storafötter said:
You have a point that observations
aren't reliable. I won't try to say now that the source I got in a hurry backs the statement well. You shared some good points there.
However Mediterranean diet has been acknowledge as good, the people from these countries have a much better health than other groups in the western world
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100615163131.htm
http://www.oldwayspt.org/scientific-studies-mediterranean-diet
You are back to jumping to conclusions. Let us look at your references
Observational study "proves" observational hypothesis
Let me tell you two things right out of the gate that are wrong with this study:
1. No control group. How the hell are we supposed to know that the differences are from external factors besides diet. No control group = Shitty science. Them being twins doesn't mean you have a control group
2. Food questionnaires. This are unreliable in measuring food associated as "unhealthy" such as meat and milk. I don't have the reference right now, but I am talking about 5% accuracy here. That is useless
3. Dubious variable. I never saw an HRV as the measured variable. A quick glance through the literature show that HRV is mostly used to predict mortality after myocardial infarction, but does not predict it. This study should have been much better served with a plain old HDL:VLDL analysis.
A. Keys Seven Countries Study
Did you really bring Ancel Keys study in here? The study that suffers from some terrible confirmation bias errors? I recommend you get educated with the study you just cited, because it has been even more debunked than The China Study.
Ancel Keys Seven Countries Study is some piece of work
At the time, Jacob Yerushalmy, a PhD statistician, at the University of California at Berkeley pointed out that we had data on the amount of fat consumed in 22 countries. So why wasnt it called the 22 Country Study?
It wasnt called that, because Ancel Keys started with the conclusion. Then he cherry-picked the countries that matched his pre-conceived notion and threw out the ones that contradicted it. And most of them did! When all 22 countries were analyzed, the remarkable relationship remarkably disappeared.
Furthermore, Keys established no causative basis. And he based his conclusions on only two phenomena dietary fat and heart disease. This did not account for the possibility that something else could have caused the heart disease.
It might seem hard to believe that this flawed and fraudulent study was the genesis of the entire animal-fat-causes-heart-disease movement. Certainly, in the last sixty years, there must be hundreds of controlled studies that prove the link, right?
Not quite
there are NONE!
What about the societies that consume a very high percentage of saturated fat in the diet groups like the Maasai in Africa or the Inuits in the Arctic North? Do they show signs of heart disease? No, and in fact, quite the opposite is true.
This study is old and very much debunked. You can find a myriad links in the internet, but
this book makes short use of it. It's a must read, because it is NOT a diet book, it's a study on the science of nutrition, from a scientific perspective, done by a true scientist.
Of course this has nothing to do with not eating meat or dairy. They eat a lot of more greens, fruits and beans than other countries. However as a greek myself I know that they sure love their meat too.
It might or it might have nothing to do. Observations are not proof.
Marketing and misconception can also be related to science. What do you have to say about the payed scientists working for the petroleum industry? The same about public information being distributed by companies within the dairy and meat industry. That is a FACT, shareholders within important institutions presenting science and "truth" for us. I am not saying vegan advocates are neutral or not biased. However I think it is ridiculous to speak as if this "proper" science is absolute, and not affected by market and misconception. An example is how science can prove how fur animals who are meant to be in water can thrive in tiny cages with a little stick to play with. This is still serious science!. The truth can be hidden in the discourse. Where you research in relation to something but ignore other relations (that might disrupt the results you want).
You don't seem to know how science works very much. Science works by accumulating evidence. Whether this evidence comes from
Honest Scientist or from Evil Company Research Ltd. Co. and Associates (TM) is irrelevant. The evidence is what matters, and as such, you need to look back to the evidence. Solid science accumulates evidence in one direction until it becomes almost impossible to say otherwise.
That's why observational studies are so damaging to the nutrition science. These people are drawing conclusions from observations WHICH IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR AN HYPOTHESIS.
