T. Colin Campbell: Liar, Joke or Fraud?

I swear to god, I'm gunna pistol whip the next person who says "But Dr. Campbell said...." (Super Troopers humor)

T. Colin Campbell:

For more than forty years, Dr. T. Colin Campbell has been at the forefront of nutrition research. His legacy, the China Project, is the most comprehensive study of health and nutrition ever conducted. Dr. Campbell is the Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. He has more than seventy grant-years of peer-reviewed research funding and authored more than 300 research papers and coauthor of the bestselling the book, The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health. (1)

....and he's also a fraud.

Forget that he serves on the advisory board to the Physicians Comittee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), an advocacy group of doctors and researchers with strong ties to PETA and animal rights groups. It's not a stretch naming them 'militant vegetarians'.

Forget that this is the guy who thinks consuming foods with more than 0g of cholesterol is unhealthy...which is absurd.

Forget that he openly admits to examining the data gathered by The China Project with intention to seek associations between animal food consumption and disease. We call this perversion of data 'confirmation bias'. (2)

Put all of that aside....for a moment. After all, those don't really demonstrate fraudulence.

In his popular science book The China Study, Campbell devotes an entire chapter to the enormous China Project, which he uses as a substrate to base the following chapters discussing disease as it relates to the consumption of animal products. (3, 4)

Interestingly enough, Campbell served as one of the directors for the China Project.

The China-Oxford-Cornell Study on Dietary, Lifestyle and Disease Mortality Characteristics in 65 Rural Chinese Counties was a study comparing the diets, lifestyle and disease characteristics of populations of 65 rural counties in China in the 1970s and 1980s. The study only compared the prevalence of disease characteristics. It did not evaluate all causes of death, such as accidents. Professor T. Colin Campbell of Cornell, led the first two major studies in the 1980s and 1990s. In 1991, The New York Times called the China-Oxford-Cornell study 'the Grand Prix of epidemiology'. Campbell's summary of the results of this and other studies appeared in his 2005 book The China Study. (3)(4)

[The study also included]

...the survey of death rates for twelve different kinds of cancer for more than 2,400 counties and 880 million (96%) of their citizens. (3)(4)

Upon examining the seemingly immeasurable data, Campbell concluded:

diets high in animal protein (including casein in cow's milk) are strongly linked to diseases such as heart disease, cancer, and Type 2 diabetes.

...and then goes on to recommend:

that people eat a whole food, plant-based diet and avoid consuming beef, poultry, eggs, fish, and milk as a means to minimize and/or reverse the development of chronic diseases.

Fair enough, right? There's nothing wrong with substantiating a diet with observational studies and a few lab studies, right? Well, surveys and epidemiology can do nothing more than provide scientists with hypotheses. Correlation doesn't equal causation. But we'll give the Campbell a pass, again. However, we won't let it go if it turns out that he's cherry picked the data and disregarded extremely important bits of data.

I've read about as much as I can handle of The China Study, it's just grossly inaccurate, and I've skimmed through the data found by the China Project. So I've been aware of Campbell's perversion of the data for a few years, but the latest little bit, which began circulating in July, is the nail in Colin's coffin.

Here is the original post I found by Denise Minger in her blog 'Raw Food SOS: Toubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet'. Recently, a final edition was added and...WOW. The amount of work done by this young lady is astounding. More importantly, she called out Dr. Campbell, exposing his confirmation bias and highlighting some data that was left unmentioned by Campbell.

If you can find the time, it's worth reading the two very lengthy articles. Denise did her own evaluation of the data and of Campbell's work and presented in extreme detail. Here are the most important points:

• -There's more evidence that plant protein causes cancer than does animal protein.
  

