The china study
I am getting ready to give a nutrition presentation. I know my ideas will be met with some resistance ("But, fat is BAD!") I am confident in my knowledge to be able to explain my position. However, I know of one attendee who lives by "the China Study." She recalls facts and information very well. I have the book but do not have the time to get through the whole thing. I know the book has basically been disputed, but I need specific references and research to make my point valid.
Does anyone know of a good rebuttal paper to "The China Study"?
[url=http://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/]The China Study « Raw Food SOS[/url]
I have read it.
It is a summary and conclusions following a long study on the eating habits some people in China.
It talks about the causes of main human killers, and how food plays a major part.
It recommends a plant-based lifestyle to minimize these risks.
A good rebuttal is probably one of Marks books.
You can kindly remind her there are different body types that benefit from a higher protein intake-
just be ready for her to bring up the "Spirulena has a higher protein content than beef" argument-
She'll probably also bring up the argument that a high meat consumption creates an acidic environment,
but you can remind her that a high (non plant) carbohydrate diet does so as well. Good luck
I went looking for Campbell's published research, but I suck at Pubmed. However, Denise Minger doesn't, and she shows some study titles in this speech I'm about to link to. I don't know which video has them, but they're there. I also haven't read the studies, but from the way she presents them, it seems to contradict his "protein r cancer!1!1" schtick.
I wish I could find his rat studies. I'm sure that would help you. The guy's entire research career seems to be an enormous non-sequitur - research that shows one thing, then he goes around proclaiming another. If his research were so groundbreaking and foolproof, I'd think he would have more influence in the greater scientific community and more people would have heard of his research before Forks Over Knives. I find it unlikely that his greatest enemy is an English major blogger because no one else dare question the quality of his research. Things are the way they are because nobody takes him seriously.
Forgot the link. [url=http://30bananasadaysucks.com/2012/08/denise-minger-2012-low-carb-cruise-lecture/]Denise Minger – 2012 Low-Carb Cruise Lecture[/url]
Well, I think a good point to make about the "china study" is that it is a book. It was not actually published in ANY scientific journal and has not gone through the process of peer review....all for good reason. This is not to say that alone makes it automatically useless, but the title is kind of tricky IMO. People think since it is called a "study" that it has that validity.
The best rebuttal I have heard is by Matt Lalonde PhD, a Harvard biochemist, from here OPT: The Science of Nutrition [url=http://optexperience.com/scienceofnutrition]Login[/url]. It in the first part of this seminar. Problem, it ain't free and will cost you $99. That said, you can watch it as often as you want and it is 6 hours of nutritional info.
What Matt does is show the logical flaws in the China Study where Campbell throws in confounding variables to make his argument. For example (and I'm attempting to pull this from the seminar), Campbell attempts to show a link between animal and plant protein to colorectal cancer. The association Campbell attempts to make is A animal protein (hence saturated fat) => cholesterol => colorectal cancer. Matt says the association Campbell is make is akin to "as ice cream sales increase, outdoor temperatures increase, and so do deaths by drowning. (B for beta) Ice Cream B= large positive # => Outdoor Temerature B = large positive # => Deaths by Drowning. So the analogy to Campbell is people are eating more ice cream getting in the water, getting cramps, and drowning.
However, if you just pull the direct correlation for animal and plant proteins to colorectal cancer animal protein is negative, but statically insignificant. Plant protein is positive, but statistically insignificant. "There is no association" - Lalonde. The strongest association between colorectal cancer is with the virus Schistosomiasis [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002298/]Schistosomiasis - PubMed Health[/url]. Cholesterol is used to "shuttle indotoxins out of the body so they are going to increase in numbers." "The people who had the higher cholesterol levels also had more schistosomiasis." "If we look at the correlation between total cholesterol and colorectal cancer in regions with zero schistosomiasis infections, we obtain B = +0.13, P>0.5"
Hope that gives you something to focus on. Matt used this one example from The China Study but says Campbell pulls the same strategy throughout the book. Mat does, however, agree with Campbell that protein "promotes" cancer growth. It doesn't cause cancer, however. Cancer cells use seven times as much glucose as regular cells so they will rely upon protein gluconeogenesis. So if it's glucose that's feeding the cancer a vegetarian diet high in carbs (the don't have to be) is also fueling the cancer.
Denise Minger also rebuttals The China Study here:
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heWprUncqIw]How to Win an Argument with a Vegetarian - Denise Minger - YouTube[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TboCgUmgQYQ&feature=related]China Study Debunked by Denise Minger (part 1 of 4) - YouTube[/url]
[QUOTE=bloodorchid;981796][url=http://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/]The China Study « Raw Food SOS[/url][/QUOTE]
It's lots of reading, but absolutely this.