Weekend Link Love

The China Study. Yes, we’ve seen it belittled, but never in such amazing fashion. Raw Food SOS thoroughly discredits the China Study, and Richard Nikoley is there with a bullhorn to spread the word. Rob Wolf is all over this one as well. See The Protein Debate (PDF) between Cordain and Campbell.

I thought I had palmed my face for the final time on the “giving kids statins” issue. But nay, in recent groundbreaking news insanity, Lipitor now comes in kid-friendly chewables.

Here’s a little study you can hold over your friends’ heads the next time they chide you about the silly notion that you can “control your genes.”

There’s something suspicious about these clipper coupons

Not everyone will get this one, but I’m curious as to whether or not this soup is Primal.

If you enjoyed lasts week’s sleep posts (here, here, and here), you’ll find Scientific American‘s look at sleep habits and cancer intriguing.

And finally, this is the wrong way to open a coconut.

Recipe Corner

Time Capsule

One year ago  (July 4 – 10)

Comment of the Week

Try drying dulse in the toaster oven for 5 minutes. It brings out a nice bacon flavor. In fact, wrap it in bacon!

Aaron Blaisdell from A Visual Guide to Sea Vegetables

About the Author

Mark Sisson is the founder of Mark’s Daily Apple, godfather to the Primal food and lifestyle movement, and the New York Times bestselling author of The Keto Reset Diet. His latest book is Keto for Life, where he discusses how he combines the keto diet with a Primal lifestyle for optimal health and longevity. Mark is the author of numerous other books as well, including The Primal Blueprint, which was credited with turbocharging the growth of the primal/paleo movement back in 2009. After spending three decades researching and educating folks on why food is the key component to achieving and maintaining optimal wellness, Mark launched Primal Kitchen, a real-food company that creates Primal/paleo, keto, and Whole30-friendly kitchen staples.

If you'd like to add an avatar to all of your comments click here!

25 thoughts on “Weekend Link Love”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. The first China Study critique is weakened by the fact that it’s a raw foodist making it.

    1. Why do you say this? I think it strengthens it. It’s as unbiased as you can get. She is being honest and upfront. I have not read the essay but will do so this week and write my own thoughts on it. This also makes me want to buy the book.

      I almost bought The China Study before buying The Primal Blueprint….

      THANK GOD I DID NOT!!!!!

      Anyways… Thanks for the heart and bacon recipe. I purchased a half cow almost one month ago and it came with liver, heart, and some other weird stuff. I have never tried organs but am just about ready to do so. I think adding bacon to heart would make it much more appetizing!!

      1. Adding bacon to anything makes it more appetizing! Not quite ready for organs yet, though. Baby steps.

      2. How can you say she’s unbiased? The very fact that it’s a raw food site constitutes a bias.

        You might argue that it’s an insignificant bias, but raw foodism is not exactly independent of vegeterianism. Yes, you might imagine, or even encounter, raw food vegetarians, but it’s a good bit harder than meat-eating raw foodism.

        But it’s not the bias I have problem with, ultimately. I just think that scientific credibility of raw foodism is very low. Richard Wrangham, whose work Mark’s Daily Apple also cites, is quite conclusive in his book “Catching Fire”. It was cooking that enabled rapid human evolution, including growth of our brains, from as far back as 1 million years ago. The association with a doubtful type of diet movement is what lowers (somewhat) the author’s credibility.

        Of course, ideally we should only pay attention to the message, and not the messenger, but we all know it’s not the way it works in the real world.

        1. But it’s not the bias I have problem with, ultimately. I just think that scientific credibility of raw foodism is very low.

          Which has no bearing on the soundness of her critique.

          Everyone is biased, there is no way around that. The question however isn’t about her, its about her argument. If the argument is sound, doesn’t matter what she personally believes.

          Her argument doesn’t disprove veganism, it simply blows holes in Campbell’s fraudulent interpretation of the data in attempt to support veganism. People who want to bypass the argument and use her own personal practice as reason to undermine her credibility are simply engaging in logical fallacies, which undermines their own credibility.

          Did you read the entire post?

          By the way, there is quite a bit of meat eating raw foodism going around these days, but anyway, that issue is beside the point.

    2. Actually I think the gal at Raw Food SOS has issues with the raw food movement. She has been Raw and maybe still is in some regards, but she’s been expanding her diet.

      Hense the “SOS” part of the blog name.

      1. You’re right and my criticism was probably too harsh. I have read a couple more articles on her website and it’s definitely not a one-sided advocacy site.

        1. No problem. It seems like a lot of former vegans/vegetarians are becoming primal/paleo. I see it happening everyday.

          We are involved in a LARGE, energetic movement that, well, makes sense!!

  2. Bruce Campbell: The man who proves you can be dorky AND sexy simultaneously. Hail to the King, baby!

    1. I seriously want that soup in my cupboard. Bruce Campbell is my hero!

      “Gimme some sugar, baby!”

  3. Thanks for the link love Mark! If anyone hasn’t tried heart yet you have to, much tastier and a better texture than other organ meats.

  4. I love the coupon for a free cheesecake just for meeting with a nutrition councilor.

  5. Tomasz, The link to analysis of the China Study is nothing short of spectacular. Attacking detailed information over preconceived notions is not very useful.

    1. The analysis itself indeed seems to be very nice and detailed. It’s the author’s association with a dubious cause that raises my doubts.

      We all have preconceived notions and studies show that it guides what information we accept, and what we “attack”. I am aware of this bias and try to fight it. So it is BECAUSE I like the conclusions of this analysis, that I try to put it under greater scrutiny.

  6. I’m curious to find out what blog platform you happen to be utilizing? I’m experiencing some minor security issues with my latest blog and I would like to find something more safeguarded. Do you have any solutions?