View Full Version : Study from Sproutman website
02-01-2006, 09:53 PM
I don't post here much, but I read a lot and enjoy the wisdom. Some of you might have seen this study before, it's a little scientific, but hey,it's a medical journal. I found it on Sproutman's website and it looks at effects of raw and cooked vegetable consumption on cancer rates.
02-02-2006, 07:48 AM
I have a serious interest in the topic. Thanks for the post.
02-02-2006, 08:28 AM
Wow...I read that article and got more confused. What exactly is he saying, that cooked veggies are better? It didn't make sense to me. Can somebody clarify that article..if it says what I thought...I don't understand why we are working so hard to eat raw.
02-02-2006, 08:38 AM
He's saying that both raw and cooked veggies protect against cancer. For the most part raw veggies seems to do the job better but in on of two tests on bladder cancer raw veggies didn't affect cancer rates where as cooked veggies lowered the rates. This may be a fluke though, because you only have two studies. If you had 10 studies on bladder cancer and one said cooked was better than raw then it's easier to draw a conclusion.
I'd say eat raw :)
02-02-2006, 08:41 AM
Thanks Cecila for responding so quickly. :)
You might also find the following video informative, but not for the reasons you might be expecting:
(be warned, it's 196mb, but it's WORTH IT!)
02-02-2006, 02:14 PM
greenfeline, thanks for sharing this study. It has some interesting points.
However, I see a very big gaping hole in it. What's the point of analyzing only a small amount of veggies that people eat and whether it was raw or cooked? They do not state what all of the other junk these people were eating is. How can they determine that it was the raw or cooked veggies that caused any difference in their cancer status unless each person was eating everything else the same? Where the people eating however much raw veggies a day also eating macaroni and cheese for lunch? Processed cereal and milk for breakfast? Pop Tarts for a snack? It doesn't hold any water for me unless I know ALL of what these people were eating.
Don't you think? Am I making sense?
02-02-2006, 04:36 PM
No problem :)
Controlling everything someone eats is always a problem with these kinds of studies. Generally they either try to pick out a sample group that is representative for society as a whole, or they might do the study in some sort of institution where they can controll what people eat.
A bigger problem with these types of studies is that they depend on environment, that the sample size often isn't large enough to give conclusive results or that the study isn't conducted over a large enough period of time.
These studies generally just give an indication of something, not conclusive results. I think anything you personally experience is a much better indicator of how good/bad something is for you
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.