cayenne Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 A while back, a respected physician gave me the book-"The China Study". He is battleing lung cancer currently and knew I was very interested in nutrition. Any of the mods read this book? Comments? The whole premise of this study (done years ago but not ancient) was we actually do not need that much animal protien. Lots of good research to back it up. Any comments/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmary Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 We just had a conversation about this study a few weeks ago. Let me see if I can find it for you. Here it is: http://forum.whole9life.com/topic/29603-why-is-any-kind-of-pork-product-ok/?hl=%2Bchina+%2Bstudy Meanwhile, If you want nutrition information we support here at in the whole30 forum, I would recommend the book "It Starts with Food" and the many scientific papers, etc which are referenced in the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cayenne Posted August 6, 2015 Author Share Posted August 6, 2015 Thanks for the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munkers Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 The China Study insults my notion of ethical research and data interpretation. You can literally prove anything you like if you're going to cherrypick your data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cayenne Posted August 6, 2015 Author Share Posted August 6, 2015 In all honesty-dont many research articles do that? Certainly did not mean to offend. I suspect the old Food pyramid had cherry picked info. The articles I read sure seem to be convincing towards their particular bias. There are articles that spenda is fine-other say it is cancer in a yellow packet. Eggs increase choly, then no they dont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munkers Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 The food pyramid was NOT the result of any type of scientific study or research. The food pyramid is a government-subsidized initiative and, even though it's been revamped, it's still laughable. We have the efforts of Dr. John Harvey Kellogg to thank for the heavy focus on "heart healthy whole grains" and we have the McGovern Committee to thank for villifying saturated fat, a conclusion that they arrived at after very little expert testimony. Fun fact: Kellogg served as a physician at the Battle Creek Sanitarium and claimed he could cure cancer, diabetes, and schizophrenia with enough bowel cleansing (enemas) and yogurt. And if folks didn't respond to his treatments then he would just perform a colectomy. (He was, first and foremost, a surgeon.) More fun facts: Americans have actually been heeding the advice of the food pyramid and increasing whole grain while reducing saturated fat and yet chronic disease continues to soar. Anyone can write an article that sounds good and makes rationale sense. I can pick a couple of articles to make X sound like the most rationale idea in the world and then turn around and pick a few more articles to make X sound like an absolute pipedream. This is why peer-review and meta analysis are important-- you need to look at ALL of the data. The China Study failed to do that in a big way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.