tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post2614433204068359776..comments2024-03-28T11:29:46.845-07:00Comments on Whole Health Source: Is Meat Unhealthy? Part IIStephan Guyenethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-14026529701098110382014-12-27T14:37:33.076-08:002014-12-27T14:37:33.076-08:00Hello Stephan,
I'm wondering if you could add...Hello Stephan,<br /><br />I'm wondering if you could address the claim that lacto-fermented vegetables such as krauts, kimchis, fermented brine pickles, etc. can provide vegans with adequate sources of B12? I'm not vegan, but I'm curious about the accuracy of such statements, which I see a lot (in addition to things like large amounts of B12 listed on the nutrition labels of kombucha, etc.)Jenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00829662077291322034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-77648172418929590732014-12-27T09:25:41.841-08:002014-12-27T09:25:41.841-08:00Cool post, even cooler comment thread.
Stephan, h...Cool post, even cooler comment thread.<br /><br />Stephan, have you looked at all into the relatively recent research on c4 grasses showing up on teeth (nutcracker man) and that it turns out to be the tubers (tiger nuts)?<br /><br />They grow like weeds, are easy to harvest (baboons eat lots) and most interesting of all, they have a similar macro ratio to mammal milk and in terms of nutrition, edge out muscle meat.Richard Nikoleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08479556896882145179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-75804975267572193302014-12-13T09:36:59.772-08:002014-12-13T09:36:59.772-08:00Great points about B12, Stephan. We can know what ...Great points about B12, Stephan. We can know what is wrong and the typical vegan B12 arguments have no evidence behind them- they are pure belief. It is difficult to argue with extreme believer types.Nothing will convince them.Campbell and his followers are unreasonable. real scientists are always willing to change their mind. That is the whole point of it all. <br /><br />As Bruce Lee and other philosophers noted " They need to empty their cups , so they can taste Stephan's tea." LOL ! :)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />There is no surer sign of unscientific thought than a "take-no-prisoners" view that we have a complete understanding of any given phenomenon and that it is 100 % correct.<br /><br /><br />There is NOT a SINGLE thing we can say OR conclude about the universe that is "absolutely" right or wrong. Nothing.<br /><br /> Recently , the it has been suggested through some early evidence that the speed of light may not be constant- rather, it might - MIGHT be variable . <br /><br /><br /><br /> The "war" will never be won against guys like Campbell because his mind is made up fully.He is unwilling to even consider anything positive in favor of meat whatsoever.<br /><br />I acknowledge much remains to be discovered in nutrition- as well as physics. Roger Penrose himself said that there is much left in physics undiscovered.<br /><br />Are meat extremely heavy meat diets ideal? Likely not. But only crackpots say, "Here is a chunk of meat, the cause of coronary heart disease 100 % certain." There is no deep explanation as to HOW this can be. <br /><br />Campbell also misrepresents Chinese diets as a la-la land of nothing but green vegetables and no fat source. I know what they generally eat. My sister-in-law is Chinese and I have many Chinese friends - some born here.Their diets are nicely balanced and include animal and seafood.<br /><br />Campbell discredits himself simply by his attitude about meat. It is unscientific as it gets from the get go. His own research is not even supporting it, let alone his undesirable certitude. He dismisses everything. Most of these vegan doctors are crackpots who have deep beliefs. They want the prestige associated with science, but are not themselves acting like genuine scientists.<br /><br />I am neither for nor against meat. I know, though, that blaming it for THE 100 % cause of all of our troubles is as bad as it gets science wise.<br /><br />e MUST have a deep hard to vary explanation as David Deutsch notes. Without this, no scientific progress is made.<br /><br />They are not "curious characters" as Richard Phillips Feynman was.<br /><br />Deutsch, Hawking, Feynman, Penrose- I wish we had those types of thinkers in the nutrition and medicine. <br /><br />That we need to make much more progress with how cells work is the thorn in the side of T. Colin Campbell ( and everyone) . If I were Minger, i would mention that. That would stop Campbell in his tracks. <br /><br />Take care, Stephan.<br /><br />RazAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-64452279464990994532014-12-11T12:29:58.133-08:002014-12-11T12:29:58.133-08:00Hi Theodore,
