how do you know its biased.

ok....

As you are (finally) searching through articles that present a different viewpoint about vegetarian diet than that of Chek or Weston Price, you are dismissing the points that disagree with your own ideas (and those of Chek and Weston Price).

Let me flip that around and maybe the bias can be more obvious.

Imagine that I was a person who believed soy and grains were very healthy for human consumption. (I'm don't necessarily believe that or disbelieve that, but just for the sake of argument).

Now imagine that I've decided to take on the task of researching alternative viewpoints about vegetarian diet. I end up reading some of Chek's thoughts on vegetarianism. I get to the part where he talks badly about Soy. I think to myself "oh, that's crap" and I dismiss his points because I already have a preset judgement on the topic of soy. I mean, I would already have my own opinions about Soy consumption, and his ideas disagree with my ideas...so why would I consider his ideas on Soy if I think they are crap?

Where would that get me?

Would that be considered biased research on my part?

Would I ever fully understand the points that chek and weston price are trying to make about vegetarianism?

Now flip that back around and that is what I think you are doing. That is the bias that I'm referring to. That is the reason why all of the articles that you are posting are of one mindset.

I realize that you are sold on people "walking the walk". I completely understand that, and that idea does make sense to me. However, there are many examples of people demonstrating their ideas with actions. There is a point where you are taking sides BEFORE you consider multiple and differing sources of information. That is what I think can be very dangerous. Many examples seem to contradict each other. Some people have written articles about vegetarians having very poor health. I've read some stories about vegetarians having amazing health. Which one do you choose to believe? Which one is right?

The Thais run 5-6 Km per day and they are very successful competitors. They are obviously "walking the walk" and proving it in the ring. There are also successful competitors that hardly run at all in their training. It seems to me that one example doesn't necessarily rule out the other example.

However, you think grains and soy consumption are crap. Lots of athletes (perhaps most athletes) each grains, and perhaps soy. You also think that pasteurized non-organic milk is bad for the body. I'm sure many successful athletes consume pasteurized non-organic milk everyday and they are successful.

If you are on the search for truth, then maybe the truth is less black and white than what Chek and Weston Price are saying (the same would go for biased vegetarian articles too. That type of writing irks me). Maybe Chek is an amazing guy who has amazing knowledge, but his knowlege isn't perfect. Perhaps he has found what works for his clients and he is satisfied with the results. He has obviously been put up on a pedastal by many people as an authority on training, nutrition and lifestyle. It would probably not be good for him to write articles saying something like "I don't really have all of the information that I need to form a solid opinion on that". That would probably hurt his credibility. Credibility is why he charges $500/hour for his services. He has great results, yes. However, there are other people who claim that have great results too that do things differently than Chek. Chek has credibility within the training community and he is expected to have a solid opinion on a common issue like vegetarianism. If he has a waivering opinion, then people would probably have less trust in his opinion. He is in the business of having answers. Isn't that why people go to him?

I'm not saying Chek's results don't support his ideas. Certainly his results (that you described to me) get my attention. I'm certainly less sold on his research because I'm quite skepticle of research and his research seems very biased to me. What I'm really saying is that his results (even with his research backing it) are not reason enough to disregard other people's ideas (or successful results, or research).

We as a society don't know everything about nutrition and what not because all of the research hasn't been done, and a lot of the existing research is suspect. We obviously still have limited knowledge on things like soy and grains. Only recently did studies appear in the news about soy not preventing cancer. Of course...I'm not sure why that was presented on CNN when thousands of other studies don't appear on the major news channels. I've read at least 10 stories this year about studies that demonstrate cures for different cancers stemming from a frog bacteria or a moth enzyme or something like that. However, somehow, the "soy doesn't prevent cancer" story ended up on CNN. Maybe the dairy industry pushed the study. Who knows.

To answer your question from earlier, I don't necessarily believe that a vegetarian diet is the most ideal or healthy diet. I simply haven't made up my mind about that yet. For more than a year now, I haven't had a vegetarian or vegan diet as I've eaten various foods including meats. I probably have more personal experience with having a vegetarian diet than you, Chek and Weston Price put together, and my mind isn't made up on the subject. I want to finish my personal diet experiments and then continue with research later.