Blurry
![Post Post](./styles/mcd/imageset/icon_post_target.gif)
Heretic, I think you must have me confused or conflated with somebody else. This is the only statement I posted regarding Price's claims being in disagreement with others': "What you call the Price 'opinion' is contrary to research-based facts that are almost universally accepted."
Research shows and the great majority of people believe thru observation that a cloudless sky is blue. Would you argue that point?
I was originally attracted to McDougall's books because, unlike many other diet writers at the time, he backed up every claim he made by citing clinical studies or similar authoritative sources. He claims were not anecdotal. Every chapter in his first book had 50, 60 or 70 clinical-study, research-or-the-like references at the end, each noted in the text. That made him credible and his conclusions persuasive.
Similarly, some of the Price foundation treatises I've read are well-referenced. I haven't examined every reference, but another forum member said she has and found that every reference supported vegan/vegetarian conclusions rather than Price's.
I find an odd tone in some of the Price foundation writing. It sometimes sounds a little wacko. It doesn't engender trust. It makes me suspicious of the writers' motives.
The American Cake Association says, "Eat three cakes a day."
You offered to post information about the Price foundation. You haven't done that. You seem to be spoiling for a fight. Offer your information and let's see what the forum members think of it.
Best to all,
Early
Research shows and the great majority of people believe thru observation that a cloudless sky is blue. Would you argue that point?
I was originally attracted to McDougall's books because, unlike many other diet writers at the time, he backed up every claim he made by citing clinical studies or similar authoritative sources. He claims were not anecdotal. Every chapter in his first book had 50, 60 or 70 clinical-study, research-or-the-like references at the end, each noted in the text. That made him credible and his conclusions persuasive.
Similarly, some of the Price foundation treatises I've read are well-referenced. I haven't examined every reference, but another forum member said she has and found that every reference supported vegan/vegetarian conclusions rather than Price's.
I find an odd tone in some of the Price foundation writing. It sometimes sounds a little wacko. It doesn't engender trust. It makes me suspicious of the writers' motives.
The American Cake Association says, "Eat three cakes a day."
You offered to post information about the Price foundation. You haven't done that. You seem to be spoiling for a fight. Offer your information and let's see what the forum members think of it.
Best to all,
Early