Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43

Thread: Vegetarians 'cut heart risk by 32%' page 2

  1. #11
    itchy166's Avatar
    itchy166 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    291
    Primal Fuel
    The authors didn't say that because that isn't the message they were trying to get across. There isn't any real evidence in this study to scientifically say anything actually. It certainly doesn't compare Paleo to vegetarianism.

    I have no emotional attachment or religious faith in eating paleo/primal whatsoever. I just prefer real science to observational studies.

    For example, this headline would be technically correct if 4 meat-eaters and 3 vegetarians out of a million in each group had a heart attack.

    I am a real big fan of science as long as its REAL science. In fact, a "more thinking response" is one that understands that an observational study isn't scientific nor can one draw any meaningful conclusions from them.

    I would never dissmiss a properly done clinical trail, and if you can find one that compares paleo to vegetarian AND concludes that vegetarian is healthier, I will reconsider my new found eating pattern in a clogged-up heartbeat.

    Oh, don't take my word for it, read from someone who read the study and not just the sensationalist headlines.

    Fat Head The Latest “Meat Kills!” Study
    "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

  2. #12
    itchy166's Avatar
    itchy166 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    291
    Quote Originally Posted by peril View Post
    Pretentious moniker and a holier than than attitude. I'm guessing you're not very old.

    If you read the responses more carefully, you'll find some very obvious criticisms of the study. There is no indication that there will be benefit in including more vegetables into a whole food diet because there is no establishment of cause
    Ironic having to teach someone named StudentofTruth science isn't it? I guess there are are different definitions of truth - I prefer my truths to be measurable
    "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

  3. #13
    peril's Avatar
    peril is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Sydney, NSW
    Posts
    2,680
    It is science but it is not conclusive. These studies can only indicate designs for more controlled studies. No conclusion can be drawn from them. Google "observational study" and learn
    Four years Primal with influences from Jaminet & Shanahan and a focus on being anti-inflammatory. Using Primal to treat CVD and prevent stents from blocking free of drugs.

    Eat creatures nose-to-tail (animal, fowl, fish, crustacea, molluscs), a large variety of vegetables (raw, cooked and fermented, including safe starches), dairy (cheese & yoghurt), occasional fruit, cocoa, turmeric & red wine

  4. #14
    ReadyToGrok's Avatar
    ReadyToGrok is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    173
    I read Tom Naughton's take on this study this morning. Certainly casts some doubt on the conclusions.

    Fat Head The Latest “Meat Kills!” Study
    My PB Journal
    Started June 2010

  5. #15
    itchy166's Avatar
    itchy166 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    291
    Quote Originally Posted by StudentofTruth View Post
    Interesting that offence is taken. Emotions determining thoughts rather than cool logic?

    Shoot the messenger of different opinions with personal attacks? The moniker says "student", not "holder" of truth. Reading what you want to read into a name?

    Looking at a huge population - 40,000 people - and finding a huge survival difference depending on proclaimed eating habits is not science? And is to be dismissed outright? Wow.
    I have repeatedly dismissed the study using grade 8 science. Have you even bothered to read the study? Or my counter-points to its conclusions? Did you follow the link to the third party link I provided? Do you know what an observational study is?
    Your argument keeps spouting the headline as gospel, but you won't take the time to look into what the headline means.

    I have shown how 32% isn't a huge difference (from the design of the study it could be less than a rounding error), I have explained that the study DOES NOT compare primal/paleo to vegetarianism (so it doesn't mean anything to us), I have provided a link to someone who provides a thorough analysis of the study. How much more logic do you want?

    Since you didnt follow the link it seems, here's some more problems/results from the study:

    - "Risk factors such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes may be mediating factors through which vegetarianism affects the risk of IHD; therefore, the analyses were not adjusted for these variables."

    - "Since clinical studies have shown that low-carb, meaty diets can control and often reverse diabetes, I seriously doubt eating meat causes diabetes. So what we’re likely seeing here is that the vegetarians consume less sugar than the meat-eaters – once again, comparing health-conscious people to the population as a whole."

    - "Then there’s the age problem. Here’s the breakdown of the study participants with their average ages at the time they were enrolled:

    6,831 non-vegetarian men, average age = 49.5
    22,610 non-vegetarian women, average age = 46.3

    3,771 vegetarian men, average age = 41.8
    11,349 vegetarian women, average age = 38.4

    With a little Excel magic, I determined that the overall average age of the meat-eaters at the beginning of the study was 47 years old. The overall average age of the vegetarians at the beginning of the study was 39 years old." "The researchers compared their medical records 11 years later. At that point, the average meat-eater was 58 years old and the average vegetarian was 50 years old. Now take a look at the chart below, which shows CDC figures on heart-disease deaths rates by age bracket.

    The heart-disease death rate in the 55-64 year-old-bracket is more than double the rate in the 45-54 year-old-bracket. The meat-eaters were far more likely to fall into the age group where the rate of heart-disease death more than doubles."

    And MY Favorite:

    - "The mortality of both the vegetarians and the nonvegetarians in this study is low compared with national rates. Within the study, mortality from circulatory diseases and all causes is not significantly different between vegetarians and meat eaters, but the study is not large enough to exclude small or moderate differences for specific causes of death, and more research on this topic is required."

