Anybody read The China Study? - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 106 Old 01-18-2007, 12:44 AM
 
Mommay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here to There
Posts: 885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristaN View Post

I will take a look at that link you provided re my question on scientific criticism of The China Study, but again I do believe that the website (beyondveg) has a very obvious agenda. If there is significant criticism of this book in the mainstream nutrition and medical communities, I'd expect to see critiques in published peer-reviewed journals (not only online).
A book review of The China Study, written by Norman C. Shealy, Ph.D. Citation: THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE
Volume 11, Number 6, 2005, pp. 1117–1119

This is a very reputable journal and can be found in most research libraries. I happen to have access because I am in academia. Let me know if I can send you the whole file.

Here is an exerpt, the first paragraph of the review:

Quote:
Here is another excellent research study, which is indeed
well-done work, but which leads the authors to make remarkable
conclusions that are not justified. The Campbells
correctly criticize the American diet with its junk fast food,
widely advertised in such otherwise reputable publications as
National Geographic and Family Doctor. The Campbells also
correctly conclude that good nutrition can eliminate most
adult-onset diabetes, heart disease, breast and prostate cancer,
kidney stones, and many autoimmune diseases. And these au-
thors correctly emphasize the enormous failure of Modern
Medicine, which itself, is the third leading cause of death.
The excellence then begins to fade. Comparing the effect
of a 20% protein diet with a 5% protein diet is, a ridiculous
argument. No one, not even the Campbells, recommends a
diet that deficient in protein. Mixing the known toxicity of
aflatoxins and nitrosamine as arguments also is distracting
and noninformative. Winding up by recommending a 10%
protein diet, of which 100% is of plant origin, when even
their research suggested that at least 12% was no worse, is
also misleading. Finally recommending only plant protein
as the answer to all disease is a far stretch. Animals who eat
only plants do develop cancer. People fed only plants do develop
both atherosclerosis and cancer. Those facts are not
addressed in this book. Even in the Chinese counties with
the lowest incidence of cancer, the rate was still 5%–7% as
high as in the Chinese counties with the highest incidence.
Furthermore, even in the Chinese counties with high rates
of cancer, at least 10% of the protein came from animal protein
and overall the differences in protein were not enough
to account for the conclusions drawn by the Campbells.
Mommay is offline  
#62 of 106 Old 01-18-2007, 02:32 PM
 
Mommay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here to There
Posts: 885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristaN View Post
I would expect that if someone posted that children fed an NT diet were going to get heart disease and we hoped that our uninformed or misinformed friends who ate that way wisened up before they damaged their children, that would get pulled, too.
I didn't want to let this pass. There has been a number of discussions about heart disease and saturated fats. I gave the French as an example in a previous thread. They eat 4 times the amount of butter, 60% more cheese, and 3 times the amount of pork than Americans with low incidence of coronary heart disease. In America, heart disease is the number 1 killer. I know Furhman is someone who frowns upon eating saturated fats even amongst children. But many other "experts" do encourage children to eat a high fat, high cholesterol diet. My own opinion is that that be extended throughout one's life. Other examples defy the logic in this country that saturated fats causes heart disease.

But if you have evidence to the contrary, then sure, you should open it up for discussion! You would be doing us a favor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_paradox
Mommay is offline  
#63 of 106 Old 01-18-2007, 04:12 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristaN View Post
I honestly don't think that is the issue.

The thread you starting in TF had at least one member posting comments about how unhealthy looking her vegan relatives were and how she hoped they would learn something about nutrition before they had children and damaged their development.
As far as I know, those were the only posts that were negative; no one was making any personal attacks against the posters or calling them names (like stalker).

Quote:
Comments of that sort have popped up numerous times in the TF forum. The problem us vegans have with those discussions is not people who choose to eat a NT diet supporting each other in your choices, but rather our diets being bashed and/or comments that insinuate that our children will be damaged by our dietary choices.
This is a hard one, because there are so many members there who feel that they and/or their children's health were harmed by their previous non-TF diet (and not just here, but in the national TF forums like Native-Nutrition, too). So if they see others following their previous paths, I can see why they would express fear/concern for them. But I do think that people should tread carefully in posting, all the same.

Quote:
I would expect that if someone posted that children fed an NT diet were going to get heart disease and we hoped that our uninformed or misinformed friends who ate that way wisened up before they damaged their children, that would get pulled, too.
It seems like most of them are beyond worrying about the mainstream ideas about saturated fats, and the poster would probably get a lot of pro-fat links thrown at them! Maybe I have a tougher skin than most, but I've moved beyond any fears of saturated fats harming me or my child.


