anyone read the china study?
Discussion
FredClogs said:
I haven't read it and I don't know a great deal about this kind of stuff but I do listen to the Joe Rogan podcast quite a lot and he has this super dooper biogolist Dr women on Rhonda Patrick who disputes at lot of what's in the China Study book especially the idea that supplement vitamins are not good for you.
End of the day we all know what a balanced reasonable diet is, we all know what weight we should be and how much body fat is too much. I say stick to what you know, this fella is tryng to sell a book.
hmmm not really true. listen to rich roll podcasts which is where i heard of him ( very good whether you believe this stuff or not ). If he'd wanted to sell books he'd have included recipes etc and not published a very tech study. and shes not super dooper she herself has been debunked by this chap who is faar more qualified from what i read.End of the day we all know what a balanced reasonable diet is, we all know what weight we should be and how much body fat is too much. I say stick to what you know, this fella is tryng to sell a book.
agree balanced is good but rarely happens in the western world.
Prof Prolapse said:
I've not read this but it looks like it is simply using epidemiological evidence from largely unrelated populations and drawing enormous conclusions from it? If so that really isn't a study. It's certainly not science.
I'm hoping I'm reading it wrong but the underplaying of genetics (principle 4) is absolutely against everything we are learning in medicine at the moment. Especially in Oncology research where I mostly work. Were it not for the role of genetics we would never have found effective treatments for diseases like breast cancer.
Also it is utter b
ks about the significance of diet on gene expression. It fails basic critical thinking, as most gene expression is not involved in disease but basic life. If it were true we'd find that by varying diets we could literally change what we were. It would be like turning a butterfly back into a caterpillar by persuading it to eat leaves.
Looks like another steaming pile of crap in dispersed with obvious facts like eating less animal foods, and the spurious claims of vitamin supplements.
whilst im not going to argue against your knowledge of genes i would argue this guy seems qualified and well published not the usual diet book author type chap so perhaps read it first?I'm hoping I'm reading it wrong but the underplaying of genetics (principle 4) is absolutely against everything we are learning in medicine at the moment. Especially in Oncology research where I mostly work. Were it not for the role of genetics we would never have found effective treatments for diseases like breast cancer.
Also it is utter b
ks about the significance of diet on gene expression. It fails basic critical thinking, as most gene expression is not involved in disease but basic life. If it were true we'd find that by varying diets we could literally change what we were. It would be like turning a butterfly back into a caterpillar by persuading it to eat leaves. Looks like another steaming pile of crap in dispersed with obvious facts like eating less animal foods, and the spurious claims of vitamin supplements.
grumbledoak said:
Meta-studies and those conclusions? Sorry, but it just sounds like "today's reason we all have to become vegetarians is..." I have no doubt it will be grasped enthusiastically by vegetarians and vegans.
It sounds like the politicians will love it as another proxy for overpopulation issues (like Global Warming). And of course agri-business will be creaming their pants - it is far more profitable to convince humans to eat the animal feed for breakfast, lunch, and dinner than it is to rear the animals and eat them. And so what if it makes us all sick? We'll have to pay again for the drugs to treat the symptoms caused by the food, so the drugs companies will be on board too.
I'm a touch cynical about what we are encouraged to eat, myself. And reading Wheat Belly. Interested in the OP's thoughts when he's finished it though.
its not really a meta study from what ive read? is it really more profitable for the usa beef etc industry to want to change to cereal?It sounds like the politicians will love it as another proxy for overpopulation issues (like Global Warming). And of course agri-business will be creaming their pants - it is far more profitable to convince humans to eat the animal feed for breakfast, lunch, and dinner than it is to rear the animals and eat them. And so what if it makes us all sick? We'll have to pay again for the drugs to treat the symptoms caused by the food, so the drugs companies will be on board too.
I'm a touch cynical about what we are encouraged to eat, myself. And reading Wheat Belly. Interested in the OP's thoughts when he's finished it though.
Prof Prolapse said:
I've not read this but it looks like it is simply using epidemiological evidence from largely unrelated populations and drawing enormous conclusions from it? If so that really isn't a study. It's certainly not science.
I'm hoping I'm reading it wrong but the underplaying of genetics (principle 4) is absolutely against everything we are learning in medicine at the moment. Especially in Oncology research where I mostly work. Were it not for the role of genetics we would never have found effective treatments for diseases like breast cancer.
Also it is utter bks about the significance of diet on gene expression. It fails basic critical thinking, as most gene expression is not involved in disease but basic life. If it were true we'd find that by varying diets we could literally change what we were. It would be like turning a butterfly back into a caterpillar by persuading it to eat leaves.
Looks like another steaming pile of crap in dispersed with obvious facts like eating less animal foods, and the spurious claims of vitamin supplements.
theres a couple of pages devoted to breast cancer and genes but must admit is over my head i presume you dont have those if ure just googling it? also dont think he's underplaying the role of genes but the fact nutrition affects disease not just genes?I'm hoping I'm reading it wrong but the underplaying of genetics (principle 4) is absolutely against everything we are learning in medicine at the moment. Especially in Oncology research where I mostly work. Were it not for the role of genetics we would never have found effective treatments for diseases like breast cancer.
Also it is utter b
ks about the significance of diet on gene expression. It fails basic critical thinking, as most gene expression is not involved in disease but basic life. If it were true we'd find that by varying diets we could literally change what we were. It would be like turning a butterfly back into a caterpillar by persuading it to eat leaves. Looks like another steaming pile of crap in dispersed with obvious facts like eating less animal foods, and the spurious claims of vitamin supplements.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff