VEGAN THREAD is ressurected 4 lulz

[Ho]

@Ho: So are you saying that if all other factors are constant and we just focus on vegetarian vs omnivore that you will find both populations have equal probability of becoming overweight? Because I can find several published papers that indicate that vegetarians are less likely to be overweight. True, vegetarians may tend to lead healthier lives and there may be some noise in the data, but I think if being a vegetarian correlates with living a healthy life, then that is excellent.

No, not at all. I was merely responding to your remark that "meat consumption definitely contributes to being overweight." I interpret that statement as "meat will cause you to be fat." I don't really think that's what you were trying to say, but your choice of wording--especially the inclusion of 'definitely'--is what I disagree with.

[BigBadOrc]

To me, the phrase "definitely contributes" is the same as saying "is definitely correlated with" and quite different from "definitely implies". For example, looking up contributes on dictionary.com, I am using definition #2: "To help bring about a result; act as a factor: Exercise contributes to better health"

[blackcat]

I can see what Ho is saying.

Because, there are plenty of people that eat meat, but that also work out and do active things, and therefore fight off the overweightedness.

Meat doesn't DEFINITELY lead to obesity, it just has the possibility of making you obese, if you have a bad metabolism or don't work out.

Still doesn't change my mind though. About a week into the process of become a veggie head and I'm doin good. I am obsessed with the vegan substitute for cheese. No joke. It's amazing. Better than dairy cheese, in my opinion of course.

FUCK PETA....I mean...uh...whoops.

[Ho]

To me, the phrase "definitely contributes" is the same as saying "is definitely correlated with" and quite different from "definitely implies". For example, looking up contributes on dictionary.com, I am using definition #2: "To help bring about a result; act as a factor: Exercise contributes to better health"

Even using that definition, I still don't think you can say that consuming meat contributes to being overweight. You could say that consuming meat can contribute to being overweight--as in, it could be one of a series of factors. You mention other factors in your original statement, but the rest of the statement purports that eating meat must definitely be one of them. That is what I disagree with. Eating 20 lbs. of mashed potatoes everyday while sitting on your butt in front of the television could also contribute to being overweight and involve no consumption of meat whatsoever.

Katy's right on with tracking my objection to your statement. I object only to that particular statement because I believe it to be false--at least in the way in which it was worded. I should also note that my objection was not meant in any way to dissuade you from your viewpoint, so I am not asking you to defend your decision.

See also Brandon's response regarding inference of causation from correlation as it also addresses my objection to the statement.

[Fluffyumpkins]

Because of our medical care.

Socialized medicine get outta hurrrrr.

You're probably right, but it's still a good demonstration of the way that statistics can easily be twisted to fit any given theory. Fatter people = longer life! By quoting only those two statistics I can make that sound plausible!

Most definitely. That's why I think some sort of statistics class should be a required class in high school. Too many people see numbers or hear people talk about numbers and automatically assume truth.

That would seem to make the opposite argument. Since we don't have socialized medicine, the people who don't have health care are more likely to die early, thus bringing our life expectancy down.

You can twist words to make it fit whatever argument you want. That's the reality of language and statistics.

We are one of the most medically advanced nations in the world. We can do quadruple bypasses, artificial heart transplants, chemo, you name it. Yes the cost of new treatments is increasing drastically and yes it can be hard for some to afford it. The system is flawed, I know. However, socializing medicine won't fix it. I would much rather have my choice in private practitioners over government subsidized care. The capitalist incentive for innovation would greatly diminish in a socialized system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damn ... statistics

[malictus]

Changing the subject (but still on the original topic):

The Laughing Planet restaurant here in town has the BEST vegan cookies --- seriously, they are better than almost any other cookie I've had, vegan or otherwise. Laughing Planet in general is a great restaurant -- if I was seriously considering vegetarianism, I'd eat there every day.

[hermione]

Putting meat and fat together is rather childish and ignorant.

Meat is actually one of the key providers for many nutrients that the body needs to survive. A serving of chicken alone has 40-50g of Protein, which is a key element to building muscle mass, keeping muscle, and repairing the body. The protein in meat is also the easiest to digest, and makes the body work the least to do so. Meat also supplies a surplus of an Amino Acid that is harder to find otherwise, Lysine.

Obesity in this country has nothing to do with (for the most part) what people eat, it has everything to do with the lack of activity Americans put forth in their daily lives.

I know you just went to those whole vegan thing, but you need to research both sides of the table instead of jumping on the vegan bandwagon.

[danc1005]

Another assumption some posters seem to be making here is that normal weight=healthy. Going by weight/appearance alone, you really can't make an accurate guess at whether a person would be considered "healthy" or not. You can be fat on the "inside" (i.e. fat reserves around your internal organs, but still there and just as unhealthy), or simply have unhealthy attributes such as high cholesterol or blood pressure, but still be a normal weight. Take, for example, my best friend, Noah (AKA DDRmaster on here). All he eats, day after day, is pizza and hot dogs. Mostly pizza. He doesn't think at all about what he puts into his body. He's also quite skinny (way skinnier than me anyways!). But I wouldn't consider him "healthy" by any stretch of the imagination.

