Didn't you bash me earlier for even comparing based on protein? Seriously, either protein is important or not... which is it?

Or are we going to compare the ecological impact of foods based on protein when it is appealing to your arguement but kcal when it is not? To be clear, I used BOTH calculations... you pick and choose.

Fair enough... but which vegetables?

Again, are we comparing this on a per kg of food, per kg of protein...

You have got to admit a factor of 1.5 to 2 is pretty damn small when you consider the errors involved in estimating "the overall environmental impacts" of getting a food product from the fields to the table.

So where is the raw data, the methods, the estimates of error? These should be included in ANY scientific discussion that claims to have any quantitative validity at all.

I'm well aware of the conclusion, I want to know the NUBMERS and METHODS used to draw those conclusions...

I have focus, as I said earlier, on the ONLY shread of clear quantitative data presesnted in the paper.

I agree. But what do vegetarians substitute for meat? Some have said soy is NOT an important component in vegetarian diets. Grains perhaps?

Regardless, the professional scientist in that field better get their s--- together and come up with some supportable, quantitative data to give a meaningful comparison between appropriate meat eating diets and vegetarian diets (with applicable substitutions) before they make such claims.

And equally, it can be proven time and again that those with omnivore dogma claim that data on what our hominid ancestors (who were lucky to live to 40) should override modern nutritional studies.

You paleolith guys act as if modern nutritional science doesn't exist, and instead fall back on assuming that a diet eaten by our ancestors, which was dictated by necessity, is optimal for modern humans.

They didn't live long enough to even develop modern chronic diseases, such as heart disease, cancer, and osteoporosis, the diseases that we in the affluent West die from today.

Because our ancestors didn't live long enough to develop such diseases, there is no reason to think that the diet that they, and we, evolved to eat provides optimal (or any) protection against these modern causes of death.

If you're not looking at modern nutritional data, then you haven't seen any valid data at all. Get your head out of your fossils, and start looking at studies that are relevant to modern human health.

Their sources are all cited at the bottom of the article. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with procedures in papers produced outside of your field, but in general academia, this sort of argumentation pulling data from previous articles is very common. My field of reconstructive historical linguistics is often like this, and much of the data used goes back 19th German collections cross-language family synonyms.

All of the data you want is noted in the end-notes. That's scientific transparency.

It is not scientific transparency when some of the articles are not published in peer reviewed journals or otherwise nearly impossible to obtain. Scientific transparency would be to present the data and methods if the sources were obscure.

I have searched for the numbers and methods used in the calculations and have had no luck in obtaining them. I have asked everyone on this forum to PROVIDE the numbers and methods, or at least accessible sources, and I have got nothing. I would think that someone in the field (such as Jay) would be able to provide some raw numbers, some useful data, or some explaination of the actual methods used... nope, just the conclusions.

I do not pick and choose. I am reporting what is in the paper. The comparison was for meat protein protein vs. processed soy protein. The comparison is valid.

Units of protein, kg or kcal, it doesn't matter.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. The point estimate is on the order of double.

In the original papers. The article you cited was a conference presentation, not a formal literature review.

Then stop wasting bandwidth complaining, go to the library, and look up the original papers.

You've focused on an index, which by definition is subjective

I would say that as a rule they don't substitute anything for meat per se. They substitute one diet for another. The paper by Haddad and myself shows what vegetarians and nonvegetarians in the US actually eat. It has lots of numbers, which should make you happy.

You have no idea what the literature in the field is like, as you've only looked at a single conference presentation.

Presumably you have access to a significant university-type library. I do. jt512 obviously does. You, as a PhD student, should.

You seem to think that articles which cite other articles should reproduce the cited article entirely. This is a bad idea, and would make most articles ridiculously long. Spend some time with academic journals, and you'll get a feel for the way academic and publishing science works.

That makes no sense. You will have to restate your position if you want a response... I refuse to decipher that one.

No, we simply figure that millions of years of evolution tend to help the organism adapt to what is available... and if humans ate meat for millions of years it makes sense that we would be equiped to continue doing so. Millions of years of evolution are not overturned in 3000 years.

They also didn't sit in front of a computer or TV all day. They got way more exercise, much more variety in their diet, and did not deal with any of the stresses and pollutants of modern society. Again, you are comparing apples to oranges and attributing the differences to the differences in diet to fit your argument.

Because our ancestors didn't live long enough to develop such diseases, there is no reason to think that the diet that they, and we, evolved to eat provides optimal (or any) protection against these modern causes of death.

