Wrong. Did you even read any of Walfords works? The day 1 menu (page 292 in my copy) of the CRON diet from the Walford book Beyond the 120 Year Diet contains the following: muffins, yogurt, strawberries (fresh or frozen), corn, lima beans, bacon, kale, okra, whole-wheat bread, sweet potato, broccoli, green salad (a lot!), grape juice and an orange. You might notice that another variant of the CRON diet is ETL (Eat To Live) which is basically vegan. It is built on a scientific foundation quoting several thousands of peer-reviewed papers. The CR diet is just that: less calories. To avoid having to eat too many supplements, the food has to have a high nutrient density (nutrients per calorie). With other words, a lot of veggies and fruit.
Wrong. All of the following is quoted from here: Foods that provide substantial protection against diabetes: ⢠Green, leafy vegetables. Pooled data from four studies determined that eating 1.35 servings (about 3.5 cups of raw greens) of green leafy vegetables vs. 0.2 servings or less per day provided a 14% decrease in diabetes risk ⢠Beans. Beans are high-nutrient, high-fiber, and low-calorie. They are digested slowly which induces satiety and stabilizes blood glucose. Therefore, beans are the most appropriate source of carbohydrate for diabetics. A study on 64,000 women followed for 4 years found that high intake of legumes were associated with a 38% decreased risk of diabetes. ⢠Nuts and seeds. An inverse relationship between nut consumption and diabetes was reported in the Nursesâ Health Study â 5 servings of nuts per week was associated with a 27% decrease in risk. ⢠Fresh fruit. Adding three servings of fresh fruit per day to oneâs diet can decrease diabetes risk by up to 18%. (Note that those who already have diabetes should limit fresh fruit and focus on low sugar fruits) Carter, P., et al., Fruit and vegetable intake and incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bmj, 2010. 341: p. c4229. Villegas, R., et al., Legume and soy food intake and the incidence of type 2 diabetes in the Shanghai Women's Health Study. Am J Clin Nutr, 2008. 87(1): p. 162-7. Jiang, R., et al., Nut and peanut butter consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes in women. JAMA, 2002. 288(20): p. 2554-60. Bazzano, L.A., et al., Intake of Fruit, Vegetables, and Fruit Juices and Risk of Diabetes in Women. Diabetes Care, 2008. 31(7): p. 1311-1317. Plant foods are high in antioxidants and fiber and have low glycemic load, characteristics that make them effective at preventing and reversing diabetes. Jenkins, D.J., et al., Type 2 diabetes and the vegetarian diet. Am J Clin Nutr, 2003. 78(3 Suppl): p. 610S-616S. Nicholson, A.S., et al., Toward improved management of NIDDM: A randomized, controlled, pilot intervention using a lowfat, vegetarian diet. Prev Med, 1999. 29(2): p. 87-91.
Well, now that's a valid reason to eat a certain way. Anyone who believes the common nutritional mythology fed to you by the meat, dairy and junk food industries has swallowed such huge lies hook line and sinker. One of my favorites is the myth that the amount of calcium consumed positively affects bone health and cow's milk builds strong bones and reduces fractures. And you haven't yet answered my simple question. Have you read the entire book "The China Study" (or the entire Cornell Project study itself)? Or have you been researching what others have said about it and posting that stuff here? Just be honest, you've either read the entire book or you haven't. Of course he'd say that! He's a scientist and a good one. A solid researcher would never say that correlation = causation. We've been over this whole thing a couple times now. It's illegal to feed humans high levels of carcinogens for the purpose of a study. Therefore, the powerful study out of India in which the children on the high animal protein diet were getting liver cancer, followed by the experiments Dr. Campbell conducted in the lab, led the research crew to embark on the epidemiological study of the effects of diet on rates of disease. You have the whole thing backwards! Casein wasn't known to be tumor promoting at all until AFTER Dr. Campbell's studies revealed its effects! I would guess the reason casein was used as the representative animal protein in that group of animals was because rats and mice are mainly herbivores and rather than feed them animal flesh which they'd likely not eat, the researchers chose casein, easily blended into chow for the purpose of the studies. Again, casein was thought to be a perfectly "safe" form of animal protein. Remember, at this point Dr. Campbell had only stumbled across an obscure study out of India in which children consuming an animal rich "western style" diet got a lot more liver cancer. He couldn't believe it