Soy Product Consumption and Political Orientation - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

How does your soya product consumption correlate with your political orientation?

I eat soy products very often and I self-identify as a leftist
3
9%
I eat soy products rarely or never and I self-identify as a leftist
12
35%
I eat soy products very often and I am not a leftist
2
6%
I eat soy products rarely or never and I am not a leftist
12
35%
other
5
15%
#14864935
@SolarCross, @QatzelOk,

Well, I don't have to take a chance and I really do not trust nutritional science today. I can remember in the last ten years when they said butter, coffee, alcohol, eggs, etc., were all to be avoided, now butter, red wine, dark beer, eggs, and coffee are being promoted again. These people do not know what the fuck they are talking about and we are now standing in a nutritional crisis in America and for some reason hang on their every word as gospel.

Controlling for infant mortality, the Mid-Victorians, were the healthiest people that we have reliable medical records for (and their life expectancy, controlling for infant mortality, was higher than ours is currently) and their diet was simple, local, seasonal, low sugar (but not anti-sweets), and high in animal protein and fats. Basically, (1) eggs and tea for breakfast, (2) dried sausage, cheese, and a carrot for lunch, and (3) a meat, potato, and vegetable, covered in gravy, with bread and butter for supper, ending with a sweet dessert: all of this with a selection of water, beer, and raw milk for beverages, and with a healthy portion of: working hard all the time. This is my diet plan, to hell with Soy, usually tastes like shit anyway.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/
#14865167
Victoribus Spolia wrote:@SolarCross, @QatzelOk,

Well, I don't have to take a chance and I really do not trust nutritional science today. I can remember in the last ten years when they said butter, coffee, alcohol, eggs, etc., were all to be avoided, now butter, red wine, dark beer, eggs, and coffee are being promoted again. These people do not know what the fuck they are talking about and we are now standing in a nutritional crisis in America and for some reason hang on their every word as gospel.

Controlling for infant mortality, the Mid-Victorians, were the healthiest people that we have reliable medical records for (and their life expectancy, controlling for infant mortality, was higher than ours is currently) and their diet was simple, local, seasonal, low sugar (but not anti-sweets), and high in animal protein and fats. Basically, (1) eggs and tea for breakfast, (2) dried sausage, cheese, and a carrot for lunch, and (3) a meat, potato, and vegetable, covered in gravy, with bread and butter for supper, ending with a sweet dessert: all of this with a selection of water, beer, and raw milk for beverages, and with a healthy portion of: working hard all the time. This is my diet plan, to hell with Soy, usually tastes like shit anyway.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/

Soy is delicious if you know how to cook.
And the main reason that there are so many fraudulent studies is because most of them are funded by private industry. Meat associations fund studies that find that soy gives you a limp dick, and car companies fund studies that conclude that bicycles make you impotent.

And the DNC funds studies that find that Republicans are all rapists who are funded by the Kremlin.
#14865227
I don't know how that article comparing mid-Victorian life expectancy got past peer review, because it's rubbish. It claims

Victorian contemporary sources reveal that life expectancy for adults in the mid-Victorian period was almost exactly what it is today. At 65, men could expect another ten years of life; and women another eight [24,32,33] (the lower figure for women reflects the high danger of death in childbirth, mainly from causes unrelated to malnutrition). This compares surprisingly favourably with today’s figures: life expectancy at birth (reflecting our improved standards of neo-natal care) averages 75.9 years (men) and 81.3 years (women); though recent work has suggested that for working class men and women this is lower, at around 72 for men and 76 for women [34].

If we accept the working class figures, which are probably more directly comparable with the Victorian data, women have gained three years of life expectancy since the mid-Victorian period while men have actually fallen back by 3 years.

But if we look at the current figures, we find:

In England, life expectancy for men aged 65 years in 2012 to 2014 was 18.8 years, while women at this age could expect to live for an additional 21.2 years.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... -at-age-65

" working class figures, which are probably more directly comparable with the Victorian data" is asserted without reason. The area with the lowest life expectancy at 65 is Manchester, with 15.9 years for men, and 18.8 years for women. The paper tried to compare current life expectancy at birth with Victorian expectancy at 65! It talks about an improvement in infant mortality, but seems to be pretending that these days no one dies before 65, so that it can then compare our expectancy at birth with Victorians at 65. This is, frankly, full of shit. If we actually look for a modern statistic similar to the one they use for the Victorians, we find we live significantly longer.

And I can't work out how the danger of childbirth was claimed as a factor in women's life expectancy at 65. I think hardly any woman would have a condition from giving birth that lasted 20 or more years, and then started killing them off.
#14865346
Pants-of-dog wrote:I also build homes, fix vehicles, defend the weak, and enjoy being good at the sports I do.

