INFORMATION
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our
Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
-
Altfish
- Posts: 1821
- Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am
#21
Post
by Altfish » October 27th, 2015, 5:21 pm
Latest post of the previous page:
I'd rather see independent information - I'm sure the 'meat lobby' produce similar documents given alternative results
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#22
Post
by Alan H » October 27th, 2015, 5:40 pm
Altfish wrote:
I'd rather see independent information - I'm sure the 'meat lobby' produce similar documents given alternative results
It's disappointing: they do cite the papers but in shorthand and not links to the them.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
jdc
- Posts: 516
- Joined: January 27th, 2009, 9:03 pm
#23
Post
by jdc » October 30th, 2015, 2:23 am
Their comment on the link between vegetarian diets and reduced mortality led me to this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23836264
There were 2570 deaths among 73,308 participants during a mean follow-up time of 5.79 years. The mortality rate was 6.05 (95% CI, 5.82-6.29) deaths per 1000 person-years. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality in all vegetarians combined vs nonvegetarians was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.80-0.97). The adjusted HR for all-cause mortality in vegans was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.73-1.01); in lacto-ovo-vegetarians, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.82-1.00); in pesco-vegetarians, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.69-0.94); and in semi-vegetarians, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.75-1.13) compared with nonvegetarians. Significant associations with vegetarian diets were detected for cardiovascular mortality, noncardiovascular noncancer mortality, renal mortality, and endocrine mortality. Associations in men were larger and more often significant than were those in women.
So... looking at those confidence intervals... fish eaters were less likely to die than meat eaters?
-
jdc
- Posts: 516
- Joined: January 27th, 2009, 9:03 pm
#24
Post
by jdc » October 30th, 2015, 2:32 am
They mention EPIC-Oxford which led me here:
http://www.epic-oxford.org/epic-oxford-publications/
There's this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19297458 "The standardized mortality ratio for all causes of death was 52% (95% CI: 50%, 54%) and was identical in vegetarians and in nonvegetarians. Comparing vegetarians with meat eaters among the 47,254 participants who had no prevalent cardiovascular disease or malignant cancer at recruitment, the death rate ratios adjusted for age, sex, smoking, and alcohol consumption were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.57, 1.16) for ischemic heart disease and 1.03 (95% CI: 0.90, 1.16) for all causes of death." & "mortality from circulatory diseases and all causes is not significantly different between vegetarians and meat eaters"
And this, which looks positive for the vegetarians - and like the study I linked in the previous post it looks good for fish fans:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24898235
-
animist
- Posts: 6522
- Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm
#25
Post
by animist » October 30th, 2015, 1:58 pm
Altfish wrote:Surely if vegetarianism was such a health benefit a very high proportion of sportsmen and women would be vegetarian. Whilst there are many vegetarian sports men and women I don't believe the numbers are more than a relatively small proportion.
I stand to be proved wrong.
that may be assuming that good health over a lifetime is the same thing as athletic prowess in youth. I think that the latter is often bad for the former, so things are not that simple
-
jdc
- Posts: 516
- Joined: January 27th, 2009, 9:03 pm
#27
Post
by jdc » October 30th, 2015, 11:18 pm
Isn't it more of a clarification than a partial retraction?
It was people reporting on (or perhaps "misreporting" would be more accurate) the WHO classification update rather than the WHO that were scaremongering wasn't it?
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#28
Post
by Alan H » October 30th, 2015, 11:40 pm
jdc wrote:
Isn't it more of a clarification than a partial retraction?
It was people reporting on (or perhaps "misreporting" would be more accurate) the WHO classification update rather than the WHO that were scaremongering wasn't it?
Yup. The meeja does it again. Headlines over accuracy.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
Dave B
- Posts: 17809
- Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm
#29
Post
by Dave B » October 31st, 2015, 3:43 am
Alan H wrote:jdc wrote:
Isn't it more of a clarification than a partial retraction?
It was people reporting on (or perhaps "misreporting" would be more accurate) the WHO classification update rather than the WHO that were scaremongering wasn't it?
Yup. The meeja does it again. Headlines over accuracy.
'Swhy I don't buy newspapers and listen to radio news with a very critical and analyrical ear.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#30
Post
by Alan H » November 22nd, 2015, 11:09 am
This is rather good, touching on carcinogenic bacon, homeopathy, fad diets, pseudo science... well worth reading all of it:
What is healthy eating?
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
-
Dave B
- Posts: 17809
- Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm
#31
Post
by Dave B » November 22nd, 2015, 11:47 am
Alan H wrote:This is rather good, touching on carcinogenic bacon, homeopathy, fad diets, pseudo science... well worth reading all of it:
What is healthy eating?
Fools and their money are soon parted...
Well, my version of a healthy brekkers (porridge with dultanas and honey) is fermenting well inside me. Now, lunch? Think I'll have an olive, onion, mushroom and pepperoni and/or bacon omellette, or may use those on one of the mini pizza bases in the freezer...
Heart condition? Yeah, but I don't let it bother me too much! Done OK for years on my diet.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015