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.
This talk may shed a lot of light on the subject of the environmental impact of our food choices.
I consider it a must watch for anyone choosing to eat animals
We can argue forever about which diet is better for our bodies, but can we please stop just looking at out little selves for a minute, and consider the world? Your choices are powerful!
Sure, and by the way, do you know agroecology and the impossibility to grow organic food without animals? So basically industrial farming is bad traditional rotation farming (manures and fields) is good.
It’s not at all impossible to grow organic food without animals. Veganic farming has shown to be very successful, and there are ways of composting organic material that are at least as effective as manure.
Regardless, you don’t need to cage and kill an animal to use its manure. In fact, it makes a lot less manure when it’s dead. So either way, there’s no argument for eating meat.
Forget your own health for just a minute. I know the paleo diet might be working for you toady and you’re feeling really fit. But 30 years from now your heart might not work is it could if you dropped those animal products. And hey consider this, maybe it’s not all about you anyway. Forget the animals for a second too. What are we doing to the planet with our food choices? Everyone knows our blue water is dwindling to an alarming rate. We are on the verge of water wars on this planet. A pound of beef using 2500-5000 gallons of water vs. a pound of greens using 31 gallons. Ok, you want to talk about protein, right? Here’s another example:a pound of hemp takes just 50-100 gallons to produce, and believe it or not, is a complete protein source that is easily digested by the body, plus it contains omegas in the perfect ratio AND chlorophyll, AND has-wait for it….MORE PROTEIN per pound than beef. And this is true whether it’s hemp seeds or just the refined protein. I see no justification on a planet with an exploding population for us to continue consuming animals. And, I do happen to believe that a plant based diet is better for our bodies and then obviously, it’s better for the animals too. The thinking that we are the top of the food chain is based in pure ego. I live by the principle of “ahimsa” which means do no harm. Raising animals for food and slaughtering them is causing harm: to them, the planet, and us. I like the idea of live and let live, but that becomes increasingly hard when people eating animals is threatening our very extinction as a species. Bottom line is, it’s time to move from ME to WE consciousness, and make the connection between our food choices and their effects on the planet as a whole.
BRAVO….Well Put!
That’s a fine discussion to have, somplace else. This is a post about the China Study. You’re off topic.
Denise,
I know most meat eaters don’t want to believe this science or hear the truth. I’m not surprised you don’t want this conversation happening on this thread.
I understand that as a society we’ve been conditioned to eat meat and believe that we need it for our survival. I understand that you don’t want this discussion to happen, but it is happening. And it will keep happening until people wake up to the destruction they are causing by making that choice. I trust that humans will evolve out of eating animals, it’s just a matter of time. But I am committed to doing everything in my power to speed that time up to spare us the existing and impending suffering caused by that choice. Not just the suffering of the animals, but also the suffering of our fellow brothers and sisters, and of course, mother earth who is the one who ultimately sustains us all.
If I wanted to look at the science, I would look at the peer-reviewed literature, and try to figure out which studies were well done and which conclusions well-supported. Of course, I don’t actually have to do that; we already know that the results are all over the map and there is no consensus among scientists about any optimal diet for everyone. And the reason for that is most likely that humans are omnivores who can and do thrive on a wide variety of diets.
If I wanted to find confirmation of what I already believed, I would find:
a) blogs and websites of people pushing their pet dietary theories which happened to coincide with my own.
b) mass market books pushing pet dietary theories that coincide with my own, like the China Study.
Blah, blah…forget the science that does not exist look around at the long-living populations and see what they do…
Read the Blue Zones for a start if you any desire to find the truth instead of waiting for 100 years or more for science to figure it out.
I’ll argue one better for you. I don’t think we are omnivores. And I don’t think we thrive on eating animal products. We can survive on them for a while, but as you can see by the health of our nation, that we are not meant to eat this way always. A plant based diet is. We are not generating diseases and cancers from this kind of diet. That tells me we are more herbivores then omnivores. M.
