|
|
|
|
That... is more than slightly disturbing. And I have two vastly differentiating hopes on the legitimacy of the study behind the book. http://www.tcolincampbel...courses-resources/about/Quote:He has conducted original research both in laboratory experiments and in large-scale human studies; has received more than 70 grant-years of peer-reviewed research funding, mostly from the National Institute of Health, and has served on several grant review panels of multiple funding agencies, lectured extensively, and has authored more than 300 research papers. http://www.grcc.edu/ShowPage.cfm?PageID=11187Considering his credentials, my new feeling is the same as frac's, who forgot to spread the news? Oh, I wonder  EDIT(again): It seems there are news stories about it, and it has gained a lot of attention, but there doesn't appear to be much wide spread motivation to actually apply the information to your own life, or to anyone who is knowingly selling people cancer. I'll give the book a go. Do not listen to anything, "Steely" says. He is a made up character that his owner likes to role play with. His owner is very delusional and everything he says is completely untrue and ridiculous.
Hate is the choice of a clouded mind.
-"It takes humility to remember who we are"-
"There has to be evil so that good can prove its purity above it." - Buddha
|
|
|
What appears to be quite an expert and thorough debunking is here....a debunking which, apparently, even the author, Prof. Campbell, found weighty enough to address in the form of blog debate. A summary of the work, given here, doesn't seem to include anything earth-shattering--certainly nothing worth the purchase price of the book, it seems to me.
|
|
|
SWIMfriend wrote:What appears to be quite an expert and thorough debunking is here....a debunking which, apparently, even the author, Prof. Campbell, found weighty enough to address in the form of blog debate. A summary of the work, given here, doesn't seem to include anything earth-shattering--certainly nothing worth the purchase price of the book, it seems to me. A users comments on that blog post only inspire me to do what was already being done: Quote:Blog Post Author wrote: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. This is the first paragraph of your critique, which is invalid. I would say that this is the basis of your critique which makes the entire critique invalid. Campbell did not draw on the data in the China study. That is false, he just used that data to show that his prior studies were in fact valid. The book might be titled The China Study but it is not at all based on the that one study, in fact there is just one of the 18 chapters that goes into detail of the study. I'll give the book a read, because even if it has an overblown conclusion, it will be an interesting read about various other things. Do not listen to anything, "Steely" says. He is a made up character that his owner likes to role play with. His owner is very delusional and everything he says is completely untrue and ridiculous.
Hate is the choice of a clouded mind.
-"It takes humility to remember who we are"-
"There has to be evil so that good can prove its purity above it." - Buddha
|
|
|
I dont understand what makes the critique invalid there? The person critiquing isnt saying they think the book is based on one study, the person says she will look closely how the claims align with "the data he drew from", which could be one or a million studies. I wonder if the person writting that invalidating-comment even read the critique?
|
|
|
I'm interested in this as well...though from the synopsis it doesn't look like it's going to shed any new light on what a lot of people already know. A predominantly vegetarian diet (that is balanced) will provide the optimum health for most individuals. It was 1.5 years ago as a new years resolution that I decided to try being a vegetarian for 30 day's. I love vegetables so it was easy. I eat a wide variety of fruits and vegetables and no meat. At the end of the 30 day's I looked and felt great. I was easy enough and I was feeling good so I've stayed vegetarian since....and yes I occasionally cheat, but my health is much better now. I'd still like to read the book. BTW it has certainly made the news: http://www.benbellabooks...oom/?tag=the-china-studyIf your religion, faith, devotion, or self proclaimed spirituality is not directly leading to an increase in kindness, empathy, compassion and tolerance for others then you have been misled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't read the critique you posted, but I did read this one: http://rawfoodsos.com/20...-or-fallac/#comment-6453I think there are some good points. I also think the author of this review has started with a hypothesis: Eating meat is good and the book is wrong....and then went on to cherry pick data to make her point. I have not read the book so I can't fully comment, but I suspect that the data is not rigorous enough for a scientific journal and if it was it wouldn't be suitable for a book. He likely glosses over important statistical implications in an effort to present a cohesive message for the lay reader. I think common sense is applicable here. eat less meat, eat more vegetables, eat more fruit, quit smoking, drink much less or not at all. Honestly this is the best most people can hope for because most people don't have the math background to actually dig through every single research paper that comes out...and even if they did they would find that many reports contradict each other all the time....Biological systems are amazingly hard to draw definitive facts about and this alone makes it near impossible for anyone to state bona-fide facts about nutrition. My advice to most people on the diet topic is this: Admit that you don't know what you are talking about and that most of the authors don't as well. Then live a life of moderation by doing what feels right. For me being part of factory farming doesn't feel right....so I am mostly vegetarian and yes I do supplement my diet with vitamins while at the same time eating a wide variety of fruits, nuts, vegetables, and grains. Has anyone been able to find a PDF of this book? I found an audio book download, but I hate audio books! If your religion, faith, devotion, or self proclaimed spirituality is not directly leading to an increase in kindness, empathy, compassion and tolerance for others then you have been misled.
