| The China Study Myth |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Denise Minger |
| Saturday, 24 March 2012 20:55 |
Flaws in the Vegan BibleThe year 2006 marked an event that rocked the world of nutrition (as well as the walls of Whole Foods): the release of The China Study by T. Colin Campbell. Printed by a small publishing company known for other scientific masterpieces such as The Psychology of the Simpsons and You Do Not Talk About Fight Club, Campbell’s book quickly hit the word-of-mouth circuit and skyrocketed towards bestseller status, with sales exceeding half a million copies to date. The premise is that all animal foods—ranging from Chicken McNuggets to a fillet of wild-caught salmon—are responsible for modern ailments like heart disease and cancer. Such diseases, the book claims, can generally be prevented or even cured by shunning animal products and eating a diet of whole, unprocessed plant foods instead. Although this startling thesis was hard for some to swallow, the book appeared credible due to its exhaustive references and the author’s laundry list of credentials—including a PhD from Cornell, authorship of over three hundred scientific papers, and decades of direct research experience. Perhaps not surprisingly, The China Study was quickly absorbed into the vegan community as a bible of sorts—the final word on the harmfulness of animal foods, and indisputable proof that a plant-only diet is best for mankind. To the exasperation of meat lovers everywhere (especially those who enjoy arguing for sport), once lively debates with vegans were now extinguished with one simple phrase: Just read The China Study! But despite the book’s black-and-white declarations about animal products—and its seemingly well-referenced arguments—The China Study is not a work of scientific vigor. As we’ll see in this article, the book’s most widely repeated claims, particularly involving Campbell’s cancer research and the results of the China-Cornell-Oxford Project, are victims of selection bias, cherry picking, and woefully misrepresented data. Does Animal Protein Cause Cancer?The seeds of animal-food doubt were first planted early in Campbell’s career, while he was working in the Philippines on a project to help combat malnutrition. A colleague informed him of a startling trend: liver cancer was plaguing affluent Filipinos at a much higher rate than their less-wealthy counterparts—a phenomenon that, despite a slew of other lifestyle differences, Campbell believed was linked to their higher intake of animal protein.1 Bolstering his suspicions, Campbell also learned of a recent study from India showing that a high protein intake spurred liver cancer in rats, while a low protein intake seemed to prevent it.2 Intrigued by this gem of little-known research, Campbell decided to investigate the role of nutrition in cancer growth himself—an endeavor that ended up lasting several decades and producing over one hundred publications (none of which pertained to Fight Club).3 The China Study relayed Campbell’s findings with powerful simplicity. In a series of experiments, Campbell and his team exposed rats to very high levels of aflatoxin—a carcinogen produced by mold that grows on peanuts and corn—and then fed them a diet containing varying levels of the milk protein casein. In study after study, the rats eating only 5 percent of their total calories as casein remained tumor-free, while the rats eating 20 percent of their calories as casein developed abnormal growths that marked the beginning of liver cancer. As Campbell described, he could control cancer in those rodents “like flipping a light switch on and off,” simply by altering the amount of casein they consumed.4 Despite these provocative findings, Campbell wasn’t ready to declare all protein a threat to public health and stamp the peanut butter aisle with Mr. Yuk stickers. Animal protein, it turned out, seemed to be uniquely villainous. In several of his experiments, when the aflatoxin-exposed rats were fed wheat protein or soy protein in place of casein, they didn’t develop any cancer—even at the 20 percent level that proved so detrimental with casein.5 It seemed that those plant proteins were not only PETA-approved, but also the least likely to turn rat livers into tumor factories. These findings led Campbell to his firm and famous conclusion: that all animal protein—but not plant protein—could uniquely promote cancer growth. Out with the steak, in with the tofu! But as several critics have pointed out,6,7 that proclamation required a few somersaults of logic (and maybe some cartwheels of delusion). The effects of casein—particularly isolated casein, separated from other components of dairy that often work synergistically—can’t be generalized to all forms of milk protein, much less all forms of animal protein. An impressive number of studies shows that the other major milk protein, whey, consistently suppresses tumor growth rather than promoting it, likely due to its ability to raise glutathione levels.8,9 Another of Campbell’s own studies suggests that fish protein acts as a cancer-promoter when paired with corn oil, but not when paired with fish oil—highlighting the importance of dietary context (and the neverending terribleness of vegetable oils).10 And the kicker: one of Campbell’s most relevant experiments—which sadly received no mention in The China Study—showed that when wheat gluten is supplemented with lysine to make a complete protein, it behaves exactly like casein to promote tumor growth.11 This means that animal protein doesn’t have some mystical ability to spur cancer by mere virtue of its origin in a sentient creature—just that a full spectrum of amino acids provide the right building blocks for growth, whether it be of malignant cells or healthy ones. And as any vegan who’s been asked “Where do you get your protein?” for the eight hundredth time will answer, even a plant-only diet supplies complete protein through various mixtures of legumes, grains, nuts, vegetables, and other approved vegan fare. Theoretically, a meal of rice and beans would provide the same so-called