q*d
发帖数: 22178 | 1 ☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
swjtuer (swjtuer) 于 (Tue Mar 30 23:56:30 2010, 美东) 提到:
星期一
早餐 牛奶，煮鸡蛋，玉米馒头，榨菜
早点 芦柑
午餐 中大：绿豆饭，木须肉，海米冬瓜，棒骨菠菜汤
小婴：绿豆饭，三叶瓜炒肉，海米冬瓜，棒骨菠菜汤
午点 冰糖山楂水，蔬菜饼
晚餐 棒骨冬苋菜瘦肉粥，卤肉秋叶夹馍
星期二
早餐 牛奶，蒸鸡蛋，枣泥糕
早点 香蕉
午餐 中大：胡萝卜饭，芹菜炒牛肉，珊瑚豆腐，棒骨凤尾汤
小婴：胡萝卜饭，芹菜炒肉，珊瑚豆腐，棒骨凤尾汤
午点 果汁，卤猪肝
晚餐 豌豆肉末焖饭，番茄虾皮紫菜汤
星期三
早餐 南瓜粥，卤蛋，如意肉卷
早点 脐橙
午餐 中大：金银饭，咸烧白，海米儿菜，棒骨冬苋菜汤
小婴：金银饭，樱桃肉，海米儿菜，棒骨冬苋菜汤
午点 牛奶，蛋卷
晚餐 米饭，蒜苔炒肉，芙蓉蒸蛋，棒骨海带萝卜汤
星期四
早餐 牛奶，蒸鸡蛋，奶香馒头
早点 苹果
午餐 中大：南瓜饭，什锦鱼丸，韭菜炒豆干，番茄菌类鱼汤
小婴：南瓜饭，什锦鱼丸，甜椒炒豆干，番茄菌类鱼汤
午点 冰糖梨子水，动物饼干
晚餐 高汤荸荠抄手，配时令蔬菜汤
星期五
早餐 牛奶，卤蛋，芝麻包
早点 不知火
中餐 中大：金银饭，豌豆粉蒸肉，金钩莲白，棒骨菠菜血旺汤
小婴：金银饭，南瓜粉蒸牛肉，金钩莲白，棒骨菠菜血旺汤
午点 绿豆水，山楂饼
晚餐 中大班：排骨面 小婴班：打卤面，配时令蔬菜汤
从小就照这个标准吃，长大了肯定嘴刁。难怪小留们不喜欢国外的生活，打小就吃惯了
，确实很难适应国外的伙食了。哪像俺们那会儿，刚来美国时先把鸡腿和香蕉吃个够，
因为这些都是当年在国内想吃有负担不起的“高级食品”。
另一方面，海归如果没有能力让娃儿吃到这样的饭食，就甭让娃回去吃苦了，还是留在
美国啃汉堡喝可乐吧。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
tzh514 (hi) 于 (Wed Mar 31 00:14:07 2010, 美东) 提到:
不知火 是什么东东？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
finite (螺旋) 于 (Wed Mar 31 00:27:31 2010, 美东) 提到:
你这个逻辑不对啊，这个伙食标准就是减半，也比美国汉堡可乐好啊
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
alias (贾人贾义) 于 (Wed Mar 31 01:16:23 2010, 美东) 提到:
faint,这些菜有什么好的,也就菜名好听一些,实质上全是普通得掉渣
的菜,给俺吃估计连饭都咽不下.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
sealight (( )) 于 (Wed Mar 31 01:34:36 2010, 美东) 提到:
看名字不错， 其实比平均家里自己给孩子做饭吃的差多了。
我实地考察过的。 不过营养也够了。 现在的孩子都营养过剩。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
benchmark (maine) 于 (Wed Mar 31 08:27:07 2010, 美东) 提到:
别吹牛闭了。全市便宜货，。孩子天天吃这个连骨头和肌肉都发育不好。
你随便找个cereal地说明看看，哪些营养根本就不是这种早餐能吃得出来的
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
benchmark (maine) 于 (Wed Mar 31 08:29:25 2010, 美东) 提到:
美国人哪有几个天天把汉堡当饭吃的？
美国人的早餐晚餐好得不得了，牛奶鸡蛋各种肉类蔬菜坚果应有尽有。
他们只是中午饭才混一下，或者开车出门才吃汉堡。
个别傻帽老中，啥也不懂，根本就不认识几个美国人的那种，
天然的以为美国人天天把汉堡当饭吃
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
benchmark (maine) 于 (Wed Mar 31 08:31:04 2010, 美东) 提到:
我也有同样的感觉。我觉得这个食谱营养不足而且不均衡
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
shitallover (wa) 于 (Wed Mar 31 10:47:28 2010, 美东) 提到:
肯定是家里保姆做的干净、有营养。外面的东西全是假的，脏。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
vortex (人生边上) 于 (Wed Mar 31 11:03:59 2010, 美东) 提到:
你有没有小孩啊？
小孩的饭讲究的不是种类和口味，卤蛋，木须肉，蒸鸡蛋，不都是一种营养？
主要是要营养均衡，我们ped说要吃非常intense的东西，因为吃的少。
所以要吃cheese,butter,cereal,高蛋白质的pea/bean.shrimp。
吃你列的这些东西的娃冬天至少要多穿两层才能保持体温。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
swjtuer (swjtuer) 于 (Wed Mar 31 12:35:23 2010, 美东) 提到:
美国小孩蔬菜吃的太少，全是高热量高脂肪的，营养不均衡，所以成年人得心血管和糖
尿病的机率比国内高。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
swjtuer (swjtuer) 于 (Wed Mar 31 12:47:16 2010, 美东) 提到:
全是高热高脂的食品，等着去吃药吧。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
hte (小步舞曲) 于 (Wed Mar 31 12:53:10 2010, 美东) 提到:
哈哈，我刚才在其它版回的。关键字：香蕉
发信人: hte (小步舞曲), 信区: ebiz
标 题: Re: 朱总，请进来一下，我发个毒誓好了
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Wed Mar 31 11:31:49 2010, 美东)
毛人见毛呀。他说的真是香蕉。刚来的时候穷，吃水果只吃得起香蕉，买冰琪淋都是去
walmart买那种5块一大桶的。不过那时候是真能吃，一大桶两个人最多两次就吃完了。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
haachang (haachang) 于 (Wed Mar 31 12:54:55 2010, 美东) 提到:
你就这么喂你小孩，希望你家体格遗传是高大强壮型的，然后孩子室外体育活动特多，
否则这么吃，肯定吃出胖子来。典型欧洲高大强壮的白人群体，比如北欧，俄罗斯什么
的，他们的传统饮食就是高热量，高蛋白什么的，但是他们历史上室外活动强度很大，
而且是天寒地冻的地方，对能量的需求很大。中国人跟他们相比，感觉有点象吃草的，
就算中国南北方，差别也很大。前不久看到文章说，中国的糖尿病患者比例超过美国了
，感觉很不好。就向这边的印第安人，比黑人对西方饮食的适应更差，糖尿病很多，他
们的基因比黑人更接近黄种人。还有对肥胖的耐受，人高马大的好像比矮小的要强一些
，我见过一些特高大的白人，严重超重但是健康指标像高血压高血糖什么得倒没有，不
知道怎么搞得。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Zeratul (首阳山夷齐阻兵) 于 (Wed Mar 31 13:57:26 2010, 美东) 提到:
不知火舞，美女下饭。
也可能是不知火幻庵，减肥用。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
haachang (haachang) 于 (Wed Mar 31 14:05:43 2010, 美东) 提到:
查了一下，好像是橙子的一个品种。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
alias (贾人贾义) 于 (Wed Mar 31 14:57:47 2010, 美东) 提到:
总结一下：
早餐：鸡蛋，某点心，牛奶
午餐：米饭，汤，一荤一素
晚餐：粥+馍，菜焖饭+汤，米饭+一荤+蛋+汤，抄手+汤，面+汤
就这，当爸妈的还不得心疼坏了。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
abalone (hope) 于 (Wed Mar 31 15:03:34 2010, 美东) 提到:
这就心疼坏了？
我觉得挺好的，营养均衡
现在的小孩都吃些啥呀？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Olympig (Visionaire) 于 (Wed Mar 31 15:25:39 2010, 美东) 提到:
奶制品不够
鱼也不够
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
spm (spm2) 于 (Wed Mar 31 15:38:08 2010, 美东) 提到:
5天有4天有牛奶喝，不错了，考虑到中国奶制品吃得不多
这个可能是北方的幼儿园，所以鱼不多
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
spm (spm2) 于 (Wed Mar 31 15:45:57 2010, 美东) 提到:
吃得不挺好的么
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
swjtuer (swjtuer) 于 (Wed Mar 31 16:18:07 2010, 美东) 提到:
蔬菜种类多，还有粗粮。
美国学校食堂就是快餐店，除了没有可乐。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
haachang (haachang) 于 (Wed Mar 31 16:50:04 2010, 美东) 提到:
奶制品，我个人意见是中国人，除了北方畜牧业地区的，应该少吃。奶制品在现代社会
太工业化了，吃了可能有后果，特别是东方人，乳糖不耐受的很多，女性更要少吃，防
乳腺癌。孩子能喝上热得豆浆什么的，我觉得比牛奶果汁要好。鱼的话，还是以河鱼为
主，海鱼价高而且危险大，像过敏，重金属污染什么的。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
qidamm (六畜兴旺) 于 (Wed Mar 31 17:52:55 2010, 美东) 提到:
吃得挺好了，换了在自己家做，也就是两菜一汤，还不定能天天换花样呢。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Laoda127 (Laoda127) 于 (Wed Mar 31 20:47:40 2010, 美东) 提到:
就在最近几年内，中国在糖尿病方面已经赶超上来了。现在中国是全世界糖尿病人最多
的国家。每十个中国人里面，就有一个糖尿病人。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Laoda127 (Laoda127) 于 (Wed Mar 31 20:51:18 2010, 美东) 提到:
不过老实说，还是比美国这边day care的伙食好很多，新鲜很多。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
windriver (花开见me风过无痕) 于 (Wed Mar 31 20:52:25 2010, 美东) 提到:
好多菜听上去好听，实际上大锅菜质和量都会打折扣吧，再加上食堂师傅吃回扣。
更何况病猪肉也可以做成一个炒肉啊。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
sedaolang (aapl是只好股票) 于 (Wed Mar 31 20:53:09 2010, 美东) 提到:
申请在此幼儿园搭伙！哈哈
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
repeating (random) 于 (Wed Mar 31 20:53:19 2010, 美东) 提到:
这里出现了很多棒骨。
不算什么好吃的吧。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
crysknife (Alia) 于 (Wed Mar 31 20:53:57 2010, 美东) 提到:
其实就是些家常菜，名字好听一些。蛋炒饭叫金银饭，干虾米炒卷心菜叫金钩莲白。不
过品种挺多的
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
repeating (random) 于 (Wed Mar 31 20:54:06 2010, 美东) 提到:
河鱼更差。污染更严重。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
sedaolang (aapl是只好股票) 于 (Wed Mar 31 20:54:07 2010, 美东) 提到:
没有一点常识，豆浆女娃喝可能还行，男娃喝等于残害儿童。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
tgbyhn (CNN) 于 (Wed Mar 31 20:57:40 2010, 美东) 提到:
不错，孩子爱吃，还不肥
美国垃圾吃得小孩痴肥，10岁就200磅
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
lik387 (LIK387) 于 (Wed Mar 31 20:59:05 2010, 美东) 提到:
汉堡和可乐在美国也是被认为是垃圾食品的。美国人要么特别注重饮食，身材特别好，
要么特别胖，很极端。中国饮食一个弊端是精细的碳水化合物摄入过多。好处是大量的
蔬菜。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
tgbyhn (CNN) 于 (Wed Mar 31 21:01:45 2010, 美东) 提到:
身材特别好时每天拼死命跑步
早上1小时，中午半小时，下午下班2小时
才把满身肥肉烧掉
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
ingingwang (inging) 于 (Wed Mar 31 21:02:01 2010, 美东) 提到:
幼儿园的食品肯定不如自己家的，我女儿在国内，外公外婆照顾饮食，每天一条活鱼，
还必须是小的，这样没有激素，虾也要最小的，鸡肉，鸭肉之类的通通必须是放养，到
果园里现买的（国内现在很多果园树下就养鸡），猪肉吃放心肉，然后每天还要吃很多
粗粮，吃红薯，说这样不容易营养超标，也不容易发育过快~~~~
美国哪个孩子能有这个待遇？国内的孩子很多都是这么养的。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
lykuang02 (mm worm) 于 (Wed Mar 31 21:03:14 2010, 美东) 提到:
VC过剩，VA不够
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
dizhu2 (俺是da地主) 于 (Wed Mar 31 21:07:04 2010, 美东) 提到:
牛奶咋办？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Hug (抱抱) 于 (Wed Mar 31 21:08:13 2010, 美东) 提到:
唉，记得之前有人发帖说ＡＢＣ长的奇怪的多，可能跟饮食有关。
我也觉得国内蔬菜种类更多一些，而且人种不同，消化能力不同，这边生冷东西太多，
乳制品也太多，我有Ｎ多同学都不吃乳制品，有的是不喜欢味道，有的是胃受不了。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
sutter (大公子) 于 (Wed Mar 31 21:09:50 2010, 美东) 提到:
这饮食不健康啊。
棒骨？！冰糖山楂水？！卤肉？！排骨面？！
不吃成小胖子才怪了。
美国这里除了一些种族以外，没人给幼儿园孩子拿汉堡，pizza当饭吃。这里午饭自带
。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
repeating (random) 于 (Wed Mar 31 21:14:29 2010, 美东) 提到:
别扯了，这个也就是国内好的虚假宣传。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
lottefang (有乐天，好明天) 于 (Wed Mar 31 21:15:54 2010, 美东) 提到:
这也叫好？
我儿子（2岁）在国内吃饭的伙食标准是50rmb/天。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
sika (白鹿衔花) 于 (Wed Mar 31 21:27:18 2010, 美东) 提到:
大家对国内幼儿园要求太高了吧。。。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
alias (贾人贾义) 于 (Wed Mar 31 21:27:28 2010, 美东) 提到:
这水平也就盒饭水平呀。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
albertchang (albertchang) 于 (Wed Mar 31 21:28:04 2010, 美东) 提到:
看到了好多酸葡萄
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
xixixixi (因病不幸坠楼去世) 于 (Wed Mar 31 21:36:42 2010, 美东) 提到:
还不如我小时候幼儿园吃的好。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
NYwsn (NY Wall Street Nan) 于 (Wed Mar 31 21:37:32 2010, 美东) 提到:
是啊，他们自己现在吃的有几个比这个好的？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aisinfox (苏州格格。。。滴老妈) 于 (Wed Mar 31 21:43:52 2010, 美东) 提到:
我也贴一个，这个幼儿园每周食谱都变，下面是这周的
xx幼儿园最近一周食谱（2010年03月29日--2010年04月2日)
星期一
早餐: 月牙包 卤鸡蛋 可可奶
午餐：紫米饭 糖醋排骨 炒西兰花 海鲜汤
午点：红富士苹果
晚餐：菱角卷 肉末炖海带 多彩蔬菜丝 小豆粥
晚点：椰丝饼 牛奶
星期二
早餐: 鸳鸯卷 鸡蛋羹 牛奶
午餐：米饭 羊肉烩芋头 虾皮小白菜 香菜豆条汤
午点：苹果梨
晚餐：打卤面 (杂面) （平菇 西红柿、木耳、肉片） 玉米
晚点：枣泥酥 牛奶
星期三
早餐: 面包片 花生酱 牛奶燕麦片
午餐：豆饭 油焖大虾 素炒西葫芦 黄瓜鸡蛋汤
午点：冰糖橙 汇源果汁
晚餐：红糖包 素鸡白菜 火腿烩冬瓜 二米粥
晚点：饼干 乐百氏
星期四
早餐: 蒸饼 酱猪肝 豆浆
午餐：二米饭 橡皮鱼 素炒土豆丝 香菜萝卜汤
午点：鸭梨
晚餐：什锦猫耳朵 菠菜粉丝汤
晚点：果料蛋糕 牛奶
星期五
早餐: 枣泥包 五香鹌鹑蛋 牛奶
午餐：米饭 京酱肉丝 虾皮圆白菜 海米冬瓜汤
午点：香蕉
晚餐：紫米面馒头 素炒盖菜 肉末番茄菜花 红枣粥
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
nevele (ll) 于 (Wed Mar 31 21:46:35 2010, 美东) 提到:
what kind of 幼儿园 is this?
how old are those kids - eating all three meals in 幼儿园?
