Have you read this? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 36 Old 12-27-2006, 11:50 AM - Thread Starter
 
ChristaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,234
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I know that we cannot discuss negatively other dietary choices, so please tread lightly. I am wondering, though, if others here have read this? http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/c...a_response.htm
ChristaN is offline  
#2 of 36 Old 12-28-2006, 03:54 AM
 
kaydee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hither & Yon
Posts: 2,510
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Useful! Thanks! :
kaydee is offline  
#3 of 36 Old 12-28-2006, 10:05 AM
 
Anna06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Anna06 is offline  
#4 of 36 Old 12-28-2006, 10:43 AM
 
whateverdidiwants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Exiled in Bi-ville
Posts: 3,056
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Bookmarked it - thanks!
whateverdidiwants is offline  
#5 of 36 Old 12-28-2006, 11:01 AM
 
veganf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Framingham, MA
Posts: 8,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Very interesting. Thank you!

milk donation : mother to Ryan (6), AJ (5), Nate (2), Maia (1) all born at home, I have a kid-friendly food & bento blog, : :
veganf is offline  
#6 of 36 Old 12-28-2006, 05:53 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristaN View Post
I know that we cannot discuss negatively other dietary choices, so please tread lightly. I am wondering, though, if others here have read this? http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/c...a_response.htm
You don't have to tread lightly, as far as I'm concerned. However, please do know that Campbell and Masterjohn communicated privately by e-mail, and Campbell made public what was in them in this article. Not only that, but he doesn't address Masterjohn's well-written critical review of "The China Study" (available at http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html), and instead resorts to ad hominem attacks (he says that Masterjohn is young, inexperienced, blah blah, but in fact Masterjohn is a pre-med student who has published a medical hypothesis paper, available at: http://tinyurl.com/y5crbc).

He also brings up Sally Fallon's English degree, as if that makes her not qualified to be able to read medical abstracts or think and write critically (kind of like mainstream doctors who dismiss us mothers and our criticisms of their profession since we have no medical background). Strangely, or not, he is silent about Dr. Mary Enig, co-writer of "Nourishing Traditions" and other WAPF articles and a well-respected nutrition researcher.

Chicharronita is offline  
#7 of 36 Old 12-28-2006, 09:01 PM
 
LavenderMae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: where I write my own posts!
Posts: 13,477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks!!!

OUR DAUGHTERS ARE PROTECTED SHOULDN'T OUR SONS BE TOO! :
LavenderMae is offline  
#8 of 36 Old 12-28-2006, 09:34 PM
 
christacular's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: the hills of the chankly bore
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i really find the information about how t. colin campbell did a complete 180 degree turn from his dairy farm roots and belief in the healthfulness of animal proteins to be very compelling. it's not easy to turn your back on what you were basically raised to believe about food like that; especially when it is your family's source of income. you have to admire someone who can face the data and study results and instead of trying to twist it all to fit their agenda, keep their mind open and even change their stance.

i also think it's hilarious how campbell, through his links with the PCRM (and their link to PeTA) has been called a "domestic terrorist via association"...and people think he is the one flinging ad hominem attacks around. ha.
christacular is offline  
#9 of 36 Old 12-28-2006, 11:12 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by christacular View Post
i really find the information about how t. colin campbell did a complete 180 degree turn from his dairy farm roots and belief in the healthfulness of animal proteins to be very compelling. it's not easy to turn your back on what you were basically raised to believe about food like that; especially when it is your family's source of income. you have to admire someone who can face the data and study results and instead of trying to twist it all to fit their agenda, keep their mind open and even change their stance.
I'm more concerned about some of the nutritional errors he makes in his books (for instance on page, 20 he says, "Folic acid is a compound derived EXCLUSIVELY from plant-based foods[...]"). He has never answered critics about errors like these, and this is one of the minor ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by christacular View Post
i also think it's hilarious how campbell, through his links with the PCRM (and their link to PeTA) has been called a "domestic terrorist via association"...and people think he is the one flinging ad hominem attacks around. ha.
I assume you're talking about Masterjohn's review of "The China Study"? If so, he was quoting what other organizations said about PCRM. Read again. The quote is:

"Fast forward to the present. Campbell is now on the advisory board of the Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine,2 which describes itself as “a nonprofit organization that promotes preventive medicine, conducts clinical research, and encourages higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in research,”3 but whose pro-vegan agenda reflects its ties to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and other animal rights groups, including, according to Newsweek, Stop Hunting and Animal Cruelty, which the Department of Justice calls a “domestic terrorist threat.”4" (italics mine)

I think Masterjohn's review was quite respectful, but I hear he's in the process of re-writing the review, perhaps to reflect the fact that Campbell is not above using personal correspondence to attack people publicly with the information. For someone who has all the trappings of public success and accolades, I find it very curious that he sinks to such shady actions.

