The China Study page 3

[js290]

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? « Raw Food SOS

Health Correlator: The China Study II: How gender takes us to the elusive and deadly factor X

[zoebird]

Here's the thing.

The paleo diet simply consists of foods that are not grains or legumes or processed foods.

This diet can take any number of formations -- of which the primal blueprint is only one. There are low fat paleo diets, and there are high fat ones, and everything in between.

The diet can be vegetarian, but under the guidelines of the primal blueprint, it is difficult to reach the ratios that mark discusses *unless* one is eating some meat. It just makes it easier. It's not an absolute.

If you believe these studies -- which I don't, btw -- or you have any other reason to not consume meat, and you don't want to eat meat, then don't eat meat.

It's no big deal, honestly. I go days without eating meat, and then days when I do. It's really and truly no big deal.

Do what you want.

[wildwabbit]

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.

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?

Diatom, actually, those same studies DO show meat prevents cancer, because it is all how the numbers are spun. What you call emotional discrediting is in reality smart people looking at the same data and soundly showing opposite conclusions. It isn't as hard as you think, and you give researchers way too much credit. Researchers have their biases and human frailties and quite frankly screw up as much as anyone.

It doesn't take new studies to debunk a study that was *poorly analyzed* in the first place. All you need is the data to debunk it.

Proof? The additional link you gave from the recent red meat study was debunked within days because lots of people had access to the data and were able to show what the researchers ignored: red meat was *correlated* because the people who ate it (likely in the forms of greasy fast-food or bar-food where they spent all their time) were also the highest smokers, got the least exercise, highest consumers of alcohol, least vitamin intake, least veggie intake, and on and on. You tell me then, what is the most likely true correlation? Here is a link to lots of links of debunking including by many scientists (see the highest rated response by me):
Recent Longitudinal Study: Red Meat and Higher Mortality - PaleoHacks.com

Once again this is not rocket science! Anyone with a head can look at data and smell BS, and anyone with a good head and vocalize the BS, there is nothing magical about "being a scientist".

[js290]

But this cancer thing is worrisome to anyone who looks at it objectively.

where is the book on the healing qualities of red meat?

The Paleo Diet | Lose Weight and Get Healthy by Eating the Food You Were Designed to Eat :: Dr. Loren Cordain
Welcome to Dr.Rosedale's Website
Drs Eades
Coconut Oil and Ketones
» Podcast #13: How To Upgrade Your Brain with Coconut Oil & Ketones The Bulletproof Executive
Your Brain On Ketones | Psychology Today
Swedes Lob Dynamite Into a Controversy: High-Fat Diet Improves Blood Sugars - Diabetes Health

Interwebz is amazing. You should learn to use it.

[Diatom2012]

I'm no scientist. Just a person trying to make sense of this important health issue: what's the deal with meat? Does it kill you? As a non scientist, I tend to trust sources that have been vetted through lots of high level peer review science institutions. Those are generally not motivated by profit and are the most thorough and scientific. ie, they seek the truth, not propaganda. Most of the reliable information I have found all says that cruciform vegetables (broccoli, etc) prevent cancer and red meat accelerates it. This information is approaching enough consensus that it can be close to accepted as fact. ie, their mechanism can be demonstrated in the lab. this is hard scientific evidence that cannot be washed away with creative interpretation of large data sets.
your're right, there is nothing magical about being a scientist. its the opposite of magic: getting to the truth by tenaciously vetting the data. most people are not able to do this. so we have to find reliable sources and make our own informed decisions.
my personal belief is that a little bit of meat is probably ok. its a probability game in the end. I tend to be pescatarian, but basically omnivore. So I'm not preaching or taking sides. I appreciate the argument that meat makes things easier. I just wish this would be explained why, and that the real dangers would also be explained in the same argument.
I suspect red meat will end up being like tobacco and sugar: a dangerous food source. Seems like good sense to me to avoid advocating foods that are already implicated as not so healthy.
I'm constantly amazed at what an emotional and deeply political topic this all is. Just gimme some truth!

[js290]

I'm no scientist. Just a person trying to make sense of this important health issue: what's the deal with meat? Does it kill you? As a non scientist, I tend to trust sources that have been vetted through lots of high level peer review science institutions. Those are generally not motivated by profit and are the most thorough and scientific. ie, they seek the truth, not propaganda.

Yeah, good luck with that... Magazine - Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science - The Atlantic

Most of the reliable information I have found all says that cruciform vegetables (broccoli, etc) prevent cancer and red meat accelerates it. This information is approaching enough consensus that it can be close to accepted as fact. ie, their mechanism can be demonstrated in the lab. this is hard scientific evidence that cannot be washed away with creative interpretation of large data sets.

Science isn't about consensus.

I suspect red meat will end up being like tobacco and sugar: a dangerous food source. Seems like good sense to me to avoid advocating foods that are already implicated as not so healthy.
I'm constantly amazed at what an emotional and deeply political topic this all is. Just gimme some truth!

The truth is we didn't evolve smoking cigarettes or consuming large amounts of refined sugar. If you believe in evolution, that is to say you believe in science, then it naturally follows that our genome evolved consuming meat and fat as fuel.

The Paleo Diet Explained - YouTube

[RitaRose]

Just gimme some truth!

You've gotten it, and you've obviously not read any of it or have the desire for actual truth, just what you've always known or want to be true.

This is a huge waste of time. I'm out.

[Diatom2012]

Thanks for all the good information. Especially liked the Paleo diet explained interview with Loren Cordain. Finally a real scientist who understands the mechanics of diet to explain some of these tricky issues. Very interesting how he explains that it's the combination of saturated fat and high carb diet that causes heart disease. He does take a very dim view on strict vegetarianism, with good explanations for why (zinc depletion etc). Interesting too that he condemns dairy (although butter is ok). lots of good solid fact driven information there. Yet he doesn't address the issue of tumor growth and protein consumption. The jury is out on whether red meat is ultimately healthy. It seems that moderation is key. It's good to ask the hard questions and get solid information.

also want to give a special thanks to Rita Rose. wow. you are the warmest, most generous, thoughtful person I have ever met. Will you marry me?

[RitaRose]

also want to give a special thanks to Rita Rose. wow. you are the warmest, most generous, thoughtful person I have ever met. Will you marry me?

Love you too, babe!

It's just incredibly frustrating when someone comes on here and tells us how things are. Then, when we say, No, we've really looked into this for more than a minute and a half, you tell us there's really no evidence. Then, when we tell you that there really is evidence, and here it is, you continue to post how you don't see it. Seriously, there's no possible way you could have even done a Google search!

Want a cancer/nutrition connection? Try a Google search about carbohydrates feeding cancer cells.

If you don't want snarky responses, do a little research before spouting useless and flawed studies as fact and basically telling us we're all wrong without having done your homework.

[js290]

Thanks for all the good information. Especially liked the Paleo diet explained interview with Loren Cordain. Finally a real scientist who understands the mechanics of diet to explain some of these tricky issues. Very interesting how he explains that it's the combination of saturated fat and high carb diet that causes heart disease.

Concept #6 – How does cholesterol actually cause problems?

He does take a very dim view on strict vegetarianism, with good explanations for why (zinc depletion etc). Interesting too that he condemns dairy (although butter is ok). lots of good solid fact driven information there. Yet he doesn't address the issue of tumor growth and protein consumption.

I'll post it again... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUlE1VHGA40#t=26m59s

The jury is out on whether red meat is ultimately healthy. It seems that moderation is key. It's good to ask the hard questions and get solid information.

Ramblings of a carnivore: Death by mediocrity