I know this was all over the blogosphere yesterday but I think it’s important enough for a repost.
One thing I can count on every time I write an article extolling the health benefits of animal products is someone sending me an email or posting a comment like this:
I think you’re absolutely wrong. You should read: The China Study, by Dr. T. Collin Campbell.
Sorry to be contrary, but T. Colin Campbell’s “The China Study” should put this issue to rest. Please consider the information presented there. The methodology is impressive.
Campbell recommends a vegan diet–no animal based food at all. He claims that population studies demonstrate that vegan populations do not suffer from the high incidence of cardiovascular disease and cancer that we in the West do with our diets heavy on animal protein.
In fact, those are direct quotes from comments that have been left on my blog over the past year. I can’t even show you some of the emails people have sent because the language might offend you.
Usually I direct those folks to Chris Masterjohn’s excellent critique of the China Study. Now, however, I’ll be sending them over to read Denise Minger’s freshly published China Study smackdown.
Here’s the introduction:
When I first started analyzing the original China Study data, I had no intention of writing up an actual critique of Campbell’s much-lauded book. I’m a data junkie. Numbers, along with strawberries and Audrey Hepburn films, make me a very happy girl. I mainly wanted to see for myself how closely Campbell’s claims aligned with the data he drew from—if only to satisfy my own curiosity.
But after spending a solid month and a half reading, graphing, sticky-noting, and passing out at 3 AM from studious exhaustion upon my copy of the raw China Study data, I’ve decided it’s time to voice all my criticisms. And there are many.
For example, Campbell conveniently fails to mention the county of Tuoli in China. The folks in Tuoli ate 45% of their diet as fat, 134 grams of animal protein each day (twice as much as the average American), and rarely ate vegetables or other plant foods. Yet, according to the China Study data, they were extremely healthy with low rates of cancer and heart disease; healthier, in fact, than many of the counties that were nearly vegan.
This is just one of many cases of the selective citation and data cherry picking Campbell employs in the China Study. Denise’s critique masterfully reveals the danger of drawing conclusions from epidemiological studies, which can only show correlations between variables – not causal relationships. Campbell should be well aware of this. After all, in his book he rails against the nutritional bias rampant in the scientific community. Yet nowhere is such bias more evident than in Campbell’s own interpretation of the China Study data.
Denise concludes:
Ultimately, I believe Campbell was influenced by his own expectations about animal protein and disease, leading him to seek out specific correlations in the China Study data (and elsewhere) to confirm his predictions.
Campbell’s response to previous critics of the China Study has been something to the effect of: “I’m a trained scientist. Therefore you should believe me and not my critics.” That is a weak argument – to put it mildly. You don’t need six years of graduate school to learn to think critically. Nor does having a lot of letters after your name make you immune to biased thinking or intellectual blindness. A lot of smart, educated people believed the cholesterol hypothesis for decades. But that never made it true.
Like what you’re reading? Get my free newsletter, recipes, eBooks, product recommendations, and more!
You can read more – and I mean a lot more – over at Denise’s blog. I recommend starting with her article China Study: Fact or Fallacy? For many of you, it will be more than enough. But if you’re interested in this stuff, she has written several other articles worth reading.
There are also reviews of Denise’s article at Free the Animal, Whole Health Source, Robb Wolf and PaNu. If you don’t have time to read Denise’s article, read Dr. Harris’s review at PaNu. It’s the next best thing.
Rest in peace, China Study.
P.S. You might also want to check out this debate between T. Colin Campbell and Loren Cordain on human protein requirements. Notice that Cordain’s articles contain 164 citations of research studies. How many references do Campbell’s articles contain? Zero. And Campbell’s typical “I’m more educated than the other guy” won’t fly here. Dr. Cordain has some serious chops.
Better supplementation. Fewer supplements.
Close the nutrient gap to feel and perform your best.
A daily stack of supplements designed to meet your most critical needs.