Quote:
I will take a look at that link you provided re my question on scientific criticism of The China Study, but again I do believe that the website (beyondveg) has a very obvious agenda. If there is significant criticism of this book in the mainstream nutrition and medical communities, I'd expect to see critiques in published peer-reviewed journals (not only online).
You're right, the site does have an agenda, but since you're knowledgeable, you can see which of the references have merit, and which have problems.

Chicharronita is offline  
#64 of 106 Old 01-18-2007, 04:36 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mommay View Post
A book review of The China Study, written by Norman C. Shealy, Ph.D. Citation: THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE
Volume 11, Number 6, 2005, pp. 1117–1119

This is a very reputable journal and can be found in most research libraries. I happen to have access because I am in academia. Let me know if I can send you the whole file.

Here is an exerpt, the first paragraph of the review:
Thanks for finding this!

I find their comments in the end about cancer and diet interesting. Could you please send me the file?

Chicharronita is offline  
#65 of 106 Old 01-19-2007, 02:53 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Mommay , does the review show which figures they use to come up with the cancer rate numbers?

Chicharronita is offline  
#66 of 106 Old 01-19-2007, 04:25 PM
 
ChristaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post
This is a hard one, because there are so many members there who feel that they and/or their children's health were harmed by their previous non-TF diet (and not just here, but in the national TF forums like Native-Nutrition, too). So if they see others following their previous paths, I can see why they would express fear/concern for them. But I do think that people should tread carefully in posting, all the same.
On veggie boards, there are many who feel that their health was damaged by following omni diets as well and that their health has improved since adopting a veg*n diet. The same could be said either way.

I've said this in the past, but my dh's family were Italian immigrants who followed a pretty "traditional" diet -- eggs and veggies from grandpa's little farm, meat from dad's butcher shop (which he got from the guy who raised cattle in a field a few miles away -- i.e. grass fed), pretty whole foods omni. They all died very, very young from heart disease and colon cancer. In fact, dh was orphaned by the age of 13 as both of his parents and all of his grandparents were dead by then. We are all looking at what works for us and for our own families. That doesn't mean that we can state that all omnis or all veg*ns are uninformed and destined to have sickly, stunted children.

Quote:
It seems like most of them are beyond worrying about the mainstream ideas about saturated fats, and the poster would probably get a lot of pro-fat links thrown at them! Maybe I have a tougher skin than most, but I've moved beyond any fears of saturated fats harming me or my child.
Right, I would expect that people following an NT diet are not listening to mainstream dietary advice that states that saturated fats are unhealthy, but rather have come to a place of comfort in following alternative dietary advice. If they were nervous about this idea, I don't imagine that they'd be comfortable feeding their children lard and things of that sort.

Similarly, vegans are usually comfortable with following the dietary studies that support our dietary choices. My point was not that it would scare NTers if someone stated that they were going to get heart disease from eating animal fats as I am sure you all have heard that before.

My point was that you have a selected body of information that you choose to believe and are willing to ignore or discount the studies that say otherwise and it is not my place nor the place of other vegans to routinely point out that I believe the information you are following is wrong and/or post links to the wide body research by dieticians, doctors, etc. who disagree with you. Some NT followers seem not to feel the same way and do find it to be their place to point out any perceived flaws in the studies, logic, etc. supporting vegan diets.
ChristaN is offline  
#67 of 106 Old 01-19-2007, 04:52 PM
 
pampered_mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Somewhere short of crazy
Posts: 4,535
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristaN View Post
If they were nervous about this idea, I don't imagine that they'd be comfortable feeding their children lard and things of that sort.
I hate to be nitpicky here, but the example you give is incredibly misleading. Lard is only 40% saturated fat (compared to 60% in butter) and 45% monounsaturated making it part of the monounsaturated class of fats. Which is why the industrial food manufacturers partially hydrogenate it to make it more solid.
pampered_mom is offline  
#68 of 106 Old 01-19-2007, 04:54 PM
 
ChristaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I can edit it . I was just throwing out random animal fats that I imagine would freak out people who don't follow an NT diet -- not really giving a lot of thought to the actual breakdown of saturated vs unsat fat -- sorry.
ChristaN is offline  
#69 of 106 Old 01-19-2007, 05:01 PM
 
pampered_mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Somewhere short of crazy
Posts: 4,535
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It's ok. It's just a common misconception (as is the fact that folks think a "saturated" fat is only comprised of saturated fats)!
pampered_mom is offline  
#70 of 106 Old 01-19-2007, 08:34 PM - Thread Starter
 
RawVeganMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: still in Las Vegas.. sigh
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mommay View Post
A book review of The China Study, written by Norman C. Shealy, Ph.D. Citation: THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE
Volume 11, Number 6, 2005, pp. 1117–1119

This is a very reputable journal and can be found in most research libraries. I happen to have access because I am in academia. Let me know if I can send you the whole file.

