4 ms·

> He doesn't sound angry at all. Mellow people can be crazy too. Though, whether he's crazy or not, there isn't a shred of evidence presented besides the pictu

by wyday 19y ago

> He doesn't sound angry at all. Mellow people can be crazy too. Though, whether he's crazy or not, there isn't a shred of evidence presented besides the picture of "tribal health" he paints.

vlad 19y ago
I don't think he meant this to be a scientific paper, otherwise, as a physician, he could be liable for giving out medical advice. I can see how he would make this message appear informal. A lot of writing by nutritionists aimed at the general public is similarly informal and easy to understand. I've read many stories and know that avoiding cereals, grains, and milk is a good idea for weight loss and sugar management. I was able to google some sources. Note that pesticides may also introduce toxins. I'm with Steve Pavlina on trying things and seeing if they work. The advice seems to be true. http://www.nourishingourchildren.org/parents/cereal.html http://www.nourishingourchildren.org/parents/cereal.html Like he said in the article, he doesn't mean toxic in the unsafe sense. He means toxic in terms of, it's not good for your body. He means it's not the natural way every species on earth has consumed this food for thousands of years.
- paul 19y ago
  That link is interesting but I can't find any evidence that it's true. How can I tell that he didn't just make up the story about cereal being bad? It seems like any easy experiment to reproduce -- just buy a rat and a box of corn flakes.
  - vlad 19y ago
    This article references both studies but includes sources. http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/dirty-secrets.html http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/dirty-secrets.html
    - paul 19y ago
      She just says, "Let me tell you about two studies which were not published." Where did she learn about these two studies? It doesn't say. Let me tell you about an unpublished study where rats fed cornflakes were able to live for 100 years...
      - vlad 19y ago
        I assume she was still referring to Paul Stitt's book: "In his book Fighting the Food Giants, Paul Stitt has tells us that the extrusion process used for these cereals destroys most of the nutrients in the grains." (three paragraphs later, the rat study) "Let me tell you about two studies which were not published. The first was described by Paul Stitt who wrote about an experiment conducted by a cereal company in which four sets of rats were given special diets... " Since the book and study described by Paul are about cereal, and both paragraphs are near one another, I think the study is better described in that book. And since the study is attributed to a cereal company, that explains why it went unpublished.

by wyday 19y ago

> He doesn't sound angry at all. Mellow people can be crazy too. Though, whether he's crazy or not, there isn't a shred of evidence presented besides the picture of "tribal health" he paints.

vlad 19y ago

I don't think he meant this to be a scientific paper, otherwise, as a physician, he could be liable for giving out medical advice. I can see how he would make this message appear informal. A lot of writing by nutritionists aimed at the general public is similarly informal and easy to understand. I've read many stories and know that avoiding cereals, grains, and milk is a good idea for weight loss and sugar management. I was able to google some sources. Note that pesticides may also introduce toxins. I'm with Steve Pavlina on trying things and seeing if they work. The advice seems to be true. http://www.nourishingourchildren.org/parents/cereal.html http://www.nourishingourchildren.org/parents/cereal.html Like he said in the article, he doesn't mean toxic in the unsafe sense. He means toxic in terms of, it's not good for your body. He means it's not the natural way every species on earth has consumed this food for thousands of years.

paul 19y ago
That link is interesting but I can't find any evidence that it's true. How can I tell that he didn't just make up the story about cereal being bad? It seems like any easy experiment to reproduce -- just buy a rat and a box of corn flakes.
- vlad 19y ago
  This article references both studies but includes sources. http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/dirty-secrets.html http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/dirty-secrets.html
  - paul 19y ago
    She just says, "Let me tell you about two studies which were not published." Where did she learn about these two studies? It doesn't say. Let me tell you about an unpublished study where rats fed cornflakes were able to live for 100 years...
    - vlad 19y ago
      I assume she was still referring to Paul Stitt's book: "In his book Fighting the Food Giants, Paul Stitt has tells us that the extrusion process used for these cereals destroys most of the nutrients in the grains." (three paragraphs later, the rat study) "Let me tell you about two studies which were not published. The first was described by Paul Stitt who wrote about an experiment conducted by a cereal company in which four sets of rats were given special diets... " Since the book and study described by Paul are about cereal, and both paragraphs are near one another, I think the study is better described in that book. And since the study is attributed to a cereal company, that explains why it went unpublished.