Boom…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2590338/Throw-tinnie-barbie-Researchers-marinading-meat-beer-grilling-reduce-harmful-cancer-causing-chemicals.html
OK, lets calm down. This is just a headline. I see no link to the study in question, which is always a red flag for me. I like to see what the methodology that the researchers use. What were the controls? How did they measure the levels? Unfortunately this isn’t enough evidence to to address the point being discussed. Dr. Campbell has given MANY studies that show his results where as you have offered ONE (without sources). Even in the book, Dr. Campbell stats that no one study can sway the way you should think.
i was advised by a personal trained (who later told me he was jacked up on steroids) to try ‘palio’ and buy a bunch of expensive supplements from him (aka atkins, low carb) i stayed on it for about 2 years and in the end was feeling so crap and depressed like i was in a comma from lack of carbs. As soon as i started eating rice and potatoes again and cut out all animal products i felt better and more motivated to enjoy life. A friend of mine who is still on it just went to the hospital to have kidney treatment caused by all the excess protein and animal fat, another friend has to have heart surgery and until recently he beveled that Eskimos were healthiest people on the planet despite me showing him studies that their average lifespan was 29 years.
Countless proper medical studies and years of real scientific evidence (not some english major student with a wordpress blog and a modem like Minger etc) say that low carb high protein diets are dangerous and cancer causing, Atkins died from it and was obese. China Study used research compiled by over half a million Chinese over decades. You dont event need that i’ve been to asia the high carb rice and veg eaters are slim and healthy and those that eat wester diet are obese and unhealthy they now even have obese children there for the first time because of all the meat and dairy the new generation is consuming in McDonalds and kfc over there. Go to Asia and see it for yourself Mr Kresser before you spread any more of this poisonous nonsense on people who are desperate to regain their health. Is this the kind of contribution you want to make in this world ? Increase human and animal suffering, why ? do you can sell some more toxic supplements ?
all your low carb ‘gurus’ are nothing more than infomercial ‘gurus’ trying to get rick quick from sale of supplements with no real regard for peoples health just look at their websites, if these ‘palio’ diets are so healthy why do you need all these supplements, are supplements something that comes from the palio times perhaps ?
palio. low carb – It a scam and fraud , buyer beware. do your own research and consult your doctor and dangers of high protein eating and benefits of whole natural foods.
Atkins was not overweight, nor did he die from his diet… he slipped on the ice and suffered a head trauma… nice try… if you can’t invalidate the science, make it personal…
And, by the way, he helped tens of thousands of seriously ill people, all documented… bashing a dead person… really mature…
I am currently taking T Colin Campbell’s plant-based nutrition course so that I have a better understanding of his research. It’s fascinating.
Before that, I was paleo for about a day, until I saw the cookbooks. A 55% meat-based diet is not common sense. SOme of these cookbooks suggest eating meat two and three times a day. Can you say colon cancer?
At any rate, what I noticed in the plant-based diet class is that T Colin Campbell is simply the opposite side of the same coin. Extremist. He’s arguing that “all” animal protein is bad and causes cancer and degeneratives diseases. I don’t think that’s the answer either (hello EPA and DHA and vitamin B12!). And while I give any vegan or vegetarian credit for refusing to eat meat on an ethical and environmental level, I still believe there needs to be a balance. And I don’t see that happening with either of these worldviews. Each of you have a very narrowminded agenda based on data and not common sense.
While humans have been eating meat for millions of years, they have not
1. eaten unlimted amounts of it per day (as we have access to)
2. eaten fat, well taken care of pastured animals, but rather wild, leaner animals
3. eaten pre-packaged, processed corn-fed, conventional animals stripped of almost all their nutrients
So, as much as theoretically, we’d all like to think 55% meat is a good thing, it’s not. At least not in today’s day and age.
However, we should not deny ourselves completely of “all” meat. The EPA and DHA found in fatty fish like salmon and sardines has hundreds and thousands of studies backing its positive effects. In fact, singling out DHA alone–you cannot deny its brain power–something TCC flat out denies.
At any rate, common sense and balance are the key. And I don’t see either of those things in either of these world views.
