The China Study page 2

[zoebird]

Minger's article didn't even exist back in 2000, so I can assure you that there are plenty of scientific, intelligent criticisms that exist out there. Google is your friend.

The primary criticisms is that the survey isn't properly conducted.

[ljq309]

"The Primal Blueprint calls for lots of consuming of meat."

No, it doesn't. Some people do choose to do that, some choose to eat what they need.

[Diatom2012]

first let me say that I have no personal inclination for or against meat. I love the taste, and love that it doesn't make you fat. And I find righteous vegans as annoying as any righteous person.
and I admire the teachings of primal blueprint. I resonate with a lot of it. I don't mean to mis characterize it by saying what it calls for. it speaks for itself.
But this cancer thing is worrisome to anyone who looks at it objectively. Just following the data on google reveals articles like this
BBC News - Red meat: What is a 13% increase in the risk of death?

Meat and Colon Cancer - Does Meat Cause Colon Cancer

the takeaway from this one is the while, yes, red meat does correlate to cancer, the more raw the better, and there are other ways to mitigate its carcinogenic properties, which mostly amount to adding spices and cancer fighting vegetables.

I haven't yet found anything from a serious peer reviewed journal on the healing powers of meat.

Anyway, taking apart his sampling methods does not discredit the lab science showing that protiens in meat and dairy accelerate the growth of tumors.
The Minger article just isn't that convincing, scientifically speaking. Is she even a scientist?
All I can find are rebuttals to the China Study by non scientists, and no scientific studies on the cancer preventing qualities of red meat.
emotional discrediting just isn't good enough. where is the beef? the real science that proves that meat does not contribute to cancer?
where is the book on the healing qualities of red meat?

[lssanjose]

Minger's article didn't even exist back in 2000, so I can assure you that there are plenty of scientific, intelligent criticisms that exist out there. Google is your friend.

The primary criticisms is that the survey isn't properly conducted.

this.

[Moochy]

The Primal Blueprint calls for lots of consuming of meat. This makes sense from the stand point of losing weight.
But there is a dark side: the acceleration of growth of cancer tumors.

Just wondering if those who promote the consumption of lots of meat were aware of this study, and if they had an opinion about it.


Thomas

here is a link with a lot of responses discrediting the "China Study"


(Cows eat grass so I don't have to...pass the ribs please)

[YogaBare]

"The Primal Blueprint calls for lots of consuming of meat."

No, it doesn't. Some people do choose to do that, some choose to eat what they need.

WHAT???! Loooool! I've only been on the forum for a couple of days, but as a veggie I cant even estimate how many times I've been told to eat meat!

And I'm considering it too...

[bloodorchid]

i thought the standard welcome message was 'eat more fat'

[cori93437]

WHAT???! Loooool! I've only been on the forum for a couple of days, but as a veggie I cant even estimate how many times I've been told to eat meat!

And I'm considering it too...

You can certainly do it...
But the book does not say that you have to...
The author's wife is a "Primal" Pescatarian. (Eggs, dairy, fish, shellfish...)

i thought the standard welcome message was 'eat more fat'

Seriously... so inconsistent.
But... let her ask next month, after eating more meat of course, how to lose weight faster... and a whole new "eat more fat"/"eat more carbs" war will ensue!
They are at least VERY consistent about that one.

[bloodorchid]

carbs make you lose weight while you get fat, k?

gosh, it's easy to remember

[RenegadeRN]

Don't forget, no matter how credible you deem a source- numbers can be (and often are) manipulated to show what the researcher wants it to show. It may or may not be conscious, but it happens.

Follow the money trail...who paid for the study ?