IFAW - Saving Harp Seals

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 00:18:49 +0100, "pearl"
wrote:

"Paul Rooney" wrote in message ...
..
One of my cats is a foot-fetishist.

Is its name Tango?

FTR, I'm not. The OP's MO is foolish AH.


No. Sylvester.

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site:

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

Sigh.......
Amusing watching the when Harry met Sally post. Here's an idea, why
don't both of you go to McDonalds.....one orders the BigMac combo with a
coke, the other a salad and bottled water. Step two would be to consume your
meals and enjoy each others silence (for a change). Step three would be to
ponder the sad truth........meat or vegetables.....the **** all ends up in
the same place.

B :-\

"ipse dixit" f@chance wrote in message ...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:25:57 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"ipse dixit" f@chance wrote in message ...
..
For the record, and to head off any criticism that I'm
trying to assist Pearl here,

Heaven forbid!

Good sense forbids, L. My good sense.

You reckon.

I've argued in the past that
seventh day adventists, because of confounding factors,
are a subset of people and so aren't representative of
our population generally.

[start]
Their avoidance of baccy and booze make them confounding
factors if the rest of us don't avoid these habits. Also, I might
add, these figures are based on a small subset of people and
aren't representative of the whole population. Making a judgment
based on a hasty generalisation using an unrepresented sample is
a logically flawed argument.

Unrepresentative Sample
AKA: Biased Sample
Type: Weak Analogy
N% of sample S has characteristic C.
(Where S is a sample unrepresentative of the population P.)
Therefore, N% of population P has characteristic C.

N% of the Seventh Day Adventists has characteristic C.
C- live longer on a vegetarian diet.
(SDA is a sample unrepresentative of the population P
because they don't smoke or drink)
Therefore N% of population P has characteristic C.

You are trying to claim that N% of our population would
live longer following a vegetarian diet similar to the N% of
SDA, but you cannot because their confounding factors
make them an unrepresentative sample
[end] http://tinyurl.com/3ffoc

And I replied; http://tinyurl.com/2kdp9

In short; SDA studies are also representative of the non-smoking,
non-drinking meat-eating and vegetarian general population.

No, they are not because SDA's follow an abstemious
life generally, apart from booze and baccy, and work
*exceptionally hard*. Apart from that they exercise and
live clean lives, and these factors make them a subset
of vegetarians and therefore not representative of them.

[The idea that eating well, exercising and shunning
cigarettes promotes health is nothing new -- experts
continually hammer the message home. What is new
here, is that clean living has been linked to a longer life.

I have great respect for Seventh Day Adventists and
believe in many of the principles their denomination
advocates. However, I am not convinced that their
teaching on vegetarianism is accurate. I certainly can
be wrong here.

This, and many other studies, clearly show that
Adventists as a group are far healthier than most
Americans. There are many other alternative
explanations for this, besides the elimination of
animal foods though. Clearly exercise, ideal body
weight and not smoking or drinking to excess could
easily account for the increase in life expectancy
Adventists have.]
http://www.mercola.com/2001/jul/21/vegetarian.htm

See? It's not just the booze and baccy. There are
other confounding factors about them which you're
ignoring, and these factors make them a sub set and
unrepresentative of other vegetarians.

What other confounding factors? Hard work?
You're reaching, and wrong. And this isn't about the
topic, it's about attacking me to satisfy your ego, Derek.

They
are helpful for determining the effects of diet alone, without the
confounding factors of drinking alcohol and smoking.

But you're ignoring other the confounding factors
mentioned above which may also play a huge part
in their health and longevity, such as hard work,
maintaining ideal body weight and clean living.
SDA's are only analogous to others SDA's and
not to the general vegetarian or vegan.

Nothing different to non-SDA health-conscious vegetarians.

Studies of
the general smoking and non, and drinking and non, populations do
take those factors into account anyway. This just makes it easier.

If all vegetarians followed an SDA lifestyle you'd
have a point, but they don't, so you don't.

It shows the effects of meat eating, all other factors apart.

So let's go back to the evidence you brought instead.