because he was studying ways to make animal protein more readily available to poor children in developing nations. He believed animal protein was the best quality protein available. This obscure studied baffled him and led him to perform the further studies in the lab. So the aflatoxin was the powerful carcinogen and the diets various groups of animals received were high and low plant protein groups, and high and low animal protein groups. The casein used was never suspected of being dangerous in any way at the time of the studies. The results were so astounding it led the researchers to look into correlation between disease and diet in a very large population (China) where there were distinct subgroups who ate very differently from each other. Protein consumption above 10% (the amount necessary for proper growth and muscle repair) increased development of foci (precancerous cell clusters) significantly, from a level of 10 to a level of almost 90 once protein consumption was 20% of the diet. However, only the casein caused this huge increase at the 20% levels; 20% gluten protein had a negligible effect. The studies then focused on actual tumor formation and all animals fed the 20% animal protein diet were dead or near death from liver tumors by 100 weeks. The animals fed the same levels of aflatoxin, but on the 5% protein diet were alive and well. "This was a virtual 100 to 0 score, something almost never seen in research and almost identical to the original research in India." This was a 100-week study, by the way, not something thrown together to create a publishable abstract beneficial to a for-profit food or pharmaceutical company. On a separate note, I'm certain wheat consumption does correlate to heart disease in developed nations; most of our wheat consumption occurs in refined form and in foods heavily laden with sugar and fat. "Various studies show that mortality rates were 17 to 43 percent lower for individuals who consume one or more servings of whole grain per day versus those that ate few or no servings of whole grain. Whole grains can claim a wide array of health benefits that other foods cannot. Studies have shown that people who eat whole grains have lower body mass index, lower cholesterol and lower waist to hip ratios. Large epidemiological studies have shown that people who eat three servings of grain reduce their risk of heart disease ( 25-36%0, stroke (37%), Type II diabetes (21-27%), digestive system cancers (21-43%) , and hormone ârelated cancers (10 â 40%). The American Heart Association, Dietary guidelines for Americans and Healthy People 2010 all recommend three servings of whole grains daily. Yet the average American eats less than one serving per day and 30% of Americans never eat whole grains. Fewer than 10% of Americans get the three recommended servings per day."
Are you refuting the biochemical process (Maillard's Reaction) FACT known as GLYCATION? Whereby: Sugar + Protein = Glycated Protein (cellular (tissue/skin/organs/neurons destruction) More carbs/sugar you consume = more GLYCVATION. Multiply by billions of cells destroyed everyday, multiply by years & years = massive accumulated destruction Give me facts - NOT meaningless subjective hearsay BS Oh wait - you probably believe in creatiionism too (like many veggies), how man was created just 4000 yrs ago...complete with agricultural farming for the 'natural' plant eaters. Plus ready-made supplements for B12 vitamins.. And that they would make clothes out of cow skin (shoes & clothing) BUT threw away the tasty meat/fat when food was scarce, well, because they were eco friendly, ethical, PC-correct, veggie plant eaters...NOT LOL ps. Anyone who doesn't know what 'outlier' means, their argument should be dismissed. Outlier = Exception And yeah, close up, she DOES look 50+ Just that she has a young hairstyle. But the EYES from a distance, straight off, give it away (Ptosis = drooping lateral eyelids) If she restricted the carbs, she WOULD look better. Why? Less cellular damage due to GLYCATION (it's not just the OUTSIDE - but the inside, which you can't see)
The benefits you're talking about come from eating fiber. It doesn't have to come from grains. There are many ways to get fiber other than grains. Lots of raw fresh fruits and vegetables will give you the same results. It's the fiber that counts, not the grains.
Links to peer-reviewed studies supporting a whole foods plants based diet have been posted in this thread. Several studies also support the interesting fact that the diet can cure diabetes. I haven't seen you refer to any papers that support your claim that carbohydrates equals more glycation. Would you please post a few links so that we can read up on it? And by the way, the lady in the interview is not just 50+, she's 71 in that clip.
