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 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.
It took you five seconds?
I'm not changing the goal posts at all. I didn't say it had to be Dr. Campbell, I said someone like Dr. Campbell. There's a big difference.
Quote:
Even Dr. Campbell has expressed criticism about how vegans and vegetarians are misusing the china study book.
That's not at all surprising. But, funny thing is, you're not telling us why.
Quote:
The only Dr. Gundry I know of recommends pasture-raised meat and eggs, and to avoid lectins.
Yeah, so what? What's the big deal about that? Just because he recognized something to be true, doesn't mean he has to do it himself.
Quote:
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.
That's true, but it doesn't mean they are healthier and live longer because they are not vegans. It could mean they are healthy and live longer despite their small consumption of animal protein. A couple days ago I read the section in the Okinawa book to find out the amount of protein and it said for animal protein such as meat and poultry, it comes out to 1 ounce per day.
Dr. Campbell said in The China Study (Not about Okinawans) that doing something like that is possible but believes it's better to go all the way to vegan. And I feel the same way, why bother with small portions of this and that? Anyway, you can't buy one ounce portions of animal protein in a supermarket. And I don't want the job of cooking and dividing animal protein into one ounce portions.
Quote:
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.
That's part of the reason the study was done in rural China. There were small towns that still ate the same as they did hundreds or thousands of years ago. And, from what I remember, some were vegans. I think there might have been about 36 villages that were studied and there were some differences in animal protein consumption from one village to another. So they were compared and vegans did better than those who ate small amounts of eggs or meat. That type of study could not have been done in the U.S. for obvious reasons.
Quote:
Seventh-day Adventists don't exclude meat or animal products; only a few like pork.
They don't all do the same thing. There are Vegans, Vegetarians, and meat eaters. When I was on another message board, many years ago, someone pulled up a description of the study and it said the meat eaters, on average, ate less than one serving of meat per week.
Quote:
The UK studies concluded that there was no difference in mortality.
After reading Dr. Campbell's books, I have doubts about there being no difference. And you likely wouldn't know why I feel that way because you might only read what you believe in. I at least take the time to read the other side of the story. Like yesterday I was reviewing what I had underlined in the Paleo book that I read before I became a vegan.
Quote:
These studies rely on self-reporting. People commonly overestimate the amounts of healthy foods they eat and underestimate the bad.
If the study was done correctly, there are ways of avoiding that.
Quote:
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.
As I said, that's one of the benefits of doing the study in China. At the time of the study there were still small villages that were totally dependent on what they could grow themselves. Some had a few chickens and some may have had a goat. Other than that they depended on what they could grow in their gardens.
It's pretty hard to cheat in that situation. Plus the fact that each person in the study provided blood samples for analysis.
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.
Seventh Day Adventists, Jews, Arabs (any ethnicity from that region) and Muslims follow the old testament:
>>Pigs are described in this section (Lev. 11:7-8) as prohibited because they have a cloven hoof but don't chew their cud. The ban on the consumption of pork is repeated in Deuteronomy 14:8.
These religious/ethnic groups also consider the animals unclean because of how they eat like you stated. If you read Seventh Day Adventist Literature, they will go into a whole scenario of the digestive system of pigs and how dirty they are.
I grew up in a family background of one of the above groups. Pork was so forbidden, that we did not eat ground beef unless my dad traveled to the larger city to a kosher butcher to watch in person the beef being ground. We could not eat anything cooked in or next to pork juices, like on a grill. However, he smoked and drank coffee, so we can eliminate Seventh Day Adventist as one of the choices.
Seventh Day Adventists, Jews, Arabs (any ethnicity from that region) and Muslims follow the old testament:
>>Pigs are described in this section (Lev. 11:7-8) as prohibited because they have a cloven hoof but don't chew their cud. The ban on the consumption of pork is repeated in Deuteronomy 14:8.
These religious/ethnic groups also consider the animals unclean because of how they eat like you stated. If you read Seventh Day Adventist Literature, they will go into a whole scenario of the digestive system of pigs and how dirty they are.
