaths per year per thousand women. Keep in mind that
this is 50 deaths out of 2562 total deaths over the course of 20+
years! The percentages are very, very low for all of the specific
cancer deaths, and, all told, equal to the total number of
heart/circulatory disease deaths.
This is why the researchers state things like "Any protective effect
may have been attenuated by crossover between the vegetarian and
non-vegetarian groups." and "The numbers of deaths for individual
cancer sites were small and the mortality ratios have wide confidence
intervals." I know these are out of context, but the implications
clearly are that the researchers don't trust their own numbers.
Face it John, you're a trolling jerk. There were a myriad of ways to
calmly, nicely, and rationally point out that the ADA paper has some
flawed assumptions, and that "Thought Insertion" should check out a
few articles. For instance, you could have pointed out that the BMJ
study didn't bother to actually interview people or control their
diets. You could have pointed out that the BMJ study only
_correlated_ results and offered no suggestions as to _causality_.
You could have pointed out that the BMJ study studied only mortality
rates, and not incidence of disease or survival. You could have
pointed out that it appears that a "fresh food" diet and "not smoking"
are really the two standout positives. Those would have been good
flaws to point out from that study.
But, no, you just chose to bring up the BMJ article -again- as a proof
postive correlation for breast cancer, for the 10,000th time.
Something which is highlighted in the table showing the data as having
a wide confidence interval and is explicitly questioned in a full
paragraph in the conclusions. Don't tell me to read the article
again. I wonder if you've even read it yourself.
Jon
On Sun, 8 Aug 1999 13:58:04 -0600, um...@montana.edu (John Mercer)
John Mercer
> What the hell, John!
>
> Can't you keep your argument the same throughout the whole thread?
My argument is that correlations between a veg*n diet and mortality are
weak at best and probably nonexistent.
This is confirmed by the notion that a variable merely ASSOCIATED with
veg*nism (lower parity) may cause a correlation in the opposite
direction from that predicted by veg*n religious propaganda.
Of course, there may be no difference in parity. The authors were
engaging in pure speculation.
> At the start, you throw assertions at people about why vegetarians
> supposedly get more breast cancer,
No, no assertions at all. My assertion is that the veg*n priests lie
when they claim any causal relationship between not eating meat and
better health.
I just point them to the data, and ask why these investigators saw the
correlation in the opposite direction if a veg*n diet is as protective
as its adherents claim it to be.
You refuse to answer that one straight-up, Jon.
> and then by the end, you say at the
> end (in full context below)...
But you failed to address my points in context, preferring to
misrepresent them up here.
> >This study (and
> >all the others, if you would bother to read them) show that the
> >correlations between diet and disease are incredibly weak, which
> >contradicts the statements of veg*n priests.
>
> There it is.
There what is?
> It ain't about the study, it's about the elusive "veg*n priests."
It's about both. It's about the fact that "ethical" veg*nism has no
ethics whatsoever when it comes to science.
> Nice to see that you _KNOW_ full well that this study is a
> crock of crap
It's a superb cohort study, published in one of the top medical journals
in the world. Think for a moment, Jon. The biggest differences seen when
veg*ns are compared to the general population is a 2-fold difference in
the mortality ratio.
To better control for behaviors associated with veg*nism (most claim to
choose it for health reasons, not the pseudoethical ones) Key selected a
group of health-conscious people, saw the 2-fold difference, and then
saw that veg*nism was irrelevant within this cohort.
I note from your other post that you simply don't understand the concept
of matching controls, though.
> with no statement of causality,
Huh? An absence of correlation is very strong evidence for a lack of
causality. Key et al. found no correlations between veg*nism and reduced
mortality. None.
> and that all of these
> supposed "correlations" are dubious at best.
The claim that the study refutes handily is the veg*n claim that their
diet protects against breast cancer.
> Why the hell then, do
> you use this ONE, FLAWED study
All epidemiological studies have flaws. That doesn't mean that they're
not worthwhile. This is one of the best; you simply haven't read the
others.
