red, white and blind


Quote:

AMD is the medical condition that involves initially the presence of yellow deposits in the central portion of the retina. Later, the breakdown of the middle part of the retina (macula) occurs so that the person loses gradually their central vision, which causes blurring and the fading of colors, and eventually possible blindness. To evaluate that connection, the Australian researchers decided to analyze the amount of red meat and chicken that people ate and the risk of age-related macular degeneration in those people. The researchers studied 6,734 people between the ages of 58 and 69 years from 1990 to 1994 in Melbourne, Australia, and then again in 2003 to 2006. ... for the people that ate red meat ten (10) times or more each week, they had were was a 1.47 times increased risk (that is, a nearly 50% increased chance) of early AMD when compared to the people who ate red meat less then five (5) times per week. ... The researchers also found that the people who ate chicken 3.5 times or more per week had about a 50% less chance (0.47 times decreased risk) of contracting late AMD than people who only ate chicken less than 1.5 times each week. The Australian researchers concluded, “These results suggest that different meats may differently affect AMD risk and may be a target for lifestyle modification.”

Science says alot of things. Science also complains meats are good for producing testerone. The fats, cholesterol, and protiens assist in the process. Testerone being linked to more atheletic ability, higher recovery rate, more energy, and overall better health.

So all these "facts" are obscure guesses at best. If you want to argue against meat. Argue it from a practical perspective. The same way we can produce meat, we can produce five times the amount of wheat/corn if we weren't expending it to feed the cattle. This inturn could be used to help end world hunger, give us alternate fuel sources, etc!

There is also the moral aspect of what right does a person have to take the life of an animal? We're not living in the woods scrounging for food. And even if we were, we probably wouldn't be hunting as hunting is rough. Our main diet would consist of fruits, nuts, and the occassional rabbit if we got lucky. And noone wants to harm a cute, fuzzy, rabbit!

Eating meat is a luxory. And luxories are not rights.

red meat does not "feel right" when I eat it too often.

2 - 4 times a week feels good to me.
in zoos carnivores are fasted one day a week

Health is governed by many factors, primarily the lottery of genetic traits over which we have no control, but a sensible diet will allow for the best chance of mitigating potential problems, that we are born with.

The old dictum, everything in moderation, seems as relevant today as it ever was, and anyone who eats more than ten serves of red meat a week, could be considered as ignoring that dictum.

We should all live by the heart surgeons diet, which is;
"If it tastes good, spit it out" ;D ;D ;D ;D

I think that genetic traits also dictate the diet which may or may not be good for different people.
For instance:
-Women generally eat less red meat than men.
-The package drops to East Timor were making the locals ill because they were too high in protein.

IMO, a one diet suits all is a fallacy, however, natural foods will invariably be better because that's what we're designed to eat.
A fat juicy steak always hits the spot for me, in fact I think I'll try out Sprint's method right now. All this talk about red meat is making me hungry.

Correlation <> Causation

There's probably a connection there, but for me, eating a lot of protein makes me less hungry and gives me more energy.

Kytro wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2009 at 7:40pm:

Correlation <> Causation

Is Causation <> Correlation?

If something causes something else they will be correlated in some way (as long as we can detect it), but if two or more things are correlated that does not mean they mean one causes the other (though it does suggest an investigation to determine a possible relationship)

Kytro wrote on May 9^th, 2009 at 1:10pm:

If something causes something else they will be correlated in some way (as long as we can detect it), but if two or more things are correlated that does not mean they mean one causes the other (though it does suggest an investigation to determine a possible relationship)

It also means that the statement (Correlation <> Causation) ==TRUE only sometimes but not always.

E.g.
y=x means that change of x value correlate with change of y value and is the causation of that change.

tallowood wrote on May 9^th, 2009 at 9:05pm:

Kytro wrote on May 9th, 2009 at 1:10pm: If something causes something else they will be correlated in some way (as long as we can detect it), but if two or more things are correlated that does not mean they mean one causes the other (though it does suggest an investigation to determine a possible relationship) It also means that the statement (Correlation <> Causation) ==TRUE only sometimes but not always. E.g. y=x means that change of x value correlate with change of y value and is the causation of that change.

It was not supposed to be a mathematical truth, merely shorthand to say that a pattern does not prove a relationship.

Kytro wrote on May 11^th, 2009 at 7:29pm:

tallowood wrote on May 9th, 2009 at 9:05pm: Kytro wrote on May 9th, 2009 at 1:10pm: If something causes something else they will be correlated in some way (as long as we can detect it), but if two or more things are correlated that does not mean they mean one causes the other (though it does suggest an investigation to determine a possible relationship) It also means that the statement (Correlation <> Causation) ==TRUE only sometimes but not always. E.g. y=x means that change of x value correlate with change of y value and is the causation of that change. It was not supposed to be a mathematical truth, merely shorthand to say that a pattern does not prove a relationship.

But it may.

tallowood wrote on May 11^th, 2009 at 8:18pm:

But it may.

Not by itself it will not, you need more than casual observation to prove something.  

Just one on my pet hates, the media always saying linked as if it means proven.