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
spm (spm2) 于 (Wed Mar 31 21:48:28 2010, 美东) 提到:
在家难道还不天天换花样？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
spm (spm2) 于 (Wed Mar 31 21:50:20 2010, 美东) 提到:
50元吃啥？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
alias (贾人贾义) 于 (Wed Mar 31 22:12:48 2010, 美东) 提到:
俺的今日晚餐
豆花鱼
大葱爆里脊
卤鸡肝蘸醋姜
醋熘土豆丝
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
aisinfox (苏州格格。。。滴老妈) 于 (Wed Mar 31 22:34:10 2010, 美东) 提到:
北京北海幼儿园
http://www.bhbaby.cn/yzsp/yzsp.html
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
spm (spm2) 于 (Wed Mar 31 22:41:54 2010, 美东) 提到:
一点叶子菜都没有，还不如人家小孩吃得好
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
alias (贾人贾义) 于 (Wed Mar 31 23:01:49 2010, 美东) 提到:
有一大盘蔬菜沙拉。刚才灌水被老婆逮着了，没来得及写。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
ingingwang (inging) 于 (Wed Mar 31 23:03:45 2010, 美东) 提到:
牛奶买进口的雅培奶粉，这里提倡和配方奶到七岁~~~
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jszhb (金嗓子喉宝) 于 (Wed Mar 31 23:04:35 2010, 美东) 提到:
蔬菜没大家想像的那么重要。
崇尚蔬菜的潮流都是一些 activist 弄出来的。没啥科学根据。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
dizhu2 (俺是da地主) 于 (Wed Mar 31 23:07:04 2010, 美东) 提到:
你这套方案小本本记下了。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
spm (spm2) 于 (Wed Mar 31 23:07:51 2010, 美东) 提到:
那你少吃蔬菜好了，hoho
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
leowo (leowo) 于 (Wed Mar 31 23:11:22 2010, 美东) 提到:
cereal好吃吗
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
purity (purity) 于 (Wed Mar 31 23:12:23 2010, 美东) 提到:
新鲜蔬菜水果是必需品，肉类反而吃不吃不影响身体健康。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
purity (purity) 于 (Wed Mar 31 23:13:36 2010, 美东) 提到:
cereal加豆浆不错，我蛮喜欢的。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
B468 (小鬼子) 于 (Wed Mar 31 23:19:50 2010, 美东) 提到:
种类不少
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
lykuang02 (mm worm) 于 (Wed Mar 31 23:25:24 2010, 美东) 提到:
酸碱比例很重要，肉类多是酸性食品。
不过长身体的小人和成年人可能需求不同。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
A2 (寒星) 于 (Thu Apr 1 00:00:53 2010, 美东) 提到:
吃的不错了。在家还不如这个呢。你小时候吃的啥？别得瑟了。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
SmokyEyes (SmokyEyes) 于 (Thu Apr 1 00:04:40 2010, 美东) 提到:
没觉得有多好
和我小时候幼儿园吃的差不多
感觉蛋白质摄入太少
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
SmokyEyes (SmokyEyes) 于 (Thu Apr 1 00:06:28 2010, 美东) 提到:
这样说不对
不然让你家小孩子从小吃素看看？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
dessert (纠结) 于 (Thu Apr 1 00:13:56 2010, 美东) 提到:
这还心疼？不是吃得挺好吗？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
dessert (纠结) 于 (Thu Apr 1 00:18:40 2010, 美东) 提到:
不知道什么样算奇怪
我倒是觉得我见过的ABC长得都是一个类型，一眼就能看出是ABC的长相
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
lmh (Low, Medium, High) 于 (Thu Apr 1 00:22:56 2010, 美东) 提到:
中国的高血压和糖尿病早就超过美国了
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
ccyang59 (ccyang) 于 (Thu Apr 1 00:31:49 2010, 美东) 提到:
很普通的饭吧，大部分我都会做，在美国也能吃的比这好。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
change2009 (change2009) 于 (Thu Apr 1 01:46:35 2010, 美东) 提到:
没大肉啊。红烧排骨，水煮鱼之类的。。。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
DDShane (无名) 于 (Thu Apr 1 05:46:25 2010, 美东) 提到:
我也觉得是，这个已经比我家好了。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
newmmt (尽量公正客观) 于 (Thu Apr 1 09:04:02 2010, 美东) 提到:
天哪！比起国内的我家的吃得太差了，昏！
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
milkswan (好花堪折直须折) 于 (Thu Apr 1 09:17:38 2010, 美东) 提到:
你肯定没孩子在这里上幼儿园。
要不要我贴个孩子在美国幼儿园的食谱比较一下？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
lykuang02 (mm worm) 于 (Thu Apr 1 09:51:26 2010, 美东) 提到:
贴个美国幼儿园的，来见识见识。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
milkswan (好花堪折直须折) 于 (Thu Apr 1 09:56:48 2010, 美东) 提到:
贴le
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
spm (spm2) 于 (Thu Apr 1 10:14:43 2010, 美东) 提到:
re
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
spm (spm2) 于 (Thu Apr 1 10:18:27 2010, 美东) 提到:
全素没试过，不过少吃点肉没什么问题的。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jua (虎宝妈) 于 (Thu Apr 1 14:16:49 2010, 美东) 提到:
不如我们在国内上的幼儿园伙食好。幼儿园的伙食不如孩子在家吃的好。
美国这边，肉可能比这多，但蔬菜少。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Jeyl (清风望月半轮秋) 于 (Thu Apr 1 20:55:31 2010, 美东) 提到:
ABC新开的Food Revolution有人看了吗？好多普通美国人的饮食极不健康。随便去一所
小学，小孩们早餐吃什么，pizza！中午，炸过的chicken nuggets;问他们前一天晚饭
吃得什么，一半又是chicken nuggets；喝的都是巧克力味的，草莓味的牛奶，纯鲜奶
没小孩愿意喝。做吃的材料大都不是新鲜的，都是大箱大箱的冷冻食品，烤箱加热，或
者油炸一下就上桌，否则几个大妈准备上百个小孩的吃的会累死。。。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
benchmark (maine) 于 (Thu Apr 1 21:27:42 2010, 美东) 提到:
我觉得你说的这种幼儿园的档次应该和国内民工幼儿园的档次相对来讲差不多。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
BJD (巴吉度) 于 (Thu Apr 1 21:32:32 2010, 美东) 提到:
唉，我也在发愁，要摆脱美国的食品工业的魔爪真不容易
光要找好种的grass fed的牛肉猪肉就很难，要么很贵
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
mbrook (iambrook) 于 (Thu Apr 1 21:45:33 2010, 美东) 提到:
做那些饭也挺麻烦的 你们谁上班的有功夫给孩子做个肉卷什么的？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Jeyl (清风望月半轮秋) 于 (Thu Apr 1 21:59:33 2010, 美东) 提到:
不是幼儿园啊，是公立小学，最普通的美国小town里面的一所小学！你非要拿贵价的私
立小学跟国内普通幼儿园比那我没话说了。。。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
lykuang02 (mm worm) 于 (Thu Apr 1 22:02:19 2010, 美东) 提到:
我自己都没有给自己做过pork roll。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
lykuang02 (mm worm) 于 (Thu Apr 1 22:04:27 2010, 美东) 提到:
有没有美国高档幼儿园的食谱，就是想知道高档pizza的做法是什么。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
benchmark (maine) 于 (Thu Apr 1 22:04:42 2010, 美东) 提到:
中国最普通的小town里面的小学生吃得是啥？
能赶上美国的一半好就不错了。
你最后一句话正是对你自己的对比方式的写照。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Jeyl (清风望月半轮秋) 于 (Thu Apr 1 22:10:30 2010, 美东) 提到:
学校的厨师是专职做菜的嘛，不还是拿冷冻的成品半成品给小孩吃？
国内学校那学生更多，每顿的菜不都是新鲜做的？
同意前面一个ID说的，这里工业化太严重，冷冻食品太多，去超市买东西的时候经常看
到老美一家买大袋装的冷冻鸡肉回家做着吃，便宜，方便，容易保存，学校餐厅当然更
是要买这种了。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
purity (purity) 于 (Thu Apr 1 22:11:20 2010, 美东) 提到:
粗茶淡饭粗粮蔬菜水果才是健康的饮食之道，
美国食物激素多，牛奶cheese肉类里的激素就很不健康，
中国这些年学美国快餐垃圾饮食，痴肥儿童和各种疾病增加了不少。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
lykuang02 (mm worm) 于 (Thu Apr 1 22:12:38 2010, 美东) 提到:
印象中中国估计有贫困地区农村幼儿园孩子连牛奶都喝不上吧，更不用说基础设施了，
但是除掉贫困地区的人口，我觉得发展也接近中等发达国家了。现在很多二三线的设施
也相当不错。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
lykuang02 (mm worm) 于 (Thu Apr 1 22:16:02 2010, 美东) 提到:
美国小孩体格强，大概是基因的缘故。但是美国人几乎没有养生的概念，受不了。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Jeyl (清风望月半轮秋) 于 (Thu Apr 1 22:18:37 2010, 美东) 提到:
是啊，你看Food revolution里面，学校食堂冷藏室里面大箱大箱的冷冻鸡肉不知道放
了多少，不知道是什么价钱买来的，反正绝对不是organic；做土豆泥的时候，也是半
成品加工，我都不想知道里面加了多少mayo ...
前面的同学非要说谁吃的肉多喝的牛奶多日子就过得好那我们也没话说不是。。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
mbrook (iambrook) 于 (Thu Apr 1 22:23:34 2010, 美东) 提到:
我记得小时候的幼儿园都是想吃什么和阿姨说 阿姨给做 没你说的那种专职厨师 就是
厨师兼阿姨啦 做的饭自己家里的好 那时候不喜欢吃馒头 最企盼的是做肉卷哈哈
不知道现在小朋友们是什么待遇
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
Jeyl (清风望月半轮秋) 于 (Thu Apr 1 22:27:04 2010, 美东) 提到:
再啰嗦一句，这Food revolution是美国人自己拍的，人家自己都意识到吃得不健康，
尤其是小孩饮食结构，我们为什么还要帮他们说好话呢？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
repeating (random) 于 (Thu Apr 1 22:27:06 2010, 美东) 提到:
你个大妈，别在这宣传你的东西了。烦。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
purity (purity) 于 (Thu Apr 1 22:27:33 2010, 美东) 提到:
nod，食物要新鲜的才好，美国饮食文化是不行的，不仅不好吃，也不健康，
看看这部电影：
Food, Inc.