> OVER AND OVER AGAIN to demostrate your
> singular supposed point?
My point is that the correlations are incredibly weak, and disappear
when efforts are made to match the control group for variables commonly
associated with veg*nism.
Does this study not demonstrate that beautifully?
> It exposes YOUR anti-vegetarian agenda more
> than the "veg*n priest" agenda.
How so?
> Sure, you'll hide behind the shield
> of saying that you've never claimed that vegetarianism causes more
> cases of breast cancer,
And I haven't--so why is that a shield?
But you'll pull that straw man out and beat it to a pulp again--I
guarantee it.
> but you'll keep saying stuff like...
>
> >If you'll look at it, you'll see that the only significant difference
> >they saw was an INCREASE in mortality from breast cancer among veg*ns.
That's right. IF veg*ns claim that there is a protective effect of their
diet, WHY, in the best-controlled published cohort study in existence,
do these authors (at least two of whom are veg*ns) find NO significant
advantages associated with a veg*n diet?
Why is the ONLY significant difference they find an INCREASE in breast
cancer mortality among veg*n women, if a veg*n diet has any protective
effect?
Because diet isn't very important. Those who try to convince you that it
is lie and decieve, because there's so much money in it.
> Why bother pointing out a flawed rewrite
Flawed rewrite?
Please, Jon. You clearly haven't read any papers in nutritional
epidemiology before you read this one, and you have very little
statistical expertise.
> full of half truths
In what way does the paper contain half truths, Jon?
> with
> another half truth? (For the record, anyone with deja news
> (www.deja.com) can find this thread and read the original context.)
>
No half-truths there. Just the whole truth.
> And for the record, yes, I mistakenly wrote 2/3's instead of 1/3's in
> one spot. Sue me. Anyone can read the BMJ article for themselves at:
> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7060/775
I know. I provided the link to you, remember?
> The abstract links at the end are a steady stream of studies who's
Who is? What is?
> primary conclusions are pro-fresh veggies and fresh fruit and anti
> meat and eggs.
But you haven't read any of those studies. If you did, you'd see that
none of them were as well-controlled as this one.
> Especially for heart disease.
How wide were the confidence intervals? What were the P values? Weren't
these far MORE flawed than the Key study?
Or don't you care, because your back is against the wall, and you're
valiantly defending your religious beliefs?
> I encourage everyone to read them.
Why? You clearly haven't, or you wouldn't be claiming that they are more
valid than the Key study.
> Take them with a grain of salt because most are
> correlation and not causation.
Jon, correlation is WEAK evidence for causation. Lack of correlation is
STRONG evidence AGAINST causation.
Finding the OPPOSITE correlation from the one hypothesized is stronger
evidence still against the hypothesis that a veg*n diet protects against
breast cancer.
> But clearly, a "healthy" diet rich in
> fruits and vegetables appears to be more "healthy".
No, only the FRESH fruit seems to be important. You might want to check
out the effect of protein in the diet:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/2/221
It's not what your priests claim, either. Note that they looked at
animal protein as a variable, too.
> Let's do some math from the BMJ article.
>
> There were 65 TOTAL breast cancer deaths from the time span 1973 to
> 1995 of the study (not quite 22 years). Table 1 says that 43% of the
> women in the study were vegetarians at the start, and, from a followup
> of less than 300 people out of the +10,000 only 6 years into the
> study, nearly 1/3 of the original vegetarians were no longer
> vegetarian. But, let's be generous and say that 50 of the deaths were
> from vegetarians. Expected deaths for vegetarians were around 30 or
> less by my guestimates. So, if there were 20 extra deaths, this is
> two "extra" deaths per year per thousand women. Keep in mind that
> this is 50 deaths out of 2562 total deaths over the course of 20+
> years!
So what? You didn't do any math!
> The percentages are very, very low for all of the specific
> cancer deaths, and, all told, equal to the total number of
> heart/circulatory disease deaths.
And the difference between veg*n women and omnivorous ones is
statistically significant, in the opposite direction from that which
your religious leaders stridently claim the association to be.