cancer-promoting amino acids that animal protein does. Indeed, Campbell’s experiments lose their relevance in the context of a normal, real-world diet opposed to the purified menu of casein, sugar, and corn oil his rats received. But that’s only the tip of the proteinaceous iceberg. In his September 2010 article, “The Curious Case of Campbell’s Rats,”12 Chris Masterjohn ventured beyond the well lit pages of The China Study to explore the dark alleys of Campbell’s publications firsthand. And what he found regarding the low-protein rats was a far cry from the sunshine-and-lollipops descriptions we read in the book. Although rats consuming a high-casein diet were indeed developing liver cancer as Campbell described, the ones in the low-casein groups—which were portrayed as downright bright-eyed and shiny-coated in The China Study—were suffering an even worse fate. Campbell’s research actually showed that a low-protein diet increases the acute toxicity of aflatoxin, resulting in cell genocide and premature death. Because protein deficiency prevents the liver from successfully doing its detoxifying duties, less aflatoxin gets converted into cancer-causing metabolites, but the end result is massive (and eventually deadly) tissue damage. Even the research from India that jump-started Campbell’s interest in the diet-cancer link showed that rats on a low-casein diet were dying with disturbing frequency, while the high-protein rats—tumored as they may have been—were at least staying alive.13 (It’s surprising, then, that The China Study promotes a plant-based diet to prevent cancer, when death is equally effective and requires fewer shopping trips.) More clues for understanding the casein-cancer research come from another Indian study—this one published in the late 1980s, and examining the effects of protein in aflatoxin-exposed monkeys instead of rats.14 As with Campbell’s experiments, the monkeys were fed diets containing either 5 percent or 20 percent casein, but with one important difference: instead of being slammed with an astronomically (and unrealistically) high dose of aflatoxin, the monkeys were exposed to lower, daily doses—mimicking a real-world situation where aflatoxin is consumed frequently in small amounts from contaminated foods. In a fabulous case of scientific switcheroo, this study showed that it was the low-protein monkeys who got cancer, while the high-protein monkeys rejoiced in their tumorlessness. This apparent paradox highlights a major problem in Campbell’s rat research: the level of aflatoxin exposure plays a critical role in how protein affects cancer growth. When the aflatoxin dose is sky high, animals eating a low-protein diet don’t get cancer because their cells are too busy dying en masse, while animals eating a higher protein diet are still consuming enough dietary building blocks for the growth of cells—whether healthy or cancerous. When the aflatoxin dose is more moderate, animals eating a low-protein diet develop cancer while their higher-protein counterparts remain in mighty fine health. In a nutshell, the animal protein fear-mongering in The China Study stems from wildly misconstrued science. What Campbell’s rat experiments really showed wasn’t that animal protein is a vengeful macronutrient of doom, but the following: 1. High-quality protein promotes cell growth no matter where it comes from; 2. Protein deficiency thwarts the liver’s ability to detoxify dangerous substances; and 3. With more realistic doses of aflatoxin, protein is actually tremendously protective against cancer, while protein-restricted diets prove harmful. Did the Real China Study Show That Animal Foods Are Associated With Disease?The China Study only devotes one chapter to its namesake study, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a doozy. Also known as the China-Cornell- Oxford Project, the China Study was an enormous epidemiological endeavor exploring diet and disease patterns in rural China—a project coined “the Prix of epidemiology” by the New York Times. Spanning sixty-five counties and collecting data on a whopping three hundred sixty-seven variables, it generated over eight thousand statistically significant correlations between nutrition, lifestyle factors and a variety of diseases.15 Although a project of such magnitude inevitably found some contradictory and non-causal links, Campbell asserts in his book that the data generally pointed in one direction: “People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease,” and “People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease.”16 Although—as echoes through the hearts of statisticians everywhere— correlation doesn’t equal causation, these associations in conjunction with Campbell’s other research are supposed to make a compelling case for animal foods being legitimately harmful. But were the results of the China Study really a sparkling endorsement for plant-based eating? It seems this conclusion is based, in large part, on unreliable blood variables rather than actual foods. In his book, Campbell states that he and his research team “found that one of the strongest predictors of Western diseases was blood cholesterol,”17 and proceeds to treat cholesterol as a proxy for animal food consumption. Throughout this chapter, we learn that the China Study data found associations between cholesterol and many cancers, as well as cholesterol and animal protein intake—implying that animal protein and those same cancers must themselves be intimately linked. But because blood cholesterol can be affected by a number of non-dietary factors and can even rise or fall as a result of disease, examining the relationship between food itself and health outcomes is likely to be more informative than using cholesterol as an overworked, fickle middleman. But the direct relationship between animal protein and diseases isn’t discussed in The China Study for one monumental reason: that relationship doesn’t exist. An examination of the original China Study data shows virtually no statistically significant correlation between any type of cancer and animal protein intake.18 Only fish protein