 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
fruitarians
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 21:41:22 GMT, "rick etter" >
wrote: > >================== >Typical ignorant vegan... makes a claim they cannot support and demands >others to. What a hoot. ok, for the lazy and ignorant, I'll post it again: http://tinyurl.com/2ttj3 then **** off or be rational, or learn how to read. any one of the above. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
Jonathan Ball wrote:
<...> >>> How is it you think a comparison of eating chicken vs. beef applies >>> to vegetarinaism or veganism? Now that you have dragged out the >>> name calling: Idiot. >> >> It was your claim that "meat is unhealthy." You have yet to support >> it, and my sources have demonstrated that meat can be part of a >> healthy diet. > > In the spirit of "'who', not 'that'", a spirit with which I agree fully, > one really ought to say and write "a *healthful* diet." Those who > follow a healthful diet are, it is hoped, healthy. Thanks, I stand corrected. <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 22:17:02 GMT, "rick etter" >
wrote: >=============== >Ah yes, runaway little one!!! Run like the wind... yes, definitely a person demonstrating a lack of interest in serious discussion or ability to consider evidence. troll. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > wrote: > >>>>>The thing is, then why does meat give people health problems? > >>>> > >>>>Who says it does? > >>> > >>>Prove that it doesn't. > >> > >>I don't entertain addled people who demand proof of a negative. You are the one > >>who made a claim: "meat causes health problems." Please support it with evidence. > > > > can you read? > > Yes, which is why I'm waiting for you to prove your claim. ==================== LOL Your claim has already been disproven, fool. That's all that needed to be done by us. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
*
Jonathan Ball wrote: (snippage) > > can you read? > > Yes, cocksucker.* Here's what we read from the site you > offered, lamely, as "support": > > *** 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. > > Your claim is unsupported.* The site you offered as > "support" for you claim DOES NOT SUPPORT IT.* They > don't say ANYTHING about the health effects, if any, of > eating meat. > > You lied. Note the reffernece to sucking cock? I think Mr Ball is making a cry for help from behind a closet door. Come out of the closet Mr Ball! We already now your secret desires! Hate and spew from an ignorant asshole. You are a pathetic loser! * |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
ahh, okay, thank you both for the info. maybe i'll just top-post when i've
just got something that doesn't need to be in sections in the thread, like this. everyone happy? "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message hlink.net... > katie wrote: > > > i'm sorry, is top posting when i write on the top of a thread like this? > > Yes, that's it. > > > isn't it much easier to read because it's right up here, and the most recent > > posts are at the top and the later ones follow a sequence down, instead of > > chopping the thread up and winding up with a million >>> to dissect before > > figuring out who said what? > > No, it's much harder to see the specific points to > which you're replying. The context is missing. > > > that's why i'm posting like this. but if top > > posting means something else, please enlighten me. i've never heard the > > expression until this board. > > > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >>STOP TOP-POSTING > >> > >>katie wrote: > >> > >>>i think the thing here is that pulling out longevity info about > > > > different > > > >>>population groups by either side isn't going to answer this question. > >> > >>That's the whole point. The OP made a specific claim about "meat" without > > > > any > > > >>distinctions. I was demonstrating the folly of his position on the basis > > > > of the > > > >>facts. > >> > >> > >>>just > >>>as plant-based diets aren't necessarily healthier than omnivorous ones, > >>>there are a multitude of factors contributing to the longevity (or lack > >>>thereof) of each population group: socioeconomic factors, geography, > >>>population & disease, conflict, colonialism etc. > >> > >>True enough, but many of those factors also weigh heavily on individual > > > > dietary > > > >>choices in the first place. The point I made, though, was to contradict > > > > the OP's > > > >>views that (a) "meat give[s] people health problems," (b) "that a > > > > naturally > > > >>adapted diet" is "perfectly healthy" or excludes meat, and (c) his implied > > > > claim > > > >>through the use of one study that meat shortens lives. The OP is wrong. > >> > >>Now PLEASE stop top-posting. > >> > >> > >>>>>>>The thing is, then why does meat give people health problems? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Who says it does? I can name one plant food that causes far more > > > > health > > > >>>problems > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>from head to toe than "meat," which you say generically. That plant > > > > food > > > >>>is > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>sugar (and by sugar I mean any simple carbohydrate: glucose, sucrose, > >>> > >>>fructose, > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>etc.). > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Sugar causes tooth decay. Consumption of sugar can lead to diabetes. > >>> > >>>Diabetes > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>can lead to cardiovascular problems even in a veg-n diet; it can also > >>> > >>>cause > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>problems with vision, with mobility (circulation to feet), etc. > >>>>> > >>>>>You are merely trying to derail the point. > >>>> > >>>>No, I am noting that meat isn't inherently or automatically bad for > >>> > >>>health, and > >>> > >>> > >>>>that some plant-based foods cause plenty of health problems. High sugar > >>>>consumption results in many of the same ailments that plague people who > >>> > >>>consume > >>> > >>> > >>>>too much saturated fat: heart disease, diabetes, etc. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>Many cuts of meat are low-fat and cause no health problems. Some > > > > meat -- > > > >>>such as > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>fatty fish (salmon, etc.), game, grass-fed beef -- is even advisable > > > > for > > > >>>people > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>with hypercholesterolemia because those meats help elevate HDL, which > > > > in > > > >>>turn > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>lowers LDL. BTW, LDL elevates with consumption of saturated fats -- > > > > not > > > >>>merely > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>cholesterol. That includes tropical oils (coconut and palm), transfats > >>>>>>(hydrogenated vegetable oils), etc. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>One would think that a naturally adapted diet would be perfectly > >>>>>>>healthy. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Sugar isn't healthy, yet many fruits are very high in sugars. > >>>>> > >>>>>I won't even bother with that one. > >>>> > >>>>Why not? Juicing removes beneficial fiber, and many nutrients. Juice is > >>> > >>>merely > >>> > >>> > >>>>sugary water with a few nutrients one doesn't get from Kool-Aid. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>It's a poser, because I believe the evidence is there, that > >>>>>>>early humans and even before, ate meat. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>The evidence is substantial that our early ancestors ate meat as part > > > > of > > > >>>a > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>varied diet. > >>>>> > >>>>>I want evidence from scientific studies of current humans, not moldy > >>>>>axes in the dirt. > >>>> > >>>>http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4...ins.paleo.html > >>>>http://www.thirdage.com/news/archive...031118-02.html > >>>>http://www.cnn.com/FOOD/news/9906/28/red.meat.study/ > >>>> > >>> > >>> > > http://www.beef.org/dsp/dsp_content....o ntentId=428 > > > >>>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0424031929.htm > >>>>http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?article=2833 > >>>>http://www.eatwild.com/cla.html > >>>>http://res2.agr.ca/lethbridge/rep2001/rep0213_e.htm > >>>> > >>>>I could go on all day since there were plenty more hits on my searches. > >>> > >>>Let me > >>> > >>> > >>>>know if you need more evidence. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Form the british medical journal: > >>>>> > >>>>>http://tinyurl.com/2ttj3 > >>>> > >>>>Data from nations with sizable vegetarian populations, such as India, > > > > show > > > >>>that > >>> > >>> > >>>>vegetarians and omnivores have statistically similar longevity and that > >>>>vegetarians die from the very same diseases that affect omnivores. > >>>> > >>>>It is usually claimed that the lives of predominantly meat-eating > >>>>peoples are short-lived, but the Aborigines of Australia, who > >>>>traditionally eat a diet rich in animal products, are known for their > >>>>longevity (at least before colonisation by Europeans). Within Aboriginal > >>>>society, there is a special caste of the elderly (42). Obviously, if no > >>>>old people existed, no such group would have existed. In his book > >>>>Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Price has numerous photographs > >>>>of elderly native peoples from around the world (42). Explorers such as > >>>>Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great longevity among the Inuit (again, > >>>>before colonisation). (43) > >>>> > >>>>Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great ages on > >>>>a diet of fatty pork and whole milk products. The Hunzas, also known for > >>>>their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's > >>>>milk which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (44). In > >>>>contrast, the largely vegetarian inhabitants of southern India have the > >>>>shortest life-spans in the world (45). Dr Weston Price, DDS, travelled > >>>>around the world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets. > >>>>Without exception, he found a strong correlation among diets rich in > >>>>animal fats, with robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for > >>>>Swiss athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream! In > >>>>Africa, Dr Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in fatty > >>>>fish and organ meats, like liver, consistently carried off the prizes in > >>>>athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always dominated peoples > >>>>whose diets were largely vegetarian (42). > >>>>http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/vege...s-lifespan.htm > >>>> > >>>>Well? > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
"rick etter" > wrote in message hlink.net... > > > wrote in message > news  > > On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 21:41:22 GMT, "rick etter" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >================== > > >Typical ignorant vegan... makes a claim they cannot support and demands > > >others to. What a hoot. > > > > ok, for the lazy and ignorant, I'll post it again: > > > > http://tinyurl.com/2ttj3 > > > > > > then **** off or be rational, or learn how to read. > ===================== > You, ignorant fool. You can take any 10000 people that are already > disposed to a healthy diet and compare them to other people all day, and it > won't make your study 'prove' anything. Plus, they didn't report for fish, > dairy, alcohol, overall energy intake, exercise, or enonomic status. In > other words fool, they were unable to: > "...We were therefore unable to explore whether the significant associations > observed were partly due to confounding by other dietary or non-dietary > variables...." > > Plus, are you ignoring this statement?: "...A vegetarian diet was also > associated with a significant increase in mortality from breast cancer...." > **look at me, i'm not top-posting (  ) ! anyhow, i would be curious to seewhat kind of diet those who developed breast cancer were on. i wouldn't be suprised if they ate dairy products after what i've read of the links between dairy (modern production especially) and breast cancer. do you have the study link? thanks! > > > > any one of the above. > > > > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
"katie" > wrote in message .cable.rogers.com... > ahh, okay, thank you both for the info. maybe i'll just top-post when i've > just got something that doesn't need to be in sections in the thread, like > this. everyone happy? People scroll down to look for replies to posts, so if you top post, people may not see your replies at all. -Rubystars |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
"katie" > wrote in message .cable.rogers.com... > > "rick etter" > wrote in message > hlink.net... > > > > > wrote in message > > news > > > On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 21:41:22 GMT, "rick etter" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >================== > > > >Typical ignorant vegan... makes a claim they cannot support and > demands > > > >others to. What a hoot. > > > > > > ok, for the lazy and ignorant, I'll post it again: > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/2ttj3 > > > > > > > > > then **** off or be rational, or learn how to read. > > ===================== > > You, ignorant fool. You can take any 10000 people that are already > > disposed to a healthy diet and compare them to other people all day, and > it > > won't make your study 'prove' anything. Plus, they didn't report for > fish, > > dairy, alcohol, overall energy intake, exercise, or enonomic status. In > > other words fool, they were unable to: > > "...We were therefore unable to explore whether the significant > associations > > observed were partly due to confounding by other dietary or non-dietary > > variables...." > > > > Plus, are you ignoring this statement?: "...A vegetarian diet was also > > associated with a significant increase in mortality from breast > cancer...." > > > **look at me, i'm not top-posting ( ) ! anyhow, i would be curious tosee > what kind of diet those who developed breast cancer were on. i wouldn't be > suprised if they ate dairy products after what i've read of the links > between dairy (modern production especially) and breast cancer. do you have > the study link? ======================== It's the one posted above. The 'tinyurl link... I wouldn't hold to much faith in this one though. They took a group of people already disposed to eating a healthy diet, and still didn't come up with any statistcal decreases in the cancers they proposed to look for. As usual, the loon here that posted it(as proof that eating meat is bad, btw), didn't really read it, and now he's running away from answering anything about his supposed proof that meat is 'bad' for you. \ > thanks! > > > > > > any one of the above. > > > > > > > > > > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:23:58 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote: > >Strawman. I didn't limit my claim to refined sugar. Excess sugar is bad >regardless of its source. You're the one that brought up the sugar, which is not what I was talking about. Stick to the point. > >No, it's elaborating on my point about sugar. Which has nothing to do with the issue of meat-eating. > >Goalpost move. > >>>http://www.thirdage.com/news/archive...031118-02.html >> >> A 4 week study as opposed to a 17 year study? And