🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:15:18 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote in message news:m4ot80t6n86ql13ldg7ukishs9gc2t6ra2@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:25:57 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>> >"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote in message news:7u3t805qqt9dmnh6m4ketj40s3b53c0fp4@4ax.com...
>> ><..>
>> >> For the record, and to head off any criticism that I'm
>> >> trying to assist Pearl here,
>> >
>> >Heaven forbid!
>>
>> Good sense forbids, L. My good sense.
>
>You reckon.

Yes.

>> >> I've argued in the past that
>> >> seventh day adventists, because of confounding factors,
>> >> are a subset of people and so aren't representative of
>> >> our population generally.
>> >>
>> >> [start]
>> >> Their avoidance of baccy and booze make them confounding
>> >> factors if the rest of us don't avoid these habits. Also, I might
>> >> add, these figures are based on a small subset of people and
>> >> aren't representative of the whole population. Making a judgment
>> >> based on a hasty generalisation using an unrepresented sample is
>> >> a logically flawed argument.
>> >>
>> >> Unrepresentative Sample
>> >> AKA:  Biased Sample
>> >> Type:  Weak Analogy
>> >> N% of sample S has characteristic C.
>> >> (Where S is a sample unrepresentative of the population P.)
>> >>  Therefore, N% of population P has characteristic C.
>> >>
>> >> N% of the Seventh Day Adventists has characteristic C.
>> >> C- live longer on a vegetarian diet.
>> >> (SDA is a sample unrepresentative of the population P
>> >> because they don't smoke or drink)
>> >> Therefore N% of population P has characteristic C.
>> >>
>> >> You are trying to claim that N% of our population would
>> >> live longer following a vegetarian diet similar to the N% of
>> >> SDA, but you cannot because their confounding factors
>> >> make them an unrepresentative sample
>> >> [end] http://tinyurl.com/3ffoc
>> >
>> >And I replied; http://tinyurl.com/2kdp9
>> >
>> >In short;  SDA studies are also representative of the non-smoking,
>> >non-drinking meat-eating and vegetarian general population.
>>
>> No, they are not because SDA's follow an abstemious
>> life generally, apart from booze and baccy, and work
>> *exceptionally hard*. Apart from that they exercise and
>> live clean lives, and these factors make them a subset
>> of vegetarians and therefore not representative of them.
>>
>> [The idea that eating well, exercising and shunning
>> cigarettes promotes health is nothing new -- experts
>> continually hammer the message home. What is new
>> here, is that clean living has been linked to a longer life.
>>
>> I have great respect for Seventh Day Adventists and
>> believe in many of the principles their denomination
>> advocates. However, I am not convinced that their
>> teaching on vegetarianism is accurate. I certainly can
>> be wrong here.
>>
>> This, and many other studies, clearly show that
>> Adventists as a group are far healthier than most
>> Americans. There are many other alternative
>> explanations for this, besides the elimination of
>> animal foods though. Clearly exercise, ideal body
>> weight and not smoking or drinking to excess could
>> easily account for the increase in life expectancy
>> Adventists have.]
>> http://www.mercola.com/2001/jul/21/vegetarian.htm
>>
>> See? It's not just the booze and baccy. There are
>> other confounding factors about them which you're
>> ignoring, and these factors make them a sub set and
>> unrepresentative of other vegetarians.
>
>What other confounding factors?  Hard work?

That and clean living, a calm temper and plenty of
*regular* exercise.

>You're reaching, and wrong.  And this isn't about the
>topic, it's about attacking me to satisfy your ego, Derek.

It IS about the topic, which is why I HAD to include
a quick preamble at the beginning of my post to head
off any criticism that I might be arguing to assist you, 
and besides, how would attacking you satisfy my ego
anyway? Arm wrestling a 12 year old would satisfy it 
more than attacking your ignorance and sheer stupidity,
honey.

>> >They
>> >are helpful for determining the effects of diet alone, without the
>> >confounding factors of drinking alcohol and smoking.
>>
>> But you're ignoring other the confounding factors
>> mentioned above which may also play a huge part
>> in their health and longevity, such as hard work,
>> maintaining ideal body weight and clean living.
>> SDA's are only analogous to others SDA's and
>> not to the general vegetarian or vegan.
>
>Nothing different to non-SDA health-conscious vegetarians.

Wrong, and you know it, so get off it because it doesn't
fly.

>> > Studies of
>> >the general smoking and non, and drinking and non, populations do
>> >take those factors into account anyway.  This just makes it easier.
>>
>> If all vegetarians followed an SDA lifestyle you'd
>> have a point, but they don't, so you don't.
>
>It shows the effects of meat eating, all other factors apart.

You've shown nothing, and all other factors, which you
insist on ignoring set SDA's apart from other vegetarians,
making them unrepresentative.

>> >> So let's go back to the evidence you brought instead.
>> >>
>> >>      Probably the best science we have was summarized in the
>> >>      American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 1999, in an article
>> >>      entitled Mortality in Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians. In an
>> >>      enormous undertaking, twelve researchers took all of the
>> >>      biggest and best studies to date on vegetarian mortality rates
>> >>      and pooled all the data together. They took a decade of
>> >>      mortality data from 28,000 vegetarians from Germany,
>> >>      California, and Britain. And found... no survival advantage
>> >>      for vegetarians. What about vegans though? Despite even
>> >>      having lower cholesterol levels than vegetarians, the vegans
>> >>      in the study didn't live any longer either. Vegans had the same
>> >>      mortality rate as meateaters.
>> >>      http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121
>> >>
>> >> Knowing high levels of cholesterol generally shorten life, aren't
>> >> you a little sceptical of the evidence presented by the American
>> >> Journal of Clinical Nutrition on this point?
>> >
>> >Yes.
>>
>> So am I.
>