Quote from soldsoldsold:
My neighbor says he follows this diet:
Well, now that's a valid reason to eat a certain way.
Quote from running_bare:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.*
- Joseph Goebbels
Anyone who believes the common nutritional mythology fed to you by the meat, dairy and junk food industries has swallowed such huge lies hook line and sinker. One of my favorites is the myth that the amount of calcium consumed positively affects bone health and cow's milk builds strong bones and reduces fractures.
Quote from running_bare:
BUT you haven't applied any critical reasoning skills in relation to this China Study thing...
And you haven't yet answered my simple question. Have you read the entire book "The China Study" (or the entire Cornell Project study itself)? Or have you been researching what others have said about it and posting that stuff here? Just be honest, you've either read the entire book or you haven't.
Quote from running_bare:
Campbell says it himself "Since these observational studies are meaningless in terms of causality, it doesnât really matter how one slices and dices the data because meaningless correlations by any other names are still just as meaningless. "
Of course he'd say that! He's a scientist and a good one. A solid researcher would never say that correlation = causation.
We've been over this whole thing a couple times now. It's illegal to feed humans high levels of carcinogens for the purpose of a study. Therefore, the powerful study out of India in which the children on the high animal protein diet were getting liver cancer, followed by the experiments Dr. Campbell conducted in the lab, led the research crew to embark on the epidemiological study of the effects of diet on rates of disease.
Quote from running_bare:
He feeds mice caesein, widely known as the most cancer inducing food on record!
You have the whole thing backwards! Casein wasn't known to be tumor promoting at all until AFTER Dr. Campbell's studies revealed its effects!
I would guess the reason casein was used as the representative animal protein in that group of animals was because rats and mice are mainly herbivores and rather than feed them animal flesh which they'd likely not eat, the researchers chose casein, easily blended into chow for the purpose of the studies.
Quote from running_bare:
Then he feeds it aflatoxin which is converted in the liver to a much more toxic compound and is often used in laboratory experiments with animals to induce cancer and other problems.
This is well known.
That aflatoxin promotes the cancer. It is beyond obfuscation, it is flat out lying, to say that, based on Research using casien as a representative animal protein proves nothing; it is comparable to using mature opium poppies as a representative of green leafy vegetable.
Again, casein was thought to be a perfectly "safe" form of animal protein. Remember, at this point Dr. Campbell had only stumbled across an obscure study out of India in which children consuming an animal rich "western style" diet got a lot more liver cancer. He couldn't believe it because he was studying ways to make animal protein more readily available to poor children in developing nations. He believed animal protein was the best quality protein available. This obscure studied baffled him and led him to perform the further studies in the lab.
So the aflatoxin was the powerful carcinogen and the diets various groups of animals received were high and low plant protein groups, and high and low animal protein groups. The casein used was never suspected of being dangerous in any way at the time of the studies.
The results were so astounding it led the researchers to look into correlation between disease and diet in a very large population (China) where there were distinct subgroups who ate very differently from each other.
Protein consumption above 10% (the amount necessary for proper growth and muscle repair) increased development of foci (precancerous cell clusters) significantly, from a level of 10 to a level of almost 90 once protein consumption was 20% of the diet. However, only the casein caused this huge increase at the 20% levels; 20% gluten protein had a negligible effect.
The studies then focused on actual tumor formation and all animals fed the 20% animal protein diet were dead or near death from liver tumors by 100 weeks. The animals fed the same levels of aflatoxin, but on the 5% protein diet were alive and well. "This was a virtual 100 to 0 score, something almost never seen in research and almost identical to the original research in India."
This was a 100-week study, by the way, not something thrown together to create a publishable abstract beneficial to a for-profit food or pharmaceutical company.
On a separate note, I'm certain wheat consumption does correlate to heart disease in developed nations; most of our wheat consumption occurs in refined form and in foods heavily laden with sugar and fat.
"Various studies show that mortality rates were 17 to 43 percent lower for individuals who consume one or more servings of whole grain per day versus those that ate few or no servings of whole grain.
Whole grains can claim a wide array of health benefits that other foods cannot. Studies have shown that people who eat whole grains have lower body mass index, lower cholesterol and lower waist to hip ratios. Large epidemiological studies have shown that people who eat three servings of grain reduce their risk of heart disease ( 25-36%0, stroke (37%), Type II diabetes (21-27%), digestive system cancers (21-43%) , and hormone ârelated cancers (10 â 40%).
The American Heart Association, Dietary guidelines for Americans and Healthy People 2010 all recommend three servings of whole grains daily. Yet the average American eats less than one serving per day and 30% of Americans never eat whole grains. Fewer than 10% of Americans get the three recommended servings per day."