Here is an exerpt, the first paragraph of the review:
For such a reputable journal, I think they got their facts wrong..

I seem to remember reading in the book he says less then 10% protein from animal sources. He said you can eat all the plant protein you like. The animals that did, healed or were not able to get the cancer even at 20% protein.

BUT he says you don't need more then 10% protein in your diet.

Someone correct me if i'm wrong.
RawVeganMom is offline  
#71 of 106 Old 01-19-2007, 11:44 PM
 
ChristaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mommay View Post
I didn't want to let this pass. There has been a number of discussions about heart disease and saturated fats. I gave the French as an example in a previous thread. They eat 4 times the amount of butter, 60% more cheese, and 3 times the amount of pork than Americans with low incidence of coronary heart disease. In America, heart disease is the number 1 killer. I know Furhman is someone who frowns upon eating saturated fats even amongst children. But many other "experts" do encourage children to eat a high fat, high cholesterol diet. My own opinion is that that be extended throughout one's life. Other examples defy the logic in this country that saturated fats causes heart disease.

But if you have evidence to the contrary, then sure, you should open it up for discussion! You would be doing us a favor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_paradox
I don't believe that science has concluded that the fact that French people suffer less heart disease indicates that saturated fats from animal sources are healthy. As the wikipedia link you provided mentions, the fact that they eat less, exercise more and lead a less high stress lifestyle are all other possible explanations, however those are not proven at this point either.

The Harvard Nurses study, an ongoing prospective study that has been following thousands of nurses for 30 years, has repeatedly published findings that saturated fat consumption among the women they are following increases risk of heart disease and cancer. They did also find, as I'm sure we can all agree, that transfats are worse for your health than are saturated fats.

I'll post just a few links, but if you google "Harvard Nurses' Health Study and fats," you will come up with a lot more.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/...ct/337/21/1491

Quote:
Each increase of 5 percent of energy intake from saturated fat, as compared with equivalent energy intake from carbohydrates, was associated with a 17 percent increase in the risk of coronary disease...Our findings suggest that replacing saturated and trans unsaturated fats with unhydrogenated monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats is more effective in preventing coronary heart disease in women than reducing overall fat intake.
This one discusses breast CA risk relative to fat consumption:

Quote:
Intakes of both saturated and monounsaturated fat were related to modestly elevated breast cancer risk. Among food groups contributing to animal fat, red meat and high-fat dairy foods were each associated with an increased risk of breast cancer...Intake of animal fat, mainly from red meat and high-fat dairy foods, during premenopausal years is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.
ChristaN is offline  
#72 of 106 Old 01-20-2007, 12:54 AM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristaN View Post
I've said this in the past, but my dh's family were Italian immigrants who followed a pretty "traditional" diet -- eggs and veggies from grandpa's little farm, meat from dad's butcher shop (which he got from the guy who raised cattle in a field a few miles away -- i.e. grass fed), pretty whole foods omni. They all died very, very young from heart disease and colon cancer. In fact, dh was orphaned by the age of 13 as both of his parents and all of his grandparents were dead by then.
Personally, I wonder how much trans-fats and grains they were eating, as well as pasteurized & homogenized dairy. Heart disease was extremely rare in this country until the 30s, and even Price mentions this fact in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. Everyone in this country up to that point ate tons of eggs, raw milk, grass-fed meat, and until the 30s the cooking fat of choice was lard. Afterwards, Crisco became very popular, because it was quite cheap. If meat and saturated fat caused heart disease, then the Masai would show signs of problems, and they don't (as long as they follow their traditional diet).

From The Doctor’s Heart Cure

"From World War I to the 1980s, the death rate from heart attack increased while fat intake declined. In the United States, the death rate from cardiovascular disease increased about tenfold between 1930 and 1960! During that time, the consumption of animal fat declined. If the dietary fat model was correct, the heart attack rate should have declined in keeping with the decline in consumption of fat.