correlates positively, but probably non-causally, with a small number of cancers: nasopharyngeal cancer, a rare disease that only strikes one out of every seven million people; liver cancer, which shows up in fish-eating regions because aflatoxin proliferates in humid areas near water; and leukemia, which is likely linked to other elements of the industrialized lifestyles associated with coastal regions (and thus fish consumption) in the China Study.19 Ironically, when we look at plant protein— which The China Study argues so vigorously is cancer-protective—we find almost three times as many positive correlations with various cancers as we do with animal protein, including colon cancer, rectal cancer, and esophageal cancer.20 Likewise, for heart disease and stroke, plant protein has a positive correlation while animal protein and fish protein have negative or nearly neutral correlations—meaning the animal-food eaters in rural China, if anything, are getting less cardiovascular disease than their more vegetarian friends. But matters get even more interesting when we look at some of the peer-reviewed papers generated by the China Study data, most of which are co-authored by Campbell himself. As with the casein research, the China Study findings as described in Campbell’s book are a hop, skip, and eighteen thousand jumps away from what the original research says. Although wheat gets nary a mention in the China Study chapter, Campbell actually found that wheat consumption—in stark contrast to rice—was powerfully associated with higher insulin levels, higher triglycerides, coronary heart disease, stroke and hypertensive heart disease within the China Study data—far more so than any other food.21,22 Likewise, in a paper from 1990, Campbell conceded that “neither plasma total cholesterol nor LDL cholesterol was associated with cardiovascular disease” in the China Study data, and that “geographical differences in cardiovascular disease mortality within China are caused primarily by factors other than dietary or plasma cholesterol”—revealing that not even the beloved cholesterol middleman could live up to its heart-disease-causing accusations. 23 And in the spirit of saving the best for last, another of Campbell’s own papers, published a mere two years before The China Study hit the shelves, states point-blank that—despite Campbell’s claims about the superior health of the near-vegan rural Chinese—“it is the largely vegetarian, inland communities who have the greatest all risk mortalities and morbidities and who have the lowest LDL cholesterols.”24 Maybe the lesson here is the same one we gleaned from Campbell’s rats: it’s pretty tough to get sick when you’re dead! The GistDespite its increasing popularity (and glowing endorsements by high-profile vegan converts like Bill Clinton), The China Study is, in many ways, more a work of fiction than a nutritional holy grail. The book has spawned a number of myths about the hazards of animal protein and the true results of the China Study itself—myths that easily crumble under a scrutinizing eye, but nonetheless continue trickling into the mainstream and gaining mounting publicity. If there’s anything positive to take away from the book’s four hundred seventeen pages, it’s the promotion of a whole-food diet—and the resulting elimination of vegetable oils, high fructose corn syrup, refined grains, and other industrial products that tend to displace real food on our modern menus. But for those seeking scientific literature of a higher caliber, The Psychology of the Simpsons is likely to be a more satisfying (and animal-product-friendly) read.
SIDEBAR THE PLANT-BASED DIET DOCTOR SQUAD DEAN ORNISH , MD: Limits sugar, corn syrup, white flour, margarine, vegetable oil, alcohol and any processed food with more than two grams of fat. Program involves smoking cessation, peer support, stress management and exercise. CALDWELL ESSELSTYN, MD: Forbids vegetable oils, refined grains, white flour, and products made from enriched flour such as bread, pasta, bagels and baked goods. Uses statins to bring patients' cholesterol levels below 150. JOHN MCDOUGALL , MD: Limits white flour, refined grains, sugar-coated cereals, soft drinks, processed carbohydrates, fruit juice and vegetable oils. NEAL BARNA RD, MD: Forbids vegetable oils, high-glycemic foods, high fructose corn syrup, caloric sweeteners and fried starches like potato chips and french fries. JOEL FUHRMAN , MD: Excludes refined foods, including vegetable oils. Getting rid of empty and refined foods, especially vegetable oils—the common denominator in all these plant-based prescriptions—will make for improvements in almost everyone. But long term, without nutrient-dense animal foods,
REFERENCES 1. Campbell, T. Colin, PhD, with Thomas M. Campbell II . The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, and Long-Term Health. Dallas: BenBella Books, 2004, p. 36. 2. Ibid, p.36. 3. Ibid, p. 48. 4. Ibid, p. 60. 5. Ibid, p. 59. 6. Masterjohn, Chris. “The Truth About the China Study.” http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html 7. Colpo, Anthony. “The China Study: More Vegan Nonsense!” http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=129 8. Bounous G., et al. Whey proteins in cancer prevention. Cancer Lett. 1991 May 1;57(2):91-4. 9. Hakkak R., et al. Diets containing whey proteins or soy protein isolate protect against 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene-induced mammary tumors in female rats. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000 Jan;9(1):113-7. 10. O’Connor, T.P. et al. Effect of dietary intake of fish oil and fish protein on the development of L-azaserine-induced preneoplastic lesions in the rat pancreas. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1985 Nov;75(5):959-62. 11. Schulsinger, D.A., et al. Effect of dietary protein quality on development of aflatoxin B1- induced hepatic preneoplastic lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989 Aug 16;81(16):1241-5. 