Nobody said anything about protection against anything.

But to say millions of years of eating meat, along with the accompanying physiological adaptations, can neglected is retarded.

Ha! I don't study fossils. Besides, I was talking exclusively about the data, more accurately the LACK of data, on the ecological impact of meat vs. vegetarian diet. Of course your Field doesn't seem to care much for the CONTEXT of things, as long as they fit your conclusions, so I don't blame you for making that mistake.

I've inserted the word "ate" that I inadvertantly omitted originally.

Consequently, it is plausible that a diet that was adequate for our ancestors, who died young compared with us, could be less than optimal for us now.

I'm saying that modern diseases are primarily caused by living longer, and that that the diet that sufficed for our ancestors might not be optimal for modern people, who develop diseases primarily related to aging.

whereas today it is almost impossible to achieve optimal calcium intake without consuming dairy or taking supplements. This is one clear example of where our ancestral diet would fall short of our current nutritional requirements.

Then you are talking about the wrong thing.

No, actually. Rather, thinking that evolution gives a damn about us after we're about 40 years old, indicates that you do not have a solid understanding of how evolutionary adaptations come about. You need to think about this a lot more.

Humans adapt, conditions change, but evolution is a slow process...

...and outright eliminating a significant component of an organisms diet within 3000 years seems pretty rash and misguided.

WTF? I'm talking about nutrition... putting the right kind of fuel in the right kind of machine.

Organisms don't eat to PROTECT themselves, they eat to exist. Is the goal to protect yourself against death?

I seriously don't know where you come up with this stuff! What makes you think that I have any opinions at all about whether "evolution gives a damn about us after we're 40?"

How can you argue in the same parargraph that organisms eat to exist but don't eat to protect themselves against death? Existing means not dying. The whole point of studying nutrition in the first place is to discover dietary factors that are protective against modern diseases.

Because your arguments are based on evolution. One would think, therefore, that you would understand the concepts of natural selection and survival advantage.

Try taking a class in evolutionary biology, or just reading a book on the subject. You also need to read a good graduate level nutrition text. Your poor understanding of the mechanism of evolution and total ignorance of the science of nutrition have led you astray. You don't even understand what the issues are (relations between diet and disease), never mind the scientific approaches to solving the issues (modern nutritional studies), never mind the actual solutions (eat your vegetables, at a minimum).

Any pitfalls I should watch out for? Will this effect my climbing abilities significantly?

Any positives/negatives associated with being a vegetarian, that I may not be aware of?

Look, the authors of this paper did not do their research properly -- they did not calculated ecopoints for a reasonably balanced vegetarian vs nonvegeterian diet, did not give the error bars, etc. Why are you so reluctant to simply accept this and admit that this paper does not indeed provide a definitive estimates of relative impacts of the two diets?

First of all, existing means dying, absolutely and without question... to live is to die. There is a huge difference between eating for existence and eating to try and postpone the inevitable.

What I don't understand is how you come up with the opinion that I think evolution gives a f--- about us after we're about 40. I have never said anything to indicate that I think evolution has any preference either way...infact, if I had to give my impression about what evolution thinks (which I find absurd to even be discussing, but you brought it up), I would have to say evolution would prefer we all reproduce by 16 and die by 40.

that way I can help you think critically about the concepts cuz you obviously didn't learn how to do that the first time around.

Regardless, we have no nutrtional need for meat in our diets. If you think we do, then please explain what that nutritional element is. Explain why the millions of religious and other vegetarians live quite well without meat. Explain why you are ignoring modern nutritional science altogether.

The original post was about climbing and vegetarianism. I do not feel there has been any substantial evidence that contradicts the statement that there are virtually no successful top/world class veg. athletes. Yes, they may live quite well, but do they live to their potential? These millions of vegetarians, are any of them at the athletic peak of humanity?

Why is it when I do not eat meat I feel weak and tired? Many people have stated that their performance improved when switching to an omnivore diet. My friend was a good veg. got lots of protein, well balanced ETC when he quit the veg. program he claimed his power went up substantially, as many others do. Why? Any theories?

There's no reason that a vegetarian diet would preclude top performance in any athletic endeavor. There is nothing in meat you can't get from other foods.

Jay

That answers the original posters question handily.

]These fields are too complex, and so the data is usually messy, by comparison with basic sciences, like chemistry and physics. We are forced, therefore, to draw tentative conclusions, based on limited data.

There is nothing in meat you can't get from other foods.

Really? Where does creatine come from? I'm asking you cuz you seem to be the expert...