Additional studies shoot down this theory. In the 1960s, researchers from Vanderbilt University studied the Masai tribe in Kenya. These slender shepherds drink about a half gallon of whole milk each day, and they feast on as much as four to ten pounds of meat on occasions. If dietary fat caused high cholesterol and heart disease, the Masai would have sky-high lipid levels and high rates of heart disease, but they have neither. The researchers found that the Masai have exceedingly low rates of heart disease and low cholesterol levels, about 50 percent lower than most Americans do."

Chicharronita is offline  
#73 of 106 Old 01-20-2007, 01:00 AM
 
melissa17s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ia
Posts: 2,158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RawVeganMom View Post
For such a reputable journal, I think they got their facts wrong..

I seem to remember reading in the book he says less then 10% protein from animal sources. He said you can eat all the plant protein you like. The animals that did, healed or were not able to get the cancer even at 20% protein.

BUT he says you don't need more then 10% protein in your diet.

Someone correct me if i'm wrong.
I agree with your summary RawVeganMom- that is what I understood, too.
melissa17s is offline  
#74 of 106 Old 01-20-2007, 04:28 AM
 
pampered_mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Somewhere short of crazy
Posts: 4,535
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ooooo....studies! Gotta love those unbiased "scientific" studies.

There was one published in the JAMA in 2006 investigating the effects of low-fat diets on the risk of cardiovascular disease. They found:

Quote:
Over a mean of 8.1 years, a dietary intervention that reduced total fat intake and increased intakes of vegetables, fruits, and grains did not significantly reduce the risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD in postmenopausal women and achieved only modest effects on CVD risk factors, suggesting that more focused diet and lifestyle interventions may be needed to improve risk factors and reduce CVD risk.
Gotta love the second part. It's kind of like "well, we did the study and we didn't end up with findings that supported our hypothesis so rather than admit that our hypothesis was wrong we'll just say that we obviously needed to do more in order for our expected results to occur."

And on breast cancer - there was a recent study in JAMA last year looking at the effect of low-fat diets on breast cancer where they found:

Quote:
Among postmenopausal women, a low-fat dietary pattern did not result in a statistically significant reduction in invasive breast cancer risk over an 8.1-year average follow-up period. However, the nonsignificant trends observed suggesting reduced risk associated with a low-fat dietary pattern indicate that longer, planned, nonintervention follow-up may yield a more definitive comparison.
Oh those nonsignificant trends...they certainly can't mean that the hypothesis is wrong! Maybe we weren't trying hard enough!

Then we could also look at the study published in the Dec 20, 2006 Journal of the National Cancer Institute. I had a link to the actual study, but can't seem to locate it at this point and really want to go to bed. For now I'll have to link to a news story, but will try to update with the link to the actual study when I can find it.

What was most interesting was their findings:

Quote:
lowering fat intake was strongly associated with lower risk of recurrence, but only for the kind of breast cancer that is not sensitive to hormones (estrogen-negative breast cancer.) Among WINS participants with tumors that contain receptors for hormones (estrogen-positive breast cancer), however, reducing fat intake had little protective effect.
From what I understand the majority of breast cancer cases are senstive to hormones (estrogen-positive). What I find most interesting is that even though the study found that low-fat diets have no impact on estrogen-positive breast cancer they still suggest that:

Quote:
In light of the total available evidence on diet and breast cancer risk, AICR advises all breast cancer survivors, regardless of their receptor status, to adopt diets high in vegetables, fruits, whole grains and beans and low in animal fat.
We can all quote studies until the cows come home (figuratively), but it won't make things any clearer. It's easy to quote the studies that we like and pretend that it's all crystal clear, but quite frankly it's not. To quote ChristaN herself:

Quote:
My point was that you have a selected body of information that you choose to believe and are willing to ignore or discount the studies that say otherwise...
I would hazard a guess that the same is true for the folks doing the studies themselves. They have a "selected body of information" that they themselves believe to be true and even when the data comes back as insignificant or inconclusive it's not that the hypothesis is wrong - it's just that they need more time, or better counseling of study participants, or ...

To quote Dr. Uffe Ravnskov:

Quote:
...if a scientific hypothesis is sound, it must agree with all observations. A hypothesis is not like a sports event, where the team with the greatest number of points wins the game. Even one observation that does not support a hypothesis is enough to disprove it.
Of course that leaves us in a pickle. You've got your studies and I've got mine. Both seem to support contradictory hypothesis. Which one is right? That's probably the million dollar question. If the "great minds" of this century (funded in large part by big businesses) can't figure it out as conclusively as we might think they do, I don't expect that we will either.