12. Masterjohn, Chris. “The Curious Case of Campbell’s Rats—Does Protein Deficiency Prevent Cancer?” September 22, 2010. http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/cmasterjohn/2010/09/22/ the-curious-case-of-campbells-rats-does-protein-deficiency-prevent-cancer/ 13. Madhavan, T.V. and C. Gopalan. “The effect of dietary protein on carcinogenesis of aflatoxin.” Arch Pathol. 1968 Feb;85(2):133-7. 14. Mathur, M. and N.C. Nayak. “Effect of low protein diet on low dose chronic aflatoxin B1 induced hepatic injury in rhesus monkeys.” Toxin Reviews. 1989;8(1-2):265-273. 15. Campbell, p. 73. 16. Ibid, p. 7. 17. Ibid, p. 77. 18. Junshi C., et al. Life-style and Mortality in China: A Study of the Characteristics of 65 Chinese Counties. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. 19. Minger, Denise. “A Closer Look at the China Study: Fish and Disease.” June 9, 2010. http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/06/09/a-closer-look-at-the-china-study-fish-and-disease/ 20. Minger, Denise. “The China Study: Fact or Fallacy?” July 7, 2010. http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ 21. Gates J.R., et al. “Association of dietary factors and selected plasma variables with sex hormone-binding globulin in rural Chinese women.” Am J Clin Nutr. 1996 Jan;63(1):22-31. 22. Fan W.X., et al. “Erythrocyte fatty acids, plasma lipids, and cardiovascular disease in rural China.” Am J Clin Nutr. 1990 Dec;52(6):1027-36. 23. Ibid. 24. Wang Y., et al. “Fish consumption, blood docosahexaenoic acid and chronic diseases in Chinese rural populations.” Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2003 Sep;136(1):127- 40. This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Spring 2012. About the Author: [authorbio:minger-denise] Comments (30)
...
written by Kelley, May 31 2013
Everyones body is different. Play with the foods that work for you be it veggies, meat, diary. Don't follow fads or diets. When we feel good and energetic its working, when we have aches, pains, headaches, sluggish, depressed eat something different. Keep a diary of what you eat and how your react. If you listen to your own body it will tell you. My grandmother lived to 98 and lived on her own until 96 when she fell and broke a hip, her husband died at 65 eating the same thick bacon she had on the stove daily using that same bacon fat to cook all her food. She was always a very nice, upbeat, happy woman. He was more serious, demanding and stressed. I think stress and your perception of life and energy frequency has more to do with health and longevity. I'm 50 and people always guess me 32-36. I eat meat,veggies, diary. Daily I eat brownie, ice cream, something sweet. I rarely eat deep fried as it tends to make me sleepy. We are all energy taking up space in a physical shell, we all decide when to come into this world and when to exit depending on the lessons we came here to learn and help others learn. Every time I see a doctor or especially the Chinese as they have some really interesting methods of determining a persons level of health , they always say I'm the healthiest person they see. I believe the key is be nice, treat yourself and other respectfully, do something you love to do every day as that success far out ways what society or your family expect you to do. Stress and living up to others expectations is the number one killer of happiness and of ones body. Always look to yourself for the answers, you know without asking someone else what is best for your body and reading all these books. My mother and I were just talking the other day about my sister who has been drinking wheat grass since 14, no meat, sugars , etc. She has just about every ailment you can name. We have 20+ people we know that have lived their lives the same as my sister and all have died of some sort of cancer or weird disease between the ages of 42-63, so explain that to me. I do however stay away from McDonalds and fried foods, they make me sleepy. My body OWN body tells me if I eat it and don't feel good, not for me. If I eat it and feel energized and happy, its for me. I don't do drugs and justed have a social drink here and there.
Whatever works for your personal body
written by Kelley, May 31 2013
My grandmother lived until 98.She lived on her own, healty until she fell and broke a hip at 96 then her healing was a tough road so I believe she chose to exit this world once we all made it from various parts of the world to see her over that two years.There was always thick crispy bacon on her stove that she cooked every morning and always a cake or pie on the table.Its the way she cooked and ate all her life with bacon fat.My grand father, her husband died of a heart attack at 65 eating the same exact food she also ate and cooked.Your health is also a state of mind and the stress you chose to create or eliminate from your life. Look at the Japanese, many die very young ages from working too many hours.I personally avoid fast food like McDonalds,etc...I'm 50 but most guess me 32-36 but I eat meat, diary and the like. We are all energy and we live on after this physical shell dies. We all decide when we want to exit this world just as we decided when to come into this world. Depends on the experiences and lessons we all chose. I think every thing in moderation is best, eat alot exercise alot. Play with foods for your OWN personal body and see what works best for your own body. No cookie cutter or fads diets. Pick the life style that works best for yourself. Go within and you will always find the right answer for your self.Also I think the key to life is know all things that happen good or bad will pass and always do something you enjoy!! I personally have always persued only things that allow me to be happy daily. Don't follow what society expects, your family expects. Just be nice, treat yourself and others well and you will be healthy all around. Nothing is ever right or wrong, its your perception on how you chose to see it and from whos view. Every time I see a Chinese doctor they look at my tongue, eyes, ears, all the stuff they look at and say you are very healthy. I love brownies, ice cream, banana cream pie, veggies and meat. Your body always lets you know what works for you!