Chicharronita is offline  
#10 of 36 Old 12-28-2006, 11:24 PM
 
christacular's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: the hills of the chankly bore
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
whether or not it's a quote, it's pretty shady to repeat it. also you totally paraphrased what campbell said about masterjohn. he did not call him "young and inexperienced". he said he was 24, and not a nutritional research scientist. neither of those seem like ad hominem attacks - rather, facts - ...but linking campbell to domestic terrorists, whether by quote or not, does.
christacular is offline  
#11 of 36 Old 12-28-2006, 11:29 PM
 
christacular's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: the hills of the chankly bore
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post
I'm more concerned about some of the nutritional errors he makes in his books (for instance on page, 20 he says, "Folic acid is a compound derived EXCLUSIVELY from plant-based foods[...]"). He has never answered critics about errors like these, and this is one of the minor ones.
well, i'm no nutritional research scientist, but i believe that the only non-plant source of folic acid is liver, and that's because the animals who's livers you'd eat, get it from plant foods and store it in that particular organ.
christacular is offline  
#12 of 36 Old 12-28-2006, 11:46 PM
 
beanma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: with the dustbunnies & sugar beans
Posts: 8,159
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
interesting.

have any of y'all read "eat, drink and be healthy" by walter willet, phD harvard School of Public Health. it was a NY Times bestseller 5 yrs ago or so. he makes the case for good fats, but not sat fats. he's in charge of the long running nurses health study II and the book is based on the findings from it and the nurses study I. i think it would fall in line with the china study book. i only had time to skim the article right now, but will go back and read it more thoroughly later i hope.

Mamatreehugger.gif to two girl beans, Feb 2001hearts.gif and Nov 2003coolshine.gif . DH geek.gif, and two crazydog2.gifdog2.gif . Running on biodiesel since 2004!
 
"All you fascists are bound to lose" — Woody Guthrie
beanma is online now  
#13 of 36 Old 12-28-2006, 11:48 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by christacular View Post
whether or not it's a quote, it's pretty shady to repeat it.
Well, that's a different issue from saying that Masterjohn had called Campbell part of a domestic terrorist organization, when he hadn't. How shady, anyway? There's a connection between the organizations that's been commented on, and Masterjohn was repeating it. *shrug* I think it was legitimate in the context of the review, because Campbell disingenuously tries to paint himself as this totally unbiased reviewer, when CLEARLY he is anything but.

Quote:
Originally Posted by christacular View Post
also you totally paraphrased what campbell said about masterjohn. he did not call him "young and inexperienced". he said he was 24, and not a nutritional research scientist. neither of those seem like ad hominem attacks - rather, facts - ...but linking campbell to domestic terrorists, whether by quote or not, does.
My point is that Campbell, instead of answering the legitimate issues Masterjohn brings up about the book in his review, talks about Masterjohn's youthfulness and inexperience. What does that have to do with anything? What does Fallon's having an English degree have to do with anything for that matter? It sure looks like he's trying to discredit anyone who criticizes him or his book.

Chicharronita is offline  
#14 of 36 Old 12-28-2006, 11:52 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by christacular View Post
well, i'm no nutritional research scientist, but i believe that the only non-plant source of folic acid is liver, and that's because the animals who's livers you'd eat, get it from plant foods and store it in that particular organ.
That's different from saying that the ONLY food source of folic acid comes from plants.

I don't know if you've read the book, but in the very next line he goes on to say, "Homocysteine is an amino acid that is derived primarily from animal protein." In the context of these two sentences, it's pretty clear he is saying the former comes ONLY from plants and the latter is mainly from animal protein.

Chicharronita is offline  
#15 of 36 Old 12-29-2006, 12:02 AM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by beanma View Post
have any of y'all read "eat, drink and be healthy" by walter willet, phD harvard School of Public Health. it was a NY Times bestseller 5 yrs ago or so. he makes the case for good fats, but not sat fats.
Sounds vaguely familiar, but I'm rather tired of hearing about how "evil" saturated fat is. It, along with eliminating soy from my diet, is what caused a 180 degree turn in my health from bad to good. I'm also tired of the experts who claim that it's bad for you—they are NOT telling the whole story. I find the information contained in "The Great Cholesterol Con" and "Know Your Fats" a lot more compelling.

I can't wait for Gary Taubes' "A Big Fat Lie?" to come out in the spring. Apparently he's done writing it, but is having the 2,000 or so references thoroughly checked to forestall critics' dismissing it due to any errors.