But when we actually track down the direct correlation between animal protein and cancer, there is no statistically significant positive trend. None. Looking directly at animal protein intake, we have the following correlations with cancers:

Lymphoma: -18
Penis cancer: -16
Rectal cancer: -12
Bladder cancer: -9
Colorectal cancer: -8
Leukemia: -5
Nasopharyngeal: -4
Cervix cancer: -4
Colon cancer: -3
Liver cancer: -3
Oesophageal cancer: +2
Brain cancer: +5
Breast cancer: +12

But what about plant protein? Since plant protein correlates negatively with plasma cholesterol, does that mean plant protein correlates with lower cancer risk? Let’s take a look at the cancer correlations with “plant protein intake”:

Nasopharyngeal cancer: -40**
Brain cancer: -15
Liver cancer: -14
Penis cancer: -4
Lymphoma: -4
Bladder cancer: -3
Breast cancer: +1
Stomach cancer: +10
Rectal cancer: +12
Cervix cancer: +12
Colon cancer: +13
Leukemia: +15
Oesophageal cancer +18
Colorectal cancer: +19

(5)

• -There's no real evidence linking animal protein to heart disease
  
  
• -Many of the positive associations between animal protein and cancer were confounded by other viral/infectious diseases.
  
  
• -The benefit of green vegetables was confounded by many variables, most notably latitude.
  

Aside from the distorted facts, perhaps the most unbelievable finding of Miss Minger's was Campbell's complete disregard of, according to the data, the most troubling dietary factor. WHEAT!

Perhaps more troubling than the distorted facts in “The China Study” are the details Campbell leaves out.

Why does Campbell indict animal foods in cardiovascular disease (correlation of +1 for animal protein and -11 for fish protein), yet fail to mention that wheat flour has a correlation of +67 with heart attacks and coronary heart disease, and plant protein correlates at +25 with these conditions?

Speaking of wheat, why doesn’t Campbell also note the astronomical correlations wheat flour has with various diseases: +46 with cervix cancer, +54 with hypertensive heart disease, +47 with stroke, +41 with diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs, and the aforementioned +67 with myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease? (None of these correlations appear to be tangled with any risk-heightening variables, either.)

That correlation of +67 with heart attacks means a 67% increase in relative risk when wheat is consumed.

The numbers above are some of the highest in the data set and, yet, Campbell not only omits the information, he ends up recommending the consumption of the very food that was INDEPENDENTLY linked to the very chronic diseases that currently plague the westernized civilizations.

...but why? Animal rights and....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/49dfa4202a08.png[/atsimg]

....Book sales.

Campbell is a fraud, a liar and a disgrace. He gained relative fame and fortune at the expense of YOUR HEALTH. What's sad is this guy's work is cited by other scientists as a foundation for their own research.

At the end of the day, however, studies like the China Project will never be accurate. Observational studies simply can't identify true causes of Multivariate diseases, like heart disease. There's just no arrow of causation. Funny thing is, Dr. Campbell believes epidemiology is more accurate because it allows for examination of large cohorts of the population and identifies broader "lifestyle" influences.

Campbell's work can be summed up into two words: Fallacious Reasoning



[edit on 5-9-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd]

Other critiques of The China Study:

Hall and Masterjohn Critiques

Other critics, such as Harriet Hall of Science-Based Medicine[43] and Chris Masterjohn of The Weston A Price Foundation, comment that the authors' citations do not always back up the claims being made (stating for example, that the claim that 'heart disease can be prevented and/or cured by a healthy diet' is backed by two studies that do not involve prevention at all, and which both significantly include factors other than diet), and they also assert that relatively limited correlations shown in the data are extrapolated unreasonably by the authors, stating for example that associations between casein and specific cancers are extrapolated to imply associations between all animal proteins and all cancers. In addition, they state that the authors fail to mention studies, which they assert contradict the authors' conclusions, stating for example that the Maasai and Inuit have experienced low rates of heart disease and cancer even though their native diets include very large amounts of animal protein.