And other, other countries?
written by marina, May 22 2013
Diet is cultural - so what about native Alaskans for whom a vast percentage of their diet consists only of meat (fish, seal)? Or what about the herding cultures of East Africa such as the Masai of Kenya or South Sudanese tribes whose diet consists largely of milk and meat (goat, cow). Or the Japanese who eat A TON of fish and other seafood. Or Europeans who eat all manner of meats. Americans have the luxury to actually CHOOSE what we eat for dinner. (This is Michael Pollan's "omnivore's dilemma".)
The only thing we can say for certain is that statistics shows a positive correlation between obesity, diabetes and cancer in the U.S. Until Dr. Campbell's very selective research expands to a great many other societies that also consume meat and milk, I will continue to be highly skeptical.
...
written by Krishan, May 19 2013
Most "nutritionists" assert that we have definite carnivorous leanings, and some have even termed our incisor teeth "fangs" in defense of their erroneous position that humans are natural meat-eaters! If you look at the various species in the animal kingdom, each is equipped with teeth that are ideally suited to masticate a particular type of food. Herbivores (like the cow) have 24 molars, eight jagged incisors in the lower jaw and a horny palate in the upper jaw. Their jaws move vertically, laterally, forward, and backward, enabling the herbivore to tear and grind coarse grasses. Omnivores (like the hog) have tusk-like canines allowing them to dig up roots. Frugivores (like the chimpanzee) have 32 teeth: sixteen in each jaw including four incisors, two cuspids, four bicuspids, and six molars. The cuspids are adapted for cracking nuts, and the uniform articulation of the teeth enables the frugivore to mash and grind fruits. On the contrary, carnivores (like the cat family) have markedly developed canines that are long, sharp, cylindrical, pointed, and set apart from the other teeth. Fangs and sharp pointed teeth that penetrate and kill, that rip and tear flesh, are a feature of all true carnivores (except certain birds). The powerful jaws of the carnivore move only vertically, and are ideal for ripping and tearing flesh that is swallowed virtually whole and then acted upon by extremely potent gastric juices. Human teeth are not designed for tearing flesh as in the lion, wolf or dog, but rather compare closely with other fruit-eating animals. Human teeth correspond almost identically to the chimpanzees and other frugivores. The complete absence of spaces between human teeth characterizes us as the archetype frugivore. The "canine" teeth of humans are short, stout, and slightly triangular. They are less pronounced and developed than the orangutan's, who rarely kills and eats raw flesh in its natural environment. Human canines in no way resemble the long, round, slender canines of the true carnivore. Human teeth are not curved or sharp like the wolves or tigers, nor are they wide and flat like the grass and grain-eating species. Human teeth are actually like the fruit-eating monkeys, and the human mouth is best suited for eating succulent fruits and vegetables. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for humans to eat raw flesh without the aid of fork and knife. To term our incisor teeth "fangs" or even to liken them as such is outrageous.
Profits more important than health benefits
written by diane ekhoff, Apr 30 2013
Ever wonder why people are still smoking? Yes, there is money to be made. The Tobacco industry..yeah.
Well, I am reading some of these comments, and some going in great length to discredit the China Study. READ IT FIRST. The biggest reason that it is not more widely known or promoted is this: The Meat Council, the Poulty Industry, The Pork industry ETC. Do you think they may have some MONIES pending on this study???? Its all about PROFIT folks. My friend who i thought was pretty fit, a body builder with maybe just a little too much bulk on him contracted prostate cancer. He ate ALOT of CHICKEN and broccoli. Probably up to 2 chicken breasts every night for a few years. Didn't sound that bad. No red meat consumed. Bottom line, way too much protein consumed. These chicken breasts probably had growth promoting hormones in them too. Chicken breast of the 60's 70's were much smaller without these additives. Anyway, I digress, He has inoperable prostate cancer at this point. Personally I am sharing this book with everyone I know and care about. Most will go on with their current diets, it just easier, right...? My body, THANK GOD, has always refused to eat a lot of protein. Always made me feel kinda sick and heavy. I am 67. and told all the time how I look years younger. Do yourself a favor and read the China Study and figure it out for yourself. No cancer for me, thank you. PS obviously, goes without saying, eat Organic whenever possible.