http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/Asse3z-JpfA/
导演罗拔坚拿（Rober Kenner）与《速食帝国》（Fast Food Nation）的作者Eric
Schloosser，一直很想把该书拍成电影，後来经过连番讨论後发现，其实现时所有食物
的製作过程都变成了快餐店的做法。罗拔在一个访问中声称，筹备 了大约6至7年时间
，拍摄期也由於处处碰壁，所以长达两年半，另外受到Omnivore’s Dilemma的作者
Michael Pollan影响，他们中途又采访了很多农夫。
结果发现，一小部分的食品公司控制庞大的食品供应市场，科学家不断的改变家禽基因
，改变牠们的生长速度，甚至饲养方法，於是才会有「大胸鸡」、「无骨猪排」等现身
市场应付顾客需求。就算是素食，也有抗农药的黄豆、不会烂的番茄……
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
repeating (random) 于 (Thu Apr 1 22:28:44 2010, 美东) 提到:
大妈，快回国吧。在这里，宣传你的东西，觉得有脸吗？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
repeating (random) 于 (Thu Apr 1 22:31:34 2010, 美东) 提到:
你在这里，宣传你的食品。看清楚这里是海归版。
你连美国食品都不能吃，赶快回国。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
repeating (random) 于 (Thu Apr 1 22:41:19 2010, 美东) 提到:
那个信用卡，我的答案可是这里的标准答案。
你知道什么？
我可不是大叔。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
tgbqaz (qz) 于 (Thu Apr 1 23:36:32 2010, 美东) 提到:
美国女孩8岁乳房就很大了
都是鸡肉里激素害的
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jszhb (金嗓子喉宝) 于 (Fri Apr 2 10:07:49 2010, 美东) 提到:
你知道爱斯基摩人为什么不知蔬菜也能健康生活么？
类似的还有菏泽人。
实际上人体必需的养分肉里面都有。不过有一个问题，一些维生素等会因为加热损失。其实蔬菜只要能把这部分维生素补充了就行了。爱斯基摩人因为吃生肉，所以不存在这个问题。
我并不是说不需要吃蔬菜。只不过蔬菜的重要性被一些activist严重夸大了。这些没有什么根据。累死的谬论还有关于关于母乳，味精的。都是一些人通过社会活动推行自己没啥根据的观点，生活方式。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
haachang (haachang) 于 (Fri Apr 2 10:36:37 2010, 美东) 提到:
我看到的文章说爱斯基摩人，其实也吃素的，是那些海藻什么的，虽然量没有绿叶蔬菜
那么大，但是高质量的维生素提供者，他们是吃动物多，但是其中海鱼，海生哺乳动物
多，不饱和脂肪酸丰富，而且他们总体来说是常带三分饥的，因为食物获取不易。现在
的阿拉斯加土著，饮食很西化，糖尿病，心血管疾病发生率极高。古代汉族的茶叶能够
控制游牧民族，因为他们是真的吃肉很多，没有茶叶解油腻，降血脂，提供维生素，他
们很难活得长久。元朝的那些皇帝，大碗喝酒，大口吃肉，没几个活过60的。普通老百
姓吃不起那么多肉，反而能活得久一些，现在比较热门的研究是限制卡路里抗衰老，老
鼠猴子什么，你让他们饿着，他们活得更久，更年轻。
。其实蔬菜只要能把这部分维生素补充了就行了。爱斯基摩人因为吃生肉，所以不存在
这个问题。
有什么根据。累死的谬论还有关于关于母乳，味精的。都是一些人通过社会活动推行自
己没啥根据的观点，生活方式。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
cucold (colding) 于 (Fri Apr 2 10:37:08 2010, 美东) 提到:
看得我都饿了
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
spm (spm2) 于 (Fri Apr 2 10:38:18 2010, 美东) 提到:
多吃蔬菜或者少吃蔬菜的观点还是要考虑到当前饮食习惯的，不能说哪个就是谬论。放在旧社会，你要和穷人说多吃蔬菜少吃肉好，肯定不行。但是如果让如今一些饮食不那么健康的人多吃蔬菜少吃肉，反而对健康有益。
。其实蔬菜只要能把这部分维生素补充了就行了。爱斯基摩人因为吃生肉，所以不存在
这个问题。
有什么根据。累死的谬论还有关于关于母乳，味精的。都是一些人通过社会活动推行自
己没啥根据的观点，生活方式。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jszhb (金嗓子喉宝) 于 (Fri Apr 2 10:56:44 2010, 美东) 提到:
你这不是还是认为肉没蔬菜健康么。
实际上吃肉的risk唯一有点科学根据的就是致癌。但是这个结果也不那么明确。
单从营养来讲，吃肉太少很容易营养不良。
放在旧社会，你要和穷人说多吃蔬菜少吃肉好，肯定不行。但是如果让如今一些饮食不
那么健康的人多吃蔬菜少吃肉，反而对健康有益。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
spm (spm2) 于 (Fri Apr 2 11:12:18 2010, 美东) 提到:
那你觉得摄入大量脂肪和心血管疾病的关系是否明确呢
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jszhb (金嗓子喉宝) 于 (Fri Apr 2 11:15:29 2010, 美东) 提到:
吃肉不用非要吃肥肉啊，你可以吃瘦肉。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
spm (spm2) 于 (Fri Apr 2 11:15:38 2010, 美东) 提到:
我小时候很多肉都不吃的，也没有营养不良，当然我可能是个例。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jszhb (金嗓子喉宝) 于 (Fri Apr 2 11:16:39 2010, 美东) 提到:
你是很多肉都不吃，还是不怎么吃肉？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
spm (spm2) 于 (Fri Apr 2 11:17:32 2010, 美东) 提到:
如果大家能科学理性的吃肉的话，心血管疾病就不会成为第一号杀手了
从这一点来说，提倡多吃蔬菜少吃肉是有积极意义的
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jszhb (金嗓子喉宝) 于 (Fri Apr 2 11:20:28 2010, 美东) 提到:
肉指的就是红肉，白肉，脂肪叫fat。在超市里你可以很容易地选择买肉而不是买脂肪。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
spm (spm2) 于 (Fri Apr 2 11:22:47 2010, 美东) 提到:
都差不多吧，如果鱼肉算肉的话，那我吃得多。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
purity (purity) 于 (Fri Apr 2 11:23:50 2010, 美东) 提到:
寻医问药网：
http://www.xywy.com/yspd/jhyjd/aqgz/20090603/487982.html
爱斯基摩人几乎全部吃肉，靠动物脂肪维生，很快就衰老，平均寿命只有27年半。前苏
联东部的吉尔吉斯民族也是主要食肉，那些族人很早熟，寿命也很短，平均寿命是40岁
。
动物中的脂肪如胆固醇在人体内很难分解，附着于人体血管上，日积月累，血管变
得越来越窄，通过的血液量越来越少，迫使心脏承受很大的负担，要用力将血液送到阻
塞而紧缩的血管中，这就容易患上心脏病、高血压等心血管疾病。海外一些素食主义者
倡议素食是保护环境的一种方式，他们警告：“吃肉是个人的慢性自杀，更是人类文明
的慢性毁灭。”
与心血管疾病一样，癌症也是当今人类的一大杀手。据世界卫生组织估计，仅1996
年新增的癌症病例和因癌症而死亡的病例就分别达1000万例和700万例。世界卫生组织
预测到，2020年，发展中国家的癌症病例总数将增加2倍，在发达国家则增加40%。
相反，人类学家实地考察研究过全球各地不吃肉的民族，了解当地人的健康、体力
、精神活力、寿命，他们研究的民族包括巴基斯坦的亨萨斯族、墨西哥原居民奥托米族
、美洲西南部的原居土人等，发现这些部族活上110岁而仍然精力充沛、身体壮健者司
空见惯。
一个在希腊进行的调查亦发人深省。专家们令参与研究的对象分别开始多吃各种不
同的食物，然后量度他们后来患肠癌的发病率，结果发现：
多吃羊肉：患癌相对几率为2.61倍
多吃牛肉：患癌相对几率为1.77倍
多吃生菜或卷心菜：患癌相对几率为0.76倍
多吃菠菜：患癌相对几率为0.44倍
（1倍是对照标准，少于1倍即是患癌比率低于平均数。）
该研究报告的结论肯定：多吃肉易患肠癌，多吃蔬菜较少患肠癌。
在主要以淀粉、植物为食物的国家和地区，如亚洲、非洲等肠癌的死亡率明显低于
北美和西欧等高肉食国家，其中以高纤维低肉食的日本人最为突出。
。其实蔬菜只要能把这部分维生素补充了就行了。爱斯基摩人因为吃生肉，所以不存在
这个问题。
有什么根据。累死的谬论还有关于关于母乳，味精的。都是一些人通过社会活动推行自
己没啥根据的观点，生活方式。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jszhb (金嗓子喉宝) 于 (Fri Apr 2 11:27:28 2010, 美东) 提到:
这个是比较典型的vegan misinformation.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
purity (purity) 于 (Fri Apr 2 11:27:49 2010, 美东) 提到:
me too，我吃素十几年，身体健康得很，
我的家人和一些朋友也吃素，没有营养不良的问题。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
spm (spm2) 于 (Fri Apr 2 11:37:57 2010, 美东) 提到:
你这个就扣字眼了，而且不符合大部分中国人的实际。大部分情况就是，肉吃得多，同时脂肪摄入量也多。
你觉得可以肉吃得多，但是脂肪摄入量少，实际我看很少有人能做到。
肪。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jszhb (金嗓子喉宝) 于 (Fri Apr 2 11:59:14 2010, 美东) 提到:
奇怪了。你去超市想买瘦肉难道很难么？吃肉的就都要多吃肥肉么？我吃肉，但是几乎
不吃肥肉。
同时脂肪摄入量也多。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
spm (spm2) 于 (Fri Apr 2 12:03:14 2010, 美东) 提到:
瘦肉脂肪含量也不低，当然也取决于哪部分
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
spm (spm2) 于 (Fri Apr 2 12:06:08 2010, 美东) 提到:
而且不要太想当然了，你以为那么多心血管疾病都是天上来的阿
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jszhb (金嗓子喉宝) 于 (Fri Apr 2 12:06:44 2010, 美东) 提到:
这个我再详细评论一下吧。说道平均寿命。这个是vegan一个很大的卖点。但是实际上
的情况是vegan搞了一些结果，也只是vegan略微长寿，死亡率略低。但是这个结果广受
争议，因为没有考虑vegan社会阶层等方面和大众的不同。
说道寿命。现在请回答下面问题：
过去欧洲人均寿命很低。现在寿命提高了很多。这是因为：
1.过去人们吃太多的肉和脂肪，很少吃蔬菜。
2.过去人们饮食不健康，造成过度肥胖，带来心血管疾病等。
3.现代社会在医疗，卫生方面的进步。
这个问题搞明白了，下面的宣传中一些误导也就清楚了。
关于致癌的问题。我看到的说法是吃红肉得癌症危险增加30%。没有区分牛羊肉之类的
。其实大家很多都是搞研究的。不妨想想。这样区分不同肉类的致癌程度的结果是怎么
得到的？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jszhb (金嗓子喉宝) 于 (Fri Apr 2 12:09:03 2010, 美东) 提到:
我不明白什么叫想当然。垃圾食品导致肥胖跟吃肉是两回事。谁说吃瘦肉会导致肥胖？导致肥胖的是脂肪和carb.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
purity (purity) 于 (Fri Apr 2 12:11:33 2010, 美东) 提到:
《微妙的平衡》
http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/KM6p72cfs1U/
本片荣获「2008年澳洲最佳未发行纪录片」，更在今年3月美国洛杉矶环保生活方式影
展获颁「绿苹果奖」（Green Apple Award）。除了去年在澳洲主要大城的电影院巡迴
上映，本片同时也在美国与澳洲数所大学播映，包括哈佛、康乃尔、普林斯顿大学与汤
玛斯傑佛逊大学。
有别於台湾软调环保─随手做环保、与硬式环保─批判污染源，澳洲年轻导演亚伦&#
8231;薛本纳先生（Aaron Scheibner）与其所製作的纪录片〈微妙的平衡─真相〉（A
Delicate Balance-The Truth），拟於10月12-19日来台巡迴影展与座谈，希望与大家
共同颠覆一些习以为常又牢不可破的幻觉，看清关於自己与世界的真相，引领自身与环
境，重返「微妙的平衡」。亚伦相信，认识自己与环境，了解真相之後，人们会突破迷
思，智慧选择，而不是让市场替我们做决定。
关切全球气候变迁与疫病防治的学者相继表示，〈微〉片在莫拉克风灾之後与H1N1延烧
之际来台，提醒大家重要的健康与环境警讯，别有意义。微妙的平衡是一个奇妙的连结
，精彩呈现食物选择背後的连动关係，包括健康关键、动物处境与环境衝击，特别在此
气候变迁与病痛为患的年代中，更见其重要性，因为我们需要知道整体的解决之道，而
不只是得到片断的讯息而已。
亚伦表示：曾经让许多人以为永不沈没的铁达尼号，瞬间瓦解，成为另类的悲剧传奇；
永不沈没确实是巨大的幻觉，但如今我们仍相信自己的身体与整个地球，相当坚固，不
可能被每天吃的食物所摧毁。在全世界，每年都有约600亿动物被屠杀供人类食用。无
论是肉品本身对身体防卫体系的伤害，抑或肉品生产体系造成自然资源的耗竭，大多数
人都还没有意识到这样一个事实──我们的世界和我们的身体都十分脆弱，全球暖化的
危机，即将带来完全失去平衡的世界，而这正预示著巨大的灾难。真正要瞭解背後的真
相需要很大努力。但了解真相之後，大家都可以突破迷思、扭转形势，回复身体与自然
界的「微妙的平衡」。
回顾日前921週一无肉日运动的开跑，与926全球暖化世界公民会议向哥本哈根大会建议
蔬食保育抗暖化，1012澳洲卓越纪录片〈微妙的平衡─真相〉来台，预期这股强调少肉
利益全球的声浪，将带动另一波爱与保育的环保风潮。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
purity (purity) 于 (Fri Apr 2 12:16:07 2010, 美东) 提到:
http://5joys.com/cnews/bet20081017234500166.htm
中国健康调查报告--序言
序言
中国工程院院士 中国疾病预防与控制中心研究员 陈君石
我与坎贝尔(T. Colin Campbell)教授的相识始于1980年，当时我在康奈尔大学营
养科学系坎贝尔教授实验室作访问学者。通过八个月十分繁忙的实验研究，我在逐步适
应美国的工作和生活方式的同时，对坎贝尔教授也从不熟悉到熟悉，并由此开始了我与
他长达20多年的科研合作和个人交往。其主线则是本书的题目——中国健康调查。
在美国康奈尔大学坎贝尔教授、英国牛津大学理查德•佩托(Richard Peto)
教授、中国医学科学院肿瘤研究所黎均耀和刘伯齐教授与我的共同主持下，1983到1989
年间，在中国的24个省、市、自治区的69个县开展了三次关于膳食、生活方式和疾病死
亡率的流行病学研究。这项研究开创了我国与发达国家之间的营养流行病学研究合作的
先河。应该说，这项国际合作对我国营养与慢性疾病的流行病学研究起到了重要的推动
作用。有趣的是，这项研究虽获得了卫生部科技进步一等奖，但其在国内的知名度远不
如国外。这项称之为“中国健康调查”的工作不但发表了数十篇被广泛引用的论文，而
且还被不少国家的电视和报章杂志专题报道过。这也许可以解释为什么美国出版社坚持
要把书名定为“中国健康调查报告”了。
其实，这本书中关于中国的研究篇幅有限，而大量的篇幅则是在描述坎贝尔一生从
事营养学研究的经历以及他对营养与慢性疾病关系的研究成果。
坎贝尔教授是一位国际知名的营养学家，他对营养学，特别是对膳食、营养与慢性
疾病关系的研究成果引人瞩目。坎贝尔教授在本书中的一个贯彻始终和十分明确的观点
就是：以动物性食物为主的膳食会导致慢性疾病的发生（如肥胖、冠心病、肿瘤、骨质
疏松等）；以植物性食物为主的膳食最有利于健康，也最能有效地预防和控制慢性疾病
。用通俗的话讲就是：多吃粮食、蔬菜和水果，少吃鸡、鸭、鱼、肉、蛋、奶等。书中
以大量的科学证据从多方面有力地证明了这一研究成果。
更难能可贵的是，坎贝尔教授由于坚持这一观点而受到来自有钱有势的美国畜、禽
、奶等养殖、加工业的强大压力；一贯执著的坎贝尔教授并没有屈服，始终坚持己见。
现在，这一观点已为越来越多的营养学家所认同。我相信各位在读了此书后一定会认同
坎贝尔教授“少吃动物性食物、多吃植物性食物”这一观点。与一般科普读物不同的是
，本书列出了大量参考文献，表明书中所说的并非空穴来风，而且有兴趣者可以查阅原
始文献。本书中还有一部分是描述坎贝尔教授的个人经历的；这也许没有普遍意义，但
却颇具趣味性，也很值得一读。
本书是坎贝尔教授自康奈尔大学退休后花了大量精力反复修改写成的。作为严谨的
科学工作者往往只善于写学术论文，而写不好科普文章，难能可贵的是坎贝尔教授颇有
文才的小儿子托马斯•坎贝尔（Thomas Campbell）毅然推迟了研究生学习，帮助
父亲完成了这一夙愿。
作为坎贝尔教授的一个有数十年交情的老朋友，我为这本书中文版的问世感到十分
高兴。我愿意向广大读者推荐此书，无论是营养工作者，或是对营养与健康有兴趣者，
读了此书一定会大有收获。我也衷心希望这本书的中文版会像英文原版一样成为一本畅
销的科普著作。
2006年9月1日于北京
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
spm (spm2) 于 (Fri Apr 2 12:29:31 2010, 美东) 提到:
脂肪还不是通过吃肉吃进去的，不吃肉的话哪有那么多机会摄入脂肪
你如果一定要把肉和脂肪分成是两个不同的东西，那我也就同意你的观点好了
？导致肥胖的是脂肪和carb.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
maywind (五月风) 于 (Fri Apr 2 13:55:34 2010, 美东) 提到:
怎么这么多棒骨？
幼儿园家属是卖棒骨的？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jszhb (金嗓子喉宝) 于 (Fri Apr 2 14:13:05 2010, 美东) 提到:
问题是你为什么不分肉和脂肪？在美国的超市里面买精肉难道不是很容易么？其实大多数出售的猪肉，牛肉都是瘦肉为主的。想买五花肉还要到亚洲超市。
近年来肥胖导致的心血管疾病等问题严重其原因一方面是垃圾食品，另一方面也是现代人条件太好，饮食没节制。如果没有节制的话吃粮食也要长胖的。你看看那些减肥的人，整天都是在留心carb。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jszhb (金嗓子喉宝) 于 (Fri Apr 2 14:16:52 2010, 美东) 提到:
这个colin cambell的China study是一本书，不是peer reviewed journal article.对
这本书的批评很多。
)
1989
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jszhb (金嗓子喉宝) 于 (Fri Apr 2 14:43:10 2010, 美东) 提到:
转载一个关于素食的myth的文章
The Evolution of a Myth
Along with the unjustified and unscientific saturated fat and cholesterol
scares of the past several decades has come the notion that vegetarianism is
a healthier dietary option for people. It seems as if every health expert
and government health agency is urging people to eat fewer animal products
and consume more vegetables, grains, fruits and legumes. Along with these
exhortations have come assertions and studies supposedly proving that
vegetarianism is healthier for people and that meat consumption is
associated with sickness and death. Several authorities, however, have
questioned these data, but their objections have been largely ignored.
