Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was, and it was published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Design: The study involved a pooled analysis of data from 2 prospective studies that included 60,310 persons living in the United Kingdom, comprising 18,431 regular meat eaters (who ate meat ≥5 times/wk on average), 13,039 low (less-frequent) meat eaters, 8516 fish eaters (who ate fish but not meat), and 20,324 vegetarians (including 2228 vegans who did not eat any animal foods). Mortality by diet group for each of 18 common causes of death was estimated with the use of Cox proportional hazards models.
Conclusions: United Kingdom–based vegetarians and comparable nonvegetarians have similar all-cause mortality. Differences found for specific causes of death merit further investigation.
Thanks for going to the trouble of getting that rundown of what was involved as far as the study design. I actually spent some time this morning looking it over because I try to keep an open mind. How many people on this thread have bothered to read the China Study. None, as far as I know.
However, as good as it is to see what the actual study consisted of, it's not an evaluation by a well respected American doctor, like Dr. Campbell. There could have been study-design flaws that would invalidate the findings.
I have my doubts for many reasons. One is that Dr. Gundry commented on the Seventh Day Adventist study by saying the following: (I'm paraphrasing) Regarding longevity, Vegans came in first, then vegetarians, and meat eater came in last. (There was a considerable difference in the number of years.)
And that's not the only study that shows such a result. He said about the Blue Zones that one thing they all had in common is that they ate very little meat, showing in that instance that meat consumption can make a difference. Meaning that one possible reason the Blue Zones stand out for greater health and longevity is because they eat very little meat. Would they do better if they didn't eat any meat? According to the Seventh Day Adventists, the answer is yes. Whereas the London-study conclusion is that meat doesn't make any difference.
And Dr. Campbell's China Study likewise indicates there is considerable difference between those humans who don't eat animal protein and those that do. In addition, he has presented multiple studies from other scientists going back to the late 1800s that back up his conclusion concerning the effects of animal protein on humans.
Note: Bold print for Airborneguy. There's a step by step procedure in science. Mice come first because it is the least expensive. Then if your hypothesis proves out with the mice, you may then qualify for funding to do large-scale long-term human studies like the China Study.
Last edited by LongevitySeeker; 07-26-2022 at 02:54 PM..
Where We Differ
Club members observed many holes in Campbell’s arguments. Here are just a few:
The China Study is an observational study; in other words, it only identifies relationships between different variables. It does not prove that particular behaviors or food choices cause certain health outcomes. In the study, many other variables were overlooked that could increase cancer risk—such as industrialization, exposure to chemicals, and sugar and refined carbohydrate consumption. These could easily have been the culprits responsible for differences in cancer risk among groups.
Although individuals in the counties studied may have been vegan, whole counties did not follow vegan food patterns, so it is difficult to understand how Campbell came up with his conclusions that all animal products should be omitted.
Campbell’s experiments with casein were conducted with laboratory rats and mice. His hypothesis that casein behaves the same way in a whole food as when fed in isolation is flawed and violates his own philosophy to look at diets holistically.
Campbell is very selective in building his bibliography. A more comprehensive review of the literature reveals scientific research confirming the many health benefits that milk and dairy foods provide. For this reason, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends that Americans consume two to three servings of milk and dairy foods per day.
A long-term study conducted in Taiwan and published in 2014 found that increased dairy consumption meant lower risks of mortality from cardiovascular disease, especially stroke, but found no significant association with the risk of cancer.
Perhaps one of the most significant flaws of the book is that the recommendations are so extreme. Diets that remove entire food groups have the potential for unintended consequences of underconsuming essential nutrients. Bringing food choices into better alignment with the Dietary Guidelines is a preferred approach—specifically eating more underconsumed foods such as vegetables, fruits, low-fat dairy products, whole grains, beans, lean meats and fish while also reducing the consumption of refined grains, fats and sugars. These changes will go a long way toward promoting health.
While I do not know the reputation of the reviewer, there are many who say the same things listed above.
Now again, I eat mainly a plant based diet, from a whole range of cultures (so variety of foods, spices, herbs, etc.), Generally speaking I agree with a lot from the China Study, generally. Turning it into a specific dogma though is not helpful. None of the plant based movement should be written in stone, again, I view it more as a general guide to nutrition.