We're trying it
written by Lorie, Apr 29 2013
My cholesterol has been going up 1 point every year since my 20's. I have been meat-free for a year now. My new cholesterol reading, instead of going up 1 point this year, went DOWN 30 points. It is still high however so now I am going to go meat and dairy free for 3 months and see what happens.
...
written by Perry Rose, Apr 15 2013
I had Chinese for lunch before I read this.
What are the odds???
Middle ground
written by Daniel Silverstein, Apr 12 2013
I think there definitely is a middle ground. From my experience counseling patients as a primary care physician, a whole foods diet generally holds promise for improving cardiovascular condition such as hypertension and general condition. The atkins type diet which is high in saturated fats is also beneficial for those trying to lose weight, and weight loss is one of the most important determinants of having a healthy blood pressure and vascular condition. I think the main point is that processed foods are always bad, and possibly by maintaining a healthy weight and keeping blood sugar and insulin levels down health can be achieved with or without a large component of animal protein.
Protein Myth
written by Gabe, Mar 14 2013
This is in response to CathyBaja, are you serious? Obviously you do not know your nutrition AT ALL!!!! Did you realize that 1 cup of black beans has 15 grams of protein, that is 1 CUP!! Nuts, grains, tofu all have tons of protein. 1 cup of cooked Quinoa has 18 grams of protein!!!! You are making claims that are completely false and making connections where none exist. You say that your vegetarian friend got a hernia and you say he got that because he was not getting enough protein. By your logic a person who eats meat should never get a hernia. BUT HOLY CRAP THEY DO!!!. Protein intake has nothing to do with hernias you are making connnections where none exist. As far as Carl Lewis, HE TURNED VEGAN IN 1990!!!! Look it up, he credits 1991 to his turning Vegan and even though in 1992 he got beat in some qualifiers in the olympics in 92 he turned in the fastest anchor leg ever in the 4 by 100m and that record stood until 1997. Also he won his 3rd gold medal in the long jump in 1996, long after turning Vegan. Plus if you are a biologist then you know that our digestive track mimics that of a herbivore. All of what you say has absolutely no merit. You can be a vegetarian and Vegan and be in bad health, that is if you are one of those vegans that eats French Fries and Potato chips and thinks that is okay. There is plenty of bad food for vegans but if you eat right you can be way healthier then any meat eater.
Publisher of The China Study
written by David Smith, Mar 05 2013
The initial straw man argument made by Denise Minger "the release of The China Study by T. Colin Campbell. Printed by a small publishing company known for other scientific masterpieces such as The Psychology of the Simpsons and You Do Not Talk About Fight Club" makes the rest of her article questionable at least and suspect at most. The publisher has an impressive list of authors,with mostly non-fiction titles: http://www.benbellabooks.com/
food tales
written by healthrevolution, Mar 01 2013
i'm a medical doctor and have seen personally how a plant based diet is clearly superior to a meat based diet. you can't argue with clinical results and lab numbers. my patients with high cholesterol, blocked heart arteries, gout, diabetes, hypertension and other lifestyle related diseases have all improved or even reversed their conditions with the switch from an animal product based diet to a largely plant based diet. those who benefited most were those who went for a purely whole foods, plant based diet. i have no doubt that Dr. Campbell's findings are credible and true. i find that people who have either personal interests in the meat and dairy industry or who simply have a preference for eating meat and meat products because it tastes good and they feel they cannot live without it are the ones determined to put down people like Dr. Campbell who's interest is for the good health of the public.
what's lacking in The China Study and this commentary is the importance of sufficient protein...., Low-rated comment [Show]
Wheat is already a complete protein
written by Pablo, Feb 12 2013
LOL, it is the ratio what can be different to animal foods. Failed critic at this regard.
Most plants are complete proteins, no missing aminoacids there.
...
written by Judith, Feb 12 2013
Brevity, please. I'm working on my diet, and trying to learn all the time. So naturally, what Denise Minger has to say is of interest to me. However, I wish she would stop tryng to sound so cute in her writing style. It doubles the number of words one has to get through, and just gets tiresome. There is way too much on the internet to read to slog through it.
sucking on a cow teat is just plain creepy
written by DeAngela Osborne, Feb 08 2013
What about WebMD or Harvard School of Public Health, are they credible sources? They seem to think that dairy products are not needed for health benefits. Additionally, Harvard School of Public Health believes milk recommendations are a “step in the wrong direction.”
The Dairy Industry has done an outstanding job having us believe that we still need to suck on the teats of another species, it's pretty gross really. Put it on our TV, have a celebrity endorse it, pay a few people off, tell us we need it, spend zillions on propaganda ads, and it could have been a dog. I'm no doctor, but this guy is. In fact, dairy was removed from "the healthy plate" by the Harvard School of Public Health a while back, not sure if everybody knew that or not. Walter Willett, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology and head of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health says, “One of the main arguments for USDA recommendations is that drinking milk or equivalent dairy products will reduce the risk of fractures. But in fact there’s very little evidence that milk consumption is associated with reduced fractures,” Willett tells WebMD. Furthermore it's linked to most of our common "manageable" diseases at this stage.
...
written by debve, Feb 07 2013
too much focus on the protien. a skewed and slanted perspetive.
hey you love to eat dead critters go for it. don't try to justify it with documentation provided by the beef producers of america. there have been plenty of studies aside from this one that say basically the same thing. what about saturated fats, uric acid ect. it isn't necessarily the protien itself it is the entire package. she even goes so far as to call it fiction.
What is truth
written by Eric, Jan 16 2013
I will side with the evidence....I have not seen nor heard of one instance where this data has been discounted. Only weak attempts at smashing the good news and information these scientists have PROVEN over and over and over again. To me, much of this starts and ends with the government organizations that "oversee" what it is that "we" need. What a pile of crap. These agencies are as corrupt as the administration. Really, it doesnt take a doctor to understand that the former CEO or board member of the Dairy Association should be making decisions as to what "we" need to have in our diet, and then no shock when there is an increase from 1 to 2 cups of "milk". Get real people, we are being sold out to profit for companies that produce dairy and meat....if "anyone" was REALLY concerned about US, many practices would cease when it comes to animals....but NO ONE really cares about us....all dollars and cents. Look at Al "the idiot" Gore who curses those who drive SUV's, and then hops in a private jet....wake up.
Caveat lector
written by Barcadero, Jan 12 2013
1. The Weston A. Price Foundation is funded by meat and fish producers.
2. The China study was funded by universities and the Chinese government. 3. This article does not address IGF-1. 4. This article uses a rat study as a straw man for the population study. 5. The data shows: whole-food plant-based diets reverses the top killers. 6. The final quote is taken out of context. The inlanders were DHA deficient. Cancer was omitted, except liver cancer, which was positively correlated. Plant-based alternatives were shown to be as affective as DHA at deterring chronic diseases. Omega-3s from land animals (pigs, cows, etc.) were shown to not lower mortality or morbidity like DHA. Upshot: Some fish, or better yet, algae to avoid mercury concentration, is a good thing! 7. Minger uses subjective language and ad hominem attacks. Nevertheless, she is a confident public speaker and arguably attractive, and thus many take her advice. 8. Taking nutrition advice from paleontology ...
The commentary here does have a concensus: this article does not make the point it promises to make.
written by Michael Ryan, Jan 07 2013
The author, Denise Minger, starts her critique of "The China Study," by asserting, "the book’s most widely repeated claims, particularly involving Campbell’s cancer research and the results of the China-Cornell-Oxford Project, are victims of selection bias, cherry picking, and woefully misrepresented data. She then goes on to make this case with exactly that.
One need not be a scientist to know who is right. Two phrases in the article give it away: "meat lovers" and "PETA-approved." The first is irrelevant in the search for scientific truth (food addictions are also well-documented) and the second is a sarcastic swipe at those who are drawn to veganism for moral reasons (as opposed to dietary-health alone). The useful parts of this page are within the reader comments, almost all of whom take issue with the article's intention. I agree wholeheartedly with those who suggest that each individual must make up his or her own mind, about what is healthy for them, and what is not. I would also agree that the evidence of the benefits in a vegan diet (not to mention an even stricter regimen without processed foods, and without added salt, oil or sugar) is overwhelming. Just look at Bill Clinton (or would his being a liberal offend the meat-eating crowd?)
person observation
written by Timothy Wong, Dec 10 2012
I personally have experience with the vegan diet, i never thought i can be a vegan but after watching forks over knife I was very impressed by the strong facts that support the benefits of vegan diet, but it's not easy as meat does taste good and you do have more choices when you go eat out, and if you don't live in SF, NYC, or bigger cities, it's hard to find soy milk..they would be staring at you, like are you crazy? Anyway, my partner and his whole family has always been having high blood pressure issue, and his father and his uncle died fairly young because of a heart attack, he has been on a vegan diet for almost a year now, his blood pressure is back to normal, from 150/100 to 115/70, he was so shocked by that as he didn't take any medication at all, that reinforce the idea that he should stick with his diet.
I am here to say it may not work for everyone for having this very strict diet, but it definitely has some very powerful benefits considering our modern days diet essentially are very much processed and sugar packed. While not everyone who are animal eater would die young, but I strongly recommend the plant based diet is a healthier diet, my current diet consists of 80 to 90% of vegetables and whole grains, and the rest would be white meat and fish. No more red meat.
Comments seem right on, article, not so much
written by Margaret Robin, Dec 03 2012
Ah - The China Study is sensationalized. That jumps out at the reader if you get to about the second third of the book. Unfortunately, this article is also sensationalized. What is a body to do? I could try to read the original research findings myself, but probably would be lost in medical vocabulary. I like the commentators here who do what they feel is right and do what works for them. The vegan diet works for me very well. I do supplement occasionally with brewers yeast, which might not be pure vegan?