As we shall see, many of the vegetarian claims cannot be substantiated and
some are simply false and dangerous. There are benefits to vegetarian diets
for certain health conditions, and some people function better on less fat
and protein, but, as a practitioner who has dealt with several former
vegetarians and vegans (total vegetarians), I know full well the dangerous
effects of a diet devoid of healthful animal products. It is my hope that
all readers will more carefully evaluate their position on vegetarianism
after reading this paper.
* Myth #1: Meat consumption contributes to famine and depletes the Earth
's natural resources.
* Myth #2: Vitamin B12 can be obtained from plant sources.
* Myth #3: Our needs for vitamin D can be met by sunlight.
* Myth #4: The body's needs for vitamin A can be entirely obtained from
plant foods.
* Myth #5: Meat-eating causes osteoporosis, kidney disease, heart
disease, and cancer.
* Myth #6: Saturated fats and dietary cholesterol cause heart disease,
atherosclerosis, and/or cancer, and low-fat, low-cholesterol diets are
healthier for people.
* Myth #7: Vegetarians live longer and have more energy and endurance
than meat-eaters.
* Myth #8: The "cave man" diet was low-fat and/or vegetarian. Humans
evolved as vegetarians.
* Myth #9: Meat and saturated fat consumption have increased in the 20th
century, with a corresponding increase in heart disease and cancer.
* Myth #10: Soy products are adequate substitutes for meat and dairy
products.
* Myth #11: The human body is not designed for meat consumption.
* Myth #12: Eating animal flesh causes violent, aggressive behavior in
humans.
* Myth #13: Animal products contain numerous, harmful toxins.
* Myth #14: Eating meat or animal products is less "spiritual" than
eating only plant foods.
* Myth #15: Eating animal foods is inhumane.
Myth #1: Meat consumption contributes to famine and depletes the Earth's
natural resources.
Some vegetarians have claimed that livestock require pasturage that could be
used to farm grains to feed starving people in Third World countries. It is
also claimed that feeding animals contributes to world hunger because
livestock are eating foods that could go to feed humans. The solution to
world hunger, therefore, is for people to become vegetarians. These
arguments are illogical and simplistic.
The first argument ignores the fact that about 2/3 of our Earth's dry land
is unsuitable for farming. It is primarily the open range, desert and
mountainous areas that provide food to grazing animals and that land is
currently being put to good use (1).
The second argument is faulty as well because it ignores the vital
contributions that livestock animals make to humanity's well-being. It is
also misleading to think that the foods grown and given to feed livestock
could be diverted to feed humans:
Agricultural animals have always made a major contribution to the
welfare of human societies by providing food, shelter, fuel, fertilizer and
other products and services. They are a renewable resource, and utilize
another renewable resource, plants, to produce these products and services.
In addition, the manure produced by the animals helps improve soil fertility
and, thus, aids the plants. In some developing countries the manure cannot
be utilized as a fertilizer but is dried as a source of fuel.
There are many who feel that because the world population is growing at
a faster rate than is the food supply, we are becoming less and less able to
afford animal foods because feeding plant products to animals is an
inefficient use of potential human food. It is true that it is more
efficient for humans to eat plant products directly rather than to allow
animals to convert them to human food. At best, animals only produce one
pound or less of human food for each three pounds of plants eaten. However,
this inefficiency only applies to those plants and plant products that the
human can utilize. The fact is that over two-thirds of the feed fed to
animals consists of substances that are either undesirable or completely
unsuited for human food. Thus, by their ability to convert inedible plant
materials to human food, animals not only do not compete with the human
rather they aid greatly in improving both the quantity and the quality of
the diets of human societies. (2)
Furthermore, at the present time, there is more than enough food grown in
the world to feed all people on the planet. The problem is widespread
poverty making it impossible for the starving poor to afford it. In a
comprehensive report, the Population Reference Bureau attributed the world
hunger problem to poverty, not meat-eating (3). It also did not consider
mass vegetarianism to be a solution for world hunger.
What would actually happen, however, if animal husbandry were abandoned in
favor of mass agriculture, brought about by humanity turning towards
vegetarianism?
If a large number of people switched to vegetarianism, the demand for
meat in the United States and Europe would fall, the supply of grain would
dramatically increase, but the buying power of poor [starving] people in
Africa and Asia wouldn't change at all.
The result would be very predictable -- there would be a mass exodus
from farming. Whereas today the total amount of grains produced could feed
10 billion people, the total amount of grain grown in this post-meat world
would likely fall back to about 7 or 8 billion. The trend of farmers selling
their land to developers and others would accelerate quickly. (4)
In other words, there would be less food available for the world to eat.
Furthermore, the monoculture of grains and legumes, which is what would
happen if animal husbandry were abandoned and the world relied exclusively
on plant foods for its food, would rapidly deplete the soil and require the
heavy use of artificial fertilizers, one ton of which requires ten tons of
crude oil to produce (5).
As far as the impact to our environment, a closer look reveals the great
damage that exclusive and mass farming would do. British organic dairy
farmer and researcher Mark Purdey wisely points out that if "veganic
agricultural systems were to gain a foothold on the soil, then agrochemical
use, soil erosion, cash cropping, prairie-scapes and ill health would
escalate." (6)
Neanderthin author Ray Audette concurs with this view:
Since ancient times, the most destructive factor in the degradation of
the environment has been monoculture agriculture. The production of wheat in
ancient Sumeria transformed once-fertile plains into salt flats that remain
sterile 5,000 years later. As well as depleting both the soil and water
sources, monoculture agriculture also produces environmental damage by
altering the delicate balance of natural ecosystems. World rice production
in 1993, for instance, caused 155 million cases of malaria by providing
breeding grounds for mosquitoes in the paddies. Human contact with ducks in
the same rice paddies resulted in 500 million cases of influenza during the
same year.(7)
There is little doubt, though, that commercial farming methods, whether of
plants or animals produce harm to the environment. With the heavy use of
agrochemicals, pesticides, artificial fertilizers, hormones, steroids, and
antibiotics common in modern agriculture, a better way of integrating animal
husbandry with agriculture needs to be found. A possible solution might be
a return to "mixed farming," described below.
The educated consumer and the enlightened farmer together can bring about a
return of the mixed farm, where cultivation of fruits, vegetables and grains
is combined with the raising of livestock and fowl in a manner that is
efficient, economical and environmentally friendly. For example, chickens
running free in garden areas eat insect pests, while providing high-quality
eggs; sheep grazing in orchards obviate the need for herbicides; and cows
grazing in woodlands and other marginal areas provide rich, pure milk,
making these lands economically viable for the farmer. It is not animal
cultivation that leads to hunger and famine, but unwise agricultural
practices and monopolistic distribution systems. (8)
The "mixed farm" is also healthier for the soil, which will yield more crops
if managed according to traditional guidelines. Mark Purdey has accurately
pointed out that a crop field on a mixed farm will yield up to five harvests
a year, while a "mono-cropped" one will only yield one or two (9). Which
farm is producing more food for the world's peoples? Purdey well sums up the
ecological horrors of "battery farming" and points to future solutions by
saying:
Our agricultural establishments could do very well to outlaw the
business-besotted farmers running intensive livestock units, battery systems
and beef-burger bureaucracies; with all their wastages, deplorable cruelty,
anti-ozone slurry systems; drug/chemical induced immunotoxicity resulting
in B.S.E. [see myth # 13] and salmonella, rain forest eradication, etc. Our
future direction must strike the happy, healthy medium of mixed farms,
resurrecting the old traditional extensive system as a basic framework, then
bolstering up productivity to present day demands by incorporating a more
updated application of biological science into farming systems. (10)
It does not appear, then, that livestock farming, when properly practiced,
damages the environment. Nor does it appear that world vegetarianism or
exclusively relying on agriculture to supply the world with food are
feasible or ecologically wise ideas.
Myth #2: Vitamin B12 can be obtained from plant sources.
Of all the myths, this is perhaps the most dangerous. While lacto and lacto-
ovo vegetarians have sources of vitamin B12 in their diets (from dairy
products and eggs), vegans (total vegetarians) do not. Vegans who do not
supplement their diet with vitamin B12 will eventually get anemia (a fatal
condition) as well as severe nervous and digestive system damage; most, if
not all, vegans have impaired B12 metabolism and every study of vegan groups
has demonstrated low vitamin B12 concentrations in the majority of
individuals (11). Several studies have been done documenting B12
deficiencies in vegan children, often with dire consequences (12).
Additionally, claims are made in vegan and vegetarian literature that B12 is
present in certain algae, tempeh (a fermented soy product) and Brewer's
yeast. All of them are false as vitamin B12 is only found in animal foods.
Brewer's and nutritional yeasts do not contain B12 naturally; they are
always fortified from an outside source.
There is not real B12 in plant sources but B12 analogues--they are similar
to true B12, but not exactly the same and because of this they are not
bioavailable (13). It should be noted here that these B12 analogues can
impair absorption of true vitamin B12 in the body due to competitive
absorption, placing vegans and vegetarians who consume lots of soy, algae,
and yeast at a greater risk for a deficiency (14).
Some vegetarian authorities claim that B12 is produced by certain fermenting
bacteria in the lower intestines. This may be true, but it is in a form
unusable by the body. B12 requires intrinsic factor from the stomach for
proper absorption in the ileum. Since the bacterial product does not have
intrinsic factor bound to it, it cannot be absorbed (15).
It is true that Hindu vegans living in certain parts of India do not suffer
from vitamin B12 deficiency. This has led some to conclude that plant foods
do provide this vitamin. This conclusion, however, is erroneous as many
small insects, their feces, eggs, larvae and/or residue, are left on the
plant foods these people consume, due to non-use of pesticides and
inefficient cleaning methods. This is how these people obtain their vitamin
B12. This contention is borne out by the fact that when vegan Indian Hindus
later migrated to England, they came down with megaloblastic anaemia within
a few years. In England, the food supply is cleaner, and insect residues are
completely removed from plant foods (16).
The only reliable and absorbable sources of vitamin B12 are animal products,
especially organ meats and eggs (17). Though present in lesser amounts than
meat and eggs, dairy products do contain B12. Vegans, therefore, should
consider adding dairy products into their diets. If dairy cannot be
tolerated, eggs, preferably from free-run hens, are a virtual necessity.
That vitamin B12 can only be obtained from animal foods is one of the
strongest arguments against veganism being a "natural" way of human eating.
Today, vegans can avoid anemia by taking supplemental vitamins or fortified
foods. If those same people had lived just a few decades ago, when these
products were unavailable, they would have died.
Myth #3: Our needs for vitamin D can be met by sunlight.
Though not really a vegetarian myth per se, it is widely believed that one's
vitamin D needs can be met simply by exposing one's skin to the sun's rays
for 15-20 minutes a few times a week. Concerns about vitamin D deficiencies
in vegetarians and vegans always exist as this nutrient, in its full-complex
form, is only found in animal fats (18) which vegans do not consume and
more moderate vegetarians only consume in limited quantities due to their
meatless diets.
It is true that a limited number of plant foods such as alfalfa, sunflower
seeds, and avocado, contain the plant form of vitamin D (ergocalciferol, or
vitamin D2). Although D2 can be used to prevent and treat the vitamin D
deficiency disease, rickets, in humans, it is questionable, though, whether
this form is as effective as animal-derived vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol).
Some studies have shown that D2 is not utilized as well as D3 in animals (19
) and clinicians have reported disappointing results using vitamin D2 to
treat vitamin D-related conditions (20).
Although vitamin D can be created by our bodies by the action of sunlight on
our skin, it is very difficult to obtain an optimal amount of vitamin D by
a brief foray into the sun. There are three ultraviolet bands of radiation
that come from sunlight named A, B, and C. Only the "B" form is capable of
catalyzing the conversion of cholesterol to vitamin D in our bodies (21) and
UV-B rays are only present at certain times of day, at certain latitudes,
and at certain times of the year (22). Furthermore, depending on one's skin
color, obtaining 200-400 IUs of vitamin D from the sun can take as long as
two full hours of continual sunning (23). A dark-skinned vegan, therefore,
will find it impossible to obtain optimal vitamin D intake by sunning
himself for 20 minutes a few times a week, even if sunning occurs during
those limited times of the day and year when UV-B rays are available.
The current RDA for vitamin D is 400 IUs, but Dr. Weston Price's seminal
research into healthy native adult people's diets showed that their daily
intake of vitamin D (from animal foods) was about 10 times that amount, or 4
,000 IUs (24). Accordingly, Dr. Price placed a great emphasis on vitamin D
in the diet. Without vitamin D, for example, it is impossible to utilize
minerals like calcium, phosphorous, and magnesium. Recent research has
confirmed Dr. Price's higher recommendations for vitamin D for adults (24).
Since rickets and/or low vitamin D levels has been well-documented in many
vegetarians and vegans (26), since animal fats are either lacking or
deficient in vegetarian diets (as well as those of the general Western
public who routinely try to cut their animal fat intake), since sunlight is
only a source of vitamin D at certain times and at certain latitudes, and
since current dietary recommendations for vitamin D are too low, this
emphasizes the need to have reliable and abundant sources of this nutrient
in our daily diets. Good sources include cod liver oil, lard from pigs that
were exposed to sunlight, shrimp, wild salmon, sardines, butter, full-fat
dairy products, and eggs from properly fed chickens.
Myth #4: The body's needs for vitamin A can be entirely obtained from plant
foods.
True vitamin A, or retinol and its associated esters, is only found in
animal fats and organs like liver (27). Plants do contain beta-carotene, a
substance that the body can convert into vitamin A if certain conditions are
present (see below). Beta-carotene, however, is not vitamin A. It is
typical for vegans and vegetarians (as well as most popular nutrition
writers) to say that plant foods like carrots and spinach contain vitamin A
and that beta-carotene is just as good as vitamin A. These things are not
true even though beta-carotene is an important nutritional factor for humans.
The conversion from carotene to vitamin A in the intestines can only take
place in the presence of bile salts. This means that fat must be eaten with
the carotenes to stimulate bile secretion. Additionally, infants and people
with hypothyroidism, gall bladder problems or diabetes (altogether, a
significant portion of the population) either cannot make the conversion, or
do so very poorly. Lastly, the body's conversion from carotene to vitamin A
is not very efficient: it takes roughly 6 units of carotene to make one
unit of vitamin A. What this means is that a sweet potato (containing about
25,000 units of beta-carotene) will only convert into about 4,000 units of
vitamin A (assuming you ate it with fat, are not diabetic, are not an infant
, and do not have a thyroid or gall bladder problem) [28].
Relying on plant sources for vitamin A, then, is not a very wise idea. This
provides yet another reason to include animal foods and fats in our diets.
Butter and full-fat dairy foods, especially from pastured cows, are good
vitamin A sources, as is cod liver oil. Vitamin A is all-important in our
diets, for it enables the body to use proteins and minerals, insures proper
vision, enhances the immune system, enables reproduction, and fights
infections (29). As with vitamin D, Dr. Price found that the diets of
healthy primitive peoples supplied substantial amounts of vitamin A, again
emphasizing the great need humans have for this nutrient in maintaining
optimal health now and for future generations.
Myth #5: Meat-eating causes osteoporosis, kidney disease, heart disease, and
cancer.
Oftentimes, vegans and vegetarians will try to scare people into avoiding
animal foods and fats by claiming that vegetarian diets offer protection
from certain chronic diseases like the ones listed above. Such claims,
however, are hard to reconcile with historical and anthropological facts.
All of the diseases mentioned are primarily 20th century occurrences, yet
people have been eating meat and animal fat for many thousands of years.
