or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Nutrition and Good Eating › Anybody read The China Study?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anybody read The China Study? - Page 2

post #21 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post

http://www.performancemenu.com/resou...teinDebate.pdf

I found the following comment by Cordain interesting. It is preceded by a bit of technical explanation about studies on meats and cancer, though.

"Prior to western acculturation, the Inuit may have consumed more than 95 % of their daily energy from animal and seafood (15), yet a comprehensive review examining virtually all historical and ethnographic data of these people prior to westernization was unable to document a single case of colorectal cancer (126).
i'd like to know how specific the body of evidence is for any part of the inuit's diet/lifestyle/health is prior to western aculturation. there being no documented case of cancer does not mean there was none. and let's not forget that we live in a very different world NOW than the inuit did prior to "western aculturation". they now advise inuit women to avoid breastfeeding their babies due to the levels of toxins and heavy metals present in their breast milk thanks to the pollution of the oceans and how those toxins and heavy metals concentrate in the flesh foods so integral to a traditional inuit diet. the average lifespan of a traditional living inuit is ten to fifteen years shorter than that of the average person eating the average western diet, too.

Quote:
Should a high protein meat based diet initiate or promote colorectal cancer, then one might expect obligate carnivores such as cats to demonstrate high incidences of these malignancies. In, fact the opposite is true, and the rate of gastrointestinal tract cancers is quite low in domestic cats (128). In summary the case for animal based, high protein diets causing colorectal cancer, within the context of pre-agricultural diets, is weak."
domestic cats are obligate carnivores with specialized digestion to deal with large quantities of animal protein - very, very different from the digestive systems of omnivorous human beings. what's "weak" is this comparison/argument.
post #22 of 106
Deleted quote
post #23 of 106
*
post #24 of 106
interesting disscussion! DH swears by this book. i have yet to read it so no real opinion. i'll keep my eye on this thread.
post #25 of 106
Discussions of personal food choices and the merits of each style, as applied to the individuals consuming them are fine. Please refrain from name calling (ie, you are a stalker). Please self edit.

I do not like having to close or move threads, when there is a genuine debate going on and an opportunity to share your viewpoint. The sharing of personal experience is fine, but remember to be respectful and realize that there are other alternatives to any point of view.

But, while doing so, if the UA is violated, I am obligated to close / move / requests edits.

No one needs to prove anything, because you really can't, when both sides have strong feelings and personal experience and rhetorical evidence about how eating a certain way makes them feel (hopefully better).

There are no food police, so there is no reason to feel you need to justify your own style of eating (NT or Veg*n). Just do it, be happy, and healthy.
If you truely feel you are doing the right thing for your body, then why would anyone feel the need to justify it?

I get just as many complaints from the omnivores as the veg*ns, so let's ALL remember to have a little more compasion for our fellow MDCer and remember you can catch more followers with honey than vinegar, and if you end up with a bit of both, then make a nice salad.

I love and support all the MDC moms, regardless of their own personal food choices, religious and political affiliations, or any of the numerous other personal lifestyle choices they could make. I really hate to see strife and arguements over something like this.

I really think that even if we could get every researcher, scientist, and nutritionist to agree on the perfect diet, they would present new research a few months later and it would all change. You know, 'coffee is bad, coffee is good, no, wait, it's bad...no wait, look here, it's good. Ditto, chocolate, dairy, soy...etc.

post #26 of 106
Deleted quote

post #27 of 106
i would like to compare the number of times NT'ers have come into our forum and threads about soy/the china study/veganism and posted their rebuttals to the number of times veggies have come into their forum and threads about anti-soy/wapf/meat-eating and posted ours. i would find that a very interesting thing to look at.
post #28 of 106
:

