There is indeed some good information on the sites, although I cannot totally buy into their bias against consuming any meat, animal fats or cholesterol.
Personally I think that a mostly vegetarian mostly raw diet is the healthiest, and is an essential tool to use in fighting cancer and other serious conditions. On the other hand, I have found nothing that convinces me that an only vegetarian diet is the healthiest for most people and I note that the longest lived and healthiest groups of peoples in the world ALL consume at least some meat and/or fish in their diets.
I also believe the while T. Colin Campbell's book itself (The China Study) has quite a bit of good information, it is also flawed in many respects and Campbell jumps to conclusions to support his personal bias that are not supported by actual facts or even his own observations.
Not to mention that his conclusions fly in the face of millions of years of prior life on this planet (whether you call it evolution or adaption or whatever).
Just my two cents.
See also:
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Campbell-Masterjohn.html
I thought that was a great post! Added to my favourites to digest fully later, but in the meantime:
"I think the best course of action to take, for anyone is to eat as high quality, local, and in season as possible, with an emphasis on green vegetables, fruits, seeds, nuts and animal proteins."
Where do you live? The reason I ask is that if you choose to go raw, ideally you would eat in season, high quality, local foods primarily. No out of season foods... if the food is "imported", you would want to purchase the foods that were grown in a similar seasonal climate as yours."
I agree completely. I live in London, sadly all I have in my area is concrete. And people keep putting more concrete down. However I have a garden, and may start growing my own. I have also looked up what foods our ancestors ate, and one of them is kale http://www.eattheseasons.co.uk/Archive/kale.htm - this comes out top of the list in Fuhrmans nutritional chart (collards also scores very high but we don't have collards in the UK - so kale is for me). However the UK is quite small and you could walk it in a couple of weeks, so I guess any UK food is OK.
"I like to read and look at the work from about 200 years ago, up through the Preston works, and then into the 70's and 80's. I especially enjoy reading 1800's traditional diets that include the consumption of specific foods based upon gender (one better for man, another better for woman) AND then when food choices were also dependent upon whether a woman was pre-pregnancy (some cultures prepared a woman for pregnancy with emphasis on nutrient dense dietary practices), pregnant and then nursing... fascinating reads."
I think in those days people really knew what they were doing, and the knowledge was passed on by generation. Now we but stuff from supermarkets. frozen, canned, processed, often made in the most artificial ways. It has all been lost. There is a huge difference in the taste of a home grown tomato and a shop bought one.
"I "like" the idea of a nutritarian, and believe this is what I am and strive for..."
I was thinking all through your post, "you ARE a nutritarian!" - I am glad you agree, ha ha! And thanks for the tips.
The other thing that springs to mind is that now we can have somenoe from tropical region A flying to temperate region B and marrying someone with a different skin colour from a completely different region C. They might even marry and havekids in region D. This never happened in ancient times, or throughout our long evolution. What is local food or best food for them - and their kids???
Personally I don't buy that guy (Chris Masterjohn),
That's OK, personally I don't buy Campbell either. I think he set out with a bias and proceeded to pick and choose and manipulate his data to match his preconceptions.
Though I already posted the link, here is Masgterjohn's rebuttal to Campbell's rebuttal:
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Campbell-Masterjohn.html
And BTW, Sally Fallon being an officer with Weston Price does not in any way negate her credentials or the validity of her work, the same as is true of her colleage Mary Enig. Neither does T. Campbell being a vegetarian negate his credentials or the validity of his work.
It is the scientific validity or lack thereof which establishes the validity of the work of all three. In the case of Campbell, although his book contains some solid work, I perceive a distinct lack of solid science in the way he conducted his study and the way he supported his conclusions.
Don't get me wrong - as I stated before, I think a mostly raw, mostly vegetable, nuts, seeds, tumors and fruits diet just like our ancestors ate is the best. Just like our ancestors also ate for hundreds of thousands of year, it is also healthiest to consume some fresh non-farm raised fish and free range meat that has not been contaminated by man's pesticides, herbicides, growth hormones, antibiotics and other contaminants and artificial feed.
If a person knows what they are doing and both plan and supplement carefully it is possible to be very healthy with a vegan diet. In the real world, some of the unhealthiest people around are vegans who are not planning and supplementing well but rather just eating plants because they think it is the right thing to do, and as a result they have poor overall nutrition, poor health and are often courting serious long term consequences.
Such vegans may be eating a healthier diet than the SADS diet, but it is a joke when they preach about the health benefits of not eating any meat when they clearly have so little idea about what they are doing other than avoiding meat.
Grzbear's posts were both excellent.
Tony