Your claim is that wild animals are ...Hi Theodore,<br /><br />Your claim is that wild animals are a "hit and miss" source of B12. This flies in the face of common sense, and a quick perusal of NutritionData.com conclusively refutes it:<br /><br />100g wild deer meat supplies 31-60% RDA of vitamin B12 depending on the sample. Of the 6 venison samples listed on NutritionData, all 6 contained high levels of B12.<br /><br />All samples of wild elk were similarly rich in B12.<br /><br />Wild rabbit is rich in B12.<br /><br />I'm sorry but you are simply incorrect. Wild animal foods, including ruminants not supplemented with B12 or cobalt, are consistently an excellent source of B12. Animal foods are the only known reliable dietary source of B12.<br /><br />Omnivores are less likely than vegans to supplement B12 yet their B12 status is better. It's because of the animal foods. Again this is just nutrition 101.<br /><br />I am going to end this "debate" now because it has become unproductive.Stephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-64979870944446114872014-12-10T18:00:37.637-08:002014-12-10T18:00:37.637-08:00Stephan
No, your two most recent posts didn'...Stephan <br /><br />No, your two most recent posts didn't even remotely speak to what I was asking. I'm not sure how much more explicit I can be, but I'll give it one last shot:<br /><br />1) A large percentage of pasture-based animal farmers fortify their animals' diet with cobalt in order to prevent B12 deficiency. I spoke to several such farmers back in 2010 at various farmers markets and every single one of them was fortifying their animals' diet with some form of cobalt (as well as various other minerals). <br /><br />2) Without this cobalt fortification, animal flesh as a source of B12 would be hit and miss. You say:<br /><br />"Wild animals don't get B12 supplements, yet they supply dietary B12." <br /><br />In fact the whole point is that they wouldn't supply much dietary B12 unless their own diet contained adequate levels of cobalt. The fact that they're alive doesn't automatically mean that they're a good source of B12. Animals don't die straight away as soon as they start running low on B12.<br /><br />3) The cobalt fortification of these animals' diets represents a massive indirect B12 supplement for the people who eat the flesh and milk of those animals. Please explain to me how eating animals whose diet has been fortified with cobalt (as well as a whole host of other minerals) is any different than consuming supplements or fortified foods directly.<br /><br />4) As far as I know, none of the studies comparing B12 status in vegans vs non-vegans adjusted for the indirect supplement the non-vegans were getting via the cobalt-fortified diet of the animals they were eating. If you know of any studies that did adjust for that then please post the link(s).<br /><br />5) As far as I know, none of the studies comparing B12 status in vegans vs non-vegans adjusted for multivitamin use (or consumption of fortified foods) in the non-vegan subjects. If you know of any studies that did adjust for those things then please post the link(s).<br /><br />6) As far as I know, none of the studies comparing B12 status in vegans vs non-vegans took into account the cobalt status of the soil in which the vegans' food was grown. Again if you know of any studies that did adjust for that then please post the link(s). <br /><br />You can obviously respond to these points in any way you choose, or even ignore them completely. But I hope at the very least you'll respond to the points I've actually made rather than the points you would've liked me to have made. <br /><br />ThanksTheodorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09935090921544182721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-51817869744179363932014-12-10T11:15:47.906-08:002014-12-10T11:15:47.906-08:00Epic-oxford study:
"In all, 52% of vegans, 7...Epic-oxford study:<br /><br />"In all, 52% of vegans, 7% of vegetarians and one omnivore were classified as vitamin B12 deficient (defined as serum vitamin B12 <118 pmol/l)"<br /><br />http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v64/n9/abs/ejcn2010142a.htmlStephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-18158545080366431812014-12-10T11:10:51.260-08:002014-12-10T11:10:51.260-08:00Hi Theodore,
Let's take a step back here. Pl...Hi Theodore,<br /><br />Let's take a step back here. Please state your claim clearly so we can discuss it clearly.<br /><br />My understanding is that you're arguing that animal foods are not a reliable source of B12. Is that correct?<br /><br />I also understand that you are claiming that ruminants on pasture typically receive B12 supplementation. Please provide evidence of this claim or I will consider it to be incorrect based on the references you provided previously, as well as common sense.<br /><br />Animals that are alive and healthy are a good source of B12, because it's a vitamin that is essential to life and health. Wild animals don't get B12 supplements, yet they supply dietary B12. It is well established that rumen bacteria synthesize B12 that ruminants then absorb for their dietary needs. There is a vast literature demonstrating quite convincingly that animal foods are a reliable source of B12 for humans, and there is no evidence of any other significant dietary source. This is just nutrition 101, textbook stuff.<br /><br />You asked if vegans have lower B12 levels than omnivores. This has been studied extensively, and B12 deficiency is far more common among vegans (and vegetarians to a lesser extent) than omnivores, even though vegans are more likely to supplement B12. That's because omnivores regularly eat B12-rich animal foods.<br /><br />http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nure.12001/abstractStephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-55085611217740562622014-12-10T05:21:11.800-08:002014-12-10T05:21:11.800-08:00Stephan