It would be interesting. I also think if somone wants to debate veg*n/NT/whatever then the most appropriate board would be the general nutrition one - certianly not the board designed for those choosing one over the other. I just don't understand why anyone feels the need to go into a forum for a specific lifestyle and start talking about what's wrong with it. It's not allowed when it comes to breastfeeding or circumcision or gentle parenting so why is it happening in nutrition?
post #29 of 106
and i suspect that Chicharronita and all the rest of the nt'ers jumping all over the china study are going to think to themselves that the reason we are squawking is because we don't like what we are hearing. but as xenobyte so kindly pointed out, for every study/article researcher that says one thing, so another says the opposite. coming in here and posting the criticisms and debating the biases/agendas of researchers and scientists involved in the writing and publication of the china study serves no purpose but to antagonize; much in the same way me coming into the NT forum and posting what all of the critics of price, fallon and enig (and there are many, many of those) would antagonize the NTers.
post #30 of 106
Well, I'll raise my hand and say that I usually hang out in the TF forum. Personally, I am interested in learning more about the China Study (and other topics discussed in the veg*n forum) because I feel it would be irresponsible for me to ignore research-based criticism of my family's way of eating. It is always possible that we might be wrong about what we consider to be healthy. I'm not here to post "rebuttals." I'm simply interested in learning more about the study and its conclusions.
post #31 of 106
The circ and breastfeeding and gentle disclipline forums have specific mention in the UA.

Here is a copy for a refresher, as it was recently modified:

"These are the terms of use that you as a member agree to uphold as a member of the MotheringDotCommune:

MotheringDotCommune.

Mothering.com is the website of natural family living and advocates natural solutions to parenting challenges. We host discussion of nighttime parenting, loving discipline, natural birth, homebirth, successful breastfeeding, alternative and complementary home remedies, informed consent, and many other topics from a natural point of view. We are not interested, however, in hosting discussions on the merits of crying it out, physical punishment, formula feeding, elective cesarean section, routine infant medical circumcision, or mandatory vaccinations. We do not tolerate any type of discrimination in the discussions, including but not limited to racism, heterosexism, classism, religious bigotry, or discrimination toward the disabled. We will not host discussions that involve explicit sexual references and are cautious about discussions on volatile topics such as abortion, religion, and race. See statement of purpose below.

MDC serves an online community of parents, families, and parent, child and family advocates considering, learning, practicing, and advocating attachment parenting and natural family living. Our discussions concern the real world of mothering and are first and foremost, for support, information, and community. Mothering invites you to read and participate in the discussions. In doing so we ask that you agree to respect and uphold the integrity of this community. Through your direct or indirect participation here you agree to make a personal effort to maintain a comfortable and respectful atmosphere for our guests and members."

Bolding was my emphasis.

It does not state that we don't allow omnivores to represent their viewpoints, and that either the NT or the Veg*n forums, sub forums, to be exact, are only for those types of eaters. There is too much crossing over of eating styles (ie, raw vegans, pisco vegans, lacto vegans, NT, vege emphasis NT, and the like) to truely keep each truely exclusive. Even omnivores occasionally eat vegetarian meals. These sub forums are a convenience for keeping posts with certain types of information in an easy to find spot.

Traffic is a good thing on your forum, as it helps having more eyes to read and potentially contribute or help solve problems you might be seeking help for.

Again, I would remind 'visitors' to either of those subforums to be respectful of the people there, as they are in those respective forums to have a place to discuss issues as they directly relate to those sub forums. But yes, going into the Veg sub forum and posting about eating a bowl full of fried pork skins would be highly inappropriate and 'baiting' to say the least.

We had the same 'China Study' issue being discussed in the TF (Traditional Foods, also known as the NT) forum, and it was removed, due to similar posting in a disrespectful manner. I really am trying to keep this thread open for those truely seeking information (on both sides) and that want to discuss it in a mature manner.

If you want a more 'neutral ground' to discuss it, then I can move it to the main N and GE forum, if you would like.

post #32 of 106
I'm an NT'er. I don't normally come to this forum, but sometimes a thread will catch my eye from the main board. And then, I won't even post or give my opinion unless it's something I can truly help with or can be very neutral about. There was a kimchi question on this forum I've responded to, for example. Sorry if veg*ns feel violated, but this is a public board. I personally think we can all learn from each other. From my perspective, there was not a single disrespectful gesture on the part of Chicharronita. Is merely giving the other side enough of an offense? I also agree that veg*ns do not come to the TF boards as often, though recently there's been a few converts. I'm not sure that's a good thing. Imo, being open to alternative points of view is a positive thing.

