Here's a phd saying her work is correct and basically agreeing:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2 ... wheat.html
Even more, apparently the author of the china study found her argument to be worth personally responding to:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2 ... pbell.html
A lot of us here have science/math/finance backgrounds... It's pretty easy to see what china study author Campbell did. The term "curve fitting" comes to mind.
more:
http://feastingonfitness.blogspot.com/2 ... art-1.html
http://feastingonfitness.blogspot.com/2 ... art-2.html
The Island Where People Forget to Die
I like Denise. She covers the data extremely thoroughly. She even dug up a paper by Campbell himself demonstrating that Fish protein + Fish oil had anticancer properties (whereas corn oil combinations did not). He cited that very same study as evidence that animal protein causes disease and plant protein prevents it (I guess fish are in kingdom Plantae now?).
She also cites 7 different studies showing chemopreventitive activity of whey protein, as well as data from "The China Study" in which one group (tuoli) which consumes more dairy and meat than Americans do showed very similar rates of disease compared to the chinese average (which is very low meat and no dairy consumption). The tuoli even had considerably lower rates of many diseases than did the most vegetarian areas.
Apparently he also neatly ignored beer consumption as a confounding factor when associating cholesterol with various diseases. When beer consumption is accounted for those associations disappear.
This is why I'm always skeptical when someone pushes veganism as a cure-all. Common sense and hard data just don't support it.
She also cites 7 different studies showing chemopreventitive activity of whey protein, as well as data from "The China Study" in which one group (tuoli) which consumes more dairy and meat than Americans do showed very similar rates of disease compared to the chinese average (which is very low meat and no dairy consumption). The tuoli even had considerably lower rates of many diseases than did the most vegetarian areas.
Apparently he also neatly ignored beer consumption as a confounding factor when associating cholesterol with various diseases. When beer consumption is accounted for those associations disappear.
This is why I'm always skeptical when someone pushes veganism as a cure-all. Common sense and hard data just don't support it.
Wow, Bigato... You seem to be personally invested in this?... I am interested in the truth and I have an open mind. That's exactly why the China Study is so irritating, because it isn't interested in the truth, just manipulating data to advance their preconceived notions.
I don't think it's that complex. The correlations from the book are all listed and there is no statistically significant correlation between animal protein and cancer. Plant protein actually had more positive correlation (still not significant) with cancer... A lot of puzzle pieces had to be moved to come up with vegetarian conclusions.... Seems simple and obvious to me.
Now the whole China Study was a big subjective mess with countless design problems to begin with. But what observational study isn't?... To "prove" anything with such a study would be exceedingly unlikely IMO.
I don't think it's that complex. The correlations from the book are all listed and there is no statistically significant correlation between animal protein and cancer. Plant protein actually had more positive correlation (still not significant) with cancer... A lot of puzzle pieces had to be moved to come up with vegetarian conclusions.... Seems simple and obvious to me.
Now the whole China Study was a big subjective mess with countless design problems to begin with. But what observational study isn't?... To "prove" anything with such a study would be exceedingly unlikely IMO.
-
tommytebco
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:48 pm
I've been reading ERE for several years, but never joined the fray.
Had to join to thank you folks for a "tea through the nose" moment.
In the referenced article, Stamatis Moraitis says when asked about asking doctors details of his miraculous recovery "the doctors were all dead."
Physician heal thyself.
Had to join to thank you folks for a "tea through the nose" moment.
In the referenced article, Stamatis Moraitis says when asked about asking doctors details of his miraculous recovery "the doctors were all dead."
Physician heal thyself.
Bigato thanks for mentioning the analogy with the discussion about climate skeptics. I reread that thread, and yes, your last post is a wise reaction at the vegetarian skeptics.
The referenced article is a lofty description of a not even strict vegetarian, medetarian diet but read by JohnnyH as "trying to force everything into vegetarian and/or establishment low calorie/low fat context"
That's his personal bias, and as you see, nobody can take one's (his) personal bias away. That's only up to the person himself. (Unfortunately?)
The referenced article is a lofty description of a not even strict vegetarian, medetarian diet but read by JohnnyH as "trying to force everything into vegetarian and/or establishment low calorie/low fat context"
That's his personal bias, and as you see, nobody can take one's (his) personal bias away. That's only up to the person himself. (Unfortunately?)
@JohnnyH: I think there are a few things we can learn from that data, at least.
-Fish, fish oil and shellfish all certainly seem to be quite good for you (also supported by other research).
-Beer and liquor consumption seems pretty clearly linked to many diseases and mortality (also supported by other research).
-High blood sugar/insulin and being overweight also show up as pretty clear risk factors (also supported by other research). Han chinese seem to have a lower glucose tolerance than westerners (interesting if you happen to be chinese).
The "questionnaire" part of the study is basically useless and irrelevant, however. It reminds me a lot of psychologists studying behaviorism. Their studies were/are even worse; all questionnaires and no observation, they even admit that their whole field is a dead end and that their methods are incapable of making relevant distinctions, and yet they shamelessly make pleas for more government funding at the end of every research paper (and get it, too). Diet studies are at least simple and observable enough that even amateurs can identify and filter out confounding variables.
@bigato: I "like" Chris Masterjohn's work because it's well reasoned, specific, well cited and well written. I like Denise's work for the same reasons, and hers is far more thorough. I enjoy reading good science, and I respect those who contribute to it. Dr. Campbell, on the other hand, has implied that the Weston A Price Foundation is somehow a supporter of factory farming or the beef industry, neither of which is even remotely true, and has furthermore misrepresented data from scientific papers which he was personally involved in (and that's just lab studies, not even counting the China Study itself). Campbell seems much more interested in selling books by telling purist vegans and PETA what they want to hear than he is in making reasoned arguments or contributing to accurate knowledge.
-Fish, fish oil and shellfish all certainly seem to be quite good for you (also supported by other research).
-Beer and liquor consumption seems pretty clearly linked to many diseases and mortality (also supported by other research).
-High blood sugar/insulin and being overweight also show up as pretty clear risk factors (also supported by other research). Han chinese seem to have a lower glucose tolerance than westerners (interesting if you happen to be chinese).
The "questionnaire" part of the study is basically useless and irrelevant, however. It reminds me a lot of psychologists studying behaviorism. Their studies were/are even worse; all questionnaires and no observation, they even admit that their whole field is a dead end and that their methods are incapable of making relevant distinctions, and yet they shamelessly make pleas for more government funding at the end of every research paper (and get it, too). Diet studies are at least simple and observable enough that even amateurs can identify and filter out confounding variables.
@bigato: I "like" Chris Masterjohn's work because it's well reasoned, specific, well cited and well written. I like Denise's work for the same reasons, and hers is far more thorough. I enjoy reading good science, and I respect those who contribute to it. Dr. Campbell, on the other hand, has implied that the Weston A Price Foundation is somehow a supporter of factory farming or the beef industry, neither of which is even remotely true, and has furthermore misrepresented data from scientific papers which he was personally involved in (and that's just lab studies, not even counting the China Study itself). Campbell seems much more interested in selling books by telling purist vegans and PETA what they want to hear than he is in making reasoned arguments or contributing to accurate knowledge.
You keep infering my bias. Please tell me what my bias is... If I do have a bias it is anti-establishment. Because the conventional, prevailing knowledge is "low carb/low fat" which has been US standard for generations is clearly ineffective.
@J_: "vegetarian skeptics" Haha, I am a veggy denier!... One, I haven't expressed any skepticism towards vegetarianism here, only the China Study. You are assuming my position, and incorrectly. I see evidence of healthy vegetarians frequently.
If you've read many mainstream US articles on health you'll find that virtually ALL of them are put into a "establishment low calorie/low fat context."
I would say the overwhelming evidence is that calories are an irrelevant unit when talking about human digestion... Outside of that since the 1950s(!) it has been erroneously and universally accepted that fat, especially from animal sources, causes heart disease and obesity... Very, very slowly this is beginning to change as evidence mounts that low fat/low calorie is a recipe for health disaster (ie: sugar, wheat = low cal, low fat).
@bigato: "Yes, it is that complex. No, the correlations are not all listed. They are nit picked with an specific agenda."
Uh, no, go read it the data is there... The correlations from the China Study are listed on the book and on repeated on the Fact or Fallacy site. If you're saying the data is fundamentally flawed, then I'd probably agree, but they are clearly listed and there is no correlation either way.
Seems like your position on diet is approaching theological; too complex (dangerous?) to investigate and based on personal faith alone.
@J_: "vegetarian skeptics" Haha, I am a veggy denier!... One, I haven't expressed any skepticism towards vegetarianism here, only the China Study. You are assuming my position, and incorrectly. I see evidence of healthy vegetarians frequently.
If you've read many mainstream US articles on health you'll find that virtually ALL of them are put into a "establishment low calorie/low fat context."
