|
|
|
|
annak
Jan 27, 2006, 5:42 AM
Post #351 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2004
Posts: 191
|
In reply to: In reply to: Look, the authors of this paper did not do their research properly -- they did not calculated ecopoints for a reasonably balanced vegetarian vs nonvegeterian diet, did not give the error bars, etc. Why are you so reluctant to simply accept this and admit that this paper does not indeed provide a definitive estimates of relative impacts of the two diets? Because neither ecology or nutrition are fields in which "definitive estimates" (your phrase, not mine!) are typically available. These fields are too complex, and so the data is usually messy, by comparison with basic sciences, like chemistry and physics. We are forced, therefore, to draw tentative conclusions, based on limited data. Jay
Jay, I fully appreciate the complexity of these fields. It is fine to work with messy data. There is no shame to have large error bars, either. It is, however, unacceptable to present -- especially to uneducated and brainwashed public -- tentative conclusions (or, rather, suggestions partially supported by limited evidence) as scientifically proven facts.
Anna.
A note for no-science majors about the significance of error bars: imagine you are measuring lengths of two objects with imprecise instrument (all instruments are imprecise). You measurement says that object's
A length is 3 units and object's B length is 4 units. Can we then conclude that B is longer than A by one unit of length?
No, we do not have a complete information, we need to know error bars for our results, that is how precise our measurements were. Let us say, our instrument can determine length within 1 unit of length. If so, the above results mean that A and B are of the same lenght within the experimental error. If, however, the measurement error bars are 0.25 -- we have a definitive estimate of the difference in sizes -- object B is longer than object A by at least 0.5 units.
|
|
|
|
|
annak
Jan 27, 2006, 6:06 AM
Post #352 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2004
Posts: 191
|
In reply to: In reply to: Note that pro-veggie side did not provide any strong evidence to support their claims, apart of several propaganda websites and disjoint numbers. Weschrist went out, found a representative study that stated that vegeterian diet has lower impact and demonstrated that the conclusions are, at the very best, questionable, as his data analysis revealed flaws in the interpretation of the results. Note that weschrist does not say that omnivorous diet has less impact - all what he says that by just looking at one aspect of the study, we see serious flaws. The issue is rather different than you present it. The issue is your and weschrist's unwillingness to accept peer-reviewed scientific journals as evidence, and then unwillingness or inability to do so much as look at a footnote in order to find the numbers that you're totally unwilling to trust the American Journal of Clinical nutrition. This bespeaks an ignorance of the modern scientific process. Weschrist may well be a scientist someday, but he's got a lot to learn about how to use a library and read an article. You, I have no data about.
I am a scientist, "modern scientific process" is what I do for the living. There is a big difference between the data and the interpretation. Even in established and quantitative fields like physics or chemistry the interpretation of an excellent set of data might not be straightforward. That is why the conclusions from peer reviewed publications should always been taken critically. "Show me your data first, then we can talk about what you make out of it" -- that's how we read our papers. When less mature and "messier", in Jay's terms, fields are concerned -- there is even bigger gap between actual findings (i.e., raw data), interpretations and conclusions, and you would do well to be aware of this. As well as of the concept of error bars.
|
|
|
|
|
annak
Jan 27, 2006, 6:13 AM
Post #353 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2004
Posts: 191
|
In reply to: Wow, not to be a religious bigot or anything, but I just found out where you work... it all makes sense now. "A Seventh-day Adventist Institution Integrating Health, Science, and Christian Faith" It all makes sense now
Indeed!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
Jan 27, 2006, 6:26 AM
Post #354 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
I just googled you.
This is probably the funniest and weirdest cross-academic-field argument in the history of rc.com. You, a chemist, weschrist, a geologist-in-training, jt512, a nutrional something-or-other, and me, an Indo-European linguist-in-training, arguing about environmental impact of dietary choices.
