Thanks for the link Sandy.
(http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/4/940)
Working with just the abstract above, it is difficult to guess what
might be in the full paper. However, since the authors have, according
to the abstract, extrapolated, assumed, and estimated, there may be
little reason to be shy about countering their stated position as it
appears in the abstract:
As one of a number of other research groups who have looked at this
issue in some depth, Hunt et al, after a careful study of data drawn
from a randomized, crossover, controlled feeding study state: "Under
practical dietary conditions, increased dietary protein from animal
sources was not detrimental to calcium balance or short-term indicators
of bone health." Am J Clin Nutr 2009;89:1357–65.
Strohle et al have conducted several studies of apparently similar
design, with very similar results. It appears that their strategy is to
repeat the same statement so many times that it becomes accepted as
truth. The strategy makes sense. It has worked for pharmaceutical
companies on their serum cholesterol scam, the manufacturers of sun
screen, and for agribusiness as they have shifted our eating habits to
current self-destructive practices through touting grains, dairy, soy,
etc. as healthy foods while denigrating meats and fats.
I don't know which is worse, the researchers that shill for these
vested-interest groups, or the gullible sheep who, despite years of
education in physiology and biology, and without a moment's critical
thought, accept such claims at face value and visit derivative faulty
information on their customers/clients/patients.
End of rant.
--
PK
|