Sorry for the re-post, but this is too important not to pass around. Free The Animal has an outstanding post on the misleading pile of dookie that is The China Study. Here is the original analysis that Richard is referring to which was generated by Denise Minger.
If you recall, we funded a debate between T. Colin Campbell and Prof. Loren Cordain several years ago. Instead of addressing the topics raised in a mechanistic fashion typical of scientific debate, Campbell dismissed all of evolution in favor of a “holistic” approach to nutrition. It was odd.
Campbell’s position is indefensible from ideological positions and now we see that the science was largely cooked. This is a good day.
Protein Debate
35 Comments
How about we link to the person who did all the work? No disrespect to Mr. Nikoley, he is just using his digital pen to spread the word! The blogger who did the research is Denise Minger, and her blog is here: http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/.
Wouldn’t it be nice for her server to crash from all the people interested in her work?
Cheryl-
thank you, yes.
At my new doctor in my new town, he sat me down and told me that “all that stuff we thought about cholesterol, we now know isn’t true. That’s not what causes heart disease.”
I said, “let me stop you there, Doc. I read GCBC”
He said, “good, but we know even more than that now. Animal protein causes an autoimmune reaction – it’ similar to what happens to cannibals. The immune reaction causes that” [points to the enormous cutaway model of atherosclerosis provided by a statin manufacturer] “Mammals – cattle, pigs are the worst because we’re most closely related, fowl is better, fish is okay sometimes.”
Me: “Um, shit. Anything I can read about that? ”
Dr: “The China Study!. You should approach an all-vegetable diet, if you’re able to.”
I didn’t read TCS but has anyone else heard this autoimmune reaction to beef stuff? I don’t see it anywhere in the Protein Debate, and the only cannibal disease I can find on the internets appears to be caused by eating brains.
I didnt even know the China Study was still in print. I thought it was exposed for it’s lies and it’s pages put to good use…cleaning birds and sea life in the Gulf. Strange. I guess people will believe anything as long as it has “study” in the title.
Bravo! That is a great review of The China Study. Great timing too, I just had a discussion with a RD friend of mine about The China Study and was telling her about its fallacy and bias, this is a great review to pass along.
I agree, Ms. Minger should get all the credit due. And, as a supplemental read, the PaNu blog just posted an interesting commentary on this whole thing, too, which is a great read: http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2010/7/8/polish-a-turd-and-find-a-diamond.html
Johnie!
yea, I think all you need is a graph and an appeal to folks “morality” to have a book rolling.
Von-
Yea, have heard of it…sounds like another topic to debunk once the book is finished.
I read that protein debate a while ago. Sheeeeesh. Oh yeah because isolated cow casein in rats can be extrapolated to all protein in all humans. Talk about a man on a mission.
It’s highly ironic that Campbell would defend his flawed and biased approach by referring to a “holistic” approach, while in fact the only way to scientifically apply a holistic approach to the human diet is to take a *biological* view of our species, which means looking at our evolutionary history.
For instance, it is true that we shouldn’t focus on individual nutrients while ignoring conditioning inter-relationships that apply when we eat various groups of whole foods, but how can we even speculate properly about such relationships if we (like Campbell) don’t want to look at the nutritional conditions under which Homo Sapiens evolved. Such holistic speculation would be totally arbitrary.
No one should listen to anyone about diets if the evolutionary perspective isn’t accounted for at least implicitly.
Don’t be fooled people, Denise has misinterpreted raw data, just as many inexperienced “researchers” do. Denise is not qualified to read such data correctly.
Please refer to the use and misuse on pp. 54-82 of the China Project monograph.
The following is Dr Campbell’s rebuttal. The rest can be found http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.htm
” China Project results are no exception to these limitations of single experiments. It was very large, unique and comprehensive but it was observational (i.e., not interventional), simply observing things as they were at a single point in time. It provided an exceptionally large number of hypothetical associations (shown as statistically assessed correlations) that may indicate but does not prove cause and effect relationships. These unanalyzed correlations are considered raw or crude. It is highly unusual to find such ‘raw’ data in a scientific report because, in part, untrained observers may misunderstand such raw data.