Further, as Dr. Price's research showed, there were/are several native
peoples around the world (the Innuit, Maasai, Swiss, etc.) whose traditional
diets were/are very rich in animal products, but who nevertheless did/do
not suffer from the above-mentioned maladies (30). Dr. George Mann's
independent studies of the Maasai done many years after Dr. Price, confirmed
the fact that the Maasai, despite being almost exclusive meat eaters,
nevertheless, had little to no incidence of heart disease, or other chronic
ailments (31). This proves that other factors besides animal foods are at
work in causing these diseases.
Several studies have supposedly shown that meat consumption is the cause of
various illnesses, but such studies, honestly evaluated, show no such thing
as the following discussion will show.
Osteoporosis
Dr. Herta Spencer's research on protein intake and bone loss clearly showed
that protein consumption in the form of real meat has no impact on bone
density. Studies that supposedly proved that excessive protein consumption
equaled more bone loss were not done with real meat but with fractionated
protein powders and isolated amino acids (32). Recent studies have also
shown that increased animal protein intake contributes to stronger bone
density in men and women (33). Some recent studies on vegan and vegetarian
diets, however, have shown them to predispose women to osteoporosis (34).
Kidney Disease
Although protein-restricted diets are helpful for people with kidney disease
, there is no proof that eating meat causes it (35). Vegetarians will also
typically claim that animal protein causes overly acidic conditions in the
blood, resulting in calcium leaching from the bones and, hence, a greater
tendency to form kidney stones. This opinion is false, however.
Theoretically, the sulphur and phosphorous in meat can form an acid when
placed in water, but that does not mean that is what happens in the body.
Actually, meat contains complete proteins and vitamin D (if the skin and fat
are eaten), both of which help maintain pH balance in the bloodstream.
Furthermore, if one eats a diet that includes enough magnesium and vitamin
B6, and restricts refined sugars, one has little to fear from kidney stones,
whether one eats meat or not (36). Animal foods like beef, pork, fish, and
lamb are good sources of magnesium and B6 as any food/nutrient table will
show.
Heart Disease
The belief that animal protein contributes to heart disease is a popular one
that has no foundation in nutritional science. Outside of questionable
studies, there is little data to support the idea that meat-eating leads to
heart disease. For example, the French have one of the highest per capita
consumption of meat, yet have low rates of heart disease. In Greece, meat
consumption is higher than average but rates of heart disease are low there
as well. Finally, in Spain, an increase in meat eating (in conjunction with
a reduction in sugar and high carbohydrate intake) led to a decrease in
heart disease (37).
Cancer
The belief that meat, in particular red meat, contributes to cancer is, like
heart disease, a popular idea that is not supported by the facts. Although
it is true that some studies have shown a connection between meat eating and
some types of cancer (38), its important to look at the studies carefully
to determine what kind of meat is being discussed, as well as the
preparation methods used. Since we only have one word for "meat" in English,
it is often difficult to know which "meat" is under discussion in a study
unless the authors of the study specifically say so.
The study which began the meat=cancer theory was done by Dr. Ernst Wynder in
the 1970s. Wynder claimed that there was a direct, causal connection
between animal fat intake and incidence of colon cancer (39). Actually, his
data on "animal fats" were really on vegetable fats (40). In other words,
the meat=cancer theory is based on a phony study.
If one looks closely at the research, however, one quickly sees that it is
processed meats like cold cuts and sausages that are usually implicated in
cancer causation (41) and not meat per se. Furthermore, cooking methods seem
to play a part in whether or not a meat becomes carcinogenic (42). In other
words, it is the added chemicals to the meat and the chosen cooking method
that are at fault and not the meat itself.
In the end, although sometimes a connection between meat and cancer is found
, the actual mechanism of how it happens has eluded scientists (43). This
means that it is likely that other factors besides meat are playing roles in
some cases of cancer. Remember: studies of meat-eating traditional peoples
show that they have very little incidence of cancer. This demonstrates that
other factors are at work when cancer appears in a modern meat-eating person
. It is not scientifically fair to single out one dietary factor in placing
blame, while ignoring other more likely candidates.
It should be noted here that Seventh Day Adventists are often studied in
population analyses to prove that a vegetarian diet is healthier and is
associated with a lower risk for cancer (but see a later paragraph in this
section). While it is true that most members of this Christian denomination
do not eat meat, they also do not smoke or drink alcohol, coffee or tea, all
of which are likely factors in promoting cancer (44).
The Mormons are a religious group often overlooked in vegetarian studies.
Although their Church urges moderation, Mormons do not abstain from meat. As
with the Adventists, Mormons also avoid tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine.
Despite being meat eaters, a study of Utah Mormons showed they had a 22%
lower rate for cancer in general and a 34% lower mortality for colon cancer
than the US average (45). A study of Puerto Ricans, who eat large amounts of
fatty pork, nevertheless revealed very low rates of colon and breast cancer
(46). Similar results can be adduced to demonstrate that meat and animal
fat consumption do not correlate with cancer (47). Obviously, other factors
are at work.
It is usually claimed that vegetarians have lower cancer rates than meat-
eaters, but a 1994 study of vegetarian California Seventh Day Adventists
showed that, while they did have lower rates for some cancers (e.g., breast
and lung), they had higher rates for several others (Hodgkin's disease,
malignant melanoma, brain, skin, uterine, prostate, endometrial, cervical
and ovarian), some quite significantly. In that study the authors actually
admitted that:
Meat consumption, however, was not associated with a higher [cancer]
risk.
And that,
No significant association between breast cancer and a high consumption
of animal fats or animal products in general was noted. (48)
Further, it is usually claimed that a diet rich in plant foods like whole
grains and legumes will reduce one's risks for cancer, but research going
back to the last century demonstrates that carbohydrate-based diets are the
prime dietary instigators of cancer, not diets based on minimally processed
animal foods (49).
The mainstream health and vegetarian media have done such an effective job
of "beef bashing," that most people think there is nothing healthful about
meat, especially red meat. In reality, however, animal flesh foods like beef
and lamb are excellent sources of a variety of nutrients as any food/
nutrient table will show. Nutrients like vitamins A, D, several of the B-
complex, essential fatty acids (in small amounts), magnesium, zinc,
phosphorous, potassium, iron, taurine, and selenium are abundant in beef,
lamb, pork, fish and shellfish, and poultry. Nutritional factors like
coenzyme Q10, carnitine, and alpha-lipoic acid are also present. Some of
these nutrients are only found in animal foods--plants do not supply them.
Myth #6: Saturated fats and dietary cholesterol cause heart disease,
atherosclerosis, and/or cancer, and low-fat, low-cholesterol diets are
healthier for people.
This, too, is not a specific vegetarian myth. Nevertheless, people are often
urged to take up a vegetarian or vegan diet because it is believed that
such diets offer protection against heart disease and cancer since they are
lower or lacking in animal foods and fats.
Although it is commonly believed that saturated fats and dietary cholesterol
"clog arteries" and cause heart disease, such ideas have been shown to be
false by such scientists as Linus Pauling, Russell Smith, George Mann, John
Yudkin, Abram Hoffer, Mary Enig, Uffe Ravnskov and other prominent
researchers (50). On the contrary, studies have shown that arterial plaque
is primarily composed of unsaturated fats, particularly polyunsaturated ones
, and not the saturated fat of animals, palm or coconut (51).
Trans-fatty acids, as opposed to saturated fats, have been shown by
researchers such as Enig, Mann and Fred Kummerow to be causative factors in
accelerated atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, cancer and other
ailments (52). Trans-fatty acids are found in such modern foods as margarine
and vegetable shortening and foods made with them. Enig and her colleagues
have also shown that excessive omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid intake
from refined vegetable oils is also a major culprit behind cancer and heart
disease, not animal fats.
A recent study of thousands of Swedish women supported Enig's conclusions
and data, and showed no correlation between saturated fat consumption and
increased risk for breast cancer. However, the study did show,as did Enig's
work, a strong link between vegetable oil intake and higher breast cancer
rates (53).
The major population studies that supposedly prove the theory that animal
fats and cholesterol cause heart disease actually do not upon closer
inspection. The Framingham Heart Study is often cited as proof that dietary
cholesterol and saturated fat intake cause heart disease and ill health.
Involving about 6,000 people, the study compared two groups over several
years at five-year intervals. One group consumed little cholesterol and
saturated fat, while the other consumed high amounts. Surprisingly, Dr
William Castelli, the study's director, said:
In Framingham, Mass., the more saturated fat one ate, the more
cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person's serum
cholesterol ... we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate
the most saturated fat, [and] ate the most calories, weighed the least and
were the most physically active. (54)
The Framingham data did show that subjects who had higher cholesterol levels
and weighed more ran a slightly higher chance for coronary heart disease.
But weight gain and serum cholesterol levels had an inverse correlation with
dietary fat and cholesterol intake. In other words, there was no
correlation at all (55).
In a similar vein, the US Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial, sponsored
by the National Heart and Lung Institute, compared mortality rates and
eating habits of 12,000+ men. Those who ate less saturated fat and
cholesterol showed a slightly reduced rate of heart disease, but had an
overall mortality rate much higher than the other men in the study (56).
Low-fat/cholesterol diets, therefore, are not healthier for people. Studies
have shown repeatedly that such diets are associated with depression, cancer
, psychological problems, fatigue, violence and suicide (57). Women with
lower serum cholesterol live shorter lives than women with higher levels (58
). Similar things have been found in men (59).
Children on low-fat and/or vegan diets can suffer from growth problems,
failure to thrive, and learning disabilities (60). Despite this, sources
from Dr Benjamin Spock to the American Heart Association recommend low-fat
diets for children! One can only lament the fate of those unfortunate
youngsters who will be raised by unknowing parents taken in by such
genocidal misinformation.
There are many health benefits to saturated fats, depending on the fat in
question. Coconut oil, for example, is rich in lauric acid, a potent
antifungal and antimicrobial substance. Coconut also contains appreciable
amounts of caprylic acid, also an effective antifungal (61). Butter from
free-range cows is rich in trace minerals, especially selenium, as well as
all of the fat-soluble vitamins and beneficial fatty acids that protect
against cancer and fungal infections (62).
In fact, the body needs saturated fats in order to properly utilize
essential fatty acids (63). Saturated fats also lower the blood levels of
the artery-damaging lipoprotein (a) (64); are needed for proper calcium
utilization in the bones (65); stimulate the immune system (66); are the
preferred food for the heart and other vital organs (67); and, along with
cholesterol, add structural stability to the cell and intestinal wall (68).
They are excellent for cooking, as they are chemically stable and do not
break down under heat, unlike polyunsaturated vegetable oils. Omitting them
from one's diet, then, is ill-advised.
With respect to atherosclerosis, it is always claimed that vegetarians have
much lower rates of this condition than meat eaters. The International
Atherosclerosis Project of 1968, however, which examined over 20,000 corpses
from several countries, concluded that vegetarians had just as much
atherosclerosis as meat eaters (69). Other population studies have revealed
similar data. (70) This is because atherosclerosis is largely unrelated to
diet; it is a consequence of aging. There are things which can accelerate
the atherosclerotic process such as excessive free radical damage to the
arteries from antioxidant depletion (caused by such things as smoking, poor
diet, excess polyunsaturated fatty acids in the diet, various nutritional
deficiencies, drugs, etc), but this is to be distinguished from the fatty-
streaking and hardening of arteries that occurs in all peoples over time.
It also does not appear that vegetarian diets protect against heart disease.
A study on vegans in 1970 showed that female vegans had higher rates of
death from heart disease than non-vegan females (71). A recent study showed
that Indians, despite being vegetarians, have very high rates of coronary
artery disease (72). High-carbohydrate/low-fat diets (which is what
vegetarian diets are) can also place one at a greater risk for heart disease
, diabetes, and cancer due to their hyperinsulemic effects on the body (73).
Recent studies have also shown that vegetarians have higher homocysteine
levels in their blood (74). Homocysteine is a known cause of heart disease.
Lastly, low-fat/cholesterol diets, generally favored to either prevent or
treat heart disease, do neither and may actually increase certain risk
factors for this condition (75).
Studies which conclude that vegetarians are at a lower risk for heart
disease are typically based on the phony markers of lower saturated fat
intake, lower serum cholesterol levels and HDL/LDL ratios. Since vegetarians
tend to eat less saturated fat and usually have lower serum cholesterol
levels, it is concluded that they are at less risk for heart disease. Once
one realizes that these measurements are not accurate predictors of
proneness to heart disease, however, the supposed protection of
vegetarianism melts away (76).
It should always be remembered that a number of things factor into a person
getting heart disease or cancer. Instead of focusing on the phony issues of
saturated fat, dietary cholesterol, and meat-eating, people should pay more
attention to other more likely factors.
These would be trans-fatty acids, excessive polyunsaturated fat intake,
excessive sugar intake, excessive carbohydrate intake, smoking, certain
vitamin and mineral deficiencies, and obesity. These things were all
conspicuously absent in the healthy traditional peoples that Dr. Price
studied.
Myth #7: Vegetarians live longer and have more energy and endurance than
meat-eaters.
A vegetarian guidebook published in Great Britain made the following claim:
You and your children don't need to eat meat to stay healthy. In fact,
vegetarians claim they are among the healthiest people around, and they can
expect to live nine years longer than meat eaters (this is often because
heart and circulatory diseases are rarer). These days almost half the
population in Britain is trying to avoid meat, according to a survey by the
Food Research Association in January 1990. (77)
In commenting on this claim of extended lifespan, author Craig Fitzroy
astutely points out that:
The "nine-year advantage" is an oft-repeated but invariably unsourced
piece of anecdotal evidence for vegetarianism. But anyone who believes that
by snubbing mum's Sunday roast they will be adding a decade to their years
on the planet is almost certainly indulging in a bit of wishful thinking. (
78)
And that is what most of the claims for increased longevity in vegetarians
are: anecdotal. There is no proof that a healthy vegetarian diet when
compared to a healthy omnivorous diet will result in a longer life.
Additionally, people who choose a vegetarian lifestyle typically also choose
not to smoke, to exercise, in short, to live a healthier lifestyle. These
things also factor into one's longevity.
In the scientific literature, there are surprisingly few studies done on
vegetarian longevity. Russell Smith, PhD, in his massive review study on
heart disease, showed that as animal product consumption increased among
some study groups, death rates actually decreased! (79) Such results were
not obtained among vegetarian subjects. For example, in a study published by
Burr and Sweetnam in 1982, analysis of mortality data revealed that,
although vegetarians had a slightly (.11%) lower rate of heart disease than
non-vegetarians, the all-cause death rate was much higher for vegetarians (
80).
Despite claims that studies have shown that meat consumption increased the
risk for heart disease and shortened lives, the authors of those studies
actually found the opposite. For example, in a 1984 analysis of a 1978 study
of vegetarian Seventh Day Adventists, HA Kahn concluded,
Although our results add some substantial facts to the diet-disease
question, we recognize how remote they are from establishing, for example,
that men who frequently eat meat or women who rarely eat salad are thereby
shortening their lives. (81)
A similar conclusion was reached by D.A. Snowden (82). Despite these
startling admissions, the studies nevertheless concluded the exact opposite
and urged people to reduce animal foods from their diets.
