# Anybody read The China Study?



## RawVeganMom (Oct 6, 2006)

http://www.thechinastudy.com/

I found it facinating & a must read for anyone who is into health at all!


----------



## vermontgirl (Aug 15, 2006)

I just barely bought that book and I look forward to reading it. I will be sure to let you know what I thought-although I am sure I am going to love it because I have heard only good things. -Hannah


----------



## RawVeganMom (Oct 6, 2006)

You can watch a video lecture about the book here:


----------



## calynde (Feb 11, 2005)

I'm just finishing the book, too. Interesting stuff!

There's also a good interview with T. Colin Campbell on raw vegan radio.

http://www.rawveganradio.com


----------



## Roo_Online (Dec 14, 2006)

Yes, I read it. I've been a vegetarian for years, but I learned new things from that book. The role of animal protein in the growth of cancer was particularly eye-opening to me.

Well worth reading!


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ronline* 
The role of animal protein in the growth of cancer was particularly eye-opening to me.

Are you referring to the section where he talks about casein (which is often purified, heat-treated, and denatured) causing cancer? That has been studied extensively, but Campbell then goes on to state that that means animal proteins cause cancer, a pretty big leap.

In addition, people who have studied the actual data from the original publication (available for $200 or on loan from a university library) have said that the figures show no to little correlation between protein and cancer; in fact, sugar, some carbs, and fiber all have correlations with cancer mortality about seven times the magnitude of that of animal protein.


----------



## accountclosed3 (Jun 13, 2006)

it's actually a highly criticized book, basicly considered 'poor science' by much of the scientific community. i've read it and the works that refute it.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zoebird* 
it's actually a highly criticized book, basicly considered 'poor science' by much of the scientific community. i've read it and the works that refute it.

Really? When you have a chance, could you provide some links to them? So far I've only read three critical reviews.

To tell you the truth, I think the book was meant strictly for the layperson and not the scientist. Because anyone with even a smidgeon of knowledge about nutrition can find problems with a lot of his findings.


----------



## Roo_Online (Dec 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicharronita* 
Are you referring to the section where he talks about casein (which is often purified, heat-treated, and denatured) causing cancer? That has been studied extensively, but Campbell then goes on to state that that means animal proteins cause cancer, a pretty big leap.


I appreciate the clarification and additional info. It was my understanding that the protein doesn't CAUSE the cancer but rather that it hastens its growth. Do you have any info about that?

Many thanks for your post...I am always looking to learn more.


----------



## melissa17s (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zoebird* 
it's actually a highly criticized book, basicly considered 'poor science' by much of the scientific community. i've read it and the works that refute it.

Actually, I would like to see your sources because the only criticism I have seen came from WAP members.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicharronita* 
Are you referring to the section where he talks about casein (which is often purified, heat-treated, and denatured) causing cancer? That has been studied extensively, but Campbell then goes on to state that that means animal proteins cause cancer, a pretty big leap.

See, and I find that interestingly ironic, b/c the studies that find soy to be harmful (often touted by WAPF) rely on very similar data -- rats fed isolated soy protein, not humans eating whole soy. Campbell's book does not rely solely on small mammals eating casein. That was his starting point. He then went on to look at population studies of ethnically homogenous humans eating more or less animal protein and the corresponding cancer rates among those populations.


----------



## hanno (Oct 4, 2006)

From what I've heard, much of the book's findings are based on animals studies and I'd rather not use that type of information. My personal health and well-being is good enough for me.


----------



## tamagotchi (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicharronita* 
people who have studied the actual data from the original publication (available for $200 or on loan from a university library) have said that the figures show no to little correlation between protein and cancer

What is the title of the original publication? I would like to see if I can get it on interlibrary loan.

Edited to add: is it this one?
Chen J, Campbell TC, Li J, Peto R. _Diet, Life-style and Mortality in China_. Oxford University Press, 1991.

Also I found this online preliminary monograph with results from the second study done in 1989, maybe this will be useful.
http://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/~china/monograph/


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ronline* 
I appreciate the clarification and additional info. It was my understanding that the protein doesn't CAUSE the cancer but rather that it hastens its growth. Do you have any info about that?

You're welcome. I don't know any info. off the top of my head. However, I've been reading selections from "The Protein Debate" between Campbell and Loren Cordain (the paleo expert). It's available at:

http://www.performancemenu.com/resou...teinDebate.pdf

I found the following comment by Cordain interesting. It is preceded by a bit of technical explanation about studies on meats and cancer, though.

"Prior to western acculturation, the Inuit may have consumed more than 95 % of their daily energy from animal and seafood (15), yet a comprehensive review examining virtually all historical and ethnographic data of these people prior to westernization was unable to document a single case of colorectal cancer (126). Should a high protein meat based diet initiate or promote colorectal cancer, then one might expect obligate carnivores such as cats to demonstrate high incidences of these malignancies. In, fact the opposite is true, and the rate of gastrointestinal tract cancers is quite low in domestic cats (128). In summary the case for animal based, high protein diets causing colorectal cancer, within the context of pre-agricultural diets, is weak."


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *melissa17s* 
Actually, I would like to see your sources because the only criticism I have seen came from WAP members.

Here are two other critiques by non-WAP members:

The first is by Anthony Colpo, author of "The Great Cholesterol Con." He used to have a lot of excellent, well-referenced articles on his TheOmnivore.com site, but now they are only available in PDF format from Lulu.com for $5 (money well-spent). However, someone else has gone to the trouble of posting Colpo's review at:

http://verywellsaid.com/titles/the/t...viewid=1508268

The second is by Brad Marshall, an organic farmer.

"Is wheat killing us?"

http://bradmarshall.blogspot.com/200...ion-maybe.html


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN* 
He then went on to look at population studies of ethnically homogenous humans eating more or less animal protein and the corresponding cancer rates among those populations.

He may have looked at them, but didn't disclose what he found from the figures of the raw data in his book.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tamagotchi* 
What is the title of the original publication? I would like to see if I can get it on interlibrary loan.

Edited to add: is it this one?
Chen J, Campbell TC, Li J, Peto R. _Diet, Life-style and Mortality in China_. Oxford University Press, 1991.

Also I found this online preliminary monograph with results from the second study done in 1989, maybe this will be useful.
http://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/~china/monograph/

I think that's it, although the title I saw was slightly longer:
"Diet, life-style, and mortality in China: A study of the characteristics of 65 Chinese counties"

I wonder how much the PDFs reveal? Are you going to open them? That was a good find.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Thanks for the links Chichacharronita. I read them with interest.


----------



## Selesai (Oct 26, 2005)

Deleted


----------



## gargirl (Dec 30, 2006)

I am waiting for my library to get a copy so I can read it!


----------



## christacular (Aug 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicharronita* 

http://www.performancemenu.com/resou...teinDebate.pdf

I found the following comment by Cordain interesting. It is preceded by a bit of technical explanation about studies on meats and cancer, though.

"Prior to western acculturation, the Inuit may have consumed more than 95 % of their daily energy from animal and seafood (15), yet a comprehensive review examining virtually all historical and ethnographic data of these people prior to westernization was unable to document a single case of colorectal cancer (126).

i'd like to know how specific the body of evidence is for any part of the inuit's diet/lifestyle/health is prior to western aculturation. there being no documented case of cancer does not mean there was none. and let's not forget that we live in a very different world NOW than the inuit did prior to "western aculturation". they now advise inuit women to avoid breastfeeding their babies due to the levels of toxins and heavy metals present in their breast milk thanks to the pollution of the oceans and how those toxins and heavy metals concentrate in the flesh foods so integral to a traditional inuit diet. the average lifespan of a traditional living inuit is ten to fifteen years shorter than that of the average person eating the average western diet, too.

Quote:

Should a high protein meat based diet initiate or promote colorectal cancer, then one might expect obligate carnivores such as cats to demonstrate high incidences of these malignancies. In, fact the opposite is true, and the rate of gastrointestinal tract cancers is quite low in domestic cats (128). In summary the case for animal based, high protein diets causing colorectal cancer, within the context of pre-agricultural diets, is weak."
domestic cats are _obligate carnivores_ with specialized digestion to deal with large quantities of animal protein - very, very different from the digestive systems of omnivorous human beings. what's "weak" is this comparison/argument.


----------



## christacular (Aug 10, 2006)

Deleted quote


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

*


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

interesting disscussion! DH swears by this book. i have yet to read it so no real opinion. i'll keep my eye on this thread.


----------



## xenabyte (Jul 16, 2004)

Discussions of personal food choices and the merits of each style, as applied to the individuals consuming them are fine. Please refrain from name calling (ie, you are a stalker). Please self edit.

I do not like having to close or move threads, when there is a genuine debate going on and an opportunity to share your viewpoint. The sharing of personal experience is fine, but remember to be respectful and realize that there are other alternatives to any point of view.

But, while doing so, if the UA is violated, I am obligated to close / move / requests edits.

No one needs to prove anything, because you really can't, when both sides have strong feelings and personal experience and rhetorical evidence about how eating a certain way makes them feel (hopefully better).

There are no food police, so there is no reason to feel you need to justify your own style of eating (NT or Veg*n). Just do it, be happy, and healthy.








If you truely feel you are doing the right thing for your body, then why would anyone feel the need to justify it?

I get just as many complaints from the omnivores as the veg*ns, so let's ALL remember to have a little more compasion for our fellow MDCer and remember you can catch more followers with honey than vinegar, and if you end up with a bit of both, then make a nice salad.









I love and support all the MDC moms, regardless of their own personal food choices, religious and political affiliations, or any of the numerous other personal lifestyle choices they could make. I really hate to see strife and arguements over something like this.

I really think that even if we could get every researcher, scientist, and nutritionist to agree on the perfect diet, they would present new research a few months later and it would all change. You know, 'coffee is bad, coffee is good, no, wait, it's bad...no wait, look here, it's good. Ditto, chocolate, dairy, soy...etc.


----------



## Jade2561 (Jun 12, 2005)

Deleted quote


----------



## christacular (Aug 10, 2006)

i would like to compare the number of times NT'ers have come into our forum and threads about soy/the china study/veganism and posted their rebuttals to the number of times veggies have come into their forum and threads about anti-soy/wapf/meat-eating and posted ours. i would find that a very interesting thing to look at.


----------



## nicole lisa (Oct 27, 2004)

:

It would be interesting. I also think if somone wants to debate veg*n/NT/whatever then the most appropriate board would be the general nutrition one - certianly not the board designed for those choosing one over the other. I just don't understand why anyone feels the need to go into a forum for a specific lifestyle and start talking about what's wrong with it. It's not allowed when it comes to breastfeeding or circumcision or gentle parenting so why is it happening in nutrition?


----------



## christacular (Aug 10, 2006)

and i suspect that Chicharronita and all the rest of the nt'ers jumping all over the china study are going to think to themselves that the reason we are squawking is because we don't like what we are hearing. but as xenobyte so kindly pointed out, for every study/article researcher that says one thing, so another says the opposite. coming in here and posting the criticisms and debating the biases/agendas of researchers and scientists involved in the writing and publication of the china study serves no purpose but to antagonize; much in the same way me coming into the NT forum and posting what all of the critics of price, fallon and enig (and there are many, many of those) would antagonize the NTers.


----------



## tamagotchi (Oct 16, 2005)

Well, I'll raise my hand and say that I usually hang out in the TF forum. Personally, I am interested in learning more about the China Study (and other topics discussed in the veg*n forum) because I feel it would be irresponsible for me to ignore research-based criticism of my family's way of eating. It is always possible that we might be wrong about what we consider to be healthy. I'm not here to post "rebuttals." I'm simply interested in learning more about the study and its conclusions.


----------



## xenabyte (Jul 16, 2004)

The circ and breastfeeding and gentle disclipline forums have specific mention in the UA.

Here is a copy for a refresher, as it was recently modified:

"These are the terms of use that you as a member agree to uphold as a member of the MotheringDotCommune:

MotheringDotCommune.

Mothering.com is the website of natural family living and advocates natural solutions to parenting challenges. We host discussion of nighttime parenting, loving discipline, natural birth, homebirth, successful breastfeeding, alternative and complementary home remedies, informed consent, and many other topics from a natural point of view. *We are not interested, however, in hosting discussions on the merits of crying it out, physical punishment, formula feeding, elective cesarean section, routine infant medical circumcision, or mandatory vaccinations.* We do not tolerate any type of discrimination in the discussions, including but not limited to racism, heterosexism, classism, religious bigotry, or discrimination toward the disabled. We will not host discussions that involve explicit sexual references and are cautious about discussions on volatile topics such as abortion, religion, and race. See statement of purpose below.

MDC serves an online community of parents, families, and parent, child and family advocates considering, learning, practicing, and advocating attachment parenting and natural family living. Our discussions concern the real world of mothering and are first and foremost, for support, information, and community. Mothering invites you to read and participate in the discussions. In doing so we ask that you agree to respect and uphold the integrity of this community. Through your direct or indirect participation here you agree to make a personal effort to maintain a comfortable and respectful atmosphere for our guests and members."

Bolding was my emphasis.

It does not state that we don't allow omnivores to represent their viewpoints, and that either the NT or the Veg*n forums, sub forums, to be exact, are _only_ for those types of eaters. There is too much crossing over of eating styles (ie, raw vegans, pisco vegans, lacto vegans, NT, vege emphasis NT, and the like) to truely keep each truely exclusive. Even omnivores occasionally eat vegetarian meals. These sub forums are a convenience for keeping posts with certain types of information in an easy to find spot.

Traffic is a good thing on your forum, as it helps having more eyes to read and potentially contribute or help solve problems you might be seeking help for.

Again, I would remind 'visitors' to either of those subforums to be respectful of the people there, as they are in those respective forums to have a place to discuss issues as they directly relate to those sub forums. But yes, going into the Veg sub forum and posting about eating a bowl full of fried pork skins would be highly inappropriate and 'baiting' to say the least.

We had the same 'China Study' issue being discussed in the TF (Traditional Foods, also known as the NT) forum, and it was removed, due to similar posting in a disrespectful manner. I really am trying to keep this thread open for those truely seeking information (on both sides) and that want to discuss it in a mature manner.

If you want a more 'neutral ground' to discuss it, then I can move it to the main N and GE forum, if you would like.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

I'm an NT'er. I don't normally come to this forum, but sometimes a thread will catch my eye from the main board. And then, I won't even post or give my opinion unless it's something I can truly help with or can be very neutral about. There was a kimchi question on this forum I've responded to, for example. Sorry if veg*ns feel violated, but this is a public board. I personally think we can all learn from each other. From my perspective, there was not a single disrespectful gesture on the part of Chicharronita. Is merely giving the other side enough of an offense? I also agree that veg*ns do not come to the TF boards as often, though recently there's been a few converts. I'm not sure that's a good thing. Imo, being open to alternative points of view is a positive thing.

ETA: Xenabyte, you prove why you're the moderator. Thanks for being fair and diplomatic.


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

:


----------



## RawVeganMom (Oct 6, 2006)

What does NT mean?


----------



## susumama (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:



Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicharronita* 
"Prior to western acculturation, the Inuit may have consumed more than 95 % of their daily energy from animal and seafood (15), yet a comprehensive review examining virtually all historical and ethnographic data of these people prior to westernization was unable to document a single case of colorectal cancer (126). Should a high protein meat based diet initiate or promote colorectal cancer, then one might expect obligate carnivores such as cats to demonstrate high incidences of these malignancies. In, fact the opposite is true, and the rate of gastrointestinal tract cancers is quite low in domestic cats (128). In summary the case for animal based, high protein diets causing colorectal cancer, within the context of pre-agricultural diets, is weak."



What strange conclusions this researcher comes to. Firstly examining whether past civilisations of Inuit developed colorectal cancer isn't very helpful to modern day man as colorectal cancer takes 40 years or more to develop and the Inuit lifespan wasn't much more than this. Also, how the body uses food in the extremes of climate is actually different to how modern man, inactive and slumped in front of his computer day after day uses it.

2. I have no idea what so ever why they would say that because a cat doesn't get bowel cancer a human won't either???? A cat is a true carnivore with a short intestinal tract and highly concentrated stomach acids - totally different to a human who has an enormously long intestinal tract and weak acids compared to carnivores.

The most agreed upon consensis of what our ancient diets were like is that we ate mainly vegetation with the occassional meat kill, just as our closest cousins, the chimpanzees still do. We should really be called gatherer-hunters as, like today, we liked minimal effort. Tracking and killing animals was hard work, took a long time and was dangerous, we could easily become injured or killed. Gathering the grasses, roots, fruits, berries and nuts was much easier, safer and required much less energy. Chimps eat all of the above daily - with a few easily caught insects thrown in and then band together (strength in numbers) about once a month to hunt prey, which they kill, everyone has a little and they go back to their plant diet. It makes much more sense that we did the same. Considering we have nothing that even slightly resembles the carnivore cat's digestive tract, and everything in common with a chimps it's a little hard to believe that anyone would take a cat's totally different anatomy and lifespan and say that it in anyway relates to our own.







:


----------



## calynde (Feb 11, 2005)

NT=Nourishing Traditions (a book by Sally Fallon)

For me personally, I think there's an ethical component to veg*n living that could be a bit more respected here....many, many have chosen to eat this way due to ethical considerations...not only nutritional ones. So hearing about studies showing any health benefits of animal foods don't interest me. Period. We know that there are societies doing very well on low to no animal foods...regardless of whether or not it's nutritionally "ideal" (of course most of us believe it is). KWIM? For these reasons, I'm happy to have a "Vegetarian and Vegan Living" forum where I can go to for support...without having to hear about animals as food. For whatever it's worth...

Even the lab animal studies in "The China Study" bother me to be honest. But the Chinese population studies interested me enough to read it. I'm skeptical of most "studies"...I didn't find this one particularly sketchy. It was perhaps written a bit simply to appeal to a larger audience, but it doesn't seem reasonable to attack the validity of their "science" considering it was an international effort and a lot of mainstream institutions were involved. The author didn't have a veg*n agenda starting out and he's not trying to sell anyone any products after all...but at any rate...

I think "The China Study" is worth a read, and it's certainly thought-provoking. It may or may not serve to convince meat-eaters, but for the rest of us, it's perhaps a nice addition to the already-existing multitude of "not-exclusively-nutritional" reasons why we choose to avoid animal products.


----------



## lrlittle (Nov 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicharronita* 
"Prior to western acculturation, the Inuit may have consumed more than 95 % of their daily energy from animal and seafood (15), yet a comprehensive review examining virtually all historical and ethnographic data of these people prior to westernization was unable to document a single case of colorectal cancer (126). Should a high protein meat based diet initiate or promote colorectal cancer, then one might expect obligate carnivores such as cats to demonstrate high incidences of these malignancies. In, fact the opposite is true, and the rate of gastrointestinal tract cancers is quite low in domestic cats (128). In summary the case for animal based, high protein diets causing colorectal cancer, within the context of pre-agricultural diets, is weak."


I'm pretty sure I'm remembering this right....everything DH and I have read about the Inuits has shown that their lifespan was REALLY short and they almost always die of heart, liver, or kidney disease from their meat based diet. Maybe not cancer, but not a lifestyle to copy, IMO. (No, I don't have links. Just something I remember from DH's history books that I can't dig up







)


----------



## gargirl (Dec 30, 2006)

The Inuit have an appalling rate of heart disease and a very short life span in comparison with much of the rest of the world. They may not have time to get a lot of cancer. Their mostly meat diet is very unhealthy and always has been. They eat that way because there is little plant life where they are, and they suffer for it.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Wow, looks like this thread was busy while I was away (why do I have the most chores to do when things get the most interesting?). Looks like I missed the sh*tstorm! Where's an icon for that?









I'm feeling a bit flummoxed. When I had posted comments about Campbell here a few weeks ago, I was asked to start a thread on the Traditional Foods forum about it. So I did. And for whatever reason, it got eliminated. So when the subject came up again, I posted. However, I didn't respond to just any post; when people posted that they liked the book, I didn't say anything. Personal preference of course can't be argued against. However, when a PP said that _TCS_ showed that protein causes cancer, I responded, because it surely does not.

I do not care what people choose to eat/not eat, especially on this board with people who abstain from meat for ethical reasons. My discussion is mainly aimed at the ones who say, for instance, "I eat X because it's considered healthy, and _The China Study_ says so." That I do have a problem with, sometimes, depending on the context. I just feel like Dr. Campbell is manipulating facts to support his agenda, and he will do whatever he can to get his message out, even using personal information gleaned from private correspondence to attack his detractors (like Chris Masterjohn). So not only does he have an agenda, which is okay, but he also is willing to do unethical things in support of it, which is definitely NOT okay.

BTW, I know I can be a pain in the -, but please believe that I respect all posters here, and feel that even if I disagree with you in one instance, I can and do learn from you in others. Most of the time I'm lurking and taking notes when you guys talk about dinner or what you discovered what to do with chard, one of my favorite vegetables.

I will try to answer as many posts as I can, but my time is limited, as I STILL have chores darn it!


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicharronita* 
My discussion is mainly aimed at the ones who say, for instance, "I eat X because it's considered healthy, and _The China Study_ says so." That I do have a problem with, sometimes, depending on the context. I just feel like Dr. Campbell is manipulating facts to support his agenda, and he will do whatever he can to get his message out, even using personal information gleaned from private correspondence to attack his detractors (like Chris Masterjohn). So not only does he have an agenda, which is okay, but he also is willing to do unethical things in support of it, which is definitely NOT okay.

See, and that's the same thing with which I have a problem.

I see WAPF doing the same thing quite frequently -- twisting facts to support their agenda. For instance, when I was asked to write an article on the whole soy controversy which seems to be largely spear-headed by WAPF and their associates, I found a lot of very bad science and down-right lies behind the information they had posted on their website. I have posted the article I wrote on that subject here in the past only to have the same people who were initially arguing that soy is poison suddenly change their tune and start saying that the real concern is phytates. Okay, but that's a different concern.

If it's of any interest, here's my article on that topic: http://www.vegfamily.com/health/vega...nformation.htm

I found the WAPF website to list a whole host of things that were patently false. I contacted a few of the researchers whose articles they quoted and had the researchers respond telling me that the information was taken out of context or flat-out misinterpreted. Sometimes the WAPF website stated that a study showed one thing when it, in fact, showed the exact opposite.

I have a problem with bad science. I can appreciate anyone else who shares the same concern, but I'm just not seeing it in The China Study to anywhere near the degree that I see it in articles, newsletters, letters, etc written by WAPF members.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *christacular* 
i'd like to know how specific the body of evidence is for any part of the inuit's diet/lifestyle/health is prior to western aculturation. there being no documented case of cancer does not mean there was none.

The best-known documentation of their life and diet was done by the arctic explorer, Stefannson, who wrote, "Cancer: Disease of Civilization." He lived among the people for long periods of time, and even adopted their all-meat diet after he came back to the U.S.

Quote:

and let's not forget that we live in a very different world NOW than the inuit did prior to "western aculturation". they now advise inuit women to avoid breastfeeding their babies due to the levels of toxins and heavy metals present in their breast milk thanks to the pollution of the oceans and how those toxins and heavy metals concentrate in the flesh foods so integral to a traditional inuit diet. the average lifespan of a traditional living inuit is ten to fifteen years shorter than that of the average person eating the average western diet, too.
It's true, we are all suffering from the effects of pollution, unfortunately. As for the Inuits, their lifespans have shortened in recent times, but they have also adopted the Western diet. Steffanson studied church records from Labrador, and it does show that some of them lived to be in their 80s and 90s during the 1800s. Most died during infancy, though, which isn't surprising when you consider their rough surroundings.

Quote:

domestic cats are obligate carnivores with specialized digestion to deal with large quantities of animal protein - very, very different from the digestive systems of omnivorous human beings. what's "weak" is this comparison/argument.
I thought it was strange that he added that comment, too, so it leads me to believe that Cordain means that if there are problems with eating meat, animals who eat a lot of it would have health problems even if they're carnivores. I have to admit, I haven't read much of Cordain's work since he has a saturated-fat bias. I only read this "The Protein Debate" because he was going against Campbell. Just like in his book, Campbell adopts the "Trust me, I'm an expert stance" and provides very few references to back up his claims, and Cordain supplied about 150. Not that that always means anything (Fuhrman, for example, is king of "look how many references I provide!"), but in this case it makes his argument for a high-protein diet more compelling than Campbell's.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zoebird* 
it's actually a highly criticized book, basicly considered 'poor science' by much of the scientific community. i've read it and the works that refute it.

Zoebird, I know that Chicharronita asked you for citations for this a while back as well and I, too, would be interested in reading any solid criticisms from the scientific community. I am, honestly, not as interested in reading someone's blog about why it is not a legit analysis, but if "much of the scientific community" finds it "poor science," I would be interested in reading the reasoning for that -- things like medical or science journals, websites of medical schools or depts of health/nutrition at universities, etc.


----------



## gargirl (Dec 30, 2006)

Chicharronita,

are you a vegetarian or a vegan?

This little corner of the board seems to me to be set aside for vegetarians and vegans to chat, trade recipes and ideas, maybe encourage one another. The absolute last thing that Veg-types need is to be discouraged by others. We get that all the time.

We get critisism, well-meaning advice, ridicule and "expert opinions" coming at us from every direction. Family and friends cannot wait to pounce on us with every little negative thing they can find. Our doctors use their status to pick away at our resolve to raise our kids veggie, teachers and daycare workers, babysitters and grandparents "accidentally" give our kids foods we do not want them to have... and it just goes on and on. So, when I see a little corner of a chat-board that says "vegetarian and vegan living" I go there to get away from all the omnivores for a while, to hang out with people who share my values and diet to varying degrees. It isn't that I don't like people who eat meat, I love them! But sometimes it is nice to get away from the constant voice of: "vegism is weird/bad/unhealthy etc.

You may disagree with the conclusions T. Colin Campbell came to based on his (and other's) study, you may be able to find some experts to agree with you. That is all fine and good. But it does not belong here on a thread where people are actively encouraging one another in their veggie lifestyle. How well do you think it would go over for some pro-vacinating person to run into a board about the dangers of vaccines and start saying how their information is flawed? Or for the breastfeeding forum to suddenly start getting posts about how formula really is wonderful and doesn't cause all the problems breastfeeders think it does?

People here don't need to chant in unison or anything but it really seems as though you may have popped onto this thread just to kill the enthusiasm of folks here. I am excited about the China study, and am honestly having to restrain myself from ordering a copy because I am tired of waiting for the library to get one. It is the most comprehensive diet and nutrition study ever done and no naysayer, expert or otherwise is going to ruin it for me.

I am real new to the board here, and I just want to let you know I am not trying to hurt your feelings or anything. I am just saying, my vegan lifestyle gets all the critisism I need outside of veggie boards.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *susumama* 
What strange conclusions this researcher comes to. Firstly examining whether past civilisations of Inuit developed colorectal cancer isn't very helpful to modern day man as colorectal cancer takes 40 years or more to develop and the Inuit lifespan wasn't much more than this. Also, how the body uses food in the extremes of climate is actually different to how modern man, inactive and slumped in front of his computer day after day uses it.

From what Steffanson observed, they were extremely healthy, even the ones who were older than 40. And as for your second comment, do you have anything substantiating that? I wonder if that's been studied. I imagine a modern Inuit could still eat her traditional diet, albeit she would need far few calories slumped in front of her computer all day.









Quote:

2. I have no idea what so ever why they would say that because a cat doesn't get bowel cancer a human won't either???? A cat is a true carnivore with a short intestinal tract and highly concentrated stomach acids - totally different to a human who has an enormously long intestinal tract and weak acids compared to carnivores.
See my response above. I have a feeling it has nothing to do with acids/digestion. This researcher is Loren Cordain, who knows about all this so I don't think he would have put that sentence in there by accident (but I could be wrong...I'm just guessing).

Quote:

The most agreed upon consensis of what our ancient diets were like is that we ate mainly vegetation with the occassional meat kill, just as our closest cousins, the chimpanzees still do.
I think that's mostly true, although aren't they sometimes cannibals in addition to eating bugs? And who knows how many bugs they consume while they are eating fruits. It could be considerable; I don't have any references on hand.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *calynde* 
For me personally, I think there's an ethical component to veg*n living that could be a bit more respected here

I certainly respect it and have no argument against any ethical reasons whatsoever.

Quote:

For these reasons, I'm happy to have a "Vegetarian and Vegan Living" forum where I can go to for support...without having to hear about animals as food. For whatever it's worth...
And like I mentioned before, we tried to have a discussion about this on the Traditional Foods forum, but it got eliminated due to complaints. So if people feel that strongly about this discussion ruining the purity of the veg forum, I wonder if it should be moved to the general nutrition one?

Quote:

Even the lab animal studies in "The China Study" bother me to be honest.
I totally understand. And Campbell doesn't have any qualms about using lab animals in experiments, that's for sure.

Quote:

It was perhaps written a bit simply to appeal to a larger audience, but it doesn't seem reasonable to attack the validity of their "science" considering it was an international effort and a lot of mainstream institutions were involved.
Well now you're mixing up the original study monograph, ""Diet, life-style, and mortality in China: A study of the characteristics of 65 Chinese counties" with Campbell's book. The two are not the same, from what I understand, but it's hard to find out, because the original is available for $200 or if you have access to a major university's library. And just because lots of institutions were involved, it doesn't mean it's beyond criticism (think if the study involved meat!).

Quote:

The author didn't have a veg*n agenda starting out and he's not trying to sell anyone any products after all...but at any rate...
I have to disagree. And I have to go...


----------



## susumama (Aug 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gargirl* 
Chicharronita,

are you a vegetarian or a vegan?

This little corner of the board seems to me to be set aside for vegetarians and vegans to chat, trade recipes and ideas, maybe encourage one another. The absolute last thing that Veg-types need is to be discouraged by others. We get that all the time.

We get critisism, well-meaning advice, ridicule and "expert opinions" coming at us from every direction. Family and friends cannot wait to pounce on us with every little negative thing they can find. Our doctors use their status to pick away at our resolve to raise our kids veggie, teachers and daycare workers, babysitters and grandparents "accidentally" give our kids foods we do not want them to have... and it just goes on and on. So, when I see a little corner of a chat-board that says "vegetarian and vegan living" I go there to get away from all the omnivores for a while, to hang out with people who share my values and diet to varying degrees. It isn't that I don't like people who eat meat, I love them! But sometimes it is nice to get away from the constant voice of: "vegism is weird/bad/unhealthy etc.

You may disagree with the conclusions T. Colin Campbell came to based on his (and other's) study, you may be able to find some experts to agree with you. That is all fine and good. But it does not belong here on a thread where people are actively encouraging one another in their veggie lifestyle. How well do you think it would go over for some pro-vacinating person to run into a board about the dangers of vaccines and start saying how their information is flawed? Or for the breastfeeding forum to suddenly start getting posts about how formula really is wonderful and doesn't cause all the problems breastfeeders think it does?

People here don't need to chant in unison or anything but it really seems as though you may have popped onto this thread just to kill the enthusiasm of folks here. I am excited about the China study, and am honestly having to restrain myself from ordering a copy because I am tired of waiting for the library to get one. It is the most comprehensive diet and nutrition study ever done and no naysayer, expert or otherwise is going to ruin it for me.

I am real new to the board here, and I just want to let you know I am not trying to hurt your feelings or anything. I am just saying, my vegan lifestyle gets all the critisism I need outside of veggie boards.

Totally, totally agree!!! Why would anyone come to our happy little veggie forum and espouse the ***healthfulness** of meat??? If we wanted to explore the wonders of dead animal flesh we would not be here!


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *susumama* 
The most agreed upon consensis of what our ancient diets were like is that we ate mainly vegetation with the occassional meat kill, just as our closest cousins, the chimpanzees still do. We should really be called gatherer-hunters as, like today, we liked minimal effort. Tracking and killing animals was hard work, took a long time and was dangerous, we could easily become injured or killed. Gathering the grasses, roots, fruits, berries and nuts was much easier, safer and required much less energy. Chimps eat all of the above daily - with a few easily caught insects thrown in and then band together (strength in numbers) about once a month to hunt prey, which they kill, everyone has a little and they go back to their plant diet. It makes much more sense that we did the same. Considering we have nothing that even slightly resembles the carnivore cat's digestive tract, and everything in common with a chimps it's a little hard to believe that anyone would take a cat's totally different anatomy and lifespan and say that it in anyway relates to our own.







:

Um, since you're putting out an argument, is it safe to assume you're inviting a genuine dialogue? I'd be more than happy to oblige, but then I should probably get on my way and leave the veg*ns to their own space.

I'll probably get flamed for this, but the reasons you give are why I believe chimps are omnivores. The insects they eat are not a matter of indifference. The calorie-dense and nutrient-dense food (including omega-3's) allowed them to develop rather large brains (which requires a lot of calories). They do hunt meat (mostly monkeys (rhys, is it?)), not just once in a while, but whenever they find opportunity. But it's inefficient as you point out. The efficiency that humans had plus the advent of cooking allowed meat to be more cost-effective in terms of calorie in-take and out-take (chewing raw meat is rather expensive). But in my mind, the calories and nutrients in meat was crucial in allowing humans to grow our brains. You could perhaps argue that we can supplement other foods for meat now. But I know that on the TF boards, one of the primary complaints that ex-veggies have is chronic depression in themselves and their children, which was, as they say, relieved by reintroducing meat products in their diet and corrected when later siblings were given an omni diet. But perhaps they're unusual. I think the veg*ns in this forum are well-informed, so I'm sure you have plenty of good reasons for your choices. I'm sure your commitment is strong enough to hear my comment without becoming defensive. I applaud you for your ethical stance, which I can't say I have. But I'm sure you too care for the health of yourselves and your children, which is why I sometimes engage in these discussions. It's always good to hear the other side. Thank you!


----------



## gargirl (Dec 30, 2006)

susumama, I added you to my buddy list.... which I really am not sure what it is but what the heck, it sounds nice.









Thanks for hearing what I was saying. It absolutely is not that all us vegans and vegetarians do not welcome informed debate, it is just that we do not want to debate all the time, in every place, with every soul who feels like it when they feel like it. That's why it's nice to come to little veggie place and relax and enjoy for a while!









Mommay, you know, I wasn't talking about pushing people out or trying to make anyone feel out of place. I just wish that on a board about alternativey parenting choices those of us who choose to eshew meat etc could get together and chat with each other and not get reminded of the arguments we just heard from our friends or the guy on the bus or some kid's mom. We hear the omni view of chimps and pro-veg studies everywhere we go, so I'm saying that to hear it here is just draining, for me at least. I am here to get away from that for a bit.

And why bring it here? Not you specifically, but anyone. This little area is a veggie area, and as I said, I come here to get relax and enjoy. It is a great place for you to voice your opinion about chimps or the China Study, but how about making a seperate thread? "Aren't Chimps Omnivores?" or "I have concerns about the China Study" then those of us who are not wanting to debate can avoid the discussion and go to another thread while those feeling peppy can jump in if they choose.

Sometimes, I will want to engage in a nice vigorous debate about the merits of a veggie diet, Goddess knows they are many! But sometimes I don't want to. aaaand my kid just got up .... sigh, sorry.


----------



## callmemama (May 7, 2002)

Getting back to the "has anybody read The China Study" question







... yes! It was shortly after it came out. I remember I was on my library's waiting list for it. I really enjoyed it. Dr. Campbell even speaks to the issues *some* scientists have with the research. I think its a fascinating book which references and discusses many more studies than just the one dubbed The China Study. Having said that, I wish they had also measured how much gluten the people were consuming. I think it too is related to many health ills. And yes, I'm vegan (6+ years and counting) and gluten-free (nearly 2 years)!

ETA: xenabyte, I do miss the old days and your wonderful recipes in the "good eats with wheat" thread!!!!


----------



## gargirl (Dec 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *callmemama* 
Getting back to the "has anybody read The China Study" question







... yes! It was shortly after it came out. I remember I was on my library's waiting list for it. I really enjoyed it. Dr. Campbell even speaks to the issues *some* scientists have with the research. I think its a fascinating book which references and discusses many more studies than just the one dubbed The China Study. Having said that, I wish they had also measured how much gluten the people were consuming. I think it too is related to many health ills. And yes, I'm vegan (6+ years and counting) and gluten-free (nearly 2 years)!

ETA: xenabyte, I do miss the old days and your wonderful recipes in the "good eats with wheat" thread!!!!









I am so looking forward to reading it. I am hoping it might be in this weekend at the library. It is so hard not to just order it for myself.... I have been dying to read it since I first heard about it.


----------



## frog (Jun 1, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gargirl* 
This little area is a veggie area, and as I said, I come here to relax and enjoy.

Amen, sister!


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gargirl* 
The Inuit have an appalling rate of heart disease and a very short life span in comparison with much of the rest of the world. They may not have time to get a lot of cancer. Their mostly meat diet is very unhealthy and always has been. They eat that way because there is little plant life where they are, and they suffer for it.









From what I understand, the modern Inuits who have adopted modern Western junk foods indeed suffer from these problems, but traditionally, they did not. Their mostly meat diet was not unhealthy when Steffanson studied them; it even moved him to adopt the diet while living with them, and to adopt it again as part of an experiment for a year at Bellevue hospital. Check out "Adventures in Diet" published in the December 1935 issue of Harper's magazine.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN* 

I have a problem with bad science. I can appreciate anyone else who shares the same concern, but I'm just not seeing it in The China Study to anywhere near the degree that I see it in articles, newsletters, letters, etc written by WAPF members.

I see how the soy issue would be a problem for you; even I am confused about the data that's quoted (from BOTH sides pro and con). But I do agree with the general message that WAPF says about soy: traditionally it's carefully prepared, and just a small to moderate part of diet, and not eaten in the amounts that I used to and a lot of people now eat it. I grew up in Japan, so I know that to be true, too, not that you should take my word for it though.









I'm sure you're right, there's some questionable studies that are bandied about by the Foundation. However, the overall message is of value: a traditional, whole food diet from pure sources (grass-fed, etc.) is good for you, and it's okay, nay healthful, to eat saturated fats. That is the message of the cookbook, _Nourishing Traditions_.

On the other hand, Campbell is saying that a diet of more than 12% protein is HARMFUL, and that is highly questionable. It is questionable that rat studies done with casein proves that animal protein is cancer-causing. The sentence, "There are virtually no nutrients in animal-based foods that are not better provided by plants." and the pages after it is questionable. These two ideas are some of the major premises of his book.

Doesn't anyone find it strange that only about 40 pages are devoted to the actual China Study? The rest is railing against Mainstream Medicine, what his opinion on the ideal low-protein diet is and paraphrasing what other people, like Ornish, say in support of his ideas.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN* 
I am, honestly, not as interested in reading someone's blog about why it is not a legit analysis, but if "much of the scientific community" finds it "poor science," I would be interested in reading the reasoning for that -- things like medical or science journals, websites of medical schools or depts of health/nutrition at universities, etc.

I would hardly call Masterjohn and Colpo lightweights in the research department. They both have been published in major science publications.

I haven't had a chance to read it thoroughly, but the following is another critique with a lot of references: "The Cornell China Project: Authoritative Proof, or Misinterpretation by Dietary Advocates?"

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-8e.shtml


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gargirl* 
We get critisism, well-meaning advice, ridicule and "expert opinions" coming at us from every direction. Family and friends cannot wait to pounce on us with every little negative thing they can find. Our doctors use their status to pick away at our resolve to raise our kids veggie, teachers and daycare workers, babysitters and grandparents "accidentally" give our kids foods we do not want them to have... and it just goes on and on.

I'm sorry to hear that...and believe me, I do lurk and read about those issues (like the thread where "friends" "accidentally" gave the poster meat), but don't post in support because I think people wouldn't believe I'm sympathetic since I'm an omni.

Quote:

You may disagree with the conclusions T. Colin Campbell came to based on his (and other's) study, you may be able to find some experts to agree with you. That is all fine and good. But it does not belong here on a thread where people are actively encouraging one another in their veggie lifestyle.
You're new, so you don't know, but I started a thread on the Traditional Foods forum about this, and it got eliminated. I'm starting to think that people don't want this book criticized at all, no matter what forum the thread is started in.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay* 
I'll probably get flamed for this, but the reasons you give are why I believe chimps are omnivores. The insects they eat are not a matter of indifference. The calorie-dense and nutrient-dense food (including omega-3's) allowed them to develop rather large brains (which requires a lot of calories). They do hunt meat (mostly monkeys (rhys, is it?)), not just once in a while, but whenever they find opportunity. But it's inefficient as you point out. The efficiency that humans had plus the advent of cooking allowed meat to be more cost-effective in terms of calorie in-take and out-take (chewing raw meat is rather expensive). But in my mind, the calories and nutrients in meat was crucial in allowing humans to grow our brains.

In the "Protein Debate" between Cordain and Campbell, Cordain makes these points (there's a link to the PDF in one of my posts here). I think bugs have provided nutrients inadvertently to us humans, since they've always been in whatever grains are stored in.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *callmemama* 
Getting back to the "has anybody read The China Study" question







...

Yeah let's!









Quote:

Having said that, I wish they had also measured how much gluten the people were consuming. I think it too is related to many health ills. And yes, I'm vegan (6+ years and counting) and gluten-free (nearly 2 years)!
According to one of the critiques of the book, the actual Study shows that wheat causes the most health problems. However, I do think the people surveyed eat a lot of processed wheat (i.e. noodles).


----------



## xenabyte (Jul 16, 2004)

Thread has been moved to the general, Nutrition and Good Eats, main forum.

Please keep the UA in mind when posting. http://www.mothering.com/mdc/mdc_useragreement.html

Thank you.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Thanks for moving it; I think this is the best home for it.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicharronita* 
You're new, so you don't know, but I started a thread on the Traditional Foods forum about this, and it got eliminated. I'm starting to think that people don't want this book criticized at all, no matter what forum the thread is started in.

I honestly don't think that is the issue.

*

I will take a look at that link you provided re my question on scientific criticism of The China Study, but again I do believe that the website (beyondveg) has a very obvious agenda. If there is significant criticism of this book in the mainstream nutrition and medical communities, I'd expect to see critiques in published peer-reviewed journals (not only online).

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicharronita*
Doesn't anyone find it strange that only about 40 pages are devoted to the actual China Study?

I believe that Campbell has stated that his publishers selected the title, not him and that his intent was never to cover solely the China Study, but rather a wider body of research supporting the premise of the book.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN* 

I will take a look at that link you provided re my question on scientific criticism of The China Study, but again I do believe that the website (beyondveg) has a very obvious agenda. If there is significant criticism of this book in the mainstream nutrition and medical communities, I'd expect to see critiques in published peer-reviewed journals (not only online).

A book review of The China Study, written by Norman C. Shealy, Ph.D. Citation: THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE
Volume 11, Number 6, 2005, pp. 1117-1119

This is a very reputable journal and can be found in most research libraries. I happen to have access because I am in academia. Let me know if I can send you the whole file.

Here is an exerpt, the first paragraph of the review:

Quote:

Here is another excellent research study, which is indeed
well-done work, but which leads the authors to make remarkable
conclusions that are not justified. The Campbells
correctly criticize the American diet with its junk fast food,
widely advertised in such otherwise reputable publications as
National Geographic and Family Doctor. The Campbells also
correctly conclude that good nutrition can eliminate most
adult-onset diabetes, heart disease, breast and prostate cancer,
kidney stones, and many autoimmune diseases. And these au-
thors correctly emphasize the enormous failure of Modern
Medicine, which itself, is the third leading cause of death.
The excellence then begins to fade. Comparing the effect
of a 20% protein diet with a 5% protein diet is, a ridiculous
argument. No one, not even the Campbells, recommends a
diet that deficient in protein. Mixing the known toxicity of
aflatoxins and nitrosamine as arguments also is distracting
and noninformative. Winding up by recommending a 10%
protein diet, of which 100% is of plant origin, when even
their research suggested that at least 12% was no worse, is
also misleading. Finally recommending only plant protein
as the answer to all disease is a far stretch. Animals who eat
only plants do develop cancer. People fed only plants do develop
both atherosclerosis and cancer. Those facts are not
addressed in this book. Even in the Chinese counties with
the lowest incidence of cancer, the rate was still 5%-7% as
high as in the Chinese counties with the highest incidence.
Furthermore, even in the Chinese counties with high rates
of cancer, at least 10% of the protein came from animal protein
and overall the differences in protein were not enough
to account for the conclusions drawn by the Campbells.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN* 
I would expect that if someone posted that children fed an NT diet were going to get heart disease and we hoped that our uninformed or misinformed friends who ate that way wisened up before they damaged their children, that would get pulled, too.

I didn't want to let this pass. There has been a number of discussions about heart disease and saturated fats. I gave the French as an example in a previous thread. They eat 4 times the amount of butter, 60% more cheese, and 3 times the amount of pork than Americans with low incidence of coronary heart disease. In America, heart disease is the number 1 killer. I know Furhman is someone who frowns upon eating saturated fats even amongst children. But many other "experts" do encourage children to eat a high fat, high cholesterol diet. My own opinion is that that be extended throughout one's life. Other examples defy the logic in this country that saturated fats causes heart disease.

But if you have evidence to the contrary, then sure, you should open it up for discussion! You would be doing us a favor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_paradox


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN* 
I honestly don't think that is the issue.

The thread you starting in TF had at least one member posting comments about how unhealthy looking her vegan relatives were and how she hoped they would learn something about nutrition before they had children and damaged their development.

As far as I know, those were the only posts that were negative; no one was making any personal attacks against the posters or calling them names (like stalker).

Quote:

Comments of that sort have popped up numerous times in the TF forum. The problem us vegans have with those discussions is not people who choose to eat a NT diet supporting each other in your choices, but rather our diets being bashed and/or comments that insinuate that our children will be damaged by our dietary choices.
This is a hard one, because there are so many members there who feel that they and/or their children's health were harmed by their previous non-TF diet (and not just here, but in the national TF forums like Native-Nutrition, too). So if they see others following their previous paths, I can see why they would express fear/concern for them. But I do think that people should tread carefully in posting, all the same.

Quote:

I would expect that if someone posted that children fed an NT diet were going to get heart disease and we hoped that our uninformed or misinformed friends who ate that way wisened up before they damaged their children, that would get pulled, too.
It seems like most of them are beyond worrying about the mainstream ideas about saturated fats, and the poster would probably get a lot of pro-fat links thrown at them!







Maybe I have a tougher skin than most, but I've moved beyond any fears of saturated fats harming me or my child.

Quote:

I will take a look at that link you provided re my question on scientific criticism of The China Study, but again I do believe that the website (beyondveg) has a very obvious agenda. If there is significant criticism of this book in the mainstream nutrition and medical communities, I'd expect to see critiques in published peer-reviewed journals (not only online).
You're right, the site does have an agenda, but since you're knowledgeable, you can see which of the references have merit, and which have problems.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay* 
A book review of The China Study, written by Norman C. Shealy, Ph.D. Citation: THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE
Volume 11, Number 6, 2005, pp. 1117-1119

This is a very reputable journal and can be found in most research libraries. I happen to have access because I am in academia. Let me know if I can send you the whole file.

Here is an exerpt, the first paragraph of the review:

Thanks for finding this!

I find their comments in the end about cancer and diet interesting. Could you please send me the file?


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Mommay , does the review show which figures they use to come up with the cancer rate numbers?


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicharronita* 
This is a hard one, because there are so many members there who feel that they and/or their children's health were harmed by their previous non-TF diet (and not just here, but in the national TF forums like Native-Nutrition, too). So if they see others following their previous paths, I can see why they would express fear/concern for them. But I do think that people should tread carefully in posting, all the same.

On veggie boards, there are many who feel that their health was damaged by following omni diets as well and that their health has improved since adopting a veg*n diet. The same could be said either way.

I've said this in the past, but my dh's family were Italian immigrants who followed a pretty "traditional" diet -- eggs and veggies from grandpa's little farm, meat from dad's butcher shop (which he got from the guy who raised cattle in a field a few miles away -- i.e. grass fed), pretty whole foods omni. They all died very, very young from heart disease and colon cancer. In fact, dh was orphaned by the age of 13 as both of his parents and all of his grandparents were dead by then. We are all looking at what works for us and for our own families. That doesn't mean that we can state that all omnis or all veg*ns are uninformed and destined to have sickly, stunted children.

Quote:

It seems like most of them are beyond worrying about the mainstream ideas about saturated fats, and the poster would probably get a lot of pro-fat links thrown at them!







Maybe I have a tougher skin than most, but I've moved beyond any fears of saturated fats harming me or my child.
Right, I would expect that people following an NT diet are not listening to mainstream dietary advice that states that saturated fats are unhealthy, but rather have come to a place of comfort in following alternative dietary advice. If they were nervous about this idea, I don't imagine that they'd be comfortable feeding their children lard and things of that sort.

Similarly, vegans are usually comfortable with following the dietary studies that support our dietary choices. My point was not that it would scare NTers if someone stated that they were going to get heart disease from eating animal fats as I am sure you all have heard that before.

My point was that you have a selected body of information that you choose to believe and are willing to ignore or discount the studies that say otherwise and it is not my place nor the place of other vegans to routinely point out that I believe the information you are following is wrong and/or post links to the wide body research by dieticians, doctors, etc. who disagree with you. Some NT followers seem not to feel the same way and _do_ find it to be their place to point out any perceived flaws in the studies, logic, etc. supporting vegan diets.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN* 
If they were nervous about this idea, I don't imagine that they'd be comfortable feeding their children lard and things of that sort.

I hate to be nitpicky here, but the example you give is incredibly misleading. Lard is only 40% saturated fat (compared to 60% in butter) and *45%* monounsaturated making it part of the monounsaturated class of fats. Which is why the industrial food manufacturers partially hydrogenate it to make it more solid.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

I can edit it







. I was just throwing out random animal fats that I imagine would freak out people who don't follow an NT diet -- not really giving a lot of thought to the actual breakdown of saturated vs unsat fat -- sorry.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

It's ok. It's just a common misconception (as is the fact that folks think a "saturated" fat is only comprised of saturated fats)!


----------



## RawVeganMom (Oct 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay* 
A book review of The China Study, written by Norman C. Shealy, Ph.D. Citation: THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE
Volume 11, Number 6, 2005, pp. 1117-1119

This is a very reputable journal and can be found in most research libraries. I happen to have access because I am in academia. Let me know if I can send you the whole file.

Here is an exerpt, the first paragraph of the review:

For such a reputable journal, I think they got their facts wrong..

I seem to remember reading in the book he says less then 10% protein _from animal sources_. He said you can eat all the plant protein you like. The animals that did, healed or were not able to get the cancer even at 20% protein.

BUT he says you don't _need_ more then 10% protein in your diet.

Someone correct me if i'm wrong.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay* 
I didn't want to let this pass. There has been a number of discussions about heart disease and saturated fats. I gave the French as an example in a previous thread. They eat 4 times the amount of butter, 60% more cheese, and 3 times the amount of pork than Americans with low incidence of coronary heart disease. In America, heart disease is the number 1 killer. I know Furhman is someone who frowns upon eating saturated fats even amongst children. But many other "experts" do encourage children to eat a high fat, high cholesterol diet. My own opinion is that that be extended throughout one's life. Other examples defy the logic in this country that saturated fats causes heart disease.

But if you have evidence to the contrary, then sure, you should open it up for discussion! You would be doing us a favor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_paradox

I don't believe that science has concluded that the fact that French people suffer less heart disease indicates that saturated fats from animal sources are healthy. As the wikipedia link you provided mentions, the fact that they eat less, exercise more and lead a less high stress lifestyle are all other possible explanations, however those are not proven at this point either.

The Harvard Nurses study, an ongoing prospective study that has been following thousands of nurses for 30 years, has repeatedly published findings that saturated fat consumption among the women they are following increases risk of heart disease and cancer. They did also find, as I'm sure we can all agree, that transfats are worse for your health than are saturated fats.

I'll post just a few links, but if you google "Harvard Nurses' Health Study and fats," you will come up with a lot more.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/...ct/337/21/1491

Quote:

_Each increase of 5 percent of energy intake from saturated fat, as compared with equivalent energy intake from carbohydrates, was associated with a 17 percent increase in the risk of coronary disease...Our findings suggest that replacing saturated and trans unsaturated fats with unhydrogenated monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats is more effective in preventing coronary heart disease in women than reducing overall fat intake._
This one discusses breast CA risk relative to fat consumption:

Quote:

_Intakes of both saturated and monounsaturated fat were related to modestly elevated breast cancer risk. Among food groups contributing to animal fat, red meat and high-fat dairy foods were each associated with an increased risk of breast cancer...Intake of animal fat, mainly from red meat and high-fat dairy foods, during premenopausal years is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer._


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN* 
I've said this in the past, but my dh's family were Italian immigrants who followed a pretty "traditional" diet -- eggs and veggies from grandpa's little farm, meat from dad's butcher shop (which he got from the guy who raised cattle in a field a few miles away -- i.e. grass fed), pretty whole foods omni. They all died very, very young from heart disease and colon cancer. In fact, dh was orphaned by the age of 13 as both of his parents and all of his grandparents were dead by then.

Personally, I wonder how much trans-fats and grains they were eating, as well as pasteurized & homogenized dairy. Heart disease was extremely rare in this country until the 30s, and even Price mentions this fact in _Nutrition and Physical Degeneration_. Everyone in this country up to that point ate tons of eggs, raw milk, grass-fed meat, and until the 30s the cooking fat of choice was lard. Afterwards, Crisco became very popular, because it was quite cheap. If meat and saturated fat caused heart disease, then the Masai would show signs of problems, and they don't (as long as they follow their traditional diet).

From _The Doctor's Heart Cure_

"From World War I to the 1980s, the death rate from heart attack increased while fat intake declined. In the United States, the death rate from cardiovascular disease increased about tenfold between 1930 and 1960! During that time, the consumption of animal fat declined. If the dietary fat model was correct, the heart attack rate should have declined in keeping with the decline in consumption of fat.

Additional studies shoot down this theory. In the 1960s, researchers from Vanderbilt University studied the Masai tribe in Kenya. These slender shepherds drink about a half gallon of whole milk each day, and they feast on as much as four to ten pounds of meat on occasions. If dietary fat caused high cholesterol and heart disease, the Masai would have sky-high lipid levels and high rates of heart disease, but they have neither. The researchers found that the Masai have exceedingly low rates of heart disease and low cholesterol levels, about 50 percent lower than most Americans do."


----------



## melissa17s (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RawVeganMom* 
For such a reputable journal, I think they got their facts wrong..

I seem to remember reading in the book he says less then 10% protein _from animal sources_. He said you can eat all the plant protein you like. The animals that did, healed or were not able to get the cancer even at 20% protein.

BUT he says you don't _need_ more then 10% protein in your diet.

Someone correct me if i'm wrong.

I agree with your summary RawVeganMom- that is what I understood, too.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Ooooo....studies! Gotta love those unbiased "scientific" studies.

There was one published in the JAMA in 2006 investigating the effects of low-fat diets on the risk of cardiovascular disease. They found:

Quote:

Over a mean of 8.1 years, a dietary intervention that reduced total fat intake and increased intakes of vegetables, fruits, and grains did not significantly reduce the risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD in postmenopausal women and achieved only modest effects on CVD risk factors, suggesting that more focused diet and lifestyle interventions may be needed to improve risk factors and reduce CVD risk.
Gotta love the second part. It's kind of like "well, we did the study and we didn't end up with findings that supported our hypothesis so rather than admit that our hypothesis was wrong we'll just say that we obviously needed to do more in order for our expected results to occur."

And on breast cancer - there was a recent study in JAMA last year looking at the effect of low-fat diets on breast cancer where they found:

Quote:

Among postmenopausal women, a low-fat dietary pattern did not result in a statistically significant reduction in invasive breast cancer risk over an 8.1-year average follow-up period. However, the nonsignificant trends observed suggesting reduced risk associated with a low-fat dietary pattern indicate that longer, planned, nonintervention follow-up may yield a more definitive comparison.
Oh those nonsignificant trends...they certainly can't mean that the hypothesis is wrong! Maybe we weren't trying hard enough!

Then we could also look at the study published in the Dec 20, 2006 Journal of the National Cancer Institute. I had a link to the actual study, but can't seem to locate it at this point and really want to go to bed. For now I'll have to link to a news story, but will try to update with the link to the actual study when I can find it.

What was most interesting was their findings:

Quote:

lowering fat intake was strongly associated with lower risk of recurrence, but only for the kind of breast cancer that is not sensitive to hormones (estrogen-negative breast cancer.) Among WINS participants with tumors that contain receptors for hormones (estrogen-positive breast cancer), however, reducing fat intake had little protective effect.
From what I understand the majority of breast cancer cases are senstive to hormones (estrogen-positive). What I find most interesting is that even though the study found that low-fat diets have no impact on estrogen-positive breast cancer they still suggest that:

Quote:

In light of the total available evidence on diet and breast cancer risk, AICR advises all breast cancer survivors, regardless of their receptor status, to adopt diets high in vegetables, fruits, whole grains and beans and low in animal fat.
We can all quote studies until the cows come home (figuratively), but it won't make things any clearer. It's easy to quote the studies that we like and pretend that it's all crystal clear, but quite frankly it's not. To quote ChristaN herself:

Quote:

My point was that you have a selected body of information that you choose to believe and are willing to ignore or discount the studies that say otherwise...
I would hazard a guess that the same is true for the folks doing the studies themselves. They have a "selected body of information" that they themselves believe to be true and even when the data comes back as insignificant or inconclusive it's not that the hypothesis is wrong - it's just that they need more time, or better counseling of study participants, or ...

To quote Dr. Uffe Ravnskov:

Quote:

...if a scientific hypothesis is sound, it must agree with _all_ observations. A hypothesis is not like a sports event, where the team with the greatest number of points wins the game. Even _one_ observation that does not support a hypothesis is enough to disprove it.
Of course that leaves us in a pickle. You've got your studies and I've got mine. Both seem to support contradictory hypothesis. Which one is right? That's probably the million dollar question. If the "great minds" of this century (funded in large part by big businesses) can't figure it out as conclusively as we might think they do, I don't expect that we will either.

*sigh* Who would think something as simple as feeding your family could get so darned complicated?


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicharronita* 
Personally, I wonder how much trans-fats and grains they were eating, as well as pasteurized & homogenized dairy. Heart disease was extremely rare in this country until the 30s, and even Price mentions this fact in _Nutrition and Physical Degeneration_. Everyone in this country up to that point ate tons of eggs, raw milk, grass-fed meat, and until the 30s the cooking fat of choice was lard. Afterwards, Crisco became very popular, because it was quite cheap. If meat and saturated fat caused heart disease, then the Masai would show signs of problems, and they don't (as long as they follow their traditional diet).

Of course this is second hand (from dh and his siblings), but in re to trans-fats they would say little to none. They did not eat packaged, processed foods and mom never used Crisco for anything. They did eat grains, but not white bread. DH says that he was always embarrassed by his thick bread sandwiches sliced from whole loaves of Italian bread with meat and veggies when the other kids were eating PB&J on Wonder bread. I don't know about pasteurization of any milk they were drinking. Dh does not recall drinking much milk and his sister says that she was breastfed until 4 and all of the siblings were bf for quite a while. They did eat a reasonable amount of cheese, though -- mostly parmesan and other Italian cheeses.

To me, it is as troublesome for us to try to discount any health ails suffered by families eating "traditionally" to them not doing it right as it is for veg*ns to discount any health ails suffered by former veg*ns to the same. I could argue the same thing on the other side -- was that vegan who was having trouble eating a whole foods diet, GMO soy, transfats?

Did not also WAPF member and TF follower, Stephen Byrnes, die from a stroke at the age of 40something in 2004? Presumably he was not doing it wrong in that I understand he was a nutrition advisor for WAPF.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Of course if we want to talk about Italians who eat all the "wrong" things according to modern dietary "wisdom" we could always look at the Baus.

They:

Quote:

tend to have excessive levels of cholesterol, triglycerides and blood sugar. But none of the usual related problems in spite of a diet that health-conscious Americans would never contemplate.
Of course my favorite part of the article:

Quote:

The Baus were discovered by a foundation studying rare diseases, and research indicates the key to their health may be genetic.

"It's not true that they didn't have disease," said Dr. Ures Hladnik of the Baschirotto Institute for Rare Diseases. "They have less of it."

The researchers think the contradictions could mean our obsession with cholesterol is off the mark.

"Maybe the enemy could someplace else, and maybe the Baus could show us one of those enemies," Dr. Hladnik said.


----------



## Chanley (Nov 19, 2001)

I just want to point out that a traditional Italian diet is in NO way the same as an NT diet.

Italians have some of the highest levels of celiacs in the world. Next to the Irish. There are so many factors that affect what we eat and how we digest it. I find it hard to imagine that there is any one diet that is perfect for everyone. It just does not make sense from an evolutionary perspective.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

I know earlier in this thread there was discussion somewhat along the lines that only the WAPF thinks that soy is really all that bad for you. I thought folks here might be interested to know of a recent development with the American Heart Association withdrawing their support for soy's benefits for warding off heart disease. You can read one of many articles about it.

The high points:

Quote:

An American Heart Association committee reviewed a decade of studies on soy's benefits and came up with results that are now casting doubt on the health claim that soy-based foods and supplements significantly lower cholesterol.

Quote:

The committee members reviewed 22 studies and found that large amounts of dietary soy protein only reduced LDL, or "bad" cholesterol, about 3 percent and had no effect on HDL, or "good" cholesterol, or on blood pressure.
Of course they still think people should eat these because of modern medicine's and industrial food's love affair with polyunsaturates. I always love the dire predictions of high cholesterol if you eat the saturated fats instead. I'm positive that you can't make that claim for everyone.


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN* 
Did not also WAPF member and TF follower, Stephen Byrnes, die from a stroke at the age of 40something in 2004? Presumably he was not doing it wrong in that I understand he was a nutrition advisor for WAPF.

You and I both know that there are a lot of factors to be considered outside of diet in this case and others. Put a man under a lot of stress and it can certainly do a number on your body. I also don't know much about his gene pool that could have predisposed him for stroke.

I could start listing the names of veg*n folks who died early. It's all anecdotal at best. Am I correct in assuming that you wouldn't assert that folks who followed the best veg*n diet possible _never_ die young from things like stroke or chd?


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Byrnes had AIDS and, apparently, the stroke was related. But I certainly don't know the family, so I don't know for sure.

I think the last thing we should do here is to pick apart the deaths of famous/infamous people and relate them to their diet. All sides are guilty of it. Sally Fallon is the queen. She has a review of Christine Northrup's book and talks about her current thyroid problems. The thyroid is sensitive to heavy metal toxicities and this world is a toxic place. There are many reasons your thyroid activity might be depressed (though mine has been improved with micronutrients).

I think we are all going to have to struggle to be healthy in this world, regardless of our diet.

So to kick someone when they are down, especially publicly, is mean IMO. And I could come up with examples from all sides, so I am not blaming anyone. I would just like to see less of it.

Edited: I just looked at the Northrup review on the WAPF site and don't see what I'm referring to. I may be confusing it with another review or perhaps it's been edited. Either way, I'm glad it's not there.

Amanda


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN* 
I've said this in the past, but my dh's family were Italian immigrants who followed a pretty "traditional" diet -- eggs and veggies from grandpa's little farm, meat from dad's butcher shop (which he got from the guy who raised cattle in a field a few miles away -- i.e. grass fed), pretty whole foods omni. They all died very, very young from heart disease and colon cancer. In fact, dh was orphaned by the age of 13 as both of his parents and all of his grandparents were dead by then. We are all looking at what works for us and for our own families. That doesn't mean that we can state that all omnis or all veg*ns are uninformed and destined to have sickly, stunted children.

Sorry to hear that. I might have come to the same conclusion if I were in your shoes. But I think some others have made good points in addressing some of the issues related to this.

As for saturated fats, I defer to pampered mom's research. But let me also point out that ANY research about animal proteins in this country is based on CONVENTIONAL meat diets. There are no studies still comparing a veggie diet and an omni diet of those who eat pasture-fed meat. That would seem to make a big difference in this debate, since neither side advocates partaking in conventional food practices.

I'm sorry ChristaN if it seems I'm picking on you. I have to admit that I would not dare say some of the things that I do about veg*nism around my veg*n friends irl, who are the vast majority amongst my circles of friends. Although I'm sympathetic to the veg*ns on this board who say that they are dissed by friends and families, I'm sorry, but in crunchy circles, it's the omni's that are the minority. I bite my tongue for the reasons you state - it would be totally out of line to tell my friends that they are not doing their best in terms of their choices. But this board is different. We should be able to discuss the issues as broadly as possible. Isn't that why we're here (in part)? In any case, I personally don't approach the discussions here the way I do with my friends. But I also have to say that my raw, veggie friends have the most youthful glow to their appearance. So hey, if appearances have anything to say, raw veg*nism seems to be the way to go! But people say I'm youthful for my age too, so maybe it's just about eating well, which I get the feeling is something all of us are doing for the most part.

Sorry for droning, but lastly, the one sticking point I have about veg*nism is that it is a practice that was introduced only decades ago. So humans evolved over millions of years eating a certain way, and then a handful of people decide they are going to abstain from one of the most key nutritional boosts that humans had (in terms of brain growth, etc.). I just think if someone is going to experiment and go against a diet backed by millions of years of evolution, they should tread very carefully. Some NT'ers feel the same way about supplementing a lack of meat in one's diet as they do about using formula rather than bm. What if we need meat as much as any omnivore does? Doesn't biology and evolution determine such things?

Thanks to everyone for the links. Let me go and check them out. I really do feel grateful for all the lessons on this board. No where else can we find this stuff out in such a concentrated form. You mama's rock!


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RawVeganMom* 
For such a reputable journal, I think they got their facts wrong..

I seem to remember reading in the book he says less then 10% protein _from animal sources_. He said you can eat all the plant protein you like. The animals that did, healed or were not able to get the cancer even at 20% protein.

BUT he says you don't _need_ more then 10% protein in your diet.

Someone correct me if i'm wrong.

Shealy's wording is "by recommending a 10% protein diet, of which 100% is of plant origin," so I don't see what the problem you're having with it is. I do think that your quoting my evaluation that it is a reputable journal and then insinuating it's not is quite suggestive. Why wouldn't you point out the passages in the text itself?


----------



## melissa17s (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay* 
Shealy's wording is "by recommending a 10% protein diet, of which 100% is of plant origin," so I don't see what the problem you're having with it is. I do think that your quoting my evaluation that it is a reputable journal and then insinuating it's not is quite suggestive. Why wouldn't you point out the passages in the text itself?

The problem is that that is not what Campbell recommends. Campbell says you can have all of the plant protein you want in your diet, but if you eat more than 10% animal protein you can be at risk for cancer if you have been expose triggers, such as toxins. The average American diet tends to be above 20% animal products. Note not all of these people will get cancer or they may not get it before the onset of other things that could lead to their demise, but if they have been exposed to the trigger than it really ups their chances.


----------



## melissa17s (Aug 3, 2004)

Could we do a role call out of the people participating in this thread, how many of you have read the book?


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pampered_mom* 







It's ok. It's just a common misconception (as is the fact that folks think a "saturated" fat is only comprised of saturated fats)!

I'm only just coming out of the fat confusion myself. I've had to read Mary Enig's _Know Your Fats_," written for the "layperson." Well this layperson felt that her butt was being kicked by all the biochemical references and 2 and 3-D representations of all the fat molecules (those pictures are supposed to show you something, but they just made my head hurt).







:


----------



## rayo de sol (Sep 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN* 
The Harvard Nurses study, an ongoing prospective study that has been following thousands of nurses for 30 years, has repeatedly published findings that saturated fat consumption among the women they are following increases risk of heart disease and cancer.

I went to the Harvard School of Public Health and found articles stating the exact opposite of what you claim above. Here's excerpts from one to give you a general idea (my emphasis):

Quote:

Low-Fat Diet Not a Cure-All
Results from large, long Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial shows no effect on heart disease, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, or weight.

The low-fat, high-starch diet that was the focus of dietary advice during the 1990s-as reflected by the USDA food guide pyramid-is dying out. A growing body of evidence has been pointing to its inadequacy for weight loss or prevention of heart disease and several cancers. The final nail in the coffin comes from an eight-year trial that included almost 49,000 women.

Quote:

*The results, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, showed no benefits for a low-fat diet.* Women assigned to this eating strategy did not appear to gain protection against breast cancer,(1) colorectal cancer,(2) or cardiovascular disease.(3) And after eight years, their weights were generally the same as those of women following their usual diets.(4)
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio...e/low_fat.html


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chanley* 
I just want to point out that a traditional Italian diet is in NO way the same as an NT diet.

Italians have some of the highest levels of celiacs in the world. Next to the Irish. There are so many factors that affect what we eat and how we digest it. I find it hard to imagine that there is any one diet that is perfect for everyone. It just does not make sense from an evolutionary perspective.

I agree. They tend to have a grain-heavy diet. As for evolution, did you see my posts about the debate between Loren Cordain and Campbell?


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force* 
Byrnes had AIDS and, apparently, the stroke was related. But I certainly don't know the family, so I don't know for sure.

Not only that-this is truly tragic-in the last few years before his death, he was being hounded by a stalker, the Hawaiian Dept. of Health, and had been cheated out of enormous sums of money. Before his site went down, there was an article about how he hadn't been able to eat as well as he normally did, in addition to having severe insomnia due to all the stress. Poor guy.









Quote:

I think the last thing we should do here is to pick apart the deaths of famous/infamous people and relate them to their diet. All sides are guilty of it. Sally Fallon is the queen. She has a review of Christine Northrup's book and talks about her current thyroid problems. The thyroid is sensitive to heavy metal toxicities and this world is a toxic place. There are many reasons your thyroid activity might be depressed (though mine has been improved with micronutrients).
That's not very nice...although I have to admit I hold a grudge against Northrup, because it was from reading _Women's Bodies, Women's Wisdom_ that led me to severely cut down on meat, cut out dairy, go low-fat, and eat tons of soy which led to my health problems.

Quote:

So to kick someone when they are down, especially publicly, is mean IMO. And I could come up with examples from all sides, so I am not blaming anyone. I would just like to see less of it.
Look at the fiasco and lies that came out when Atkins died! Sheesh.

Quote:

Edited: I just looked at the Northrup review on the WAPF site and don't see what I'm referring to. I may be confusing it with another review or perhaps it's been edited. Either way, I'm glad it's not there.
You're right. I did a search there and didn't find anything either.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay* 
Sorry to hear that. I might have come to the same conclusion if I were in your shoes. But I think some others have made good points in addressing some of the issues related to this.

I had wanted to add that I was sorry to hear about Christa's dh's family's health problems, too, to my post replying to her about their diet, but had to get off the computer suddenly.

Quote:

As for saturated fats, I defer to pampered mom's research. But let me also point out that ANY research about animal proteins in this country is based on CONVENTIONAL meat diets. There are no studies still comparing a veggie diet and an omni diet of those who eat pasture-fed meat. That would seem to make a big difference in this debate, since neither side advocates partaking in conventional food practices.
Absolutely! But who would fund such research?

Quote:

I'm sorry ChristaN if it seems I'm picking on you. I have to admit that I would not dare say some of the things that I do about veg*nism around my veg*n friends irl, who are the vast majority amongst my circles of friends. Although I'm sympathetic to the veg*ns on this board who say that they are dissed by friends and families, I'm sorry, but in crunchy circles, it's the omni's that are the minority. I bite my tongue for the reasons you state - it would be totally out of line to tell my friends that they are not doing their best in terms of their choices.
That is my plight too! It's the reason why I don't use my "real" name here, because many of my veg. friends are frequently reading these posts. I would never say the things I say here to them IRL. It's kind of a freeing feeling to get to post exactly what I think here.

Quote:

Sorry for droning, but lastly, the one sticking point I have about veg*nism is that it is a practice that was introduced only decades ago. So humans evolved over millions of years eating a certain way, and then a handful of people decide they are going to abstain from one of the most key nutritional boosts that humans had (in terms of brain growth, etc.). I just think if someone is going to experiment and go against a diet backed by millions of years of evolution, they should tread very carefully. Some NT'ers feel the same way about supplementing a lack of meat in one's diet as they do about using formula rather than bm. What if we need meat as much as any omnivore does? Doesn't biology and evolution determine such things?
I agree; well put.


----------



## xenabyte (Jul 16, 2004)

Please remember in the MDC UA, it says:

Quote:

Do not post to debate or challenge the MDC User Agreement, _or the moderators, administrators, or their actions_.

Constructive criticism and questions for purposes of clarification are best addressed directly to the moderator or administrator _by private message or personal e-mail_. If this is not successful, see Recourse.

Given these guidelines, we encourage friendly debate, socializing, and good humor. Thank you for becoming part of our online community.
If you have a post in this debate thread regarding the prior thread, comments about the Mods/Admins actions, or a post refering to a post about that, _please self edit_ [delete it], or I or another Mod/Admin will have to pull those posts.

Thanks and have a good one!


----------



## pampered_mom (Mar 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicharronita* 

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force*
Edited: I just looked at the Northrup review on the WAPF site and don't see what I'm referring to. I may be confusing it with another review or perhaps it's been edited. Either way, I'm glad it's not there.

You're right. I did a search there and didn't find anything either.

I actually remember seeing something like this in the past and thought it was very sad (although when it comes to SF in cases like this I'm not surprise). I'm all for healthy debate, but I'd certainly agree with Gale Force. When it comes to other people there is just no way that we can know all of the details involved.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pampered_mom* 

We can all quote studies until the cows come home (figuratively), but it won't make things any clearer. It's easy to quote the studies that we like and pretend that it's all crystal clear, but quite frankly it's not. To quote ChristaN herself:

I would hazard a guess that the same is true for the folks doing the studies themselves. They have a "selected body of information" that they themselves believe to be true and even when the data comes back as insignificant or inconclusive it's not that the hypothesis is wrong - it's just that they need more time, or better counseling of study participants, or ...


That's a really good point. That's why I don't mind that the Campbell's are biased, as long as the bias is acknowledged and they are open to criticism. That's why I also like NT. I am not going to wait until there is a sufficient amount of data to be collected by the scientific community. I'm going to eat the way tradition and evolution has seen fit for humans to eat. Who's to say that B12 is the only thing lacking.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *melissa17s* 
The problem is that that is not what Campbell recommends. Campbell says you can have all of the plant protein you want in your diet, but if you eat more than 10% animal protein you can be at risk for cancer if you have been expose triggers, such as toxins. The average American diet tends to be above 20% animal products. Note not all of these people will get cancer or they may not get it before the onset of other things that could lead to their demise, but if they have been exposed to the trigger than it really ups their chances.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure that is so devastating for Shealy.


----------



## callmemama (May 7, 2002)

I would like to respectfully say that I'm sorry this thread was moved out of the veg forum. It has gone from a discussion of how veg*n's feel about the book to MDC's age-old, veg-omni debate.

As for the poster that asked how many people have actually read the book (good question, btw!), I have!


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

I'll try to address a few of the posts aimed at me in one response







.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rayo de sol* 
I went to the Harvard School of Public Health and found articles stating the exact opposite of what you claim above.

I think that what you are quoting/finding on their site can lead to some confusion. To be clear, the Harvard Nurses' Study _has not_ found a low fat diet to be protective against cancer or cardiovascular ails. It _has_ found that the type of fat eaten matters more than the amount of fat, and it has found that saturated fats and transfats (more so) contribute to both problems.

eta: I went through and read the link that you provided from HSPH which also includes the statement:

Quote:

Many lines of evidence indicate that the type of fat is very important to long-term health. *Replacing saturated and trans with natural vegetable oils can greatly reduce the risk of heart disease and diabetes. In the Nurses' Health Study II we have seen that women who consume high amounts of red meat and high-fat dairy foods during their early adult years are at increased risk of developing breast cancer.*
_emphasis mine_

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommay*
I have to admit that I would not dare say some of the things that I do about veg*nism around my veg*n friends irl, who are the vast majority amongst my circles of friends. Although I'm sympathetic to the veg*ns on this board who say that they are dissed by friends and families, I'm sorry, but in crunchy circles, it's the omni's that are the minority.

While I travel in a pretty crunchy circle too, you must remember that I live in cow country







(Colorado) where my dd, in kindergarten, had a "cowboy roundup" as a big unit wherein they glued dried beans onto pictures of pigs to represent the pork and beans that cowboys ate and roped pretend cows; she also had kids in her K class telling her that "god wants you to eat meat," and "you are going to get sick and die" b/c she doesn't eat meat.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pampered_mom*
I could start listing the names of veg*n folks who died early. It's all anecdotal at best. Am I correct in assuming that you wouldn't assert that folks who followed the best veg*n diet possible never die young from things like stroke or chd?

Absolutely not. I understand that the founder of the international version of the Vegan Society lived into his 90s, but one of the American Vegan Society gurus died fairly young (like in his 50s or 60s).

I am making the same point as you here -- my family's experience is anecdotal, Mr. Byrnes' experience is anecdotal, the vegan society guy's experience is anecdotal, and so is your or anyone else's family's experience. The wider body of research _does not_ support the idea that vegan diets are generally deleterious to human health. If your anecdotal experience is different, that is fine -- I can (and have) post my own anecdotal experience. None of it proves anything other than what we have all chosen as right for ourselves. I know what works for me and what works for my family. I've been vegan for 18 yrs now; it's working quite well for me.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *callmemama* 
I would like to respectfully say that I'm sorry this thread was moved out of the veg forum. It has gone from a discussion of how veg*n's feel about the book to MDC's age-old, veg-omni debate.

As for the poster that asked how many people have actually read the book (good question, btw!), I have!

Oh, and in re to that, I have read The China Study, but it's been while and I can't say that I am currently highly conversant in the nuances of the data.

I agree that I don't believe the OP's purpose in starting this thread was to incite debate, but rather to discuss with other veg*ns how they feel about this book. It would be much the same as NTers starting a thread in TF to discuss how other people following Sally Fallon's dietary recommendations feel about the book Nourishing Traditions and the thread then getting moved to general nutrition such that veg*ns could chime in on the flaws in her hypothesis.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

So just start a thread where you want and set up the ground rules.

FWIW, the best NT rant thread took place in the main Nutrition Forum, filled with rants by NTers. It's all about framing the discussion.

Amanda


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *melissa17s* 
The problem is that that is not what Campbell recommends. Campbell says you can have all of the plant protein you want in your diet, but if you eat more than 10% animal protein you can be at risk for cancer if you have been expose triggers, such as toxins. The average American diet tends to be above 20% animal products. Note not all of these people will get cancer or they may not get it before the onset of other things that could lead to their demise, but if they have been exposed to the trigger than it really ups their chances.

I believe what you say is true. HOWEVER, most of this is all speculation coming from the studies done on RATS and casein. Purified, heat-treated casein is not the same as fresh meat.

Campbell does mention the wealthy Filipinos whose "high-protein" diet may have caused cancer. But he doesn't elaborate on what else was in their diet; I can guess that it included lots of sugar and white flour, judging from what the Filipinos I know eat (and what they like to buy from the Asian markets). Ironically, the local Asian newspapers urge them to give up coconut oil and other foods and replace them with "healthy" vegetable oils like Canola! So if they are indeed giving up coconut oil, that would be another factor in their health problems.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *melissa17s* 
Could we do a role call out of the people participating in this thread, how many of you have read the book?

I have, but it's been about six months now. I think I may need to check it out from the library again.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay* 
I am not going to wait until there is a sufficient amount of data to be collected by the scientific community. I'm going to eat the way tradition and evolution has seen fit for humans to eat. Who's to say that B12 is the only thing lacking.

I wonder that myself. There's new information coming out all the time, it's really hard to keep up. I just learned about vitamin K2 myself.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *callmemama* 
I would like to respectfully say that I'm sorry this thread was moved out of the veg forum.

Well, I know how you feel, because a thread I had started about it got eliminated from the TF forum.

Quote:

It has gone from a discussion of how veg*n's feel about the book to MDC's age-old, veg-omni debate.
I keep hearing about these debates, but I've only been on MDC for a few months. I think people have been pretty respectful on this thread, though.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN* 
I agree that I don't believe the OP's purpose in starting this thread was to incite debate, but rather to discuss with other veg*ns how they feel about this book.

I'm repeating this again for those who don't know, but I had tried to start a discussion about this book on the TF forum, only to get it eliminated. So when I saw a thread about it again, I took the opportunity to start another discussion-and I'm really glad that it got moved to this forum. However, if people want to just talk about how great it is, I think I saw a thread about it with the word science in the thread name in the Veg forum.

Quote:

It would be much the same as NTers starting a thread in TF to discuss how other people following Sally Fallon's dietary recommendations feel about the book Nourishing Traditions and the thread then getting moved to general nutrition such that veg*ns could chime in on the flaws in her hypothesis.
Except because _NT_ has been out for a while, most people in the TF forum have moved beyond their initial enthusiasm to acceptance, so the dietary points tend not to be debated very much (that I can see).

Campbell's book just came out, so it's generated a lot of enthusiasm, especially in the lay person who doesn't know much about nutrition (and others who should know better, IMHO).

So why do I keep trying to discuss it? As I mentioned before, and Mommay also is in a similar plight IRL, we health-conscious omnis are in the minority. The world at large is trying to get us to move away from meat and fats, because it assumes industrial meat and dairy is the whole picture.

Books like _TCS_ keep the industrial model in place, perhaps unwittingly. Since its message is that all meat is bad, the people who will continue to eat it will not be moved to look for alternatives (I know my mainstream friends have adopted a "don't ask, don't tell" mentality about industrial foods, and they probably echo the majority).

My biggest beef is that because there are so many influential books like this which promote eliminating animal foods, it is extremely difficult to get high-quality dairy from properly-raised cows (the ones at the store have the consistency of water, in addition to other problems). Sausage and pork products now have the texture of turkey, because they are so low-fat.

You may not like the WAPF, but they are one of the few trying to get omnis away from industrial meat to finding humanely-raised ones. Wouldn't you rather people eat pork from a family farm rather than Smithfield Foods?


----------



## melissa17s (Aug 3, 2004)

Chicharronita- You draw very different conclusions from the book than I did. What I got out of it in a very quick simple summary: Eat whole foods, avoid processed foods, and minimize animal products. I did not feel the author had a vegan agenda. The stuff about casein and the Phillipines were not included as a body of research to prove the author's point about cancer, but instead the starting point that peaked his interest in the area of study.

I can not speak for how Phillipinos eat, but I can say that I was really sad to see how many Western things, including diet, that Singaporeans had adopted while were at my ils' for winter break. In the past, I struggled to find clothes that fit me there because I am 5'2 and 115#- I was large. This last time, I saw more overweight people there than 3 1/2 years ago







and some of the clothes were actually too big for me.

Also, my bil was able to get an insulin pump for his type 1 diabetes recently, but when he was diagnosed 6 or so years ago he was one of only a handful that had the disease. Now type 2 is common, as is the practice of supplimenting breast milk with formula. I felt Campbell's information on diseases of affluence really explained how diseases, like diabetes can be minimized based on information from other researchers' studies- not the formal China Study.


----------



## Mommay (Jul 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *melissa17s* 

I can not speak for how Phillipinos eat, but I can say that I was really sad to see how many Western things, including diet, that Singaporeans had adopted while were at my ils' for winter break. In the past, I struggled to find clothes that fit me there because I am 5'2 and 115#- I was large. This last time, I saw more overweight people there than 3 1/2 years ago







and some of the clothes were actually too big for me.

Also, my bil was able to get an insulin pump for his type 1 diabetes recently, but when he was diagnosed 6 or so years ago he was one of only a handful that had the disease. Now type 2 is common, as is the practice of supplimenting breast milk with formula. I felt Campbell's information on diseases of affluence really explained how diseases, like diabetes can be minimized based on information from other researchers' studies- not the formal China Study.

I understand your concern. I think we ALL share them. Let's not forget that the omnis on this board follow a much different pattern than the un-mindful one followed by most omnis in this country. I don't think it's fair to present a false alternative between a healthy veg*nism and an unhealthy omni diet. NT'ers make an effort to avoid factory farming exactly because it is unhealthy and without saying cruel. As for the overweight issue, I laugh about that one. I weigh 100 lbs at 5'4", the same I weighed in high school, and I eat plenty of saturated fats and other "fattening" foods. I eat 3 hardy meals a day and snacks. People on the TF boards tell similar stories about how they lost weight with very little physical exercise (not that that's healthy) eating the NT way. I think there are reasons for the obesity in this country, and it does not have anything to do with how people have been eating for millenia. It wasn't with a paleolithic diet that all these modern day diseases arose, but with the grain-based neolithic diet. But I won't digress.


----------



## melissa17s (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommay* 
I understand your concern. I think we ALL share them. Let's not forget that the omnis on this board follow a much different pattern than the un-mindful one followed by most omnis in this country. I don't think it's fair to present a false alternative between a healthy veg*nism and an unhealthy omni diet. NT'ers make an effort to avoid factory farming exactly because it is unhealthy and without saying cruel. As for the overweight issue, I laugh about that one. I weigh 100 lbs at 5'4", the same I weighed in high school, and I eat plenty of saturated fats and other "fattening" foods. I eat 3 hardy meals a day and snacks. People on the TF boards tell similar stories about how they lost weight with very little physical exercise (not that that's healthy) eating the NT way. I think there are reasons for the obesity in this country, and it does not have anything to do with how people have been eating for millenia. It wasn't with a paleolithic diet that all these modern day diseases arose, but with the grain-based neolithic diet. But I won't digress.

I am not comparing your diet or NTer's. I was merely noting the exportation of Western (US) food culture into another nonWestern culture. Nor did I state that saturate fat are the reason for their problems- please note in the paragraph you edited out, one of the things I found Campbell encourages is eating more whole foods and avoiding processed. According to what I read, processed foods along with practices such as supplementing or formula feeding can be culprits in chronic diseases.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *melissa17s* 
Chicharronita- You draw very different conclusions from the book than I did. What I got out of it in a very quick simple summary: Eat whole foods, avoid processed foods, and minimize animal products. I did not feel the author had a vegan agenda.

Maybe not a vegan agenda, but an extreme anti-meat one for sure: "There are virtually no nutrients in animal-based foods that are not better provided by plants."

Quote:

The stuff about casein and the Phillipines were not included as a body of research to prove the author's point about cancer, but instead the starting point that peaked his interest in the area of study.
That's true, but it's interesting that that's the point that people remember about the book-"_The China Study_ proves that eating meat causes cancer!" It would've been more balanced if he had included what else was n their diet, rather than just singling meat out as the culprit for their bad health.

Quote:

I can not speak for how Phillipinos eat, but I can say that I was really sad to see how many Western things, including diet, that Singaporeans had adopted while were at my ils' for winter break. In the past, I struggled to find clothes that fit me there because I am 5'2 and 115#- I was large. This last time, I saw more overweight people there than 3 1/2 years ago







and some of the clothes were actually too big for me.
I hear ya! When I was growing up in Japan in the 70s, it was extremely rare to see obese people, or teenagers with acne. Now it's a lot more common, unfortunately. My young nieces eat junk food all the time. All around the world, it's considered a sign of affluence to be able to afford junk food, soft drinks, and...formula. UGH.

Quote:

I felt Campbell's information on diseases of affluence really explained how diseases, like diabetes can be minimized based on information from other researchers' studies- not the formal China Study.
This is true, but you have to admit he points to meat as the major problem in addition to all the other junk foods; it reminds me of those studies that supposedly show how bad red meat is, but then when you look at what they actually studied, it turns out that it was mostly preserved meats and/or meats cooked at a high temperature (isn't it true that charred meat bits are carcinogenic?).

The way the book is written, it seems like the information from other researchers' studies show the same thing that the Study shows, but it's my understanding that it doesn't.


----------