That's why I do not militantly follow any diet. I go for variety, I rotate my proteins, grains, legumes, veggies, fruits, fats.... I try to eat from different cultures frequently, usually heavily spiced (they all have health benefits too). I try for a daily variety of nutrient dense foods daily. I also try to balance the macros.
I will also eat an unhealthy dessert now and again, or have a big old tbone, or just something that downright delicious for it's own sake (fettuccine alfredo).
I feel some people fear their upcoming mortality and they latch onto things with a death grip because they think it will guarantee them more time.
This is super ironic to me, because I am a huge proponent of eating healthy, with a vegetarian lean. But you come across as being militant, extreme and a bit judgy (heck what you said to me was so far off I literally started laughing... it was about me obviously eating the SAD).
Now I'm off to pick some fresh veggies from my organic garden.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
Thanks for going to the trouble of getting that rundown of what was involved as far as the study design. I actually spent some time this morning looking it over because I try to keep an open mind. How many people on this thread have bothered to read the China Study. None, as far as I know.
However, as good as it is to see what the actual study consisted of, it's not an evaluation by a well respected American doctor, like Dr. Campbell. There could have been study-design flaws that would invalidate the findings.
It took 5 seconds to find what you said was missing but now you are moving the goalposts. Now it's meaningless unless Campbell reviews it.
Even Dr. Campbell has expressed criticism about how vegans and vegetarians are misusing the china study book.
Quote:
I have my doubts for many reasons. One is that Dr. Gundry commented on the Seventh Day Adventist study by saying the following: (I'm paraphrasing) Regarding longevity, Vegans came in first, then vegetarians, and meat eater came in last. (There was a considerable difference in the number of years.)
The only Dr. Gundry I know of recommends pasture-raised meat and eggs, and to avoid lectins.
Quote:
And that's not the only study that shows such a result. He said about the Blue Zones that one thing they all had in common is that they ate very little meat, showing in that instance that meat consumption can make a difference. Meaning that one possible reason the Blue Zones stand out for greater health and longevity is because they eat very little meat.
They consume less meat and animal products than plants. They all have plant-based diets. They are not vegan. Their diets consist of larger plant portions than meat.
Quote:
Would they do better if they didn't eat any meat?
No one can say. There are no strictly vegan populations. Never have been any in history. I think human populations have probably tried it but concluded that including animal products produced better results.
Quote:
According to the Seventh Day Adventists, the answer is yes.
Seventh-day Adventists don't exclude meat or animal products; only a few like pork.
Quote:
Whereas the London-study conclusion is that meat doesn't make any difference.
The UK studies concluded that there was no difference in mortality.
These studies rely on self-reporting. People commonly overestimate the amounts of healthy foods they eat and underestimate the bad.
Also, many vegans and vegetarians admit they cheat, and some even set aside cheat days. A "mostly vegan" diet is not vegan but many still call themselves vegan.
Last edited by SimplySagacious; 07-27-2022 at 09:57 AM..
I'm skeptical of accepting a study conducted in a foreign country, unless it has been evaluated by a reputable American doctor/scientist.
Putting that aside, food consumption is a huge part of one's lifestyle. To say that it doesn't matter is simply wrong.
Of course it doesn't matter to most because, like you, they don't have very much understanding of such things.
It is a british study - done by Oxford University - and has been cited by hundreds of other researchers and studies, including those in the US - it is one of the definitive studies in this field and you would be foolish to just try and dismiss because it was not done in the US.
The conclusion is theirs, not mine, and they definitively concluded that animal protein is not "damaging" based on the data they collected.
Vegan is just a stricter vegetarian - really not that different and does not change the results.
Where We Differ
Club members observed many holes in Campbell’s arguments. Here are just a few:
The China Study is an observational study; in other words, it only identifies relationships between different variables. It does not prove that particular behaviors or food choices cause certain health outcomes. In the study, many other variables were overlooked that could increase cancer risk—such as industrialization, exposure to chemicals, and sugar and refined carbohydrate consumption. These could easily have been the culprits responsible for differences in cancer risk among groups.
Although individuals in the counties studied may have been vegan, whole counties did not follow vegan food patterns, so it is difficult to understand how Campbell came up with his conclusions that all animal products should be omitted.
