Comments on: Where's the beef?

By: admin

admin — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:08:12 +0000

Everyone is entitled to their opinion I am not here to argue with your personal lifestyle choice. However, evidence suggests that the evolution of our species was dependent upon meat consumption. In other words, if meat wasn't the primary caloric source of our ancestors' diet, you wouldn't even be here. If we evolved to eat meat, why would we stop now? There are humane ways to raise and slaughter animals for meat. Traditional cultures have used these methods for thousands of years. I'd suggest you read the following links if you're open minded enough to consider another point of view: - Are We Meat Eaters or Vegetarians, Part II (The Expensive Tissue Hypothesis): explains how meat consumption enabled humans to develop larger brains and thus become the species we are today - Excerpt from the Vegetarian Myth, by Lierre Kieth: a thoroughly researched rebuttal to the moral, political and nutritional arguments of vegetarians and vegans - What Can Evolution Teach Us About the Human Diet? More evidence that humans evolved to eat meat.

By: JUNGLESURFER

JUNGLESURFER — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:10:35 +0000

do you think about the animals being killed and how horrible it really is . I have been vegan for 32 yrs of 49 and i run rings around my old and even 15 yrs younger friends in the surf on the dance floor and everything else MEAT IS NOT NECESSARY DONT LIE AND SAY IT IS

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:04:02 +0000

Sure, correlation implies a relationship but it’s dangerous and irresponsible to assume that the relationship is causal. That’s my point.

A study done in the 50s showed that television ownership is highly correlated with heart disease. Does that mean buying a TV causes heart disease? Or that heart disease causes one to buy TVs? Hardly. But it does suggest that there may be some other unknown factor that explains why people with televisions tend to have more heart disease. In this case it was very likely that people with TVs exercised less then those who didn’t have them.

If people who are eating more red meat in general are also eating more refined oils, sugar, and other processed foods that actually do contribute to heart disease, then it wouldn’t be a surprise at all to see a correlation between red meat consumption and heart disease. But it would be a tremendous mistake to assume that red meat was the cause – without actual proof that this is the case.

By: Kind Sir

Kind Sir — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:33:36 +0000

You say, "Observational studies can show an association between two variables (i.e red meat consumption and death), but they can never show causation (i.e. that eating red meat caused the deaths). A simple example of the difference between correlation and causation is that elevated white blood cell count is correlated with infections. But that doesn’t mean elevated white blood cell counts cause infections!" It's an important point. However, though correlation does not imply causation, would you agree it implies a relationship between the two? In your example of white blood cells and infection, a relationship does exist; infections cause an increase in white blood cells (right?). When considering red meat and death, if there is a statistically significant correlation between the two, one might infer a relationship... I would hope an impartial scientist would then ask the question: What is the nature of this relationship?

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:57:00 +0000

Sabra,

I’m glad you’re finding the blog to be helpful. Welcome!

Chris

By: Sabra

Sabra — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:31:06 +0000

I truly appreciate the level of your posts here in the Healthy Skeptic. It is refreshing and inspirational to see your well thought out discussions. I enjoy all your posts and look forward to more.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:15:27 +0000

You’re welcome! Thanks for your support.

By: Lindsay

Lindsay — Tue, 19 May 2009 15:52:39 +0000

Thank you for constantly reaffirming the things I believe in!

By: Justin Bean

Justin Bean — Mon, 11 May 2009 22:55:29 +0000

Chris, Thank you for the links. I found them very interesting and informative.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 07 May 2009 23:18:08 +0000

The methodology of The China Study is anything but impressive. The book is riddled with inconsistencies, inaccurate generalizations and fallacious arguments. See Chris Masterjohn's review of Campbell's book for details. Make sure to read Campbell's response, and Masterjohn's subsequent rebuttal.

By: Justin Bean

Justin Bean — Thu, 07 May 2009 23:05:49 +0000

Sorry to be contrary, but T. Colin Campbell’s “The China Study” should put this issue to rest. Please consider the information presented there. The methodology is impressive.

By: Simon

Simon — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:54:56 +0000

Detailed description, good.

By: JB Healthy

JB Healthy — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:02:52 +0000

Thank you for this, Chris.

Really, point #7 is my big beef with most studies that call one food or another bad. There is just too much focus on calories and fat, and it seems like only the holistic community is taking into consideration the quality of the food and whether or not preservatives were present.

I am reminded of the somewhat infamous egg study from I believe the 50′s that told everyone that eggs would raise their cholesterol. This created a wonderful market for egg white products, coincidentally. In Ann Louise Gittleman’s book Your Body Knows Best, she explains that the original study was done on powdered egg yolks and was funded by the Cereal Institute.

I really wish researchers would start putting out some more realistic studies.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:30:06 +0000

Also, here's a list of what people should know about health news stories, from the HealthNewsReview site.