For the monograph, we were somewhat uncertain whether to publish such raw data but decided to do so for two principle reasons. First, we wanted to make these data available to other researchers, while hoping that data misuse would not be a significant problem. Second, because these data were collected in rural China at a time when data reliability might have been questioned, we chose to be as transparent as possible. We discussed data use and misuse on pp. 54-82 of the China Project monograph that curiously was overlooked by Masterjohn and Jay’Y’.
John-
Denise raised similar concerns about the data as Prof. Cordain and others who were summarily dismissed by Campbell. The data neither supports the claims nor directs us towards a testable mechanism for the China Study claims. Honestly, I think we are at a point in which observational studies need to be relegated to lining bird cages UNLESS they accompany a proposed mechanism and lay our follow-up controlled clinical trials:
http://www.staffanlindeberg.com/OurResearch.html
This is the very point that Cordain made in the Protein Debate with Campbell, generate a theory which offers predictive value. The China study the vegan paradigm offer NOTHING in this regard. It is not supported by evolutionary theory, optimum foraging strategy, Game theory nor the clinical trials which offer substantive data.
Stabby-
yes, that is on par with Ancel Keys. Amazing.
John has written the exact same post all over the place. He belongs to the 30 bananas site who are vegans
Sue-
Well, then we’ll say a prayer for his low blood sugar crash.
The correct way to conduct the analysis…
http://www.30bananasaday.com/group/debunkingthechinastudycritics/forum/topics/my-response-to-denises
Dr Campbell’s response…
http://www.30bananasaday.com/group/debunkingthechinastudycritics/forum/topics/campbells-response-to-denises
Hey Robb,
Not really relevant to the china study (but my memories of trudging through the book reminded me of protein intake), but I know you and Poliquin like the 1g protein per lb of bodyweight for the obese metabolically deranged diabetic types (for satiety and thermic effect), and I know high protein intake isn’t a problem unless you have an existing kidney problem, but what do you do with clients who are diabetic to the point of having damaged kidney function? Or do they have to be really far gone in type 2 diabetes before this will be an issue? Would a lower protein, lower carb, higher fat approach be applicable here?
Cheers.
Geoff-
I’ve not had a client in that dire of shape but your suggested mods make sense and that is likely how I;d tackle it.
Freelee-
I appreciate your taking the time to post the link, but again, you guys are simply suggesting a re-cook of correlative data obtained largely from questionnaires. The laboratory work looking at casein is almost funny in how it;s been spun by Campbell. I still do not see Campbell moving towards testable hypothesis.
I am continually amazed how gullible we are when in comes to “macro-evolution”…Talk about junk science! The scientific community knows that evolution is a farce…Scientists are forced to keep quiet about their disbelieve in evolution for obvious reasons…the “theory” of evolution is not a theory at all, but simply a belief, a blind belief…
Unfortunately people are not interested in the truth. People believe what they want to believe, what fits nicely into their worldview…You need to decide, do you want the truth, or do you want to keep believing the lies that the “system” keeps feeding us?