Campbell’s experiments with casein were conducted with laboratory rats and mice. His hypothesis that casein behaves the same way in a whole food as when fed in isolation is flawed and violates his own philosophy to look at diets holistically.
Campbell is very selective in building his bibliography. A more comprehensive review of the literature reveals scientific research confirming the many health benefits that milk and dairy foods provide. For this reason, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends that Americans consume two to three servings of milk and dairy foods per day.
A long-term study conducted in Taiwan and published in 2014 found that increased dairy consumption meant lower risks of mortality from cardiovascular disease, especially stroke, but found no significant association with the risk of cancer.
Perhaps one of the most significant flaws of the book is that the recommendations are so extreme. Diets that remove entire food groups have the potential for unintended consequences of underconsuming essential nutrients. Bringing food choices into better alignment with the Dietary Guidelines is a preferred approach—specifically eating more underconsumed foods such as vegetables, fruits, low-fat dairy products, whole grains, beans, lean meats and fish while also reducing the consumption of refined grains, fats and sugars. These changes will go a long way toward promoting health.
While I do not know the reputation of the reviewer, there are many who say the same things listed above.
Now again, I eat mainly a plant based diet, from a whole range of cultures (so variety of foods, spices, herbs, etc.), Generally speaking I agree with a lot from the China Study, generally. Turning it into a specific dogma though is not helpful. None of the plant based movement should be written in stone, again, I view it more as a general guide to nutrition.
That's why I do not militantly follow any diet. I go for variety, I rotate my proteins, grains, legumes, veggies, fruits, fats.... I try to eat from different cultures frequently, usually heavily spiced (they all have health benefits too). I try for a daily variety of nutrient dense foods daily. I also try to balance the macros.
I will also eat an unhealthy dessert now and again, or have a big old tbone, or just something that downright delicious for it's own sake (fettuccine alfredo).
I feel some people fear their upcoming mortality and they latch onto things with a death grip because they think it will guarantee them more time.
This is super ironic to me, because I am a huge proponent of eating healthy, with a vegetarian lean. But you come across as being militant, extreme and a bit judgy (heck what you said to me was so far off I literally started laughing... it was about me obviously eating the SAD).
Now I'm off to pick some fresh veggies from my organic garden.
That's what some people resort to when they have no science to backup their lifestyle choices. They resort to name calling because they are so confused about what they should do they decide to do a little of everything. Are you setting a good example for others on this board by doing that?
She’s right though. You’ve been craftily calling anyone who questions you stupid and/or a paid shill. You’re going to complain about being told you’re judgmental?
Seventh-day Adventists don't exclude meat or animal products; only a few like pork.
Seventh Day Adventists are banned from eating pork. There are no "few" that like pork and can call themselves Seventh-day Adventists. They, like Jews, Arabs and Muslims, forbid pork.
>>Pork, rabbit, and shellfish are considered “unclean” and thus banned by Adventists. However, some Adventists choose to eat certain “clean” meats, such as fish, poultry, and red meats other than pork, as well as other animal products like eggs and low-fat dairy.
Seventh Day Adventists are banned from eating pork. There are no "few" that like pork and can call themselves Seventh-day Adventists. They, like Jews, Arabs and Muslims, forbid pork.
>>Pork, rabbit, and shellfish are considered “unclean” and thus banned by Adventists. However, some Adventists choose to eat certain “clean” meats, such as fish, poultry, and red meats other than pork, as well as other animal products like eggs and low-fat dairy.
That's what I said. Multiple times. Meat and other animal products are a part of their religious diet. Only a few are excluded, like pork being one of the few.
Seventh Day Adventists are banned from eating pork. There are no "few" that like pork and can call themselves Seventh-day Adventists. They, like Jews, Arabs and Muslims, forbid pork.
>>Pork, rabbit, and shellfish are considered “unclean” and thus banned by Adventists. However, some Adventists choose to eat certain “clean” meats, such as fish, poultry, and red meats other than pork, as well as other animal products like eggs and low-fat dairy.
I've always wondered why pork is considered "unclean". I very much doubt there are any scientific studies showing that pork meat is "less" nutritious than chicken, beef, etc?
Granted pigs are suppose to eat almost anything, but so do goats and many other animals. Some fish are bottom feeders and scavenge, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