Probably the best science we have was summarized in the
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 1999, in an article
entitled Mortality in Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians. In an
enormous undertaking, twelve researchers took all of the
biggest and best studies to date on vegetarian mortality rates
and pooled all the data together. They took a decade of
mortality data from 28,000 vegetarians from Germany,
California, and Britain. And found... no survival advantage
for vegetarians. What about vegans though? Despite even
having lower cholesterol levels than vegetarians, the vegans
in the study didn't live any longer either. Vegans had the same
mortality rate as meateaters.
http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=...=print&sid=121

Knowing high levels of cholesterol generally shorten life, aren't
you a little sceptical of the evidence presented by the American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition on this point?

Yes.

So am I.

"usual suspect" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote:
..

The consumption of meat, eggs, milk, and cheese did not
have negative associations with any of the causes of death investigated.

See this one from the same author, dummy:
Diet, obesity, and risk of fatal prostate cancer

DA Snowdon, RL Phillips and W Choi

Findings described in this report are for 6,763 white male Seventh-day
Adventists who completed a dietary questionnaire in 1960. Between 1960
and 1980 mortality data were collected on cohort members. *Overweight*
men had a significantly higher risk of fatal prostate cancer than men
near their desirable weight. The predicted relative risk of fatal
prostate cancer was 2.5 for *overweight* men. Suggestive positive
associations were also seen between fatal prostate cancer and the
consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and meat. There was an orderly dose-
response between each of the four animal products and risk. The
predicted relative risk of fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who
heavily consumed all four animal products. The results of this study and
others suggest that animal product consumption and *obesity* may be risk
factors for fatal prostate cancer.
MY EMPHASIS, DUMMY.
http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/conte...ract/120/2/244

Same survey, same researchers. Compare these findings to other studies of
*OVERWEIGHT* study participants. *Obesity* kills,


J Clin Gastroenterol. 1986 Aug;8(4):451-3.
Energy intake and body weight in ovo-lacto vegetarians.
Levin N, Rattan J, Gilat T.
Vegetarians have a lower body weight than omnivores.

*Entirely* irrelevant to the issue at hand. Stop moving goalposts, you nasty
foot-fetishist.

Temper, temper.

My temper is under control. I laugh at you, I don't lose my cool.

You lie.

You tried to move the goalposts, but they
were just too heavy for you.

No, Lesley, I showed your misuse of the studies you cite. I can show you fat
veg-ns and thin meat-eaters. It has nothing to do with your points taken from
the SDA study. As Derek has also rightly shown, SDAs are not merely vegetarian.
Their lifestyles encompass factors far beyond the scope of the studies you've
(mis)used to make points.

Nope. You tried to argue that obesity is linked to prostate cancer,
ignoring the meat aspect, then I showed you that meat eaters were
four times more likely to be obese. IDIOT.

hahaha. BTW, thanks for this;

'Suggestive positive associations were also seen between fatal
prostate cancer and the consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and
meat. There was an orderly dose- response between each of
the four animal products and risk. The predicted relative risk of
fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who heavily consumed
all four animal products.'

Pay attention: those surveyed in that study were OBESE and they HEAVILY consumed
those products. Both factors -- obesity and level of consumption -- are notable.

Both factors in their own right, not together. What a tired ploy.

Not so useless, after all. Rah.

I'm not, but you sure are.

You're beneath contempt, murderous fool.

"usual suspect" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote:
...
In short; SDA studies are also representative of the non-smoking,
non-drinking meat-eating and vegetarian general population.

Ipse dixit. They are not. Their church was founded by Ellen G White as part of
the Great Disappointment. The Great Disappointment was also known as the
Millerite Advent, in which a certain Bible teacher predicted Christ's return but
someone forgot to let Christ in on it. White readjusted the dates (a few times)
and also broadened her message to encompass complete sobriety in the form of
abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, and meat, along with fastidious study of the
Scriptures (the Branch Davidians were an off-shoot of the SDAs, fwiw), frequent
exercise, prayer, and other such habits. Most vegetarians do not engage in
anything close to the lifestyle promoted by Ellen White or her followers.

Nonsense.

They are helpful for determining the effects of diet alone,

No, they are not. Derek has shown you Mercola's opinion. It's spot on.