then they >> used the same group of women for both types of eating. > >Yes, that's quite common in food studies. No it isn't. > >> Not scientific. > >Ipse dixit. > >> Something smells like fish in university ville. >> bah. > >Can you even address the issue at hand? Can you? > >> also, low fat was emphasized. > >Perhaps you should look around at a grocery store and see how many products are >labelled "low-fat" and "fat-free." That's a supply provided to meet a demand. >Compare that to labelling "full-fat" or "extra-fat" for comparison purpose. > >>>http://www.cnn.com/FOOD/news/9906/28/red.meat.study/ >> >> The headlines from this study, funded by the National Cattlemen's Beef >> Association. > >So? Do you know anything at all? Now, how would you react if that study of vegetarian diet was funded by the soybean industry? right..... > >> Ok then, right. Also, this is merely a comparison of >> different meats on cholesterol. How long was the study? They >> don't say. Were scientific methods used? Right. > >Read the article again, dopey. It mentions methodology. It also mentions the >journal which published the study. > >>>http://www.beef.org/dsp/dsp_content....o ntentId=428 >> >> Same deal. Let's leave out "studies" funded by the beef industry, >> ok? > >On what basis: scientific or aesthetic? Methodology dictates results, not the >funding itself. The funding makes it suspect. > >> I usre as hell will. > >I know, but there's nothing I can do about your willful ignorance except to >continue pointing to studies which contradict your claims. > >>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0424031929.htm >> >> "Diversity and variety contribute as much to diet quality as does low >> fat content,'' Drewnowski said. "A monotonous diet of two or three >> low-fat foods may do wonders for your cholesterol levels, but will do >> nothing for your mental health or your quality of life. The premier >> U.S.D.A. recommendation is to enjoy a variety of foods. That is the >> one guideline that we should follow." >> >> Logically faulty, > >Ipse dixit. Care to explain why you think it's flawed? yes I can, but the fact that you think "studies" funded by the beef industry are something I should accept as valid, causes me to doubt your veracity. > >Why should I give you a break? You repeatedly make claims without substantiating >them. Now I'm getting ****ed off. yeah, I see, totally ignore the bmj study I posted a link to, act like I didn;t even provide any evidence at all, when in fact it is much stronger evidencd than anything you have provided. Yep, I see where you are coming from all right. > >> That is a lifestyle quiz, nothing more. > >What was the methodology employed in your study? > Subjects were recruited by distributing a short questionnaire.... To > assess the stability of dietary patterns we interviewed 289 subjects > between one and a half and six years after the recruitment questionnaire > was completed.... It's far better than a 2 day lifestyle quiz. >> I want to see a 17 year study proving that dietary variety is >> the most improtant factor in diet, > >Will Framingham suffice? > > The study found that 24% of women in the “Heart Healthy” group became > overweight in twelve years, 30% of “Light Eating” women, 22% of “Wine > and Moderate Eating” women, and 28% of “High Fat” eaters. The “Empty > Calorie” category had the highest prevalence of overweight women at 41%. >http://www.bu.edu/sargent/programs/g...i_article.html > >> one that can also prove >> that vegetarians DON'T have much dietary variety. ha. > >Here you go with asking others to prove negatives again. > >>>http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?article=2833 >> >> oh, another "study" funded by the beef insdustry. > >The funding is less important than the methodology and results: > Dr Katrine Baghurst, leader of consumer science program at CSIRO Health > Sciences and Nutrition in Adelaide, said many Australians have > misconceptions about saturated fats in red meat. ‘We need to educate the > community that lean red meat is a nutrient dense food which > is...perfectly suitable for people who are looking for a healthy > balanced diet that helps control their weight.’ > >Deal with the issue, not tangentials like who funded the research. I find it rather central. > >>>http://www.eatwild.com/cla.html >> >> I want to see the 17 year study of the people eating grass fed beef. > >Goalpost move. ditto on you. > >> Naturally, they will be rich, or be able to raise their own. This >> will automatically put them outside the pale of the average "life >> style." > >Ipse dixit. > >>>http://res2.agr.ca/lethbridge/rep2001/rep0213_e.htm >> >> looks like another one funded by the beef industry. > >So? Deal with the issue, not tangentials like who funded the research. Is this article the issue? I don;t think so. > >>>I could go on all day since there were plenty more hits on my searches. Let me >>>know if you need more evidence. You provided none. >>> >>> Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great ages on >>> a diet of fatty pork and whole milk products. The Hunzas, also known for >>> their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's >>> milk which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (44). In >>> contrast, the largely vegetarian inhabitants of southern India have the >>> shortest life-spans in the world (45). Dr Weston Price, DDS, travelled >>> around the world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets. >>> Without exception, he found a strong correlation among diets rich in >>> animal fats, with robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for >>> Swiss athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream! In >>> Africa, Dr Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in fatty >>> fish and organ meats, like liver, consistently carried off the prizes in >>> athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always dominated peoples >>> whose diets were largely vegetarian (42). >>> http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/vege...s-lifespan.htm >>> >>>Well? >> >> where is the peer-reviewed medical journal article? heh. > >Did you look at the references? > > 42. Price, op. cit.; Fallon, S. "Nasty, Brutish, and Short?" The Ecologist, >(London), Jan/Feb 1999; Enig & Fallon, "Australian Aborigines," Jnl of PPNF, >Summer 1998. moldy axes on the dirt. I said I wanted scientific research done on currently living humans, not cultural habits, not stone tools in glass cases. >43. Stefansson, V., The Fat of the Land, Macmillan, New York, 1956 >44. Pitskhelauri, G.Z., The Long Living of Soviet Georgia, Human Sciences Press, >New York, 1982; Moore, Thomas. Lifespan: What Really Affects Human Longevity >(Simon & Schuster; NY), 1990. >45. Abrams, "Vegetarianism," pp. 74-77. > >> You just come up with any friggin blarney web stie out there. > >No, you've listed one study and made claims beyond its authors' scope. I have >offered information from studies which support YOUR claims. In my view, you have offered nothing. > >> Who is this Russell Smith, PhD? This is the most banal of >> references. What study is it, who funded it? how many people >> participated? How long did it last? > >You apparently didn't read the article or look at its references. > >> I want to see the 17 year study proving that meat eaters >> live longer. > >Name one vegetarian culture whose population outlives the norm even in the US or UK. As I said, I want to see the 17 year study proving that meat eaters live longer. A SCIENTIFIC one. > >> Is the idea that meat eating is some kind >> lucky talisman agaisnt all forms of death, accidental >> and etc? wow. > >Strawman. No, that is the impression I get from this article. Projecting? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
So are you taking back your statement that I provided no evidence?
asshole. On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:35:30 GMT, usual suspect > wrote: wrote: >>>>I have not seen any evidence better than what I provided. >>> >>>==================== >>>ROTYFLMAO Which was exactly, well, none.... >> >> If a study done by a peer reviewed medical journal > >The study was NOT done by a journal. It was published in it. Two of the authors >are vegetarians. I suppose your concern for bias is a double-standard. > > Conflict of interest: TJAK and PNA are members of the Vegetarian > Society. > >> over 17 years with a statistically sigificant number >> of people is *nothing* then it just looks like you have >> no regard for the scientific method, and hence can be >> ruled out as any kind of rational person. > >The methodology employed is imperfect and their original hypothesis was >invalidated by their data: It's better than anything you provided. > > This study was initially set up to test the hypotheses that daily > consumption of wholemeal bread (as an indicator of a high fibre diet) > and vegetarian diet are associated with a reduction in mortality from > ischaemic heart disease; the reduction in mortality associated with both > of these dietary factors was not significant. > >Other initial findings, too, have been adjusted: > We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a 15% reduction in > mortality from ischaemic heart disease. This was not significant and was > less than the roughly 30% reductions reported in earlier analyses of > this cohort.... A vegetarian diet was also associated with a significant > increase in mortality from breast cancer. However, the confidence > interval was wide.... The numbers of deaths for individual cancer sites > were small and the mortality ratios have wide confidence intervals. The > 41% reduction in mortality from lung cancer associated with daily > consumption of fresh fruit was not significant.... > >The devil is in the details, isn't it. "Not significant" and "wide confidence >intervals" don't exactly help your claim. > >> Either that or you don't know how to follow the thread >> back to where I posted the link. > >That or you cannot read the conclusions of your own study. > >> in either case, plonk. time. > >Do you always run away from fights you start? Sometimes I realize that a person I am arguing with is not really interested in real discussion. You do better than some on here, but not by much. If you are going to claim that the evidence I provided is "nothoing" you might do better logically to stick with that, than to turn around and quote it at me, and refer to it even ever so slightly as a "study." Not very consistent of you. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:58:38 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote: > >That's the whole point. The OP made a specific claim about "meat" without any >distinctions. I was demonstrating the folly of his position on the basis of the >facts. > >> just >> as plant-based diets aren't necessarily healthier than omnivorous ones, >> there are a multitude of factors contributing to the longevity (or lack >> thereof) of each population group: socioeconomic factors, geography, >> population & disease, conflict, colonialism etc. > >True enough, but many of those factors also weigh heavily on individual dietary >choices in the first place. The point I made, though, was to contradict the OP's >views that (a) "meat give[s] people health problems," (b) "that a naturally >adapted diet" is "perfectly healthy" or excludes meat, and (c) his implied claim >through the use of one study that meat shortens lives. The OP is wrong. You haven;t provided any evidence to back up your claim. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 03:18:47 GMT, "Rubystars" >
wrote: >Overconsuming meat leads to problems because people aren't as active as they >used to be. People need to eat more vegetables, etc. to get a balanced diet. >It's the overconsumption of meat, not the consumption of meat itself that's >the problem. How much is over-consuming? What is your opinion based on, with all due respect? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
> wrote in message ... > On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:05:50 GMT, usual suspect > > wrote: > > >> You haven;t provided any evidence to back up your claim. > > > >I've supported my claims and demolished yours. > > In your dreams! > > Furthermore, I do not accept any studies attempting to > prove the wonderfulness of meat, conducted by meat > eaters. =========================== LOL Yet *you* tried to foist off a 'study' by vegetarians that didn't prove what you claimed anyway. Are you really that stupid? > > > >Your own source said: > > This study was initially set up to test the hypotheses that daily > > consumption of wholemeal bread (as an indicator of a high fibre diet) > > and vegetarian diet are associated with a reduction in mortality from > > ischaemic heart disease; the reduction in mortality associated with both > > of these dietary factors was not significant. > > > >THE REDUCTION IN MORTALITY ASSOCIATED WITH... THESE FACTORS WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT. > >Your claim is still that it *was* significant. Do I trust some yoga whacko or > >the researchers? > > > >Your own source also noted: > > We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a 15% reduction in > > mortality from ischaemic heart disease. This was NOT SIGNIFICANT and was > > LESS THAN the roughly 30% reductions REPORTED IN EARLIER ANALYSES of > > this cohort.... A vegetarian diet was also associated with a SIGNIFICANT > > INCREASE in mortality from breast cancer. However, the confidence > > interval was wide.... The numbers of deaths for individual cancer sites > > were small and the mortality ratios have wide confidence intervals. The > > 41% reduction in mortality from lung cancer associated with daily > > consumption of fresh fruit was NOT SIGNIFICANT.... > > > >You have yet to substantiate that meat is unhealthy and causes health problems. > > You have yet to substantiate that meat is healthy. ====================== It was you claim fool. *YOU* are to prove that it is unhealthy. You haven't done that yet. All you've managed is to show that a vegetarian diet *isn't* all that healthy. You really are too stupid for this, aren't you? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
> wrote in message ... > On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 20:57:33 GMT, usual suspect > > wrote: > > wrote: > >>>Strawman. I didn't limit my claim to refined sugar. Excess sugar is bad > >>>regardless of its source. > >> > >> You're the one that > > > >WHO, not that. > > > >> brought up the sugar, which is not what I was > >> talking about. > > > >You made an unsubstantiated point. I made a comparison to sugar, which causes > >more health problems for more people than your generic claim of "meat." > > > Your point had nothing to do with the discussion. It was attempt > at distraction, noithing more. > > > > >> Stick to the point. > > > >I have stuck to the point. When will you make one you can support with evidence? > > you have not. I have given evidence, and you have not. ==================== LOL All you've provided so far is how a vegetarian diet isn't healthy. Now, back up your original claim, or be branded forever the loser that you are. > > > > > >>>No, it's elaborating on my point about sugar. > >> > >> Which has nothing to do with the issue of meat-eating. > > > >Meat-eating has nothing to do with the claims you've made about it. > > You have not provided proof. ================== And you have proven that a vegetarian diet isn't healthy. > > > >Sugar -- not > >just refined, but also from fruits, juices, milk (lactose), etc. -- causes more > >health problems for humans. > > > beside the point. > > > > > > > >Ipse dixit. Can you refute the study? > > Already did. > > > > > >I