Last time, I looked at Mercola's argument that everyone needs meat, as well as his claims regarding nutritional typing and cholesterol and fat in meat.
To read Part I,click here.
Today, I want to examine the second half of Mercola's article and his claims about the fallacy ofThe China Study, grass-fed meat, the supposed "dangers" of vegetarian diets, and intuitive eating.
To conclude, I'll lay out the diet that actually IS for everyone.
The China Studyis Not a Study
Mercola Says:
>
"Since the China "study" was merely an observational study, the correlations do not in fact, cannot -- prove causation.All you can really do with data from an observational study is to form a hypothesis, which must then be tested in randomized, controlled trials, to ferret out the truth about whether or not x actually causes y.
In many cases,the data do not show statistically significant correlations between animal protein consumption and disease such as cancer at all.On the contrary. It would seem that sugar and carbohydrates are correlated with cancer not animal protein. In addition, the data indicate that fat is negatively correlated with cancer mortality, which again contradicts the claim that meat is harmful."
>
Dr. Colin Campbell, author ofThe China Study, actually took the time to answer. You can find his responsehereon Vegsource. Campbell says:
>
"The rationale and analytical strategy for my views expressed in our book, "The China Study" were carefully explained in the book. Mercola is merely repeating an already answered question.He is wrong to suggest the use of randomized control trials as the main determinant of nutritional effects, a point that I carefully explained in our book."
>
Dr. Campbell wasn't lying. FromThe China Study(pg. 357):
>
"Critics of the ecologic study design correctly assume that it isa weak design for determining cause-and-effect associations when one is interested in the effects of single causes acting on single outcomes.
But this is not the way nutrition works. Rather,nutrition causes or prevents disease by multiple nutrients and other chemicals acting together, as in foods.An ecological study is almost ideal is we wish to learn how an array of dietary factors act together to cause disease...
...To investigate these comprehensive causes of disease, it was thereforenecessary to record as many dietary and other lifestyle factors as possible,then formulate hypotheses and interpret data that represent comprehensiveness."
>
Organic, Grass-Fed Meat Makes a Huge Difference
In regards to studies referenced inThe China Study, Mercola says:
>
"Im willing to bet thatthose studies were NOT done on people who exclusively eat only organic, grass-fed meats, which I believe would make all the difference in the world."
>
Dr. Campbell commented on this point as well, which you can readhere. Campbell says:
>
"The adverse effects of animal protein, as illustrated in our laboratory by the effects of casein,are related to their amino acid composition, not to the effects of pasteurization, homogenization, or of the presence of hormones, pesticides, etc.Even though pasteurization and homogenization may cause slight changes in the physical characteristics of proteins, I know of no evidence where amino acid contents are altered by these treatments.
This is important because it shows thatthere will beno difference in the biological effects of animal based protein from grass-fed or feed lot fed animals.Moreover,the casein that we used in our extensive experiments was before hormones were introduced and before factory farming became the norm, thus it mostly represented animals that were grass fed."
>
In other words, meat is meat is meat. It doesn't matter if it's organic or conventional, grass or grain-fed, it's still meat and has no place in an optimal diet.
Vegetarian Diets are Downright Dangerous for Some
Mercola says:
>
"From my observations, perhaps about one third of the population would benefit from it [vegetarianism] those who are strong carbohydrate types. These people thrive on plant-based foods and have spectacular health.
However, there is anequally large, or even larger, population whose health isdevastatedby restricting animal protein and fats.Forcing them to buy into the vegetarian dream is neither helpful nor right.
I personally learned this truth the hard way, aftermany of my patients failed to thrive on the largely plant-based diet I recommended to them.Then, about ten years ago, I was finally exposed to concepts that helped me understand this shocking observation."
>
Okay, so Dr. Mercola's patients were eating a plant-based diet and failed to thrive. But what exactly were they eating? All we know is that they didn't eat meat. They could have been living on nothing but processed vegan items from the frozen food's isle!
The same applies to Angelina Jolie's comment, assuming that she actually said it, of course. We simply have no idea what she was eating while dabbling in veganism. She could have been eating nothing but miniscule amounts of low-calorie veggies or gorging herself on tofu hotdogs and soy ice cream, for all we know!