ETA: Xenabyte, you prove why you're the moderator. Thanks for being fair and diplomatic.
post #33 of 106
:
post #34 of 106
Thread Starter 
What does NT mean?
post #35 of 106
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post
"Prior to western acculturation, the Inuit may have consumed more than 95 % of their daily energy from animal and seafood (15), yet a comprehensive review examining virtually all historical and ethnographic data of these people prior to westernization was unable to document a single case of colorectal cancer (126). Should a high protein meat based diet initiate or promote colorectal cancer, then one might expect obligate carnivores such as cats to demonstrate high incidences of these malignancies. In, fact the opposite is true, and the rate of gastrointestinal tract cancers is quite low in domestic cats (128). In summary the case for animal based, high protein diets causing colorectal cancer, within the context of pre-agricultural diets, is weak."

What strange conclusions this researcher comes to. Firstly examining whether past civilisations of Inuit developed colorectal cancer isn't very helpful to modern day man as colorectal cancer takes 40 years or more to develop and the Inuit lifespan wasn't much more than this. Also, how the body uses food in the extremes of climate is actually different to how modern man, inactive and slumped in front of his computer day after day uses it.

2. I have no idea what so ever why they would say that because a cat doesn't get bowel cancer a human won't either???? A cat is a true carnivore with a short intestinal tract and highly concentrated stomach acids - totally different to a human who has an enormously long intestinal tract and weak acids compared to carnivores.

The most agreed upon consensis of what our ancient diets were like is that we ate mainly vegetation with the occassional meat kill, just as our closest cousins, the chimpanzees still do. We should really be called gatherer-hunters as, like today, we liked minimal effort. Tracking and killing animals was hard work, took a long time and was dangerous, we could easily become injured or killed. Gathering the grasses, roots, fruits, berries and nuts was much easier, safer and required much less energy. Chimps eat all of the above daily - with a few easily caught insects thrown in and then band together (strength in numbers) about once a month to hunt prey, which they kill, everyone has a little and they go back to their plant diet. It makes much more sense that we did the same. Considering we have nothing that even slightly resembles the carnivore cat's digestive tract, and everything in common with a chimps it's a little hard to believe that anyone would take a cat's totally different anatomy and lifespan and say that it in anyway relates to our own.:
post #36 of 106
NT=Nourishing Traditions (a book by Sally Fallon)

For me personally, I think there's an ethical component to veg*n living that could be a bit more respected here....many, many have chosen to eat this way due to ethical considerations...not only nutritional ones. So hearing about studies showing any health benefits of animal foods don't interest me. Period. We know that there are societies doing very well on low to no animal foods...regardless of whether or not it's nutritionally "ideal" (of course most of us believe it is). KWIM? For these reasons, I'm happy to have a "Vegetarian and Vegan Living" forum where I can go to for support...without having to hear about animals as food. For whatever it's worth...

Even the lab animal studies in "The China Study" bother me to be honest. But the Chinese population studies interested me enough to read it. I'm skeptical of most "studies"...I didn't find this one particularly sketchy. It was perhaps written a bit simply to appeal to a larger audience, but it doesn't seem reasonable to attack the validity of their "science" considering it was an international effort and a lot of mainstream institutions were involved. The author didn't have a veg*n agenda starting out and he's not trying to sell anyone any products after all...but at any rate...

I think "The China Study" is worth a read, and it's certainly thought-provoking. It may or may not serve to convince meat-eaters, but for the rest of us, it's perhaps a nice addition to the already-existing multitude of "not-exclusively-nutritional" reasons why we choose to avoid animal products.

post #37 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post
"Prior to western acculturation, the Inuit may have consumed more than 95 % of their daily energy from animal and seafood (15), yet a comprehensive review examining virtually all historical and ethnographic data of these people prior to westernization was unable to document a single case of colorectal cancer (126). Should a high protein meat based diet initiate or promote colorectal cancer, then one might expect obligate carnivores such as cats to demonstrate high incidences of these malignancies. In, fact the opposite is true, and the rate of gastrointestinal tract cancers is quite low in domestic cats (128). In summary the case for animal based, high protein diets causing colorectal cancer, within the context of pre-agricultural diets, is weak."

