1. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    03 Apr '14 15:581 edit
    Study: Vegetarians Less Healthy, Lower Quality Of Life Than Meat-Eaters

    Vegetarians may have a lower BMI and drink alcohol sparingly, but vegetarian diets are tied to generally poorer health, poorer quality of life and a higher need for health care than their meat-eating counterparts.

    Looks like the BMI folks don't have it figured out.

    http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/04/01/study-vegetarians-less-healthy-lower-quality-of-life-than-meat-eaters/
  2. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    03 Apr '14 16:303 edits
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Study: Vegetarians Less Healthy, Lower Quality Of Life Than Meat-Eaters

    [b]Vegetarians may have a lower BMI and drink alcohol sparingly, but vegetarian diets are tied to generally poorer health, poorer quality of life and a higher need for health care than their meat-eating counterparts.


    Looks like the BMI folks don't have it figured out.

    http:// ...[text shortened]... a.cbslocal.com/2014/04/01/study-vegetarians-less-healthy-lower-quality-of-life-than-meat-eaters/[/b]
    This is obviously nonsense as most earlier studies conclusively have shown that adults eating significant amount of meat generally leads to shorter life expectancy:

    http://www.pcrm.org/health/cancer-resources/diet-cancer/facts/meat-consumption-and-cancer-risk

    "...The World Health Organization has determined that dietary factors account for at least 30 percent of all cancers in Western countries and up to 20 percent in developing countries. When cancer researchers started to search for links between diet and cancer, one of the most noticeable findings was that people who avoided meat were much less likely to develop the disease. Large studies in England and Germany showed that vegetarians were about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat eaters...."

    in addition, the statement that "vegetarian diets are tied to generally poorer health" is vague because what exactly meant by "tied" in this context? It could mean, for all we know, that it is correlated but not causally. For example, poor people often cannot afford meat and have poor health, NOT because they don't eat meat but because they are too poor to afford adequate food, shelter, clean water, health care etc. It THAT what they mean by "tied" here? If so, it is irrelevant as it shows no relevant causal link.

    The same link said: "Vegetarians reported higher levels of impairment from disorders" -what? so the study relied merely on what each of them "reported" rather than hard medical facts? oh that is really scientific! 😛
  3. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    03 Apr '14 16:33
    Don't like the study, call it nonsense. I understand.
  4. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    03 Apr '14 16:374 edits
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Don't like the study, call it nonsense. I understand.
    No, you don't understand. I don't like it BECAUSE it is nonsense!

    I can show you countless studies (like the one I just showed) that contradict this one -would you call all those other studies nonsense because you don't like them? what about the study I just showed?

    I also wouldn't be surprised if your link was funded by the meat industry.
  5. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    03 Apr '14 17:04
    Originally posted by humy
    No, you don't understand. I don't like it BECAUSE it is nonsense!

    I can show you countless studies (like the one I just showed) that contradict this one -would you call all those other studies nonsense because you don't like them? what about the study I just showed?

    I also wouldn't be surprised if your link was funded by the meat industry.
    I bit circular isn't it?
  6. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    03 Apr '14 17:595 edits
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I bit circular isn't it?
    How so?
    I don't like it BECAUSE it is nonsense.
    But I don't think it is nonsense BECAUSE I don't like it (but rather because of the evidence that contradicts it some of which I have shown )
    That makes it none circular.
  7. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    03 Apr '14 18:32
    Originally posted by humy
    How so?
    I don't like it BECAUSE it is nonsense.
    But I don't think it is nonsense BECAUSE I don't like it (but rather because of the evidence that contradicts it some of which I have shown )
    That makes it none circular.
    Simply because you don't like the outcome and it doesn't fit with your paradigm does not mean the study isn't valid. Open your mind and try to figure out why it is that the study turned out as it did. Perhaps your view isn't complete and perhaps there are things found in meat that are important and you simply do not know about.
  8. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    03 Apr '14 19:0612 edits
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Simply because you don't like the outcome and it doesn't fit with your paradigm does not mean the study isn't valid. Open your mind and try to figure out why it is that the study turned out as it did. Perhaps your view isn't complete and perhaps there are things found in meat that are important and you simply do not know about.
    Simply because you don't like the outcome

    Not true. I wouldn't particular like nor dislike the study's conclusion if only it was true. What I don't like is merely that it is nonsense.
    and it doesn't fit with your paradigm does not mean the study isn't valid.

    Straw man. The study is invalid because of the evidence against it from previous studies.
    Open your mind and try to figure out why it is that the study turned out as it did.

