A Recipe For Longevity: 33 Of The Healthiest Foods On Earth

Data were from the Fukuoka Colorectal Cancer Study, a population-based case-control study, covering 782 cases and 793 controls. Diet was assessed by interview, using newly developed personal-computer software for registering semiquantitative food frequencies. The intake of beef/pork, processed meat, total fat, saturated fat or n-6 PUFA showed no clear association with the overall or subsite-specific risk of colorectal cancer.

mdconsult.com< br />

Although this is a case-controlled epidemiological study, it just goes to show that recent studies demonstrate no correlation between meat consumption and colorectal cancer, contrary to the outdated studies you have provided.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by DevolutionEvolvd]

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


Looks like the evidence for either side of the argument is inconclusive. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this matter. You can decide your diet and I will decide mine. But I have to go by what I learned in school and what the ADA requires of me for the time being.

As a registered dietitian I am required to recommend and treat based on what I have learned while being educated at the college level in nutrition and high level sciences. The information and data to back current healthy guidelines is what is being taught to the medical and nutrition communities at the collegiate level and this is what I am required to use.

Until further solid research is found to refute the current practices and guidelines, I will continue to follow the established data.

Regards.

reply to post by iamcamouflage


Agreed(on disagreeing, that is)!

I respect your viewpoints and your decision and I admire your RD certification as I am in the process of finishing school to follow in your footsteps, so to speak. Although, the ADA is not for me.

No offense, but everything about it, as indicated by it's sponsors, is nothing but.....well.....Dr. Jonny Bowden sums it up nicely.....

www.jonnybowden.com... n.html

The American Dietetic Association's latest foray into politics- one of many you never hear about- is to bombard state representatives in Wisconsin to pass a bill licensing who can provide nutrition advice. "While at first it may sound like a noble objective under the premise of "consumer protection" what it actually does is make it a crime for practicing naturopaths, nutritionists, nutrition consultants, Ayurvedic practitioners, and others to offer nutrition advice" writes my friend Wisconsin nutritionist Bernard Rosen, PhD.

The American Dietetic Association has tried this before in other states. Their goal has been to keep anyone without their "Registered Dietitian" credential from being a recognized expert in the field of eating and nutrition. That would eliminate PhD's, MDs with a nutritional background, NDs, CNS's and CCNs. (By the way- I'd love to see the average RD pass the CNS exam. Typical CNS exam question: "The product of enterokinase reactions is:......". Typical RD exam question: "What are the ingredients in a lemon meringue pie?")

Yes, the folks who gave you hospital food (white bread and jello as the perfect recovery meal), who think you can "get all you need from food" and don't need supplements, who think that a diet of 70% carbs is ideal, should be the only ones who are considered responsible sources of nutrition advice.

You may think it's all pretty silly, but virtually every magazine editor in America still thinks that the only way to get the "real" story when it comes to nutrition information is to interview an "official spokesperson from the American Dietetic Association".

That's like getting the "real" story on the Iraq war from the Taliban.

Obviously, as you have shown in this thread, not all RD's are the same. I think you're a smart guy/girl, probably smarter than I, and I completely understand your position. I'll keep eating the way I do and if evidence comes along that dismantles my nutritional standards I'll gladly accept the new.

C.N.S.-Certified Nutritional Specialist, that's what I'm going for.

For what it's worth, this has been a good discussion. Even if it's been a little off topic.

Let's be friends.......

-Dev

[edit on 27-5-2009 by DevolutionEvolvd]

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by iamcamouflage

 

Agreed(on disagreeing, that is)!

I respect your viewpoints and your decision and I admire your RD certification as I am in the process of finishing school to follow in your footsteps, so to speak. Although, the ADA is not for me.

No offense, but everything about it, as indicated by it's sponsors, is nothing but.....well.....Dr. Jonny Bowden sums it up nicely.....

www.jonnybowden.com... n.html

The American Dietetic Association's latest foray into politics- one of many you never hear about- is to bombard state representatives in Wisconsin to pass a bill licensing who can provide nutrition advice. "While at first it may sound like a noble objective under the premise of "consumer protection" what it actually does is make it a crime for practicing naturopaths, nutritionists, nutrition consultants, Ayurvedic practitioners, and others to offer nutrition advice" writes my friend Wisconsin nutritionist Bernard Rosen, PhD.