Denise,
It might seem to be off topic, but it is a natural progression. Some people have an animal rights agenda that gets them to investigate the diet issue. I had a diet and health issue first. After reading the China Study, along with the work of Neil Barnard, John McDougall and others, I realized that this is the most healthy way to eat. The last four years of my live have convinced me of that. My life has been turned around in ways that I did not think was possible 10 years ago. I’m 50 and running marathons. 10 years ago, I was putting on weight with several health issues and I assumed that it was normal aging. I was so wrong.
Anyway, after realizing that not only are animal foods not required for proper human health, but in fact they are detrimental to good health in many ways, the slaughter of animals and the environmental damage of animal agriculture is JUST WRONG….Period.
I agree with the health issues and environmental impact of the present manner of consuming animal products but bringing in the welfare of the animals is beyond my understanding. There are good ways to raise and slaughter animals but that does not make the product healthy…
“Good ways to … slaughter.” To me those two things don’t belong in the same sentence.
Are you the same liberal that supports abortion but believes animal rights are higher than the desire of people to eat?
If there is no correct way to slaughter animals does that also mean we should not harvest living plants?
Hi Richard,
We’re not discussing the desire of people to eat. We’re discussing the desire for people to eat animals. There is an ever-increasing body of evidence that this is not only unnecessary, but that it the predominant factor contributing to obesity, disease and pre-mature death.
Plants are not the same as animals. They don’t have a central nervous system, plus we’re often not killing the plant – we’re just harvesting the edible portion. And which do you think causes more suffering, using a lawn mower to cut grass or using a lawn mower to cut up a cow, pig or chicken? Besides, it takes 10 x’s as many plants to feed a meat eater as a plant eater, (To raise the animals) so it’s ‘killing’ far more plants.
So no, there is no ‘correct’ way to slaughter animals. Only ways to attempt to minimize the suffering to make us feel better about it. The vast majority of the human population prefers not to think about it. I applaud you for not being one of them.
And not that it’s relevant, but the vast majority of my voting history is conservative. For the sake of your health I hope you put more thought into your food decisions than into your snap judgement’s about people’s political affiliations.
Are you serious? One has a PhD in Nutritional Biochemistry and the other has a PhD in exercise and health and you think the latter has more authority on nutrition?!?!?
“Appeal to authority” is a classic logical fallacy.
A smart reader does not judge the work on the authority of the writer, but rather the science contained in the work. I read the book and I think the science is bad. Many others agree, and many others disagree, but for me the conclusion is not based on the relative prestige of the PhD.
If you going to go with credentials, why Dr. Campbell? He’s one person. His views do not represent the consensus of his peers at all.
If you’re going to go with the weight of authority, then look for the weight of authority. Don’t go cherry-picking one guy who’s at odds with his whole field and then try to claim you trust him because he has the creds.
Denise, stop getting so angry, it’ll trigger a heart attack with that terrible diet of yours.
My terrible diet? Have you been watching what I eat?
Looks like your link to the debate is broken. I found it here: http://www.catalystathletics.com/articles/downloads/proteinDebate.pdf
Thanks JP, we’ve updated the link.
Really I do not read this article, I do not waste my time with it, but I want to comment: The China Study is the best statistical study never done. It is true not only scientifically but morally too. Unlike this article, The China Study does not obey any commercial interest. This kind of article’s title like a commercial achieved only to attract interest of people for read the China Study. I am glad for that.
Soon we are going to see a vegan world free from the clutches of meat producers and theirs consequence: the overuse of antibiotics and pesticides.
Please tell us on what basis you pronounced this the best statistical study ever done.
Correction, noe silva said it was the best statistical ‘never’ done. Maybe this is the basis for all of the confusion.
The piece everyone keeps leaving out of this conversation is the environmental impact of our diets. We can argue til the cows come home which diet is bet for you to eat today(though the science shows that long term high animal protein diets cause early death for a variety of reasons) , but what diet is actually sustainable for people and the planet? The population is exploding. This planet can not sustain more people eating more meat. It takes 2500-5000 gallons to produce a single pound of beef that contains about 96 grams of protein, and 50-100 gallons of water to grow a pound of hemp protein which contains 220 grams of protein. Do the math. Eat green for our long term survival.
That’s a very random number range (2500-5000). Where did you happen upon this information? Also, there are most factors in food cost than the cost of water, which is, by the way, a renewable resource.
Adam where have you been?
