I dont see any leading scientific references here Rad, other than this book I certainly wouldn't place with scientific study. Maybe net to the "Davinci Code"

I can give credible references that suggest the book was written to satiate a large Populus here that wants to hear whats it says.

CHINA / National

Cancer most lethal illness in China last year

(Xinhua)
Updated: 2007-05-08 22:00 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2...ent_868081.htm

.................................................. ..............................
Cancer rates in China soared 41.48% from 1990 to 2000 and is expected to increase nearly 28% from 2000 to 2010 due to the high rates of tobacco usage, environmental conditions, and an aging population whose life expectancy has nearly doubled to 71.1 since 1949. Lung cancer is the most prevalent, with rates much higher than the total general cancer rates. Lung cancer rose 61.29% between 1990 and 2000, and a 51.38% increase is projected from 2000 to 2010. W.H.O. statistics list China'* adult male smokers at 67%, the highest in the world, with the exception of Mongolia'* 68%. Liver and stomach cancer are the next highest types, with breast and cervix cancer dominant among women. Survival rates for lung, liver, and stomach cancer are a low 15% according to W.H.O. reports. http://www.ictradiotherapy.com/china.asp
.................................................. ....................

China'* cancer death rate rises 80 percent in 30 years

Caijing Magazine shares some startling statistics on cancer in China, where smoking, poor diet, water pollution and environmental problems have caused the nation'* cancer death rate to rise 80 percent in the past 30 years. http://shanghaiist.com/2008/07/16/ch...rises_80_p.php

I can go on and on. Where is this Proof of people smoking for what ??? 70 years. Pfffft. And where does China REALLY STAND compared to the US.

Mortality Rates
China 7.06
US 8.38

Life expectancy at birth
China 73,47
US 78.11..................https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...ook/index.html

Your book is contrived and full of BS. And I can sit here and list documents and statistics page after page that support this assumption. they selectively glean what supports their premise and totally ignore hard facts as I provide. oooo ya,....BAM!

Oh snap!

However, the book does have a list of works cited for its info. Also, it was written by a professor of nutrition plus includes the results of the research of his grad students. There'* a really nice intro that tries to explain away possible begrudgery and whatnot.

The studies did have 0% and 100% lab rat cancer rates as well as something like 30% and 70%, depending on the tests. I'm simply more willing to believe that book than statistics like what you've provided because the lab research was done in controlled environments. Calling it the DaVinci code marginalizes its potential success.

With China'* allegedly crazy pollution, it'* kind of tough to say whether diet can have any impact in an effort to lower cancer rates with no other actions. For the Olympics, athletes considered wearing masks for the run through the city because it'* just so nasty there. What the China Study went over is the rural population that has little access to meat and retains a steady diet of proteins from rice, wheat, soy, etc.

Since it'* tough to say what part of your tough facts' life expectancies is based on the Chinese rural population, it wouldn't be fair to compare average life expectancy across 2 billion people from all over China against 300 million Americans and say that the expectancy is empirically lower there.

Because I'm perfectly willing to accept that the urban lifestyle in China is dangerous to one'* health, I'm not going to promote the diets of the people in and around Chinese cities. "Smoking, poor diet, and pollution" combined can't be countered by dieting. The China Study promotes a steady intake of proteins through low quality protein diets (read: lacking an abundance of all the proteins you need in every meal) so that the human body gets all its proteins over time and has therefore lacks all the enzymes necessary to take in carcinogens through cell membranes and then form cancer cells.

Whoop-bap-BAM!

We can fluff our debate here all day long Rad, we both have our way of finding things to support our views and being illustrative about it. But the big thing here is the following.

Mortality Rates
China 7.06/1000
US 8.38/1000

Life expectancy at birth
China 73.47 years
US 78.11 years

For all our differences in diet, pollution, and lifestyles,..... whatever, these two sets of statistics show they have no better life and have far lower life expentancy. These two sets of facts aren't contrived, or able to be read in different ways. Cold hard facts say the whole premise is moot. I'll eat my cheeseburgers and live almost 5 years more on average. There is no "wiggle room' here. Whats weird to me is that as pollution increases there, and they assume out diet, it has devastating effects shown in current trends. Why? I would surmise their bodies are weakened by their old way of life to the point they can't adapt to "Modern Living.

Hey Rad !???...... I got some Mona Vie for ya'*. $40 bucks a pop for liter of diluted Acai Berry Juice. It'* trendy, expensive, tastes like caca. ( That should pull in the "Red Bull" fans. But they earn enough profit to buy a bevy of nuttritionists large enough to keep the FDA at bay. Can I pencil ya in for a case? I'll pay the shipping.

HAHA... Love it!

Not the juice ... your comment

Well, that is funny but it may show that you misunderstand what I mean. I'm not a man of averages. Said strangely, "I'm not a man of means." But seriously, living longer on average tells you nothing about living. Primarily, our healthcare systems should allow us to live off of life support longer than the rural Chinese can live without such care. I know there'* a relative lack of healthcare here, but please consider that it could only be worse in communist China.

Ultimately, if you have cancer, you can stop consuming milk products and meat, and your cancer should stop forming. There are several stages of cancer; it'* not one unit of cancer and that'* it. In early stages, it'* possible to stop it entirely just through a low quality protein diet. Again, a low quality protein diet is one that doesn't supply all or most of the proteins ever needed in one serving. High quality proteins do that, and the best ones are found through eating human flesh... But anyway, after a cancer is stopped, it'* possible to start its growth again by switching back to a high quality protein intake.

Mona Vie is only good for one thing - money, if you're into pyramid schemes. I've never touched it or tried selling it, but someone in my family is pretty good at pushing that stuff. At any given time, there are at least 20 bottles that someone else paid for that are sitting in my house and waiting to be sold and transported. This health craze that drives Mona Vie sales and the sales of strange diet books is actually a really strong inspiration for The China Study. That book tries really hard to denounce all that nasty stuff.

