Sigh… And you were given that as well. You purposely misrepresent him. It isn’t taking his word for it. People that don’t give references, don’t cite other works, don’t have their work peer-reviewed would be somebody that is wanting you to just take their word for it. So what is wrong with you? You specifically said you would love seeing some studies from respectable journals that also weren’t from him which were also provided in some of the studies listed in the Oxford Journals. You don’t sound like somebody that really loved seeing them. Oh, and you’re fuckin’ welcome by the way.
As for the rest of your post, about how we really don’t know, and we just try to do the best we can, nutrition is all over the place, eat in moderate amounts.… Really? Wow, let me take notes.
Per his bio information on his web page, Fuhrman is a member of the Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine, which has an expressly vegan bias. In other words, his moral and ethical views are guaranteed to color his nutritional advice. If you’re part of the choir he’s preaching to, that’s fine, but if you’re looking for dispassionate nutritional advice, you’re looking in the wrong place.
Below is the best and most comprehensive write-up I’ve seen on what Campbell got wrong in his book, The China Study. Here’s a quote from her conclusion, with the full post here. She did what few people seem to have done; read the actual study instead of Campbell’s book. What he said the study said is not what it actually said, if you know what I’m saying.
Sigh is right. If what you say he says is what he says then he is misrepresenting what the actual literature has found. You want to believe him because a) he says what you want to hear b) because he’s been published (so have I, big deal) c) he lists studies (although they don’t show what he says they do.) Fine. Enjoy.
I agree with you Crafter_Man. The diet industry and the complicated explanations behind each one of them sound like alchemy. The entire concept is about the opposite of that and just based on common sense plus self-discipline. I was skinny for my first 28 years until I suddenly I wasn’t and then I really wasn’t. That wasn’t too fun although the reasons for the weight gain weren’t ever mysterious to me. Two and a half years ago, after a bad health scare, I starting eating better. There was no specific formula. Most of what I eat today is vegetarian but I am not a true vegetarian. I just eat lost of fruits and vegetables plus fish, some lean chicken, and sometimes beef or whatever else I want. I also started exercising a lot more. I never had any specific diet in mind but I started to lose my appetite for highly processed foods and I came to accept that calories are like a reverse bank account. Whatever you swallow has to be burned and it usually isn’t worth it. A candy bar isn’t worth a hard bicycle ride in the rain for example but that is what it takes to get rid of it.
I went from 240 to 185 in 2 1/2 years through this non-plan and no-diet and keep losing because I keep improving on it through mostly subconscious non-effort. The only thing I know is that is if I do the things I did before, I will end right back up in the same place. Only stupid people thing that you can repeat the same thing over and over and end up with different results. You have to just rethink everything you are doing. Your body isn’t generating mass on its own. That violates the laws of physics. You are just feeding the hopper the wrong way so try anything that works for you that isn’t kooky and you can live with long-term.
Shagnasty, good for you on your life changes and healthy weight loss. You are alot like me. I was thin my whole life, but I was also a smoker who gradually smoked more and more as I got older getting up to 2 packs a day which also kept the weight off.
The weight gain started with a vengeance when I quit the cigs cold turkey about 7 years ago. I quickly gained 30 pounds.
I tried Nutri-System and other diets. I always reached my goal, but I soon as I was off the diet I quickly gained. I still have the oral fixation thing I had with cigarettes so my biggest problem is I mindlessly graze when I not even hungry.
I want to lose 40 pounds to get to my ideal weight. I’m on my feet 10 plus hours a day and this extra weight is taking its toll on my joints. Both my parents ended up with diabetes due to bad eating and being overweight and I don’t want to get to that point.
You went about losing weight the right way. It’s not a race. I want to change my bad habits, little by little. Forget all these books and diets. It’s not doable for my life.
I’m interested to know in detail what changes you made and what made your mind up to finally get healthy?
Shagnasty: congrats on the weight loss. Your experience mirrors mine.
Indeed. This why I say, “Being fat or obese is a mental problem, not a physical problem.” I lost the weight when I changed my relationship with food. Instead of looking at food as something put on this earth to give me pleasure, I began to look at it in a cold, dubious, and scientific way. Today when I eat, I say to myself, “I need to eat this meat for my protein intake, and these vegetables for my complex sugars. I will not eat this pastry, since it’s full of calories and has little nutritional value.” It does take much of the pleasure away from eating, obviously. But the pleasure I have from being thin is *much *greater than the pleasure any food can give me.
At any rate, education is not the answer; I can explain in 5 minutes how to lose weight from the strictly physical standpoint. As I stated in the post above, losing weight is not something that can be “taught” in the conventional sense. This is why guru/best-selling-author diets always fail.