I grew up in a family background of one of the above groups. Pork was so forbidden, that we did not eat ground beef unless my dad traveled to the larger city to a kosher butcher to watch in person the beef being ground. We could not eat anything cooked in or next to pork juices, like on a grill. However, he smoked and drank coffee, so we can eliminate Seventh Day Adventist as one of the choices.
Pork BAD. Cigarettes GOOD. lol!
There were practical reasons why pork was forbidden, in biblical times. Pigs were kept in filthy conditions, and there were no "sanitation" regulations to keep them clean and bacteria-free. There were no antibiotics to treat anyone who got sick. They'd either get better, or they'd die.
There was no refrigeration, plates tended to be made from wood or unfired clay. There were no gloves or antibacterial handwashing liquid, or dish detergent. Put a juicy pork loin on a wooden plate that had this morning's eggs and this afternoon's cheese and bread, and see how sick you get after doing this a couple of years. Bacteria is a big deal. And pork is known to harbor some pretty serious bacteria.
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.
Trichinosis. It used to be a serious problem in pork. Today, in the US, not so much.
As long as the subject has been raised concerning "tainted" or "toxic" meat, there is one other aspect that needs to be looked at. And that is the carcinogen "aflatoxin".
I learned this when I was 9 years old helping out on my parents dairy farm. In the summer we would grow corn to put in the silo to feed the cows in the winter. I was helping to feed the cows and my brother said not to feed the cows any moldy corn because it wouldn't be good for them. I didn't know the reasoning behind it back then, but now I do.
The mold, as he called it, could contain aflatoxin. But what I didn't know then is that you can't always see it. There could be plenty of it that you can't see and it may accumulate in the animal.
This also applies to hay that is left out in the rain. Of course if it gets really bad the cattle won't eat it.
BTW, the whole corn plant, stalk and all, is chopped and blown up into the silo. And most likely it will be the green leaves that might show some mold after being in the silo for weeks or months.
"People can be exposed to aflatoxins by eating contaminated ....meat or dairy products from animals that ate contaminated feed."
"Exposure to aflatoxins is associated with an increased risk of liver cancer."
In Florida, it's not uncommon to see large-round-bails of hay sitting out in an open field, unprotected from rain. Perhaps you shouldn't always trust farmers to do the right thing.
Last edited by LongevitySeeker; 07-30-2022 at 09:45 AM..
As long as the subject has been raised concerning "tainted" or "toxic" meat, there is one other aspect that needs to be looked at. And that is the carcinogen "aflatoxin".
I learned this when I was 9 years old helping out on my parents dairy farm. In the summer we would grow corn to put in the silo to feed the cows in the winter. I was helping to feed the cows and my brother said not to feed the cows any moldy corn because it wouldn't be good for them. I didn't know the reasoning behind it back then, but now I do.
The mold, as he called it, could contain aflatoxin. But what I didn't know then is that you can't always see it. There could be plenty of it that you can't see and it may accumulate in the animal.
. . .
Aflatoxins : produced by Aspergillus mold species and can be found in contaminated beans, corn, rice, tree nuts, wheat, milk, eggs, and meat (due to animals consuming contaminated feed). Peanuts are one of the most well known sources of aflatoxins.
Interesting. So an anti-nutrient/carcinogen/bacteria that cattle can acquire through ingesting plants is something that should make me eat the plants directly instead. Makes sense.
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.
People come up with all sorts of reasons why the ancient Middle Eastern cultures avoided pork, mostly trichinosis, which was common at one time in undercooked pork but really isn't a danger anymore. But if you ask a devout Jew or Muslim, they will tell you it's because God/Allah said so, and that is sufficient for them.
The dietary laws were later adopted by certain Christian sects such as the SDA.
I'm not changing the goal posts at all. I didn't say it had to be Dr. Campbell, I said someone like Dr. Campbell. There's a big difference.
That is not what you stated; your post is still there. I gave you an American journal that claims to be peer-reviewed. You should be skeptical of all studies, not only the ones that don't confirm your bias. I am not saying the UK studies are without flaws, but I won't immediately reject them just because Oxford is in another country, like you did.
Quote:
They don't all do the same thing. There are Vegans, Vegetarians, and meat eaters. When I was on another message board, many years ago, someone pulled up a description of the study and it said the meat eaters, on average, ate less than one serving of meat per week.
