surely life style has more to do with it than just eating rice. If you just ate loadsa rice, but sat in a warm office, cosy home and drove a car everywhere - you'd be pretty unhealthy I'd say!

Its all a pointless arguement, whether rice is good or bad, these days we dont eat rice to stop us from starving, we add it to our already high carb/calorie meals

Yes, I have an idea, thank you. But do you have an idea that there was a problem with vitamin deficiency and genetic disorders in those countries with heavy rice and other grains consumption? Vit A and iron to begin with.
http://www.whybiotech.com/html/con494.html

As for not being Dx wth heart desease and diabetes, there were no diagnostic tools to begin with, the glucose meters and tests strips are around for less than 50 years.




I am not going to discuss caloric restriction here, for once, it's been discussed already and in different thread; and secondary, I don't support this theory and even if I would, it would be only possible on a very low carb regimen, the only way to provide maximum nutritiona with minimum calories, but not a rice-based diet.
I am not suprised that someone who is 90 yo eats very little, older ppl have less ability to digest food, so they all tends to eat little. Their energy requirements are also diminished with age, etc.
One last question: why are you on Montignac diet yourself? Why not a Microbiotic diet? Just curious.

Come on. Using your logic, about all Asians who eats rice as their main meal would be diabetic for milleniums. Doesn't it sound a bit absurd? 10-20 years ago, it was a rare disease among them and it was not because they didn't knwo about it.



Definitely!

Just like excess fat and proteins.

I disagree. Just pure and unfounded theory. But I would agree on highly refined ones.



Again, you missed the point why they have increasing obesity/diabete problems. It is because they abandonned their traditional high carbs & fibers foods in favor of our bad foods.

Key word is "inspired from". I just grab elements from different toolboxes.

Also what I liked in his approach is that you have to treat yourself well in what you eat. I have been enjoying his recommendation of wine and dark chocolates for years.

Only when eaten in combination with excess carbs. If you're going to eat a high carb menu, I'd definitely encouarage that person to keep the fat intake as low as possible.
Find me a study that shows that proteins and fats alone cause ill health. Your nutritional intake may not be as optimal as if you had included a low to moderate amount of low glycemic vegetables and fruits, but you won't find a culture that has a heavily meat/fat based diet with limited carbs to show ill health.

Way longer than that, Saintor. Ancient Egyptian and Roman texts describe the symptoms of diabetes as well as various proposed 'treatments' for the condition. http://www.diabetes.ca/Section_About/timeline.asp

Excuse me, but why is it that when people speak about "healthy" Chinese eating they always hone in on the "rice" (which is just an afterthought) and ignore the large amounts of pork and pork fat and seafood they use in their traditional way of cooking (and low-carb, green veggies)? Chinese markets are the best places to get all kinds of fresh pork and seafood. Orientals do not eat a diet consisting mostly of rice and they certainly don't use rice as a main meal.

As to why their incidence of diabetes is on the rise, that's probably because they are following the modern dietary wisdom that is telling them to ditch the pork fat and increase their rice consumption.

One word: Stereotype.

This is ridiculous.

Why are you stating things that you don't know about? I know personnally Asians (Cambodgians and Vetnamians), and they eat very little meat and only seafood is not that common for the continental people (the majority). As somebody mentionned ealier, it is considered as a luxury for most of those people.

I lived for 10 years in Vietnam. Vietnamese in the village barely have enough to eat. I remember always being hungry and wanting more but there was no more. Typical meal was about 2 cups of rice, veggies, and some fish. They work hard all day long out in the fields. That's why they're not fat. But people in the city are a different matter. They eat their rice, isn't as active, and have a host of health problems. My father's side of the family is thin as most Vietnamese are, city dwellers, has a history of strokes and high blood pressure. My uncle died in his 30's of a stroke. Being thin doesn't equal being healthy.

I think I'll take the first-hand account over theory any day. Thanks, Serrelind.

-- Intake of animal products and stroke mortality in the Hiroshima/Nagasaki Life Span Study.

This seems to suggest it is more due to the animal products rather than "just" white rice.

Full abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...5&dopt=Abstract

"Department of Epidemiology, Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Hiroshima, Japan. sauvaget~rerf.jp

BACKGROUND: To determine whether intake of animal products was associated with a reduced risk of stroke mortality in a large-scale population-based cohort in Japan. METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire, including questions on dietary habits, was mailed to the members of the Life Span Study, a cohort of people exposed and non-exposed to atomic bomb radiation, who were alive as of 1 September 1979. Animal products included frequency intake of beef/pork, chicken, ham/sausage, milk, dairy products, eggs, fish, and broiled fish. Responses were obtained from 40 349 people (72%): 15 350 men (mean age 54 years) and 24 999 women (mean age 58 years). The subjects were followed for 16 years, and deaths were ascertained by linkage to the nationwide family registration system of Japan. The associations between diet and stroke mortality were examined using a Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: During the follow-up period, 1462 stroke deaths occurred. Four animal products comprising eggs, dairy products, fish, and broiled fish were independently associated with a decreased risk of stroke mortality; while beef/pork, chicken, ham/ sausage, and milk consumption were not associated with stroke death. A composite measure of eggs, dairy products, fish, and broiled fish intake was calculated, and the highest tertile was significantly inversely associated with total stroke mortality (Hazards Ratio [HR] = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.68, 0.93) compared with the lowest tertile. The protective effect of animal product intake on total stroke death was largely confined to intracerebral haemorrhage death; the RH of intracerebral haemorrhage death for the highest tertile of consumption was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.53-0.98) compared with the lowest tertile; animal products intake was not related to cerebral infarction mortality (HR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.67-1.06). CONCLUSIONS: Intake of animal products such as eggs, dairy products, and fish may be protective against intracerebral haemorrhage, but is not related to cerebral infarction mortality.

PMID: 12913025 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]"

You are aware that India and China, the countries with the highest consumption of rice, have the highest rates of diabetes?

And last time I checked, India had a life expectancy of 63 and China of 72 years. But, hey, they're poor countries, right? Oh, hey, maybe that's why they eat the most rice too?

So far as low-calorie/high-nutrient ratio - wrong.

If you eat 1-cup of cooked spinach with 1-tablespoon of butter, not only do you still eat LESS CALORIES (143 calories versus 218 for a cup of each) you also get MORE NUTRIENTS (more calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, zinc, copper, thamin, riboflavin, vitamin B-6, folate) and NUTRIENTS that rice just doesn't have - vitamin B-12, vitamin A, vitamin E, vitamin C and vitamin K!

But, thanks for playing!