Why would I want to believe him or even enjoying eating most of this stuff when I really don’t care for most of it at all? I’m not a vegetarian, and heavy into dairy products. I prefer to think what I’ve been doing all along is reasonably healthy for me, but I think I got a long way to go, and am considering switching more of where I get my proteins and fats to plant based sources and limiting more of my calories from the animals products. For someone that has acid reflux, I don’t do particularly well with most raw vegetables either.
As far as what you think I’ve done is misrepresent him or him misrepresenting himself, if you can give me the specific examples, let me know. Your studies of showing milk may prevent certain cancers isn’t nothing that I didn’t point out with the first sentence in one of my posts, and also showed the Oxford studies had such studies to acknowledge they do exist. But I was asked to find some studies to show where milk may be a higher risk factor for cancer which I provided. I may have misplaced one of the studies from Furhman’s as showing cancer when it was one of those not showing a cancer link, haven’t rechecked them all, but all in all, I think most of them represent what I stated.
When people succumb to heart or cancer disease, you won’t hear doctors saying, “well, you need to start eating more meats and dairy products. For over a half a century now it continues to be more and more doctors to go in the opposite direction and starting eating larger and larger portions of your food consisting of greens and beans, fruits, seeds and nuts. If we can get our cholesterol under 150, the chances of heart disease or almost nil from what the Framingham heart study showed us, and one way to best help get to that low of a number seems to be what we eat, with exercise also helping.
My ole my, such an impeccable source! Yeah, she’s cute, but that’s about it. This is one of the first critiques that pops up on google. You’re to be commended for getting that far. She’s a 23 year old amateur who is in over her head, and describes her education and professional qualifications on facebook as a writer and Catholic school teacher, and summer camp instructor, along with professional sock puppeteer as the link to follow shows. This is a part of this article where the vegans bitch slapped her, along with Campbell’s lengthy reply of her critique below it.
I don’t think you can point at one nutrient, and say, “This one is the the bad boy.” The casein study created more questions than it answered. HOW was the casein fed to the rats? They get their normal serving of Lab Rat Chow, and then a shot of pure casein?
I’ll go with protein being protein, and the differences only being the ratios of amino acids which comprise the actual protein. The business of protein-combining, which was the theory thirty years ago (gotta eat beans with grains at the same meal) was found to be hooey. The body is smart enough to take what it needs to do what it has to do. Mankind survived for eons before amino acids were ever discovered.
You’re gonna get the same argument from proponents of “natural” vitamins, too. Truthfully, the body doesn’t care if your vitamins come from “natural” sources or a laboratory. Besides, where do you think the laboratory gets the raw materials to supposedly construct these “unnatural” vitamins? Hint: from food…
Most people would probably benefit from a diet with fewer animal products. But really, unless you are allergic to milk (or casein), I wouldn’t panic .
~VOW
All I can say is what the literature actually supports. Yes, a diet much higher in vegetables and fruits than is the typical Western diet is associated with decreased cancer risks. Nothing at all controversial about promoting a diet much higher in nuts, seeds, vegetables, fruits, than is typical for many of us in the “developed world.” It’s the way I personally eat and not only because it is healthy, but because it tastes good. The specific claim made however was that “protein from animal products is causing a lot of the problems, while the protein in plant products it is not” … and that statement has no justification. And the fact that he has a degree, is published, and lists citations, does not make his strident position any more valid than PhD’s strident other POV.
As far as his book, well a preview seems to be available online, and anytime I read someone starting off like this:
I know that I am reading a steaming pile and won’t waste my time going farther.
Certainly if his “revolutionary” presentation, near religious fervor, and misrepresentation of the literature motivates you fine. Personally I find it funny to hold up Clinton as an endorser. He is known to jumping on one fad diet after the other. South Beach before this. Loses weight and puts it back on. He represents the wrong approach - he diets but does not make lifestyle changes that he can stick with. He is an proven yo-yo dieter. Clinton staying near vegan with morning almond milk soy protein smoothies every day forever? Somehow I doubt it.
You mock the posts of those like MsRobyn’s “eat a balanced diet in appropriate, moderate amounts … the meat I do eat is much leaner than it used to be. I eat (or try to) five servings of whole fruits and vegetables each day and have vastly increased the amount of whole grains in my diet … no magic bullet … portion control” but she, and several other posters here, are right on target. Successful long term health is best served by developing a nutrition and exercise plan that is along those commonsense lines and that a particular individual can stick with longterm. Fairly few will stick with veganism and let alone raw foodism (which Campbell seems to promote as preferred) as a lifetime plan.