*sigh* Who would think something as simple as feeding your family could get so darned complicated?
pampered_mom is offline  
#75 of 106 Old 01-20-2007, 11:23 AM
 
ChristaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,229
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post
Personally, I wonder how much trans-fats and grains they were eating, as well as pasteurized & homogenized dairy. Heart disease was extremely rare in this country until the 30s, and even Price mentions this fact in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. Everyone in this country up to that point ate tons of eggs, raw milk, grass-fed meat, and until the 30s the cooking fat of choice was lard. Afterwards, Crisco became very popular, because it was quite cheap. If meat and saturated fat caused heart disease, then the Masai would show signs of problems, and they don't (as long as they follow their traditional diet).
Of course this is second hand (from dh and his siblings), but in re to trans-fats they would say little to none. They did not eat packaged, processed foods and mom never used Crisco for anything. They did eat grains, but not white bread. DH says that he was always embarrassed by his thick bread sandwiches sliced from whole loaves of Italian bread with meat and veggies when the other kids were eating PB&J on Wonder bread. I don't know about pasteurization of any milk they were drinking. Dh does not recall drinking much milk and his sister says that she was breastfed until 4 and all of the siblings were bf for quite a while. They did eat a reasonable amount of cheese, though -- mostly parmesan and other Italian cheeses.

To me, it is as troublesome for us to try to discount any health ails suffered by families eating "traditionally" to them not doing it right as it is for veg*ns to discount any health ails suffered by former veg*ns to the same. I could argue the same thing on the other side -- was that vegan who was having trouble eating a whole foods diet, GMO soy, transfats?

Did not also WAPF member and TF follower, Stephen Byrnes, die from a stroke at the age of 40something in 2004? Presumably he was not doing it wrong in that I understand he was a nutrition advisor for WAPF.
ChristaN is offline  
#76 of 106 Old 01-20-2007, 12:28 PM
 
pampered_mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Somewhere short of crazy
Posts: 4,535
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Of course if we want to talk about Italians who eat all the "wrong" things according to modern dietary "wisdom" we could always look at the Baus.

They:

Quote:
tend to have excessive levels of cholesterol, triglycerides and blood sugar. But none of the usual related problems in spite of a diet that health-conscious Americans would never contemplate.
Of course my favorite part of the article:

Quote:
The Baus were discovered by a foundation studying rare diseases, and research indicates the key to their health may be genetic.

"It's not true that they didn't have disease," said Dr. Ures Hladnik of the Baschirotto Institute for Rare Diseases. "They have less of it."

The researchers think the contradictions could mean our obsession with cholesterol is off the mark.

"Maybe the enemy could someplace else, and maybe the Baus could show us one of those enemies," Dr. Hladnik said.
pampered_mom is offline  
#77 of 106 Old 01-20-2007, 12:53 PM
 
Chanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Between here and there
Posts: 3,133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I just want to point out that a traditional Italian diet is in NO way the same as an NT diet.

Italians have some of the highest levels of celiacs in the world. Next to the Irish. There are so many factors that affect what we eat and how we digest it. I find it hard to imagine that there is any one diet that is perfect for everyone. It just does not make sense from an evolutionary perspective.
Chanley is offline  
#78 of 106 Old 01-20-2007, 12:54 PM
 
pampered_mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Somewhere short of crazy
Posts: 4,535
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I know earlier in this thread there was discussion somewhat along the lines that only the WAPF thinks that soy is really all that bad for you. I thought folks here might be interested to know of a recent development with the American Heart Association withdrawing their support for soy's benefits for warding off heart disease. You can read one of many articles about it.

The high points:

Quote:
An American Heart Association committee reviewed a decade of studies on soy's benefits and came up with results that are now casting doubt on the health claim that soy-based foods and supplements significantly lower cholesterol.
Quote:
The committee members reviewed 22 studies and found that large amounts of dietary soy protein only reduced LDL, or "bad" cholesterol, about 3 percent and had no effect on HDL, or "good" cholesterol, or on blood pressure.
Of course they still think people should eat these because of modern medicine's and industrial food's love affair with polyunsaturates. I always love the dire predictions of high cholesterol if you eat the saturated fats instead. I'm positive that you can't make that claim for everyone.
pampered_mom is offline  
#79 of 106 Old 01-20-2007, 01:02 PM
 
pampered_mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Somewhere short of crazy
Posts: 4,535
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristaN View Post
Did not also WAPF member and TF follower, Stephen Byrnes, die from a stroke at the age of 40something in 2004? Presumably he was not doing it wrong in that I understand he was a nutrition advisor for WAPF.
You and I both know that there are a lot of factors to be considered outside of diet in this case and others. Put a man under a lot of stress and it can certainly do a number on your body. I also don't know much about his gene pool that could have predisposed him for stroke.