Chicharronita is offline  
#16 of 36 Old 12-29-2006, 03:45 AM
 
kaydee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hither & Yon
Posts: 2,510
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post
Well, that's a different issue from saying that Masterjohn had called Campbell part of a domestic terrorist organization, when he hadn't. How shady, anyway? There's a connection between the organizations that's been commented on, and Masterjohn was repeating it. *shrug* I think it was legitimate in the context of the review, because Campbell disingenuously tries to paint himself as this totally unbiased reviewer, when CLEARLY he is anything but.
Wait...you truly don't see how trying to make a connection from Campbell organizations deemed "terrorists" by the government is a shady thing to do in a piece that's ostensibly about nutrition?

Saying Campbell has a vegan agenda is one thing. Saying (and even worse, coopting other people' words to insinuate it) he has a terrorist agenda is quite another.

kaydee is offline  
#17 of 36 Old 12-29-2006, 12:32 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaydee View Post
Wait...you truly don't see how trying to make a connection from Campbell organizations deemed "terrorists" by the government is a shady thing to do in a piece that's ostensibly about nutrition?
No, since the point Masterjohn was making is that Campbell is far from an impartial researcher like he claims in his book (and even in the vegsource.com rebuttal). What IS shady is Campbell using information from private e-mail correspondence with Masterjohn to attack him in a public forum.

Apart from that ONE sentence, the rest of the Masterjohn review is about the book. I wish I could say the same about Cambell's rebuttal on the vegsource.com—it's mostly about how Masterjohn, WAPF (and any other critic for that matter) supposedly don't have the credentials to review his book, rather than answering the specific, legitimate criticisms that have been brought up about it.

Chicharronita is offline  
#18 of 36 Old 12-29-2006, 01:28 PM
 
christacular's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: the hills of the chankly bore
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post
My point is that Campbell, instead of answering the legitimate issues Masterjohn brings up about the book in his review, talks about Masterjohn's youthfulness and inexperience. What does that have to do with anything? What does Fallon's having an English degree have to do with anything for that matter? It sure looks like he's trying to discredit anyone who criticizes him or his book.

well, that's not the impression i got from campbell's response. he was pointing out that the critics from wapf have taken a lot of things from the china study out of context and completely misinterpreted the raw, uncorrected data from it; which seems like mistakes the inexperienced would make. i think questioning a critic's credentials is rather a good point to make in this case; because having degrees and a long history in the nutritional research sciences certainly must help you to filter through and understand data relating to that field.

but there is a lot that veggies and nt'ers won't agree on and frankly, having this debate over and over again in this supposedly veggie-friendly forum is getting kind of tired.
christacular is offline  
#19 of 36 Old 12-29-2006, 02:01 PM
 
Selesai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Keeping it all together
Posts: 1,725
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by christacular View Post
but there is a lot that veggies and nt'ers won't agree on and frankly, having this debate over and over again in this supposedly veggie-friendly forum is getting kind of tired.
Selesai is offline  
#20 of 36 Old 12-29-2006, 03:36 PM
 
She2dancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Red Sox Nation
Posts: 1,041
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by christacular View Post
well, i'm no nutritional research scientist, but i believe that the only non-plant source of folic acid is liver, and that's because the animals who's livers you'd eat, get it from plant foods and store it in that particular organ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post
That's different from saying that the ONLY food source of folic acid comes from plants.
Not really, if the only reason the folic acid is in the liver is because the animal is getting it from a plant, then yes...folic acid would only come from plants...

Homeschooling catholic vegan Mama to my boysjumpers.gif Simon (7), Keegan (5), Ezra (2) and ??? due November
She2dancer is offline  
#21 of 36 Old 12-29-2006, 03:41 PM
 
She2dancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Red Sox Nation
Posts: 1,041
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by christacular View Post
well, that's not the impression i got from campbell's response. he was pointing out that the critics from wapf have taken a lot of things from the china study out of context and completely misinterpreted the raw, uncorrected data from it; which seems like mistakes the inexperienced would make. i think questioning a critic's credentials is rather a good point to make in this case; because having degrees and a long history in the nutritional research sciences certainly must help you to filter through and understand data relating to that field.
:

Homeschooling catholic vegan Mama to my boysjumpers.gif Simon (7), Keegan (5), Ezra (2) and ??? due November
She2dancer is offline  
#22 of 36 Old 12-29-2006, 04:17 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by christacular View Post
well, that's not the impression i got from campbell's response. he was pointing out that the critics from wapf have taken a lot of things from the china study out of context and completely misinterpreted the raw, uncorrected data from it; which seems like mistakes the inexperienced would make.
I can see how you would get that impression, especially if you believe what he says, and haven't read any of the reviews. However, notice how he doesn't discuss the correlations raised by his critics and doesn't explain how or why they're (allegedly) uncorrected? He doesn't refute one criticism made by Masterjohn or others at Amazon.com.