Well said. What I always want to know from “Forks over knives” or the China Study, is where is processed meat/compared to organic, or grass fed beef, organic chicken?
I can see throwing down KFC, or Tyson diseased chicken can cause major health problems…I don’t eat fast food.
But, moderation of grass fed beef in proportion I wouldn’t think is bad. Balance is good in everything. Yin/Yang.
Selfish people, you don’t count the animal suffering and the environmental destruction caused by the meat dairy egg industry. Open your mind; be kind to the sentient beings, sentient like you!
Because the animal suffering is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is not whether people should eat meat or not but whether the health claims made in the China Study book are valid.
Being a vegetarian and recommending it to others on moral or environmental grounds is one thing, and the claims that eating meat causes cancer is another entirely.
Sentience has nothing to do with this. A sentient baboon will eat meat given the opportunity
I disagree that Campbell is wrong in his response. He is absolutely right, Denise is not his peer, she is nowhere near the level of researcher as Campbell is, so how can she critique his work? It would be like someone who is an amateur boxer who started boxing 2 or 3 years ago critiquing Floyd Mayweather on his form, or his skills or anything he does in the ring.
Well, his peers criticize his work too, but Denise is a better writer and is good at math to boot.
You’re using the “appeal to authority” argument, which is a well-known logical fallacy, though it seems to be a favorite among Campbell supporters. Show us where her math is wrong and we’ll listen.
it is a pity to see that you even did not read C.Campbell’s answer.
Where do his peers criticize his work? Show me, please. I’ve been looking.
I can’t find any of his peers referencing the China Study one way or the other. I can scarcely find anyone discussing it who is not a nutrition blogger with a dietary belief system to push.
To me, this absence of interest is a clue that his work has no scientific credibility. If he came even close to proving his claims, there should be more people talking about it than just the vegan and paleo folks. Where are they?
Here’s a link to Campbell’s colleagues, who agree with Minger.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/850.full
Also, Minger made a more formal rebuttal to Campbell’s rebuttal, with extensive documentation of the data that Campbell’s conclusions are wrong.
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/08/06/final-china-study-response-html/
I read the China study and without even looking at the data said, “Hmmm, he didn’t take processed foods into account at all and he didn’t address the huge problems with grains”. Why does he not address these important issues? Because they don’t make his case as well.
By the way, who cares what Minger’s credentials are. Edison was an elementary school dropout. Yet you don’t deny the lightbulb because of it. Facts are facts. If her facts are wrong, then debate it, but saying that she’s 26 and an English major is ridiculous. People don’t need school to get an education. In fact, schooling can prevent education. Her education is irrelevant.
Hi I almost died i think from that stupid 30 bananas a day diet. Ill tell you what happened. I was vegan for about a year just a normal vegan not the extreme fruitarian.
Anyway so i started seeing those idiot 30 bananas a day people on youtube making it like this diet would make you live forever or something.
So I tried the fruit diet I was feeling really good when in week two i had a 10 banana smoothie mixed with a lot of spinach i downed that then went for a like 40 minute jog. I was on top of the world and feeling good so i actually jogged to the Starbucks to just relax cause i was feeling so good.
Anyway at the Starbucks I started feeling funny and felt really spacey and I started seeing spots I thought i was going to die. It probably was from too much sugar anyway i was scared I was thinking should i wait it out or go to the hospital.
So I saw a carls jr across the street so i went and ordered a low carb burger and ate it and the spaciness and spots i was seeing stopped almost immediately.
But i was still so sick so i walked home really slow it was only across the street but I knew I needed to be in bed cause i was sick so I made it home and threw up bananas and spinach it felt like for a few hours as soon as i threw up i started feeling so much better. When my body threw up the poison all that sugar i slept and knew i would live and woke up feeling good.
The next day i was pissed at what those morons did to me so I left a comment on durianriders youtube video letting him know his diet almost killed me and he looked like hell.