Advocacy, Not Science

Multiple critics have asserted that The China Study is advocacy, not science, and that Campbell & son minimize or hide evidence that conflicts with their agenda. One such critic, physician and author Michael Eades wrote, "The China Study is a masterpiece of obfuscation. It is obfuscatory in so many ways it could truly qualify as a work of obfuscatory genius. It would be difficult for a mere mortal to pen so much confusion, ambiguity, distortion and misunderstanding in what is basically a book-length argument for a personal opinion masquerading as hard science." [38]

In Eades' view, the advocacy implicit in The China Study is further underscored when Campbell writes, "As time passed, we were to learn something quite remarkable. Almost every time we searched for a way, or mechanism, by which protein works to produce its effects [on cancer formation and progression], we found one!"[39] Eades comments, "That, my friends, is almost the dictionary definition of confirmation bias summed up in one sentence."

Correlation is Not Causation

In addition, critics have noted that as large as the China dataset is, it is merely an observational study and does not prove causation any more than it can be proven that a rooster's crow causes sunrises. Though Campbell acknowledges this,[40] Eades asserts that Campbell attempts to have it both ways:

"On page 107 of The China Study, Dr. Campbell writes: 'At the end of the day, the strength and consistency of the majority of the evidence is enough to draw valid conclusions. Namely, whole plant-based foods are beneficial, and animal-based foods are not.' Then one inch below (literally) he writes the following: 'The China Study was an important milestone in my thinking. Standing alone, it does not prove that diet causes disease.' So, the China study produces valid conclusions as to causality, i.e., 'whole plant-based foods are beneficial, and animal-based foods are not.' Yet the China study 'does not prove that diet causes disease.' Say what?"

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 5-9-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd]

I think that a proper scientist would have to hold back from recommending any diet for longevity except for caloric restriction a la Roy Walford...To a first approximation, you can extend your lifespan thirty percent, it works on every species they've tried it on...People don't recommend it because it is difficult and requires discipline, but there is no reason to recommend any other diet regime that is less efficacious...is my view anyways...

Thanks for the comment.

Unfortunately, caloric restriction in humans is, well, detrimental.

Many other researchers have demonstrated that restricting calories on a broader scale, say through intermittent fasting, is just as effective and MUCH healthier.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


I've never seen any evidence that moderate intake of animal protein is bad for you and it's becuase of Drs like this that we see big scare stories about cancer and stroke and things of that nature. Of course a high meat, low fibre, low vegetable diet does seem to be linked with certain cancers but this doesn't mean all meat should be demonised.

This doctor is obviously biased and when someone is associated with PETA i get nervous pretty quickly.

It's happened throughout nutrition science history. Some researcher wants to get his name on the front page, or wants to be #1 on the bestseller list and will do anything to get there.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd



So who is this Denise Minger who "debunked" Campbell's China Report?

Well, she's apparently affiliated with Northern Arizona University - specifically, NAU's College of Engineering, Forestry and Natural Sciences, the Merriam-Powell Center for Environmental Research.

Denise Minger has 7 credits on NAU's Programs & Projects / Merriam-Powell website - for web design and maintenance.

As it happens, NAU and Merriam-Powell are affiliated with the Landsward Institute, in partnership with Babbitt Ranches.

Through the Landsward Institute (formerly the Ecological Monitoring & Assessment Program), Northern Arizona University and land stewards of the Colorado Plateau … an innovative partnership between Babbitt Ranches and Northern Arizona University. The partnership united the resources of a research and educational institution with an intimate knowledge of the land brought by a multi-generational ranching family. The EMA Program has worked to create a new model for sustainable, use-inspired land stewardship on the Colorado Plateau.

This case study explores the feasibility of a new business venture by a fourth-generation family business, Babbitt Ranches. As the business leader of a vast ranching empire in northern Arizona, Mr. William Cordasco, President of Babbitt Ranches, has developed a business plan to produce, process, distribute and sell beef and related beef products.

So why is a web designer with a college for "environmental" research that's partnered with a beef rancher tackling vegetarians?



It's a trick question, right?

Okay, I'll play.

The cattle industry suppressed "Mad Cow" publicity, but information about an eerily similar disease, "Chronic Wasting Disease" (CWD), keeps sneaking into the MSM.

Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a disease of the nervous system in deer and elk that results in distinctive brain lesions. It continues to be a major issue for wildlife scientists throughout the Nation, and a key focus for research at the USGS National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC).

Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) affecting elk and deer (cervids) as well as moose, in North America.

This degenerative neurological illness has affected both farmed and wild cervids in the US, thus impacting the hunting and wildlife industries as well as domestic and international markets for farmed cervids and cervid products.

CWD and related diseases such as Creutzfeldt-Jakob in humans are caused by a misshapen protein, or prion.

Among deer, the CWD-causing prion is transmitted by animal-to-animal contact and from the environment to the animal.

According to official reports, and in contradiction of scientific evidence, the CWD prion can't cross species barriers - so hunters are warned to take precautions.

CWD is untreatable, damaging the brain of infected deer, elk and moose and typically causing progressive loss of body condition. The disease is always fatal to these animals, and no state or province with documented cases of CWD has been able to eradicate it.

The prions that cause CWD can last a long time in the environment. If the head and spinal column of an infected animal is disposed of in areas where Oregon’s deer and elk could encounter the prions, they could contract the disease.

No evidence has been found to suggest CWD can be transmitted to people, but hunters should take precautions when hunting and dressing game. Hunters should avoid harvesting any animal that appears sick or has unusual behavior. Disposable gloves should be worn when dressing game and meat should be cooked to 165 degrees.

Besides Denise Minger, web designer, others have dismissed Campbell's work. They too have similar links to special interests:

* Science-Based Medicine
* Weston A. Price Foundation

On a related note...

The organs of rats who ate genetically modified potatoes showed signs of chronic wasting, and female rates fed a diet of herbicide-resistant soybeans gave birth to stunted and sterile pups.

Long story short, "Mad Cow" is related to the "human" variant CJD, both are related to CWD, and the environmental contamination is spreading across North America, jumping species every step of the way.

OF COURSE the cattle industry is doing damage control, and they're using a little web designer to do it because no legitimate scientist would ever put their name on such crud.



No S&F for you - you just regurgitated the cattle industry's damage control press release copy.

reply to post by soficrow


Wow, you're really grasping at straws here.

My health and nutrition journey started at age 7, when I first went vegetarian, and then resurged at the age of 11 when an undiagnosed wheat allergy left me barely eating, sleeping, or participating in life. After a year of visiting dozens of mainstream doctors in a quest to figure out what was wrong with me, a naturopathic doctor in Seattle took one look at my gaunt frame and chronic congestion and said, “food allergy.”

That’s when I learned, first-hand, how profoundly diet can affect our ability to live and enjoy life.

But cooked-vegetarian-sans-wheat wasn’t enough to keep me feeling vibrant, I learned. After a series of self-tested diet experiments, I jumped into the raw food world at age 16. Seven years later, I can say quite proudly that I’ve made every mistake a raw foodist can possibly make—and then some. I’ve been vegan and vegetarian and omnivorous; I’ve been high fat and low fat and medium fat; I’ve been supplemented and superfood-ed and snake-oiled.

I’m not a doctor or nutritionist (not yet, anyway—plans of a graduate nutrition degree loom in the future ). I started college when I was 16, switching majors about ten times but ultimately deciding on English. Everything I know about nutrition has come from eight years of avid research and self-education: I devour medical journals, I analyze studies, I crunch numbers, I guinea-pig myself, and I try—whenever possible—to slice through the bias and misinformation littering the nutritional community.

I currently live in Portland, Oregon and work as a freelance writer, teacher, and web designer.

She's not just a web designer, silly. And I can't believe you're basing this off 7 credits from Northern Arizona University ... I expected more from you, sofi. (remember, she IS a raw foodist, so there is no way she's consuming food from your typical factory farm)

The link you provided about Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) is a joke. If the WAPF is providing "damage control" for the cattle industry, why in the hell would they be passionately against factory farming?

And you're telling me that.....

Mary Enig, Ph.D.
Kurt Harris MD
Petro Dobromylskyj
Stephan Guyenet, Ph.D.
Mike Eades MD
William Davis MD
Loren Cordain, Ph.D.
Mark Cohen, Ph.D.
Weston A. Price, DDS
Gary Taubes

...are all in cahoots? They're conspiring to keep the money flowing to the meat industry?