I think you're twisting my words some...Stephan<br /><br />I think you're twisting my words somewhat. I never said that ALL grass-fed ruminants require B12/cobalt supplements. In fact I was quite careful not to. But for what its worth I did speak to several pasture-based farmers back in 2010 and there wasn't one of them who didn't give their animals cobalt or B12 supplements in one form or another. Not to mention a whole host of other mineral supplements. This completely puts paid to the idea that animal products are a rock solid NATURAL source of vitamin B12. Numerous soils all over the world fail to supply ruminant animals with adequate cobalt for internal B12 synthesis. So without cobalt supplementation, animal flesh as a source of vitamin B12 would be hit and miss at best. Perhaps you can explain to me how eating animals that have been given supplements is any different from taking supplements directly. <br /><br />I'll say again that it would be interesting to see a study comparing B12 levels in vegans vs B12 levels in non-vegans eating unsupplemented animals (and no multivitamins or fortified foods). I think it would also be interesting to see some studies examining the B12 status of vegans in areas where the soil is rich in cobalt. I'm not aware of any existing studies that took either of these issues into account. If you know of any then please forward me the link(s). Its certainly true that monogastric animals don't seem to use cobalt in quite the same way as ruminants, but I doubt that cobalt deficiency in the soil is completely unrelated to B12 deficiency in non-ruminant animals. I recall at least one study showing that cobalt supplementation significantly reduced hyperhomocysteinemia in pigs. <br /><br />Either way, the wild setting in which our ancient ancestors lived could easily have provided enough pre-formed vitamin B12 to survive, so I'm not sure how vital internal B12 synthesis would've been to them.<br /><br />I haven't forgotten your point about Drs Willet and Hu, by the way. I hope to come back to that once we've dealt with the B12 issue.<br /><br />Thanks.Theodorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09935090921544182721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-81680886990687061392014-12-09T10:50:47.642-08:002014-12-09T10:50:47.642-08:00Hi Theodore,
Your claim is that ruminants require...Hi Theodore,<br /><br />Your claim is that ruminants require B12 supplementation. Your references do not support that. Your references show that ruminants in areas with low soil cobalt availability benefit from cobalt supplementation. Not exactly a shocking conclusion. Certain soils are naturally low in specific minerals, including cobalt, iodine, zinc, selenium, and others, as your references detail. Correcting those deficiencies is important for healthy animals.<br /><br />Cobalt is an element that is required for B12 synthesis by microorganisms, but it is not vitamin B12. If the pasture is too low in cobalt, rumen microorganisms do not have enough cobalt to produce B12. But this is only a problem in specific locations with low cobalt availability, as detailed in the references you provided.<br /><br />Humans cannot supplement cobalt instead of B12, because we don't have a rumen full of B12-synthesizing bacteria. We absorb B12 in the small intestine, before significant microbial fermentation of food residue has occurred. That is why we require animal foods for B12, although in the 21st century we can also use supplements. Stephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-73873560274632113092014-12-08T15:30:18.307-08:002014-12-08T15:30:18.307-08:00Hi Stephan
Thanks for your feedback. Clearly you&...Hi Stephan<br /><br />Thanks for your feedback. Clearly you're unaware of the prevalence of B12/cobalt supplementation in pasture-based animal farming systems. If you have any contacts in animal agriculture I'm sure they'll be happy to confirm what I'm saying. In the meantime the following links may shed some light on the matter:<br /><br />http://www.grassland.org.nz/publications/nzgrassland_publication_433.pdf<br /> <br />http://www.eblex.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/trace_element_report021211.pdf<br /> <br />http://www.nadis.org.uk/bulletins/trace-element-deficiencies-in-sheep.aspx<br /> <br />http://en.wikivet.net/Cobalt_Deficiency_-_SheepTheodorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09935090921544182721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-53232991906674720692014-12-08T09:01:55.186-08:002014-12-08T09:01:55.186-08:00Hi Theodore,