I eschew bullying, homophobia, sexism, violent domination, and other traditionally masculine things.

But I was comparing myself to the other leftists here on the forum. I am fairly sure I am the only one without a beard.
No , I myself don't have any facial hair . I have tried to grow a beard a few times , but it always consisted of nothing but fine , frizzy thistle down , and I ended up shaving it . Also , on top of that , my field of work is legal transcription , which is a stereotypically considered to be a more so feminine profession . So I think that I am the most feminine left-wing man on this forum . But if any comrade wants to challenge me to make it official , we can test it by taking this test , then comparing results . http://www.hemingways.org/GIDinfo/sage/ But I will warn you , just by stating that you are left-wing , and especially a socialist , will automatically get you a higher score , when it comes to level of femininity , which is why I don't put much stock in the results . Oh , and by the way , I don't usually consume soy in any great quantity , if at all . Instead my alternative substance of choice , in relation to dairy , is almond milk , and also almond butter .
#14866244
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:But if we look at the current figures, we find:


https://www.google.com/publicdata/explo ... l=en&dl=en

As of 2015, the average life expectancy of people living in the UK was 81.6 years. The average life expectancy, controlling for infant mortality, of the mid-victorians was: 77 years, but if we include the United States, Today's average drops to only 79.5. These averages, if taking into the massive amount of Americans and Brits who died in battle or of diseases we have cured, in comparison to that of today's population, this would seem to indicate an incredibly unhealthy population today. Statistics also show, from that study, that causes of death today can almost all be attributed to lifestyle: heart disease, diabetes, and cancers, compared to the Victorians that died from infection and trauma. If we worked as hard as the Victorians and ate like they did, we would have a life expectancy today, arguably, between 95-100.

The Victorians died rapidly of infection and/or trauma, whereas we die slowly of degenerative disease. It reveals that with the exception of family planning, the vast edifice of twentieth century healthcare has not enabled us to live longer but has in the main merely supplied methods of suppressing the symptoms of degenerative diseases which have emerged due to our failure to maintain mid-Victorian nutritional standards [38]. Above all, it refutes the Panglossian optimism of the contemporary anti-ageing movement whose protagonists use 1900 – a nadir in health and life expectancy trends - as their starting point to promote the idea of endlessly increasing life span. These are the equivalent of the get-rich-quick share pushers who insisted, during the dot.com boom, that we had at last escaped the constraints of normal economics. Some believed their own message of eternal growth; others used it to sell junk bonds they knew were worthless. The parallels with today’s vitamin pill market are obvious, but this also echoes the way in which Big Pharma trumpets the arrival of each new miracle drug.

In short, the majority of even the poorest mid-Victorians lived well, despite all their disadvantages and what we would now consider discomforts. Those that survived the perils of childbirth and infancy lived as long as we do, and were healthier while they were alive their prolonged good health was due to their high levels of physical activity, and as a consequence, how and what they ate. We could learn a good deal from them.



Prosthetic Conscience wrote:" working class figures, which are probably more directly comparable with the Victorian data" is asserted without reason.


this is not arbitrary because working classes today live more similarly to Victorians than of any other segment of the population because of their quality of life and the type of work they do. This is not meant to be a perfect correlation, but the author does not claim it is supposed to be, just that it is the best sub-sectional comparison from today to the general average of the population then. this was not an unreasonable suggestion.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:And I can't work out how the danger of childbirth was claimed as a factor in women's life expectancy at 65. I think hardly any woman would have a condition from giving birth that lasted 20 or more years, and then started killing them off.


Because statisticians average based on age at death. Hence, if death by childbirth happened to any significant % of women and they were only 20 when they died, averaging this age in with the rest that generally lived (all things being equal) into their seventies, would significantly lower the overall life expectancy number. So, no, you don't have to start killing women at 65 to get this number.... :lol:

Red_Army wrote:@Victoribus Spolia if you don't care about nutritional science and think its all bullshit why did you jump on this nonsense left wing soy theory? Like most people who don't know shit about science you only believe "science" when it corresponds to your preconceptions.


I never said that I didn't care, i said that I didn't trust nutritional science as a dogmatically authoritative standard over what is ultimately "good for me" and am openly skeptical based on my experience of its factional divisions and open reversals of what is deemed healthy or unhealthy in relatively short-order. Of all the fields of science, it is one of the most openly corrupt as it receives the most money from private sources, especially from the food industry and big agriculture.

