|
Cancer develops predominantly at a higher age, a lot because people haven't yet died from other deceases.
Correcting cancer rate to life expectancy and access to health care gives interesting results.
Comparing two countries that are so different in so many ways will not give you any usable results.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: a lot because people haven't yet died from other deceases.
Not quite. It's because it takes time for all the chemicals, hormones, and other garbage we have in our lives to finally get the best of us.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, so what? Do more US folk smoke, for example? I haven't read the article, but the implication from the OP was not that vegetarianism is the sole form of every cancer
|
|
|
|
|
Errmmm...
US has more cancer than India.
US eats more meat than India.
Therefore meat causes cancer.
That's on a par with:-
US has more cancer than India.
US has more theme parks than India
Therefore the stress of theme park rides causes cancer.
Surely you can come up with a more reasoned argument?
Instead of debunking a research article you haven't even read.
|
|
|
|
|
He's probably mad at you for mocking his soy protein and yogurt diet 
|
|
|
|
|
d@nish wrote: I come from a city of vegetarians
Definitely not Kerala. Out there, you wouldn't find a street that's fully vegetarian 
|
|
|
|
|
Do you use ghee in vegetarian cooking?
Reason I ask is there are vegetarians who eat butter, milk, cheese, and those that don't. You can of course get a good fat intake from dairy products.
However if not its interesting. What would you attribute the difference to? Why is an India vegetarian diet OPK and a western one not?
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." climate-models-go-cold
|
|
|
|
|
Indian life expectancy is less than 65, below the world average.
Also diseases which are controlled in the western world are more prevalent. Treatment of trivial issues less good.
Therefore there is no clean base for statistics looking at conditions that develop in otherwise healthy bodies.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
Indian life expectancy at 65 years may be lower than the world average but it is the higher infant mortality rate that is skewing it downwards.
Once someone gets past the age of 5 or 6, the life expectancy should improve though the murderous traffic and resulting fatalities should also cause a dip in average life expectancy.
I was never immunised against any disease except for smallpox vaccination and remain mostly healthy. DTP vaccine was unheard of and polio vaccine didn't make it to India till much later. You will find that my generation did fine with that one smallpox vaccination.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Vegetarians have significantly more allergies, cancer and mental illnesses.
And yet meat can lead to cancer, clogged arteries, dairy to allergies, etc, etc.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with most surveys/research is the danger of mixing up causality with correlation.
So you have to ask yourself what result they expected... Or in some cases, what they wanted
|
|
|
|
|
Correlation is not causality...but also, 2.2% of the study group were vegetarians (349 persons). (Given that sample size you could probably show a correlation between supporting Manchester United and cancer.
|
|
|
|
|
I've noticed a correlation between being a Manchester United fan and being a lot quieter on football matters this season.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to see some correlation on Millwall supporters in that case.
|
|
|
|
|
When you think how much of the body is made of fat, brain, nerves, marrow, its obvious we need to eat a decent amount.
I saw some other 'latest research' which suggested slightly fatter people live longer and are healthier, and another saying it doesn't matter how fat or thin you are, its how fit you are that matters.
Science eh? Can it make its mind up? 
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." climate-models-go-cold
|
|
|
|
|
Being slightly overweight after the age of 50 helps you live longer as your body has more resources for fighting off illness or surviving minor trauma, both of which you're more likely to experience I older age.
Losing weight over the age of 50 is a bad idea because it depletes resources and stresses your body, particularly in woman.
Fitness is far more important than weight.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
I had best not get too fat before I hit 50 then.
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." climate-models-go-cold
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: Science eh? Can it make its mind up?
Nope, this is only statistics.
They really don't know very much yet, it's mostly trial and error, nowadays with statistics. We should be happy they don't do cupping and leeches any more, except that I understand that leeches is getting back into fashion.
|
|
|
|
|
Only if you're Austrian (I only read the conclusion).
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
At least you read that much, and came to a logical conclusion on top of that. 
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like a very poorly put together study to me.
The number of people in China that have diabetes is greater than the population of Mexico. Why? Fast-food, sugar, and other effects of the "modern" diet. This isn't anecdotal, it's a well documented epidemic that has evolved in the last 20 or so years as people move out of rural areas and stop eating vegetarian diets and as personal wealth increases.
The study you link to flies in the face of The China Study.[^]
Also, I didn't notice any mention of what the diet of the vegans / vegetarians was. I know a lot of veggies that eat very poorly - pastas, sweets and other crap (oh but wait, it's gluten free and organic) and are overweight or quite frankly obese. Not to mention that some of them smoke, drink, etc.
But my point is, you can't say a veggie diet is better / worse than a meat-eaters unless you look at what they're actually eating. Was this covered in the report? I didn't see it.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc, the China Study has been thoroughly debunked as bad science; I checked. But it was an excellent book full of interesting information nonetheless. I have no idea what they eat on Vega, but all of my Vegan friends changed to that very specialized diet in response to health problems, not because it was a healthy (or tasty) way to dine. It seems that, having destroyed their health following one extreme, they hoped to reverse the damage following the opposite extreme. I suspect that both ends of the spectrum will kill with equal efficiency. Time will tell...
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
It's actually a pretty well put together study as studies go.
Firstly the data comes from a large national health study in Austria with more than 15000 samples that uses a cross-section of the Austrian population as a base. It wasn't specifically aimed to be a study on vegetarian diets. But the part sample of vegetarians is large enough to be statistically useful.
The problem with most studies that study a certain phenomenon is that the sample is skewed. Surveys are expensive and most studies done on the subject have saved money on the sampling.
The China study that you refer to had a sample size of fifty families. Did it have a useful control sample? Is it at all useful as a comparison with another country?
As to your point, I'm not arguing with that.
The problem with the Austrian study is that there is no cross sectional data, so there is no way to know what's causing the differences. But that's also mentioned in the report.
|
|
|
|
|
Ahem!
Jörgen Andersson wrote: Vegetarians have significantly more...
Jörgen Andersson wrote: So we don't know if mental illness makes you go vegan, or if a vegan diet...
Vegetarianism != Veganism
Vegans I respect; they have picked a very, very hard road to walk. They are wrong, but I respect them.
Vegetarians I generally do not. The ones that pick what they define as "meat" and refuse to eat it: Chicken is out, baby chickens are OK. Cow is out, fish is fine. Pig is a no-no, bacon is "ok on weekends". "Meat is murder", but killing them for leather shoes is ok, or for gelatin, or...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Point taken.
I generally don't have a problem with neither as long as they don't preach, especially using faulty arguments, which happens way to often.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