|
|
|
Yeah joedirt good points. I mean, Im a scientific-minded person and love reading researches on interesting subjects but when it comes to eating, I just find that a bit of good sense, moderation and balanced eating is all one needs. And dont forget to exercise  and you're also right to bring up the fact that eating is not only about the nutrients you consume or not, but also the industry behind the product you buy, which is another factor to take in account. BTW why do you feel you need to supplement your diet with vitamins, joedirt? Its not like theres something you cant get being a vegetarian, its all there if you know how to balance your diet. If you were a vegan ok you would need b12 but if youre not vegan and eat cheese/yoghurt/milk/etc, there's nothing to worry about.
|
|
|
endlessness wrote:Yeah joedirt good points. I mean, Im a scientific-minded person and love reading researches on interesting subjects but when it comes to eating, I just find that a bit of good sense, moderation and balanced eating is all one needs. And dont forget to exercise and you're also right to bring up the fact that eating is not only about the nutrients you consume or not, but also the industry behind the product you buy, which is another factor to take in account. BTW why do you feel you need to supplement your diet with vitamins, joedirt? Its not like theres something you cant get being a vegetarian, its all there if you know how to balance your diet. If you were a vegan ok you would need b12 but if youre not vegan and eat cheese/yoghurt/milk/etc, there's nothing to worry about. Endlessness. I don't think I have to supplement my diet to be healthy, but it may help for optimum health... Certainly even vegan's go do it without supplements if they will eat seaweed. I take vitamin D because I simply don't get enough were I live and medical tests have shown this. I also take vitamin C and a B complex even though I'm sure I probably don't have to. I kind of agree with Linus Pauling on the vitamin C issue...I just don't think you can really over do it. The B vitamins seem to help with mood and energy, though exercise works even better! I also occasionally take Phenylalanine for energy and tryptophan for sleep. The extra B vitamins probably do help in the conversion to their neurotransmitter counterparts: Phenethylamine, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin... I guess I think it's more a health vs optimum health issue....and I'd have to admit that I also don't know for certain that taking extra vitamins really helps or not... If money ever becomes an issue I certainly won't fret about not being able to afford vitamins! If your religion, faith, devotion, or self proclaimed spirituality is not directly leading to an increase in kindness, empathy, compassion and tolerance for others then you have been misled.
|
|
|
I dont take any vitamine or supplements anymore. I eat fruits and vegetables and thats it. I dont even eat nuts or seeds anymore other than the few seeds in fruits and berries. I eat some lentils. I do eat seaweed and bee honey and pollen though(so Im not vegan by definition). Lately I eat alot of wild green plants that I collect myself, lots of nettles and dandelions and other green herbs I take as teas so I definatily dont need any other sources or minerals or anything like that. I make sure to get lots of sun for my vitamine D. I think at first people dont really know how to eat as a vegan or vegetarian when they start so supplements are good for that. I used to take them. I went from eating lots of shitty food and meats and refined grains to a vegetarian who ate horrible foods and thought it was great since I ate no meat..soon I figured out that was mistake..I went back to fish for a time and back to vegan and then vegetarian and then vegan etc..finally I cut out all grains 100% and all gluten foods and anything refined and went vegan, and then just 100% raw vegan and finally cut out all nuts and seeds because for me they are not an optimum food..If I want fat I will eat avacado. I feel best now with my diet the way it is. I just eat tons and tons of fresh fruits all day and eat huge salads..lots of greens are important if you do this so you get enough amino acids to build muscle and dont become mineral deficient. I think the idea of vegans and vegetarians NEEDING supplements is a myth, but it sells and alot of people dont eat balanced diets even if they are vegan or whatever. I dont think taking them hurts you though, unless there are other things added. Long live the unwoke.