I could start listing the names of veg*n folks who died early. It's all anecdotal at best. Am I correct in assuming that you wouldn't assert that folks who followed the best veg*n diet possible never die young from things like stroke or chd?
pampered_mom is offline  
#80 of 106 Old 01-20-2007, 01:20 PM
 
Gale Force's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Nestled in the Sierras
Posts: 5,010
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Byrnes had AIDS and, apparently, the stroke was related. But I certainly don't know the family, so I don't know for sure.

I think the last thing we should do here is to pick apart the deaths of famous/infamous people and relate them to their diet. All sides are guilty of it. Sally Fallon is the queen. She has a review of Christine Northrup's book and talks about her current thyroid problems. The thyroid is sensitive to heavy metal toxicities and this world is a toxic place. There are many reasons your thyroid activity might be depressed (though mine has been improved with micronutrients).

I think we are all going to have to struggle to be healthy in this world, regardless of our diet.

So to kick someone when they are down, especially publicly, is mean IMO. And I could come up with examples from all sides, so I am not blaming anyone. I would just like to see less of it.

Edited: I just looked at the Northrup review on the WAPF site and don't see what I'm referring to. I may be confusing it with another review or perhaps it's been edited. Either way, I'm glad it's not there.

Amanda

Amanda Rose, author, Rebuild From Depression: A Nutrient Guide. Don't miss this opportunity to build a business telling friends about probiotic foods and grass fed meats: Beyond Organic Review.

Gale Force is offline  
#81 of 106 Old 01-20-2007, 01:48 PM
 
Mommay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here to There
Posts: 885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristaN View Post
I've said this in the past, but my dh's family were Italian immigrants who followed a pretty "traditional" diet -- eggs and veggies from grandpa's little farm, meat from dad's butcher shop (which he got from the guy who raised cattle in a field a few miles away -- i.e. grass fed), pretty whole foods omni. They all died very, very young from heart disease and colon cancer. In fact, dh was orphaned by the age of 13 as both of his parents and all of his grandparents were dead by then. We are all looking at what works for us and for our own families. That doesn't mean that we can state that all omnis or all veg*ns are uninformed and destined to have sickly, stunted children.
Sorry to hear that. I might have come to the same conclusion if I were in your shoes. But I think some others have made good points in addressing some of the issues related to this.

As for saturated fats, I defer to pampered mom's research. But let me also point out that ANY research about animal proteins in this country is based on CONVENTIONAL meat diets. There are no studies still comparing a veggie diet and an omni diet of those who eat pasture-fed meat. That would seem to make a big difference in this debate, since neither side advocates partaking in conventional food practices.

I'm sorry ChristaN if it seems I'm picking on you. I have to admit that I would not dare say some of the things that I do about veg*nism around my veg*n friends irl, who are the vast majority amongst my circles of friends. Although I'm sympathetic to the veg*ns on this board who say that they are dissed by friends and families, I'm sorry, but in crunchy circles, it's the omni's that are the minority. I bite my tongue for the reasons you state - it would be totally out of line to tell my friends that they are not doing their best in terms of their choices. But this board is different. We should be able to discuss the issues as broadly as possible. Isn't that why we're here (in part)? In any case, I personally don't approach the discussions here the way I do with my friends. But I also have to say that my raw, veggie friends have the most youthful glow to their appearance. So hey, if appearances have anything to say, raw veg*nism seems to be the way to go! But people say I'm youthful for my age too, so maybe it's just about eating well, which I get the feeling is something all of us are doing for the most part.

Sorry for droning, but lastly, the one sticking point I have about veg*nism is that it is a practice that was introduced only decades ago. So humans evolved over millions of years eating a certain way, and then a handful of people decide they are going to abstain from one of the most key nutritional boosts that humans had (in terms of brain growth, etc.). I just think if someone is going to experiment and go against a diet backed by millions of years of evolution, they should tread very carefully. Some NT'ers feel the same way about supplementing a lack of meat in one's diet as they do about using formula rather than bm. What if we need meat as much as any omnivore does? Doesn't biology and evolution determine such things?

