I have been following the Raw food lifestyle for a number of years now ,and I know that for me, I have had a bumpy ride with various aspects of it.
This is not only in finding the best format and particular aspects, of how, I as an individual react to the food eating plan, but also the peripheral noise that surrounds the ideology of a raw foods lifestyle. If you read any more than one of my posts or articles you will note, that I will consistently refer to a raw foods lifestyle more so than a raw food diet, or do I call my self a raw foodist.
This stems from what I hope is an integrity consciousness of mine, that I hold some extremist views of vegan, raw food ideology at bay, and do not want to get into spewing forth rhetoric, that I have not personally experienced or feel confident in the science behind the information. That being said, things that I believed at first and have espoused, I have moderated, or now view differently.
Though I would hope that that is a good thing, as I would not like to be in a position where by I had to support something, I had lent a voice to because of either financial or ego based decisions.
One of the issues that have been rampant amongst the raw food fraternity this last few weeks has been the debate over Dr Campbell ‘The China Study’ book . For those who are not aware of this book, it is an oft quoted source for a vegan/ vegetable/ plant based diet,, using criteria collect by a large study project, and having been bought to a book form using peer reviewed methodology and what I perceive to be good science.
Now….. as a punter who does not understand the requirements of the scientific community and the methodology for understanding papers and scientific dissertations, I have to focus on what the debate and arguments means to me in real life.
The death of vegetarianism
So what is the take away from the hotly contested headlines in the meat eating camp that ” The death of vegetarian ethos has occurred” and the dancing on the supposed grave, of a lifestyle that supports a way of life, that requires not animal deaths and the conscious growing and use of resources .
Depending on who you listen to, the machinations of big business AKA the dairy, meat, chemical, pharma entity’s, will always be labeled as the bad guys,their track record does indicate that profits over people and the planet are indicative of their ethos.
So what is the fuss about ?
“The China Study” is a book that was published in 2006 by T. Colin Campbell and Thomas M. Campbell which details the journey of scientific discoveries and research into diet and disease over the past few decades. It comes referenced with hundreds of peer reviewed studies detailing why a plant based diet is recommended for optimal health.
“The China Project” is an epidemiological study undertaken in the 70s and 80s in China that ranged across 65 counties in an effort to understand diet and disease correlation. This study takes up only 1 of 18 chapters within “The China Study” book.
So what what are the key messages the china study conveys
From a vegan/vegetarian stand point, the message that is most ambivalent to vegan/vegetarian claims is the one that sees eating meat has a correlation to cancer and other mortality based diseases of humans the problem lays within interpretation of scientific data. As I stated unless you have a good understanding of raw data interpretations, and the unbiased way of observing and interpreting correlations of the statistics you are at the mercy of published findings presented in a manner the masses can understand.
The role of animal protein as a carcinogenic is not just one mans interpretation of data, but the research data is followed up with evidence obtained by many other laboratories, a sample of which is summarized in the book, perhaps the most important evidence of all, the clinical experiences of practicing physicians.
Is the china study considered to be good science
The china study is a book based around recognized scientific protocol using the china project raw data. the material has been peer reviewed and has the weight of respected authors from the scientific community.
If there is not good science it could be said to be found in the rebuttals and dissertations that seem to try and cast Dr Campbell as a quack and failing to follow recognized protocol observed in the submission of material such as is in the book. His experimental research extended well beyond the singular effects of animal protein and, through the years (all supported by NIH funding and documented in several hundred publications in well known professional journals) it included experimental studies on other nutrients, other mechanisms and other health/disease outcomes.
What arguments are there disputing the findings of the china study?
1. The Idea that saturated fat/animal fat doesn’t cause heart disease at all (skepticism of ‘lipid hypothesis’), rather it’s refined grains and sugars (compare to Denise’s assertion based on the China Project data that wheat is more pathogenic/carcinogenic than meat).
No scientist or argument is without bias. It’s just impossible to be 100% objective. But always look at two things
1. who funded the study,
2. what the agenda is,
many detractors of the book have links to organizations and ideals that slew them towards questionable assertions
2 The existence of healthy animal protein to counter Campbell’s assertion that all animal protein is carcinogenic.
Thousands of other studies conclude, that animal products when consumed in even moderate amounts such as 20 ounces a week can contribute to the development of chronic disease and are not health promoting.
Animals eat their macro nutrients; they don’t fabricate them from the air. All protein, all fat, and all carbs are made from soil and water with energy from the sun via photosynthesis. Animals then get all the fat, protein, and carbohydrates for energy from plants. Amino acids are the building blocks of protein. All animals, directly or indirectly, receive protein (amino acids) from plants.
Green vegetables (the soil) supplied the nitrogenous compounds to make the protein available in meat, so why put another load on the bodies digestive system by having to break down these elements to the amino acid.
3 raw/free-range/grass-fed animal products do not pose the same health problems as cooked/pasteurized/grain-fed/factory farmed varieties
This I would believe to be a moot point for my evaluation of any rebuttal of Campbell s or any other argument against the need for animal flesh to be part of a sustainable diet.
Given the animal agriculture sector’s considerable role in environmental degradation, zoonotic disease emergence, and chronic disease promotion, reducing livestock production and promoting healthy plant based diets should be a global health priority.Animal agriculture consumes 70% of the fresh water and contributes extensively to land, air, and water pollution. In the U.S., animal agriculture is responsible for 37% of pesticide use and32% and 33%, respectively, of the nitrogen and phosphorus loads found in fresh water sources. The combined environmental impact of animal agriculture has led the livestock sector to emerge as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.
4 vegan diets are inherently unsustainable and/or unhealthy
Additional findings only become more provocative and convincing that a diet comprised of plant-based foods created the best health on what seems to be all accounts. The effects in humans, as shown by practicing physicians that are aware is profound, Healthcare costs attributable to meat consumption are substantial, estimated in the U.S. at between $29 billion and $61 billion per year, in 1992 dollars.
In contrast, many studies suggest that those who consume plant-based diets have decreased risk, mortality, and/or progression of cardiovascular disease, diabetes,certain cancers, and obesity. Diets high in legumes, whole grains, fruits, and vegetables appear to be protective against these chronic diseases.
What are the key messages the china study conveys
Perhaps I can leave you with these words from Dr Campbell
On one final point, those who lament a “serious flaw” in The China Study mostly limit their arguments to the China project itself, as if this is all there is in our book. It is not. It is only one of the eighteen chapters.
These critics fail to note what Tom and I tried to do in writing the book. It was simply to tell the story in a way that I myself learned it, by using as much as possible my own first hand research and policy experiences that persuaded me, then let readers decide for themselves.
We simply asked that the reader to “try it” before making his/her final opinions. If my long years in research have told me anything that’s really important it is that we should be interpreting scientific evidence not as an absolute truth but as a component of a wider message within context. Deciding what is supposedly absolutely true is great for making money but it is not for making health.
As always………. Guys and Girls always look forward to……….
hearing……. WHAT YOU THINK….!!!!
Leave me a comment and share you thoughts and wisdom’s
Related posts:
