Jump to content

Barry Sears Says:Nothing about The China study is proven...


Recommended Posts

Hi everyone i am a student of University of Camerino that is studying nutrional biology and today i went to an event where Barry Sears was speaking about the Zone Diet. He said things that maybe are true but he didn't speak about fibers and he didn't suggest to eat pasta or bread without differentiating whole bread and pasta from no healthy grains creating more confusion than giving answer and he suggests to use a lot of purified Oil fish like source of long chained omega 3 and he didn't speak at all about cholesterol and he suggest to buy integrators for polyphenols and to eat 30% of low fat protein every day!

Now, i'm not a certified nutritionist but at the end of the speech i asked him,in private, what he thinks about the china study and he responded me:There are 2 china studies.The real china study(of China) and the other china study(of Colin Campbell). So at that point i asked him: What is the difference?

he answered:Nothing about The China study is scientifically proven.Colin Campbell isn't a scientist that use the science how the foundamental of a nutritional book.(like me)

 

What you think or you know about Dr.Sears? and what is wrong with the zone diet? Thank you guys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know much about him but thanks for posting, I will do some research on him. Although from the little I just learned from you about him he sounds like a close-minded, I'm right and you're wrong type of person. That isn't a scientific approach, that's more like a religious mind-set.

I think the China study is a very important collection of nutritional information. I also think very highly of Dr. Campbell. All that being said, I will be doing some research on Barry Sears because I wan't have a well rounded nutritional knowledge.

 

-Dylan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No idea who Barry Sears is, but he's partly right. Campbell's China Study, as published, is awful. However, that's more because of his conclusions rather than his research. His hypotheses and methodology were good, so he's at least half a scientist.

 

Denise Minger's critique is ridiculously thorough and well-researched:

http://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...