At the end of the day, we have to choose a diet, and i gave my reasons for mine from a peer reviewed source (which was still challenged, because, like I said, nothing in nutritional science is uncontested, other than if we don't drink water we'll die.)
#14866250
This is pretty pathetic seeing people getting triggered by other people eating soy products. But then again, there's also been self-righteous people here, recently, acting like complete dicks while lecturing people against eating meat.

That said, when I make homemade ramen, I like to add some firm tofu after I add pork and a soft-boiled egg. Fried tofu is pretty decent, and of course silky-texture tofu is good in miso soup. But when I want to eat something vegetarian, I strongly prefer eating stuff that has actual flavor to it: falafel, chana masala, and mushrooms are my go-to when I'm either not in the mood to eat meat, or I want to eat something healthy when the alternative is greasy, questionable-quality meat.
#14866265
Victoribus Spolia wrote:As of 2015, the average life expectancy of people living in the UK was 81.6 years. The average life expectancy, controlling for infant mortality, of the mid-victorians was: 77 years

No, it wasn't. That's the whole point. The average life expectancy, in the quote from the paper, of people who already managed to live to 65, was 74 (65+10 for men, 65+8 for women). Living to 65 is not "controlling for infant mortality". That would be "living to 1", or, at a push, "living to 5". If we look for a Victorian figure for one of those ages, we find:

The sex differential in the expectation of life at age five years, e5, in England and Wales during the 1860s was just under 1.6 years (e5 was 49.8 years for males and 51.4 years for females).

http://www.ehs.org.uk/dotAsset/51232af0 ... 53beec.pdf

(I think that is "expectation of years beyond five, so the expected age of dying was 54.8 and 56.4)

or, if you look at the ages people have survived to (figure 4.10 here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... volume/pdf ), you see that, in 1851 or 1871, about 76% of children survived to age 5; about 32% of people survived to 65. The modern day equivalent figures are about 99% and 90%.

And that voids all the claims of "we'd be living longer if we had modern medicine and Victorian diet and exercise", because all we know from the data is that Victorians died at a faster rater than us, at all ages. More of them died between 5 and 65 than us. It is possible that their level of exercise would be better for us than our lifestyle, but these figures do not show it in any way.

Because statisticians average based on age at death. Hence, if death by childbirth happened to any significant % of women and they were only 20 when they died, averaging this age in with the rest that generally lived (all things being equal) into their seventies, would significantly lower the overall life expectancy number. So, no, you don't have to start killing women at 65 to get this number.... :lol:

No one dies at age 20 after they've reached the age of 65. You need a time machine for that. "Life expectancy at 65" means "life expectancy for people who have reached the age of 65". You do not average in people from a different group, ie people who died at 20. The "paper" is a sloppy bit of pseudoscience.
#14866275
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:No one dies at age 20 after they've reached the age of 65. You need a time machine for that. "Life expectancy at 65" means "life expectancy for people who have reached the age of 65". You do not average in people from a different group, ie people who died at 20. The "paper" is a sloppy bit of pseudoscience.


We are talking about different things, you are switching the point. That the life expectancy of Victorian women was, 65, is because of infant mortality. When this is controlled for, we can add 8 years (as the article states) which is the life expectancy of people at age 65.

The author is challenging the conception that Mid-Victorians had a dramatically lower quality of life as is typically presented with misleading statistic that the life expectancy of mid-victorians is 65. This stat is misleading because it takes into account both child mortality and death in child-bearing. The reason that the author is controlling for these factors is because she is, as accurately as possible, attempting to compare the quality of life regarding nutrition and fitness. of course, I would argue that this requires controlling for combat deaths as well, which were not controlled for. If these had been controlled, the average life expectancy would likely be significantly higher than our own.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:No, it wasn't. That's the whole point. The average life expectancy, in the quote from the paper, of people who already managed to live to 65, was 74 (65+10 for men, 65+8 for women). Living to 65 is not "controlling for infant mortality". That would be "living to 1", or, at a push, "living to 5". If we look for a Victorian figure for one of those ages, we find:


You are correct, that was my mathematical error. I meant 74. My bad.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:or, if you look at the ages people have survived to (figure 4.10 here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... volume/pdf ), you see that, in 1851 or 1871, about 76% of children survived to age 5; about 32% of people survived to 65. The modern day equivalent figures are about 99% and 90%.

And that voids all the claims of "we'd be living longer if we had modern medicine and Victorian diet and exercise", because all we know from the data is that Victorians died at a faster rater than us, at all ages. More of them died between 5 and 65 than us. It is possible that their level of exercise would be better for us than our lifestyle, but these figures do not show it in any way.