I can show you a mountain of research for that purpose.

without the
confounding factors of drinking alcohol and smoking. Studies of
the general smoking and non, and drinking and non, populations do
take those factors into account anyway.

Not always.

Mostly.

This just makes it easier.

You mean it makes it easier for you to peddle your peculiar interpretations of
scientific studies.

More nasty smear.


...

"usual suspect" wrote in message news
pearl wrote:
..

One of my cats is a foot-fetishist.

Is its name Tango?

FTR, I'm not.

Liar. You make money playing with feet.

You're the liar, twisted pervert.

I am a qualified health-care provider.

The OP's MO is foolish AH.

FU

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:12:47 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

ipse dixit wrote:
*Entirely* irrelevant to the issue at hand. Stop moving goalposts, you nasty
foot-fetishist.

For the record, and to head off any criticism that I'm
trying to assist Pearl here, I've argued in the past that
seventh day adventists, because of confounding factors,
are a subset of people and so aren't representative of
our population generally.

We agree. I mentioned their prophetess, Ellen G White, earlier. IVU has a page
with some of her quotes.
http://www.ivu.org/history/adventists/white.html

See also:
http://www.whiteestate.org/about/egwbio.asp#health

Lesley's incessant (ab)use of SDA studies focuses on one factor alone rather
than all the others: strict temperance, prayer, life of modesty, etc.:

Which is why I've always been quick to point those
factors out. Diet isn't the only factor for health and
longevity, and my own personal experience tells me
that. While Belinda and I eat exactly the same foods,
I'm close to 17 stone while she remains as she's always
been at around 9 stone. She's always eating yet her
cholesterol is much lower than mine has ever been,
around half, and we both reckon it's due to her fitness
regimen. We're both early risers, but while I'm groping
around in the kitchen half asleep, she's up and doing her
4 mile run along Eastbourne's prom every day and jumps
rope for up to 30 minutes 3 times a week. I do nothing
apart from squeeze the bejesus out of a Bullworker
when the mood takes me.

--start--
What's the "recommended way of life" noted above? According to their
"prophetess" Ellen G White, SDAs should be:
- vegetarians
- tee-totalers (zero alcohol consumption)
- non-smokers
- *regular exercisers*
- active church members
- Christians
- very moderate/temperate sorts
--end--

[start]
Their avoidance of baccy and booze make them confounding
factors if the rest of us don't avoid these habits. Also, I might
add, these figures are based on a small subset of people and
aren't representative of the whole population. Making a judgment
based on a hasty generalisation using an unrepresented sample is
a logically flawed argument.

Unrepresentative Sample
AKA: Biased Sample
Type: Weak Analogy
N% of sample S has characteristic C.
(Where S is a sample unrepresentative of the population P.)
Therefore, N% of population P has characteristic C.

N% of the Seventh Day Adventists has characteristic C.
C- live longer on a vegetarian diet.
(SDA is a sample unrepresentative of the population P
because they don't smoke or drink)
Therefore N% of population P has characteristic C.

You are trying to claim that N% of our population would
live longer following a vegetarian diet similar to the N% of
SDA, but you cannot because their confounding factors
make them an unrepresentative sample
[end] http://tinyurl.com/3ffoc

Correct. Pedantic, but correct.

There's nothing wrong in trying to drive a point home
with some good ole-fashioned pedantry. It's no good
my screaming, "That's a fallacy" without showing why,
is it?

So let's go back to the evidence you brought instead.

Probably the best science we have was summarized in the
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 1999, in an article
entitled Mortality in Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians. In an
enormous undertaking, twelve researchers took all of the
biggest and best studies to date on vegetarian mortality rates
and pooled all the data together. They took a decade of
mortality data from 28,000 vegetarians from Germany,
California, and Britain. And found... no survival advantage
for vegetarians. What about vegans though? Despite even
having lower cholesterol levels than vegetarians, the vegans
in the study didn't live any longer either. Vegans had the same
mortality rate as meateaters.
http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=...=print&sid=121

Knowing high levels of cholesterol generally shorten life,

I don't know *that*. It helps to distinguish between HDL and LDL. Elevated LDL
(the bad cholesterol) does tend to shorten life due to heart disease. Elevated
HDL, though, is one of the factors which tends to appear in those with less
heart disease and extended longevity. Total cholesterol can be high due to
elevated HDL, as it is in the Inuit and similar groups.

