Observation is not fact.
No, I want you to see that your absolute attitude is harmful because you promote your presentations as gospel. They used to say fat was bad for you as well with many studies to support that but over time we have learned different.
Again an opinion as well as a personal attack, Classy!
If you make a statement:
“animal protein does not cause cancer?”
That is your opinion?
Yet I have to be the one to provide the research to support something being observed and cross validated in the scientific community and you don’t?
When I make the statement:
“Animal protein causes cancer”
I can provide the reasons and cross-validated research as evidence yet you or Mark don’t or who ever?
Hmmmm?
Are you purposely trying to suppress information and valid risk factors and making decisions for other people without letting them decide for themselves what is valid or do you want to make decisions for them?
Let’s just believe your opinions are the only valid ones just disregard any opposing view; just because; no evidence needed because you are supreme beings above all lower class humans?
”Some pigs are more equal than other pigs?” - George Orwell’s Animal Farm
You mean like this research that supports something being observed and cross validated in the scientific community? Zöe Harcombe blows this bullshit out of the water.
… the research that claims:
• High protein intake is linked to increased cancer, diabetes, and overall mortality
• High IGF-1 levels increased the relationship between mortality and high protein
• Higher protein consumption may be protective for older adults
• Plant-derived proteins are associated with lower mortality than animal-derived proteins
Harcombe also notes that the lead researcher, Valter D. Longo declared interest in L-Nutra whose primary product is Prolon: an entirely plant based meal replacement product. In fact, Longo is the founder of L-Nutra. Who would be so cynical to think Longo just might have had motivation to skew things just a whee bit? This so-called research is just vegan propaganda to help sell a vegan product portrayed as real scientific research. With no fewer than 79 citations to make it look good.
Problem is Longo is not the only one who does IGF-1 research, there maybe be hundreds if not more unconnected research (paradox excluded; double cross-blind placebo etc.) that cross-validate the points on IGF-1 (it is the primary aging mechanism and the primary substance that promotes cancer proliferation), that is something no one can dispute not even Dr. Zoe. Also keep in mind Dr. Zoe is not talking about eating massive amounts of dietary fat and protein.
Folate is seemingly IGF-1 and 2’s off switch which has grabbed my attention recently.
How about this one that addresses issues near and dear to you particularly: colon biota and your all-time favorite miracle food, resistant starch. Longo had nothing to do with it.
This study looked at colon cancer and compared low-risk Native Africans eating a diet high in resistant starch to high-risk Americans, and found that the Americans had different bacterial fermentation byproducts in their colons. Because obviously the only difference between Africans on a traditional diet and Americans eating an industrial diet is animal protein.
But also the environment in which they live cannot be replicated in the microbiome of the gut.
I see nothing wrong with a resistant starch because it creates ketones in the gut which is more than a appropriate topic for a ketogenic forum and creates a thick mucosal and microbiome barrier to protect us the host from our environment including the food we put in it?
Ok, so I need to speak up a little because this thread and general attitude is very bothersome to me. I’m not a knight in shining armour, but this really rubs me the wrong way. Also, I apparently can’t make short posts.
Bunny is actually one of the very few people that made me want not only to really dive into the low-carb world, but also opened up my eyes about many, many interesting facts, starting with a fascination for everything microbiota related, to name only one of the various subjects she brought up. She is a trove of highly specific knowledge that almost no one on this forum can match. Her posts are sometimes intense, and she often references stuff that my yet-still-not-expanded enough English medical vocabulary has a hard time grasping (as a non native English speaker), but she does extensive research that is always backed up for anyone who’s interested. Her posts on this forum have been invaluable to me. I might not always get how she makes her conclusions, mostly because I don’t always have the capability of combing through every study she quotes (neither the time nor the medical know-how as stated earlier, though I’m getting better at it over time!), but I think she more than earned my trust on her critical mind, and I would be surprised if other people didn’t appreciate her contributions as much as I do. That doesn’t mean you have to agree on every data interpretation she makes, but systematically shutting her down because she doesn’t follow a specific dogma is pretty lame. I’m aware I’m not a representative of any group, but I, for one, am super thankful for her general contributions, which are amongst the rare ones I’m actually looking forward to read, and one of the reasons I actually registered on this forum.