The mind boggles. It's fun arguing with you guys, even if it does go on eternally.
|
|
|
|
|
tyson16v
Jan 27, 2006, 7:26 AM
Post #355 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 4, 2005
Posts: 93
|
In reply to: Ridgely Abele Winner of eight national championships in karate Surya Bonaly Olympic figure skating champion Peter Burwash Davis Cup winner and professional tennis star Andreas Cahling Swedish champion bodybuilder, Olympic gold medallist in the ski jump Chris Campbell Olympic wrestling champion Nicky Cole First woman to walk to the North Pole Ruth Heidrich Six-time Ironwoman, USA track and field Master's champion Keith Holmes World-champion middleweight boxer Desmond Howard Professional football star, Heisman trophy winner Peter Hussing European super heavy-weight boxing champion Debbie Lawrence World record holder, women's 5K racewalk Sixto Linares World record holder, 24-hour triathlon Cheryl Marek and Estelle Gray World record holders, cross-country tandem cycling Ingra Manecki World champion discus thrower Bill Manetti Power-lifting champion Ben Matthews U.S. Master's marathon champion Dan Millman World champion gymnast Martina Navratilova Champion tennis player Paavo Nurmi Long-distance runner, winner of nine Olympic medals and 20 world records Bill Pearl Four-time Mr. Universe Bill Pickering World record-holding swimmer Stan Price World weightlifting record holder, bench press Murray Rose Swimmer, winner of many Olympic gold medals and world records Dave Scott Six-time winner of the Ironman triathlon Art Still Buffalo Bills and Kansas City Chiefs MVP defensive end, Kansas City Chiefs Hall of Fame Jane Wetzel U.S. National marathon champion Charlene Wong Williams Olympic champion figure skater
that is a good list.
|
|
|
|
|
kpb
Jan 27, 2006, 1:48 PM
Post #356 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2005
Posts: 55
|
In reply to: Bill Walton is not a good example. As I recall, his career ended due to bone weaknesses from a missing trace element resulting from his vegan diet. rob.calm
Manganese, if I remember right. I think all that points out is that with whatever diet you are eating, you should be aware of what it does not provide. Eating meat is not a cure all any more than not eating it is.
Jay has pointed out that if you don't eat meat you will probably need a B-12 supplement, for example.
Last, osteoporosis is a complex disease with links (unproven, I think) to salt intake, caffeine, and all sorts of other things. There are few black and white answers in this world. I would think this applies doubly to the entanglement of diet/disease/performance/life-span.
|
|
|
|
|
csproul
Jan 27, 2006, 3:02 PM
Post #357 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I'd say from here or from here. But I'm not an expert, though. An elegant respnse. I knew what I was going to see as soon as I moused over the link. Jay Great, you two have fun looking at your little diagrams... and ignore the QUANTITATIVE data on the benefits of creatine in power related sports... which, btw, happens to be way more robust than anything having to do with the health or ecological impact of veg vs. meat diets.
Let's see..you say in this argument that creatine has QUANTITATIVE benefits in power related sports....yet all of your journal references on creatine have nothing to do with sports at all. In fact, these references would support the protective nature of creatine in the diet, which is counter to this argument:
In reply to: Quote: Nobody said anything about protection against anything. |
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 27, 2006, 4:39 PM
Post #358 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Wow, not to be a religious bigot or anything, but I just found out where you work... it all makes sense now. "A Seventh-day Adventist Institution Integrating Health, Science, and Christian Faith" It all makes sense now
I accused you of being a member of the LDS church, so I guess now we're even.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 27, 2006, 5:11 PM
Post #359 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Look, the authors of this paper did not do their research properly -- they did not calculated ecopoints for a reasonably balanced vegetarian vs nonvegeterian diet, did not give the error bars, etc. Why are you so reluctant to simply accept this and admit that this paper does not indeed provide a definitive estimates of relative impacts of the two diets? Because neither ecology or nutrition are fields in which "definitive estimates" (your phrase, not mine!) are typically available. These fields are too complex, and so the data is usually messy, by comparison with basic sciences, like chemistry and physics. We are forced, therefore, to draw tentative conclusions, based on limited data. Jay Jay, I fully appreciate the complexity of these fields. It is fine to work with messy data. There is no shame to have large error bars, either. It is, however, unacceptable to present -- especially to uneducated and brainwashed public -- tentative conclusions (or, rather, suggestions partially supported by limited evidence) as scientifically proven facts.
First of all, the paper was published in a scientific journal; its intended audience is not "an uneducated and brainwashed public." Secondly, to a member of the intended audience, it would be obvious that the paper is a brief, informal introduction to the subject matter, and not "scientifically proven facts."