Too much chemistry for me, pally. I've never understood
any of it. Chemistry has got to be my weakest subject.
Though my cholesterol is higher than Belinda's, my quack
tells me it's nothing to worry about because it's GOOD
cholesterol. I pulled the right face to let him think I
understood him, but I didn't.

aren't
you a little sceptical of the evidence presented by the American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition on this point?

No, because the data show the *same* thing in places where vegetarianism is more
common (i.e., India). People die, and they die from the same types of ailments
at about the same ages. The two SDA studies by Snowdon (one Lesley offered, the
other I offered) both show that *obese* people who eat *a lot of saturated fat*
die younger. That isn't news.

As for cholesterol itself, I think we need to distinguish between healthy and
unhealthy diets whether they contain meat or not. People can go veg-n and be
worse off if they eat the wrong foods. People can continue to eat meat, eggs,
and dairy and stay healthy if they make the right choices. Lean red meats
(especially game) and oily cold-water fish are rich in omega-3 FAs and in
studies have shown to elevate HDL and help lower LDL. Exercise is also a factor
to consider in these studies because exercise elevates HDL. LDL is raised by the
consumption of saturated fats, not cholesterol.

There are three kinds of fats in foods: saturated, polyunsaturated and
monounsaturated fats. Only saturated fatty acids can raise your blood
cholesterol.
http://www.mssm.edu/cvi/cholesterol.shtml

See also:
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09319.html

And these two, pro-meat (lean meat):
http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~meatsc...anredmeat.html
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever...ins.paleo.html

I must set aside some time to learn about these things.

"ipse dixit" f@chance wrote in message ...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:12:47 GMT, usual suspect wrote:
..
And these two, pro-meat (lean meat):
http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~meatsc...anredmeat.html
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever...ins.paleo.html

I must set aside some time to learn about these things.

'.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of dietary
plant food composition that suggested an absence of a disease prevention
threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an all-plant foods diet, the greater
will be the reduction in the rates of these diseases.'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html

P.S. The Chinese, as a group, do not abstain from tobacco and alcohol.

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:15:18 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"ipse dixit" f@chance wrote in message ...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:25:57 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"ipse dixit" f@chance wrote in message ...
..
For the record, and to head off any criticism that I'm
trying to assist Pearl here,

Heaven forbid!

Good sense forbids, L. My good sense.

You reckon.

Yes.

I've argued in the past that
seventh day adventists, because of confounding factors,
are a subset of people and so aren't representative of
our population generally.

[start]
Their avoidance of baccy and booze make them confounding
factors if the rest of us don't avoid these habits. Also, I might
add, these figures are based on a small subset of people and
aren't representative of the whole population. Making a judgment
based on a hasty generalisation using an unrepresented sample is
a logically flawed argument.

Unrepresentative Sample
AKA: Biased Sample
Type: Weak Analogy
N% of sample S has characteristic C.
(Where S is a sample unrepresentative of the population P.)
Therefore, N% of population P has characteristic C.

N% of the Seventh Day Adventists has characteristic C.
C- live longer on a vegetarian diet.
(SDA is a sample unrepresentative of the population P
because they don't smoke or drink)
Therefore N% of population P has characteristic C.

You are trying to claim that N% of our population would
live longer following a vegetarian diet similar to the N% of
SDA, but you cannot because their confounding factors
make them an unrepresentative sample
[end] http://tinyurl.com/3ffoc

And I replied; http://tinyurl.com/2kdp9

In short; SDA studies are also representative of the non-smoking,
non-drinking meat-eating and vegetarian general population.

No, they are not because SDA's follow an abstemious
life generally, apart from booze and baccy, and work
*exceptionally hard*. Apart from that they exercise and
live clean lives, and these factors make them a subset
of vegetarians and therefore not representative of them.

[The idea that eating well, exercising and shunning
cigarettes promotes health is nothing new -- experts
continually hammer the message home. What is new
here, is that clean living has been linked to a longer life.

