View Full Version : Vegetarian propaganda ! "Meat Eaters Pack on More Pounds, Regardless of Calories"
Interesting read although I do have alot of questions that are not answered in the actual study, such as what exactly did the subjects gain? Fat ... Mucles ...
07-21-2010, 01:30 PM
Based on the numbers they used those who eat meat gained 4.4 extra lbs. over 5 years. If you do some simple math (3,500 kcal/lb and 1825 days) you get that an extra 8.4 calories per day would be theoretically necessary to gain that amount of weight over 5 years. There is simply no way the food questionaire tool they used was sensitive enough to pick up on a calorie intake difference that small. Thus it's very possible that the calorie intake of these groups was not as equal as they state.
I also find it interesting that they give no actual theoretical reasoning for the difference in weight gain. There are many factors in evolved that I just feel they are ignoring so they can simply have an interesting headline to their study.
07-22-2010, 06:09 AM
The simple fact is over all you get more concentrated protein from meat than you do with plants and you can only eat so many calories per day. People eating meat get more protein for the same amount of calories, they gain more in muscle mass all over their bodies. Vegitarians could sit around all day eating whole grain bread until they vomit, but that's the only way I see that they could equal a healthy meat diet. I say it's just a case of denial of fact, you're an omnivore, and you won't be healthy depriving yourself of edible substances...
07-25-2010, 11:53 PM
I'm not a vegetarian, and I am not a medical researcher. I ignored the AOL article and read the actual academic paper which was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. This is a peer reviewed journal and happens to be the top journal in the nutrition field.
The media articles may be "propaganda", but to trash a well-done empirical study in a top academic journal for no reason other than you disagree with is somewhat bizarre. If you have problems with their empirical methodology it would be better to discuss those.
I also find it interesting that they give no actual theoretical reasoning for the difference in weight gain..
This is the case with many empirical studies, and can often be used to find flaws in existing theories. So I don't have a big problem with this. If the observed facts don't match with existing nutritional theories, perhaps the existing theories are incorrect.
There are many factors in evolved that I just feel they are ignoring so they can simply have an interesting headline to their study
They have controlled for total calories, BMI, smoking status, time to final weight measurement, type of meat (red meat or poultry), age, physical activity levels, other nutrients, and whether the meat was processed. They also controlled for education, prior medical problems, changes in all of the above variables, and the probability of lying (or "misreporting" as they nicely name it). What else would you have controlled for? When I read the headline, I assumed the difference was probably due to the excess sodium from processed food (meat is more likely to be processed than raw veggies & fruit, nuts, etc), but as I already mentioned, they have controlled for whether the meat was processed or not.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.