Further, both of these studies threw out certain dietary data that clearly
showed no connection between eggs, cheese, whole milk, and fat attached to
meat (all high fat and cholesterol foods) and heart disease. Dr. Smith
commented,
In effect the Kahn [and Snowden] study is yet another example of
negative results which are massaged and misinterpreted to support the
politically correct assertions that vegetarians live longer lives. (83)
It is usually claimed that meat-eating peoples have a short life span, but
the Aborigines of Australia, who traditionally eat a diet rich in animal
products, are known for their longevity (at least before colonization by
Europeans). Within Aboriginal society, there is a special caste of the
elderly (84). Obviously, if no old people existed, no such group would have
existed. In his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Price has
numerous photographs of elderly native peoples from around the world.
Explorers such as Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great longevity among the
Innuit (again, before colonization). [85]
Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great ages on a
diet of fatty pork and whole raw milk products. The Hunzas, also known for
their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's milk
which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (86). In contrast,
the largely vegetarian Hindus of southern India have the shortest life-spans
in the world, partly because of a lack of food, but also because of a
distinct lack of animal protein in their diets (87). H. Leon Abrams'
comments are instructive here:
Vegetarians often maintain that a diet of meat and animal fat leads to a
pre-mature death. Anthropological data from primitive societies do not
support such contentions. (88)
With regards to endurance and energy levels, Dr Price traveled around the
world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets. Without exception,
he found a strong correlation between diets rich in animal fats, robust
health and athletic ability. Special foods for Swiss athletes, for example,
included bowls of fresh, raw cream. In Africa, Dr Price discovered that
groups whose diets were rich in fatty meats and fish, and organ meats like
liver, consistently carried off the prizes in athletic contests, and that
meat-eating tribes always dominated tribes whose diets were largely
vegetarian. (89)
It is popular in sports nutrition to recommend "carb loading" for athletes
to increase their endurance levels. But recent studies done in New York and
South Africa show that the opposite is true: athletes who "carb loaded" had
significantly less endurance than those who "fat loaded" before athletic
events (90).
Myth #8: The "cave man" diet was low-fat and/or vegetarian. Humans evolved
as vegetarians.
Our Paleolithic ancestors were hunter-gatherers, and three schools of
thought have developed as to what their diet was like. One group argues for
a high-fat and animal-based diet supplemented with seasonal fruits, berries,
nuts, root vegetables and wild grasses. The second argues that primitive
peoples consumed assorted lean meats and large amounts of plant foods. The
third argues that our human ancestors evolved as vegetarians.
The "lean" Paleolithic diet approach has been argued for quite voraciously
by Dr.'s Loren Cordain and Boyd Eaton in a number of popular and
professional publications (91). Cordain and Eaton are believers in the Lipid
Hypothesis of heart disease--the belief (debunked in myth number six, above
) that saturated fat and dietary cholesterol contribute to heart disease.
Because of this, and the fact that Paleolithic peoples or their modern
equivalents did/do not suffer from heart disease, Cordain and Eaton espouse
the theory that Paleolithic peoples consumed most of their fat calories from
monounsaturated and polyunsaturated sources and not saturated fats.
Believing that saturated fats are dangerous to our arteries, Cordain and
Eaton stay in step with current establishment nutritional thought and
encourage modern peoples to eat a diet like our ancestors. This diet, they
believe, was rich in lean meats and a variety of vegetables, but was low in
saturated fat. The evidence they produce to support this theory is, however,
very selective and misleading. (92) Saturated fats do not cause heart
disease as was shown above, and our Paleolithic ancestors ate quite a bit of
saturated fat from a variety of plant and animal sources.
From authoritative sources, we learn that prehistoric humans of the North
American continent ate such animals as mammoth, camel, sloth, bison,
mountain sheep, pronghorn antelope, beaver, elk, mule deer, and llama (93).
"Mammoth, sloth, mountain sheep, bison, and beaver are fatty animals in the
modern sense in that they have a thick layer of subcutaneous fat, as do the
many species of bear and wild pig whose remains have been found at
Paleolithic sites throughout the world." (94) Analysis of many types of fat
in game animals like antelope, bison, caribou, dog, elk, moose, seal, and
mountain sheep shows that they are rich in saturates and monounsaturates,
but relatively low in polyunstaurates. (95)
Further, while buffalo and game animals may have lean, non-marbled muscle
meats, it is a mistake to assume that only these parts were eaten by hunter-
gatherer groups like the Native Americans who often hunted animals
selectively for their fat and fatty organs as the following section will
show.
Anthropologists/explorers such as Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported that the
Innuit and North American Indian tribes would worry when their catches of
caribou were too lean: they knew sickness would follow if they did not
consume enough fat (96). In other words, these primitive peoples did not
like having to eat lean meat.
Northern Canadian Indians would also deliberately hunt older male caribou
and elk, for these animals carried a 50-pound slab of back fat on them which
the Indians would eat with relish. This "back fat" is highly saturated.
Native Americans would also refrain from hunting bison in the springtime (
when the animals' fat stores were low, due to scarce food supply during the
winter), preferring to hunt, kill and consume them in the fall when they
were fattened up (97).
Explorer Samuel Hearne, writing in 1768, described how the Native American
tribes he came in contact with would selectively hunt caribou just for the
fatty parts:
On the twenty-second of July, we met several strangers, whom we joined
in pursuit of the caribou, which were at this time so plentiful that we got
everyday a sufficient number for our support, and indeed too frequently
killed several merely for the tongues, marrow, and fat. (98)
While Cordain and Eaton are certainly correct in saying that our ancestors
ate meat, their contentions about fat intake, as well as the type of fat
consumed, are simply incorrect.
While various vegetarian and vegan authorities like to think that we evolved
as a species on a vegan or vegetarian diet, there exists little from the
realm of nutritional anthropology to support these ideas.
To begin with, in his journeys, Dr Price never once found a totally
vegetarian culture. It should be remembered that Dr. Price visited and
investigated several population groups who were, for all intents and
purposes, the 20th century equivalents of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Dr.
Price was on the lookout for a vegetarian culture, but he came up empty.
Price stated:
As yet I have not found a single group of primitive racial stock which
was building and maintaining excellent bodies by living entirely on plant
foods. (99)
Anthropological data support this: throughout the globe, all societies show
a preference for animal foods and fats and our ancestors only turned to
large scale farming when they had to due to increased population pressures (
100). Abrams and other authorities have shown that prehistoric man's quest
for more animal foods was what spurred his expansion over the Earth, and
that he apparently hunted certain species to extinction. (101)
Price also found that those peoples who, out of necessity, consumed more
grains and legumes, had higher rates of dental decay than those who consumed
more animal products. In his papers on vegetarianism, Abrams presents
archaeological evidence that supports this finding: skulls of ancient
peoples who were largely vegetarian have teeth containing caries and
abscesses and show evidence of tuberculosis and other infectious diseases (
102). The appearance of farming and the increased dependence on plant foods
for our subsistence was clearly harmful to our health.
Finally, it is simply not possible for our prehistoric ancestors to have
been vegetarian because they would not have been able to get enough calories
or nutrients to survive on the plant foods that were available. The reason
for this is that humans did not know how to cook or control fire at that
time and the great majority of plant foods, especially grains and legumes,
must be cooked in order to render them edible to humans (103). Most people
do not know that many of the plant foods we consume today are poisonous in
their raw states (104).
Based on all of this evidence, it is certain that the diets of our ancestors
, the progenitors of humanity, ate a very non-vegetarian diet that was rich
in saturated fatty acids.
Myth #9: Meat and saturated fat consumption have increased in the 20th
century, with a corresponding increase in heart disease and cancer.
Statistics do not bear out such fancies. Butter consumption has plummeted
from 18 lb (8.165 kg) per person a year in 1900, to less than 5 lb (2.27 kg)
per person a year today (105). Additionally, Westerners, urged on by
government health agencies, have reduced their intake of eggs, cream, lard,
and pork. Chicken consumption has risen in the past few decades, but chicken
is lower in saturated fat than either beef or pork.
Furthermore, a survey of cookbooks published in America in the last century
shows that people of earlier times ate plenty of animal foods and saturated
fats. For example, in the Baptist Ladies Cook Book (Monmouth, Illinois, 1895
), virtually every recipe calls for butter, cream or lard. Recipes for
creamed vegetables are numerous as well. A scan of the Searchlight Recipe
Book (Capper Publications, 1931) also has similar recipes: creamed liver,
creamed cucumbers, hearts braised in buttermilk, etc. British Jews, as shown
by the Jewish Housewives Cookbook (London, 1846), also had diets rich in
cream, butter, eggs, and lamb and beef tallows. One recipe for German
waffles, for example, calls for a dozen egg yolks and an entire pound of
butter. A recipe for Oyster Pie from the Baptist cookbook calls for a quart
of cream and a dozen eggs, and so forth and so on.
It does not appear, then, that people ate leaner diets in the last century.
It is true that beef consumption has risen in the last few decades, but what
has also risen precipitously, however, is consumption of margarine and
other food products containing trans-fatty acids (106), lifeless, packaged "
foods", processed vegetable oils (107), carbohydrates (108) and refined
sugar (109). Since one does not see chronic diseases like cancer and heart
disease in beef-eating native peoples like the Maasai and Samburu, it is not
possible for beef to be the culprit behind these modern epidemics. This, of
course, points the finger squarely at the other dietary factors as the most
likely causes.
Myth #10: Soy products are adequate substitutes for meat and dairy products.
It is typical for vegans and vegetarians in the Western world to rely on
various soy products for their protein needs. There is little doubt that the
billion-dollar soy industry has profited immensely from the anti-
cholesterol, anti-meat gospel of current nutritional thought. Whereas, not
so long ago, soy was an Asian food primarily used as a condiment, now a
variety of processed soy products proliferate in the North American market.
While the traditionally fermented soy foods of miso, tamari, tempeh and
natto are definitely healthful in measured amounts, the hyper-processed soy
"foods" that most vegetarians consume are not.
Non-fermented soybeans and foods made with them are high in phytic acid (110
), an anti-nutrient that binds to minerals in the digestive tract and
carries them out of the body. Vegetarians are known for their tendencies to
mineral deficiencies, especially of zinc (111) and it is the high phytate
content of grain and legume based diets that is to blame (112). Though
several traditional food preparation techniques such as soaking, sprouting,
and fermenting can significantly reduce the phytate content of grains and
legumes (113), such methods are not commonly known about or used by modern
peoples, including vegetarians. This places them (and others who eat a diet
rich in whole grains) at a greater risk for mineral deficiencies.
Processed soy foods are also rich in trypsin inhibitors, which hinder
protein digestion. Textured vegetable protein (TVP), soy "milk" and soy
protein powders, popular vegetarian meat and milk substitutes, are entirely
fragmented foods made by treating soybeans with high heat and various
alkaline washes to extract the beans' fat content or to neutralize their
potent enzyme inhibitors (110). These practices completely denature the
beans' protein content, rendering it very hard to digest. MSG, a neurotoxin,
is routinely added to TVP to make it taste like the various foods it
imitates (114).
On a purely nutritional level, soybeans, like all legumes, are deficient in
cysteine and methionine, vital sulphur-containing amino acids, as well as
tryptophan, another essential amino acid. Furthermore, soybeans contain no
vitamins A or D, required by the body to assimilate and utilize the beans'
proteins (115). It is probably for this reason that Asian cultures that do
consume soybeans usually combine them with fish or fish broths (abundant in
fat-soluble vitamins) or other fatty foods.
Parents who feed their children soy-based formula should be aware of its
extremely high phytoestrogen content. Some scientists have estimated a child
being fed soy formula is ingesting the hormonal equivalent of five birth
control pills a day (116). Such a high intake could have disastrous results.
Soy formula also contains no cholesterol, vital for brain and nervous
system development.
Though research is still ongoing, some recent studies have indicated that
soy's phytoestrogens could be causative factors in some forms of breast
cancer (117), penile birth defects (118), and infantile leukemia (119).
Regardless, soy's phytoestrogens, or isoflavones, have been definitely shown
to depress thyroid function (120) and to cause infertility in every animal
species studied so far (121). Clearly, modern soy products and isolated
isoflavone supplements are not healthy foods for vegetarians, vegans, or
anyone else, yet these are the very ones that are most consumed.
Myth #11: The human body is not designed for meat consumption.
Some vegetarian groups claim that since humans possess grinding teeth like
herbivorous animals and longer intestines than carnivorous animals, this
proves the human body is better suited for vegetarianism (122). This
argument fails to note several human physiological features which clearly
indicate a design for animal product consumption.
First and foremost is our stomach's production of hydrochloric acid,
something not found in herbivores. HCL activates protein-splitting enzymes.
Further, the human pancreas manufactures a full range of digestive enzymes
to handle a wide variety of foods, both animal and vegetable. Further, Dr.
Walter Voegtlin's in-depth comparison of the human digestive system with
that of the dog, a carnivore, and a sheep, a herbivore, clearly shows that
we are closer in anatomy to the carnivorous dog than the herbivorous sheep.
(123)
While humans may have longer intestines than animal carnivores, they are not
as long as herbivores; nor do we possess multiple stomachs like many
herbivores, nor do we chew cud. Our physiology definitely indicates a mixed
feeder, or an omnivore, much the same as our relatives, the mountain gorilla
and chimpanzee who all have been observed eating small animals and, in some
cases, other primates (124).
Myth #12: Eating animal flesh causes violent, aggressive behavior in humans.
Some authorities on vegetarian diet, such as Dr Ralph Ballantine (125),
claim that the fear and terror (if any, see myth #15) an animal experiences
at death is somehow "transferred" into its flesh and organs and "becomes" a
part of the person who eats it.
In addition to the fact that no scientific studies exist to support such a
theory, these thinkers would do well to remember the fact that a tendency to
irrational anger is a symptom of low vitamin B12 levels which, as we have
seen, are common in vegans and vegetarians. Furthermore, in his travels, Dr
Price always noted the extreme happiness and ingratiating natures of the
peoples he encountered, all of whom were meat-eaters.
Myth #13: Animal products contain numerous, harmful toxins.
A recent vegetarian newsletter claimed the following:
Most people don't realize that meat products are loaded with poisons and
toxins! Meat, fish and eggs all decompose and putrefy extremely rapidly. As
soon as an animal is killed, self-destruct enzymes are released, causing
the formation of denatured substances called ptyloamines, which cause cancer
. (126)
This article then went on to mention "mad cow disease" (BSE), parasites,
salmonella, hormones, nitrates and pesticides as toxins in animal products.
If meat, fish and eggs do indeed generate cancerous "ptyloamines," it is
very strange that people have not been dying in droves from cancer for the
past million years. Such sensationalistic and nonsensical claims cannot be
supported by historical facts.
Hormones, nitrates and pesticides are present in commercially raised animal
products (as well as commercially raised fruits, grains and vegetables) and
are definitely things to be concerned about. However, one can avoid these
chemicals by taking care to consume range-fed, organic meats, eggs and dairy
products which do not contain harmful, man-made toxins.
Parasites are easily avoided by taking normal precautions in food
preparations. Pickling or fermenting meats, as is custom in traditional
societies, always protects against parasites. In his travels, Dr Price
always found healthy, disease-free and parasite-free peoples eating raw meat
and dairy products as part of their diets.
Similarly, Dr Francis Pottenger, in his experiments with cats, demonstrated
that the healthiest, happiest cats were the ones on the all-raw-food diet.
The cats eating cooked meats and pasteurized milk sickened and died and had
numerous parasites (127). Salmonella can be transmitted by plant products as
well as animal.
It is often claimed by vegetarians that meat is harmful to our bodies
because ammonia is released from the breakdown of its proteins. Although it
is true that ammonia production does result from meat digestion, our bodies
quickly convert this substance into harmless urea. The alleged toxicity of
meat is greatly exaggerated by vegetarians.