NO. I don't believe that shit. All written by doctors who just take the "textbook" solution to diet (all 20 hrs study). Nowadays first thing they do is prescribe medication And shiity advice: mopre fruit, more starchs, more complec carbs (which all serve to aggravte ie elevate blood sugar) Check the $30 blood glucose meter. It doesn't lie. No subjective BS of "good" or "bad" carbs Doesn't distinguish between 'complex' carbs or 'refiined' carbs. It's all sugar. Just a reading on the meter. How high, how low. I would rather listen to a doctor who is ACTUALLY diabetic. Dr Richard Bernstein is the authority (actually diabetic & has lived 60 yrs so far by controlling his blood sugar = restrict carbs) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_K._Bernstein My First 50 Years As a Diabetic - Secrets to normal blood sugar Do you think as a DIABETIC this guy fucks around in trying faddy INCORRECT, DANGEROUS high carb diets?! This guy has lived 60 YEARS as a diabetic. He tried all the shitty 'textbook' advice (more complex carbs, more fruit) which made it worse, then went low carb + CONTROLLING his blood sugar via insulin. And has now lived 60 yrs with no more complications If you know nothing about insulin, daibetes & biochemistry,hormones, I suggest you GTFO Hilarious how all these pricks are suddenly experts on diabetes & insulin when all they do is link to a few misinformed artcles. Especially when they hadn't even HEARD about GLYCATION or know about the importance of keeping blood sugar low! ps. As for your "is just less calories" BS It must come from somewhere: carbs, protein, fat. And this goon, is arguing diabetes, insulin & hormones...? WTF? You have a thing between your ears...learn how to use it.
Excellent choice. Grains: wheat, bread, pasta, rice etc are all imflammatory & raise blood sugar. Although many fruits such a oranges, peaches are full of fructose. The anti-oxidation effects are overrated. Vitamin you can get more from a pill. All they do is raise the blood sugar levels There is NOTHING good about elevated Blood Glucose levels. NOTHING. (even veggies agree on this) Keeping the blood sugar low is the key Means less insulin, less adrenaline, less cortisol surging around the body And less GLYCATION I would rather listen to a doctor who is ACTUALLY diabetic than a few idiot armchair experts who all of a sudden know all about diabetes, insulin, endocinology. Dr Richard Bernstein is the authority (actually diabetic & has lived 60 yrs so far by controlling his blood sugar = restrict carbs) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_K._Bernstein My First 50 Years As a Diabetic - Secrets to normal blood sugar Do you think as a DIABETIC this guy fucks around in trying faddy INCORRECT, DANGEROUS (to a diabetic) high carb diets?! (all outdated 'textbook' advise from non diabetics) This guy has lived 60 YEARS as a diabetic since age 12...still living at 77 And far exceeds the lifespan of most diabetics. He knows what works He tried all the shitty 'textbook' advice (more complex carbs, more fruit) which made it worse (elevates blood glucose He then restricted carbs + CONTROLLING his blood sugar via insulin. And has now lived 60 yrs with no more complications
http://www.orthomolecular.org/nutrients/proteins.shtml these essential things are needed to operate the body,there is a lot more to carbs than conversion to sugar,if you take out meat,your still left with most of the nutrients,if you take out everything but the meat,your left with a trace of the nutrients,so running bare,i can see your push for meat,but carbs =sugar=bad= plain stupid...if you notice how often beans are mentioned, a steady diet of these breaks down cholesterol ,tryglycerides ,which coat your cell receptors,causing the pancreas to make more insulin because it's not being absorbed
^^^ Minimal effect It's like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic Better not to get on the Titanic in the first place ie. don't consume carbs/sugar which raise the blood glucose over many years which is what accelerates or "wears out" the pancreas and/or cause insulin resistance (What are the benefits of elevated Blood Glucose? NONE) Look, no-one is claiming meat/animal fat has no drawbacks BUT consuming carbs => GLYCATION (cell destruction) + elevate insulin + cortisol + adrenaline is FAR FAR WORSE Now, try to keep up: what do you know about GLYCATION? ps. it's clear the extent of you 'knowledge' extends to doing a quick Google search This topic is not your forte, other than casting your vote for the veggies. Improve your "awesome" post count elsewhere where you may be more useful