4 ms·
This article borders on tabloidesque shock-value, but the "Paleo diet" concept, at least, has a reasonably logical basis. But I would recommend this instead of
by chipsy 17y ago
This article borders on tabloidesque shock-value, but the "Paleo diet" concept, at least, has a reasonably logical basis. But I would recommend this instead of googling "Paleo" immediately:
http://www.performancemenu.com/articles/proteinDebate.pdf http://www.performancemenu.com/articles/proteinDebate.pdf
The link is down at the moment, but the above is a 4-paper written debate between T. Colin Campbell (The China Study) and Loren Cordain(Paleo Diet). They each advocate widely different approaches to diet, but agree on a few things, most notably that dairy's nutritional benefits are suspect.
- jseifer 17y agoI haven't read that yet (though I definitely will later) but that's interesting about the dairy findings. West Price found the exact opposite of that in his book (http://bit.ly/4MIoVe http://bit.ly/4MIoVe). Can you elaborate a bit more on what they found suspect?
- nunb 17y agoFood for thought, Dr Eades on the issue. http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/obesity/another-china-study/ http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/obesity/another-china-stu... I also read somewhere (probably Eades) that the China Study (the book/Campbell one) was a survey, iow, not an intervention study. Lastly, when I read the China Study book about 3-4 years ago, it started off with an impressive anecdote about feeding extra protein (peanut butter) to filipino children to improve their diet and wham! cancer. Blame protein, or aflatoxin? Campbell chose the former. Now that I know a bit more about animal vs. nut (soy, peanut) protein, I'll take the former, thanks. The Panu weblog puts it in the simplest terms: choose a food whose defense is to run away from you, not one that will cook up chemical defenses to being eaten.