> This is why the researchers state things like "Any protective effect
> may have been attenuated by crossover between the vegetarian and
> non-vegetarian groups."
Absolutely. It's just as likely that it may not have been attenuated,
because *no protective effect exists* for eliminating meat from one's
diet.
> and "The numbers of deaths for individual
> cancer sites were small and the mortality ratios have wide confidence
> intervals." I know these are out of context, but the implications
> clearly are that the researchers don't trust their own numbers.
>
> Face it John, you're a trolling jerk.
Face it Jon, you're a frustrated, name-calling demonizer who has
dedicated his life to a logical fallacy misrepresenting itself as
ethics.
> There were a myriad of ways to
> calmly, nicely, and rationally point out that the ADA paper has some
> flawed assumptions,
No, they were deliberate and outright misrepresentations, Jon. The Key
paper simply does not say what the ADA authors (from Loma Linda, btw)
claim that it says.
They intended to deceive.
> and that "Thought Insertion" should check out a
> few articles.
But we both know that "Thought Insertion" won't.
> For instance, you could have pointed out that the BMJ
> study didn't bother to actually interview people or control their
> diets.
Neither did Dean Ornish, but I'll bet that 9 out of 10 "ethical" veg*ns
will claim that it doesn't matter when they can misrepresent the
results.
> You could have pointed out that the BMJ study only
> _correlated_ results and offered no suggestions as to _causality_.
No, Jon, a lack of correlation is extremely strong evidence *against* a
lack of causality. Removing a correlation by controlling for associated
variables is even stronger evidence. Key and his colleagues did both.
Buy yourself a clue.
> You could have pointed out that the BMJ study studied only mortality
> rates, and not incidence of disease or survival.
Aren't mortality rates the best measure? Aren't mortality rates simply
the inverse of survival rates?
Wouldn't looking at incidence be incredibly suspect if the two groups
being compared differed in their access to diagnostic services, either
by choice or circumstance?
> You could have
> pointed out that it appears that a "fresh food" diet
Not "food," Jon. "Fruit" only. Salad showed no correlation.
The difference was small, which is why I say that the correlations are
weak at best.
Do you take issue with that conclusion?
> and "not smoking"
> are really the two standout positives. Those would have been good
> flaws to point out from that study.
Those aren't flaws, Jon. The study studied what it studied. You just
don't like the results.
> But, no, you just chose to bring up the BMJ article -again- as a proof
> postive correlation for breast cancer,
You're desperate and lying again, Jon. It's proof that the veg*n priests
are concealing the truth. It (and the other articles) are proof that the
correlations between diet and mortality are incredibly weak when ANY
care is taken to match controls.
Look at the correlations between smoking and lung cancer mortality, Jon.
Those are correlations that suggest causation. NONE of the correlations
in ANY of the studies on veg*nism approach it.
> for the 10,000th time.
> Something which is highlighted in the table showing the data as having
> a wide confidence interval
It was statistically significant in the *wrong* direction from that
predicted by the religious myths of veg*ns.
Who's leaving out important information here, Jon?
> and is explicitly questioned in a full
> paragraph in the conclusions.
With pure speculation, which is what we scientists allow (and require)
ourselves to do in the Discussion sections of our manuscripts.
Note that scientists (me) point to data, while pseudoscientists (you)
point to quotes about data and speculations.
There's a huge difference. You're just like a creationist.
> Don't tell me to read the article
> again.
Afraid of what you might find?
Did you read the tables, or did you desperately skim it for ammo?
> I wonder if you've even read it yourself.
I have. It's clear that you haven't read much nutritional epidemiology
or statistics, though.
At least you left the post intact this time. You still don't have the
guts to take on my points as I write them, though.
--
John Mercer
Jon S.
I don't have the time to address each of your "points", so let me
start off with a leading question.
If you started an experiment, wouldn't you attempt to determine the
variables concerning it when you started so you knew exactly what you
were working with?