Oh, we’re going to play the “her qualifications aren’t good enough game”? In his rebuttal, he cites basically nothing, replying in effect, “I know better than she does.” He says that his book isn’t based on just the study (which makes the title misleading, doesn’t it?) but rather his interpretation of other studies. And we’re supposed to take his word for it? If you follow her other links, she has posted extensively cited rebuttals to Campbell also.
And for the record, I have no idea how high this ranks on Google right now since I first read that post at least a year ago. In fact, I think I may have posted a link to it on the board before. I’d bet money that you found Campbell’s response through a Google search though. How high did his page rank? :rolleyes:
It’s not the first time (PDF) Campbell has been criticized, and in my opinion, come out looking untrustworthy and petulant. Loren Cordain, who is a qualified scientist had a public debate with Campbell several years ago. Campbell cited virtually no sources, while Cordain cited HUNDREDS in support. Campbell eventually resorts to the “I have more qualifications than you, so I must be right,” argument that he later used with Minger.
Maybe you believe that someone’s qualifications automatically confer authority, but people who are able to support their claims with evidence and citations have a lot more credibility with me than those who say, “I’m right. Just trust me.”
Yeah, that’s right, does she have any or does that even matter to you? When it comes to health, and my doctors, I prefer as many letters behind their name as possible. Perhaps you’ll go get your neighbor or a car mechanic for your medical information and for even surgery on you, but for myself, I would like to have what their peers consider as some of the best and I want as much education and training in the field that they can get.
He was actually quite kind to her, and as far as being more qualified to answer such questions than her, well, that’s a given.
I’ve covered this, but if you want to parrot another, please cite anywhere in his work that he states, suggests or even implies that you take his word for it? You can’t, because it’s not there, and I don’t even have to double-check that.
I’ve read the article in its entirety. By all means, give her best arguments here, in your words if you’re capable.
I doubt you read from her a year ago, because you haven’t actually addressed anything of what she says. And had you actually, you would have been well versed to do the arguments yourself. Before I posted my first post on this thread, I read some critiques of Campbell’s. One was the 23 year old girl. Another one even more vociferous than her was an anonymous poster for some time, but was more was revealed to be another young kid with some of the same associations as the 23 year old girl.
Way to go Sherlock, what gave it away? I guess it was me telling you in my prior post that her name was one of the first to pop up in a critique to his book on a google search. Gotto get up awfully early in the morning to get one past you.
Name a book on diet or nutrition that isn’t going to get criticized by the multitudes? Most Westerners love their meat and dairy, and to give most of it up, isn’t an easy thing to do. Restricting it even more, one has to make some serious changes in eating habits. Not so easy, and most don’t want to follow it. Can’t blame them. We love our food, the fast foods, the restaurants, and to drastically alter it, can sort of make one a bit of an social outcast as well, or at least not eating at most of the same places anymore.
As far as Campbell not giving sources in an oral debate, when there are some 800 from the China Study, I don’t expect him to have them memorized verbatim in a public debate. Nor do public debates mean much.
With Cordain criticizing Campbell, don’t think for one second that his caveman diet doesn’t have its share of critics (plenty upon request).
All good questions, and I don’t have the intricate details of it all. It does seem like our species fare a bit better if one isn’t a heavy consumer of it, like me. But I’m going to at least lower my skim milk usage. I started doing it a week ago, and this is the first time in years, I recall limiting my milk intake to one gallon for the week. Wasn’t trying to lose weight, but I lost four lbs. I’m going to test my blood levels in about three more weeks to see if this might make a difference in my cholesterol levels, and they finally have started going down.
As well as decreasing heart disease, not just decreased cancer rates. Furhman’s book, and Campbell’s in The China Study and a great deal of literature says the same thing. Furhman allows meat and dairy if one must, but I believe limits animal products to 10% of calories, which is probably may be more strict than your diet. And it sounds like what little I know of your diet, you’re doing better than me then, because quite frankly, I have a hard time with many greens, and have to do something about my high milk consumption.
Well, to rats and mice it was plenty justified to them with the multiple studies showing 100 to 0 results. And yes, that is what their literature states, and I think this may be the case as well, but have got more studies to research. Protein is a problem–as Campbell as well as Furhman and others shows—partly in due to the animal products protein also raising human cholesterol levels, and it just isn’t the saturated fats doing this. Campbell goes further saying the cholesterol levels in protein is more significant than saturated fat, and certainly more so than dietary cholesterol. He says “whether it is the immune system, various enzyme systems, the uptake of carcinogens into the cells, or hormonal activities, animal protein generally causes mischief.” They also acknowledge that plant proteins and products didn’t raise cholesterol in humans but lowered it.