I would say the overwhelming evidence is that calories are an irrelevant unit when talking about human digestion... Outside of that since the 1950s(!) it has been erroneously and universally accepted that fat, especially from animal sources, causes heart disease and obesity... Very, very slowly this is beginning to change as evidence mounts that low fat/low calorie is a recipe for health disaster (ie: sugar, wheat = low cal, low fat).
@bigato: "Yes, it is that complex. No, the correlations are not all listed. They are nit picked with an specific agenda."
Uh, no, go read it the data is there... The correlations from the China Study are listed on the book and on repeated on the Fact or Fallacy site. If you're saying the data is fundamentally flawed, then I'd probably agree, but they are clearly listed and there is no correlation either way.
Seems like your position on diet is approaching theological; too complex (dangerous?) to investigate and based on personal faith alone.
It must be frustrating to have a worldview that so many things are too complicated for you to understand and investigate.
Education is the ability to find knowledge. If I want to figure something out, then I will... Can you be specific and describe what is beyond our capability of understanding?
Why does age, gender and attractiveness keep coming up? Ideas are more valid when they come from old, male PhDs?
I don't "trust" anyone. I examine the evidence and form my own conclusion. The conclusion being temporary, easily changed and not central to my identity.
"I'm not into faith; I really wish I could be wrong because I love meat."
This tells me you are a vegetarian. May I ask how you became so certain that this is the correct diet?... Please do not get offended, I do not think a vegetarian diet is necessarily a bad thing. In my mind the clear enemy is processed grains, sugars, "modern" oils.
As far as flaws in the study how about this glaring one?:
*for mortality rates they eliminated death certificates of those over the age of 64 as “unreliable.”
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/385/
Education is the ability to find knowledge. If I want to figure something out, then I will... Can you be specific and describe what is beyond our capability of understanding?
Why does age, gender and attractiveness keep coming up? Ideas are more valid when they come from old, male PhDs?
I don't "trust" anyone. I examine the evidence and form my own conclusion. The conclusion being temporary, easily changed and not central to my identity.
"I'm not into faith; I really wish I could be wrong because I love meat."
This tells me you are a vegetarian. May I ask how you became so certain that this is the correct diet?... Please do not get offended, I do not think a vegetarian diet is necessarily a bad thing. In my mind the clear enemy is processed grains, sugars, "modern" oils.
As far as flaws in the study how about this glaring one?:
*for mortality rates they eliminated death certificates of those over the age of 64 as “unreliable.”
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/385/
@bigato: Some of my favorite researchers/authors include: William Albrecht, Weston Price, Milton H Erickson and Christopher Alexander. Dr. Alexander is an old man, the other three are dead old men. That has nothing to do with why I respect them or their work, however.
To be fair, you're right, I'm not a statistician and thus I'm not qualified to check anyone else's work in that regard. At least as far as they explained what they're doing, however, what they (and some statistically minded commentors) have said makes good sense. However, just for the sake of argument, let's stick to what I am good at, namely reading and evaluating scientific papers against the claims made of them.
So, starting with the most popular, "Effect of High and Low Dietary Protein on the Dosing and Postdosing Periods of Aflatoxin B1-Induced Preneoplastic Lesion Development in the Rat"
PDF link: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/conte ... 0.full.pdf
Ok so, rats fed a low protein diet developed severe hepatotoxicity when exposed to aflatoxin, but rats fed a low protein diet after exposure developed less cancer. Rats on a high protein diet had much less hepatotoxicity but high protein after exposure led to more cancer. The only protein the rats were ever fed was casein, and the conclusion is that some indirect effect on liver foci is probably responsible for the cancer response. No comment was made as to the toxicity, nor were animal proteins as a whole identified as a carcinogen. This seems to agree with what Denise and Chris both noted.
Moving on: "Repression of Hepatitis-B virus Transgene and HBV-induced liver injury by low-protein diet"
PDF link: http://www.tcolincampbell.org/uploads/m ... n_diet.pdf
This paper is rather interesting. Although "animal food consumption" is briefly mentioned, along with smoking, alcohol consumption and "chronic HBV infection" as being risk factors for HBV/liver cancer, none of these things are actually relevant to the study in question. The study itself is rather uninteresting, however, and the mice involved are fed yet again a diet of varying levels of casein, not compared to any other protein source. What I find most interesting is this paper's glaring lack of a "Materials and Methods" section. That's a bit rare in scientific literature and I'm not even really sure I've ever seen a paper without one before.
Here's an interesting one, "Dietary Protein Level and Aflatoxin B1-induced Preneoplastic Lesions in the Rat", a followup to the first one.