I'm pretty sure I'm remembering this right....everything DH and I have read about the Inuits has shown that their lifespan was REALLY short and they almost always die of heart, liver, or kidney disease from their meat based diet. Maybe not cancer, but not a lifestyle to copy, IMO. (No, I don't have links. Just something I remember from DH's history books that I can't dig up )
post #38 of 106
The Inuit have an appalling rate of heart disease and a very short life span in comparison with much of the rest of the world. They may not have time to get a lot of cancer. Their mostly meat diet is very unhealthy and always has been. They eat that way because there is little plant life where they are, and they suffer for it.
post #39 of 106
Wow, looks like this thread was busy while I was away (why do I have the most chores to do when things get the most interesting?). Looks like I missed the sh*tstorm! Where's an icon for that?

I'm feeling a bit flummoxed. When I had posted comments about Campbell here a few weeks ago, I was asked to start a thread on the Traditional Foods forum about it. So I did. And for whatever reason, it got eliminated. So when the subject came up again, I posted. However, I didn't respond to just any post; when people posted that they liked the book, I didn't say anything. Personal preference of course can't be argued against. However, when a PP said that TCS showed that protein causes cancer, I responded, because it surely does not.

I do not care what people choose to eat/not eat, especially on this board with people who abstain from meat for ethical reasons. My discussion is mainly aimed at the ones who say, for instance, "I eat X because it's considered healthy, and The China Study says so." That I do have a problem with, sometimes, depending on the context. I just feel like Dr. Campbell is manipulating facts to support his agenda, and he will do whatever he can to get his message out, even using personal information gleaned from private correspondence to attack his detractors (like Chris Masterjohn). So not only does he have an agenda, which is okay, but he also is willing to do unethical things in support of it, which is definitely NOT okay.

BTW, I know I can be a pain in the —, but please believe that I respect all posters here, and feel that even if I disagree with you in one instance, I can and do learn from you in others. Most of the time I'm lurking and taking notes when you guys talk about dinner or what you discovered what to do with chard, one of my favorite vegetables.

I will try to answer as many posts as I can, but my time is limited, as I STILL have chores darn it!
post #40 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post
My discussion is mainly aimed at the ones who say, for instance, "I eat X because it's considered healthy, and The China Study says so." That I do have a problem with, sometimes, depending on the context. I just feel like Dr. Campbell is manipulating facts to support his agenda, and he will do whatever he can to get his message out, even using personal information gleaned from private correspondence to attack his detractors (like Chris Masterjohn). So not only does he have an agenda, which is okay, but he also is willing to do unethical things in support of it, which is definitely NOT okay.
See, and that's the same thing with which I have a problem.

I see WAPF doing the same thing quite frequently -- twisting facts to support their agenda. For instance, when I was asked to write an article on the whole soy controversy which seems to be largely spear-headed by WAPF and their associates, I found a lot of very bad science and down-right lies behind the information they had posted on their website. I have posted the article I wrote on that subject here in the past only to have the same people who were initially arguing that soy is poison suddenly change their tune and start saying that the real concern is phytates. Okay, but that's a different concern.

If it's of any interest, here's my article on that topic: http://www.vegfamily.com/health/vega...nformation.htm

I found the WAPF website to list a whole host of things that were patently false. I contacted a few of the researchers whose articles they quoted and had the researchers respond telling me that the information was taken out of context or flat-out misinterpreted. Sometimes the WAPF website stated that a study showed one thing when it, in fact, showed the exact opposite.

I have a problem with bad science. I can appreciate anyone else who shares the same concern, but I'm just not seeing it in The China Study to anywhere near the degree that I see it in articles, newsletters, letters, etc written by WAPF members.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Nutrition and Good Eating
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Nutrition and Good Eating › Anybody read The China Study?