I'm not going to claim the validity of -any- of these studies because
I think that they don't do their homework before they begin. Best
Sure, in the interest of maximizing the effectiveness of dollars to
spend and minimal intrusion in people's lives, this experiment (and
the others) seem to be designed properly.
But, in terms of obtaining a defined determination of the cohort's
diet, this study doesn't even come close. I don't care about other
studies when I say this, they are irrelevant to the discussion. I
don't care about it being in the BMJ or not. I think that, if you
were in a design of experiments class, and you told the professor
"Well, I'm going to put a questionaire in a store that people
voluntarily fill out and drop in a box", that professor would give you
a C at best because of the lack of control over the course of the
study.
This study put some questionaires in health food stores, and a few
other places, and had the people check off boxes (as far as I can
tell) and put what I assume is the British equivalent of their social
security number on the form so that their death certificates could be
tracked. Over 10,000 people did this, but no one asked them if they
were lacto or ovo or vegans or whatever. The report says, "Subjects
were asked whether they were vegetarian (this was not defined
further)...". The only check and/or control on this group was asking
less than 300 people, up to 6 years into the 21 year study, whether or
not they were still following the same diets. And, at that point,
only 66% of the original vegetarians still claimed to be "eating meat
or fish less than once a month". That sort of error would be enough
for me to throw up my hands and end the study. But, they kept it up
for 20 years! To paraphrase the Bible, you don't build a house on a
sand foundation.
Now, I don't know about you, but, to me, that puts a hell of a lot of
uncertainty into any findings. (It puts a lot of uncertainty into any
study's claims that use the same or worse methods of determination of
diet.) And, it doesn't matter if this one is "better" or "worse" than
any of the others. It just isn't good enough to be anything more than
preliminary and speculative. I would tell you that no matter what the
study was about.
They have a half assed definition of dietary factors. I'm sure you
agree with that assessment.
Yet, when you use this study to try and ferret out silliness from hot
headed people, you don't say that. You just say "breast cancer,
breast cancer, breast cancer!!!! vegetarian, vegetarian,
vegetarian!!!". And, you don't even bother to point out the studies
that conflict with this correlation like the paper's authors do, and
you don't point out the wide confidence interval in the data itself
like the paper's authors do (even before the loose diet definitions
are considered). Instead, you use loaded terms like "lies" and "veg*n
priests".
You, in your heart, must know that this is the same logical fallacy as
is committed by those who would use these studies as proof _for_ a
vegetarian diet.
Why lower yourself to the level of the "veg*n priests" who spew half
truths and misinformation? Why not speak the truth and tell people
that these studies show loose correlations at best, none can attempt
to address causation, some even have mysteriously conflicting results
from study to study, and even with all that, they don't bother to
strictly define the components of the various vegetarian diets or the
cohorts adherence to such a diet!
I challenge you to quit playing "taunt the vegetarians" and give
people some real thoughtful analysis. People react to your posts
because of their tone, not because of their content. It _would_ be
appreciated as you obviously know something about the topic.
Jon
John Mercer
> John,
>
> I don't have the time to address each of your "points", so let me
> start off with a leading question.
>
> If you started an experiment, wouldn't you attempt to determine the
> variables concerning it when you started so you knew exactly what you
> were working with?
Wouldn't I have to do experiments do accomplish that?
> I'm not going to claim the validity of -any- of these studies because
> I think that they don't do their homework before they begin.
Jon, you've clearly never read any nutritional epidemiology.
> Best
> Sure, in the interest of maximizing the effectiveness of dollars to
> spend and minimal intrusion in people's lives, this experiment (and
> the others) seem to be designed properly.
>
You're contradicting yourself.
> But, in terms of obtaining a defined determination of the cohort's
> diet, this study doesn't even come close. I don't care about other
> studies when I say this, they are irrelevant to the discussion. I
> don't care about it being in the BMJ or not.
All you care about is attacking something that contradicts your
religious beliefs, Jon.
> I think that, if you
> were in a design of experiments class,
Experimental design is taught in laboratories, Jon.