|
|
|
I really do like this person, Denise Minger. First she seems OCD about nutrition facts, knowledge, and studies--she shows TREMENDOUS dedication toward trying to be rational and getting all the facts possible (which can be very tricky on nutritional issues). Second, while she is not an extreme vegan/rawfood TYPE, she HAS BEEN; and she still does eat significantly raw because she obviously finds benefit for herself in that type of diet. She really does give the impression of NOT being biased or tied to one set of ideas. I think her write-up on veganism and artery disease is an eye-opener. She cites copious evidence (that I had seen before) that blood homocysteine levels are a key determinant of artery disease risk, and that B12 issues are critical vs. homocysteine levels. Turns out there are more than just a couple of research articles (from China, as it turns out) that show THICKER (i.e., most disease-prone) arteries in vegans than in meat-eaters. For me, she's the first nutrition writer I've come across who seems totally unbiased and rational on the topic--and who seems dedicated to sorting out a huge mass of variously dependable data, no mean feat. A breath of fresh air.
|
|
|
The liver cancer could be caused by other things than the proteïns themselves. Firstly, meat can contain either all kinds of virusses that can cause livercancer or antibiotic's or both. Secondly, it may be the way the food is prepared or stored instead of the food itself. It may not be cooked long enough, it may have gone bad. The philipines is a very poor country so they may stock meat or fish for a longer period than is wise.
Most of all, when i read the word 'livercancer' i think of mycotoxins from fungi. In some parts of asia, livercancer is widespread because of the way they cook their food: they use little baskets made of reet that they often don't properly wash. In a hot climate, having baskets of reet with small residual pieces of food on it, will lead to an accumulation of fungi on these baskets. This is a well known cause of livercancer in some parts of indonesia.
People who live in conditions of extreme poverty may be much more exposed to toxins from fungi than people in wealthier conditions.
|
|
|
SWIMfriend wrote:I really do like this person, Denise Minger. First she seems OCD about nutrition facts, knowledge, and studies--she shows TREMENDOUS dedication toward trying to be rational and getting all the facts possible (which can be very tricky on nutritional issues). Second, while she is not an extreme vegan/rawfood TYPE, she HAS BEEN; and she still does eat significantly raw because she obviously finds benefit for herself in that type of diet. She really does give the impression of NOT being biased or tied to one set of ideas. I think her write-up on veganism and artery disease is an eye-opener. She cites copious evidence (that I had seen before) that blood homocysteine levels are a key determinant of artery disease risk, and that B12 issues are critical vs. homocysteine levels. Turns out there are more than just a couple of research articles (from China, as it turns out) that show THICKER (i.e., most disease-prone) arteries in vegans than in meat-eaters. For me, she's the first nutrition writer I've come across who seems totally unbiased and rational on the topic--and who seems dedicated to sorting out a huge mass of variously dependable data, no mean feat. A breath of fresh air. I think she does an ok job, but she is certainly biased...for one she is writing a blog to attract viewers that will ultimatly turn into click based revenue...which means that it's in her interest to blog about sensitive subjects that will generate a lot of comments and back links... Quote:but unlike the vegetarians who make a cascade of changes when they ditch meat, some religious vegetarians eat diets pretty similar to their omnivorous counterparts, just without flesh. That makes it a bit easier to compare apples with apples: We can see how an average omni diet stacks up against a similar diet sans meat, instead of comparing an average omni diet with a multifaceted vegetarian lifestyle. Right there she basically flat out say's she isn't interested in looking at vegetarian diet vs. meat diets. She's looking to show that meat based diets with meat removed are less healthy than vegetarian diets...that's just wrong thinking...though I can see how she was lulled into that reductionist approach. She seems to say that vegetarians are only more healthy because they are health conscious (which is partially true), but if we examine health conscious meat eaters we find a group of people who EAT LESS meat and more vegetables. Essentially moderation being the key here. All vegetarian diets are not equal just like all meat diets are not equal. Of course the person is more conscious of their health is likely to have better health...funny how so many health conscious people are arriving at vegetarian diets....BTW I would have argued the other stance up until I did my own 30 day animal free diet to have an actual experience with witch to judge from... Honestly in this day and age it's foolish for people to argue against a balanced vegetarian diet IMHO. The data and evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the vegetarian diet vs normal western diets.... One thing I have certainly learned is that people typically want to read what they already believe. People seem to be more than willing to do something extra to help themselves (like go to a gym), but rarely are they willing ot change old habits or give something up (like giving up red meat). It's a strange aspect to our psychology. We all want to believe that we have been doing the right thing all along and "everyone" else is crazy.... People arguing against balanced vegetarian diets are kinda like people still arguing that marijuana isn't addictive and that withdrawal symptoms are just placebo...... If your religion, faith, devotion, or self proclaimed spirituality is not directly leading to an increase in kindness, empathy, compassion and tolerance for others then you have been misled.