have. When will you address it? You raised it yet have offered no evidence. > > I have offered evidence and you have offered none. > > > > > >Apparently I know more than you do. > > You are a self-important little braggart who thinks that > any vague web site suppoirts your claims. > > > > > >> Now, how would you react if that > >> study of vegetarian diet was funded by the soybean industry? > > > >I would assess it on the basis of methodology, just as I assess any study. > >Unlike you, I'm open-minded and not peddling an agenda -- aside from wanting my > >fellow man to have good health. > > Well, you are mistaken. > You most certainly are pedlding an agenda. Beef industry funded > studies indeed. > > > > >> right..... > > > >We've already figured out how you respond to studies which contradict yours: > >with contempt. Why are you so closed-minded? > > I do not accept your "studies," because I have a brain. > > > > > >>>>Ok then, right. Also, this is merely a comparison of > >>>>different meats on cholesterol. How long was the study? They > >>>>don't say. Were scientific methods used? Right. > >>> > >>>Read the article again, dopey. It mentions methodology. It also mentions the > >>>journal which published the study. > > > >Did you read the parts that mentioned the methodology and cited the journal in > >which the study was published??????? > > > >>>>>http://www.beef.org/dsp/dsp_content....ontentTypeId=2 &contentId=428 > >>>> > >>>>Same deal. Let's leave out "studies" funded by the beef industry, > >>>>ok? > >>> > >>>On what basis: scientific or aesthetic? Methodology dictates results, not the > >>>funding itself. > > > >> > >> The funding makes it suspect. > > > >Ipse dixit. Can you refute its methodology or findings? > > The funding makes it suspect right off the bat. Everybody > knows this. You "refute" mine with your silly articles, I do the same > right back at you. Nothing you provided was an actual link to a > peer-reviewed journal, btw. > > > > > >>>> I usre as hell will. > >>> > >>>I know, but there's nothing I can do about your willful ignorance except to > >>>continue pointing to studies which contradict your claims. > >>> > >>> > >>>>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0424031929.htm > >>>> > >>>>"Diversity and variety contribute as much to diet quality as does low > >>>>fat content,'' Drewnowski said. "A monotonous diet of two or three > >>>>low-fat foods may do wonders for your cholesterol levels, but will do > >>>>nothing for your mental health or your quality of life. The premier > >>>>U.S.D.A. recommendation is to enjoy a variety of foods. That is the > >>>>one guideline that we should follow." > >>>> > >>>>Logically faulty, > >>> > >>>Ipse dixit. Care to explain why you think it's flawed? > >> > >> yes I can, > > > >Then do it, putz. Why do you need to be reminded that you say one thing and then > >cannot support it? You keep doing the same thing, from your claim about meat to > >this. > > "A monotonous diet of two or three low-fat foods" is a put-down > about any other alternative to a meat based diet, that really assumes > a lot, and is pretty laughable to boot. If anything, vegetarians > have a *more* varied diet. > > Your name calling really puts you in a lower category of so-called > "debater." What you really are is somebody with no life who would > not have the guts to say it face-to-face. > > > >> yeah, I see, totally ignore the bmj study > > > >I didn't ignore it, I read it. > > I refer you to your statements that I "provided no proof." > > > >It didn't. Maybe you should re-read it, along with that CNN article which > >mentioned methodology and cited a peer-reviewed journal. > > > You did not provide any direct links to peer-reviewed journals. > Oh wait I forgot, anything you could come up with would have > been done by meat eaters anyway, who could not be objective > about it. > > > >>>>That is a lifestyle quiz, nothing more. > >>> > >>>What was the methodology employed in your study? > >>> Subjects were recruited by distributing a short questionnaire.... To > >>> assess the stability of dietary patterns we interviewed 289 subjects > >>> between one and a half and six years after the recruitment questionnaire > >>> was completed.... > >> > >> It's far better than a 2 day lifestyle quiz. > > > >Ipse dixit. Can you refute any of the studies to which I linked? > > yeah, I reject this one the basis that it's merely a 2 day life style > quiz. I already gave you my reasons for my criticisms for each one. > > If you think that a 2 day life style quiz should be given credence, > well. > > > > > >>>>I want to see a 17 year study proving that dietary variety is > >>>>the most improtant factor in diet, > >>> > >>>Will Framingham suffice? > >>> > >>> The study found that 24% of women in the "Heart Healthy" group became > >>> overweight in twelve years, 30% of "Light Eating" women, 22% of "Wine > >>> and Moderate Eating" women, and 28% of "High Fat" eaters. The "Empty > >>> Calorie" category had the highest prevalence of overweight women at 41%. > >>>http://www.bu.edu/sargent/programs/g...romoni_article. html > > > >Well???? Aside from "Empty Calorie" eaters -- those who eat a lot of sugar, > >fats, etc. -- the others were statistically insignificant. That study was longer > >than "yours" and far more exhaustive. > > what planet do you live on? 737 women, 12 years. 12 years is LESS > THAN 17 years. 737 women versus 11,000 people, both male and female. > ALso, 737 is not statistically significant. There needs to be at > least 2,000 people. > > You are just wasting my time. > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:23:58 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote: wrote: >>>No, I am noting that meat isn't inherently or automatically bad for health, and >>>that some plant-based foods cause plenty of health problems. High sugar >>>consumption results in many of the same ailments that plague people who consume >>>too much saturated fat: heart disease, diabetes, etc. >> >> Of course refined sugar is bad. Stick to the point. > >Strawman. I didn't limit my claim to refined sugar. Excess sugar is bad >regardless of its source. > >>>>I won't even bother with that one. >>> >>>Why not? Juicing removes beneficial fiber, and many nutrients. Juice is merely >>>sugary water with a few nutrients one doesn't get from Kool-Aid. >> >> I see. you are a circle-talker. > >No, I am not. > >> You never even mentioned juicing in your previous statement. > >No, it's elaborating on my point about sugar. > >>>>>>It's a poser, because I believe the evidence is there, that >>>>>>early humans and even before, ate meat. >>>>> >>>>>The evidence is substantial that our early ancestors ate meat as part of a >>>>>varied diet. >>>> >>>>I want evidence from scientific studies of current humans, not moldy >>>>axes in the dirt. >>> >>>http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4...ins.paleo.html >> >Read the article again, dopey. It mentions methodology. It also mentions the >journal which published the study. How is it you think a comparison of eating chicken vs. beef applies to vegetarinaism or veganism? Now that you have dragged out the name calling: Idiot. >Why should I give you a break? You repeatedly make claims without substantiating >them. I don't give any of your links any credence either, far less in fact. > >> That is a lifestyle quiz, nothing more. > >What was the methodology employed in your study? > Subjects were recruited by distributing a short questionnaire.... To > assess the stability of dietary patterns we interviewed 289 subjects > between one and a half and six years after the recruitment questionnaire > was completed.... avoid the issue, find another way to strike back, > >> I want to see a 17 year study proving that dietary variety is >> the most improtant factor in diet, > >Will Framingham suffice? > > The study found that 24% of women in the “Heart Healthy” group became > overweight in twelve years, 30% of “Light Eating” women, 22% of “Wine > and Moderate Eating” women, and 28% of “High Fat” eaters. The “Empty > Calorie” category had the highest prevalence of overweight women at 41%. >http://www.bu.edu/sargent/programs/g...i_article.html You don;t really give very good back up info, and you behave like an asshole on top of it. > >> one that can also prove >> that vegetarians DON'T have much dietary variety. ha. > >Here you go with asking others to prove negatives again. > >>>http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?article=2833 >> >> oh, another "study" funded by the beef insdustry. > >The funding is less important than the methodology and results: > Dr Katrine Baghurst, leader of consumer science program at CSIRO Health > Sciences and Nutrition in Adelaide, said many Australians have > misconceptions about saturated fats in red meat. ‘We need to educate the > community that lean red meat is a nutrient dense food which > is...perfectly suitable for people who are looking for a healthy > balanced diet that helps control their weight.’ > >Deal with the issue, not tangentials like who funded the research. What does that quote have to do with methoidolgy ? nothing. er, ahem, "we need to educate the comunity" sounds like propaganda to me. >>>http://res2.agr.ca/lethbridge/rep2001/rep0213_e.htm >> >> looks like another one funded by the beef industry. > >So? Deal with the issue, not tangentials like who funded the research. I would say it is rather suspect. > >No, you've listed one study and made claims beyond its authors' scope. I have >offered information from studies which support YOUR claims. One good apple is way better than a bunch of quetionable ones, conducted completely by meat eaters. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
> wrote in message ... > > > > >It was much more. It helped to establish that you > >aren't concerned with health, only politics and religion. > > that's bullshit. Why can't you people stick to the point? > I'll tell you why: it's because you can't. ==================== No, it';s because you have no point, other than the top of your head. > > > > > >> > >> > >>>> Stick to the point. > >>> > >>>I have stuck to the point. When will you make one you can support with evidence? > >> > >> > >> you have not. I have given evidence, and you have not. > > > >You have not. You didn't give any support for your > >claim at all. You are a liar. > > Why don't you go where you belong? It's because you > are looking for ways to entertain yoruself. ====================== Not to the point. remember, you don't like people who don't stick to the point. Why is it you can't? You have provided *NO* proof that eating meat is unhealthy. You have however provided 'proof' that eating vegetarian is unhealthy. Smooth move there sherlock... Maybe from now on you'll try to read your own cites with just a bit of comprehension, eh stupid? > > > >> > >>>Sugar -- not > >>>just refined, but also from fruits, juices, milk (lactose), etc. -- causes more > >>>health problems for humans. > >> > >> > >> > >> beside the point. > > > >No, fully the point. You claimed to be concerned with > >health, and you were and are lying. You're concerned > >with politics and religion, that's all. > > you can't think straight. ====================== LOL This form the guy who ended up proving how unhealthy a vegetarian diet is. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
rick etter wrote:
> > wrote in message > ... > >>On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:05:50 GMT, usual suspect > >>wrote: >> >> >>>>You haven;t provided any evidence to back up your claim. >>> >>>I've supported my claims and demolished yours. >> >>In your dreams! >> >>Furthermore, I do not accept any studies attempting to >>prove the wonderfulness of meat, conducted by meat >>eaters. > > =========================== > LOL Yet *you* tried to foist off a 'study' by vegetarians that didn't prove > what you claimed anyway. Are you really that stupid? He is even more stupid than that. > > >> >>>Your own source said: >>> This study was initially set up to test the hypotheses that daily >>> consumption of wholemeal bread (as an indicator of a high fibre diet) >>> and vegetarian diet are associated with a reduction in mortality from >>> ischaemic heart disease; the reduction in mortality associated with both >>> of these dietary factors was not significant. >>> >>>THE REDUCTION IN MORTALITY ASSOCIATED WITH... THESE FACTORS WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT. >>> >>>Your claim is still that it *was* significant. Do I trust some yoga whacko or >>>the researchers? >>> >>>Your own source also noted: >>>We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a 15% reduction in >>>mortality from ischaemic heart disease. This was NOT SIGNIFICANT and was >>>LESS THAN the roughly 30% reductions REPORTED IN EARLIER ANALYSES of >>>this cohort.... A vegetarian diet was also associated with a SIGNIFICANT >>>INCREASE in mortality from breast cancer. However, the confidence >>>interval was wide.... The numbers of deaths for individual cancer sites >>>were small and the mortality ratios have wide confidence intervals. The >>>41% reduction in mortality from lung cancer associated with daily >>>consumption of fresh fruit was NOT SIGNIFICANT.... >>> >>>You have yet to substantiate that meat is unhealthy and causes health problems. > >>You have yet to substantiate that meat is healthy. > > ====================== > It was you claim fool. *YOU* are to prove that it is unhealthy. Which he hasn't done, and will not attempt to do. > You haven't done that yet. All you've managed is to show that a vegetarian diet > *isn't* all that healthy. You really are too stupid for this, aren't you? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
*
Jonathan Ball wrote: > * > You are a self-important, lying, irrational little > cocksucker who things that a study that makes no > mention of your claim somehow can be spun as supporting > your claim. > * Sounds like you Mr Ball! > * > You have offered nothing to support your claim, not a > ****ing thing.* You are a sleazy little liar. > * A guy who flogs his bishop while being abuse on usenet calls others sleazy? > * > You do not have a functioning brain. > Can you refute the conclusion?* Yes or no.* Stop > dissembling, and answer the question:* can you refute > the conclusion? > * You sounds very frustrated here. We all see the anger bubbling to the surface like a real asshole! > * > > Peer-reviewed *article*, ****head; article, not > journal.* Nothing you provided was to a peer-reviewed > article that had ANY bearing on your claim.* The > conclusion of the study you cited made plain that it in > no way looked at the health impact of meat. > > Why did you lie, you filthy cocksucker? Boy do you love doing the cock sucking thing! > Come on over, punk.* I'll say anything I've said here > to your face, punk.* You're a cocksucker. > Your reasons are bogus and intellectually dishonest. Listen to the big man! REALLY LOL! I am really entertained by this paragraph please people give him more to flame about this is hilarious! > * > > Can you refute the conclusion?* Yes or no.* If you > answer 'yes', show your methodology.* Oh, wait:* it > will only be to engage in ad hominem attack against the > researchers.* Let me rephrase it:* show your VALID > methodology. > * What's with the latin shit? Are we supposed to be impressed by your pedantic style or all you abusive "cock sucking" comments? Make up your mind asshole. Are you the professor or the mad man? > * > You are a lying cocksucker and a stupid zealot.* Come > on by, and I'll tell you to your face.* ****ing punk. Mr Ball is trying so hard to sound like man. Why? Does he fear that others see him as a stupid ass punk? What is with all the threatening shit Mr Ball? You are a ****ing hot head? Tuff guy? Then what the hell are you doing picking fights with rabbit lovers??????? BIG MAN! * |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