Water a renewable resource?
Quality water is in decline. Or perhaps wikipedia got it wrong… I am sure they would welcome your intellectual reasoning, you can find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_conflict
and as to whether it is 2,500 or 5,000 gallons… does it really matter? 2,500 is toooo much…
Seriously… if you want to debate…. make it interesting PLEASE!
Adam you can google it. The number varies because it depends on the farm and many other factors, grass fed cows consume many more resources, including water(which I’m sorry you’re not aware of the issue, but maybe do some more research on this -Blue Gold is an informative doc about it).
And thanks for bringing it up that yes there certainly are many other costs and resources associated with raising animals for food. Most of them are hidden costs. Namely:land use(including rainforest destruction 91% of it slashed to make space to graze animals or the crops that feed them), air quality (methane from cows is anywhere from 18-51% of GHGe-more than all transportation combined), water quality(dead zone in the ocean form pollution runoff from factory farms), world hunger (70% of the world grains is feeding animals, not people which are dying at the rate of one every other second btw),then there’s medical costs to treat the obesity and heart failure from animal protein and fat laden diets….the true cost keeps mounting….
I agree with a lot of what you say on here Magda. A couple things I want to mention. The style of agriculture is the problem. Some areas should not be inhabited because of extreme lack of water but we humans are to prideful to consider those things. Those water numbers are whacko. There are methods of agriculture that take a few more years to get started and once they are do not require water at all or very very little supplemental. I myself am trying to create a closed loop system of home food production on a quarter acre of land + nut trees, fruits trees etc perennial edibles that can be sustained with no corporate purchased inputs at all. I eat processed free and used to eat vegan/vegetarian but have now settled on a little bit of meat (wild game/pasture raised chickens BEYOND industry standards). About a half a pound to a pound a week and the rest vegetarian protein sources. There is one thing I’d like you to consider Magda and maybe you have a solution for me. I live near Canada in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. It has a very short growing season. I want to grow all of my own food so I don’t have to buy any store bought corporate trash food. I’m about 50 to 60% of the way there. I dry veggies/herbs in the summer, I store winter root veggies,cabbage,onions,garlic that I grow all the way into the next spring in my root cellar. In this climate it takes about 4000 square ft to grow a complete vegetarian diet for one person for a year if EVERYTHING goes right in the season and seasons vary drastically out here. I’ve painstakingly tried to figure how to do this manually no till without mechanization and it’s very difficult. In a climate like this tough animals like deer are a very concentrated source of essential nutrients being that they convert a lot of the aggressive hardy grasses and weeds out here in a bioavailable form for us to digest. Heritage chickens left to roam free and eat bugs and clean up the gardens before overwintering is crucial to keeping everything going smoothly without killing yourself with work when it gets close to winter snowfall. They like doing it. They are designed for this zone. No abuse no confinement and they convert all the wild stuff that is difficult, if not impossible to digest, into bioavailable protein/essential nutrients that are needed to survivee the harsh winters out here comfortably. I only slaughter chickens if I absolutely need to and get about 2 million calories worth of eggs a year from 30 chickens.
Anyway I respect your opinion Magda and I would like to understand how you view my particular situation or others who do not want to rely on the corrupt Oligarchy and their poisonous products of all kinds. I’d appreciate some feedback
Adam, Also look at the US farm subsidies. They primarily go to meat and dairy producers and I believe that in 2013 it was around 26 Billion (yes with a B) . If the farm subsidy did not exist, meat prices would basically triple in the US.
Most low crarbers I know are both fat and conservative. Their conservatism really gets challenged when you point out the federal subsidies support their meat habit. I thing it is the source of great angst.
Correct, and also I point I didn’t even get to within the true cost of meat and dairy-the subsidies.
This article spells out some of that http://www.care2.com/greenliving/what-the-dairy-industry-is-not-telling-you.html
Actually, the planet can not sustain the human race with plants either. The solution appears to be to make use of the zillions of insects crawling the planet to at least provide the protein we need.
Richard – do you have a source to support this? The studies I’ve seen indicate that plant could easily sustain the human race with plants. For example, 1.5 acres can produce 37,000 pounds of plant-based food, but only 375 pounds of meat. (http://goo.gl/7sfhsl)
Well it sure looks like protein does effect the spread of cancer.
http://singularityhub.com/2014/10/14/cancer-metastasis-reduced-up-to-90-in-mice-using-engineered-decoy-protein/
China study
That isn’t dietary protein. If you eat a steak is doesn’t hook onto your cancer cells.
That isn’t dietary protein. Those are very specific types of proteins… which is a massively encompassing term in its own right.
Come on now.
There’re a few dead links 😉
I do agree that we all probably can benefit from consuming more natural food but I do believe that exercise plays a bigger role as well. If you look at some one like Jack Lalanne who ate chicken or fish everyday of his life along with a mix of high quality vegetables and lived to be 96, how do you explain that? He was probably pound per pound stronger than anyone that was studied in the China study and set world records. I just believe he is a wealth of untapped knowledge that many people ignore. He has a lifetime of data to be explored. Just a thought.
Hi Don,
Thank you for your comment.
I agree Jack Lalanne’s age and achievements are impressive. I’d like to add that without seeing LaLanne on a vegan diet it’s hard to say if his diet of chicken and fish is superior. On a different diet he may have lived longer, done more, etc – we just don’t know. Simply put, just because person A ate foods X, Y and Z and had a good life doesn’t mean everyone’s better off eating X, Y and Z.
Lalanne and Dr. Campbell agree on more than you might think. Lalanne shifted his views later in life. “In his later years, he appeared to advocate a mostly meatless diet…” He also advocated against processed foods. “If man made it, don’t eat it.” (http://goo.gl/4kj6v6) This is consistent with the China Study. Dr. Campbell doesn’t just suggest avoiding animal products, but processed foods as well. This is why he calls his diet ‘whole food plant-based.’
There are plenty of successful vegan athletes too. For instance Jim Morris is still body building at age 79 and has won numerous competitions such as Mr. USA, Mr. America, Mr. International and Mr. Olympia. (http://goo.gl/I09Gb8)
We can trade anecdotal evidence back and forth indefinitely, but for me the macro evidence is more important. (Such as the China Study) The way I see it, eating animal products raises more questions than it offers answers. (http://goo.gl/P5wkJB)
As for exercise, my experience has been that diet will get you to an appropriate weight and exercise will improve your body composition. Without a well thought out diet, it’s unlikely for most people to achieve their fitness goals.
Best of luck for happy health.
I find it interesting that so many people refer to Ms. Minger’s age as a reason for not being able to contend with Dr. Campbell.
Perhaps calculus is wrong because Mr. Newton was in his twenties. Maybe “E” doesn’t actually equal “mc^2” either since Mr. Einstein was only in his twenties.
I’m glad that china study supporters have such a strong leg to stand on that age is one of their reasons for discrediting Ms. Minger.
Hi Rhett,
It’s not just Minger’s age and lack of qualifications. If you read Dr. Campbell’s response to Minger it’s clear:
—> She didn’t understand the book’s objectives.
—> She did not account for biological plausibility.
—> She inappropriately used ‘raw’ univariate correlations instead of multivariate regression analysis.
—> She failed to note the broader implications of choosing the right dietary lifestyle.
His response can be found here: http://goo.gl/93N2
It’s hardly fair to compare Minger to Newton or Einstein.
Quite a coincidence that both the great thinkers you mentioned were also vegetarian.
“Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.” -Albert Einstein
Newton might have been a vegetarian in his last years. When a light diet was ordered for him due to his health failing.
Einstein became vegetarian at the end of his life too.
I am 50. I run a 1/2 marathon every month and a couple full marathons a year. I just hiked up Mt Kilimanjaro. My doctor says he wishes his blood work looked as good as mine.
I was only able to start running 4 years ago after going on to a whole food, plant based diet.
Now a fatty like Cordain says I need to eat more meat and fat? How is that supposed to make me healthier?
The China Study and similar sources gave me good reason to change my diet, primarily by showing the stats that suggest it. The last 4 years have proven to me that it is the best way for me to live.
Now, Chris Kessler, a bunch of fat low-carbers along with the food industry say I should eat meat and fat. I think that is to help them and not me.