"Mad Cow Disease," or Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), is most likely
not caused by cows eating animal parts with their food, a feeding practice
that has been done for over 100 years. British organic farmer Mark Purdey
has argued convincingly that cows that get Mad Cow Disease are the very ones
that have had a particular organophosphate insecticide applied to their
backs or have grazed on soils that lack magnesium but contain high levels of
aluminum (128). Small outbreaks of "mad cow disease" have also occurred
among people who reside near cement and chemical factories and in certain
areas with volcanic soils (129).
Purdey theorizes that the organophosphate pesticides got into the cows' fat
through a spraying program, and then were ingested by the cows again with
the animal part feeding. Seen this way, it is the insecticides, via the
parts feeding (and not the parts themselves or their associated "prions"),
that has caused this outbreak. As noted before, cows have been eating ground
up animal parts in their feeds for over 100 years. It was never a problem
before the introduction of these particular insecticides.
Recently, Purdey has gained support from Dr. Donald Brown, a British
biochemist who has also argued for a non-infectious cause of BSE. Brown
attributes BSE to environmental toxins, specifically manganese overload (130
).
Myth #14: Eating meat or animal products is less "spiritual" than eating
only plant foods.
It is often claimed that those who eat meat or animal products are somehow
less "spiritually evolved" than those who do not. Though this is not a
nutritional or academic issue, those who do include animal products in their
diet are often made to feel inferior in some way. This issue, therefore, is
worth addressing.
Several world religions place no restrictions on animal consumption; and nor
did their founders. The Jews eat lamb at their most holy festival, the
Passover. Muslims also celebrate Ramadan with lamb before entering into
their fast. Jesus Christ, like other Jews, partook of meat at the Last
Supper (according to the canonical Gospels). It is true that some forms of
Buddhism do place strictures on meat consumption, but dairy products are
always allowed. Similar tenets are found in Hinduism. As part of the Samhain
celebration, Celtic pagans would slaughter the weaker animals of the herds
and cure their meat for the oncoming winter. It is not true, therefore, that
eating animal foods is always connected with "spiritual inferiority".
Nevertheless, it is often claimed that, since eating meat involves the
taking of a life, it is somehow tantamount to murder. Leaving aside the
religious philosophies that often permeate this issue, what appears to be at
hand is a misunderstanding of the life force and how it works. Modern
peoples (vegetarian and non-vegetarian) have lost touch with what it takes
to survive in our world--something native peoples never lose sight of. We do
not necessarily hunt or clean our meats: we purchase steaks and chops at
the supermarket. We do not necessarily toil in rice paddies: we buy bags of
brown rice; and so forth, and so on.
When Native Americans killed a game animal for food, they would routinely
offer a prayer of thanks to the animal's spirit for giving its life so that
they could live. In our world, life feeds off life. Destruction is always
balanced with generation. This is a good thing: unchecked, the life force
becomes cancerous. If animal food consumption is viewed in this manner, it
is hardly murder, but sacrifice. Modern peoples would do well to remember
this.
Myth #15: Eating animal foods is inhumane.
Without question, some commercially raised livestock live in deplorable
conditions where sickness and suffering are common. In countries like Korea,
food animals such as dogs are sometimes killed in horrific ways, e.g.,
beaten to death with a club. Our recommendations for animal foods
consumption most definitely do not endorse such practices.
As noted in our discussion of myth #1, commercial farming of livestock
results in an unhealthy food product, whether that product be meat, milk,
butter, cream or eggs. Our ancestors did not consume such substandard
foodstuffs, and neither should we.
It is possible to raise animals humanely. This is why organic, preferably
Biodynamic, farming is to be encouraged: it is cleaner and more efficient,
and produces healthier animals and foodstuffs from those animals. Each
person should make every effort, then, to purchase organically raised
livestock (and plant foods). Not only does this better support our bodies,
as organic foods are more nutrient-dense (131) and are free from hormone and
pesticide residues, but this also supports smaller farms and is therefore
better for the economy (132).
Nevertheless, many people have philosophical problems with eating animal
flesh, and these sentiments must be respected. Dairy products and eggs,
though, are not the result of an animal's death and are fine alternatives
for these people.
It should also not be forgotten that agriculture, which involves both the
clearance of land to plant crops and the protection and maintenance of those
crops, results in many animal deaths (133). The belief, therefore, that "
becoming vegetarians" will somehow spare animals from dying is one with no
foundation in fact.
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
purity (purity) 于 (Fri Apr 2 18:55:23 2010, 美东) 提到:
那当然，即得利益者的利益被打击了，当然会发动各种手段攻击他，
Food， Inc这部电影的导演就提到在制造电影过程遇到多少即得利益者的阻扰。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
purity (purity) 于 (Fri Apr 2 18:58:13 2010, 美东) 提到:
为何真相竟如此难得？读《中国健康调查报告》
清华大学 蒋劲松教授
老实说，“以动物性食物为主的膳食会导致慢性疾病的发生，以植物性食物为主的膳食
最有利于健康，也最能有效地预防和控制慢性疾病”，对我来说这并非什么“石破天惊
”的新观念，不过是一些未被大众普遍接受的常识而已。美国的相关研究表明，素食者
的营养知识和意识都要比肉食者明显高出许多。这再次印证了女性主义科学哲学家桑德
拉·哈丁“立场认识论”的观点：边缘人群往往比主流群体更有反思批判能力，看问题
更加全面，因而观点往往也更加客观。令我惊讶的是，大多数人群不假思索地接受的许
多理念都没有科学依据，仅仅体现了食品工业者的利益。
从1983到1989年，在美国康奈尔大学、英国牛津大学、中国疾病预防与控制中心以及中
国医学科学院肿瘤研究所等多家中外权威机构精诚合作，在中国24个省市区的65个县开
展了三次关于膳食、生活方式和疾病死亡率的流行病学研究。这项研究荣获我国卫生部
科技进步一等奖，并被《纽约时报》称为“流行病学研究的巅峰之作”；然而它在国内
的影响却并不很大。反而是在国外，不仅发表了几十篇广为引证的研究论文，而且还被
许多国家的电视和平面媒体作为专题广泛报道。
该项研究的主要领导者T.柯林·坎贝尔教授，发表过350篇论文，荣获包括1998年美国
癌症研究所颁发的终身成就奖在内的无数奖励，是世界营养学界的最重要权威之一。《
中国健康调查报告》就是他积一生营养学研究心得精心打造的科普杰作，出版之后好评
如潮。诺贝尔奖得主罗伯特·C·理查森教授称赞本书在营养学图书中占有重要地位。
美国预防医学研究所创始人及所长迪安·奥尼什教授称之为迄今为止最为重要的营养学
专著。
多少年来，动物蛋白意味着健康、强壮、进步乃至文明和希望，这一“迷思”早已深入
人心，根深蒂固，成为不言自明、天经地义的常识。甚至有许多人将近代以来中国国势
不振、文化衰退，全都归罪于中国人的饮食传统。基于大量确凿的科学事实，经过严谨
的论证，本书得出了非常明确的结论：动物蛋白（包括甚至尤其是牛奶蛋白）能显著地
增加癌症、心脏病、糖尿病、肾结石、骨质疏松症、高血压、多发性硬化病、白内障以
及老年痴呆症的患病几率。尤其令人吃惊的是，所有这些疾病都可以通过调整饮食来进
行控制和治疗。中国以植物性食物为主的传统饮食习惯，反而是更加“科学”、更加有
利健康的。在西方文化的背景下，在当代中国饮食习惯日益西化的形势下，这一颠覆性
的结论无疑是振聋发聩令人深思的。
震惊之余，我们不仅要问：长期以来我们视为天经地义的饮食观念，多少人信誓旦旦地
以科学的名义向我们灌输的那些信条，怎么一夜之间就变成了错误的理念，疾病的祸首
？“科学”的食谱怎么会如此不科学？难道过去的科学家和医生们都没有发现这些错误
吗？为什么十几年前在中国进行的研究结果，对我们的健康如此关系重大，我们自己却
都不知道？究竟是谁或者什么机制在阻碍我们获得正确的信息？
坎贝尔在书中讲述了他是如何克服重重障碍才将这些珍贵的真理向大众传播的。他指出
：“整个社会体系，政府、科学界、医疗界、工业界、媒体都将利益置于健康之上”，
为了各自的利益，他们会非常默契地合作，试图将真相隐藏起来。我们不能对学界过份
相信，因为今天世界各国艳称的产学研一体化，往往导致共谋分赃。“经过无数艰难的
考验，我对学界内部有这样的阻力的原因有了一个更深的体会。科学家得到的这些资助
都是由像米德·约翰逊营养学实验室、LEDERLE实验室、BIOSERVE生物工程公司以及以
前的宝洁公司，还有达能营养中心提供的。这些都是食品工业和药物工业的衍生机构，
他们代表的是科学界和产业界的一种畸形联姻。你能相信这些所谓‘科学界的朋友’真
正致力于追求科学的真相，而不管结论对自己的影响是好还是坏吗？”
医学教育与药品公司长期以来一直狼狈为奸。医学院的学生、住院医生长期受到药品行
业和医药代表的影响，对药物和设备的依赖程度远远超出了必要。年轻的医生学到的理
念是对于每一种疾病都有一种合适的药物。医生越来越习惯于从制药企业接受各种礼物
和帮助，而制药工业则利用这样的小恩小惠来影响医生们的继续医学教育。整个医学学
术界心甘情愿地沦为了工业界的前沿阵地，将研究重点放在药物和医疗设备的研究开发
上。相比之下，更加健康的生活方式的研究，很难得到资助。正是这一原因，像基因工
程、心脏移植手术这样引起轰动而又花费巨大的治疗手段，工业界因有利可图就会大力
支持，而营养学很难得到公平、公正的关注。无怪乎，像约翰·麦肯道格尔、埃塞尔斯
汀这样通过教给病人正确的生活方式，控制膳食，不用手术就能成功地治疗心脏病的大
夫，会受到医学界的排挤。
因此，我们对于医生的建议也要分析，不能迷信。“你不应该先入为主地认为，医生比
你的邻居或同事有更多的营养学知识，对食物与健康的关系懂得更多。现实情况是，医
生并没有接受多少营养学培训，他们向体重超重的糖尿病患者建议多摄入牛奶或是含糖
的奶昔作为正餐替代品。也正是这些医生，向那些想减轻体重的患者建议摄入高比例的
肉制品和奶制品。也正是这样的医生，向骨质疏松症患者建议摄入更多牛奶。医生对营
养学的无知给病人带来的恶果实际上是非常令人震惊的。”
至于工业界，他们为了商业利益，将营养的“科学”变成了商业营销的工具。他们不仅
不顾公众的健康，而过度夸大宣传其产品的营养价值，掩盖其副作用，甚至于会派间谍
密切监视相关科学研究人员的一举一动，针对任何不利于其产品营销的科学研究成果，
及时组织对抗性的宣传。他们毫无顾忌地收买科学家，以学术争论的形式掩盖其商业推
销真面目，破坏科学界的诚信原则。
近代科学技术和医学的高速发展，不仅在社会运作层次上和资本主义追逐利润的极端产
业化紧密相联，而且在自然观层次上表现为对自然的全面征服和控制，在方法论上表现
为还原论的大行其道。而《中国健康调查报告》所揭示的真相，不仅因推崇简朴自然的
消费观念而受到鼓励消费的资本主义产业的封锁，而且因提倡顺应自然的生活方式和整
体综合的研究方法，而与主流意识形态相冲突，因而受到打压。
在有关蛋白质的问题上，存在着太多的文化偏见和神秘观点。人们往往将蛋白质等同于
肉食，等同于健康、强壮、甚至是先进文明。近代文明中将自然界的食物链与人类社会
中的权势、地位与健康简单等同起来，所以植物蛋白往往被认为是低等的。但是，“有
大量的研究表明，所谓低品质的植物蛋白，尽管用于合成新蛋白质的速度比较慢，但是
很稳定，这种蛋白才是最健康的，也是身体最需要的蛋白。和动物来源的蛋白质相比，
植物蛋白缓慢，但是能稳定地赢得‘健康比赛’的胜利。”
在营养学的问题上，还原论的思路是错误认识占统治地位的重要原因。“现在我可以自
信地说，公众对膳食与营养缺乏清晰的认识，其主要原因之一在于某些科学家仅仅强调
细节，而不谈整体。科学家总是花大量时间去分析某个单独的营养素的作用，例如维生
素A是否能预防癌症，或者维生素E是否能够预防心脏病，因此他们总是通过高度抽象化
或简单化的分析总结出结论。这种做法实际上低估了自然本身的复杂性。我们总是研究
食物中极小的生物化学部分，试图从中得到广泛适用的结论，这就导致了研究结果的自
相矛盾。而这种自相矛盾的结果导致科学家和决策者无所适从，并进而导致了公众的困
惑、不安和无所适从。”
长期以来，现代科学与历史进步的观念把臂而行。人们总是相信，科学在进步，现代的
观念意味着更加准确、真理和理性的发展，古老的信念意味着迷信、教条和可悲的谬误
。然而，坎贝尔教授通过研究相关历史，惊讶地发现，在有关膳食与健康关系的观念上
，历史更像是轮回而非进步，许多情况下历史是在退步的。当代耗费1亿美元的“护士
健康调查”项目，最后被证明对于预防乳腺癌没有任何帮助。而毕达哥拉斯、柏拉图、
塞涅卡早就在批评肉食的危害，其主要思路与今天的认识并无二致。西方医学之父希波
克拉底把膳食作为预防和治疗疾病的主要方式。一方面癌症等现代富贵病肆虐流行，另
一方面大批关于膳食与癌症等疾病关系的研究著作却尘封在图书馆中，无人问津。新潮
的思想未必比得上传统的智慧。
如此看来，《中国健康调查报告》不仅仅传播了医学和营养学的新知识，它还警示我们
，只有挣脱当代社会流行的意识形态的束缚，只有始终带着批判的眼光看待科学与工业
以及其他当代社会的统治势力的共谋，只有我们真正以理性来尊重一切传统智慧，以毫
无偏见的精神来对待世界各民族的多元文化，真相才不会被以科学的名义所蒙蔽。
后记 你知道那些大型制药公司、食品和保健品企业的运营策略吗？在《中国健康调查
报告》一书的第十五章“产业界的所谓科学”中T.柯林.坎贝尔教授写道：“……各家
公司争相竞争你口袋里的钞票。这些公司竭尽所能，希望能卖出更多的产品。同时，还
有很多行业组织致力于增加公众对某类产品的总体需求。如全国奶制品推广研究委员会
、全国奶制品加工者联合会、肉制品研究所、蛋制品生产商联合会等都是非常典型的行
业组织。这些食品公司和行业协会，在增加他们产品的吸引力、拓展产品市场方面，不
惜采取任何手段。比如大肆宣扬他们的产品具有很高的营养价值；雇用、资助知名科学
家、医生和专业人士利用他们的科学、权威形象发表一些貌似有科学依据、有利于产品
销售的言论，并抨击和消除所有伤害他们利益的举止和信息，让‘科学’的光环变成商
业营销的利器；又如奶制品业者的工作目标是：1.以6-12岁的母亲为营销对象。2.将学
校作为培养新一代顾客的渠道。3.挖掘对该行业有利的研究成果并传递给公众。公共教
育系统作为增加产品需求的主渠道，不但渗透有大量的营养学课程方案，还有各种各样
返利促销手段。我们是否应对此感到担心呢？答案是肯定的。他们投入巨额资金千方百
计地对公众施加有利于自己产品的影响。很明显，不论是孩子还是他们的父母，没有人
知道牛奶和动物性蛋白（肉类）与癌症、糖尿病、骨质疏松、多发性硬化症、自身免疫
病等疾病有关联关系的事实真相。为了把它的营养学观念灌输给下一代，真是付出了超
常的努力。他们坚持这样的做法已数十年了，而且非常成功。当许多人听说奶制品对健
康有潜在威胁时，马上会说：‘牛奶不可能对身体有害。’通常没有任何证据支持他们
的观点，他们只是有那么一种感觉，认为牛奶是好的，并且喜欢这样认为。这种观点可
以追溯到他们上学的时候，那时他们学的就是二加二等于四，还有牛奶对身体健康是有
益的……”
学校的营养餐真的营养吗？！1956年，美国政府公布了一份全民饮食建议，建议美国人
：饮食必须以高糖、高脂、高蛋白、低纤维为主，并以肉、奶、蛋为主食。事隔五年，
1961年美国医药学会的会刊就报导说：素食至少可以预防90%到97%的心脏病。显然这份
报告已经在悄悄地修正先前错误的认知了。1992年4月28日，美国政府再度公布一份新
的饮食建议：理想的饮食当中，应以蔬菜、水果、五谷、豆类、坚果为主，宜占90%以
上，而肉、奶、蛋的比例应小于10%。1998年美国癌症研究所授予美国康奈尔大学T.柯
林.坎贝尔博士“终身成就奖”，因其发现动物性蛋白是促发各类癌症的主要原因，是
罹患心脏病、肝肾疾病、血管疾病、糖尿病、肥胖、过敏性疾病、自身免疫病、骨质疏
松（缺钙）、便秘、痛风、结石、老年痴呆、皮肤粗糙等各种富贵病、慢性病的罪魁祸
首。坎贝尔博士是康奈尔大学终身教授、被誉为世界营养学界的爱因斯坦、二恶英的主
要发现者。从认为正确到逐渐发现错误，美国这次用了约40年的时间来认知正确的饮食
。同样的问题，我们呢？在现代环境下，我们听到和看到的多是“强者”的声音，多是
“有钱人”为了得到更多的金钱而发出的声音，我们别无选择地接受这些为情欲、利益
服务的资讯影响，被潜移默化而认同，如果你没有理智就无法辩别，也就意味着远离科
学、远离真相。健康饮食理念的发展趋势又带给您怎样的思考呢？何止是大众的饮食习
惯，呜呼哀哉......
