by virgincrude » Sat 22 Aug 2009, 03:49:32
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '
')I don't have the book. What I just quoted you was from the actual study on which the book is supposedly based. In the actual study, the authors concluded that their data was insufficient to establish complex causal relationships. When writing a non-peer reviewed book, Mr. Campbell apparently felt no need for such scientific restraint.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')our asserion that vegetarianism means eating only starch is utter crap, and you know it. What is the starch content of broccoli? Boiled in salt water, it has only a trace
My point is that 2000 calories of broccoli is somewhere around 2.5 gallons of food. It's impossible to eat enough vegetables to meet one's caloric needs. As a practical matter, vegetarianism means eating a low protein diet based primarily on grains and/or beans.
That's fina Smallpoxgirl, but the book is not only about The China Study, but Campbell's lifelong study of the relationship between diet and disease. The China Study was merely his kick off point on a journey during which he (and many others, here's one example
http://www.drmcdougall.com/) found there certainly is a causal relationship between what we put in our bodies and how they react.
For me, the most important aspect of the book is the way it shows you clearly the relationship between government, science, big business and industry and how the notion that 'peer reviewed' scientific studies are some kind of Holy Grail, is extremely dubious.
We only have to see how many hours doctors spend in nutrition classes during their studies to see how little attention is paid to the whole science of food and disease. Not only is it a minimal part of your training, it is probably funded by the food industry itself, who's message is simply: "eat this, it's good for you', and buying peer reviewed scientific proof is not a problem.
For a hundred years or so Americans and by extension most of the Western world have received their 'education' from advertising agencies and governments bought by lobbyists and PR experts. When the National Dairy Council spends a few billion dollars on 'educating' children on the helathy properties of 'liquid milk', rather than some independent research based body of nutritionists, well, what can we expect?
There have been numerous studies proving that diet alone can reverse and in some cases cure heart disease, diabetis and hypertension. But these studies don't make headlines. The headlines usually read something like: "Scientists uncover Gene for Obesity" thereby shooting the startup pistol for the race to manufacture some drug or mechanical means of controlling or eliminating said gene. When all you need to do is change your bacon for broccoli.
The idea that a vegan or vegetarian based diet does not provide sufficient calories to live is completely wrong, as most of the population of India and Thailand prove. This idea is probably another example of the marketing and succesfull skewed science which delivers such messages to the public and professionals alike. You yourself tried to use an image of the Buddha to prove a vegetarian diet was bound to cause obesity. And now you want to tell me vegetarians are starving to death?