PDF Link: http://jn.nutrition.org/content/117/7/1298.full.pdf
The conclusion on this one is really fascinating.
"Between 10 and 12% dietary casein, the development of GGT+ foci sharply increased, up to the 15-30% dietary casein level. The sudden increase in the formation of GGT+ foci at 10-12% dietary casein was just above the level of dietary casein (6-8%) required for maximum body weight gain. These results in this animal model suggest that protein intake in excess of that required to sustain maximum growth rate may enhance AFB1-induced cancer development."
Yet another study that doesn't prove anything about animal protein being a causative agent for cancer, but rather makes the hypothesis that any protein intake above and beyond what is required for healthy growth may increase the incidence of liver cancer originally caused by aflatoxin.
Now here's a big one I've been looking for. "Effect of dietary protein quality on development of aflatoxin B1-induced hepatic preneoplastic lesions"
PDF link: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/ ... 1.full.pdf
The abstract tells the story pretty well:
"The effect of the quality of dietary protein on the post-initiation development of aflatoxin B1-initiated putatively preneoplastic foci in Fischer 344 rat liver was compared with the effect of the quantity of dietary protein. Feeding wheat gluten, a low-quality protein, during the post-initiation period (between the end of aflatoxin B1 dosing and the death of the rats) inhibited the development of γ-glutamyltransferase-positive foci when compared with that in animals fed high-quality protein (casein) diets during the same period. Lysine supplementation of wheat gluten during the postinitiation period enhanced the γ-glutamyltransferase-positive response to a level comparable with that of the high-quality protein. These results suggest that one can inhibit the development of foci either by decreasing the quantity of protein intake and holding the quality of the protein constant or by decreasing the quality and holding the quantity constant."
So eating less protein of the same quality (completeness) or the same amount of protein of a lower quality have the exact same effect. Nowhere is it even implied that animal protein versus plant protein is even a relevant factor. And, again this is only relevant if you're consuming large doses of carcinogens to begin with, and whether the same holds true for other cancers has not been covered.
In conclusion, some of Campbell's favorite papers to cite in regards to animal protein = cancer do not support that conclusion. Most aren't even relevant, and the ones that might be relevant involve experimental exposure to carcinogens and protein in general, but not animal protein specifically. None of the papers I've seen thus far test carbohydrates in the same capacity and all of the casein studies used a synthetic liquid diet not representative of whole foods. The relevance of these studies to people who aren't at high risk of liver cancer specifically is questionable.
To be fair, you're right, I'm not a statistician and thus I'm not qualified to check anyone else's work in that regard. At least as far as they explained what they're doing, however, what they (and some statistically minded commentors) have said makes good sense. However, just for the sake of argument, let's stick to what I am good at, namely reading and evaluating scientific papers against the claims made of them.
So, starting with the most popular, "Effect of High and Low Dietary Protein on the Dosing and Postdosing Periods of Aflatoxin B1-Induced Preneoplastic Lesion Development in the Rat"
PDF link: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/conte ... 0.full.pdf
Ok so, rats fed a low protein diet developed severe hepatotoxicity when exposed to aflatoxin, but rats fed a low protein diet after exposure developed less cancer. Rats on a high protein diet had much less hepatotoxicity but high protein after exposure led to more cancer. The only protein the rats were ever fed was casein, and the conclusion is that some indirect effect on liver foci is probably responsible for the cancer response. No comment was made as to the toxicity, nor were animal proteins as a whole identified as a carcinogen. This seems to agree with what Denise and Chris both noted.
Moving on: "Repression of Hepatitis-B virus Transgene and HBV-induced liver injury by low-protein diet"
PDF link: http://www.tcolincampbell.org/uploads/m ... n_diet.pdf
This paper is rather interesting. Although "animal food consumption" is briefly mentioned, along with smoking, alcohol consumption and "chronic HBV infection" as being risk factors for HBV/liver cancer, none of these things are actually relevant to the study in question. The study itself is rather uninteresting, however, and the mice involved are fed yet again a diet of varying levels of casein, not compared to any other protein source. What I find most interesting is this paper's glaring lack of a "Materials and Methods" section. That's a bit rare in scientific literature and I'm not even really sure I've ever seen a paper without one before.
Here's an interesting one, "Dietary Protein Level and Aflatoxin B1-induced Preneoplastic Lesions in the Rat", a followup to the first one.
PDF Link: http://jn.nutrition.org/content/117/7/1298.full.pdf
The conclusion on this one is really fascinating.
