The switch from brown rice to white rice seems to have been relatively recent (<50 years), and refined sugar intake in Japan seems to have been kept low.
I think that refined sugars are the worse of the two evils (for lack of a better term).
If you were doing it for Ayla's sake, I'm sure she's quite aware of research suggesting health benefits of whole grains. =/
I was pointing out that the China Study, the quintessential example of such research, is itself ambiguous. Most epidemiological research on food intake pattern is, because it shows just that, patterns and correlations, not causative links. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any line of research suggesting how whole grains can cause health benefits, or any other food, for that matter.
This post is directed at both at you and mike_wf --
The China Study (referenced by mike at the bottom of this page somewhere) found that average legume consumption (which would encompass soy consumption as well) in China ranged from 0 - 58 grams a day, with an average of just 13 grams. This translates into just spoonfuls of soy each day; hardly tantamount to a cup of soy milk or a dish of tofu.
Ayla already posted data on soy consumption in Japan, which was relatively low.
It's hard to come to a solid conclusion on how much soy is consumed in these countries, given the contradictions of published studies and personal anecdotes like yours.
The Japanese have lower rates of some diseases, but higher rates of other diseases, like stroke and certain cancers (including cancer of the thyroid).
I think the biggest health detriment in Western countries is refined carbohydrate consumption, and particularly sugar consumption. I think it's entirely possible that the Japanese live longer than most others simply because their levels of refined carbohydrates and sugars have remained fairly low.
I'm not sure whether you've read the China Study the book, or the study itself. If you've read the book only, then beware that a lot of the presented information was skewed. A conclusion as simple as "whole grains are healthy" is hard to solidify given the complex data returned by the China Study:
I'm not opposing your right to thought, but sticking up for the OP's right to a helpful answer. There's a difference.
The fact that you don't see the irony in what you just wrote is amusing...
We probably don't see eye-to-eye on what being friendly is about, so I'm not even going to bother with this one. Let me just say that I've helped to the best of my abilities dozens of people on this forum on PM alone, and probably a lot more (although I couldn't quantify it) through my posts. Unfortunately, being helpful isn't always about catering to the masses, as you might think.
Are you in a position that would allow you to frequently witness the methods people use to clear their skin? Are you a dermatologist, a doctor? Have you frequented this forum for a lengthy period of time?
Otherwise, your anecdote that you've "never really heard of people" doesn't mean much at all.
I cleared my skin by cutting out most carbs out of my diet (except fruit, which I ate infrequently).
Then how do you explain the people who get good results from cutting out food groups such as grains, dairy, meat, or oils/sweets.
Easier said than done. You could argue endlessly over what defines healthy eating and healthy proportions.
What do you mean by "seafood", if you already listed fish as an okay food? Sea plants?
The paleo diet also shouldn't be restricted to just lean meat. There's plenty of evidence that paleo humans would have gone straight for the fattier parts of the animal, including organs, bone marrow, and muscle tissue interspersed with fat.
The sugar in fruit comes with a complex of vitamins, minerals, and fiber, and is more slowly assimilated. Also, the fructose in fruit is of a different isomer than the fructose found in candy and processed food.
Probably not, since there's only infinitesimal amounts of sugar in processed meat.