That is the point, if we control for child mortality, combat deaths, and death in childbearing, the claims of "we'd be living longer if we had modern medicine and Victorian diet and exercise" would not be void at all, but would be quite compelling. In fact, if we controlled for work-related mortalities, diseases we have cured, and deaths related to basic sanitation, the results would be shocking.

The basic point, is that the factors relating to Victorian death have been somewhat solved, but our life expectancy, if controlling for those factors, does not reflect these improvements because our dietary and fitness changes have negatively affected our health and have become the leading cause of our deaths and degenerative quality of life.

You seem to think, that the point of the article is to argue that every facet of Victorian life is to be replicated. Niether the article, nor myself, have argued this. What has been argued is that if we control for the factors that cause the life expectancy averages to be reflected as low for Victorians, then their life expectancy is either not to dissimilar to our own or can even be said to be the same or better and that their cause of death and quality of life in those cases is of a generally accepted superior nature.

Likewise, the case for a protein rich, balanced diet, consisting of organic, local, and seasonal foods, low sugar intake, and extensive excercise should not be a point of controversy.
#14866292
Victoribus Spolia wrote:We are talking about different things, you are switching the point. That the life expectancy of Victorian women was, 65, is because of infant mortality.

No. No one has given the life expectancy of Victorian women as "65" at any time. But, and this is the point, when you say "life expectancy", it has to be "expectancy at a particular age". If you just say "life expectancy", it is taken as "at birth". If you "control for infant mortality" (or for something else), then it has to be "at the age after that" - normally, "infant mortality" is taken as a death under the age of 1, but you might make a case for under 5.

When this is controlled for, we can add 8 years (as the article states) which is the life expectancy of people at age 65.

Infancy does not end at 65. So "controlling for infant mortality" cannot mean "life expectancy of people at age 65." That would be "controlling for death during a normal working life" or something like that. And I showed that the current life expectancy at 65 is almost twice what the Victorians had.

The author is challenging the conception that Mid-Victorians had a dramatically lower quality of life as is typically presented with misleading statistic that the life expectancy of mid-victorians is 65.

Again, no one said the life expectancy of Victorians was 65. At birth, it was in the low 40s (see the ONS link, previous post), by 5 it was about 55 (previous post), by 65, it was 74.

This stat is misleading because it takes into account both child mortality and death in child-bearing.

It's only misleading if you don't understand it.

The reason that the author is controlling for these factors is because she is, as accurately as possible, attempting to compare the quality of life regarding nutrition and fitness.

The point is that she (I thought it was 'they', but whatever) is not even trying to be accurate. She compared present-day life expectancy at birth with Victorian life expectancy for those who have already survived to 65. To do so is to fall precisely into the 'misleading' trap again - except that the authors should know they were doing it. I suspect it was for fraudulent reasons, given the "Big Pharma" quote you showed us - they have a political axe to grind.

The point is that people still die in significant numbers before they reach 65 - through accidents, suicide, illness and so on. As I showed, about 9% of us today die between our 5th and 65th birthdays. These deaths mean there is a significant difference in the 'expected' age of death for those at 5 and those at 65, even today. That means you must not directly compare present-day expectancy at birth with Victorian expectancy at 65.

of course, I would argue that this requires controlling for combat deaths as well, which were not controlled for.

Combat deaths are not significant unless in the middle of a major war - the only ones for the UK in this time period being the 2 world wars.

If these had been controlled, the average life expectancy would likely be significantly higher than our own.

And I hope you now realise that's wrong. We have records showing they died at a faster rate all through their lives. The "paper" did not try to allow for nutrition and fitness; all it did was to compare numbers that cannot be meaningfully compared, and then say "I reckon that shows their nutrition and fitness was great". It's nonsense.


That is the point, if we control for child mortality, combat deaths, and death in childbearing, the claims of "we'd be living longer if we had modern medicine and Victorian diet and exercise" would not be void at all, but would be quite compelling. In fact, if we controlled for work-related mortalities, diseases we have cured, and deaths related to basic sanitation, the results would be shocking.

No evidence whatsoever has been shown for that, in that paper. They compared meaningless numbers. You are just guessing about work-related mortalities etc.

You seem to think, that the point of the article is to argue that every facet of Victorian life is to be replicated. Niether the article, nor myself, have argued this. What has been argued is that if we control for the factors that cause the life expectancy averages to be reflected as low for Victorians

Again, there was no attempt to control for those factors. They compared numbers that cannot legitimately be compared. An attempt to control for all that would have to include looking at the causes of deaths of a large number of adult Victorians, and attempting to say what their outcome would have been
if they had modern medicine, sanitation, health and safety laws, etc.

