FoodBanter.com - View Single Post - Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat

wrote:
>>You mean a 17-year study that affirmed the position contrary to the one you
>>took? Hahaha. Thanks for reminding me of your thorough incompetence.
>
> I mean, really, just ignore him.

You seem to ignore everything else that matters, including the findings of the
study you cited in support of your wild notion about meat.

This study was initially set up to test the hypotheses that daily
consumption of wholemeal bread (as an indicator of a high fibre diet)
and vegetarian diet are associated with a reduction in mortality from
ischaemic heart disease; the reduction in mortality associated with both
of these dietary factors was *NOT SIGNIFICANT*.

We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a 15% reduction in
mortality from ischaemic heart disease. This was *NOT SIGNIFICANT* and was
LESS THAN the roughly 30% reductions REPORTED IN EARLIER ANALYSES of
this cohort.... A vegetarian diet was also associated with a *SIGNIFICANT
INCREASE* in mortality from breast cancer. However, the confidence
interval was wide.... The numbers of deaths for individual cancer sites
were small and the mortality ratios have wide confidence intervals. The
41% reduction in mortality from lung cancer associated with daily
consumption of fresh fruit was *NOT SIGNIFICANT*....

What part of NOT SIGNIFICANT do you not comprehend?

> He just ignores valid issues pointed out about his own
> statements,

You've yet to make any valid points about my statements. You've also failed to
support your own statements. According to the study you cited, vegetarianism was
insignificant in reducing the health problems measured in the study -- WITH ONE
NOTABLE EXCEPTION: BREAST CANCER MORTALITY INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY AMONG
VEGETARIANS.

> and likes to fool himself into thinking that
> his *points* have some significance, or even
> relevance.

Pot kettle black: you're the one making claims completely contrary to the
information you cite in support. You may not like the fact that someone else has
to explain your own sources to you (birdbrain), but that's your own shortcoming,
not mine. The study to which you STILL refer does NOT support your claim.
Seventeen years long or not, it supports the point *I* (and Rick and Jon) made.

> His level of vitriol indicates someone who is not
> to be taken seriously, either.

How do you explain your willful ignorance to others?