Regarding so-called error bars, one reason that they may not have been presented is that it may have been impractiable to calculate them for the measures in the paper. Take the ecopiont/kg index, for example. A brief look at the ecopoint methodology shows that there are on the order of hundreds of measurements that go into the computation of the index. Each component measurement has associated error, the magnitude of which in some cases may not even be known. Furthermore, while it is algebraically simple enough to add, subtract, mutliply, and divide factors to come up with an index, errors propagate in a much more complex fashion, which can be unpredictable when the statistical distributions of the underlying measurements are unkonwn, as would likely be the case for many of the factors entering into the index. Indeed, the simple act of dividing one measurement by another generally presents a formidable problem of calculating the error of the resulting ratio. Thus, calculating the error of a complex index like an ecopoint/kg may be, for all practical purposes, impossible. Similar problems would likely exist for other measures presented in the paper.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 27, 2006, 5:27 PM
Post #360 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: Wow, not to be a religious bigot or anything, but I just found out where you work... it all makes sense now. "A Seventh-day Adventist Institution Integrating Health, Science, and Christian Faith" It all makes sense now Indeed!!!!!
I have two words in response to that: penalty slack.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
veganboyjosh
Jan 27, 2006, 5:30 PM
Post #361 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2003
Posts: 1421
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Wow, not to be a religious bigot or anything, but I just found out where you work... it all makes sense now. "A Seventh-day Adventist Institution Integrating Health, Science, and Christian Faith" It all makes sense now Indeed!!!!! I have two words in response to that: penalty slack. Jay
also, my pancakes rule.
|
|
|
|
|
annak
Jan 27, 2006, 5:35 PM
Post #362 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2004
Posts: 191
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Wow, not to be a religious bigot or anything, but I just found out where you work... it all makes sense now. "A Seventh-day Adventist Institution Integrating Health, Science, and Christian Faith" It all makes sense now Indeed!!!!! I have two words in response to that: penalty slack. Jay
Are we still up for climbing this weekend????
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 27, 2006, 5:38 PM
Post #363 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Wow, not to be a religious bigot or anything, but I just found out where you work... it all makes sense now. "A Seventh-day Adventist Institution Integrating Health, Science, and Christian Faith" It all makes sense now Indeed!!!!! I have two words in response to that: penalty slack. Jay Are we still up for climbing this weekend????
I had predicted a different response, but yes. I'd like to go to Echo, weather permitting.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jred
Jan 27, 2006, 7:00 PM
Post #364 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2003
Posts: 750
|
In reply to: In reply to: Some other famous vegetarian athletes: Bill Walton - NBA star Hank Aaron - MLB's home run champion Edwin Moses - Olympic track star Carl Lewis - Olympic track star - "I've found that a person does not need protein from meat to be a successful athlete. In fact, my best year of track competition was the first year I ate a vegan diet." Bill Walton is not a good example. As I recall, his career ended due to bone weaknesses from a missing trace element resulting from his vegan diet. rob.calm |
|
|
|
|
veganboyjosh
Jan 27, 2006, 7:02 PM
Post #365 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2003
Posts: 1421
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I have two words in response to that: penalty slack. Jay Are we still up for climbing this weekend???? I had predicted a different response, but yes. I'd like to go to Echo, weather permitting. Jay
i feel cheated.
|
|
|
|
|
weschrist
Jan 27, 2006, 10:31 PM
Post #366 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2004
Posts: 579
|
In reply to: In reply to: Wow, not to be a religious bigot or anything, but I just found out where you work... it all makes sense now. "A Seventh-day Adventist Institution Integrating Health, Science, and Christian Faith" It all makes sense now I accused you of being a member of the LDS church, so I guess now we're even. Jay
1) but I'm not LDS, have never been, and will never be.
2) I don't let my beliefs get in the way of real science.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 27, 2006, 10:37 PM
Post #367 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Wow, not to be a religious bigot or anything, but I just found out where you work... it all makes sense now. "A Seventh-day Adventist Institution Integrating Health, Science, and Christian Faith" It all makes sense now I accused you of being a member of the LDS church, so I guess now we're even. Jay 1) but I'm not LDS, have never been, and will never be. 2) I don't let my beliefs get in the way of real science.