Anyway this is a true story i really don’t know how anybody can last even a few weeks on 5000 calories a day on fruit sugar without something happening to them like it did to me.
“what those morons did to me”?
Blaming a wacky diet that you chose to go on, all by yourself, is a little silly. Those kinds of extreme diets are never a good idea. Neither is Carl’s Jr.
Balance is the key.
It also sounds like you may have had a stomach virus.
Gosh, why do all those vegan people just randomly hang around a paleo website? So that they could throw some random quote or video and demand to explain it? I just don’t get it. I don’t go to their websites and don’t demand them to momentarily convert to eating meat, why the heck do they come here?
Vita,
I’m not vegan but I can answer your question. They came here because this article shows up in a search of “The China Study.” Some vegans and vegetarians search for info on it and then find this article.
It is hard to argue with data.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1710093&resultClick=1
Actually it’s pretty easy to argue with data – with what is included and not included. Easier still to argue with how they are manipulated and the conclusions drawn from them.
“Some evidence suggests vegetarian dietary patterns may be associated with reduced mortality, but the relationship is not well established.”
“The lack of similar findings in British vegetarians remains interesting, and this difference deserves careful study.”
“No significant associations with reduced cancer mortality were detected.”
So since you are citing Denise Minger, please share with us her credentials. Who is she? The only thing I can tell is that she’s a blogger with an English degree from Northern Arizona State. Is she a nutritionist? What makes her “research” valid?
She didn’t do research, she took Campbell’s own data and examined them. The data doesn’t say what he says it does.
exactly the China Study Book only refers to the 10% positive outcomes positive effects of the vegatarian Lifestyle not the other 90% of the China Study .
you don’t have to be a scientist to read conclusions and data just have some commen sence and lots of time or interest to read original science which is the best way to find the truth about Nutrition since its being so much manipulated by different sides or believes .
She didn’t do research. She did statistical analysis. What does her credentials have to do with the correctness or incorrectness of her facts? Even Campbell’s colleagues came to the same conclusions as Minger using the same data.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/850.full
Yes Chris, you really should personally respond to each and every blog, video, study and comment on the Internet that takes a position opposing your own. Even 3 years on from the posting of this article. /sarcasm
TED talk is not like every blog, video, or study. It’s TED
You missed the point, Jeremy.
Hi Chris,
Have you seen this and do you have a response?
Palo Debunked:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOjVYgYaG8
Thanks,
I personally read the entire China Study book and did a bunch of personal research on diet. Trust me, if I felt that eating ice cream, bacon and cheese was good for me I would be all over it. I am 60 years old and have been vegetarian for over 15 years and vegan for about 1 year. My cardiovascular is better. I weigh about the same as I did in high school and am in the shape of my life. I never get sick anymore and I mountain bike about 6,000 miles per year. My friends who are on high meat crap diets although much younger are overweight and can not hang with me.
I am on a whole foods plant based diet, and do not shun carbohydrates but I make sure they are quality carbs and not the junk that they sell in almost every aisle at the standard supermarket. No meat or dairy for me.
I know people love their meat and dairy, but it ain’t or me. I have read the critiques from Denise on Campbell’s work and his responses. I think you can pick apart any study and have a gotcha moment, but looking at the totality of the evidence that Campbell presents is very convincing in my eyes. He is very convincing in his debate against Dr. Eric Westman (an Atkins guy). Westman kept saying that he and Colin were stating the same thing but differently, and I said to myself What????? Their recommended diets are as different as night and day.
Cambell is 79 years of age, having outlived his dad who died of a heart attack, so his diet must be doing something good for him. I suggest that a source to look at is that of Dr. McDougall: http://www.drmcdougall.com/free.html
Hey eat what you want cause non of us are going to get out of this alive, but I have chosen a diet and lifestyle that I believe will allow me to maximize my time on this earth and be healthy and active for the duration.
Rich,
Thanks for your message and for the tone in which you wrote it. As someone trying to settle on a opinion, it is really heard to get any traction. People on forums like this sound like our two political parities arguing.