I have read through the comments aft...Hi Theodore,<br /><br />I have read through the comments after Minger's posts, and I was not able to identify a compelling scientific rebuttal. If you know your stats and you feel that one of them was compelling and I should reconsider, please reiterate the argument and I'll have a look.<br /><br />I have read Campbell's statements in detail and they do not contain a compelling scientific rebuttal of the points raised by Minger, Willett, or Hu. Just to remind you, Willett and Hu are professional epidemiologists at Harvard, and they have stated clearly in writing that the China Study found no association between meat eating and cardiovascular disease. Campbell's rebuttal contained little rational argumentation and instead relied primarily on the ad hominem implication that Minger lacks credibility because she is a young lady without a post-college degree. He made no attempt to rebut Willett or Hu's statements about the China Study. <br /><br /><br />Regarding B12 for cows, dairy cows are supplemented because we've bred them to produce ungodly amounts of milk per day while eating grain/legume-based feed concentrate. They typically get a feed concentrate that contains corn/soybeans and vitamin and mineral supps. I don't see the relevance to humans. <br /><br />Grass-fed cows don't need B12. Aurochs, cows' wild ancestors, didn't get B12 supplements. Gorillas don't get B12 supplements. Natural herbivores don't need B12. Humans do need B12, and the only two sources proven to supply sufficient B12 are animal foods and supplements. Stephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-6665802587580633372014-12-07T20:18:12.337-08:002014-12-07T20:18:12.337-08:00Regarding the B12 issue, you seem to be unaware th...Regarding the B12 issue, you seem to be unaware that a large percentage of (even grass-fed) cows and sheep require some form of B12 and/or cobalt supplementation. Not to mention a whole plethora of other supplements.<br /><br />I doubt anyone would question the fact that cows and sheep are natural herbivores just because they need to take B12/cobalt supplements. Either way, I think it would be especially interesting to do a study comparing B12 levels in vegans vs B12 levels in non-vegans eating animal products that have come only from unsupplemented animals. If the results could also be adjusted for the participants' use of multivitamins that would be even more interesting.Theodorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09935090921544182721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-43099767443805786862014-12-07T19:47:04.323-08:002014-12-07T19:47:04.323-08:00I must say I'm aghast that you haven't rea...I must say I'm aghast that you haven't read any convincing rebuttals to Denise Minger's China Study critique. You wouldn't've had to look too far to find one. If your eyes had only wandered a few inches down the page you would've seen Denise getting torn to shreds in the comment section of her own blog. Just to give you a taste, why not google "rawfoodsos Vivek Rau" and see if you can address the criticisms he/she raises. I'm sure Denise would've addressed them herself had she not been so busy trolling the McDougall forums, or fudging graphs of heart disease incidence in war time Norway !<br /><br />You may also want to read Dr Campbell's deceptively beautiful rebuttal. I'm assuming you haven't read it yet, because your concern about his use of indirect correlations was addressed very nicely in the paragraph about dynamic range. <br /><br />The quote from page 106 of the book is also extremely useful. It's a testament to Dr Campbell's intellectual honesty and could've saved Denise and all the other China-Study-debunking hopefuls a lot of time if they'd actually bothered to read it. Here it is again for ease of reference: <br /><br />"An impressive and informative web of information was emerging from this study. But does every potential strand or association in this mammoth study fit perfectly into this web of information ? No. Although most statistically significant strands readily fit into the web, there were a few surprises. Most, but not all, have since been explained."<br /><br />I watched the video of you speaking at the Advanced Study Weekend and you seemed like a knowledgeable guy, but I'm starting to wonder how closely you actually look at what you're reading. I think if you take a more in depth look at Denise's work and the numerous criticisms it invoked, you'll realise that she'd have trouble debunking the China Study Cookbook let alone Campbell's original. <br /><br />Best of luck to you anyway.Theodorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09935090921544182721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-28430295475149944942014-12-06T16:11:14.376-08:002014-12-06T16:11:14.376-08:00Hi Stephan, :)