I have great respect for Seventh Day Adventists and
believe in many of the principles their denomination
advocates. However, I am not convinced that their
teaching on vegetarianism is accurate. I certainly can
be wrong here.

This, and many other studies, clearly show that
Adventists as a group are far healthier than most
Americans. There are many other alternative
explanations for this, besides the elimination of
animal foods though. Clearly exercise, ideal body
weight and not smoking or drinking to excess could
easily account for the increase in life expectancy
Adventists have.]
http://www.mercola.com/2001/jul/21/vegetarian.htm

See? It's not just the booze and baccy. There are
other confounding factors about them which you're
ignoring, and these factors make them a sub set and
unrepresentative of other vegetarians.

What other confounding factors? Hard work?

That and clean living, a calm temper and plenty of
*regular* exercise.

You're reaching, and wrong. And this isn't about the
topic, it's about attacking me to satisfy your ego, Derek.

It IS about the topic, which is why I HAD to include
a quick preamble at the beginning of my post to head
off any criticism that I might be arguing to assist you,
and besides, how would attacking you satisfy my ego
anyway? Arm wrestling a 12 year old would satisfy it
more than attacking your ignorance and sheer stupidity,
honey.

They
are helpful for determining the effects of diet alone, without the
confounding factors of drinking alcohol and smoking.

But you're ignoring other the confounding factors
mentioned above which may also play a huge part
in their health and longevity, such as hard work,
maintaining ideal body weight and clean living.
SDA's are only analogous to others SDA's and
not to the general vegetarian or vegan.

Nothing different to non-SDA health-conscious vegetarians.

Wrong, and you know it, so get off it because it doesn't
fly.

Studies of
the general smoking and non, and drinking and non, populations do
take those factors into account anyway. This just makes it easier.

If all vegetarians followed an SDA lifestyle you'd
have a point, but they don't, so you don't.

It shows the effects of meat eating, all other factors apart.

You've shown nothing, and all other factors, which you
insist on ignoring set SDA's apart from other vegetarians,
making them unrepresentative.

So let's go back to the evidence you brought instead.

Probably the best science we have was summarized in the
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 1999, in an article
entitled Mortality in Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians. In an
enormous undertaking, twelve researchers took all of the
biggest and best studies to date on vegetarian mortality rates
and pooled all the data together. They took a decade of
mortality data from 28,000 vegetarians from Germany,
California, and Britain. And found... no survival advantage
for vegetarians. What about vegans though? Despite even
having lower cholesterol levels than vegetarians, the vegans
in the study didn't live any longer either. Vegans had the same
mortality rate as meateaters.
http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=...=print&sid=121

Knowing high levels of cholesterol generally shorten life, aren't
you a little sceptical of the evidence presented by the American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition on this point?

Yes.

So am I.

"ipse dixit" f@chance wrote in message ...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:15:18 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"ipse dixit" f@chance wrote in message ...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:25:57 +0100, "pearl" wrote:
"ipse dixit" f@chance wrote in message ...
..
If all vegetarians followed an SDA lifestyle you'd
have a point, but they don't, so you don't.

It shows the effects of meat eating, all other factors apart.

You've shown nothing, and all other factors, which you
insist on ignoring set SDA's apart from other vegetarians,
making them unrepresentative.

The Adventist Health Study: Mortality studies of Seventh-day Adventists

Seventh-day Adventists have increasingly become the objects
of epidemiologic studies, both because they tend to be far more
homogeneous in many lifestyle choices and because they are
more heterogeneous in nutritional habits than the general population.

Certain lifestyle characteristics, such as heavy cigarette smoking,
consumption of alcohol, and diets heavy in fats may confound or
modify the effects of other factors, making it difficult to study them.

In the Adventist population, these potentially distorting
characteristics are largely absent, making other factors more
easily observed. Perhaps even more importantly, the wide
range of dietary habits, from strict vegetarianism to a normal
American diet, greatly enhances the ability of investigators.
...'
http://www.llu.edu/llu/health/mortality.html


"I am not convinced that their teaching on vegetarianism
is accurate. I certainly can be wrong here." - Mercola.