Just because someone decides to go vegan does NOT mean they are now eating healthfully. In fact, the vast majority are not.
Why?
Because they continue to make many of the same mistakes that SAD eaters do, i.e. eating too much fat, too many grains, too much processed foods, too much salt, not enough fruit and greens, etc. These individuals are not following a healthy eating plan, regardless of the fact that they no longer consume animals and/or animal by-products.
And the same applies to once-raw vegans who claim that they went raw for a few weeks, felt extremely fatigued, had horrible digestion, etc. and so quit the diet. Then you find out they were eating little fruit, lots of nuts, and mountains of salt, spices, and oils. Such an approach to raw is NOT healthy, regardless of the fact that cooked food is avoided.
Listen to Your Body
Mercola says:
>
"Ultimately, if you are honest with yourself and sincere in your quest to determine what diet is best for you,my recommendation is toabandon any previously held convictions you might have about diet and start listening to your body.
If yourcurrent diet allows you to function at the highest level of energy and fitnessand you rarely feel hungry or crave sweetsthat is a fairly good sign that you are eating food appropriate for your nutritional type.
However if you arestruggling with health challenges and have rigidly adhered to a diet that severely limits or avoids animal protein, because you believe you should or you are choosing it for ethical reasons thenI would encourage you to consider changing your diet to include some animal proteins."
>
I agree with Dr. Mercola to some extent. Listening to your body is certainly necessary when it comes to living a healthy lifestyle. When you get severe stomach pains after eating certain foods or muscle cramps after certain exercises, it's important to pay attention.
However, I also believe in using science and reason to back up these bodily signals.
For instance, whenever I used to eat my once-favorite snack of apples and peanut butter, I would have foul-smelling gas and bloating afterwards. That was my body telling me that it was having a hard time digesting what I ate. Simply by listening to my body, I knew that it wasn't a good idea to combine these two foods.
However, it was also important to me to know the WHY behind my digestive upset. Simply by researching information about the human body and how it digests specific foods, I learned that fatty foods like nuts take much longer to digest than sugary foods like fruits and so eating the two together was slowing down the digestion of the fruit, leading to fermentation which was the source of my gas and bloating.
This meant that ALL sugar and fat combinations digest poorly, not just apples and peanut butter!
By telling you "abandon any previously held convictions about your diet," it seems that Mercola is saying "Hey, I know this Nutritional Typing thing makes no sense, but just trust me on this one!"
Please, don't do that. Don't just trust anyone with anything.
Do some research. Read some books. Get educated. Only then will you have the knowledge to make your own decisions about health and be able to stop relying on "experts" and "gurus" for all your dietary and fitness needs.
Is it "Dangerous" to Say that Veganism is for Everyone?
It may be dangerous to your bottom line if you make money by telling people what they want to hear (i.e. they can continue eating the foods they love because of their "nutritional type"), but it certainly isn't dangerous to your health.
You see, every animal of a certain species has its own unique anatomy and physiology that point to a particular fuel source, i.e. lions eat meat, cows eat grass, and birds eat grains. And closely related species tend to consume the same foods, i.e. tigers, jaguars, and cheetahs all eat animal flesh.
Human beings are no different. We all have the same basic makeup that points to the same basic diet, i.e. a low fat raw vegan diet.
The Diet That IS for Everyone!
What does this mean for you? It means you are a fruigivore, i.e. an animal that eats a diet predominated by fruits. This is what our long, convoluted digestive tracts, dental formula, and stomach acid pH level suggest and it's also what our closet primate cousins consume.
In practical terms, it means:
If you're familiar with Dr. Douglas Graham's80/10/10 Diet, then you'll know this formula better as a minimum of 80% carbohydrates, a maximum of 10% protein, and maximum of 10% fat.
Is this approach to health dangerous? Certainly not. Is it unpopular? Certainly. People don't want to hear that in order to avoid disease and live a truly healthy life, they have to give up (or at least severely limit) all of their favorite foods.
Oh well, I was never a member of the popular crowd anyway. ;)
Go raw and be fit
Swayze
???????
沒有留言:
張貼留言