It's probably not a coincidence that other critical reviewers (like Anthony Colpo and Brad Marshall) who have done the number crunching from the monograph of the study have come up with similar figures that show that there's no or negligible correlation between protein intake and cancer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by christacular View Post
i think questioning a critic's credentials is rather a good point to make in this case; because having degrees and a long history in the nutritional research sciences certainly must help you to filter through and understand data relating to that field.
You're right, and that's generally true. However, I would hardly call Masterjohn, a pre-med student with well-written reviews on his cholesterol-and-health.com site in addition to a published paper in a journal, a scientific neophyte. And, again, it's pretty easy to go after Fallon and her English degree, but apparently much harder to nail Dr. Enig, whose credentials are on a par with Campbell's, which is probably why he doesn't mention her at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by christacular View Post
but there is a lot that veggies and nt'ers won't agree on and frankly, having this debate over and over again in this supposedly veggie-friendly forum is getting kind of tired.
It's fine not to agree, but I don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing a review as long as I'm respectful to other people on this forum. I don't know if it's just me, but it seems like "debate fatigue" sets in when some legitimate (hard-to-refute?) issues are brought up.

Chicharronita is offline  
#23 of 36 Old 12-29-2006, 04:20 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by She2dancer View Post
Not really, if the only reason the folic acid is in the liver is because the animal is getting it from a plant, then yes...folic acid would only come from plants...
True, but that's not what Cambell says in his book (see above).

Chicharronita is offline  
#24 of 36 Old 12-29-2006, 04:29 PM
AJP
 
AJP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: land of the fruits and nuts
Posts: 1,877
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by christacular View Post
well, i'm no nutritional research scientist, but i believe that the only non-plant source of folic acid is liver, and that's because the animals who's livers you'd eat, get it from plant foods and store it in that particular organ.
According to the list in the book Prescription for Nutritional Healing, the following animal foods contain "significant quantities" of folic acid:
beef, cheese, chicken, lamb, liver, milk, pork, salmon, and tuna. Other sources also say shellfish and eggs are good sources. (Along with all the plant sources listed too, of course.) It seems quite a gaffe to me to say that folic acid comes exclusively from plant sources. There are plenty of statements in which to poke holes from the sources quoted on both sides of this discussion, and both sides seem reluctant to address criticism in an impersonal, frank manner, but it seems clear to me that Campbell is not the impartial, fully-informed observer and analyst he claims to be.

*Note, I am not saying one must eat animal products in order to get good amounts of folic acid, but it is widely available in animal sources as well as plants.

There is no secret ingredient.
AJP is offline  
#25 of 36 Old 12-29-2006, 05:05 PM
 
nicole lisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post
It's fine not to agree, but I don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing a review as long as I'm respectful to other people on this forum.
You're not being respectful. The article was posted for those in support of veg ways. If debating the validity of the review and defending people and ideas who make some of us physically ill is of interest to you then it'd be cool to post the article on the NT board for everyone there to dissect and debate from that point of view. Some of us avoid not just the NT sub-forum but the nutrition and good eating main forum because of this.

This is the one space where we shouldn't have to read about meat and dairy being the cure all or debate our choices.
nicole lisa is offline  
#26 of 36 Old 12-29-2006, 05:09 PM
 