[SoDeepPolaris]

Putting meat and fat together is rather childish and ignorant.

Meat is actually one of the key providers for many nutrients that the body needs to survive. A serving of chicken alone has 40-50g of Protein, which is a key element to building muscle mass, keeping muscle, and repairing the body. The protein in meat is also the easiest to digest, and makes the body work the least to do so. Meat also supplies a surplus of an Amino Acid that is harder to find otherwise, Lysine.

We know where you get your protein from.

[hermione]

Another assumption some posters seem to be making here is that normal weight=healthy. Going by weight/appearance alone, you really can't make an accurate guess at whether a person would be considered "healthy" or not. You can be fat on the "inside" (i.e. fat reserves around your internal organs, but still there and just as unhealthy), or simply have unhealthy attributes such as high cholesterol or blood pressure, but still be a normal weight. Take, for example, my best friend, Noah (AKA DDRmaster on here). All he eats, day after day, is pizza and hot dogs. Mostly pizza. He doesn't think at all about what he puts into his body. He's also quite skinny (way skinnier than me anyways!). But I wouldn't consider him "healthy" by any stretch of the imagination.

Thanks for the most useless post in this whole conversation besides this one, which is only here to point out how dumb yours was.

[danc1005]

Another assumption some posters seem to be making here is that normal weight=healthy. Going by weight/appearance alone, you really can't make an accurate guess at whether a person would be considered "healthy" or not. You can be fat on the "inside" (i.e. fat reserves around your internal organs, but still there and just as unhealthy), or simply have unhealthy attributes such as high cholesterol or blood pressure, but still be a normal weight. Take, for example, my best friend, Noah (AKA DDRmaster on here). All he eats, day after day, is pizza and hot dogs. Mostly pizza. He doesn't think at all about what he puts into his body. He's also quite skinny (way skinnier than me anyways!). But I wouldn't consider him "healthy" by any stretch of the imagination.

Thanks for the most useless post in this whole conversation besides this one, which is only here to point out how dumb yours was.

No problem, c-
hermione

[Original Sin]

So I'm sure there are lots of other factors, all I was really trying to say was that meat consumption definitely contributes to being overweight.

Honestly, your beef (lol) with meat is kind of irritating. If you really want to argue a way for people to better their lives and live longer, why not fight laziness? Laziness leads to poor health MUCH faster than any amount of meat will. If you're even moderately active, and eat intelligently, it really doesn't matter what you're eating.

I pretty much eat what I want, most of it being meat and vegetables, and a lot of carbs. I keep decently active, and have actually been getting in better shape as I go along. Eating meat on a daily basis isn't causing me to shirvel up and die, and it certainly isn't causing me to gain weight.

[BigBadOrc]

Ho, I think it's clear that we disagree in the meaning of the english language. I still maintain that my statement means what you think I meant. But in any case, I think it should be clear what I actually meant now. Sorry for the confusion

Original Sin, let me clarify something. I am not "fighting" meat. If I WERE "fighting" meat, I certainly wouldn't go about it by saying meat is fattening. I'm skinny and if I ate meat my entire life, I would never become fat. I am not trying to convert people to be vegetarians. I don't care what you eat. I am only interested in exploring the science and theories behind vegetarianism.

it certainly isn't causing me to gain weight.

You guys all missed the entire point that MonMotha made earlier.

This paper from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition asserts that THERE IS A CORRELATION between eating meat and being overweight. That means that meat eaters are more likely to be overweight than vegetarians. If you disagree, I welcome you to find a paper contradicting this evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damn ... statistics

Fluffy, is your point that science can't be trusted and we might as well give up thinking?

Putting meat and fat together is rather childish and ignorant

Google "meat fat" and see what you find. This link, for example.

[hermione]

For every site you find that claims meat is bad for you, I can find twice as many that says its good for you.

Also, Why are you saying "explore the science of vegetarianism" when you are obviously not a vegetarian? You are now a Vegan, which is a completely different way of living.

[BigBadOrc]

oh I certainly agree that meat has its healthy aspects. that wasn't really the point of this discussion though.

i am interested in both vegetarianism and veganism. i made that statement because i am only interested in exploring these issues from a scientific standpoint. i'm not trying to argue about whose food can beat up whoeverelse's food. this is not the holy war of foods. this is just an attempt to gain knowledge on the subject and discuss it with others. if someone can show me that i am wrong on any point, good! i will have learned something

When I posted the statistics I found earlier I was very careful that I made no claim based upon them. I do make a claim based upon the paper that was published by a reputable scientific journal. Certainly, even a reputable scientific journal can be wrong. But the answer is not to throw up our hands and say "oh.. well we can't really say for sure.. you can't prove anything". If you have a counterargument that can be backed up based on some sort of scientific evidence, fine. But short of that, you can't just wave off a scientific paper like it means nothing.