The idea that “life” resulted from randomness is unscientific and defies common sense…
The first question we need to ask ourselves is what is “life”…What distinguishes life from non-life? Specified-Complexity is one way to distinguish life from non-life…”Life” is extremely complex, beyond man’s comprehension…It is also extremely specific…Our DNA and the systems that make life work are extremely specific (in the same way computer code is or chemical reactions are). There is NO scientific experiment that has every been conducted that can demonstrate how extremely complex AND extremely specific systems develop over long periods of time…In fact, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states the opposite, that any closed system will move from a more ordered state to a less ordered state (The universe is a closed system, unless of course, you believe in God)…
Another question…Scientists are quick to point out that DNA fits perfectly into the definition of a “language” or “code”. It’s an extremely complex, highly compacted amount of information stored in a “code”…What scientific experiment can demonstrate that information can “evolve” and be stored in a coded format over long periods of time? Common sense tells us that information must come from intelligence…Language and codes must come from a mind…NOT random mutations over long periods of time…
We need to stop believing the lies we are fed in our sick culture…and start thinking for a change…Follow the money…The Dairy Industry, the Meat Industry, the “food” Industry, Supplement Industry, the “Healthcare Industry”, our Government…Our consumer driven culture encourages profit and any cost…to fill their pockets with your money…WAKEUP PEOPLE…FOLLOW THE MONEY…STOP BEING SO GULLIBLE …
In summary, macro-evolution is a big lie. Scientists risk their careers if they voice their disbelief in it…Therefore, Loren Cordain’s argument that is based in part on “macro-evolution” is junk science in the highest degree and should be dismissed outright.
Rather than reject the China Study, why not test it? Get a comprehensive blood test, become a Vegan for 6 months, check your blood again, and see for yourself how your health will improve! You will lose weight, your blood pressure will drop, your cholesterol will drop…Then draw your own conclusions and make your decision…
Michael-
You said “Rather than reject the China Study, why not test it? Get a comprehensive blood test, become a Vegan for 6 months, check your blood again…”
I have, many have. The results suck.
Have you tried an “paleo approach?” Can you hold yourself to the high standards you are PREACHING to others? As to the macro-evolution topic I simply offer this:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
Robb,
Do you know of any side by side comparison tests that have been performed on a single person on a Vegan and Paleo diet. Test’s that would show concrete data from blood tests, weight, fat, AA/EPA ratios, etc,etc.
I have yet to see one of these anywhere.
Kevin-
Have not seen anything like that.
“low blood sugar crash”
Hilarious, the ‘fruit is high glycemic’ myth is still strong in the peleo world.
Gday crew,nice blog.
How come NONE of these pro meat bloggers have any real muscle with all that protein talk?
Come and see if ANY of you guys can out bench press/dead lift us at
http://www.veganbodybuilding.com
http://www.veganstrength.org
http://www.organicathlete.org
Here is the website for the doubters.
http://www.pcrm.org
Mike Arnstein ran a 2:28 marathon this year at Boston. He is the FASTEST runner in the raw food movement today. Long time vegan and now powered by sweet fruit. How come there is no competitive athletes eating this ‘paleo fat diet?’ Please shut me up and show me cos Im sick of seeing cardio and muscle deficient paleo crew trying to debunk the china study that us elite athletes are thriving on.
Can you debunk me with a high fat eating paleo athlete?
Didnt think so..
Love, peace and banana grease.
Durianrider
Durianrider-
My best competition lifts are 565 SQ, 345 bench and 565 DL at 181. Currently competing in master Brasialian Jiu-jitsu.
Now, are you chaps consuming ANY concentrated protein sources (tofu, temphe, protein powders) or are you getting your nutrition from WHOLE food? If you use any concentrated sources then my response is SO WHAT? I get my protein from a cow (grass–>cow) you get yours out of a nutraceutical fermentation vat (Grass–>fermentation vat, chemical processing, can-o-soy protein).
All that you guys prove is that a higher protein diet is necessary for most folks in strength athletics. BTW- I do not go stalking around vegan forums trying to convert the masses. You guys are religious fanatics. If your way of eating works for you, great. I tried it your way, was sick and do great with this approach. If you took the time to read any of this blog you;d know that back story.
I guess you missed all of Joe Friel’s athletes…those folks with world championships, olympic team placements…that eat a paleo diet?
http://www.joefrielsblog.com/
We have a 6 Week “I am CrossFit” at our Gym which includes nutrition.
Here is what one participant said:
“From vegetarian to paleo in 6 weeks… This was a trial for me (not as in hard but as in a test period). I wanted to see if changing my diet would make a difference in my training. Oh. My. God. There is no going back. There is no comparison. I’m convinced and converted.”