But as far as lifting massive quotes, and charts and studies from the books I’ve already cited, of which both spend quite a bit of time on, I’ll have to pass. If the proteins also causing the problems intrigues you that much, I’m going to have to let you get that information for yourself. You know the sources. Don’t care either way what you decide. I think protein is a contributor of raising cholesterol at this time, and if so, that is significant in itself. Particularly if you agree with the Framingham studies of people having cholesterols levels of 150 or lower and what they said about that. But if Campbell is also correct, it assists in initializing, progressing, and progression of cancer. But before I completely made up my mind on it, as I’ve stated, I would want to do quite a bit of more research.
From your reply you may agree about the carcinogens. If so, I have time for the merit concerning the plant based diet vs the animal diets and with the 150 or lower cholesterol level that I think most agree is important.
Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn Jr gets the hard core cases for those with advanced heart diseases. Of all places the best doctors around the world recommend for those with cardiac problems, it is the Cleveland Clinic.
Several decades ago, Campbell relates in his book that Dr. Esselstyn began his study with the primary goal of his patients getting their blood cholesterol below 150 mg/d. He had them record everything in a diary for every two weeks for five years he would see them and do the necessary blood work and analysis etc.
Participants of his diet as well as he and his wife were the following: “free of all added fat and almost all animal products. They were to avoid oils, meat, fish, fowl, and dairy products, except for skim milk and nonfat yogurt.” After five years, he recommended them to stop consuming skim milk and yogurt as well.
Five of his participants dropped out within two years, which left 18. Those original 18 patients had come to him with severe diseases. Within the eight years leading up to the study, these eighteen people had suffered through forty-nine coronary events.
Here is what those eighteen people achieved. At the start of the study the patients’ average cholesterol level was 246 mg/dl. During the course of the study the average cholesterol was 132 mg/dl! This was well below their 150 target. The levels of bad LDL cholesterol dropped as dramatically.
It continues to get better. By far the most impressive results were that how many during this time continued to have coronary events that occurred since the start of the study.
In the following 11 years, only ONE had a coronary event of the 18 that followed the diet. And that ONE event turned out to be from a patient that strayed from the diet for two years. After straying, he resumed his diet, and his chest pain (angina) was eliminated again, and he didn’t experience any further episodes.
Even more great news: Not only had the disease been stopped in these patients, it’s been reversed. 70% of patients seen an opening of their arteries of a 7% reduction in blockage. May not sound like much as Dr. Esselstyln says, but that translates to 70% more blood flow.
(edit: I should have put a few of those paragraph in quotes, I slightly paraphased a few parts of it for space.)
Well, that was with Furhman’s book and as I’ve stated much earlier, I do think he oversells bits of it. I don’t like his marketing ploys at all, nor his site, where for monthly memberships varying in price they allow you to access more of their cite. But I don’t think those weight losses are unreasonable. The unreasonable part is most people being able to follow it. I’ve personally never even seen a overweight vegetarian (maybe they exist) unless they were just getting started. I would use different qualifiers including “all people”, but that is marketing, and most if not all diet books will be guilty of this.
But if he does stick with it what matters is the results. If he does, I think there is an excellent chance his results will be similar to Dr. Esselstyn’s patients. I’m sure he, and his family wouldn’t find those results funny at all.
Well with those in advanced stages of heart disease, eating in moderation and a balanced diet of continuing to include eating meats dairy products in seems like what is going to eventually kill them off early. I doubt there is some heart doctor that exists that is legitimate that specializes in telling those with advanced heart diseases that they would be best to continue on with the meat and dairy products, nevermind increasing them. If one dare tried, I’d love to see how their results compare to Dr. Esselstyn’s.
I can do more than dare, sport. I’ve got an article in front of me that describes the effects of the Pritikin diet that was in vogue in the 1980s, but which continues to endure. Participants spent 26 days in a restricted environment, during which time they followed the diet and exercise plan. The diet, BTW, allows two servings of non-fat dairy and 3.5 oz of fish or fowl per day (but no red meat). Five years later, the people who were still on Pritikin showed significant benefits, drastically reducing their need for cardiac surgery, and increasing their overall health. The article also describes the positive changes in those following Pritikin in terms of hypertension and diabetes/insulin resistance. (The article, BTW, is Roberts, CK and Barnard, RJ, Effects of exercise and diet on chronic disease. Journal of Applied Physiology, January, 2005. The authors are professors of physiology at UCLA.) My point is not that Pritikin is the be-all and end-all of diets for cardiac patients, but that it is possible to have a certain amount of dairy and animal protein and still derive significant benefits.
