Re: Re: Fwd: Soy article talks back to critics Sally Fallon and G. Enig

[Guest guest]

--- L <lierrekeith@...> wrote:

> Have any of the rest of you

> read

> this? It's loaded with medical studies etc.

I just read it, thanks for the link. The studies he

cites appear to be all the same old standards used to

promote the so-called " heart healthy " diet that's so

politically correct, as well as the cancer-related

studies sponsored by the same groups - lots of

problems with those studies for a variety of reasons.

And Mr. Robbins also seems to have swallowed the lipid

hypothesis hook, line and sinker. Some of the studies

he mentions in this article are analyzed in the book

The Cholesterol Myths, where the author demonstrates

how twisted and distorted the actual data obtained in

those studies becomes when it's presented to the

public in order to support the lipid hypothesis, even

if the raw data show nothing like the supposed

conclusions. Everyone should read that book, it gives

you a whole new perspective when reading about the

kind of studies Robbins refers to.

> Hard not

> to get confused but in the end,

Yes, it is hard to have some sense of clarity about

what really is healthy food, but the more I read on

all sides of the issue, the more convinced I am that a

diet along the lines of NT is more healthy and natural

than the food pyramid type or vegetarian/vegan.

Nothing I've read seems flawless, and I rely a great

deal on my instinct, but studying all the various diet

opinions helps me to decipher articles like this one

by Robbins, pick out the holes in it, and feel more

confident in my own dietary choices.

Aubin

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

12/26/2001 2:37:40 PM, " soilfertility " <ynos@...> wrote:

>Elsewhere Albrecht points out that soybeans will produce a crop in

>low soil fertility where other legumes fail. This is good for the

>farmer. Farmers are interested in producing maximum yield.

>Nutritional value is of no interest to them as long as yields are

>maintained.

Chi, your statement is true only for those farmers who sell off what they grow.

They

know that people understand squat about quality and will eat anything they find

in market.

However, many farmers " feedback " what they grow to their livestock and must

concern themselves that the feed is not just empty calories, but actually has

minimal

nutritional quality. They can't afford the vet bills that must come with

feeding back ersatz

grains and hay. Those farmers are very, very concerned about quality.

It's a shame that people aren't quite as smart as quality-seeking animals and

will

eat anything the sellers sell with nary a care about what the food ultimately

does to them.

All these nutrition forums make me think of structual engineers arguing over

stress, design,

and construction techniques of some fancy building even as the structure

collapses because

they failed to notice that the materials they utilized were soft mud, rotten

lumber, and flimsy

tin instead of solid concrete, heavy timbers, and rigid steel.

>Your vegan friend may be concerned with what you eat. Perhaps you

>could suggest that your vegan friend become more concerned with what

>he or she eats and the soil fertility that created it. You can tell

>your friend not to expect that any of the vegen food he or she eats

>was grown for nutritional value. Hopefully that will concern he or

>she more than what you are eating.

Good advice. Keep it up.

Regards,

Rex Harrill