I don't know about the bold study, but I think you are anthropomorphizing some animal needs. Show me this study please, and I'll tell you what I think about it. Maybe the study showed that animals in such conditions don't suffer a change in survivability, life expectancy and reproduction capabilities from being captive. If the study proves that thing, there isn't much you can say about it. It doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means those animals pretty much don't care, and even if you might not like it, it doesn't make it not true.
I remember well reading in science books at school that the essential amino acids are only found in animals. I am sure a lot of "proper" science was put into that. Especially to be allowed to teach children such untrue stuff.
Science books have been wrong a fucking gazillion tons of times. Doesn't make the science behind them wrong. Science is about acquiring new understanding and there is nothing wrong in rewriting portions of the curriculum to acknowledge new discoveries. You seem to imply that science must be right always. Science not being right is what makes it scientific.
What do you mean with D2 being completely unusable for the body, that is a bold statement and not true. Most treatment of deficies for D vitamin is treated with D2. D3 definitely has some extra benefits, but in regards to having a need for D vitamins it works.
Some new science has argued that D2 is as effective as D3.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266966/?tool=pmcentrez#id706242
Why oh why, finally a randomized, controlled double binded group study! I want you to take note how we change from observational studies to actually controlled studies as soon as we leave nutrition and start getting into the actual medical research? Fascinating. I will look into this.
I acknowledge your point that D2 might as well be as effective as D3
1000 IU is still too few Vitamin D. 5000 IU is what I recommend
And to answer people claiming meat was readily available in most times. Fish of course but cattle and livestock farming didn't give meat regularly as much as it today. In China they didn't rely on livestock farming as much as the west. History shows this.
History also shows that livestock farming is not the only way to eat meat. The hunter gatherer society is much older than the agricultural pastoral society. Maybe we weren't eating cow and pig, but we sure as hell were eating a lot of rabbit, deer, fish and other game. History and paleontology show this. In fact, there is a correlation, and I think it's been demonstrated a causation already, in a decline in bones density, dental health and height as hunter gatherers shifted to a more agricultural society. I don't have the links, but you should find it easily in the net, since this is not as much as a debate, and well established.
The welfare rise has made meat consumption grow to extreme lengths than before. Yes people ate meat before but not as much as today, meat in the stores have been a luxury always. The rise in consumption is also related to the rise of the middle class.
But people have eaten a lot of meat in past times. Anthropological evidence shows this. Again, I don't have the specific numbers, but I recall something about at least 50% of energy coming from animal fat in most ancient societies
Out of curiousity, so there is so far no scientific relation with cholesterol and heart diseases. I will ask if the same people are saying that saturated fat gives the same benefits as polyunsaturated fats?
To those who think no ancient civilization or people did not eat meat, you can look at India. A long tradition of vegetarians exist there. It isn't odd how they keep surviving for generations. Personally I don't know about any ethnicities that have been vegan historically. However many centuries ago, if there existed vegans it would have been doubtful that they need b12 supplements as they could more easily have access to it through the soil and the food they got from it.
If they didn't exist, it was probably because they couldn't survive. Also, Indians are not vegetarians, as has been shown in this thread.
In regards to people saying how unnatural it is to eat vegan food. They are always disregarding their own fast food tendencies. A lot of food people eat and rely on are enriched. The government and companies have to enrich food these days due to how monotonous the diet of people are. I don't see how that is very healthy or natural. Why are vegans suddenly the oddball when most people hardly eat natural except traditional societies, farmers, hunters and scavengers.
The distinction between natural an unnatural is moot, poison ivy is natural and it can really fuck you up. Your logic is flawed though, because you are saying
If the american diet is so shitty, vegan diet can't be as shitty right?. But we are not talking about shitty diets here, we are talking about trying to get the best out of our food. Just because you don't like animal cruelty doesn't make your option more viable or less unhealthy, and I took my time to answer your post fully because I think it's important for you and everyone else to look past the propaganda and into the actual numbers and proof of your hypothesis.
I haven't even presented POSITIVE evidence that meat and diary is good for you. Rest assured, tehpawn has a lot of that, and good science too, presenting well designed evidence that do not try to run off with a sweeping abstract hiding the conclusions behind a correlation cascade.