Thanks to everyone for the links. Let me go and check them out. I really do feel grateful for all the lessons on this board. No where else can we find this stuff out in such a concentrated form. You mama's rock!
Mommay is offline  
#82 of 106 Old 01-20-2007, 01:57 PM
 
Mommay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here to There
Posts: 885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RawVeganMom View Post
For such a reputable journal, I think they got their facts wrong..

I seem to remember reading in the book he says less then 10% protein from animal sources. He said you can eat all the plant protein you like. The animals that did, healed or were not able to get the cancer even at 20% protein.

BUT he says you don't need more then 10% protein in your diet.

Someone correct me if i'm wrong.
Shealy's wording is "by recommending a 10% protein diet, of which 100% is of plant origin," so I don't see what the problem you're having with it is. I do think that your quoting my evaluation that it is a reputable journal and then insinuating it's not is quite suggestive. Why wouldn't you point out the passages in the text itself?
Mommay is offline  
#83 of 106 Old 01-20-2007, 03:49 PM
 
melissa17s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ia
Posts: 2,158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mommay View Post
Shealy's wording is "by recommending a 10% protein diet, of which 100% is of plant origin," so I don't see what the problem you're having with it is. I do think that your quoting my evaluation that it is a reputable journal and then insinuating it's not is quite suggestive. Why wouldn't you point out the passages in the text itself?
The problem is that that is not what Campbell recommends. Campbell says you can have all of the plant protein you want in your diet, but if you eat more than 10% animal protein you can be at risk for cancer if you have been expose triggers, such as toxins. The average American diet tends to be above 20% animal products. Note not all of these people will get cancer or they may not get it before the onset of other things that could lead to their demise, but if they have been exposed to the trigger than it really ups their chances.
melissa17s is offline  
#84 of 106 Old 01-20-2007, 03:50 PM
 
melissa17s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ia
Posts: 2,158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Could we do a role call out of the people participating in this thread, how many of you have read the book?
melissa17s is offline  
#85 of 106 Old 01-20-2007, 04:36 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pampered_mom View Post
It's ok. It's just a common misconception (as is the fact that folks think a "saturated" fat is only comprised of saturated fats)!
I'm only just coming out of the fat confusion myself. I've had to read Mary Enig's Know Your Fats," written for the "layperson." Well this layperson felt that her butt was being kicked by all the biochemical references and 2 and 3-D representations of all the fat molecules (those pictures are supposed to show you something, but they just made my head hurt). :

Chicharronita is offline  
#86 of 106 Old 01-20-2007, 04:38 PM
 
rayo de sol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,031
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristaN View Post
The Harvard Nurses study, an ongoing prospective study that has been following thousands of nurses for 30 years, has repeatedly published findings that saturated fat consumption among the women they are following increases risk of heart disease and cancer.
I went to the Harvard School of Public Health and found articles stating the exact opposite of what you claim above. Here's excerpts from one to give you a general idea (my emphasis):

Quote:
Low-Fat Diet Not a Cure-All
Results from large, long Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial shows no effect on heart disease, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, or weight.

The low-fat, high-starch diet that was the focus of dietary advice during the 1990s-as reflected by the USDA food guide pyramid-is dying out. A growing body of evidence has been pointing to its inadequacy for weight loss or prevention of heart disease and several cancers. The final nail in the coffin comes from an eight-year trial that included almost 49,000 women.
Quote:
The results, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, showed no benefits for a low-fat diet. Women assigned to this eating strategy did not appear to gain protection against breast cancer,(1) colorectal cancer,(2) or cardiovascular disease.(3) And after eight years, their weights were generally the same as those of women following their usual diets.(4)
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio...e/low_fat.html
rayo de sol is offline  
#87 of 106 Old 01-20-2007, 04:41 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chanley View Post
I just want to point out that a traditional Italian diet is in NO way the same as an NT diet.

Italians have some of the highest levels of celiacs in the world. Next to the Irish. There are so many factors that affect what we eat and how we digest it. I find it hard to imagine that there is any one diet that is perfect for everyone. It just does not make sense from an evolutionary perspective.
I agree. They tend to have a grain-heavy diet. As for evolution, did you see my posts about the debate between Loren Cordain and Campbell?