That one made me laugh out loud, so thanks for that. For months now, Bunny has linked to a ton of studies. EVERY SINGLE TIME, people choose not to read them, and then ask for more proof, or decide the study will be bad without even clicking the link. Seriously. The website keeps count of how many people clicked on links. I can’t even tell how many times the ONLY click was… mine. So she advances theories based on actual research, and sure, you don’t have to care about said studies or think they’re legit for whatever reason, but pretending that she doesn’t provide any is ludicrous, and dismissing them without even looking at them is both pathetic and seriously hypocritical. No wonder she kind of gave up. Especially since a lot of people here have zero issue with weak studies that support their own beliefs. That’s dogma at its finest, and that is, in fact, something that turns people away. I long hesitated to register to the forums (even though I have been reading it for a year before I finally created an account) SPECIFICALLY because of the various members here who are not only very dogmatic, but base everything on their biases with a very very narrow mind. That just is ridiculous, especially on a forum that pretends to have the motto “show me the science”… “you know, if it backs up my already held convictions”. Like the great Georges Diggs says, you can’t be a good scientist if you can’t change your mind when new data is avalaible that contradicts what you held to be true (that guy’s awesome).
It’s also funny that many refuse to look at her studies on the basis that some might be biased ('cos the keto ones aren’t? mmmh ok then). There are some people in the low-carb community who have been talking about the danger of overeating protein for a while now. On the top of my head, I can think of someone like Dr. Rosedale who has some pretty interesting lectures on the subjects, some of which gasp even happened during low-carb conferences. As always, you don’t have to agree with everything someone presents, but appeal to authority isn’t stronger because it’s a loved character like Dr. Berry rather a less known one like Dr. Rosedale. Come on.
(Also a note on Zoe Harcombe who did a very nice conference on fiber being unnecessary, which was really cool until you realize she completely ignored the last 10 years on research on the microbiota. Just saying.)
No. Just no. Of all the forum members, Bunny has been the subject of more personal attacks than pretty much anyone else. A lot of them from posters on this thread. I mean, some people have even created whole threads that could be renamed “I hate Bunny’s theories let’s shred them together please”. This is ridiculous. Some people go on threads just to snap at her even if they have literally nothing to say on the actual thread subject, they just want to show how much they don’t like her. I do not understand why she’s still a member of this community. If I were in her shoes, I’d have left a long time ago, laughing all the way about the ignorance of fools, but that’s just how I react to things. The fact that she is still here, still sharing her knowledge, and still taking the time to actually answer people’s question is pretty astonihing to me, and I’m grateful for that. But trying to reverse roles, that’s low. Disagreeing is one thing, pretending she’s somehow the one being hostile is frankly disingenuous. If you were being poked with sticks every time you open your mouth, you might lose patience and tell people to stop. That wouldn’t make you the bad one.
Now overall I do think having many different voices and opinions is super important. It enables ones to make better choices by looking at the pros and cons of various arguments, by researching subject matters, by broadening one’s mind. But that only works when people are not super dogmatic about their beliefs, and there is seriously a LOT of that in the low-carb community. I have no problem with someone telling me they’re vegan, but I do have a problem with the one telling me I should be one too and trying to make me see the light of their way. Same goes for keto. Some people in this community can be incredibly narrow-minded, it’s like the moment they understood fat is good and carbs should be reduced, they now feel like they’re holding the ONE TRUE WAY OF EATING and anything that disputes that is the devil’s work and should be ridiculed, dismissed, avoided and shunned. Carnivores can be especially bad at that, though of course not all of them, and of course not the only ones. I mean, I met a woman who was shocked to see me eat a square of 90% dark chocolate because there is technically sugar in it so that couldn’t possibly be keto. They’re everywhere, oh my!
So yeah, I’m sorry it took so long to write (and read, probably, though I doubt many did) but this is something that has been annoying me for a while and I felt like I had to speak up. I post once in a blue moon anyway, I guess it’s time for me to retreat to my cat cave.
The poster making the claims has to back them up, or they’re making wild assertions.
And by “back them up” I don’t mean post the top 20 links from Google repeatedly. (Although, as we can see above, this clearly works on other posters.)
Sorry but have to respond…
The reason Bunny doesn’t post the study that shows that eating animal protein is a “cause” of cancer is because it is a completely unproven theory.
Where you say in your post
I agree but when opinions are stated as '“FACTS” when in truth they are opinions and theories then this has to be pointed out.
If Bunny expressed these things clearly I’d have zero problem with whatever she comes out with.
Does that make my position any clearer? The language people use is incredibly important here.
@Choupette
If you read my previous posts again you will notice that I never once disagreed with what she was saying but only how she was saying it. I even explained that my problem was her presentation, not theory. She was the one that felt the need to categorize me.
If this is not a personal attack then what would class it as?
“And of course you will purposely ignore anything that does not agree with what you may have been mislead to believe because your emotional issues over-ride your common sensibilities which are most likely devotional rather than based on your own common senses; that’s when it’s time for a reality check?”
And telling us that by choosing to eat protein is cannibalizing our body isn’t doing exactly what you described here?
You must not read anything? I have posted the research around ten times or more than several times directly for you and you refuse to read it?