Meat. And in that week they can also be consuming fish, dairy and/or eggs. Some religions, including some Adventists, don't consider fish to be meat so it wouldn't be included in what they report. They still call themselves vegan or vegetarian because fish is not meat to them. How much dairy or eggs did they consume, or animal products like stock? Catholic is another that doesn't consider fish to be meat: Don't eat meat on Fridays, eat fish.
In any case the amount is irrelevant here. You didn't get away with falsely claiming certain populations are vegan, so you are now trying to minimize their animal intake. What difference does it make when your claim is that we shouldn't be consuming ANY amount.
Quote:
And I feel the same way, why bother with small portions of this and that? Anyway, you can't buy one ounce portions of animal protein in a supermarket. And I don't want the job of cooking and dividing animal protein into one ounce portions.
You sound like the folks who can't figure out efficient ways to do the simplest things, like replacing highly-processed foods with whole foods.
Quote:
That's part of the reason the study was done in rural China. There were small towns that still ate the same as they did hundreds or thousands of years ago. And, from what I remember, some were vegans.
None of them were vegan or vegetarian and you know it.
Quote:
After reading Dr. Campbell's books, I have doubts about there being no difference. And you likely wouldn't know why I feel that way because you might only read what you believe in. I at least take the time to read the other side of the story. Like yesterday I was reviewing what I had underlined in the Paleo book that I read before I became a vegan.
This is part of your problem; you think these diet books are rigorous science. I know exactly why you "feel that way" after reading them.
Quote:
If the study was done correctly, there are ways of avoiding that.
Not in ways that are ethical for studies.
It is your theory that humans would do better if they excluded all meat and animal products, but you appear to think it's fact and usually present it that way. There are numerous instances here where you either ignore or refuse to discuss evidence that challenges your belief system...your ideology.
Of course I know that aflatoxin can be on many different vegetables, beans, nuts, and other food items. I was just addressing the meat issue because that was what was being talked about.
However, I'm not worried about small traces of aflatoxin on the foods I eat. Of course I examine most food items before consuming and rinse/wash before cooking. But you can't wash aflatoxin out of meat.
Also I buy peanuts (along with other shelled nuts) but not peanut butter because they put the best/cleanest peanuts in a jar knowing that people will be able to see the condition of the peanuts before buying.
Now to the "meat" or heart of the matter. Aflatoxin-toxicity cannot be tested on humans but can be tested on small animals. I don't know for sure but it's probably against the law to do the testing on humans.
So the team at Cornell University got 100 rats and injected all of them with aflatoxin. Then they divided them into two groups. One group received a diet that included 20% of calories from animal protein and the other group received their diet with 5% animal protein and the other 15% was vegetable protein to make up the difference. So both groups got the same amount of protein overall.
The end result was: ALL of the rats who had 20% animal protein in their diet got cancer and none of those who got 5% had cancer. And this was not the first time this study was performed. It was first performed by a scientist in India. And it will likely be performed many more times by various research groups around the world, if it hasn't already. That's usually the way it works because scientists tend of be skeptical and seek to verify the result for themselves. They don't do this with all studies of course but they usually do it with studies that have surprising or unexpected results.
Dr. Campbell himself repeated it over and over in different ways to make sure it wasn't a mistake.
And, I just remembered, it was tested inadvertently on humans. When Dr. Campbell went to a foreign country, on sabbatical, to help solve the problem of a lack of animal protein, it was decided that peanut butter would be tried. So peanut butter was distributed to all households in a certain village as a trial.
Little did they know that the peanut butter was tainted with with aflatoxin, and some of the children developed liver cancer. So then they had to find out why some children got liver cancer and others did not.
And it turned out that some families were a little better off economically and had some access to animal protein, and the children from those families were the ones that got cancer. At about the same time, Dr. Campbell received word that another scientist in India had proven this to be true based on small animal studies. That experience is what got him started doing his own studies to verify the results. And the rest of the story is that because of all the animal studies, he was able to qualify for NIH funding and participate with five other doctors in a 20 year (human) study in China. The doctors consisted of 3 Chinese doctors and 3 American doctors.
Last edited by LongevitySeeker; 07-30-2022 at 02:53 PM..
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.