Chicharronita is offline  
#88 of 106 Old 01-20-2007, 04:56 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gale Force View Post
Byrnes had AIDS and, apparently, the stroke was related. But I certainly don't know the family, so I don't know for sure.
Not only that—this is truly tragic—in the last few years before his death, he was being hounded by a stalker, the Hawaiian Dept. of Health, and had been cheated out of enormous sums of money. Before his site went down, there was an article about how he hadn't been able to eat as well as he normally did, in addition to having severe insomnia due to all the stress. Poor guy.

Quote:
I think the last thing we should do here is to pick apart the deaths of famous/infamous people and relate them to their diet. All sides are guilty of it. Sally Fallon is the queen. She has a review of Christine Northrup's book and talks about her current thyroid problems. The thyroid is sensitive to heavy metal toxicities and this world is a toxic place. There are many reasons your thyroid activity might be depressed (though mine has been improved with micronutrients).
That's not very nice...although I have to admit I hold a grudge against Northrup, because it was from reading Women's Bodies, Women's Wisdom that led me to severely cut down on meat, cut out dairy, go low-fat, and eat tons of soy which led to my health problems.



Quote:
So to kick someone when they are down, especially publicly, is mean IMO. And I could come up with examples from all sides, so I am not blaming anyone. I would just like to see less of it.
Look at the fiasco and lies that came out when Atkins died! Sheesh.

Quote:
Edited: I just looked at the Northrup review on the WAPF site and don't see what I'm referring to. I may be confusing it with another review or perhaps it's been edited. Either way, I'm glad it's not there.
You're right. I did a search there and didn't find anything either.

Chicharronita is offline  
#89 of 106 Old 01-20-2007, 05:06 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mommay View Post
Sorry to hear that. I might have come to the same conclusion if I were in your shoes. But I think some others have made good points in addressing some of the issues related to this.
I had wanted to add that I was sorry to hear about Christa's dh's family's health problems, too, to my post replying to her about their diet, but had to get off the computer suddenly.

Quote:
As for saturated fats, I defer to pampered mom's research. But let me also point out that ANY research about animal proteins in this country is based on CONVENTIONAL meat diets. There are no studies still comparing a veggie diet and an omni diet of those who eat pasture-fed meat. That would seem to make a big difference in this debate, since neither side advocates partaking in conventional food practices.
Absolutely! But who would fund such research?


Quote:
I'm sorry ChristaN if it seems I'm picking on you. I have to admit that I would not dare say some of the things that I do about veg*nism around my veg*n friends irl, who are the vast majority amongst my circles of friends. Although I'm sympathetic to the veg*ns on this board who say that they are dissed by friends and families, I'm sorry, but in crunchy circles, it's the omni's that are the minority. I bite my tongue for the reasons you state - it would be totally out of line to tell my friends that they are not doing their best in terms of their choices.
That is my plight too! It's the reason why I don't use my "real" name here, because many of my veg. friends are frequently reading these posts. I would never say the things I say here to them IRL. It's kind of a freeing feeling to get to post exactly what I think here.

Quote:
Sorry for droning, but lastly, the one sticking point I have about veg*nism is that it is a practice that was introduced only decades ago. So humans evolved over millions of years eating a certain way, and then a handful of people decide they are going to abstain from one of the most key nutritional boosts that humans had (in terms of brain growth, etc.). I just think if someone is going to experiment and go against a diet backed by millions of years of evolution, they should tread very carefully. Some NT'ers feel the same way about supplementing a lack of meat in one's diet as they do about using formula rather than bm. What if we need meat as much as any omnivore does? Doesn't biology and evolution determine such things?
I agree; well put.

Chicharronita is offline  
#90 of 106 Old 01-20-2007, 05:07 PM
 
xenabyte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Colorado Mountains
Posts: 2,037
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Please remember in the MDC UA, it says:

Quote:
Do not post to debate or challenge the MDC User Agreement, or the moderators, administrators, or their actions.

Constructive criticism and questions for purposes of clarification are best addressed directly to the moderator or administrator by private message or personal e-mail. If this is not successful, see Recourse.

Given these guidelines, we encourage friendly debate, socializing, and good humor. Thank you for becoming part of our online community.
If you have a post in this debate thread regarding the prior thread, comments about the Mods/Admins actions, or a post refering to a post about that, please self edit [delete it], or I or another Mod/Admin will have to pull those posts.

Thanks and have a good one!
xenabyte is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off