One thing that I found is a lot of people like you (Bill Clinton to name one). I have yet to find someone that is later in years (50 or above) say they increased meat consumption and are better off for it – most say (at that age) they know it should go but can’t give it up.
Maybe Chris will find some people over 50 that went from vegan to meat eating and post it here (Chris if you do, please follow Rich’s tone and keep it positive – the spite and bitterness is exhausting on these things).
Not sure if I’d use Bill Clinton as a successful example of vegan health. He continued to have trouble maintaining his weight loss and 10 years after he turned vegan, he underwent quadruple-bypass surgery after a heart attack.
Actually, that’s untrue. Bill Clinton went vegan in 2009.
Do you think the fact that you have been a vegetarian for 15 years may have influenced you to think Dr. Campbell’s evidence is compelling?
I’m coming from a place of being on the fence on dietary matters. I think it’s probably a good idea to limit intake of processed and adulterated food and sugar, eat a variety of things and eat moderate quantities, but other than that I think the jury is out.
But it’s fascinating to see how a discussion of what is supposedly scientific evidence devolves into a bunch of people pushing the beliefs they already hold, or citing anecdotal evidence that their diet is superior.
Is it possible to have a rational discussion of whether or not Dr. Campbell has made his case convincingly, without being sidetracked by people’s personal habits or dietary belief systems?
Because, frankly, what random people on the internet eat or believe is not of interest to me. Why would it be?
The paleo diet is not living off of ice cream, bacon and cheese. Just so you are aware, the two longest lived populations in the world are the Okinawans and the Sardinians. The Okinawans eat pork and fish, and the Sardinians eat meat and cheese- in fact, plenty of live maggot infested cheese. Gross, but the men attribute their virility to their cheese, and the Okinawans attribute a 5 year jump in lifespan after WWII to the wider availability of pork.
I am what Pollan describes as a reluctant omnivore in that I continue to eat animals. I struggle with the fact that an animal’s death is necessary to nourish me in the most optimum way. Yet the research leads me to the conclusion that as humans who have fought their way up the food chain over millions of years, and whose biology reflects that of other animals, we do albeit reluctantly need animal nutrients to thrive. I feel the fear and the panic of every animal that has lost its life for the benefit of mine and insist that such animals live freely as nature intended and that there is no suffering. I have nothing but thanks and respect for them. If it can be absolutely shown that a plant based diet is what is necessary for optimum health I will put up with the belly aches and embrace the plants. Until then I will continue to eat meat and give thanks for the wonder of the cycle of life and death and tread as lightly and compassionately as I can. I think we should all be mindful of what or what we don’t eat and for what purpose.
>One thing I can count on every time I write an article extolling the health benefits of animal products is someone sending me an email or posting a comment like this:
>> I think you’re absolutely wrong. You should read: The China Study, by Dr. T. Collin Campbell.
Just in the interests of full disclosure, have you actually read The China Study (the whole book) or just critiques of it?
Regardless of the health benefits of animal products, I’m wondering if the ethics of killing animals for our benefit is a concern for anyone. I recently saw an article posted on a respected paleo blog about the dangers of eating legumes due to their various antinutrients. The article basically asked why anyone would expose themselves by making such a bad choice given the availability of organic grass fed animal products. After thinking about it a while, I thought that the answer was pretty straight forward — the ends do not justify the means, and eating a legume does not require the suffering and death of a sentient creature. Can we say that it is morally licit to end sentient life, which can feel suffering and pain, so that we can eat “optimally”? I personally don’t think one can make a strong case for continuing to kill animals in the name of perfect or optimal human nutrition. Butchering an animal, even one that is well cared for, is rarely if ever a humane act. How many paleo goers among us are willing to go do the dirty work of killing the animals ourselves? I am a former paleo guy who believes we all need to be honest about the ethics of our actions given that we are beings capable of rational decision making as opposed to the lion who kills a zebra for food. The startling truth is that even if killing animals DOES lead to optimal human nutrition as we all believe, that doesn’t make it ethically sound.
