Slashdot Mirror

I published a study last year with Harvard and CDC looking at exactly the data you suggest. See the link below.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/79/5/774

Many forms of cancers are caused by eating animal protein. Which is why every study I have seen on diet and cancer showed that reducing your intake of animal protein lowers your risk of cancer, especially cancer of the abdominal organs and digestive tract. A place to start looking:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/48/3/739

"Hayden (3) stated that hunter-gatherers such as the !Kung might live in conditions close to the "ideal" hunting and gathering environment. What do the !Kung eat? Animal foods are estimated to contribute 33% and plant foods 67% of their daily energy intakes" Hunter-gatherer Dites--A Different Perspective

I don't know about the Neural Feedback Training, but I'd suggest finding an alternative to Ritalin ASAP.

There are many studies out there about the inefficient conversion of ALA To EPA and DHA in people with ADHD, leading me to believe that pumping your kid full of stimulants is a (very) wrong answer.

Try Mercola.com, which has some very informative articles on ADHD. As a start, make sure your kid isn't having a lot of sugar and caffeine (ie drinking fruit juices and soda).

There is not a single clinical study that demonstrates a link between increased red meat consumption and increased heart disease.

You may find these studies interesting.

Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies

Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists

Prospective study of major dietary patterns and risk of coronary heart disease in men

(Links are abstracts, with full texts linked within)

There is not a single clinical study that demonstrates a link between increased red meat consumption and increased heart disease.

You may find these studies interesting.

Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies

Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists

Prospective study of major dietary patterns and risk of coronary heart disease in men

(Links are abstracts, with full texts linked within)

There is not a single clinical study that demonstrates a link between increased red meat consumption and increased heart disease.

You may find these studies interesting.

Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies

Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists

Prospective study of major dietary patterns and risk of coronary heart disease in men

(Links are abstracts, with full texts linked within)

4. Some of the substantiations, such as that claiming that one's body sees all carbohydrates as sugars (page 5), is imprecise

Umm, so what? There's a world of difference between being imprecise and being fundamentally incorrect. Sure insoluble fiber is a carb and doesn't get seen by the body as anything. Oligosacharrides and some other carb molecules are digested very slowly, only with the help of bacteria or not at all. Ordinary dietary carbs (the ones ordinary people think of as carbs) are, in fact, all seen by the body as sugars. The article's in the NYT for chrissakes not in the AJCN!

6. This quote is especially choice: "...the public-health authorities may indeed have a problem on their hands. Once they took their leap of faith and settled on the low-fat dietary dogma 25 years ago, they left little room for contradictory evidence or a change of opinion, should such a change be necessary to keep up with the science" (page 7). It only seems like "contradictory evidence or a change of opinion" if you're outside the research community. This is one research community that is not monolithic

That's not even a point. The author wasn't referring to the research community so it doesn't matter that the research community isn't monolithic. The author specifically referred to "public-health authorities." If that were the same as the research community, there probably wouldn't be a problem. As it stands however, public-health authorities refers to the decidedly non-scientific people making public-health policy choices in a non-scientific fashion.