You did two things: exercise and change your diet, and yet you’re claiming that you only saw benefits with the diet. I think you are missing a pretty key component here… which is accounting for the other possible variations. IE – eating some meat but also exercising, and seeing if it makes a difference.
Adam,
I changed my diet. Lost weight, slept better, had a 65 point drop in total cholesterol along with many other significant improvements……THEN I started running.
you failed to mention both the type of cholesterol as well as the cholesterol ratio
End of the day, right or wrong, meat, no meat… Each and every single person on this plant is born both equal but so different at the same time. Your DNA may react well to meat, others not so much. Grouch our lifetime things change. Metabolism goes up and down. We exercise more. We exercise less. So many factors,
If someone wants to eat a plant based diet and it works…booyah!
If someone wants to eat a light meat base diet and it works…booyah!
If someone wants to eat McDonald’s every day of their life and it works…booyah!
This is called free will. Please don’t argue that we should do this or should do that and get all angry. Do you know what people that impose their will on others are? Fascists. Not a good direction to take. Educate if you think you must and sit back and be smug if you think you are better.
Good article. I will read all the reference points.
Hi Colin,
The point is that most people’s diets aren’t working. 68% of the USA is overweight or obese. Some of the most developed countries in the world also suffer from the highest rates of diseases, despite a high level of medical care being available.
That’s why most people have read this article. If not for themselves for someone they know that is in poor health. That’s why the China Study is so interesting – it challenges our previous assumptions about what the optimum fuel for our bodies is.
Personally I haven’t found any data to support that animal products are a necessary component of optimum health, but I’ve found plenty that suggest animal products are linked to obesity and disease.
Best of luck with your search.
the USA is not fat because they are eating meat.. they are fat because they chronically consume too many calories, combined with not enough physical exercise. Simple as that.
Quite wrong Adam. There is a lot more to human weight than the calories in, calories out equation. Plus, the rich western diet has addictive qualities that are not found in unprocessed plant foods. This makes limiting the total amount consumed even more difficult.
wrong.
Eat 3000 calories worth of vegetables every day and do no exercise and you will grow obese.
No one is concerned with people eating too many vegetables. There is a qualitative difference between sugary/starchy/ processed foods and leafy vegetables. I now eat as much as I want, gain no weight and am trim. 12 years ago I was exercising and was about 20 pounds overweight. The difference is in the quality of what I eat (full disclosure – I am Paleo).
The China Study indeed is a good study from the 80’s , the China Study Book however is just 10% of the Study with only the positive results about the Vegetarian Lifestyle supporting the believes of Dr. T. Colin Campbell and his personal war against Animal Protein.
If you want to refer to a study then you have to follow the conclusions of that study regardless your personal believes,
This for example is a table out of the China Study about the correlation between animal proteins and Cancer .
Bron Correlatie
Animal protein +3%
Fish protein +7%
Plant protein +12%
Carbohydrates +23%
Total calories +16%
Fat% calories -17%
Fiber +21%
Fat (questionaire) -29%
Associations of Selected Variables with Mortality for All Cancers in the China Study (Junshi C 1990)
* significant correlation.
according this table fibers and Carbodhydrates have a greater correlation to Cancer then Animal Protein which is rather neutral . the people eating more fat seemed to have a reverse correlation to Cancer .
this is just on of the many conclusions from the China Study Dr Campell leaves out of the Book because they don’t support his vegetarian believes .
up to today no claims made against Animal Proteins are being supported by independent orignial Science . neither are the reversal benifits eating more Vegetables and fruits .
there are much more recent bigger studies done nowedays then one from 30-40 years back with better technologie and follow ups.
example :
a more recent studie who is in fact still running is the
Women’s Health Initiative 1990 – 2015 . In its entirety, the WHI enrolled more than 160,000 postmenopausal women aged 50–79 years (at time of study enrollment) over 15 years, making it one of the largest U.S. prevention studies of its kind, with a budget of $625 million
just one study :
Low-fat dietary pattern and risk of cardiovascular disease: the Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial.