    -yes, it was probably funded by the meat industry else was simply flawed and biased from the start.
    Perhaps your view isn't complete and perhaps there are things found in meat that are important and you simply do not know about.

    ...And probably not because the EVIDENCE suggests otherwise. Can you give me a specific example of such a thing that, say, soya doesn't have, and that would account for the conclusion of that study?

    One of the study's many flaws is that it providing absolutely no biological explanation for why being vegetarian would be so devastating to health. It even very strongly and clearly implied, without even giving the vaguest hint of an explanation of why this would be so, that not eating meat can make you mentally ill! -what? -how exactly does that work? that is pretty absurd. Would you concede that such a drastic claim demands an explanation?

    So it couldn't be more obvious that the study was motivated to persuade people to eat meat (or perhaps it is just general hatred of vegetarianism by meat eaters ) hence my conclusion that the study probably was funded by the meat industry and they would obviously say and give any rubbish to justify such a claim!
    It was clearly unscientific for several reason. One of them being the vagueness of some of their statements and another reason is that it didn't even say how many people where studied in this study -for all we know, it was just ten people!
    In fact, they gave absolutely no statistics on the numbers of people that had various ailments in their study -that by it self is extremely suspicious and should set alarm bells ringing in your head for the obvious reason why they gave no such specific numbers is because either those numbers don't add up to their claims or they simply don't exist!
  9. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    03 Apr '14 19:49
    Not true. I wouldn't particular like nor dislike the study's conclusion if only it was true. What I don't like is merely that it is nonsense.

    You are nothing if not consistent. Your ignorant arrogance is beyond compare.
  10. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    04 Apr '14 07:13
    Originally posted by Eladar
    [b]Not true. I wouldn't particular like nor dislike the study's conclusion if only it was true. What I don't like is merely that it is nonsense.

    You are nothing if not consistent. Your ignorant arrogance is beyond compare.[/b]
    You lose. You make a personal attack to the messenger as your prime argument when you don't have any more valid arguments in the matter. You lose.
  11. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    04 Apr '14 09:44
    Carl Lewis arguably one of the greatest athletes of all time was not only a vegetarian, he eventually became vegan 😲
  12. Joined
    24 Apr '10
    Moves
    14598
    04 Apr '14 10:54
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Study: Vegetarians Less Healthy, Lower Quality Of Life Than Meat-Eaters

    [b]Vegetarians may have a lower BMI and drink alcohol sparingly, but vegetarian diets are tied to generally poorer health, poorer quality of life and a higher need for health care than their meat-eating counterparts.


    Looks like the BMI folks don't have it figured out.

    http:// ...[text shortened]... a.cbslocal.com/2014/04/01/study-vegetarians-less-healthy-lower-quality-of-life-than-meat-eaters/[/b]
    "Looks like the BMI folks don't have it figured out."

    The "BMI folks" in general state that it's good to have a weight and fat percentage that is in proportion to ones height (I'm sure the actual description is a bit better formulated). Basically don't be too fat and don't be too thin.

    Do you disagree with this? What does it have to do with the health of vegetarians? Are you trying to find excuses for walking around with a McDonalds and Coca Cola filled belly the size of a small car, lardass?

    Nothing funnier and sadder simultaneously than watching an average American documentary and seeing pretty much halve of the people wobbling around like an overgrown penguin.
  13. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    04 Apr '14 15:10
    Originally posted by Great King Rat
    "Looks like the BMI folks don't have it figured out."

    The "BMI folks" in general state that it's good to have a weight and fat percentage that is in proportion to ones height (I'm sure the actual description is a bit better formulated). Basically don't be too fat and don't be too thin.

    Do you disagree with this? What does it have to do with the ...[text shortened]... ocumentary and seeing pretty much halve of the people wobbling around like an overgrown penguin.
    As long as the BMI isn't the only thing you are looking at, then fine.

    It seems to me that a better way of looking at health is to do an entire work up (checking all vitamin and mineral levels as well as cardiovascular and blood pressure), including family history.

    Evidently Vegetarians are missing something in their diet that has negative consequences on their health. Look at the entire picture. Quit trying to use a simple solution.
  14. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    04 Apr '14 15:121 edit
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    You lose. You make a personal attack to the messenger as your prime argument when you don't have any more valid arguments in the matter. You lose.
    I lose because you disagree with me. Simple message board reality. Of course you are always correct in your mind. You win!

    Good for you. Congrats!
  15. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    04 Apr '14 15:14
    Nothing funnier and sadder simultaneously than watching an average American documentary and seeing pretty much halve of the people wobbling around like an overgrown penguin.

    It's sad that they are that fat because they eat so many carbs.
Back to Top