Please note, that that particular diet isn’t telling them it would be best to continue on with the same meat and dairy products as before (whatever that was), it’s telling them to reduce them significantly, and in red meats case, eliminating it altogether, while allowing fish and fowl. And the exercise is sure to help. I’ve seen plenty of results such as that. Without knowing the exact particulars of his patients, it looks like his group also did well, nor does it surprise me. If I can find that article on-line, I’ll look for it. Dr. Esselstyn was more restrictive with his diet. Even after going to the extremes on his diet, some of his patients required minimum cholesterol lowering drugs. Had his patients chosen this Pritikin’s diet, I’m sure the results would have been good, but would have been curious if he would have been able to control the cholesterol levels as well. But at least with the Pritikin diet, more should be willing to abide by it.
I actually thought I was doing my body more good instead of bad with my high milk consumption for all of these years, although I would sometimes hear about such things, never really looked into it that much. Nor am I arguing that one isn’t going to benefit by limiting meat and dairy, especially while having an exercise program either. There’s an infinite number of ways of getting there.
Who isn’t looking at the data? Do I need to remind you of your earlier posts? At least I’ve looked over others’ data that you said on several occasions weren’t even interested in hearing from, in particular Campbell. You tried to explain by more unsupported accusations in the post that followed. And I have yet to see you show where his data was flawed. Of course, that’s kind of hard to do, when one chooses not to look at other data presented, and if one has truly has a confirmation basis, won’t even agree to look at the data, so does that remind you of anybody you know?
Fair enough if your interest only takes you that far. Mine only goes so far too, and I still got a long ways to go to research much of this. But to say that, one would have to be very selective on what medical literature they choose to read, and ignoring many that would show such a position. Just picked at random the WebMD on the first page of a quick google and it says this:
Don’t have a clue how good that cite is, but regardless of who might be right at the moment, if one chooses mostly animal proteins over plant proteins, one has to also consider all of the other antitoxidants they would be missing out on too if not getting much of their protein from plant sources. And if it also raises cholesterol when going with animal protein (again conflicting reports), that too would be another reason to choose plant products over animals.
The China Study data showed that: “There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or minimizations of animal product intake beyond which further disease prevention does not occur. These findings suggest even moderate intakes of foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in plasma cholesterol concentration, which are associated, in turn, with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality rates.’ In other words, populations with very low cholesterol levels have not only low heart disease rates but low cancer rates as well.” There is a plenty of evidence to support this in CS.
The Paleolithic diet (caveman diet) came out dead last of 20 best diets for from a panel gathered by the U.S. News and World Report. Cordain has on-line rebuttals to the criticism from a ABC site which also features it. There are other claims to which are made for it that are also way off base.
The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends a moderate diet even for those prone to heart disease, and are hunky-dory with cholesterol levels up to 200 despite the strongest of evidence clearly showing 150 or lower is by far better. So it doesn’t sound like it’s the best advice.
The National Cholesterol program says moderation as well, but how they define that is the fact they are already resigned to Americans just being on medications for the rest of their life stating the most cost effective means to deal with lowering LDL is with drugs. Do you agree that that is good advice?
The expose of how politics work in the roughly trillion dollar annual food industry in America are truly disheartening, but I found this another fascinating part of Campbell’s book which was the price of admission alone. It’s very interesting of who and what is also behind many of the ridiculous and asinine numbers (the FNB: Food and Nutrition Board one such example) and what their 900 page report recommended to go with. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic. Some lawsuits were also filed with the courts to find out what industries many on these boards and panels were supporting and getting support from. Front groups were also revealed. One recommendation with FNB is letting Americans have up to 25% of their calorie intake from sugars now. WHO (World Health Organization) didn’t cave despite huge pressure from both the sugar industry and other political threats and kept the sugar levels at no higher than 10%. FNB’s protein recommendations were equally pathetic.
Vox, in Appendix A of the China Study, there are a few additional questions answered about the rat diet concerning casein, but still not covering all of your concerns.
WebMD is discussing the complete foods: meats vs soy for protein. And again, no doubt that a diet that gets most of its protein from red meat tend to a poorer lipid panel than one that get its protein from non-meat sources. Again, the issue is the package that it comes in, the fats that travel with it, in the minds of most experts. If you read the comments by the US News and World Reports rater, their problems with the paleo diet are that meats today may have too much fat, that while the studies done show very good results, they are not yet large enough to recommend it, and concerns over a lack of milk as well as too little whole grain:
In truth “paleo diets” are a mixed bag. Most include a lot more fruits, vegetables, seeds, and nuts than the typical American fare. The meats preferred are lean ones, fish and game meats if you can get 'em. Sounds quite delish to me but I will stick with some yogurt and whole grains too. And I won’t give up my coffee, wine, or occasional shot of Scotch or Mezcal.
Here’s a great head to head study in a high risk group illustrating the point. Type 2 diabetics who already have microalbuminuria (meaning they already have enough kidney damage that they leak some protein into their urine). Only difference in the diet is the source of the protein, animal (AP) or plant (PP), but fat content kept about the same (30% fat 17% protein)
As far as your complaining about the AHA giving what you call poor advice, well hey, you are the one who said you want to take your advice from those with “as many letters behind their name as possible… 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.” The classic appeal to authority. Well the AHA represents those with the most letters, the most education, the most training, and felt by their peers to be the best, to be authoritative. Much more so than Furhman. Or a panel chosen by the editors of US World and News Reports. Make up your mind.
Take it in the context it was given in. Earlier another asked me if I was going to not go with the 23 year girl with no known qualifications and said if I was going to play the “her qualification aren’t good enough game.” Which I did respond that yes, I wanted as many as letters behind their name as possible when it came to medical information and for surgery, not some car mechanic. And it’s not “appeal to authority” when I do question some that have the education and letters behind their name, so not a good example to try that out on when I’m questioning their advice from others that I respect more with their numbers. Nor is it an “appeal of authority” if one is truly qualified as an expert, and their peers highly regard them in their respected fields. We all see out the best info that is out there, or we should. There are conflicting reports of many areas of health with many experts to weigh upon. Experts seek out experts too, especially when out of their specialized field.
The context that it was given in was that her points, her actual analysis of what the study actually said, could be dismissed because she is just a 23 year old girl and, well, Fuhrman has letters after his name. Well by that metric Fuhrman should be dismissed out of hand because the AHA have lots more letters. IOW, I see your one MD with his book to sell, and raise you a whole organization of MDs and PhDs highly respected by the entire medical community as the expert panel to defer to as a default.
And where do you get the idea that he is highly regarded by his peers? I’m a peer and I don’t. Looking up what he’s published in PubMed I can find four articles, two of them in a rag that publishes anything (“Altern Ther Health Med”). Here’s one of them. Yes, he is a regular old FP who co-authored a study with a chiropracter about how great fasting is to treat autoimmune diseases. This aint someone getting published in Nature or Science. No experts are seeking him out.
First of all the exchange wasn’t with her and Furhman, it was with her and Campbell, which he did respond to the points, and he didn’t dismiss her out of hand, nor did I. I read the entire exchange and points brought up, she has lots of problems to contend with, which doesn’t take an expert to see either, nor am I. I brought up some, would have brought up a lot more if the discussion went that way. I thought she was reasonably intelligent as well, but was making points and accusations which in some cases was basically throwing shit on a wall and seeing if it sticks. At least another on this board brought her in as being qualified to speak as a comprehensive and successful rebuttal of the China study, and with just the quote provided, quite a few thought they would ride in the same wagon with her stating of his work:
While more jumped on the wagon. I have yet to find anything in his work, where he implies, states or suggests one should just trust him he’s a scientist, of which I’ve asked before to provide specifically where this is the case. When this was offered up, the band kept playing with this choir that Campbell just wants us to take his word for it. Never mind the comprehensive data and references which back up his contentions as well as any reasonably scientist can offer them up in.
With his work on the protein that she criticizes, she says she believes Campbell was influenced by his own expectations. And pardon me while I just don’t take her word for it. Others have at least duplicated the lab animal experiments, and with some of these protein and animal studies, it was his colleagues that were carrying out the work. To make this stick, she would involve many having had to been influenced by their own expectations. Had I went with a similar source, it would have been labeled asappealing to an unqualified authority. Other data Campbell provides has given plenty of data for nutritionists, epidemiologists and biochemists to cull over for many years to come.
I’m sure Campbell could probably “raise you a whole organization of MDs and PhDs highly respected by the entire medical community as the expert panel to defer to as a default” as well. There are equally hundreds of papers by his peers that cull over his work in the Oxford journals. MsRobyn may not had known it at the time since she relied on an article, but she did cite the work referenced with the Pritikin Diet which if one goes to it has the authors of this piece referencing and quoting Campbell’s work in several places which I thought was an excellent paper on diet and exercise.
As far as Furhman or for that matter anyone that offers up diets goes, there is always a dividing line of their peers as to what is best here. But also with many showing quite a bit of common ground with much of the material, while also not always agreeing to certain specifics. I’ve stated several criticisms of Furhman’s work with my very first post here with a few more that followed, but while also acknowledging what I thought was some good info and studies cited in particular the Framingham heart study which seems to be in just about every health book, anyway, it seems. But there were many, just wasn’t going to provide an extensive review of it. The paleo diet you acknowledged as a mixed bag as well.
Well, no, he could not. Because no such major medical organization has concluded that animal protein per se, be it meat, dairy, fowl, or fish is unhealthy. At this point the evidence, inclusive of that in his book, does not support such a conclusion. And it was to make that claim that you resurrected this thread.
Again, a vegan diet is great for those who stick with it. But claims that people are causing themselves harms if they have a nutrition plan low in saturated fats, with ample vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds, that includes moderate amounts of fish, lean meats, non fat dairy and in particular some yogurt with active cultures, are not supportable by the evidence overall. As to which nutrition plan is healthier, that one or the vegan one, or several other possibilities - there is little to base a solid conclusion on despite the religious fervor that some advocates of one approach or another have. But one thing is true, the nutrition plan that one does not stick with long term will not be the one that gives you the best health outcome results.
BTW, if anyone wants to see Campbell’s actual casein mouse liver cancer study. 3 groups - mice fed higher than recommended daily protein all casein, and two other groups of increasingly higher. (Recommended is 4.4% of the feed, conditions were 6%, 14%, and 22% casein. All fed ad libitum.) No conditions of plant protein, substitute was sucrose and cornstarch.
Concluding from that that animal protein causes more liver cancer than does plant protein in this particular mouse mode is specious enough. Suggesting that this study implies that casein causes cancer in humans is nuts. Meanwhile multiple human studies have found no association of milk with all causes cancer mortality in humans.
Oh I’m sorry. This gets even better. Turns out he’s disproved his own hypothesis but doesn’t bother to include that in his book.
I hope it was obvious what was wrong with his 2003 mouse casein study cited above: the comparison was abnormally high protein with some carb to very abnormal high protein with less carb; no comparison of plant protein to animal protein in the same amounts, especially of plant protein that is complete (i.e. “high quality”). To state that this study implies anything about animal protein fostering tumor growth above and beyond what plant protein would is, frankly, crazy.
Well he had actually tested that plant to animal protein comparison in another liver cancer model, the one linked above, an aflatoxin B1 induced one. And indeed the abnormally high levels plant protein did not foster as much tumor growth as did the casein … but he proved that the effect was exclusively due to the fact that the plant protein, gluten, used was an incomplete one, “poor quality”, deficient in lysine. Add the lysine in and the same effect was found for both excess gluten with lysine added and excess casein.
Now Campbell did this study first! He already knew this in 1989. And yet he did his Hepatitis B induced cancer mouse model with high casein only and put it out there as suggestive evidence of the danger of casein and animal protein in general. He even referenced that past study as showing that plant protein did not cause the same fostering of tumor growth that casein does without mentioning that the effect disappeared when the plant protein was supplemented to make it complete!
Sorry but this is no scientist; this is scum, intentionally misrepresenting his own data.
Look razncain, you were concerned that your gallon of skim milk a week may be unhealthy. It is not. As already linked milk (and especially fermented milk products, like yogurt) have protective effects against several cancers and in a large prospective study had no effect on overall cancer mortality. There is no reason to think that it in anyway negatively effects your cholesterol. One gallon a week comes is 16 cups, current recommendation for dairy by the experts, with all the letters, is 3 cups a day for an adult of milk or milk equivalents, which is 21 cups a week. You are fine to drink your milk. You may even want to drink it specifically after your runs … turns out it makes a great recoverydrink!
Not to restart any debates here, but I recently came across this article from the American Council on Science and Health, Physicians’ Committee for Responsible Medicine: Not So Responsible. It’s from 2002, and points out that the organization Furhman and Campbell belong to had already engaged in obfuscatory practices like selecting certain studies that supported their biases, or reporting findings in ways that omitted crucial study differences that would lead to very different conclusions from the ones the PCRM reported.
Going back to the appeal to authority argument, if you consider qualifications to be paramount, the ACSH trumps the PCRM. From where I stand on the semi-lunatic fringe who dispute conventional nutrition advice, it’s certainly really interesting that a mainstream organization which would normally be sympathetic to vegetarian-leaning nutritional advice criticized the PCRM in such a strong way as to say that the organization offers “misinformation” and “biased” information. For them to be that critical, they must feel pretty strongly about the magnitude of the bias.