|
|
|
Here is the true story very interesting We are each of us angels with only one wing, and we can only fly by embracing one another.
*********
We are all living in our own feces.
|
|
|
joedirt wrote:Honestly in this day and age it's foolish for people to argue against a balanced vegetarian diet IMHO. The data and evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the vegetarian diet vs normal western diets.... An easy thing to say. But actually WORKING THROUGH the data is QUITE a chore. She shows evidence of a willingness to apply the dedication. I've long worked with/around such people. Being alert those who have that kind of mindset can often be a real time-saving convenience! 
|
|
|
There's no doubt whatsoever that Type II diabetes is a live-style disorder which, in many cases can be reversed by changing lifestyle.
|
|
|
SWIMfriend wrote:joedirt wrote:Honestly in this day and age it's foolish for people to argue against a balanced vegetarian diet IMHO. The data and evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the vegetarian diet vs normal western diets.... An easy thing to say. But actually WORKING THROUGH the data is QUITE a chore. She shows evidence of a willingness to apply the dedication. I've long worked with/around such people. Being alert those who have that kind of mindset can often be a real time-saving convenience! I agree it is hard. But why trust her over the author of the book for example? Of course this example extends to most subjects. Why choose one belief over another if you haven't had first hand experience with the actual data? This logic can be applied to all endeavors and not just diet. People would do well to really question why they arrive at one conclusion over another. I believe first hand experience is what's necessary. For me 30 day's was enough to fully convince myself..... At the end of the day it's us that have to determine what's best for us and just listening to the experts will get one a long way, but eventually in almost all subjects we will find competing views and if we don't form an opinion from experience we will likely just pick a side that feels good or get really confused. Almost all people are biased...it's incredibly hard to remove personal bias from anything we do. BTW to be honest I do find her to be pretty diligent about her arguments and there is a lot to be said for that. Unfortunately for her readers they don't know if she is right or if the experts are right because most of them, and us, don't have the backgrounds to make the correct judgement call. So not wanting to believe meat is bad they gravitate towards her views just like hard core vegans don't want to read anything about health benefits of eating meat. Seems the crazy old Buddha really was on to something with his middle way! If your religion, faith, devotion, or self proclaimed spirituality is not directly leading to an increase in kindness, empathy, compassion and tolerance for others then you have been misled.
|
|
|
SWIMfriend wrote:There's no doubt whatsoever that Type II diabetes is a live-style disorder which, in many cases can be reversed by changing lifestyle. if you watch the whole story you will see that one guy there was wrongly diagnosed with type II it was actually type I and completly reversed his pancreas started to work again We are each of us angels with only one wing, and we can only fly by embracing one another.
*********
We are all living in our own feces.
|
|
|
^ Maybe. But I can pretty confidently say that if people DEPEND on that happening with Type I diabetes by beginning a raw diet (or any diet)...many will be disappointed.
At this point in the science of health, medicine, and diet, not all stories always have happy endings, I'm afraid.
|