Likewise, the case for a protein rich, balanced diet, consisting of organic, local, and seasonal foods, low sugar intake, and extensive excercise should not be a point of controversy.

That paper, because of its misuse of statistics, makes no such case at all. The case has to be made in different ways.
#14866345
@Victoribus Spolia

The point is that you claimed to be skeptical of nutritional hokum, but instantly agreed when said hokum matched your prejudice. In your mind soy is for pussies, left wingers are pussies, so of course soy makes people pussies. None of the junk nutritional science you mentioned that you were skeptical of is anywhere near as ridiculous as this idea.
#14866368
The Japanese eat a huge amount of soy, in their culture. They must be total liberal pussies.
No wait... they aren't. It's a very conservative culture.

So much for that idea... :lol:
#14866432
Godstud wrote:The Japanese eat a huge amount of soy, in their culture. They must be total liberal pussies.
No wait... they aren't. It's a very conservative culture.

So much for that idea... :lol:

Genetic differences due to different traditional diets. Racism, reeeeeee!
#14866681
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:the only ones for the UK in this time period being the 2 world wars.


The world wars happened in the Victorian period? :lol:

As far as the British Empire not having "significant conflicts" to control for?

The Anglo-Zulu War
The Boer Wars
The Conquest of Abyssinia
The Anglo-Burmese Wars
The Indian Rebellions.
The Crimean War
The Anglo-Afghan Wars
The Conquest of Sudan
The Opium Wars
ETC, ETC..

Yeah.....nothing to see here or account for in life expectancy statistics....this doesn't even count any casualties for peacetime colonial management and foreign disease deaths caused by things like Malaria.

I don't know how we can have an honest conversation when you make these sorts of assertions.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:If you just say "life expectancy", it is taken as "at birth". If you "control for infant mortality" (or for something else), then it has to be "at the age after that" - normally, "infant mortality" is taken as a death under the age of 1, but you might make a case for under 5.


Yes, I am speaking of general life expectancy, which, if controlling for infant mortality, would make the average life expectancy much higher for the general population, because the final number is based on averages that take into account the age of death based on statistics from the time. I don't understand what you are disputing here.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:You are just guessing about work-related mortalities etc.


Are you seriously insinuating that work-related mortalities during the industrial revolution were not substantial compared to today? I am curious, what political axe are you grinding?

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Again, there was no attempt to control for those factors. They compared numbers that cannot legitimately be compared.


They did claim to control for infant mortality. In the article.
#14866764
Victoribus Spolia wrote:The world wars happened in the Victorian period? :lol:

The world wars happened between the first period looked at and the second, ie the present day.

As far as the British Empire not having "significant conflicts" to control for?

The Anglo-Zulu War
The Boer Wars
The Conquest of Abyssinia
The Anglo-Burmese Wars
The Indian Rebellions.
The Crimean War
The Anglo-Afghan Wars
The Conquest of Sudan
The Opium Wars
ETC, ETC..

Yeah.....nothing to see here or account for in life expectancy statistics....

Yes, exactly. British combat deaths in those were tiny, compared with the general mortality.

this doesn't even count any casualties for peacetime colonial management and foreign disease deaths caused by things like Malaria.

Which aren't part of death statistics for Britain.

I don't know how we can have an honest conversation when you make these sorts of assertions.

As I've just said in another thread, I now suspect you are a joke account, so I don't think your thoughts about honest conversations are worth considering.

I don't understand what you are disputing here.

One more time, whoever you are, and for the readers of the thread in general: comparing the expected years of life for someone aged 65 with expected years of life at birth is not "controlling for infant mortality". To control for infant mortality, you should compare expected years of life immediately after infancy, and for both periods. That may sound blindingly obvious, but the authors of the "paper" didn't do it.

Are you seriously insinuating that work-related mortalities during the industrial revolution were not substantial compared to today? I am curious, what political axe are you grinding?

No, I'm not insinuating that, and I haven't the faintest idea how you think you can ask that. I'm saying that you have not got any idea of how big the effect was. The paper doesn't say, either. The odd thing is that your "political axe" here is on the side of the people attacking "Big Pharma". Your persona appears to be going all New Age on us.

They did claim to control for infant mortality. In the article.

Yes, they claimed, but they were lying. They didn't.

I think the way to start with that is to look at […]

In a world where international travel is prevalent[…]

haha that is exactly what you and some others are[…]

EU-BREXIT

Oh no! Please Decky, please Nigel, you must not l[…]