I'd have to agree....
written by Liz, Nov 30 2012
...with the commentator John H. To each their own. Constantly, as Cate says in her comment, something is good for you and bad for you depending on who you ask. I just try things for myself. My body chemistry is different than yours so what works for me may not work for you. Therefore both the China Study and the above criticism must be taken with a grain of salt.
For me it just so happens that a plant based partially raw diet (I also eat eggs and honey) is right for my body. My skin is clear, my nails are strong, I am energetic, my hair has less breakage, my cycles are less painful, my mood stays steady, I feel great after I eat, and I have even noticed less body odors  . (Sorry if TMI for anyone but we are on a healing arts domain.) With that said, my husband is the exact opposite and needs high protein to function at his best ability. Thus my opinion - "different strokes for different folks."
personal experience
written by John Hristov, Nov 12 2012
I think one doesn't need to argue, but just try it. I lost 40 kg of weight and started to run marathons and ultras since I went on a plant diet. Friends and relatives, including my wife, two of my brothers, my mother-in-law and my children demonstrate drastically improved or superior health when moved to plant diet. So, if you feel good on meat, go your way, but I know the huge difference it made for me and prefer the other way.
So, as I said, it is easy. If you are corpse eater, try plant for a couple of months and make your mind. If you are veggie, try meat for a couple of months and decide (BTW I have a friend also, who was vegan for 15 years, and at the age of 28 (yes, she started vegan very early, her own decision) suddenly started to eat flesh. She told me she didn't know why and she had no apparent reason.
Cate
written by PlantsRule, Nov 05 2012
I also have trouble determining what is healthy and what is not because one day something is healthy and the next it give you cancer. The problem I find with a lot of the people trying to debunk Dr. Campbell's China Study is that many of them are not as qualified as Dr. Campbell. Perhaps I missed it in the article above, but I do not see Denise's credentials. I myself am not an expert in statistics, but I know that its not as simple as correlating two items together. It is much more than that. You must account for variables and things of that sort, which Dr. Campbell did in his book. Also, his book is not one study, it is a compilation of many studies and experiments that all lead him to the same conclusion over his career.
The other thing that I do not see being mentioned in any of these anti-China Study write ups is the work of Dr. Essylsten. When switched to a plant based whole foods diet, his patients heart disease reversed, arteries became less clogged, they reduced the amount of medication they needed to take, and this all worked to the point where they no longer needed expensive and dangerous heart surgeries. This is why I have to side with the scientist who has a lifetime of work to back his claims.
...
written by Randy , Sep 21 2012
Was there a motivation for Mr Campbell to arrive at these conclusions and publish them? Your article seems to imply that these conclusions should have been obviously incorrect and makes one wonder why someone with his knowledge and skill sets and apparent passion would knowingly mislead on a life and death topic??
What's the truth? written by cate, Aug 23 2012
I'm puzzled by the conflicting information everywhere I turn re plant-based diet and consumption of animal products. I have read the China Study and agree that it seems extreme and wonder, also, about the science. Large studies like this can be interpreted in a variety of ways , some good, some not so good. I also subscribe the the WAPF philosophy. Sadly, especially as reflected by this article, the dialogue seems to be divided into teams, each having their own studies/science to support their point of view and a need to be right. This article would have been improved by less put-down of the other side and sticking to the facts as she see them. The somewhat snotty tone makes it sound like she has her own ax to grind.
Write comment
|
| Last Updated on Thursday, 29 March 2012 17:14 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
I laugh when people say well this works for me and that doesn't. I need more protein which is a lie. You get plenty of protein from plant sources and one of our biggest problems is that we consume too much protein and the wrong type of protein. If our bodies were indeed so different from each other then explain why our western diet is so popular?? People don't actually need different foods but they WANT them. Is it hard to go plant based?? Yes it is. Is it hard to exercise regularly? Yes it is. Is it hard to get up in the morning and go to work day after day? Yes it is. People tend to take the path of least resistance. Walk down the street and how many out of shape overweight people do you see in America? They get in their car and drive from one location to the other and feast like kings and queens everyday of their lives and when they get sick with a major disease they say oh woe is me!
People will "cherry pick" the information they want to fit what they are doing. A little red wine is good for you then more must be better. A little dark chocolate good for you, then more must be better.
I read the China study and it is a powerful book. No other group of studies can be so convincingly tied together to disprove it. I would just love to see the author of the above article get into a debate with Mr. Campbell.
I have gone from vegetarian to plant based and the change is dramatic. I am 60 years of age and an avid cyclist. My cadiovascular is much better and I am in the biking shape of my life. I recently did the tour divide bike race from Banff Canada to Antelope Wells New Mexico carrying all of my own gear and completed it in under 29 days. My diet is even better now since I gave up all dairy.
If you want to stay on the Western diet, be my guest but don't cherry pick info to justify your decision. However if you get cancer, or another major life threatening disease don't' say you weren't warned.