And you are completely wrong it is a proven fact.
How can anyone believe anything you say?
Shakes head in disbelief!
You do the same thing every time this is discussed, I post the information and you don’t read it and then you disappear and never respond?
I understand that a base to the scientific method is a version of this statement.
A person makes an observation of a phenomenon.
For example, animal protein seems to cause cancer.
They form a hypothesis; animal protein in the human diet causes cancer of type X. (It is a more definitive statement).
The hypothesis remains as a hypothesis until the person, let’s call them a scientist or investigator, until they exhaust all their mental capacity and the data from testing to disprove the hypothesis. From initial observation and epidemiology, the process moves toward identifying a possible mechanism. Then through the various experimental levels of: computer model, cell culture, tissue culture, animal model, and human testing.
If the hypothesis remains despite trying to disprove it, it becomes a contemporary truth. A truth being a belief. And then over time and further experimentation and improvements in measurement technologies, that truth may be shown to be a fact.
So in the investigator’s mind the theory could be a truth until disproved. It is the method to take a hypothesis and then take all the steps necessary to disprove it.
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Albert Einstein (attrib)
Science is a process, and it’s a very specific process:
- You observe something and wonder how it works.
- You formulate a hypothesis, typically a theory that could explain how the thing works. The theory must be able to make predictions that can be observed and potentially falsify your theory.
- You devise experiments in an attempt to see if the predictions actually turn out to be true.
Any theory should be able to be falsified with a single experiment. If it can’t be falsified, it’s not science (read Karl Popper if you’re interested in looking in more detail). Any experiment that demonstrates that light travels at more than 300,000 kps, or isn’t bent by gravitational fields, or any myriad of other predictions from Einstein’s theory would disprove the theory. No theory can be proven in science, it’s simply that as more and more experiments verify the predictions of the theory, it becomes increasingly likely to be true.
That’s just what science is. Only priests, prophets and populists deal in certitudes, scientists deal in probabilities and always seek to refine our knowledge.
Kevin Dolgin, Associate Professor at Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (2006-present)
Source
No matter how much you try to isolate any specific test of any nutritional hypothesis you can not eliminate confounding factors. Human beings do not live in test tubes where anything not related to the specific test can be excluded. As I noted earlier any hypothesis contra eating animal protein and/or fat faces 3+ million years of human evolution during which animal protein and fat were the primary, if not exclusive, sources of nourishment. If they really cause serious problems, we would have gone extinct long ago.
That you haven’t republished the link here for everyone else involved to read (most out of character for you) tells me quite a lot…
Goodbye.
The problem? You may not know what your looking for?
When you don’t know what your looking for, you will start disregarding anything you don’t understand because: so and so with the fancy PhD or MD behind their name said that it does not cause cancer?
Really?
Confounding Factors (as you state): Resistant Starch prevents (does the polar opposite) colorectal cancer-promoting miRNAs that can come from eating only meat, the two go hand in hand and folate (…and it’s relation to IGF-1) may have some interaction in this also.
When your mucosal barrier starts to thin out from only eating meat you are basically defenseless against cancer and other infections or your own pathogens in your own microbiome from mouth to rectum? Carnivorous animals have a highly acidic intestinal tract are not comparative to a humans need for cooked meat but for eating raw meat and do exactly the opposite when fed carbohydrates they get cancer.
[1] ”…“Red meat and resistant starch have opposite effects on the colorectal cancer-promoting miRNAs, the miR-17-92 cluster,” said Karen J. Humphreys, PhD, a research associate at the Flinders Center for Innovation in Cancer at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia. “This finding supports consumption of resistant starch as a means of reducing the risk associated with a high red meat diet.” …” …More
[2] “…MicroRNAs (miRNAs) encoded by the miR - 17 - 92 cluster and its paralogs are known to act as oncogenes. Expression of these miRNAs promotes cell proliferation, suppresses apoptosis of cancer cells, and induces tumor angiogenesis. …” …More
[4] Silencing of the miR-17∼92 Cluster Family Inhibits Medulloblastoma Progression
[5] “…One of the largest ones is miR - 17 - 92 cluster known as OncomiR-1 due to its strong link to oncogenesis. Six miRNAs from the OncomiR-1 have been shown to play important roles in various physiological cellular processes but also through inhibition of cell death in many cancer -relevant processes. …” …More
As I’m going to note here: That is why they had such short life spans if there was ”exclusive” and ”primary” eating of meat as you say. Absolutely 0 evidence of that.
3+ million years? The earth is no where close to being that old so where would you get such ridiculous numbers?
How old is it then? You going to go with the Bible that says the Earth has only been spinning for 5½ thousand years?
Backforming datapoints out of whole cloth to support your hypothesis.