    You can believe the study if you wish, and good luck to you. I prefer to base my choices on "cool logic" instead of sensationalist headlines.
    "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

  6. #16
    JoanieL's Avatar
    JoanieL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.
    Posts
    7,525
    With a little Excel magic, I determined that the overall average age of the meat-eaters at the beginning of the study was 47 years old. The overall average age of the vegetarians at the beginning of the study was 39 years old." "The researchers compared their medical records 11 years later. At that point, the average meat-eater was 58 years old and the average vegetarian was 50 years old. Now take a look at the chart below, which shows CDC figures on heart-disease deaths rates by age bracket.

    The heart-disease death rate in the 55-64 year-old-bracket is more than double the rate in the 45-54 year-old-bracket. The meat-eaters were far more likely to fall into the age group where the rate of heart-disease death more than doubles.
    It's this kind of thing that makes me turn a blind eye on most research. I.e., you can prove just about anything if you stack the deck.

    I didn't see anything about family history or activity levels. Also, I think a comparison between vegans and omnivores (without the stacking of the deck by age) would make more sense. A vegetarian who eats lots of eggs and cheese/milk/yogurt isn't really eating that differently than an omnivore, they're just eating byproducts instead of the animal itself.

    One last thing. Most research starts with a hypothesis. And a research grant. Always look to money to find out if it had anything to do with the findings.

    Unless one believes that humans are at the bottom of the food chain, one should pretty much believe that we are meant to eat meat and/or meat byproducts.
    "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

    B*tch-lite

    Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

  7. #17
    Kata's Avatar
    Kata is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by JoanieL View Post
    It's this kind of thing that makes me turn a blind eye on most research. I.e., you can prove just about anything if you stack the deck.

    I didn't see anything about family history or activity levels. Also, I think a comparison between vegans and omnivores (without the stacking of the deck by age) would make more sense. A vegetarian who eats lots of eggs and cheese/milk/yogurt isn't really eating that differently than an omnivore, they're just eating byproducts instead of the animal itself.
    Exactly. Also, like someone said before, vegetarians tend to be overall more health-conscious than the average Joe (although most vegetarians I know are pretty heavy). You can't compare a vegetarian who exercises and takes vitamins and doesn't smoke or eat junk food to someone who does all those things and also eats meat. Obviously the vegetarian will be more healthy in that case, but it probably has little or anything to do with the presence or absence of meat in the diet. In this study, it looks like they pitted young, health-conscious vegetarians against older omnivorous people unconcerned with health and then chose one factor of many upon which to base their claim.

  8. #18
    itchy166's Avatar
    itchy166 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    291
    Quote Originally Posted by StudentofTruth View Post
    So cutting through the voluminous words and purported facts, what I'm hearing itchy166, is that you don't trust a study run by Oxford University, from the Cancer Epidemiology Unit, supported by Cancer Research UK and the UK Medical Research Council, because you think there might be some bias. Fair enough.

    But then you take as gospel, quoting as fact, whatever is written by some random guy who runs a website called "Fathead - You've been fed a load of bologna". That is the entirety of your case? That is your science?

    And that is why you feel qualified to boast "Ironic having to teach someone named StudentofTruth science isn't it?".
    Still no arguements based on science? Just that you trust one source over the other. I didn't question whether Oxford made a mistake or whether they lied.

    Again, I don't doubt that what the study said is technically correct. I AM trying to get across to you that it doesn't mean anything useful to us.

    I believe BOTH sources equally. Oxford gave us the headline, but Fathead showed the flaws and biases of the study.

    How many in the study ate Primal/Paleo? Neither you, me, Oxford nor Fathead can answer this, because nobody asked at the time of the study. So answer this, you suggested that based on this research, that us Primal eaters should perhaps "eat more fruit and vegetables.". How did you come to this conclusion? Eat more fruit and vegetables than what exactly?

    There isn't a single arguement that I've put forward that you've even tried to refute. Why? You can't can you?

    I didn't think so.
    "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

  9. #19
    peril's Avatar
    peril is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Sydney, NSW
    Posts
    2,680
    The simple fact is that the same authors had previously used the same data to demonstrate no difference between vegetarians and meat eaters when it came to all causes of death, despite the vegetarians being much younger on average than the meat eaters (the link to the full publication is in the fat head article). So they cherry picked the data to find the one cause of death where vegetarians had an advantage over meat eaters and ignored the rest for this paper. Do you really think that is honest science?
    Four years Primal with influences from Jaminet & Shanahan and a focus on being anti-inflammatory. Using Primal to treat CVD and prevent stents from blocking free of drugs.

    Eat creatures nose-to-tail (animal, fowl, fish, crustacea, molluscs), a large variety of vegetables (raw, cooked and fermented, including safe starches), dairy (cheese & yoghurt), occasional fruit, cocoa, turmeric & red wine

  10. #20
    itchy166's Avatar
    itchy166 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    291
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Like I said earlier there are different truths.

    The fact that your join date coincides with your first post on this thread, combined with the fact that you've never posted on any OTHER thread tells me lots about yours

    Drop into many forums just to troll, or just this one?
    "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •