I don't know where they would get off calling the women who ate less protein according to an interview "vegan." I suspect that they targeted vegan participants and simply did not have the sense to explain it in the article.
This bit, though:
Quote:
"The current model predicts increased bone resorption for people who consume large amounts of animal protein, so it was somewhat surprising that bone resorption was the same for both groups of our volunteers," Van Loan notes.
Second, bone formation was significantly less in omnivore women than in vegan women. This happened even though the omnivore women had a higher calcium intake than did the vegan volunteers. (The volunteers did not differ in their intake of other nutrients that affect bone health, such as magnesium.)
|
Seems fairly factual though. Now, we all know how Maters/PhD "research" happens, and Bungleau is right, but why are we jumping all over this.
Is it that IWF-ers (unlike normal F-ers
) will always doubt anything posted and attack it, or is it that the underlying concept, i.e. that there may be some drawbacks to eating 2 lbs. of meat thrice daily and that you ought balance your diet, offends you? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]
Meat used to be a luxury on this planet. It is only in the last half-century or so that it has become a staple of every single meal. Yet, our bodies have changed none. So, is it not fair to investigate possible effects of this dietary transformation?