CONCLUSIONS:
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.
show me the recent independent evidence against animal Proteins *( not made by Vegetarian scientists like Campell) and for example Cancer there isn’t one ..
show me recent evidence eating more Vegetables and fruits reverse cancer and other diseases often claimed by Vegetarians there isn’t one .
beeing independent regardless your believes and respecting the outcomes should be the work of a Scientist rather ten manipulating studies which clearly is the case In the China Study Book .
if you are interested in the Real China Study since every Vegetarian refers to the Book as the reason why vegetables and fruits are so healthy .make sure you now what you are talking about and don’t just deny every remark who is been made againts the book without reading the China Study .
come with data and referals which support your claims out of the China Study .( not Book )
or rather come with independent data and referals from this decade !
Your point was so valid and I was behind you 100%, but then you started talking about being a fascist.
By eating animals you are forcing your opinions on them by forcing them to live against their will, making you a fascist and a hypocrite. Is a police officer a fascist for preventing a criminal from murdering someon? I mean how dare they deny them their free will to kill people?
Jeremy only one of your booyah’s works. The others effect all of our ability to live on this planet with as many people that we have. And that doesn’t even include the way we process animals. Include that one and the choice is clear, there isn’t a choice. Booyah!
So Chris, two thoughts…
1) Are you saying a meat based diet is nearly always better than a plant based diet ?
2) Would you promote the idea of converting ‘x’ vegetable food calories into ‘x-y’ meat calories ? (feeding animals lots of calories of veggy food to produce less ultimate calories of food)
Just writing to say that I can’t believe you posted this in response to the China Study. How very embarrassing for you.
I mean really? I think its silly, I mean utter silliness, that you are using Denise as a source. She is a woman in her early twenties who is nothing more than a blogger with zero, I repeat ZERO educational background in nutrition. Her age would indicate a lack of life experiences in that arena as well. If you want to bash something like the China study to death using someone such as Denise simply bashes your own credibility. There are a lot of issues with her blog. Lets start with the fact that she regularly deletes any comment posted that points out anywhere that she may be wrong, or any critique, or anything at all that would indicate that she is not 100% accurate. If she was confident in her stance she would not need to erase these comments. Secondly in her ex vegan story posted on her blog she states that after a year of becoming a raw vegan following the 80/10/10 diet that she was deficient in B12 because she followed instructions and did not take a supplement. It is a ridiculous lie that the 80/10/10 diet states to not take a supplement, if anyone bought the book it says to supplement B12 in nice bold letters. Also it is questionable to say the least the she became deficient after only a year considering your liver holds between 2 and 7 years of B12 reserves, unless of course she was had a deficient going into the diet, which of course was never tested. All in all im just trying to say that anyone should be very careful taking nutritional advice form someone in their early twenties without any background in nutrition.
I see she is not the only one that deletes posts (or doesn’t allow them) when she is wrong.
It is hard to sell Paleo books when you post disagreements to your ideas.
What I always find so curious in these debates over dietary choices where medical this and scientifically that, is they all seem to ignore the big, pink elephant in the room called our anatomical design. How about deriving direction from common sense observation of our digestive equipment? The shape of the teeth, our digestive enzymes, length of our intestines, our fingernails over claws… or the fact that most of us see a puppy and want to cuddle and caress it over a instinctual kill and consumption of it guts and organs.
It’s just not the complex mystery that the medical and scientific communities like to project. Our design tells us the answers as to what optimally fuels the body and supports our internal healing mechanisms. Everything else is about arguing for power, greed, to be “the authority or right”, and most to the point – justifying what we prioritize or desire. There is an argument for every piece of food and addiction out there. You can have all the degrees in the world, there is no arguing the design of the human body.
Nutrients, vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, antioxidants, hydration, alkalinity, air, sunlight, detoxification/elimination, optimal digestion, assimilation, absorption… what works with the body’s design to provide all of this? Plant kingdom on & off land, end of story!
Well said…
If what you said was true we would have no difficulty digesting cellulose.
Denise was totally wrong, she completely misinterpreted the data. You should read Campbell’s official reply to all the gaps she’s leaving out and makes her assertions false.
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-colin-campbell-slaps-down-critic-denise-minger.html
Thank you soo much Anna, I book marked that.
People accuse Dr Campbell of bias influencing his work but I find his book unbiased. Yes I bought his book. Yes I was a meat eater and now I am not. No I am not vegan but I would like to reduce dairy even more.