christacular's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: the hills of the chankly bore
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post
It's fine not to agree, but I don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing a review as long as I'm respectful to other people on this forum. I don't know if it's just me, but it seems like "debate fatigue" sets in when some legitimate (hard-to-refute?) issues are brought up.
the only issues you've brought up here are that you don't believe that campbell is unbiased. how can i debate that opinion? it is your opinion. i don't believe that masterjohn is unbiased. i think that you have an investment in his critiques of the china study because you have made particular choices for yourself and your diet; just as i have an investment in veganism. all i've read by either author is what has been presented in this thread. i have been vegan 10 years and raise my children that way and we are healthy, happy and feel content with our choices. you did not thrive on a vegan diet and so found something that worked for you. i don't crusade in the NT forum or pick apart their beliefs in what is healthful, though there is much, in my opinion, that i could do that with. however that courtesy is rarely extended to the vegans and vegetarians in our forum.
christacular is offline  
#27 of 36 Old 12-29-2006, 05:16 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicole lisa View Post
You're not being respectful. The article was posted for those in support of veg ways.
I don't agree that I'm not respectful; and as for the article being in suport of veg ways, I didn't get that from the OP.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nicole lisa View Post
If debating the validity of the review and defending people and ideas who make some of us physically ill is of interest to you then it'd be cool to post the article on the NT board for everyone there to dissect and debate from that point of view.
Good idea! I know the article has already been debated and reviewed on other forums.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nicole lisa View Post
Some of us avoid not just the NT sub-forum but the nutrition and good eating main forum because of this.
I didn't know that. I like to look at threads on this forum, because I like to see what you guys are thinking, and get some ideas about veg recipes. I didn't realize it was supposed to be a kind of censored group, even if my posts don't promote meat-eating per sé.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nicole lisa View Post
This is the one space where we shouldn't have to read about meat and dairy being the cure all or debate our choices.
True...but who said it was? And no one is debating your choices to abstain from meat & dairy (as far as I could see, unless I missed a post). I'm just debating the veracity of Campbell's book and his other writings, and thought people would be interested, especially since he's not forthcoming about a lot of things.

Chicharronita is offline  
#28 of 36 Old 12-29-2006, 05:29 PM
 
christacular's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: the hills of the chankly bore
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJP View Post
According to the list in the book Prescription for Nutritional Healing, the following animal foods contain "significant quantities" of folic acid:
beef, cheese, chicken, lamb, liver, milk, pork, salmon, and tuna. Other sources also say shellfish and eggs are good sources. (Along with all the plant sources listed too, of course.) It seems quite a gaffe to me to say that folic acid comes exclusively from plant sources. There are plenty of statements in which to poke holes from the sources quoted on both sides of this discussion, and both sides seem reluctant to address criticism in an impersonal, frank manner, but it seems clear to me that Campbell is not the impartial, fully-informed observer and analyst he claims to be.

*Note, I am not saying one must eat animal products in order to get good amounts of folic acid, but it is widely available in animal sources as well as plants.
i would like to know how the folic acid gets into the bodies of hebivorous animals, which are generally the ones people eat. i mean, can you claim that deer intestines are a good source of leafy greens because the deer eat leaves and store their nutrition in their stomachs?

again, as i said, i am not a nutritionist, but just as campbells' claim that folic acid is only found in plant matter seems disingenous, so is claiming that it can be gotten from animal products without mentioning that the animals only have it in their organs because they eat plant matter.
christacular is offline  
#29 of 36 Old 12-29-2006, 05:47 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,580
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by christacular View Post
the only issues you've brought up here are that you don't believe that campbell is unbiased. how can i debate that opinion? it is your opinion.
That's not true; I've also brought up how he doesn't really answer his critics.


Quote:
Originally Posted by christacular View Post
i don't crusade in the NT forum or pick apart their beliefs in what is healthful, though there is much, in my opinion, that i could do that with. however that courtesy is rarely extended to the vegans and vegetarians in our forum.
Hmmm, I'll have to think about that (am I crusading around?). As far as I'm concerned, I'm picking apart Cambell's article and book; is that not allowed on this forum? As I said before, I like to see what everyone's thinking, and find out what the latest is whether it's reviews or recipes (where else would I ever find the awesome idea of eating roasted carrots like hot dogs?!).

Chicharronita is offline  
#30 of 36 Old 12-29-2006, 05:48 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)
Most nutrients make their way into animal products via plants to begin with. The only exceptions I can think of are B12, vitamin D, and some fatty acids.

I think the Campbell argument was that low dietary folate is associated with high plasma homocysteine. High plasma homocysteine is associated with cancer. So low folate intake is related to cancer. He proceeded to argue that folate is only found in plants, so a plant-based diet would be richer than an animal-based diet in folate and, thus, would be more protective from cancer. In the context of this argument, it wouldn't matter where the folate in the animal liver came from, so long as it was bioavailable to the person eating it (and it is). The steer does get it from the plants and the human eating the steer liver obtains it from the liver. Masterjohn's point is that liver was a source of folate in traditional diets and that perhaps, then, that a diet with liver could be protective of cancer. I don't think he makes all of these points, but that's the idea. It's somewhat irrelevant to that argument that the steer got the folate from a plant. Steers get just about all of their nutrients from plants.

The other issue that Masterjohn didn't make directly is that in this country in any case, people on a plant-based diet are more likely to have higher plasma homocysteine levels. In the China data, high levels are apparently associated with cancer. I haven't seen the original study but the obvious question is why patterns of plasma homocysteine would be different in China than in the US. I don't know enough about the subject myself to have any idea why they would be different.

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  
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