4 ms·
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 lik
by 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 agoThis 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 agoShe 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 Let me tell you about an unpublished study where rats fed cornflakes were able to live for 100 years...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 agoI 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 And since the study is attributed to a cereal company, that explains why it went unpublished.