> and you told the professor
> "Well, I'm going to put a questionaire in a store that people
> voluntarily fill out and drop in a box", that professor would give you
> a C at best because of the lack of control over the course of the
> study.
I think you don't know what you're talking about.
> This study put some questionaires in health food stores, and a few
> other places, and had the people check off boxes (as far as I can
> tell) and put what I assume is the British equivalent of their social
> security number on the form so that their death certificates could be
> tracked. Over 10,000 people did this, but no one asked them if they
> were lacto or ovo or vegans or whatever.
That means that they are looking at the lack of meat in the diet, Jon.
They never claimed to be looking at the effects of a vegan diet, did
they?
> The report says, "Subjects
> were asked whether they were vegetarian (this was not defined
> further)...". The only check and/or control on this group was asking
> less than 300 people, up to 6 years into the 21 year study, whether or
> not they were still following the same diets.
And how does this compare to the studies that you think show an
advantage to a veg*n diet? I realize you don't care to critique them
because they support your religious beliefs.
> And, at that point,
> only 66% of the original vegetarians still claimed to be "eating meat
> or fish less than once a month". That sort of error would be enough
> for me to throw up my hands and end the study. But, they kept it up
> for 20 years! To paraphrase the Bible, you don't build a house on a
> sand foundation.
You can't have a large number of subjects unless you limit the data you
gather from each one.
Unless you use animals, of course.
> Now, I don't know about you, but, to me, that puts a hell of a lot of
> uncertainty into any findings. (It puts a lot of uncertainty into any
> study's claims that use the same or worse methods of determination of
> diet.)
So, will you be crucifying any veg*n who claims health advantages to her
diet?
> And, it doesn't matter if this one is "better" or "worse" than
> any of the others.
Oh, but it does. You believe the studies that support your religious
beliefs.
> It just isn't good enough to be anything more than
> preliminary and speculative. I would tell you that no matter what the
> study was about.
>
> They have a half assed definition of dietary factors. I'm sure you
> agree with that assessment.
>
Nope. They compromised between gathering more data per person and
gathering data from a large number of people.
> Yet, when you use this study to try and ferret out silliness from hot
> headed people, you don't say that. You just say "breast cancer,
> breast cancer, breast cancer!!!! vegetarian, vegetarian,
> vegetarian!!!".
That was the only positive correlation the study found, Jon.
> And, you don't even bother to point out the studies
> that conflict with this correlation like the paper's authors do, and
> you don't point out the wide confidence interval in the data itself
> like the paper's authors do (even before the loose diet definitions
> are considered). Instead, you use loaded terms like "lies" and "veg*n
> priests".
Veg*n priests lie about the scientific literature, Jon.
> You, in your heart, must know that this is the same logical fallacy as
> is committed by those who would use these studies as proof _for_ a
> vegetarian diet.
No. Lack of correlation is superb evidence refuting a hypothesis of
causation, Jon.
> Why lower yourself to the level of the "veg*n priests" who spew half
> truths and misinformation?
I don't and you know it, Jon.
> Why not speak the truth and tell people
> that these studies show loose correlations at best,
I am pointing out the lack of correlation, Jon.
> none can attempt
> to address causation,
Showing a lack of correlation address causation quite well.
> some even have mysteriously conflicting results
> from study to study, and even with all that, they don't bother to
> strictly define the components of the various vegetarian diets or the
> cohorts adherence to such a diet!
>
So will you be crucifying anyone who claims that Dean Ornish showed
anything whatsoever about veg*n diets?
> I challenge you to quit playing "taunt the vegetarians" and give
> people some real thoughtful analysis.
I am thoughtfully analyzing the vegetarians, Jon. They are quite
selective in the evidence they consider. They (not all) are no different
that "scientific" creationists.
> People react to your posts
> because of their tone, not because of their content. It _would_ be
> appreciated as you obviously know something about the topic.
>
Note the post that you described as a fair one.
Did it get a response, Jon?
--
John Mercer
Jon S.
wrote:
>Jon S. <jonce...@nospammiesno.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> I don't have the time to address each of your "points", so let me
>> start off with a leading question.
>>
>> If you started an experiment, wouldn't you attempt to determine the
>> variables concerning it when you started so you knew exactly what you
>> were working with?
>
>Wouldn't I have to do experiments do accomplish that?
You would have to do two things, at least. 1. You'd have to do (or
research previous) experiments to determine what the possible
variables were. And 2. You'd have to determine a method isolate those
variables sufficiently enough to do an experiment. (You would also
have to ensure that you had a method of measurement which would show
results with accuracy, precision, and repeatability.)
>> I'm not going to claim the validity of -any- of these studies because
>> I think that they don't do their homework before they begin.
>
>Jon, you've clearly never read any nutritional epidemiology.
"Any" is a pretty broad cut John. No, I'm not a nutritionist or an
epidemiologist. But I am a scientist and an engineer. And, I know
flawed studies when I see them. I can point you to one of the German
study abstracts which tried to assess vegetarian health by the death
certificates of members of a Vegetarian Society where it, thankfully,
by the end of abstract, notes quiet frankly that the methods they used
were a horrible way of determining what they were trying to determine.
>> Best
>> Sure, in the interest of maximizing the effectiveness of dollars to
>> spend and minimal intrusion in people's lives, this experiment (and
>> the others) seem to be designed properly.
>>
>You're contradicting yourself.
No I'm not. If you don't establish a solid base before you start an
experiment, you have no basis for properly assessing the results. Of
course, the _logistics_ of a study require that you lessen its
accuracy. Money and people are tight resources. But, what's the
point of doing the study (besides grant money for your job and
graduate work for your students) if you don't apply some sort of
controls in the first place.
>> But, in terms of obtaining a defined determination of the cohort's
>> diet, this study doesn't even come close. I don't care about other
>> studies when I say this, they are irrelevant to the discussion. I
>> don't care about it being in the BMJ or not.
>
>All you care about is attacking something that contradicts your
>religious beliefs, Jon.
Nope. That's a lie. I've encouraged you to speak the honest truth
(and you have on few occasions recently), I have refrained from
posting anything contradictory about your refutation of some of the
various misinterpretations of Ornish, and I have encouraged the dialog
of folks like diderot on topics such as the collateral deaths of
animals.
You use often use loaded language and half truths to try and ferret
out the "loonies", and that is what I'm trying to fight.
>> I think that, if you
>> were in a design of experiments class,
>
>Experimental design is taught in laboratories, Jon.
Well, I learned it both in the class room and in the laboratory. It's
all class work. In fact, my Grandfather, curmuddgeon chemist that he
is, would teach me design of experiments as a little kid as he told me
tales of the misuse of experiments. (Like, he once, on contract for
testing highway paint for the government by painting metal sheets and
dropping ball bearings on them, checked out real paint damage on
highways and found that it was the concrete that was deteriorating,
and that the paint all stuck just fine because each paint chip was
half paint, half concrete. So, he called up a buddy, and they
presented the paper to a group, and got 3M interested enough to try
and lay down those road strips they tried to use instead of paint...
which didn't stick too well themselves. The point of the story is
that whoever designed the ball bearings dropped on painted metal test
was a fool because 1. It didn't even describe the problem (the
concrete chipping) and 2. It didn't even test the product in a manner
even close to its actual use.)
>> and you told the professor
>> "Well, I'm going to put a questionaire in a store that people
>> voluntarily fill out and drop in a box", that professor would give you
>> a C at best because of the lack of control over the course of the
>> study.
>
>I think you don't know what you're talking about.
>
>> This study put some questionaires in health food stores, and a few
>> other places, and had the people check off boxes (as far as I can
>> tell) and put what I assume is the British equivalent of their social
>> security number on the form so that their death certificates could be
>> tracked. Over 10,000 people did this, but no one asked them if they
>> were lacto or ovo or vegans or whatever.
>
>That means that they are looking at the lack of meat in the diet, Jon.