Obviously this does not apply to y...Hi Stephan, :)<br /><br />Obviously this does not apply to you.<br /><br />I see all the time in the Blogosphere the cutesy phrases about "correlations". I think a lot of studies in medicine are weak, but I want to expound on this phrase. <br /><br />Some of the best science educators in the world note that: correlations can mean a hell of a lot and be very important IF, IF there is an underlying physical principle which explains the correlations. For instance, Ray Davis' solar neutrino experiment was extremely highly correlated ( correlation coefficient of greater than .95) with the value of the U.S. stock market, yet no scientist even suggested there was a relationship, nor did any write any paper about it. Of course they would not. The reason is that there was no underlying physical principle which explained the correlations- which <br /><br />The correct phrase I wish I would read more among the various blogs is that : "Correlations do no mean anything, in science, UNLESS, UNLESS ( and this is important) there is an underlying physical principle which explains the correlations". That is how the pros say it.<br /><br />The sheer numbers of studies only measuring effects or describing things are almost meaningless without replication AND an explanation that is open to falsification and testable. Medicine runs into this problem a lot. Studies which feature two groups stuffing foodstuffs into their mouths and doctors tracking their mortality explain nothing.They don't cut it. <br /><br /> We need deep explanations. Description, deep explanation and predictive, deeply explanatory testable and falsifiable theories. Without that, it is not science. <br /><br />Empiricism, induction, deduction- all failed. Scientific knowledge is not 'derived' from anything- it is like all human knowledge- conjecture. We use experience to choose between theories. We certainly do not know about the nuclear reactions inside of far away stars through empiricism.Nor the curvature of space time from the senses etc. From the outset it was obvious something was wrong with empiricism. <br /><br />Good explanations , ones that are "hard to vary" are the driving principle of all of science and progress. Explanations cannot be over emphasized. Prediction itself is not nearly enough. <br /><br /><br />I am rooting for anybody to make progress with coronary diseases, but until Dr. Esselstyn or any doctor , uses IVUS to test for plaques and efectiveness of intervention , the result is not up to snuff. Outdated technology won;t work. <br /><br />Without explanatory theories, evidence is not science, without evidence, theory is not science. Both are required. :)<br /><br />Best wishes,<br /><br />RazAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-12186612613812026842014-12-02T16:29:55.199-08:002014-12-02T16:29:55.199-08:00Hi Olinda,
Fair enough. Thanks for the additiona...Hi Olinda,<br /><br />Fair enough. Thanks for the additional info.Stephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-44270022182495645602014-12-02T16:14:12.301-08:002014-12-02T16:14:12.301-08:00"Also, he may base his conclusions on a numbe..."Also, he may base his conclusions on a number of different lines of evidence, but his book is in fact titled "The China Study". The study is obviously an important piece of evidence for him."<br /><br />I have heard Campbell say that that is his biggest regret about that book. He chose a publisher that gave him complete control over the content, but he did have to yield on the book's title. It was the publisher that chose to call it "The China Study" over Cambell's objections.Olinda Spiderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10625651494208626896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-63568748731117517222014-12-01T13:42:32.427-08:002014-12-01T13:42:32.427-08:00@TomR, you said: "the alternative use of fire...@TomR, you said: "the alternative use of fire by humans is to artificially keep the grassland in places, where naturally a woodland would form."----"It has been confirmed that both Native Americans as well as Australian Aboriginals did such things."<br /><br />The book "1491" by Charles C. Mann contends that, contrary to what many Americans learn in school, preColumbian Indians were not sparsely settled in a pristine wilderness: rather there were huge numbers of Indians who actively molded the land around them, in part by the extensive use of fire. <br /><br />The following excerpts from "1491" provide insight into the use of fire by Native Americans to manage their environment to enhance their food supply.<br /><br />"Constant burning of the undergrowth increased the number of herbivores, the predators that fed on them and the people who ate them both. Rather than the thick, unbroken, monumental snarl of tree imagined by Thoreau, the great eastern forest was an ecological kaleidoscope of garden plots, blackberry rambles, pine barrens and spacious groves of chestnut, hickory and oak. The first white settlers of Ohio found woodlands that resembled English parks -- they could drive their carriages right through the trees. Fifteen miles from shore in Rhode Island Giovanni da Verrazzano found trees so widely spaced that the forest "could be penetrated even by a large army." John Smith claimed to have ridden through the Virginia forest at a gallop.<br /><br />Bison roamed from New York to Georgia. A creature of the prairie, Bison were imported to the East by Native Americans along a path of indigenous fire as they changed enough forest into fallows for it to survive far outside its original range. <br /><br />1637, Mass., Thomas Morton: "Of their custom of burning the country:-- The salvages are accustomed to set fire of the Country in all places where they come, and to burne it twice a year, viz.: at the Spring and the fall of the leaf. The reason that moves them to do so, is because it would other wise be so overgrown -- that it would be all a coppice wood, and the people would not be able to pass through the country out of a beaten path."