Health & Wellness

Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said

  • Last Updated:
  • Sep 21st, 2020 1:53 pm
Jr. Member
Aug 7, 2016
159 posts
130 upvotes
Becks wrote: The base rate fallacy, also called base rate neglect or base rate bias, is a fallacy. If presented with related base rate information (i.e., general information on prevalence) and specific information (i.e., information pertaining only to a specific case), people tend to ignore the base rate in favor of the individuating information, rather than correctly integrating the two. (wikipedia)

I was responding in turn to a fallacy, but you want to pull out the base rate fallacy?

ok, Vegan supercentenarians, ZERO
your move
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 14, 2005
13088 posts
2180 upvotes
City of Vancouver
Iirc, longevity researchers do not recommend eating meat. R u refuting their research?
De gustibus non est disputandum
Reverse dysfunction one step at a time.
Jr. Member
Aug 7, 2016
159 posts
130 upvotes
The plant based / vegan stance is the epitome of a base rate fallacy.
The vast majority of people give it up within a few years, many with resultant health problems that correct when returning to an omnivorous diet.
Those that do manage to stick with it for any length of time contribute to a survivorship / healthy user bias.
Yet the plant based position is that these few people, are used as proof of health, ignore the ex-vegans with resulting poor health and ignore the base rate in favour of the individuating information that suits their agenda.

If the premise of plant based is eating less animal products is better and none is best, the upper quartile of longevity would be overrepresented proportionally by vegans.
Yet even with the huge advantage due the incorporated survivorship bias, a deck stacked with genetic lottery winners, it isn't; and NONE make it to supercentenarian status.

Becks wrote: Iirc, longevity researchers do not recommend eating meat. R u refuting their research?
This is an attempt to move the goalposts and reposition the argument for baserate bias as that of argumentum ad populum. It is not.

Also buried in there is a soft appeal to some authority and an implied consensus that does not exist.
Which researchers? what research? what recommendations? in what context?

This entire thread is about refuting BS conclusions that are unfounded by the available evidence.
Jr. Member
Aug 7, 2016
159 posts
130 upvotes
here is a simplified presentation of Michael Roses work demonstrating the complexity of effects regarding epigenetic signalling on longevity, as it relates to diet and reproduction.
It should readily dispel the delusion we are anywhere close to optimizing longevity through supplementation or adaptation. We can't accomplish it even in simple fruit flies over a thousand generations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-9S8M78iRY


source books.
Experimental Evolution
Concepts, Methods, and Applications of Selection Experiments


Does Aging Stop?
Laurence D. Mueller, Casandra L. Rauser, and Michael R. Rose
Jr. Member
Aug 7, 2016
159 posts
130 upvotes
zoro69 wrote: There are a number of people posting here, (particularly the ones posting over and over and over) who will see themselves here

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/bl ... -and-angry
lol
still no study to share? just more ad hominem attacks.

What would you call a guy who continually posts off topic over and over?
Narcissistic_rage_and_narcissistic_injury
when their hidden behaviors or motivations are revealed,

You come into the thread posting irrelevant off topic BS like this, refuse to discuss it
and then try to play the victim? Persecutory_delusion SMH

Believe what you want, eat what you want, but bad arguments deserve to be challenged.
If you don't want to be challenged, don't post indefensible irrelevant crap.

Top