>They never claimed to be looking at the effects of a vegan diet, did
>they?
Nope, but every vegan most definitely checked that they were a
vegetarian. So, when they say "vegetarian", they mean a composite of
vegetarians, vegans, and the 1/3 of people who supposedly lapsed back
into meat eating.
Either way, the negation of one food variable requires something to
take its place. So, you're in effect, changing 2 variables at once.
>> The report says, "Subjects
>> were asked whether they were vegetarian (this was not defined
>> further)...". The only check and/or control on this group was asking
>> less than 300 people, up to 6 years into the 21 year study, whether or
>> not they were still following the same diets.
>
>And how does this compare to the studies that you think show an
>advantage to a veg*n diet? I realize you don't care to critique them
>because they support your religious beliefs.
Well, I was trying to address this particular study to keep the
discussion level, but I think I made it pretty clear that I don't have
much faith in any of these studies with such loose initial definitions
and criteria assessments.
>> And, at that point,
>> only 66% of the original vegetarians still claimed to be "eating meat
>> or fish less than once a month". That sort of error would be enough
>> for me to throw up my hands and end the study. But, they kept it up
>> for 20 years! To paraphrase the Bible, you don't build a house on a
>> sand foundation.
>
>You can't have a large number of subjects unless you limit the data you
>gather from each one.
In practical terms, this is true. But, that isn't a justification for
science on such poor terms.
>Unless you use animals, of course.
Mercer jabs, but narrowly misses getting the knockout inflamed
response.
Of course that's why animals, especially small ones that breed quickly
in large broods/litters, are used.
>> Now, I don't know about you, but, to me, that puts a hell of a lot of
>> uncertainty into any findings. (It puts a lot of uncertainty into any
>> study's claims that use the same or worse methods of determination of
>> diet.)
>
>So, will you be crucifying any veg*n who claims health advantages to her
>diet?
Nope. I won't be "crucifying" the "meat eater"s who claim that a
vegetarian diet is unhealthy either. I don't have the time. I will
spend time on people who fight fallacies with fallacies just to be
inflammatory.
>> And, it doesn't matter if this one is "better" or "worse" than
>> any of the others.
>
>Oh, but it does. You believe the studies that support your religious
>beliefs.
When have I ever said that? Quit putting your impression of
vegetarians as dullards aside and deal with the reality of who you're
talking to. The "most controlled" study I've seen recently was done
by the beef industry to "prove" that beef wasn't any worse than
chicken or pork on your cholesterol levels. Admittedly, the news
reports and beef industry rewrites won't tell you that it was on tiny,
low fat portions, but the study itself seemed to keep pretty good
control on the subjects diets through education of the participants on
the what, whens, and hows of the diet that the researchers were
testing.
>> It just isn't good enough to be anything more than
>> preliminary and speculative. I would tell you that no matter what the
>> study was about.
>>
>> They have a half assed definition of dietary factors. I'm sure you
>> agree with that assessment.
>>
>Nope. They compromised between gathering more data per person and
>gathering data from a large number of people.
I know it was a compromise. A compromise, that IMHO, was so great as
to ruin the results of the experiment.
>> Yet, when you use this study to try and ferret out silliness from hot
>> headed people, you don't say that. You just say "breast cancer,
>> breast cancer, breast cancer!!!! vegetarian, vegetarian,
>> vegetarian!!!".
>
>That was the only positive correlation the study found, Jon.
Huh? I'll give you a chance to reread the researchers statements on
the benefits of fresh fruit and the detriments of smoking before I say
anything.
>> And, you don't even bother to point out the studies
>> that conflict with this correlation like the paper's authors do, and
>> you don't point out the wide confidence interval in the data itself
>> like the paper's authors do (even before the loose diet definitions
>> are considered). Instead, you use loaded terms like "lies" and "veg*n
>> priests".
>
>Veg*n priests lie about the scientific literature, Jon.
John, this is such a weak argument on the good or bad of ethical,
environmental, or health-related vegetarianism for two reasons. 1.
