The China Study
The China Study by T. Colin Campbell reports on the most comprehensive epidemiological study of nutrition ever done, undertaken in China in the 1980s. Dr. Campbell, a Cornell University nutritionist, came to the conclusion that animal products in the diet, whether meat, milk, or eggs, had an almost linear correlation with diseases of affluence, such as heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's, osteoporosis, kidney disease, etc. Besides detailing the study findings, Campbell also tells the story of his own career as a member of numerous governmental nutrition committees, and the watering down of sound nutritional advice by influential meat, dairy, and pharmaceutical lobbying.
As a long-time vegetarian, much of the book's information was not news to me; one of the most striking things I learned however, was the profoundly noxious effects of dairy products on health. It's back to veganism for me. Another important theme from the book is the emphasis placed on protein as a source of bad effects on health; we've all heard the story on dietary fat, but Campbell feels that animal protein is as much or more important in its deleterious health effects.
Here is The China Study website. You can read some (unconvincing) disputation of Campbell's book on Amazon, and a rebuttal by Dr. Campbell here.
posted by Dennis Mangan @ 6:06 AM
14 comments
14 Comments:
Actually, it was Campbell's attempt at a rebuttal that I found unconvincing.
And here, additionally, is Chris Masterjohn's counter-rebuttal:
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Campbell-Masterjohn.html#price
As matters stand, I'd say Campbell's critics are making the more sound and convincing case.
Masterjohn and the group he works for are about as believable and trustworthy as pharmaceutical sales reps. He takes 50-year-old research by a dentist as refuting tons of research done since.
If true, how depressing. It really does appear that one might almost live forever if one is willing to give up everything that might make one want to live forever.
On second thought, who wants to live forever? I'm off to Peter Luger's.
Malcolm: Lots of people fell (felt) the same about cigarettes. Do you really "live" for a steak?
Dennis,
While I canbelieve veganism is a somewhat healthier alternative, the idea that dairy has "profoundly noxious effects . . . on health" seems a bit much. It's not like vegans are outliving dairy consumers by a large amount.
Although I am willing to conceed dariy consumption may matter much more in a place like China where the vast majority of the population never evolved a gene for lactose tolarance.
I have drunk at least two pints of milk every day for the last twenty years. And as I type this from my hospital bed, I can say that I've never felt healthier.
BTW Dennis, still waiting for you to address that report from a few days back which argues against the present global warming being caused by primarily by solar activity. If you're going to take a public stand on such an issue, I think it's incumbent on you to report and attempt to rebut counter-evidence like this.
sweetie: When someone who is not my actual boss tells me that "it's incumbent on" me to do something, the half of me that comes from Scotch Protestants bristles. Come to think of it, my Irish Catholic half doesn't really care for it either.
As for your health having any bearing on the matter at hand, please learn some statistics.
Hi Dennis,
I gave up cigarettes over twenty years ago, but one has to draw the line somewhere. For some, I'm sure strict vegetarianism is a tolerable prospect - and I admire the sort of ascetic discipline it must take - but as for me, I'm willing to knock a few years off rather than face a lifetime of such gustatory celibacy. I figure the years I lose will be the last ones, anyway.
Excuse me for a moment...
...what was that? Oh, yes, medium rare, please. And another Martini, when you have a moment.
You're a vegetarian. Lots of us readers don't really know much about you. How about a biography.
Malcolm: I do have ascetic inclinations, the whole subject being fodder for another post, but I have no problem with Martinis!
Anon: You flatter me. Were there to be a massive public clamor for my biography I might oblige. Until then...
Dennis, your response is wholly unpersuasive because it's quite clear that Campbell has a similarly subjective and revelatory agenda of his own, and cannot be any better trusted than his critics.
Since the relative integrity between both sides is functionally indeterminable at this point without extensive and costly further research, I choose to go by the advice of the better debaters -- which in this case clearly is Masterjohn et. al.
For just one example of consistent inferiority on Campbell's part: as a rule, the use of Ad Hominem reliably indicates that its user can't actually make a solid argument otherwise.
Masterjohn et. al. don't have to be particularly believable and trustworthy in general; they just have to be more believable and trustworthy than Campbell, and going by the comparison between the two sides' behavior in debate, Masterjohn et. al. most certainly do appear that way.
Acksiom: Hilarious. You're going to entrust your health to the better debater. Try reading the research for yourself and you'll see what nonsense Campbell's critics spout. To what exactly do you attribute the much higher Western rates of heart disease, cancer, and obesity? Clearly it has nothing to do with diet.
No, Dennis; I'm just going to *refrain* from entrusting my health to the *worse* debater.
As matters stand, I attribute the much higher Western rates primarily to not enough exercise and too many calories.
Secondarily, I'm currently most suspicious of the excess consumption of processed, 'refined' and otherwise modified carbohydrates and insufficient unprocessed ones.
Personally I tend more towards a Zone diet interpretation of interactive nutrional value, where carbohydrates' glycemic values and their balance with protein amounts is the critical adjustment, and fat is characterized more as a controlling substance for the process of digestion and conversion of the other two than as some nasty dietary poison all on its own.
Do you have any familiarity Sears's work, BTW?
That being said, though, I want to reiterate that I place by far the great majority of the responsibility for the difference in health on excess consumption and insufficient exertion: too much food and not enough exercise.
Acksiom: I'm familiar with the Zone diet, and the best that can be said for it is that there's no evidence that it's healthy. Just as in any other weight-loss diet, when calories are restricted you lose weight.
Sears has some good ideas from what I've read, but to the extent that he advocates a low-carb regime he errs. I've even read him saying that aerobic exercise is a mistake!
We in the West certainly ge too many calories and too little exercise, but the matter doesn't stop there. Exercise doesn't negate the effects of a bad diet, and thin people can have heart attacks and get cancer too. The high meat and dairy diet exerts effects beyond making people fat.
People like to believe good things about their bad habits. For instance, have you ever seen much disputation on the alleged health benefits of wine? No, people are happy to accept that. But when it comes to something as "radical" as using diet instead of drugs and surgery, whoa... everyone bristles and everyone's an expert.
Post a Comment
<< Home