I like your points on Prions...but this is nothing more than a failed attempt to fabricate affiliations.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


...besides, affiliations aside, the DATA speak for themselves. And it's OBVIOUS that, A) Dr. Campbell already KNEW that animal products promote cancer and B) He purposefully distorted the data and C) Consciously omitted extremely important data that would have otherwise deemed his hypothesis a moot point.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


DevolutionEvolvd.....

Thank you for posting this very interesting material & your well expressed commentary.

I am aware of the general concepts you expound, but I do not have detailed knowledge of this area.

I will review your thread & the ensuing discussion in detail later tonight & see if I am able to add any worthwhile commentary!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by soficrow

 

Wow, you're really grasping at straws here.

Not. You skipped right over my research on the partnership between NAU/Mirriam-Powell, and the Babbitt Ranch - the unfortunate impact CWD is having on US agriculture - and the undeniably real link Minger has with these enterprises.

I'm sure Minger is a nice girl with an honest commitment to good nutrition, just like she says she is. But perhaps she's a tad naive, and being manipulated?

Or maybe she too is committed to conservative stewardship? One that doesn't acknowledge pesky little problems like prions or Mad Cow disease? As outlined here... The Right Way To Be Green: A CONSERVATIVE ALTERNATIVE TO LIBERAL ENVIRONMENTALISM

But really, the interconnections, mouthpieces, PR copy - they're just too numerous and complicated to sort through...


I actually think the Babbitt Ranch is extremely special - and Minger probably is too. But the associations remain.

Northern Arizona University - NAU's College of Engineering, Forestry and Natural Sciences, the Merriam-Powell Center for Environmental Research.

Denise Minger has 7 credits on NAU's Programs & Projects / Merriam-Powell website - for web design and maintenance - showing that she's tight enough to get lots of work from these guys.

NAU and Merriam-Powell are affiliated with the Landsward Institute, in partnership with Babbitt Ranches.

Through the Landsward Institute (formerly the Ecological Monitoring & Assessment Program), Northern Arizona University and land stewards of the Colorado Plateau … an innovative partnership between Babbitt Ranches and Northern Arizona University. The partnership united the resources of a research and educational institution with an intimate knowledge of the land brought by a multi-generational ranching family. The EMA Program has worked to create a new model for sustainable, use-inspired land stewardship on the Colorado Plateau.

This case study explores the feasibility of a new business venture by a fourth-generation family business, Babbitt Ranches. As the business leader of a vast ranching empire in northern Arizona, Mr. William Cordasco, President of Babbitt Ranches, has developed a business plan to produce, process, distribute and sell beef and related beef products.

And remember, the cattle industry DID suppress "Mad Cow" publicity, but information about "Chronic Wasting Disease" (CWD), an eerily similar disease, keeps sneaking into the MSM.

The fear (supported by real evidence) is that grazing lands are contaminated with prions (that cause Mad Cow and CWD) and jump back and forth from environment-to-species-to-species-to-environment and around and around, contaminating our food supply.

...Babbitt Ranches - and their college/industry partners - have a vested interest in condemning any work that may threaten their livelihoods.

I like your points on Prions...but this is nothing more than a failed attempt to fabricate affiliations.

The affiliations are undeniable. Click on those linkie thingies.

reply to post by soficrow


I read your linkies the first time.

What you're saying is, guilty by loose association?

Look, if the local Coca-Cola distribution plant came to me and said, "Devo, we think the health of our employees is extremely important. Improving their health and wellness is the foundation to improving the health and growth of our company, and we feel that it starts with you. We'll use your personal training services solely if you can provide our employees with reduced rates."

DONE! When I have bills to pay, I don't care who my clients are affiliated with. I don't care that Coca-Cola is probably directly responsible for its employee's unhealthiness. At that point, I don't care that Coca-Cola is strongly influencing the ADA's decisions on public health policy.