Sorry for the Mona jab, but Hey. a good debater use'* a "hook" when he see'* one. The thing here to me Rad is the book has "inspirations" (like so many), and that tends to skew conclusions. And nutritionists are well known for trying make scientific fact, out of opinions of data. And in this thread I tried to show that many "opinions" can be made of data that become totally opposite each other. For example, the aggregate "opinion" of nutritionists of an earlier days has lead us astray many times; such as:

Butter was a main culprit in artery and heart disease and that oleo margarine made of what was thought much safer Hydrogenated trans fats was the prudent safe alternative.

Eggs are unhealthy because they contain so much cholesterol. Now more is known about the benefits of certain ones, and it'* know accepted in moderate amounts. I realize there are still two camps over this one. They draw their passion for their side with the same data.

Vitamins. A good balance of vitamins has obvious proven results. Nutritionists of the late 60'* and 70'* went on a vitamin bender, and the result was alot better understanding of very real bad side effects form some in excess, yet the industry still pounds out certain ones known for them and hype'* them strongly.

The ridiculous quest for herbal/fruit/antioxidant "magic bullets". Yes, certain natural plants have chemicals and drugs that carry medicinal properties. This fact lead to modern pharmaceuticals. But this has many limitations. (Such as I wouldn't trust digitalis to protect me from a heart attack, or try to use Willow extract to calm a severe migraine attack.) Yet since recorded time there have been those who exploit a natural desire to try anything when you succumb to maladies and diseases. No product ever has been factually/consistently shown to be a magic bullet that just erases decades of poisoning yourself with things like triglycerides and processed sugar.

I myself have greatly slashed my intake of pork, facts about it'* fat and percentages of have been conclusively proven over and over. Not to mention the pandemic rise of the dreaded swine round worm in Central America and US states that border Mexico. And it has been proven the porcine substances target like regions of the human body. The one good thing about that is pharmaceutical researchers have developed what is called "Porcine Carriers". Porcine fat does this so well, they have learned to bond drugs to these carriers and deliver them right to areas of the body intended for them. This could go far as they develop better, safer, less toxic cancer drugs. And other maladies of our organs.

I moderately eat ocean fish that tend not to store heavy metals, and eat less and less lean beef, and chicken by using vegetables mixed in with it.

I search out obvious poisons in the food chain/groups and avoid them.

Enjoy life, and experience and enjoy the others in moderation. Pay attention to getting enough of things like fiber, good fats, and eating a balanced blend of proteins so the body can develop/process what is known as "complete Proteins" the body needs.

When sickness/disease comes, do as you can prudently and without wasting what little time left here you have and hoping for a magic bullet. A good percentage of them come from decades of abuse and poisoning that can't be magically cleaned out. Your advice on cancer only works to a degree on certain people. And why the degree, not known. For every success story I find as you mention, there are 1000'* that tell it differently) And many of them very close friends as I age. More and more in known about cancer everyday, but there is so much data that is still very limited in that it can be read and discerned so many ways.

Living life absorbed in nutrition and trying to replicate how other populations have made out, and thinking it will have major impact of your health after many years have gone by of self poisoning, is just IMO dumb. Is it Mona Vie? No. But it fits into the same category that drives people to get their share of the money generated by misleading and fueling a paranoia of it all.

Dr. Venom, you've got to read The China Study! It really does tell readers not to obey a certain diet, not to count vitamins and calories, overall not to do anything but to eat as anyone ever would. No vitamin pills, nothing more than just whatever you want to eat. No one wants you to eat like a rural Chinese dude. Everyone simply wants you to eat well. Eating well is easy, sort of, but you probably ought to have some meat since it'* so delicious.

It tells readers that there'* a difference between plant and meat proteins that at first lead early protein researchers to assume one needs meat-based proteins. In fact, knowing that the human body only needs 48.5 grams of high quality proteins per week, the USDA nevertheless initially encouraged 125g because they thought you can't have too much of a good thing.

A plant-oriented diet simply requires you to eat a large range of plants to fill the whole protein chemical requirement of the human body without ingesting all the needed protein at once. This slow but steady intake helps ensure that you don't have meat'* protein arrangements resting in cells where they can form enzymes to absorb and process toxins and push for the development of cancer cells. Also, not taking in all the necessary proteins all the time isn't harmful because the body has at least four synchronous backup systems to help keep all things in working order while live on to eat some different stuff another day.

Apparently, this all means you can take in all the nasty and unhealthy stuff that you want, as long as you don't eat meat or milk products, and you will only suffer from the fundamental side effects, like poisoning or death, but you won't have cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer'*, diabetes, etc. It'* a very good start. The forty years of Campbell'* nutrition experience lead him to say that although you should avoid poisoning yourself, you can at least avoid major catastrophes. Smoke, and you may get emphysema, but you will likely avoid cancer. Eat moldy peanuts, and you may get immediate side effects and possible brain damage, but you won't get liver cancer.

Also, this is awesome but almost entirely unrelated:
The Cranberry Scare of 1959

My Wife is the Doctor. LOL A Veterinarian but one one of her degree'* in the 8 years to get her license was in Nutrition (Not so LOL) . So I hear it all and understand, but don't agree with most. . Genetics, Eviroment, and level of exercise/activiyt IMO played larger roles. She herself eats a Levitical Diet and takes alot of Vits and Supplements. We don't share the shame opinions. I wasn't trying to dissect and deny the book as much as to show it to be as many things and points I made, just another book on the shelf interpreting data and developing a regimen. And data I see skewed by other data I know. This one just played a melody that sounds good to your ears.They all sound flat to me, not just this one.