Define “ethics”. “Self-sacrifice” is in no way a universal good. Demanding another’s self-sacrifice because it ought to be recognized aa good appears far more bad, objectively, than good.
Also, please factor in the wildlife and ecosystems displaced by the fields or similar structures used to plant plants, and deaths thereof.
“Killing” being always inherently bad is actually a rather modern notion. Fear of death or non-safety seems far more potentially harmful as a tenet in practice than pursuing a life which is lived, and fearing a life which was not worthwhile or lived and faced danger, challenge, joy, and beauty wholeheartedly.
People complain about it being wrong to kill an animal just so we can eat but what most people don’t realize is that if animals are not killed for food, they will over populate and die out from hunger and diseases anyways. Animals that are consumed by humans can and do over populate. We had a serious deer over population a few years back and it was nothing to take a walk in the woods and find a deer half dead and suffering from disease or starvation.
We raise our own food, everything from garden produce to our own beef as well as fruits, we like to know what we are eating and that it is free of pesticides and hormones. I know very well what a slaughter house looks like and I still eat beef. We have raised and killed our own chickens as well so I am not some city person who doesn’t know or think about where that package do hamburger actually came from, but I also know what happens to these poor animals if they over populate.
Also, please explain whether lions killing and eating gazelles are “immoral”. Or, omnivorous wild boar eating other creatures, rather than subsisting on plants.
And again, examine your premises. A good, clear, honest argument cannot be made without an awareness of these.
E.g. “Killing is always inherently bad.”
Hand-waving and assumptions do not qualify as proof.
>>Also, please explain whether lions killing and eating gazelles are “immoral”. Or, omnivorous wild boar eating other creatures, rather than subsisting on plants.<<<
Please explain why the men in your neighborhood don't wait in line at the doorsteps of the ovulating females, ready to hump them and spread their "seed," as soon as they walk out the door.
We are not barbaric beasts.
We are evolving, compassionate beings who care about the well-being/misery of sentient beings. Think!
The least harm principle is not as clear cut as it sounds. While this is just an ‘over the napkin’ math, it makes a greater point about the loss of life of animals in harvests. He JUST talks about mice, but FAR FAR more animals than just mice are killed in harvesting plants. Pesticides don’t ask insects to nicely move to another habitat, and BILLIONS of bees are killed in forced pollination every year.
So, with the vast numbers of insects, birds, worms, snakes, rodents and other lives killed in harvesting plants, it’s sheer speculation to say that a diet without animals causes less harm than one that contains animals.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/972951/posts
What is your take on the blue zone vegan folks in Loma Linda Ca. Of all the blue zone folks they live the longest and are the healthest?
The Okinawans and the Sardinians, both meat eaters, live longer than the Loma Lindans. The Loma Lindans are also the most affluent of all the blue zoners, with some of the most excellent medical care in the world.
http://www.aplaceformom.com/blog/2013-03-29-where-people-live-the-longest/
The Okinawans and Sardinians eat a VERY low meat diet, the Okinawans follow an 801010 diet, and is mostly plant based and vegan. You meat eaters will believe anything, and talk all types of crap just to support your views.
Thanks for the info.
Your articles are nicely written and so not too difficult to read in spite of the complexity of the topic, but of course the medical links present more of a challenge. But it’s an important topic to me, so I’ll give it some time and attention and keep your blog bookmarked.
http://chriskresser.com/heartdisease
Could you give me those links?
My answer was based on the video you directed me to view.
The statistics, however, show that *on average* there is a strong connection between high serum cholesterol and heart disease.
This statement is false, as I’ve shown with several articles on this blog with citations from major peer-reviewed journals. There is a very weak correlation between total and LDL cholesterol and heart disease. Most researchers in the field now agree that heart disease is caused by oxidative damage and inflammation – not high total cholesterol levels.
I understand very well how statistics are used to isolate risk factors. That’s exactly my point. When other factors are controlled for, high cholesterol is not a significant risk factor for heart disease. Period.