One-size-fits all works no better in diets than it does in shoes. For this reason, I am remaining a bit skeptical of the recommendation that ALL people should eat ALL raw food at ALL times, and should never eat animal foods. Some of the books one can read on the raw food cuisine are too absolutist for me, as are many of the anti-meat manifestos. Although it is not as simple as a black-and-white approach, I am coming to think we each need to find the food lifestyle that is appropriate for our body, our exercise level, our altitude, our attitude.
Perhaps finding that personal food pathway takes time, self-awareness, experimentation, and mindfulness?
In order to look at all sides of the diet questions, I have been reading such books as The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability and Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human, both readable, eccentric, and worthy of at least skimming.
And I read this critique of The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health. (The book is oft-cited as proof that people should be vegetarian.) I would like you to read that blog post critical of The China Study and tell me what you think in the comments below.
An excerpt from The China Study Revisited: New Analysis of Raw Data Doesn’t Support Vegetarian Ideology (Science-Based Medicine):
Over a year ago I wrote about The China Study, a book by T. Colin Campbell and his son based on a huge epidemiologic study of diet and health done in China. The book’s major thesis is that we could prevent or cure most disease (heart disease, cancer, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, bone, kidney, eye and other diseases) by eating a whole foods plant-based diet, drastically reducing our protein intake, and avoiding meat and dairy products entirely.
I noticed a number of things in the book that bothered me. I found evidence of sloppy citations, cherry-picked references, omission of data that contradicted the thesis, and recommendations that went beyond the data. I concluded:He marshals a lot of evidence, but is it sufficient to support his recommendation that everyone give up animal protein entirely, including dairy products? I don’t think so.The China Study involved 367 variables and 8000 correlations. I said I would leave it to others to comment on the study design and the statistical analysis, and now someone has done just that. Denise Minger devoted a month and a half to examining the raw data to see how closely Campbell’s claims aligned with the data he drew from; she found many weaknesses and errors.
Your thoughts?
Note: Additions to the China Study debate:
- What T. Colin Campbell Didn't Want You to See (The Spark of Reason)
- China Study Author Colin Campbell Slaps Down Critic Denise Minger (vegsource.com)
- The China Study vs the China study (Blog of Michael R. Eades, MD)
Comments