Campbell's Interpretation of The China Study Refuted
T. Colin Campbell's book The China Study, is not the study itself, it's his biased interpretation of the data. Multiple people have pointed out numerous errors and false assumptions that Campbell made that aren't supported by the data in either the actual China Study or elsewhere.
Dr. Frank Hu, Professor of Nutrition and Epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, and Dr. Walter Willett, Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition, and Chair of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health responded to Campbell’s criticism of their findings from the Nurses’ Health Study, and offered their own interpretation of the China Study data, which varies dramatically from Campbell's:
"Campbell questioned the validity of our findings because they contradict the results of international correlation studies on animal product consumption and disease rates. … Correlational studies conducted within a country can usually provide more credible data than international comparisons because of relatively homogeneous populations and the possibility of collecting data on potential confounding variables at individual levels. A survey of 65 counties in rural China [aka the China Study], however, did not find a clear association between animal product consumption and risk of heart disease or major cancers." (Reply to TC Campbell, http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/3/850.full)
The Protein Debate - Loren Cordain, PhD v. T. Colin Campbell, PhD
http://crossfitbirmingham.ning.com/forum/attachment/download?id=1972595%3AUploadedFi58%3A26057
Cordain's paper contains 134 references, and his rebuttal to Campbell contains another 30. Campbell, in support of his recommended low protein, low fat, high carb diet provided ZERO references. Campbell defended his failure to provide scientific evidence to support his position by stating:
Campbell disagrees with the evidence-based medicine approach that weighs observational studies more heavily than randomized clinical trials.
> "My critique of Professor Loren Cordain's proposition almost entirely depends on my philosophy of nutrition."
> "Biomedical and nutritional research should be conducted within a paradigm that is substantially different from the contemporary, traditional paradigm."
> "Moreover, we should stress research that is observational, comprehensive and representative of real life conditions."
> "This view is ‘holistic’ and, among other considerations, means that deciding which groups of foods to consume is far more important than deciding what levels of individual nutrients should be consumed. It means that priority should be given to the search for collective disease and health outcomes that may respond to the same diet and lifestyle conditions. It means investigating a variety of metabolic events that mutually support maintaining homeostasis and regulating adaptive responses, then exploring whether there are groups of food to support this group of metabolic events. It means rejecting randomized clinical trials as the acclaimed ‘gold standard’ of diet and health research."
> "Our dietary evolutionary history, while interesting, absolutely does not yield critical clues for optimal nutritional practices."
> I admit that my views represent a paradigm shift from the traditional views of nutrition, including many of my colleagues in the field, and it is this very different world view that prompts so much of my skepticism of Cordain’s observations and views.
My paradigm of nutrition assumes that a holistic food effect is far greater than a reductionist nutrient effect. Not only does this view shape my interpretation of research findings, it also challenges the design of experimental studies, the assessment of food and health policy, the very nature of science itself, and the choices of what to eat.
> "Although Professor Cordain likely will not know this, he and others should nonetheless know of the remarkable healing effects now being routinely accomplished by my clinician colleagues as well as told to me by those who change to a low protein, low fat, whole foods plant-based diet."
The China Study: A Formal Analysis and Response
Denise Minger (Denise is a brilliant and extremely polite former raw vegan who has seen the light re: diet)
[email protected]
August 2, 2010
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/08/06/final-china-study-response-html/
Denise Minger's brief synopsis of the findings of her thorough analysis that completely contradicts Colin Campbell's interpretation of The China Study data:
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/10/09/heart-disease-and-the-china-study-post-1-5/
"*The healthy-hearted regions almost universally had higher intakes of animal fat, animal protein, dietary cholesterol, and saturated fat than the heart-disease-prone regions.
*The healthier regions generally had lower intakes of fiber, light-colored vegetables, plant protein, vegetable oil, and—big surprise—wheat flour.
*Consumption of green vegetables didn’t differ significantly between the high and low heart disease regions. *Neither did smoking rates, total cholesterol, or non-HDL cholesterol, although HDL cholesterol looks slightly higher in the regions with excellent heart health."
Denise's rebuttal was censored from Wikipedia by a vegan editor:
Heart Disease and the China Study, Post #1.5
Denise Minger
October 9, 2010
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/10/09/heart-disease-and-the-china-study-post-1-5/
"all mention of my critique-AKA the Minger Scam-has been yanked from Wikipedia's "The China Study" page by a vegan editor there. The rationale is as follows: ...(really, why would a pretty young girl have so much reason for such a giant ordeal, fight, all that massive work, all that hate???)"
See also:
The China Study - Polish a turd and find a diamond?
Kurt Harris, MD
THURSDAY, JULY 8, 2010 AT 10:27PM
http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2010/7/8/the-china-study-polish-a-turd-and-find-a-diamond.html
The China Study vs the China study
Michael Eades, MD
July 2010, 0:35
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-vs-the-china-study/
The Truth About the China Study
Chris MasterJohn
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
T. Colin Campbell: Scientist or Propagandist? You be the judge
Richard Nikoley
October 7th, 2010
http://freetheanimal.com/2010/10/t-colin-campbell-scientist-or-propagandist.html
The China Study Smackdown Roundup
July 9th, 2010
http://freetheanimal.com/2010/07/the-china-study-smackdown-roundup.html
43 blogs that found problems with T Colin Campbell's "China Study" claims and/or support Denise Minger's analysis
Wheat in China
Stephan Guyenet, PhD
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/wheat-is-invading-china.html
"One of the most striking elements of the 'vegetable-rich' food pattern is its replacement of rice with wheat flour. The 25% of the study population that adhered the least to the vegetable-rich food pattern ate 7.3 times more rice than wheat, whereas the 25% sticking most closely to the vegetable-rich pattern ate 1.2 times more wheat than rice! In other words, wheat flour had replaced rice as their single largest source of calories. This association was much stronger than the increase in vegetable consumption itself!"
Vegetable-rich food pattern is related to obesity in China
International Journal of Obesity (2008) 32, 975–984; doi:10.1038/ijo.2008.21; published online 4 March 2008
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n6/abs/ijo200821a.html
Dr. Frank Hu, Professor of Nutrition and Epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, and Dr. Walter Willett, Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition, and Chair of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health responded to Campbell’s criticism of their findings from the Nurses’ Health Study, and offered their own interpretation of the China Study data, which varies dramatically from Campbell's:
"Campbell questioned the validity of our findings because they contradict the results of international correlation studies on animal product consumption and disease rates. … Correlational studies conducted within a country can usually provide more credible data than international comparisons because of relatively homogeneous populations and the possibility of collecting data on potential confounding variables at individual levels. A survey of 65 counties in rural China [aka the China Study], however, did not find a clear association between animal product consumption and risk of heart disease or major cancers." (Reply to TC Campbell, http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/3/850.full)
The Protein Debate - Loren Cordain, PhD v. T. Colin Campbell, PhD
http://crossfitbirmingham.ning.com/forum/attachment/download?id=1972595%3AUploadedFi58%3A26057
Cordain's paper contains 134 references, and his rebuttal to Campbell contains another 30. Campbell, in support of his recommended low protein, low fat, high carb diet provided ZERO references. Campbell defended his failure to provide scientific evidence to support his position by stating:
Campbell disagrees with the evidence-based medicine approach that weighs observational studies more heavily than randomized clinical trials.
> "My critique of Professor Loren Cordain's proposition almost entirely depends on my philosophy of nutrition."
> "Biomedical and nutritional research should be conducted within a paradigm that is substantially different from the contemporary, traditional paradigm."
> "Moreover, we should stress research that is observational, comprehensive and representative of real life conditions."
> "This view is ‘holistic’ and, among other considerations, means that deciding which groups of foods to consume is far more important than deciding what levels of individual nutrients should be consumed. It means that priority should be given to the search for collective disease and health outcomes that may respond to the same diet and lifestyle conditions. It means investigating a variety of metabolic events that mutually support maintaining homeostasis and regulating adaptive responses, then exploring whether there are groups of food to support this group of metabolic events. It means rejecting randomized clinical trials as the acclaimed ‘gold standard’ of diet and health research."