<br /><br />1641 -1655, New Amsterdam (Albany New York:) Adrian van der Donk, a lawyer for the Dutch West India Company, spent a lot of time upstate with the Haudenosaunee whose insistence on personal liberty fascinated him. Every fall, he remembered, the Haudenosaunee set fire to "the woods, plains and meadows" to "thin out and clear the woods of all dead substances and grass, which grow better the ensuing spring"<br /><br />1792, southern Alberta: Peter Fidler, surveyor, rode with several groups of Indians for many weeks in high fire season. Fidler noted " Every fall and spring & even in the winter when there is no snow, these large plains either in one place or another is constantly on fire----"<br /><br />"When Lewis and Clark headed west from Saint Lewis, they were exploring not a wilderness but a vast pasture managed by and for Native Americans". (Dale Lott, ethologist".<br /> <br />These accounts help explain how Native Americans were able to provide sufficient food, both meat and vegetables, to keep large populations in good health.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-3035738324911347142014-11-30T16:38:24.740-08:002014-11-30T16:38:24.740-08:00Thanks for the reply, Stephan. I appreciate the f...Thanks for the reply, Stephan. I appreciate the feedback as I trust your objectivity.Heatherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06341364603091628613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-69754021924474047842014-11-30T16:25:03.195-08:002014-11-30T16:25:03.195-08:00Hi Heather,
Campbell appears to not have read Min...Hi Heather,<br /><br />Campbell appears to not have read Minger's critique carefully enough. She adjusted her correlations extensively for confounding variables, contrary to his claim that she primarily reported univariate (unadjusted) correlations. She explained her methods in detail so that anyone could follow along and critique them if necessary. I have not yet seen a serious critique of her methods.<br /><br />Campbell makes no real attempt to refute the serious concerns Minger and others have raised about his methods. His response is mostly an attempt to question Minger's credibility as a young lady without a post-college degree.<br /><br />His main argument is that his position is based on data from a variety of sources, not just the China Study. That's all well and good, but it's beside the point. The question at hand is whether or not the China Study supported the hypothesis that animal food consumption is associated with cardiovascular disease and cancer. Like Minger, most researchers who have seen the data do not agree with Campbell's interpretation. Campbell offered no justification for his unusual interpretation of the study data.<br /><br />Also, he may base his conclusions on a number of different lines of evidence, but his book is in fact titled "The China Study". The study is obviously an important piece of evidence for him.Stephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-5975961297442315102014-11-30T12:05:32.886-08:002014-11-30T12:05:32.886-08:00Stephan, I wondered if you'd seen the followin...Stephan, I wondered if you'd seen the following in-depth response to Denise Minger by T Colin Campbell:-<br /><br />http://nutritionstudies.org/minger-critique/<br /><br />It sounds pretty persuasive to a layperson like myself and I wondered if it changes your view of The China Study in any way? The following is a quote:<br /><br /><i>In summary, Denise’s critique lacks a sense of proportionality. She gives (with considerable hyperbole, at times) the analyses of the China data more weight than they deserve by ignoring the remaining evidence discussed in the other 17 chapters in the book. The China research project was a cornerstone study, yes, but it was NOT the sole determinant of my views (as I have repeated, almost ad nauseum in my lectures). In doing so, and except for a few denigrating remarks on our experimental animal research, she also ignores the remaining findings that I presented in our book. She seems not to understand what our laboratory research was showing. Using univariate correlations mostly without adjustment for confounding factors, qualification of variable authenticity, and/or biological plausibility can lead to haphazard evidence, subject to the whims of personal bias. Also, univariate correlations of this type can lead to too much emphasis on individual nutrients and foods as potential causes of events.</i><br /><br />He also addresses the issue of wheat in the post.<br /><br />I'll admit the tone does come across as patronising.<br /><br />Thanks for this series of posts by the way.Heatherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06341364603091628613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-62467120900537770602014-11-30T10:38:43.143-08:002014-11-30T10:38:43.143-08:00Hi Hmmm,