*
Jonathan Ball wrote: > * > You are a self-important, lying, irrational little > cocksucker who things that a study that makes no > mention of your claim somehow can be spun as supporting > your claim. Sounds like you Mr Ball! > * > You have offered nothing to support your claim, not a > ****ing thing.* You are a sleazy little liar. For a guy who flogs his bishop while being abusive to others on usenet calls others sleazy, you should talk! > * > You do not have a functioning brain. > Can you refute the conclusion?* Yes or no.* Stop > dissembling, and answer the question:* can you refute > the conclusion? You're sounding very frustrated here. We all see the anger bubbling to the surface like a real asshole! You are an asshole! > * > > Peer-reviewed *article*, ****head; article, not > journal.* Nothing you provided was to a peer-reviewed > article that had ANY bearing on your claim.* The > conclusion of the study you cited made plain that it in > no way looked at the health impact of meat. > > Why did you lie, you filthy cocksucker? Boy do you love doing the cock sucking thing! > Come on over, punk.* I'll say anything I've said here > to your face, punk.* You're a cocksucker. > Your reasons are bogus and intellectually dishonest. Listen to the big man! I'M REALLY LOL! I am so entertained by this paragraph please people give Mr Ball more to flame about this is hilarious stuff! > * > > Can you refute the conclusion?* Yes or no.* If you > answer 'yes', show your methodology.* Oh, wait:* it > will only be to engage in ad hominem attack against the > researchers.* Let me rephrase it:* show your VALID > methodology. > * What's with the latin shit? Are we supposed to be impressed by your pedantic style or all you abusive "cock sucking" comments? Make up your mind asshole. Are you the professor or the mad man? > * > You are a lying cocksucker and a stupid zealot.* Come > on by, and I'll tell you to your face.* ****ing punk. Mr Ball is trying so hard to sound like tuff man. Why? Does he fear that others see him as a stupid ass punk? What is with all the threatening shit Mr Ball? Are you a ****ing hot head? Tuff guy? Then what the hell are you doing picking fights with rabbit lovers??????? BIG MAN! Talk about a punk... he he, you make me laugh. * |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:05:50 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote: >> You haven;t provided any evidence to back up your claim. > >I've supported my claims and demolished yours. In your dreams! Furthermore, I do not accept any studies attempting to prove the wonderfulness of meat, conducted by meat eaters. >Your own source said: > This study was initially set up to test the hypotheses that daily > consumption of wholemeal bread (as an indicator of a high fibre diet) > and vegetarian diet are associated with a reduction in mortality from > ischaemic heart disease; the reduction in mortality associated with both > of these dietary factors was not significant. > >THE REDUCTION IN MORTALITY ASSOCIATED WITH... THESE FACTORS WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT. >Your claim is still that it *was* significant. Do I trust some yoga whacko or >the researchers? > >Your own source also noted: > We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a 15% reduction in > mortality from ischaemic heart disease. This was NOT SIGNIFICANT and was > LESS THAN the roughly 30% reductions REPORTED IN EARLIER ANALYSES of > this cohort.... A vegetarian diet was also associated with a SIGNIFICANT > INCREASE in mortality from breast cancer. However, the confidence > interval was wide.... The numbers of deaths for individual cancer sites > were small and the mortality ratios have wide confidence intervals. The > 41% reduction in mortality from lung cancer associated with daily > consumption of fresh fruit was NOT SIGNIFICANT.... > >You have yet to substantiate that meat is unhealthy and causes health problems. You have yet to substantiate that meat is healthy. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 20:57:33 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote: wrote: >>>Strawman. I didn't limit my claim to refined sugar. Excess sugar is bad >>>regardless of its source. >> >> You're the one that > >WHO, not that. > >> brought up the sugar, which is not what I was >> talking about. > >You made an unsubstantiated point. I made a comparison to sugar, which causes >more health problems for more people than your generic claim of "meat." Your point had nothing to do with the discussion. It was attempt at distraction, noithing more. > >> Stick to the point. > >I have stuck to the point. When will you make one you can support with evidence? you have not. I have given evidence, and you have not. > >>>No, it's elaborating on my point about sugar. >> >> Which has nothing to do with the issue of meat-eating. > >Meat-eating has nothing to do with the claims you've made about it. You have not provided proof. >Sugar -- not >just refined, but also from fruits, juices, milk (lactose), etc. -- causes more >health problems for humans. beside the point. > >Ipse dixit. Can you refute the study? Already did. > >I have. When will you address it? You raised it yet have offered no evidence. I have offered evidence and you have offered none. > >Apparently I know more than you do. You are a self-important little braggart who thinks that any vague web site suppoirts your claims. > >> Now, how would you react if that >> study of vegetarian diet was funded by the soybean industry? > >I would assess it on the basis of methodology, just as I assess any study. >Unlike you, I'm open-minded and not peddling an agenda -- aside from wanting my >fellow man to have good health. Well, you are mistaken. You most certainly are pedlding an agenda. Beef industry funded studies indeed. > >> right..... > >We've already figured out how you respond to studies which contradict yours: >with contempt. Why are you so closed-minded? I do not accept your "studies," because I have a brain. > >>>>Ok then, right. Also, this is merely a comparison of >>>>different meats on cholesterol. How long was the study? They >>>>don't say. Were scientific methods used? Right. >>> >>>Read the article again, dopey. It mentions methodology. It also mentions the >>>journal which published the study. > >Did you read the parts that mentioned the methodology and cited the journal in >which the study was published??????? > >>>>>http://www.beef.org/dsp/dsp_content....o ntentId=428 >>>> >>>>Same deal. Let's leave out "studies" funded by the beef industry, >>>>ok? >>> >>>On what basis: scientific or aesthetic? Methodology dictates results, not the >>>funding itself. >> >> The funding makes it suspect. > >Ipse dixit. Can you refute its methodology or findings? The funding makes it suspect right off the bat. Everybody knows this. You "refute" mine with your silly articles, I do the same right back at you. Nothing you provided was an actual link to a peer-reviewed journal, btw. > >>>> I usre as hell will. >>> >>>I know, but there's nothing I can do about your willful ignorance except to >>>continue pointing to studies which contradict your claims. >>> >>> >>>>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0424031929.htm >>>> >>>>"Diversity and variety contribute as much to diet quality as does low >>>>fat content,'' Drewnowski said. "A monotonous diet of two or three >>>>low-fat foods may do wonders for your cholesterol levels, but will do >>>>nothing for your mental health or your quality of life. The premier >>>>U.S.D.A. recommendation is to enjoy a variety of foods. That is the >>>>one guideline that we should follow." >>>> >>>>Logically faulty, >>> >>>Ipse dixit. Care to explain why you think it's flawed? >> >> yes I can, > >Then do it, putz. Why do you need to be reminded that you say one thing and then >cannot support it? You keep doing the same thing, from your claim about meat to >this. "A monotonous diet of two or three low-fat foods" is a put-down about any other alternative to a meat based diet, that really assumes a lot, and is pretty laughable to boot. If anything, vegetarians have a *more* varied diet. Your name calling really puts you in a lower category of so-called "debater." What you really are is somebody with no life who would not have the guts to say it face-to-face. >> yeah, I see, totally ignore the bmj study > >I didn't ignore it, I read it. I refer you to your statements that I "provided no proof." >It didn't. Maybe you should re-read it, along with that CNN article which >mentioned methodology and cited a peer-reviewed journal. You did not provide any direct links to peer-reviewed journals. Oh wait I forgot, anything you could come up with would have been done by meat eaters anyway, who could not be objective about it. >>>>That is a lifestyle quiz, nothing more. >>> >>>What was the methodology employed in your study? >>> Subjects were recruited by distributing a short questionnaire.... To >>> assess the stability of dietary patterns we interviewed 289 subjects >>> between one and a half and six years after the recruitment questionnaire >>> was completed.... >> >> It's far better than a 2 day lifestyle quiz. > >Ipse dixit. Can you refute any of the studies to which I linked? yeah, I reject this one the basis that it's merely a 2 day life style quiz. I already gave you my reasons for my criticisms for each one. If you think that a 2 day life style quiz should be given credence, well. > >>>>I want to see a 17 year study proving that dietary variety is >>>>the most improtant factor in diet, >>> >>>Will Framingham suffice? >>> >>> The study found that 24% of women in the “Heart Healthy” group became >>> overweight in twelve years, 30% of “Light Eating” women, 22% of “Wine >>> and Moderate Eating” women, and 28% of “High Fat” eaters. The “Empty >>> Calorie” category had the highest prevalence of overweight women at 41%. >>>http://www.bu.edu/sargent/programs/g...i_article.html > >Well???? Aside from "Empty Calorie" eaters -- those who eat a lot of sugar, >fats, etc. -- the others were statistically insignificant. That study was longer >than "yours" and far more exhaustive. what planet do you live on? 737 women, 12 years. 12 years is LESS THAN 17 years. 737 women versus 11,000 people, both male and female. ALso, 737 is not statistically significant. There needs to be at least 2,000 people. You are just wasting my time. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
> >It was much more. It helped to establish that you >aren't concerned with health, only politics and religion. that's bullshit. Why can't you people stick to the point? I'll tell you why: it's because you can't. > >> >> >>>> Stick to the point. >>> >>>I have stuck to the point. When will you make one you can support with evidence? >> >> >> you have not. I have given evidence, and you have not. > >You have not. You didn't give any support for your >claim at all. You are a liar. Why don't you go where you belong? It's because you are looking for ways to entertain yoruself. >> >>>Sugar -- not >>>just refined, but also from fruits, juices, milk (lactose), etc. -- causes more >>>health problems for humans. >> >> >> >> beside the point. > >No, fully the point. You claimed to be concerned with >health, and you were and are lying. You're concerned >with politics and religion, that's all. you can't think straight. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
Again responding to two posters. I think the moron's broken clock is to blame
this time. Jonathan Ball wrote: > Fix your system clock, ****. It's really screwing up the threads. >>>> You haven;t provided any evidence to back up your claim. >>> >>> I've supported my claims and demolished yours. >> >> In your dreams! >> >> Furthermore, I do not accept any studies attempting to prove the >> wonderfulness of meat, conducted by meat >> eaters. MORON: You've demonstrated neither that any of the studies I cited were conducted by meat eaters nor have you refuted the actual claims made by those studies. > Irrational. You are the one with the mile-wide bias, and it blinds you > to the truth. You aren't interested in the truth, only in clinging to > your irrational beliefs at all cost. Exactly, though I think you underestimate the width and depth of the wannabe's bias. >>> Your own source said: >>> This study was initially set up to test the hypotheses that daily >>> consumption of wholemeal bread (as an indicator of a high fibre diet) >>> and vegetarian diet are associated with a reduction in mortality from >>> ischaemic heart disease; the reduction in mortality associated >>> with both >>> of these dietary factors was not significant. >>> >>> THE REDUCTION IN MORTALITY ASSOCIATED WITH... THESE FACTORS WAS NOT >>> SIGNIFICANT. Your claim is still that it *was* significant. Do I >>> trust some yoga whacko or the researchers? >>> >>> Your own source also noted: >>> We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a 15% >>> reduction in >>> mortality from ischaemic heart disease. This was NOT SIGNIFICANT >>> and was >>> LESS THAN the roughly 30% reductions REPORTED IN EARLIER ANALYSES of >>> this cohort.... A vegetarian diet was also associated with a >>> SIGNIFICANT >>> INCREASE in mortality from breast cancer. However, the confidence >>> interval was wide.... The numbers of deaths for individual cancer >>> sites >>> were small and the mortality ratios have wide confidence >>> intervals. The >>> 41% reduction in mortality from lung cancer associated with daily >>> consumption of fresh fruit was NOT SIGNIFICANT.... >>> >>> You have yet to substantiate that meat is unhealthy and causes health >>> problems. >> >> You have yet to substantiate that meat is healthy. I have shown that meat can be part of a healthy diet. You have yet to support your own claims, and here we are almost a week since you made them. > Not his task. You're the one making the unsupported claim. You lose |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Minerans ?
usual suspect wrote:
>> I now realsie that of course plants have feelings just as much as >> animals do. From now on no living organism will be knowingly >> ingested by me. > >> Just pure minerals from now on. > > Try lithium. Hi folks, In one's quest to avoid eating living beings of either animal or vegetable type, I strongly suggest ***NOT*** to attempt to eat Lithium. It tastes dreadful and is not very good for you. I am out of hospital now, as there is nothing more they can do for me. Thank you for everything, my friends ... bye Roly |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Minerans ?
Roland Flickett wrote:
>>>I now realsie that of course plants have feelings just as much as >>>animals do. From now on no living organism will be knowingly >>>ingested by me. > >>>Just pure minerals from now on. >> >>Try lithium. > > Hi folks, > > In one's quest to avoid eating living beings of either animal or vegetable > type, I strongly suggest ***NOT*** to attempt to eat Lithium. The idea was to get it from a psychiatrist, nitwit. > It tastes dreadful and is not very good for you. It would help balance your mind in therapeutic doses. > I am out of hospital now, as there > is nothing more they can do for me. Did they put you in the padded room? <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fruitarians
How right and well observed "Ann", yes just about everyone is a culture
robot devoid of any intellectual capacity. Nobody teaches philosphy at school. The worst of these "new age" types who get hold of email groups absolutely hate anyone to critique anything or ask questions that put people on the spot. John |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