is
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jszhb (金嗓子喉宝) 于 (Fri Apr 2 20:16:31 2010, 美东) 提到:
你这个不是还是关于那个campbell的么。
就看下面这段就知道这个文章充满误导。
“1992年4月28日，美国政府再度公布一份新的饮食建议：理想的饮食当中，应以蔬菜、水果、五谷、豆类、坚果为主，宜占90%以上，而肉、奶、蛋的比例应小于10%”
原来美国政府还做关于“理想饮食”的建议。这政府可真万能。
还有:
"1961年美国医药学会的会刊就报导说：素食至少可以预防90%到97%的心脏病。"
这个吹的是不是有点太大了？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jszhb (金嗓子喉宝) 于 (Fri Apr 2 20:29:50 2010, 美东) 提到:
你的意思是campbell的那些结果如果想在peer review journal上发表会受到“既得利
益者”阻挠而无法成功？这个就太没有sense了吧。只要有三个同行不受“既得利益”
者控制就可以通过review。你这个调调是比较典型的 conspiracy theory的说法。
书和journal的区别很简单。campbell书里面的很多东西根本没法在journal上发表。
journal上文章的结论要严谨的多。书不管说的什么crap，只要有读者，卖的出去就有
publisher给出版。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
purity (purity) 于 (Fri Apr 2 20:41:29 2010, 美东) 提到:
美国政府的理想饮食建议不停地更改，不同时期有不同建议，
中国人以植物为主的传统饮食比美国健康多了，
现代中国社会受美国垃圾饮食影响，痴肥儿童和各种疾病增加。
菜、水果、五谷、豆类、坚果为主，宜占90%以上，而肉、奶、蛋的比例应小于10%”
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jszhb (金嗓子喉宝) 于 (Fri Apr 2 20:43:45 2010, 美东) 提到:
你能给个美国政府建议理想饮食的链接么？
听说地沟油尤其有利健康。三鹿奶粉更是好，健康饮食从娃娃抓起。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
purity (purity) 于 (Fri Apr 2 20:45:36 2010, 美东) 提到:
美国康奈尔大学的柯林·坎贝尔教授，发表过350篇论文，荣获包括1998年美国癌症
研究所颁发的终身成就奖在内的无数奖励，是世界营养学界的最重要权威之一。
坎贝尔在书中讲述了他是如何克服重重障碍才将这些珍贵的真理向大众传播的。他指出
：“整个社会体系，政府、科学界、医疗界、工业界、媒体都将利益置于健康之上”，
为了各自的利益，他们会非常默契地合作，试图将真相隐藏起来。我们不能对学界过份
相信，因为今天世界各国艳称的产学研一体化，往往导致共谋分赃。“经过无数艰难的
考验，我对学界内部有这样的阻力的原因有了一个更深的体会。科学家得到的这些资助
都是由像米德·约翰逊营养学实验室、LEDERLE实验室、BIOSERVE生物工程公司以及以
前的宝洁公司，还有达能营养中心提供的。这些都是食品工业和药物工业的衍生机构，
他们代表的是科学界和产业界的一种畸形联姻。你能相信这些所谓‘科学界的朋友’真
正致力于追求科学的真相，而不管结论对自己的影响是好还是坏吗？”
医学教育与药品公司长期以来一直狼狈为奸。医学院的学生、住院医生长期受到药品行
业和医药代表的影响，对药物和设备的依赖程度远远超出了必要。年轻的医生学到的理
念是对于每一种疾病都有一种合适的药物。医生越来越习惯于从制药企业接受各种礼物
和帮助，而制药工业则利用这样的小恩小惠来影响医生们的继续医学教育。整个医学学
术界心甘情愿地沦为了工业界的前沿阵地，将研究重点放在药物和医疗设备的研究开发
上。相比之下，更加健康的生活方式的研究，很难得到资助。正是这一原因，像基因工
程、心脏移植手术这样引起轰动而又花费巨大的治疗手段，工业界因有利可图就会大力
支持，而营养学很难得到公平、公正的关注。无怪乎，像约翰·麦肯道格尔、埃塞尔斯
汀这样通过教给病人正确的生活方式，控制膳食，不用手术就能成功地治疗心脏病的大
夫，会受到医学界的排挤。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jszhb (金嗓子喉宝) 于 (Fri Apr 2 20:48:39 2010, 美东) 提到:
"像约翰·麦肯道格尔、埃塞尔斯汀这样通过教给病人正确的生活方式，控制膳食，不用手术就能成功地治疗心脏病"
这些很想邪教的东东。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
purity (purity) 于 (Fri Apr 2 20:48:57 2010, 美东) 提到:
没人说地沟油好，也没人说三鹿奶粉好，不用故意举出这些事例抬高美国的垃圾食品工
业。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
jszhb (金嗓子喉宝) 于 (Fri Apr 2 20:50:30 2010, 美东) 提到:
那你有什么数据来证明中国饮食更健康么？比如中国人平均寿命比美国长？
很奇怪，我“抬高美国的垃圾食品工业”了？
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
purity (purity) 于 (Fri Apr 2 20:55:19 2010, 美东) 提到:
中国健康调查报告--导言（二）
http://5joys.com/cnews/bet20081017230304264.htm
导言（二）
这些发现都证明，良好的膳食是我们对抗疾病的有力武器。了解有关的科学知识
不仅对改善我们的健康非常重要，而且对整个社会也有着重要的影响。我们必须了解：
为什么这个社会中充斥着各种各样的虚假信息？为什么我们对如何研究膳食和健康之间
的关系、如何促进健康以及如何防治疾病总是产生误解。
无论你采用多少判断标准，美国公众的健康都在退化。我们在医疗方面的人均开销
超过了世界上任何一个国家。但是有2/3的美国人体重超重，有大约1500万糖尿病患者
，而且近年来这一数字还在不断迅速刷新。我们像30年前一样，经常为心脏病所困，而
20世纪70年代开始的征服癌症之战，今天已经被证明是一次可悲的失败。大约有一半的
美国人患有各种各样的疾病，每周都需要用药物来缓解病痛；而超过一亿的美国人胆固
醇水平过高。
更为糟糕的是，我们正在把年轻一代引向发病越来越早的歧途。大约1/3的青少年
体重超重或者有超重的危险。越来越多的年轻人患有成年人才会患的糖尿病，这些年轻
人不得不更多、更频繁地服用处方药。
所有这些问题都与三件事情有关：早餐、午餐和晚餐。
40多年前，我刚刚开始科研工作，从未想过食品和我们的健康之间有如此紧密的联
系。多年以来，我从来没有关注过吃哪些食品最好。我的饮食方式和其他美国人没什么
不同，别人告诉我吃什么对身体有好处，我就吃什么。我们选择味道爽口或是烹调简单
的食品，再不就是父母让我们吃的东西。我们生活的文化氛围决定了我们的饮食偏好和
习惯。
我也不例外。我是在奶牛场长大的。奶牛场里，奶制品是最为重要的一种食品。学
校里，老师告诉我们牛奶可以让我们身体更强壮，骨骼和牙齿更结实，是大自然对我们
的恩赐。在农场，我们吃的大多数食品都是我们在庄园或牧场里制作的。
我是我们家第一个上大学的人。我先在宾西法尼亚州立大学学习兽医预科，之后到
佐治亚大学学了一年兽医。这时康奈尔大学给我提供了一笔奖学金，让我去做动物营养
专业的研究生。在康奈尔大学，我拿到了硕士学位。我是克莱夫•麦凯教授的关
门弟子。麦凯教授因通过减少摄食而延长大鼠寿命的研究在业内享有崇高的声誉。我的
博士论文也是在康奈尔完成的，课题是如何找到一个更好的方法，让奶牛和羊长得更快
。当时我试图改进饲养方法，以便生产更多的动物蛋白。我当时认为动物蛋白是“优良
营养”的基础。
那时我还处在一种思维定式中，并且试图通过鼓励摄入更多的肉类、牛奶和鸡蛋来
改善人们的健康。因为这种想法和我在农场的生活经验是相吻合的，而且我也愿意相信
美国人的膳食是世界上最好的。在这种教条的信念影响之下，我一直相信：我们所享受
的饮食是世界上品质最好的，因为我们的饮食中含有大量高品质的动物蛋白。
我早年的研究工作主要集中在黄曲霉毒素和二恶英上，这是两种被认为有史以来毒
性最强的化学物质。最初在麻省理工学院工作时，我被派去解决一个与鸡饲料有关的问
题。每年有数百万只鸡死于饲料中的一种未知的有毒化学物质。我的任务是分离这一化
学物质，并将其化学结构鉴定出来。经过两年半的艰苦工作，我们发现了二恶英——号
称有史以来毒性最强的化学物质。该化学物质受到广泛的关注，因为它是一种除草剂2
，4，5T，又称橙剂的主要组成部分。而橙剂当时被用于越南战场，用于脱落丛林的树
叶。
离开麻省理工学院以后，我在弗吉尼亚理工学院谋取了一份教职，负责协调一项在
菲律宾开展的针对营养不良儿童的研究项目的技术援助。该项目的部分工作是研究当地
儿童中肝癌的高发病率。肝癌本来是一种在成年人中发生的疾病，但是在菲律宾儿童中
肝癌的发病率却异乎寻常的高。当时认为，这个现象与摄入霉菌产生的黄曲霉毒素有关
。黄曲霉毒素是一种在花生和玉米中常见的毒素，被公认为是世界上最强的致癌物之一
。
10年中，我们在菲律宾的主要工作目标是改善当地贫困儿童营养不良的状况。这项
工作受到了美国国际开发署的资助，我们在菲律宾一共建立了大约110个营养“自助”
教育中心。
这些工作的目的非常单纯，就是希望能保证菲律宾儿童摄入尽可能多的蛋白质。当
时广泛接受的理念是：世界上许多儿童营养不良主要是由于蛋白质摄入不足所引起的，
特别是动物来源的蛋白质摄入不足。当时全球的大学和政府机构都在致力于弥补发展中
国家的“蛋白质缺口”。
但在这个项目中，我揭开了一个十分秘密的事实：那些蛋白质摄入量最高的孩子却
最容易患肝癌，而这些孩子通常出身于最富裕家庭。
当时，我留意到一份来自印度的研究报告，其中提到了一些惊人的引起争论的相关
结果。印度的研究者对两组大鼠进行了对比实验，给其中一组投以致癌的黄曲霉毒素，
同时饲以含20％蛋白质的饲料。20％的蛋白质比例大致相当于西方人膳食中摄入的蛋白
质比例。给另一组大鼠投以同样剂量的黄曲霉毒素，但饲料中的蛋白质含量只有5％。
让人难以置信的是，饲以含20％蛋白质的饲料的这组大鼠后来都出现了肝癌的发病迹象
。而饲料中含5%蛋白质的这一组大鼠，没有任何一只患上肝癌。肝癌发病率之比为100
∶0。这一结果无可辩驳地证明了：在控制癌症发病方面，营养比化学致癌物甚至比极
强的致癌物的影响更大。
这个实验与我以前所学的一切都是相悖的。“摄入更多的蛋白质并不能让人更健康
”，这个结论已经很惊人了，更不要说“高蛋白质摄入促进癌症发病率”了。这是我职
业生涯中的一个转折点。但是在科研工作的早期就深入研究这样一个充满挑战性的问题
并不是明智的决定。如果我对蛋白质和动物来源食品的价值提出质疑，即使我的研究能
被承认是“有价值的科学工作”，我也不可避免地被看作是一个离经叛道的人。
但我从来都不是一个循规蹈矩的人。早年，我学习放牧，或者是学习打猎、钓鱼、
耕作的时候，我都学着以独立思考的方式来解决实际生活中出现的问题。每次在实际生
活中遇到问题，我都努力想清楚下一步怎么办？现实生活是最好的课堂，每个农村长大
的孩子都知道这一点。直到今天，我仍保持着这种独立的精神。
因此，当面临这一困难抉择的时候，我决定开展一项深入的研究工作，研究营养，
特别是蛋白质在癌症的发病机制中到底扮演什么样的角色。我的同事和我在确定这个假
说时是非常谨慎的，所采取的研究方法也是非常严谨的，阐述研究结果时的态度也是非
常保守和审慎的。我们选择在最基础的科学层面上研究癌症发病的生化细节。重要的是
，不仅要了解蛋白质是否会诱发癌症，还要了解蛋白质是怎样诱发癌症的。通过精心细
致的准备工作，我们以非常认真、负责的态度，对这样一个富有挑战性的题目进行了深
入的研究，而不是仅仅凭借一些激进的观点，做出想当然的结论。最终，这项为期27年
的研究项目得到了最富盛名的、也最有竞争力的资助机构的支持（主要的经费来源于国
家卫生研究院，美国癌症协会和美国癌症研究所）。我们的研究结果顺利地通过了审核
，发表在多家一流的科学刊物上。
☆─────────────────────────────────────☆
lykuang02 (mm worm) 于 (Sat Apr 3 00:29:14 2010, 美东) 提到:
回国就可以吃正宗川菜了，酸辣粉，担担面，搞一堆麻辣烫，红油滚滚，干锅鱼，可
以让休息好久的味蕾活跃一下了。老外的food频道也有很多饮食节目，其实他们也
有烹饪，先把健康因素排除，就是刺激不了我的味蕾。我看着一盘拌得五花八门的
有叶子菜有鸡块的沙拉就是没食欲。 |
|
