|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Huh? People who eat fish but not meat are pescatarians[^]
Just because some people who claim to be "vegetarians" eat fish doesn't make them vegetarians. And nobody who eats bacon can claim to be a vegetarian.
But I'm with you on the leather thing - I find vegetarians who proudly show off their leather shoes and car interiors deeply hypocritical.
Cheers,
विक्रम
"We have already been through this, I am not going to repeat myself." - fat_boy, in a global warming thread 
modified 5-Apr-14 4:02am.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree - but you get them in the western world: a pop star tweets that meat is murder, and the muppets follow, but "chose" how they define veggie, to fit what they eat... Stupid.
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 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote: I find vegetarians who proudly show off their leather shoes and car interiors deeply hypocritical.
Vegetarians who eat vegetables because they feel anything else would be harmful to their body are not necessarily saying that they refrain from eating meat for any other reason.
It is the hypocrites who think that murdering animals for food is wrong and then buy leather interior for their automobile or leather footwear or leather fashion accessories is whom I find loathsome.
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am.
JimmyRopes
|
|
|
|
|
JimmyRopes wrote: Vegetarians who eat vegetables because they feel anything else would be harmful to their body are not necessarily saying that they refrain from eating meat for any other reason.
Hmm, interesting point  I have never thought of vegetarianism as about me; to me it has always been about non-violence, i.e., about the animals.
My relatives are almost all vegetarians, I know hundreds of such people; but the ones who use neither silk nor leather number in the single digits.
Cheers,
विक्रम
"We have already been through this, I am not going to repeat myself." - fat_boy, in a global warming thread
|
|
|
|
|
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote: to me it has always been about non-violence
I can understand the leather but why not silk? Of course we eat the "silk worm" (caterpillar) here so we do harvest them, but do you necessarily have to kill them to harvest the silk cocoon?
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am.
JimmyRopes
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the worms are boiled alive to get the silk  I've seen it on a school trip at a very young age and it left a lasting impression.
I hear something about some new fangled silk that doesn't involve killing the worms, but it's very dubious. Given people will stoop to anything to sell their wares here (I see local sweets with gelatin as an ingredient regularly marked as vegetarian*) I am extremely sceptical of these claims.
* Foodstuffs must be marked as vegetarian or non-vegetarian by law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian_mark[^]
Cheers,
विक्रम
"We have already been through this, I am not going to repeat myself." - fat_boy, in a global warming thread
|
|
|
|
|
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote: But I'm with you on the leather thing - I find vegetarians who proudly show off their leather shoes and car interiors deeply hypocritical.
Depends on why they are vegetarian. Most vegetarians, specially of Indian descent, that I know of are that way not by choice but due to being raised that way. They don't have any morals that their diet is based on nor do they profess a love for animals. Similar to how meat eaters don't eat every single animal out there - it's what you are used to.
That said, you'd be surprised at the number of Americans who eat fish and yet claim to be vegetarians 
|
|
|
|
|
Nish Sivakumar wrote: Most vegetarians, specially of Indian descent, that I know of are that way not by choice but due to being raised that way. They don't have any morals that their diet is based on nor do they profess a love for animals.
Yeah, that's my point - they do it because they were raised that way. Almost like a religion.
I'm not religious, but am a vegetarian and do not use leather either. Still no success in getting the women to give up silk sarees though 
Cheers,
विक्रम
"We have already been through this, I am not going to repeat myself." - fat_boy, in a global warming thread
|
|
|
|
|
Now Google for 'vegetarianism health benefits' or something similiar. You'll find the exact opposite 
I've been a vegetarian for 16 years and I'm pretty healthy. Never sick, no allergies, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Now Google for 'vegetarianism health benefits' or something similiar
Did you actually try it before posting?
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. And those benefits are pretty sweet!
Just to sum up a few:
Vegetarian foods are a major source of nutrition for most people in the world.
Vegetarians have lower rates of heart disease and some forms of cancer than non-vegetarians.
Vegetarian diets can be simple and easy to prepare.
According to the ADA, vegetarians are at lower risk for developing:
-Heart disease
-Colorectal, ovarian, and breast cancers
-Diabetes
-Obesity
-Hypertension (high blood pressure)
You'll ward off disease.
You'll keep your weight down.
You'll live longer.
You'll build strong bones.
You'll be more 'regular.'
The list goes on...
Just saying A LOT has been said about food and a lot of that is contradicting each other.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Just saying A LOT has been said about food and a lot of that is contradicting each other.
You summed it up pretty well there.
|
|
|
|
|
Just about every study that has found vegetarians live longer has said it is most likely that is because they are less likely to smoke and almost certainly nothing to do with diet.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
yeah!!
Thanks & Regards
Puneet Goel
Save Paper >> Save Tree >> Save Huminity
|
|
|
|
|
Adolf Hitler was an Austrian vegetarian.
Hmm...
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
Now, what did the study say about mental health? 
But then again, it could possibly be another mixup of causation and correlation?
|
|
|
|
|
Hello CPs
I would like some ideas and advises from senior CPs and experienced programmers. I am interested in programming and security(as in hacking). I am a novice in C++,C#,VB.NET. I learnt Penetration testing and hacking for becoming a security professional.
But my problem now is I don't know which field to choose. 1)Developer or 2)Security Professional.
1)If I am going to be a developer what kind of applications I want to develop
a)Software Applications
b)Web Developing
c)Game Developing
As you can see each field is different from each other. I really love games and want to go for game programming but I'm not really good with equations and complex calculations. But I can learn any programming language/framework and its features.
2)As a security professional, There are lot of Job titles. I think its basically Penetration testing, Administration and Analyst. I am greatly inspired by the whole hacking thing. But not a lot of startup positions are available as a hacker(White-hat).
So I am really confused here. So this is my career stating point(Fresher). So I would like your suggestions and insights on this. Because I can start shaping myself for the path I choose now. Thanks in advance friends
If this is in the wrong section, Please help to move it and I am sorry if my English is bad.
|
|
|
|
|
It helps to have experience writing software to really understand security. Once you've written it, you'll have a better understanding of how to hack it.
Software dev skills are definatly more transferable and what you chose to start with is not what you have to pursue for the rest of your years so you don't need to put so much pressure on the decision you make now. Things change and so will you
Good luck
|
|
|
|
|
Nobody is interested in security until it's too late to do anything about it.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
When you are just starting out (I wish people would stop using the word 'fresher'  ), you should not think about specializing in a particular field. If you like to develop software, become a developer and stay current on security related issues, getting as much experience in the field as possible, then after a couple of years you can start specializing.
The thing is, there are not that many companies that have dedicated software security experts on staff, so if that is all you know, it could be difficult for you to find a job. Once you have experience (no serious company is going to hire an inexperienced developer as a security expert), you could find yourself in very high demand as a contractor.
Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
Some Indianspeak...
"fresher" == college freshman (i.e. "novice")
"fundas" == fundamentals (i.e. fundamental knowledge of a scientific topic)
E.g: "For a fresher, your fundas are pretty damn good."
/ravi
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