"Between 10 and 12% dietary casein, the development of GGT+ foci sharply increased, up to the 15-30% dietary casein level. The sudden increase in the formation of GGT+ foci at 10-12% dietary casein was just above the level of dietary casein (6-8%) required for maximum body weight gain. These results in this animal model suggest that protein intake in excess of that required to sustain maximum growth rate may enhance AFB1-induced cancer development."
Yet another study that doesn't prove anything about animal protein being a causative agent for cancer, but rather makes the hypothesis that any protein intake above and beyond what is required for healthy growth may increase the incidence of liver cancer originally caused by aflatoxin.
Now here's a big one I've been looking for. "Effect of dietary protein quality on development of aflatoxin B1-induced hepatic preneoplastic lesions"
PDF link: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/ ... 1.full.pdf
The abstract tells the story pretty well:
"The effect of the quality of dietary protein on the post-initiation development of aflatoxin B1-initiated putatively preneoplastic foci in Fischer 344 rat liver was compared with the effect of the quantity of dietary protein. Feeding wheat gluten, a low-quality protein, during the post-initiation period (between the end of aflatoxin B1 dosing and the death of the rats) inhibited the development of γ-glutamyltransferase-positive foci when compared with that in animals fed high-quality protein (casein) diets during the same period. Lysine supplementation of wheat gluten during the postinitiation period enhanced the γ-glutamyltransferase-positive response to a level comparable with that of the high-quality protein. These results suggest that one can inhibit the development of foci either by decreasing the quantity of protein intake and holding the quality of the protein constant or by decreasing the quality and holding the quantity constant."
So eating less protein of the same quality (completeness) or the same amount of protein of a lower quality have the exact same effect. Nowhere is it even implied that animal protein versus plant protein is even a relevant factor. And, again this is only relevant if you're consuming large doses of carcinogens to begin with, and whether the same holds true for other cancers has not been covered.
In conclusion, some of Campbell's favorite papers to cite in regards to animal protein = cancer do not support that conclusion. Most aren't even relevant, and the ones that might be relevant involve experimental exposure to carcinogens and protein in general, but not animal protein specifically. None of the papers I've seen thus far test carbohydrates in the same capacity and all of the casein studies used a synthetic liquid diet not representative of whole foods. The relevance of these studies to people who aren't at high risk of liver cancer specifically is questionable.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6853
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
@Ego, I agree except for the alcohol part. Some is different than others. Plus, there's the whole mental health aspect to alcohol 
I tend to think if it grows, it's good for you. I also think anything that is naturally part of the food chain is good for you. It's the shortcuts that are killing us.
I also think we used to eat (and sleep, work, etc.) according to the seasons. We don't do that anymore. I wonder how that affects us. We do everything year-round now. I don't think we're designed for that.
I tend to think if it grows, it's good for you. I also think anything that is naturally part of the food chain is good for you. It's the shortcuts that are killing us.
I also think we used to eat (and sleep, work, etc.) according to the seasons. We don't do that anymore. I wonder how that affects us. We do everything year-round now. I don't think we're designed for that.
Actually, I'm not convinced beans are good. They will cause sickness if not cooked, so we evolved without eating them... I still eat them from time to time, and they usually cause some of the distress they are known for 
Which really is unfortunate, because they're inexpensive, filling and delicious.
Milk: again ambiguous. Likely evolved without it, but has been a staple since domestication of animals... I do occasionally get milk from a local Jersey cow. In the spring it is orange and amazingly delicious... EU consumes the most dairy. Some speculate a correlation between height and dairy.
Sugar is bad! But then there are a variety of sugars... Coconut sugar in particular seems to be quite benign (impact on glucose) and possessing an impressive nutritional makeup.
I refuse to believe alcohol is bad for happy and balanced people. Look at the people in the OP, so many seem to relish the daily wine with family, friends and neighbors.
Which really is unfortunate, because they're inexpensive, filling and delicious.
Milk: again ambiguous. Likely evolved without it, but has been a staple since domestication of animals... I do occasionally get milk from a local Jersey cow. In the spring it is orange and amazingly delicious... EU consumes the most dairy. Some speculate a correlation between height and dairy.
Sugar is bad! But then there are a variety of sugars... Coconut sugar in particular seems to be quite benign (impact on glucose) and possessing an impressive nutritional makeup.
I refuse to believe alcohol is bad for happy and balanced people. Look at the people in the OP, so many seem to relish the daily wine with family, friends and neighbors.