Obviously, you know that consuming three gallons of milk a week isn’t healthy, or you wouldn’t reduce your intake or switch to non-fat. What you seem to be falling victim to is this sort of all-or-none mentality that’s plagued many a dieter. As the above article, DSeid’s cites, and my experiences and the experiences of some of the other posters in the thread demonstrate, it is possible to eat a certain amount of animal-derived foods and still lose weight and improve one’s overall health. It is not necessary to completely eliminate animal foods to achieve these benefits; a mere reduction to two servings (no more than six ounces total) of meat per day, with chicken and fish forming the bulk of that.
What you’ve also got going on is a ferocious case of confirmation bias. You’re apparently so convinced that Campbell has the magical solution for your problems that you’re not receptive to any other ideas, even in the face of proof that alternatives exist. Frankly, the fact that you apparently believe us stupid or ignorant for not Seeing the Light and embracing Campbell and All His Glory is very off-putting.
I agree with this. (unless you are on one of those horrid medicines that make you gain weight, of course) I have kept my excess weight off since 2005. Portion control. Exercise. There is no magic. I wish there was.
Actually I am not so “intrigued” by the question as offering up (checks forum) a GQ response: the medical literature right now does not support a sweeping statement that animal protein per say is more harmful than is plant protein, and in particular moderate amounts of low fat dairy have more evidence of modest benefits on balance than harm. The bulk of those people with all the letters after their names are not convinced that such a conclusion is justified. Thus you find organizations like the American Heart Association still advising fish at least twice a week and focusing on limiting saturated and trans- fats from animal sources, not protein from them. Protein is advised to stay at about 15% of total calories per the official guideline (ATP III). Standard care among cardiologists and others is to say that it is fine to continue with moderate amounts of lean meats and dairy so long as the saturated fat content is kept below 7% of total daily calories. In fact there are quite a few who would specifically advise adding non-fat yogurt or kefir (with active cultures) as there is suggestive evidence that such lowers cholesterol modestly and may also lower blood pressure some. And yes there are even some who advise a diet moderately high in lean meats, along with nuts, fruits and vegetables (a “paleolithic diet”) and have found it to result in significantly improved lipid profiles, blood sugar, and blood pressure. Better results than a “Mediterranean diet.”
Please note: this in no way argues against veganism as a healthy diet, especially compared to the standard American one. Assuming adequate plant proteins and a good B12 source it most definitely is a good choice. It tends to be low calorie, high fiber, and very nutrition dense. High in antioxidants. The fats it has are often “good fats.” Nothing wrong with it at all. But neither is it the magic bullet. I’d be very curious to see a study comparing a vegan to a paleo diet head to head.
Meanwhile this much is for sure true: a nutrition plan that someone does not stick with is not going to do them much good. Extreme approaches are often ones that are not stuck with. (Unless you are in a community of like-minded people.) That’s the message of the posters here who are among the elite few who have both lost significant weight and kept it off long term.
razncain, nice try at getting a rise out of me by being insulting and sarcastic. Unfortunately for you, I have far less emotion tied up in this than you seem to.
The arguments for a vegan diet have always been spurious because they have started from a moral and ethical standpoint, not a fact-based one. Campbell’s and Fuhrman’s association with a vegan organization means that they have to work an awful lot harder to convince me that their arguments aren’t biased. People who start without preconceptions and look at what the research actually says are far more trustworthy than those who have an agenda. It’s like someone who belongs to the Advancement of Sound Science Center trying to convince me that global warming isn’t being caused by human activity; I’m going to be a bit more critical of both what they say and how they say it.
I’m not going to get into a debate with you about this because I simply don’t really care what you think. (I end up saying something like this quite often on this board. It gets tiresome after a while.) I provided the cites for people like the OP to read and make up their own minds about. I’ve done plenty of homework over the years. I’ve been reading about human nutrition starting with anthropological studies back in high school. I know what I consider to be authoritative and trustworthy, and some snarky poster on a message board isn’t likely to be very convincing to the contrary.
My ole my, such an impeccable source! Yeah, she’s cute, but that’s about it. This is one of the first critiques that pops up on google. You’re to be commended for getting that far. She’s a 23 year old amateur who is in over her head, and describes her education and professional qualifications on facebook as a writer and Catholic school teacher, and summer camp instructor, along with professional sock puppeteer as the link to follow shows. This is a part of this article where the vegans 
Wasn’t trying to lose weight, but I lost four lbs. I’m going to test my blood levels in about three more weeks to see if this might make a difference in my cholesterol levels, and they finally have started going down.