>> How come NONE of these pro meat bloggers have any real muscle with all that protein talk?
Vegetarians can postulate all they want about the ethical or ecological reasons not to eat animal protein, but when they attempt to portray that ideology as ideal for muscle gains, it borders on the ridiculous and flies in the empirical face of every pro bodybuilder/strongman/champion powerlifter out there.
DDD-
Word.
Julianne-
It never goes the other way.
“How come NONE of these pro meat bloggers have any real muscle with all that protein talk?”
I am a 51 yr old female trainer and can lift in these ranges: BP 225#, squat 425# to parallel and leg press 1,800#. This is on a whole foods diet of; predominantly grass pastured beef, organic vegetables/tubers, wild harvested berries, raw organic nuts and limited amounts of raw, grass-fed dairy. BTW-I checked out the link that your provided w/training journals of ‘vegan’ athletes. While some of thier physiques were mildy impressive, included in their diets ware: Creatine wafers, BCAA’s and many other protein concentrate supplements! Hmmmm…… their strength and endurance cannot be contributed solely to a vegan ‘foods’ after all, especially since the best source of creatine is good ole fashioned red meat.
Kathy!
You rock! thanks.
A holistic approach to Nutrition? Not exactly a good thing IMO. When you are debating something about nutrition and are going to defend it or go attack some aspect of nutrition, you have to do it from a scientific point of view especialyl if the debate si about science. So yeah….not a good idea to go holistic with this debate.
The China Study isn’t the only source that recommends approaching a high density, plant based, whole food diet. Another resource to look at is “Eat to Live,” by Dr. Joel Fuhrman. He too, also suggest, and prescribes to his patients, eating “live” foods, and foods that are high density plant based. He has many patient case studies, and offers many examples backed with scientific research, which all suggest that eating foods as close to earth is the healthiest way to eat. Why knock this stuff as if these guys a nuts? Do you really feel our early homo-sapien ancestors ate meat every day? Can we prove that they didn’t have diet-based heart and endocrine diseases?
Tommy-
No, and you cannot prove that they DID. then we look to the Inuit and Ache (to name a few) who eat almost exclusively a meat based diet, yeat have NO cardiovascular disease.
Tommy, please comment on this.
And also, I want you to REALLY think this through: You are suggesting that humans developed cardiovascular disease on their ancestral (evolutionary) diet. this IS what you are saying. Name one other organism that this happens to. That the ANCESTRAL diet causes cardiovascular disease.
Tommy, the answer is NONE. We need agriculture to see this problem. Our pets get sick from the food we feed them, not when they eat their ancestral diets. Cattle get sick when fed grains, so do humans.
Can switching to a plant based diet improve the health of someone who eats a terrible, processed food diet? Of course, but Tommy you need to be better informed and THINK this through.
7 Trackbacks
[...] 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 [...]
[...] The China Study: Junk Science and Lies [...]
[...] the China Study, and Richard Nikoley is there with a bullhorn to spread the word. Rob Wolf is all over this one as well. See The Protein Debate (PDF) between Cordain and [...]
[...] Campbell har tidigare debatterat med Loren Cordain där han ,som man säger, blev “ägd”. Cordain lägger upp referens efter referens, medan Campbell nöjer sig med att påstå att evolutionen inte kan säga något om vad en nyttig kost består i. Läs mer om debatten på Robb Wolfs blogg. [...]
[...] Posted by lovatof1 Such as… This may add to the development of the thread The China Study: Junk Science and Lies Thoughts? Chiggers __________________ A dog is not considered a good dog because he is a good [...]
[...] those of you who are worried about the China Study (Click here for information)… read this, this and this for the debunking party! from → Uncategorized ← Coconut Egg Curry [...]
[...] http://robbwolf.com/2010/07/08/the-china-study-junk-science-and-lies/ [...]