Clueless.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
weschrist
Jan 27, 2006, 11:11 PM
Post #368 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2004
Posts: 579
|
In reply to: Reasons I decided not to eat meat: -doesn't matter
Do it for God, any questions you have about it will magically disappear.
"All that we are—including our physical bodies—is for God’s use and praise. Accordingly, we promote a vegetarian diet..." Seventh Day Adventist
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Jan 28, 2006, 1:12 AM
Post #369 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: ... you are interrupting my poker game.
Hah, Jay: haven't you realized that rc.com is -EV yet? :lol:
(Entertaining thread here---carry on, everyone, don't mind me.)
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Jan 28, 2006, 1:14 AM
Post #370 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: ... you are interrupting my poker game.
Hah, Jay: haven't you realized that rc.com is -EV yet? :lol:
(Entertaining thread here---carry on, everyone, don't mind me.)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 28, 2006, 6:34 AM
Post #371 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I have two words in response to that: penalty slack. Jay Are we still up for climbing this weekend???? I had predicted a different response, but yes. I'd like to go to Echo, weather permitting. Jay i feel cheated.
Take a cold shower.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
weschrist
Jan 28, 2006, 9:34 AM
Post #372 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2004
Posts: 579
|
In reply to: There is no valid basis I can think of (not even energy content) for comparing meat with fresh vegetables.
As a friend recently pointed out... in regards Jungbluth's work, this was never questioned by ANYONE before, until now, yet cited numerous times as a reason for veg over meat diets. I just hope this, and other claims, get the full attention and scrutiny they deserve.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 28, 2006, 3:30 PM
Post #373 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: There is no valid basis I can think of (not even energy content) for comparing meat with fresh vegetables. As a friend recently pointed out... in regards Jungbluth's work, this was never questioned by ANYONE before, until now, yet cited numerous times as a reason for veg over meat diets. I just hope this, and other claims, get the full attention and scrutiny they deserve.
Where specifically has it been cited?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
weschrist
Jan 28, 2006, 6:08 PM
Post #374 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2004
Posts: 579
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: There is no valid basis I can think of (not even energy content) for comparing meat with fresh vegetables. As a friend recently pointed out... in regards Jungbluth's work, this was never questioned by ANYONE before, until now, yet cited numerous times as a reason for veg over meat diets. I just hope this, and other claims, get the full attention and scrutiny they deserve. Where specifically has it been cited? Jay
Table 2: "Environmental evaluation of the (primary) production of meat and fresh vegetables in Switzerland" Based on reference 23 (ie Jungbluth, 2000) from Reijnders and Soret, 2003.
You know, the ONLY quantifiable data based on any system readily available to the general public... LSA
|
|
|
|
|
weschrist
Jan 28, 2006, 6:26 PM
Post #375 of 522
(20148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2004
Posts: 579
|
Another thing I find increadibly odd is that a review paper (such as Reijnders and Soret, 2003) can make the claim "The authors have no conflict of interest..."
When in fact, Soret works for a Seventh Day Adventist Church University. A 5 minute search into the church should give people something to THINK about. (direct quotes from Adventist News Network, May 20, 2003... the same year the article I am questioning was published)
"The Adventist Church's combined health food factories worldwide produced health products worth US$529 million in 2002"
"Making and marketing vegetarian foods--a business related to the Seventh-day Adventist Church's health-promotion message, yet one of the movement's "best kept secrets..."
"In Germany, for example, 40 percent of the breakfast cereal market is produced by the church's DE-VAU-GE, a market share that surpasses Kellogg's and Nestle combined."
"Annually, about $10 million of [church affiliated health food] industry revenue finds its way into some part of the [Tanzanian] mission of the [Seventh Day Adventist] church."
"In Australia, the health food industry is interwoven with the church's presence. "Sanitarium Health Food Company [SDA]... is one of the top 150 Australian companies. "
"The largest plant, near Mexico City, produces 3,000 tons of meat analogs, which is sold to meat producers who then mix it with hamburger."
"No single group in America has done more to pioneer the use of soyfoods than the Seventh-day Adventists"
Now I am waiting for the EXPERTS from BYU to do a study "proving" that coffee is bad for you and should be replaced by Coke, a company they own stock in...
Learn to read between the lines people, learn to critically evaluate data and where it comes from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