I feel facts are facts and people who dispute will never accept the hard facts.
A cannabis addict will not listen to the psychological impact of his/her habit, they will argue till the cows come home.
Thank you for this post. However, the links in your p.s. part are invalid. Can you please direct me to the debate between Loren Cordain and Dr. Campbell that you mentioned.
Thank you
Vegans are like anti gun,anti anything people that become crazy if your not agreeing with them. They lack critical thinking and live by emotion. If you don’t eat meat fine,just leave me to eat mine in piece………s
Sounds to me like you’re anti-plant Bob. I question how much critical thinking you’ve done to come to the conclusion meat is necessary or even healthy for us.
I encourage you to dig deeper. Or perhaps you can kindly point out the critical thinking you’ve done that leads to the conclusion meat is necessary.
No one (well no one logical that is) has an issue with you eating meat. As some one mentioned before, that’s your choice that you have every right to make. I think to generalize all Vegans as anti gun or anti everything is a little presumptuous. The issue is that you should have all the information present before making choices about what exactly your putting into your body. The experiments that Dr. Campbell conducted over the last 40 years or so indicate that adopting a plant based diet helps reduce and even cure some degenerative illnesses. These findings are at least enough to get you to think about cutting down meat consumption and moving toward a more plant based diet.
I also however don’t agree with Jeremy. Bob is not saying that meat is necessary, just that if he feels for a burger don’t be all up in his face about how he’s going to die, or how he’s a murderer, or destroying the planet; just let the man eat in peace.
One meal won’t kill you, and one meal won’t save you. It’s about making lifestyle choices that will lead to a more vibrant life.
“The experiments that Dr. Campbell conducted over the last 40 years or so indicate that adopting a plant based diet helps reduce and even cure some degenerative illnesses. These findings are at least enough to get you to think about cutting down meat consumption and moving toward a more plant based diet.”
Explain to me how looking at aggregate data not accounting for extraneous factors at all indicates that a plant-based diet is more healthy? And do not misunderstand me by comparing a vegan diet to a diet of nothing but burgers and soda. Let’s use common sense. Let’s practice moderation and stop being such an extremist and alarmist culture.
If we isolated a population and wrote a book called “The Meattown Study” and it found that in this city of 10,000 people they had less heart disease and less cancer than those found in the China Study, would it be accurate to say then that meat protects against cancer? Of course not… there are too many variables at play to make such a superlative claim.
This is, at heart CORRELATIONAL data. In other words, we’re noticing that on average people in an isolated part of world have certain outcomes associated with their diets. OK… great… what does that prove?
What if I told you that people, on average, are more likely to get into car accidents in the summer time. Does that mean that the sun causes car crashes? Do we then advise not driving in the sun? No… it’s stupid… just like this “study”.
Adam,
It appears that you have not read The China Study. Campbell discusses the interpretation of statistics in depth and does not make conclusions based on simple correlation. You should read the book before you criticize it.
It’s time we moved from ME to WE consciousness. Your actions do actually affect the whole world, not just your little one. We need people to be making the connection between their food choices and sustainability. We all share this beautiful planet after all:)
Maybe watch this for some facts that might just change your perspective.
Freshly published where? Her blog?
As someone already pointed out, Minger is a 26 year old with an undergraduate degree in English.
I’ve read the China Study. I can’t say that I agree with it. I think that if someone is in really bad shape, then they ought to follow the advice 100% The rest of us can safely play the odds and eat a hamburger once in a while.
That being said the fact that Dr. Campbell even shares his raw data speaks to his “bias”. The man was raised on a dairy farm and pushed milk his whole life……until the results proved himself wrong.
Your article makes it sound as if Dr. Campbell grew up in the back of a VW bug with vegan parents, and that he now pushes his own vegan agenda.
The fact that no one is posting contrary opinions to this article is probably because you’re backing the play of a 20-something English major.
Sharing data is what scientists do. They also share their methods of statistical analysis, which Dr. Campbell did not do – which is one reason you’ll have to look pretty hard to find any of his peers discussing the China Study.
If they don’t share these things so that others can reproduce their results then they have no credibility.