Not every vegetarian is a fool "priest" activist. 2. The "fool
priests" are present in every single facet of life all around us.
Vegetarians hardly corner the market.
It's a circular definition just like "liberal" as bad and
"conservative" as good. Your category of "veg*n priests" defines
itself.
>> You, in your heart, must know that this is the same logical fallacy as
>> is committed by those who would use these studies as proof _for_ a
>> vegetarian diet.
>
>No. Lack of correlation is superb evidence refuting a hypothesis of
>causation, Jon.
This only applies to a controlled study with a proper control group!
I mean, vegetarianism is not just inclusive of diet and it's not
reflective of just one diet style. Some vegetarians down pounds of
tofu, while others gorge themselves on dairy products. Others are in
it strictly for health reasons and go to all kinds of strange lengths
to eat just raw foods or go on extended fasts or consume copious
amounts of vitamins or reject certain medical treatments (such as
xrays or Premarin). All of these are traits of certain types of
certain vegetarians that have _nothing_ to do with eating or not
eating meat but have everything to do with certain aspects of
vegetarian culture.
Don't even try to apply a tidy clinical assumption of correlation and
causation issues to such a uncontrolled mess as this study was.
>> Why lower yourself to the level of the "veg*n priests" who spew half
>> truths and misinformation?
>
>I don't and you know it, Jon.
At times, you do. You have blinders on that are nearly as bad as some
of the "loonies". Your sole purpose seems to be to antagonize and not
give an inch.
>> Why not speak the truth and tell people
>> that these studies show loose correlations at best,
>
>I am pointing out the lack of correlation, Jon.
You're not when you point out the breast cancer data as you do.
>> none can attempt
>> to address causation,
>
>Showing a lack of correlation address causation quite well.
Maybe in a laboratory setting where you are meticulous about moving
only one variable at a time. In those cases, you have attempted to
eliminate correlated changes in other aspects of the experiment. But,
in this study, the social and behavioral choices that cause one to
stop eating meat are correlated to a whole host of other actions.
In fact, I think I'll go out on a limb here to say that, possibly, the
"double hump" nature of the breast cancer data alluded to in the Key
study, while probably chance, could be indicative of a problem in a
subset of vegetarians. For instance, maybe there's a group who,
refusing to use Premarin due to the use of horses in its production,
never got the common hormone therapy of post-menopausal women, and
that this related to an increase in breast cancer. Please note that
I'm not trying to be an apologist to the data or suggest this is
actually the case. I'm merely pointing out a real world way that a
behavior which is correlated to vegetarianism could influence the data
in a manner that has nothing to do with the consumption of meat.
>> some even have mysteriously conflicting results
>> from study to study, and even with all that, they don't bother to
>> strictly define the components of the various vegetarian diets or the
>> cohorts adherence to such a diet!
>>
>So will you be crucifying anyone who claims that Dean Ornish showed
>anything whatsoever about veg*n diets?
I might point out that you'd also have to do the stress management,
etc. also.
>> I challenge you to quit playing "taunt the vegetarians" and give
>> people some real thoughtful analysis.
>
>I am thoughtfully analyzing the vegetarians, Jon. They are quite
>selective in the evidence they consider.
Respectfully John, people who don't buy into everything the read out
of the mainstream as truth, generally don't bother to stick around and
argue with people who seemed determined to pummel them. The majority
of people willing to continue arguments such as the ones you like to
spur on, are the ones who aren't willing to look at the facts or the
big picture. Those who are willing to look can see your bias a mile
away, and don't even bother.
>They (not all) are no different
>that "scientific" creationists.
As a science minded guy who explored and rejected scientific
creationists early in my life, I understand what a backhanded insult
this statement is.
>> People react to your posts
>> because of their tone, not because of their content. It _would_ be
>> appreciated as you obviously know something about the topic.
>>
>Note the post that you described as a fair one.
>
>Did it get a response, Jon?
Haven't gotten to it yet. So, no comment.
Jon