I think you meant to add your comment to...Hi Hmmm,<br /><br />I think you meant to add your comment to the next post. I just checked the reference to the raw China Study data (17), and it works fine for me. Professional epidemiologists such as Walter Willett, Frank Hu, and others have stated clearly that the China Study found no association between meat intake and cardiovascular or cancer risk, which is correct.<br /><br />Regarding Denise Minger, I have not yet seen anything approaching a rational refutation of her points, from Campbell or anyone else. Campbell and other vegan diet advocates have used argument from authority and taken an arrogant and dismissive attitude toward Minger's work without actually offering a scientific defense of the bizarre methods Campbell used to come to his conclusions.<br /><br />I'm not a stats whiz but I do understand basic stats and have published papers using a variety of statistical methods. The way Campbell analyzed the China Study data is inconsistent with best practices, and it's not difficult for a non-statistician to understand why. This is the scenario: you have data for 1) meat intake quantity, 2) circulating apoB (LDL particle concentration), and 3) cardiovascular mortality. Your hypothesis is that meat intake is associated with cardiovascular disease. How do you test that hypothesis?<br /><br />You test it by looking for a direct association between (1) meat intake and (3) cardiovascular mortality. The problem is that meat intake and cardiovascular mortality were not associated in the China Study, and Campbell never claimed they were associated in any of his papers (to my knowledge). So what did he do? He looked for an association between (1) meat and (2) apoB, which he found. Then, he looked for an association between (2) apoB and (3) cardiovascular mortality, which he also found. Then he argued that this means meat intake is associated with cardiovascular risk, even though there was no direct association between meat intake and cardiovascular risk. No epidemiologist worth his salt would buy this kind of indirect argument. Minger is absolutely right about this, Willett and Hu made the same point, and no one has refuted it.<br /><br />Campbell made a number of other similar arguments that are inconsistent with best scientific practices, but consistent with a strong desire to validate a personal belief system.<br /><br />Further, Campbell glossed over what may be the largest cardiovascular association in the whole study: the large positive association between wheat consumption and cardiovascular risk. Wheat is a major plant food in the US diet. I don't know whether or not that association reflects cause and effect, but don't you think the finding at least deserves to be addressed in a serious manner?Stephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-91404485830918050592014-11-28T10:10:00.224-08:002014-11-28T10:10:00.224-08:00Really interesting summary of our evolutionary his...Really interesting summary of our evolutionary history as it relates to meat. I, like others who have commented, am unsure about the nuances, importance of fire and relative quantity of meat as a calorie source. And I think it's easy to get caught up in this mental tail chasing minutiae. But, to me, the takeaway conclusion is this: all generationally successful cultures ate some meat (and rarely just the muscle meat, at that). Personally, I believe this is a key understanding that should guide our modern food choices. I also feel it's wise to model our diets after historically proven eating strategies (the diets of our hunter-gatherer ancestors), rather than experimenting with "promising" ideas we don't have conclusive data on. Thanks for the post, Stephan. I admire your attention to detail.Logatohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11244302164420171727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-42521950316176141772014-11-27T10:29:57.243-08:002014-11-27T10:29:57.243-08:00I have been checking your references and have some...I have been checking your references and have some questions and comments.<br />17- link does not work<br />18 and 19 authored by Campbell and at least 19 seems to support the conclusion that meat consumption is associated with CVD or cancer. <br />20 - Willet - I must spend more time with this author, he is not yet making sense to me.<br />21 - Denise Minger!!! Really? She does not have education in statistics. Nor do I, do you? She is an entertaining writer but I do not trust she understands the data better than Campbell and his team of scientists that worked on the China Study Project. She is just a blogger! Geesh!<br />21 - study from 1963. Kind of an old study, I think. Anyway, the total fat consumption was high at 84-189g/d, everyone ate animal fat 55-173g/day and the LOW cholesterol levels were as I now understand in the level that cause heart disease at around 200mg/dl. I understand that in this homogeneous group that individuals varied in their response to their high fat diet. <br />23 - Tecumsey 1976. Again an old study. These people were eating a diet of 40-41% fat! I looked but could not determine what the authors considered to be the numbers for the different tertiles of cholesterol and triglycerides. If you know, please help me find this information.