🚀 go-pugleaf

"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.

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

> >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.

> > 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.

> >> 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.