> "Our dietary evolutionary history, while interesting, absolutely does not yield critical clues for optimal nutritional practices."
> I admit that my views represent a paradigm shift from the traditional views of nutrition, including many of my colleagues in the field, and it is this very different world view that prompts so much of my skepticism of Cordain’s observations and views.
My paradigm of nutrition assumes that a holistic food effect is far greater than a reductionist nutrient effect. Not only does this view shape my interpretation of research findings, it also challenges the design of experimental studies, the assessment of food and health policy, the very nature of science itself, and the choices of what to eat.
> "Although Professor Cordain likely will not know this, he and others should nonetheless know of the remarkable healing effects now being routinely accomplished by my clinician colleagues as well as told to me by those who change to a low protein, low fat, whole foods plant-based diet."
The China Study: A Formal Analysis and Response
Denise Minger (Denise is a brilliant and extremely polite former raw vegan who has seen the light re: diet)
[email protected]
August 2, 2010
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/08/06/final-china-study-response-html/
Denise Minger's brief synopsis of the findings of her thorough analysis that completely contradicts Colin Campbell's interpretation of The China Study data:
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/10/09/heart-disease-and-the-china-study-post-1-5/
"*The healthy-hearted regions almost universally had higher intakes of animal fat, animal protein, dietary cholesterol, and saturated fat than the heart-disease-prone regions.
*The healthier regions generally had lower intakes of fiber, light-colored vegetables, plant protein, vegetable oil, and—big surprise—wheat flour.
*Consumption of green vegetables didn’t differ significantly between the high and low heart disease regions. *Neither did smoking rates, total cholesterol, or non-HDL cholesterol, although HDL cholesterol looks slightly higher in the regions with excellent heart health."
Denise's rebuttal was censored from Wikipedia by a vegan editor:
Heart Disease and the China Study, Post #1.5
Denise Minger
October 9, 2010
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/10/09/heart-disease-and-the-china-study-post-1-5/
"all mention of my critique-AKA the Minger Scam-has been yanked from Wikipedia's "The China Study" page by a vegan editor there. The rationale is as follows: ...(really, why would a pretty young girl have so much reason for such a giant ordeal, fight, all that massive work, all that hate???)"
See also:
The China Study - Polish a turd and find a diamond?
Kurt Harris, MD
THURSDAY, JULY 8, 2010 AT 10:27PM
http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2010/7/8/the-china-study-polish-a-turd-and-find-a-diamond.html
The China Study vs the China study
Michael Eades, MD
July 2010, 0:35
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-vs-the-china-study/
The Truth About the China Study
Chris MasterJohn
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
T. Colin Campbell: Scientist or Propagandist? You be the judge
Richard Nikoley
October 7th, 2010
http://freetheanimal.com/2010/10/t-colin-campbell-scientist-or-propagandist.html
The China Study Smackdown Roundup
July 9th, 2010
http://freetheanimal.com/2010/07/the-china-study-smackdown-roundup.html
43 blogs that found problems with T Colin Campbell's "China Study" claims and/or support Denise Minger's analysis
Wheat in China
Stephan Guyenet, PhD
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/wheat-is-invading-china.html
"One of the most striking elements of the 'vegetable-rich' food pattern is its replacement of rice with wheat flour. The 25% of the study population that adhered the least to the vegetable-rich food pattern ate 7.3 times more rice than wheat, whereas the 25% sticking most closely to the vegetable-rich pattern ate 1.2 times more wheat than rice! In other words, wheat flour had replaced rice as their single largest source of calories. This association was much stronger than the increase in vegetable consumption itself!"
Vegetable-rich food pattern is related to obesity in China
International Journal of Obesity (2008) 32, 975–984; doi:10.1038/ijo.2008.21; published online 4 March 2008
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n6/abs/ijo200821a.html