You're saying this girl is being influenced because she took a job? Sorry, that just doesn't work. If you can find something better, I'll look at it. But like I said, you're grasping at straws.

I frequent other forums where denise post and I think its safe to say she is not affiliated with the cattle industry....

Sorry to barge in, but I kept getting page hits from this site so I came to see what was up.

I'd just like to point out that I worked for Merriam-Powell three years ago, a few days per week, when I was a destitute college student at NAU desperate for moolah. I worked for them for maybe half a year before high-tailing it out of there. I don't even live in Arizona anymore.

I have no idea what the heck "Babbit Ranches" is. All I did was sit at the computer and fix broken links and make graphics look pretty.

Seriously, I just needed the money.

I'm digging the theories about my suspicious associations, though. Carry on!

reply to post by soficrow


I agree with soficrow on the "follow the money" pattern evident among those who argue against the main findings of the China Study: For the global meat and dairy industries, there is a titanic amount of money at stake here.

I also agree with the points she makes about prions, except that from what I have seen so far, prions are (I like her word "eerily" here) eerily impervious to heat in cooking. In other words, these proteins appear to survive quite well at very high cooking temperatures for a very long time without becoming denatured...that's a game changer.

I have a master's degree in public health. While diet trends come and go, diets that feature large amounts of any kind of fat (such as Atkins) show a high correlation with degenerative diseases over time. [See also the work of Udo Erasmus (Fats that heal, fats that kill) and Dennis Wilmont (Fat chance -- surviving the cholesterol controversy and beyond, and Wilmont's magazine article (Fats and oils in a nutshell --- everyday use for health and happiness)]. Wilmont's website for his self-published materials is:

www.willmountain.com...

Wilmont's background is unconventional, but "Fat chance" proves that he does know his science. The work of Erasmus and Wilmont is also more extensively researched, more recent, and more independently funded than other nutritional writers on this subject.

Many people have reported problems with digestion of wheat products, myself among them! DevolutionEvolvd, I encourage you to try (under clinical supervision, if you wish) non-hybridized ancient grains such as kamut and spelt...that made all the difference for me. Food sources such as modern wheat (and modern pinto beans for that matter) have been hybridized many times, generally to increase yield. The recent history of wheat, however, is that food intolerances (such as mine with wheat, and perhaps yours as well) become a much more common problem with hybridized wheat than with ancient wheat strains.


[edit on 9/6/2010 by Uphill]

Originally posted by DeniseM

...I worked for Merriam-Powell three years ago, ...when I was a destitute college student at NAU desperate for moolah. ...

...I just needed the money.

I understand. Money is a HUGE motivating force. ...I used to dick with stats too, but I stopped 10 years 3 months and 6 days ago.

Just searched Campbell, found his site. Some good stuff there.

...Americans are relying on medical information that, like nutrition information, also is terribly misguided. The reasons in both cases primarily involve the aggressive influence of private industry and special interest groups in the training of those medical practitioners who are then licensed to offer advice about health and healing to an unsuspecting public.

FYI - I am not a vegan, do eat meat, don't always go organic - and know I'm exposing myself to some nasty critters when I go with mass produced foodstuffs - animal AND plant. I'm counting on the evolutionary process to pull me through. I think Babbitt Ranch is a heritage site, well worth preserving and supporting - I'd buy their meat. Occasionally. Knowing full-well it's probably chock-full of prions. But academic-industry partnerships get my ire up, just like government-industry partnerships do - and I know for a fact that the info issuing from such marriages is NOT to be trusted. ...I prefer to make my own fully informed choices and appreciate the opportunity to review your marketing materials, which I consider to be a tad less reliable than Campbell's work but interesting nonetheless.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


OK, first off, whenever DevolutionEvolvd makes a thread, I pay attention. The amount of study and detail that he puts into his threads is amazing and I learn quite a bit.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
Upon examining the seemingly immeasurable data, Campbell concluded:

diets high in animal protein (including casein in cow's milk) are strongly linked to diseases such as heart disease, cancer, and Type 2 diabetes.