<br />24- could not read online<br />25- Bogalusa Heart Study diet recall of 10 year olds. Must take a break from this for now.<br /><br />Anyway, I understand that the higher your serum cholesterol the less additional dietary cholesterol matters to your serum cholesterol. What would be better, would be to compare a whole foods plant based diet to one of these diets or even better a low carb diet. I know about the A to Z trial, but that was not a real comparison, the diets were much to similar. I understand that individuals vary in how they respond to dietary cholesterol as shown by 22. I understand that eating low saturated fats, trans fats and no cholesterol will likely help give a person the lowest serum cholesterol possible for that individual.<br /><br />I am interested in your question. I am finding it challenging to make sense of research study papers but I intend to keep at it. I realize we need to find help from others with the work of trying to understand how diet affects health. Right now I am not finding your argument to be convincing but I am still interested in hearing it.Hmmmmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03780964600730172271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-82589124554546308742014-11-25T23:10:03.159-08:002014-11-25T23:10:03.159-08:00I find it difficult to accept the marine dha hypot...I find it difficult to accept the marine dha hypothesis. 1. Vegans' children do manage to grow a reasonable size mind without a gram of dietary dha. Most other humans do the same on very little if any marine food for mothers or children. 2. N and C isotopes studies in Europe show introduction of marine food to be a later stage, maybe 50 K years ago phenomenaMikihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01336665212024168702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-14123718249330269652014-11-23T13:10:10.450-08:002014-11-23T13:10:10.450-08:00@Robert Andrew Brown: On November 2, you said:
&q...@Robert Andrew Brown: On November 2, you said:<br /><br />"It is arguably important to bear in mind the likely role and influence of a shoreline diet on development of the human brain, and so in setting the terms in terms of nutrient requirements of healthy existence and optimal function." You referenced an interesting article from Scientific American: "When the sea saved humanity" 2012) which stated in brief: <br />At some point between 195,000 and 123,000 years ago, the population size of Homo sapiens plummeted, thanks to cold, dry climate conditions that left much of our ancestors' African homeland uninhabitable. <br />Everyone alive today is descended from a group of people from a single region who survived this catastrophe. The southern coast of Africa would have been one of the few spots where humans could survive during this climate crisis because it harbors an abundance of shellfish and edible plants. <br />Excavations of a series of sites in this region have recovered items left behind by what may have been that progenitor population. <br />The discoveries confirm the idea that advanced cognitive abilities evolved earlier than previously thought—and may have played a key role in the survival of the species during tough times.<br /><br />Another article published about the same time, "Docosahexaenoic acid, DHA: An ancient nutrient for the modern brain", fits well with the referenced article. Major points;<br /> <br /> -A new picture is emerging which places docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in an integral role in the evolution of human intelligence. The creation of a new database of the fossil record has been analyzed to demonstrate that a turning point in human evolution coincides with the inclusion of seafood in the diet. Multi-generational exploitation of seafood by shore-based dwellers coincided with the rapid expansion of grey matter in the cerebral cortex which characterizes the modern human brain<br /><br /> -The DHA molecule has unique structural properties that provide optimal conditions for a range of cell membrane functions including grey matter, which is membrane-rich tissue. The rudimentary source of DHA is marine algae found concentrated in fish and marine oils. Mammalian cells lack the enzymes required for synthesis of alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), the precursor for all omega-3 fatty acid syntheses. Endogenous synthesis of DHA from ALA in humans is much lower and more limited than previously assumed. <br /><br /> -Three million years of evolution had little effect on the brain capacity of Australopithecus spp. Conversely, brain capacity doubled in the million years between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. The growth rate of the brain was exponential in the past 200,000 years, the beginning of which time period approximates the start of the severe climate conditions discussed in the article "When the sea saved humanity"<br /><br /> -It is argued that the brain expansion due to the exploitation of a convenient source of high-quality marine dietary nutrients is likely to have preceded both the expansion of the grey matter and the development of language and tools making.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com