Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 19 Oct 1998 04:49:22 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Kent Multer wrote:
> I'm glad this subject has come up, because it's been on my mind; "meat
> causes colon cancer" is in the Top 10 List of objections that people raise
> to the paleo diet.
> One other possible defense is a "cost-benefit analysis" approach: if you
> don't eat meat, you have to get your protein from somewhere else, such as
> grains, which is even more carcinogenic. Any thoughts on this?
I'm worried that it isn't much of a defense, for a couple of reasons. First,
you'd have to present your evidence that grains are more carcinogenic than
meat. Talk of fungi on corn is one thing, but I'm sure the hypothetical
paleo-critic will want you to point to some studies, clinical or
epidemiological, to support the contention.
The second (maybe more damaging) reason is that the paleo-critic can
always sidestep the entire grains issue by saying they get enough
protein from nuts and legumes. My impression is that whatever evidence
you can muster that grains cause cancer, there will be less that legumes
do. I can't remember ever hearing of any.
|
|
|