[edit on 5-9-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd]

Yes, seeing as how almost every bodybuilder that amounts to anything makes sure to take casein every night before bed as it is the slowest of the proteins to digest and keeps the body in an anabolic state while you sleep, I can see how he came to this conclusion.

As well as taking exorbitant amounts of protein during the day, usually 1.5 to 2 grams of it per pound of body weight.

[sarcasm on]The rates of heart disease, cancer and Type 2 diabetes is so high amongst this group of individuals it's unbelievable. [/sarcasm off]

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
Many other researchers have demonstrated that restricting calories on a broader scale, say through intermittent fasting, is just as effective and MUCH healthier.

Speaking of which, I have just two days left on my fast/detox which I have been on for five days already. This is the first time I have ever done anything like this and it's not easy, but I am feeling the benefits already.

I did however make the mistake of buying a large steak yesterday which is just sitting in my fridge driving me slightly mad.

I will be going back on my diet which averages 35 percent protein, 35 percent carbs, and 30 percent fat. It has served me well and I do find that this diet works out quite well for me....so far anyways....

Originally posted by DeniseM
Sorry to barge in, but I kept getting page hits from this site so I came to see what was up.

I am very glad that you did show up to clear up that matter.



All in all an excellent thread again DevolutionEvolvd. I certainly enjoy learning from you.

Originally posted by Uphill


Many people have reported problems with digestion of wheat products, myself among them! DevolutionEvolvd, I encourage you to try (under clinical supervision, if you wish) non-hybridized ancient grains such as kamut and spelt...that made all the difference for me. Food sources such as modern wheat (and modern pinto beans for that matter) have been hybridized many times, generally to increase yield. The recent history of wheat, however, is that food intolerances (such as mine with wheat, and perhaps yours as well) become a much more common problem with hybridized wheat than with ancient wheat strains.

The problems with wheat and grains goes much farther then hybridization. These foods are rich in phytic acid, lectins, trypsin inhibitors etc.

Originally posted by Uphill
diets that feature large amounts of any kind of fat show a high correlation with degenerative diseases over time

The only diets that show high correlation with degenrative disease are westernized diets, these diets are also correlated wtih grain consumption, mcdonald consumption, fructose consumtion, enviromental toxin consumption.

I thought we have gone over many times that correlation doesn't equal causation? What about the people who eat the fatty foods and have no degenerative disease? Hunter gatherers? Masai? French? Cretans? Georgia centarians? Have you read weston prices book?

[edit on 7-9-2010 by Sourdough4life]

reply to post by DeniseM


Thanks so much coming in to clear that up.

Originally posted by Uphill
reply to post by soficrow

 

I have a master's degree in public health. While diet trends come and go, diets that feature large amounts of any kind of fat (such as Atkins) show a high correlation with degenerative diseases over time.

But what about the studies that show a negative correlation? As sourdough pointed out, we're talking about correlation, not cause.

DevolutionEvolvd, I encourage you to try (under clinical supervision, if you wish) non-hybridized ancient grains such as kamut and spelt...that made all the difference for me.

It's evident, to me, that humans don't do well on grains, period. Sure, ancient, nonhybridized grains can be healthier than modern grains; however, choosing ancient over modern is like choosing to wreck your car at 30mph over 70mph.....it's still a wreck.

Food sources such as modern wheat (and modern pinto beans for that matter) have been hybridized many times, generally to increase yield. The recent history of wheat, however, is that food intolerances (such as mine with wheat, and perhaps yours as well) become a much more common problem with hybridized wheat than with ancient wheat strains.

I've noticed this too. But food intolerances aren't the only problem with wheat/grains. And, as soudrough pointed out, the less processing and more ancient the wheat, the more phytic acid.

Looking at it from a paleo standpoint, I don't see why we shoudl be consuming grains. We don't have the digestive system to handle them raw/whole; therefore, we have to "pre-digest" them before consuming them.

Thanks for the comments. I appreciate your input.