The American Dietetic Association has tried this before in other states. Their goal has been to keep anyone without their "Registered Dietitian" credential from being a recognized expert in the field of eating and nutrition. That would eliminate PhD's, MDs with a nutritional background, NDs, CNS's and CCNs. (By the way- I'd love to see the average RD pass the CNS exam. Typical CNS exam question: "The product of enterokinase reactions is:......". Typical RD exam question: "What are the ingredients in a lemon meringue pie?")

Yes, the folks who gave you hospital food (white bread and jello as the perfect recovery meal), who think you can "get all you need from food" and don't need supplements, who think that a diet of 70% carbs is ideal, should be the only ones who are considered responsible sources of nutrition advice.

You may think it's all pretty silly, but virtually every magazine editor in America still thinks that the only way to get the "real" story when it comes to nutrition information is to interview an "official spokesperson from the American Dietetic Association".

That's like getting the "real" story on the Iraq war from the Taliban.

Obviously, as you have shown in this thread, not all RD's are the same. I think you're a smart guy/girl, probably smarter than I, and I completely understand your position. I'll keep eating the way I do and if evidence comes along that dismantles my nutritional standards I'll gladly accept the new.

C.N.S.-Certified Nutritional Specialist, that's what I'm going for.

For what it's worth, this has been a good discussion. Even if it's been a little off topic.

Let's be friends.......

-Dev

[edit on 27-5-2009 by DevolutionEvolvd]

While I can agree with you that the ADA has many conflicts of interest and I do not agree with them. I will also say that the sample question stating: Typical RD exam question: "What are the ingredients in a lemon meringue pie?"), is not a typical RD exam question. And what the RD exam requires for its exam would also not be a good indication of what your typical RD must endure for their degree.

I cannot speak for CNS but I was required to take: Biology, Micro-Biology, Bio-Chem, Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Mammalian Physiology, Advanced Nutrition along with many other specialized classes that you are probably also aware of. So to say that an RD could not pass the CNS exam is a little unjustified.

With regards to the ADA seeking to limit who can make nutritional recommendations I can see both sides of the argument. And what they are seeking may or may not be the best option. They are attempting to limit unqualified individuals from making dietary recommendations and to provide more credibility to the RD field. This is similar to what the AMA has done to limit unqualified individuals from practicing medicine(for better or worse). But I see the problem with this and how it limits naturopaths, nutritionists, nutrition consultants, Ayurvedic practitioners, and others to offer nutrition advice.

But I want to make the point that naturopaths, nutritionists, and nutrition consultants are not certified degrees and require no schooling or education in order to practice under those terms. How would you feel as a CNS if someone was going around calling themselves a "nutrition consultant" providing false information to people without qualification, while you went to school and paid thousands of dollars to become an expert in your field.

I also do not agree with limiting MDs and PhDs with backgrounds in nutrition from providing advice and recommendations. MDs and PhDs with nutrition backgrounds are more than qualified to provide that kind of advice. The problem arises that many MDs adn PhDs are do not have the nutrition background and I would argue not qualified to provide advice with regards to nutrition. I have seen this while practicing as well as personally when discussing nutrition with MDs and PhDs. The ADA may be overstepping the bounds with this kind of legislation as it is written but they are only seeking to protect their field in the same way that the AMA, and other licensed and certified organizations seek to do. And when it comes to medical related subjects, great harm can come from unqualified people attempting to provide advice and perform procedures that they are not qualified, certified or licensed to perform.

But a good discussion nonetheless and we should be friends. Good luck on your degree.

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
The problem arises that many MDs adn PhDs are do not have the nutrition background and I would argue not qualified to provide advice with regards to nutrition. I have seen this while practicing as well as personally when discussing nutrition with MDs and PhDs.

I couldn't agree more. I started a thread on this very subject last year.

-Dev

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


I have to ask, what would be a sample of your daily diet? Could you give me a B-L & D example, with quantities? I would appreciate it for my own curiosity and I would be more than willing to share mine.

One problem with many of the studies on diet, is that the human body seems to vary somewhat from person to person and this results in mixed and inconclusive information. There are always examples of people eating an entire diet of animal products, no fruits and veggies and that person lives to be 100 and the opposite, someone consumes a vegetarian, vegan or Mediterranean diet and dies of a heart attack in their 40s.

reply to post by iamcamouflage


B-L & D? Baseline and daily examples with quanitites? Is that what you're reffering to?

-Dev

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


LOL! sorry, breakfast, lunch and dinner, and the quantities for each food item. Just an example of what you might eat on any given day.

I think we might meet closer in the middle on dietary needs than both of us may think.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by iamcamouflage]

I wrote half a post and the laptop shutdown. I'll be writing it again this evening.....

-Dev