Guest guest Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Thank you for your very insightful analysis of 's work. What do you think about the health effect of pasteurized milk. For my protein, I eat fish and free range chicken and eggs but I also eat pasteurized cheese. Should I be concerned about the cheese? Also I make coconut milk from coconut milk powder since it is easier for me to obtain my mail. Am I getting a good quality coconut oil by doing this as I imagine it is heated in the drying process? Re: Fwd: [ CaveManFood] NY Times: > Low-Fat Diet Does Not Cut Health Risks, Study Finds > > > However, a " marker " indicating the possibility of a developing > cancer is NOT the same as a cancer. > > Wed humans tend to share a very odd trait. We call ourselves > Homo sapiens, meaing we perceiv e ouselves as thinking rational > beings. However, we tend to think as little as possible. We > follow a pattern which we believe in. Wed avoid critically thinking > about deeply held beliefs (dietqary, religious, political, etc.) we > treasure because if we examined the evidence clearly, we may have to > discard our deelply treaured beliefs, and that would upset us. Here > is a link to a story about political decision making which speaks of a > study done on decision making: > http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060124_political_decisions.html > > Even being aware that this goes on, it is still very difficult > for me to remain rational at all times. I try. But it is not easy, > and I do not feel I am always successful. I suspect that some (both > researchers and in the general population) never even try to be > rational about some subjects. The appear to me to be blind to this > very human foible. And this seems to me to be at the root of why > " scientific " research tends to contradict itself, even beyond the > money scandals of power groups wanting to sell more of what they have > to sell by trashing a competitor's product. > > Alobar > > > On 2/11/06, Nina Moliver <ninalynn@...> wrote: >> did repeated animal experiments over a period of many years - >> repeated not just by him but by students and other scientists as well. > You >> could turn cancer markers on and off with a switch just by administering > and >> then withholding animal protein - casein, to be exact. >> >> Nina >> > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Bruce, I know this is not what you said, but reading between the lines, it seems to me that no fat or low fat milk is probably not a good idea for us humans. Alobar On 2/13/06, Bruce Fife <bruce@...> wrote: <snip> > One of the things that is not mentioned in these " protein " studies is that > since the casin is stripped of all other nutrients it is pure casin. Every > particle of fat as well as other nutrients are removed. Casin and all other > sources of protein REQUIRE fat for proper digestion and assimilation. In > nature casin always comes with milkfat. All sources of protein come with a > complimentary portion of fat. When fat is stripped from the protein, protein > becomes difficult to digest and may cause any number of health > problems--digestive problems?--lowered immunity?--increased susceptibly to > cancer? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Hear! Hear! on Bruce's observation; I would warn that any agenda website will necessarily be tainted with a personal belief system (that's why it's an agenda site); thus its overall usefulness will necessarily be limited. Another example would be quackwach. > Nina, 's views are staunchly low-fat, high-carb (vegetarian). > He is very anti-cholesterol. Therefore his views are definitely > anti-fat. His book was also anti-meat and milk as well. His strong > belief in vegetarianism has distorted his views and interpretations of > studies. In his zeal to promote vegetarianism draws a couple > of erroneous conclusions from the protein studies. This kind of approach, " selective " reporting, is the worst kind of mistake a researcher can make. Those who fall into this trap are easily marginalized. > The studies showing > carcinogenic effects of protein were ONLY done with casin (milk > protein). So any conclusions from the studies would only apply to milk > protein--not animal protein. A further comment about " milk " is that though the bovine-specific proteins including casein can cause trouble; most of the whey components are exactly the same across the whole mammalian order, and they do not produce sensitivity or allergy issues. In fact, the PDR listing for one pure whey isolate is that " Immunocal is well-tolerated by even severely milk- sensitive individuals " , and practice holds it to be absolutely true. > In addition to stripping away all the nutrients from casin, it is > dehydrated and oxidized. What effect will oxidized protein have on the > body? Years ago it was found that natural, fresh cholesterol was > harmless when fed to lab animals even in very large amounts. But if it > is dried and allowed to oxidize it becomes toxic and promotes heart > disease. Bruce has touched on the interesting point that is actually the cux of the " low-cholesterol " argument. High cholesterol is only linked to heart disease in a population that because of poor diet, does not get enough antioxidants in their to prevent the oxidation and deposition of circulating cholesterol. > Perhaps oxidized casin promotes cancer. Oxidized casin is not > the same casin you get in milk. Breast milk contains primarily b-casein; cow's milk contains primarily a-casein. The cow's milk has double the amount of the wrong casein. They aren't the same anyway and they have different properties. This is probably the main incompatibilty that causes the reaction to " dairy " . > Also, the idea that casin promotes cancer doesn't make sense. > That would mean that mother's milk is carcinogenic! This idea is > totally preposterous. Milk is probably the healthiest food on earth. Right On, Bruce. Duncan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 , you bring up an interesting question. Does powdered coconut milk contain harmful oxidized fats? I've looked into this question but have not found anyone who can answer it satisfactorily. 92% of the fat in coconut is saturated. Saturated fats are resistant to oxidation, but not totally immune to it. When unsaturated fats oxidize they transform from a liquid into a solid, which can be very harmful because destructive free radicals are formed. When coconut milk is made into a powder are the saturated fats transformed into harmful products or create harmful byproducts? I don't know at this point. I've heard many people's opinions, but opinions are just opinions, not facts. Unless I can see scientific proof one way or the other I don't know. Bruce Re: Fwd: [ CaveManFood] NY Times: > > Low-Fat Diet Does Not Cut Health Risks, Study Finds > > > > > > However, a " marker " indicating the possibility of a developing > > cancer is NOT the same as a cancer. > > > > Wed humans tend to share a very odd trait. We call ourselves > > Homo sapiens, meaing we perceiv e ouselves as thinking rational > > beings. However, we tend to think as little as possible. We > > follow a pattern which we believe in. Wed avoid critically thinking > > about deeply held beliefs (dietqary, religious, political, etc.) we > > treasure because if we examined the evidence clearly, we may have to > > discard our deelply treaured beliefs, and that would upset us. Here > > is a link to a story about political decision making which speaks of a > > study done on decision making: > > http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060124_political_decisions.html > > > > Even being aware that this goes on, it is still very difficult > > for me to remain rational at all times. I try. But it is not easy, > > and I do not feel I am always successful. I suspect that some (both > > researchers and in the general population) never even try to be > > rational about some subjects. The appear to me to be blind to this > > very human foible. And this seems to me to be at the root of why > > " scientific " research tends to contradict itself, even beyond the > > money scandals of power groups wanting to sell more of what they have > > to sell by trashing a competitor's product. > > > > Alobar > > > > > > On 2/11/06, Nina Moliver <ninalynn@...> wrote: > >> did repeated animal experiments over a period of many years - > >> repeated not just by him but by students and other scientists as well. > > You > >> could turn cancer markers on and off with a switch just by > administering > > and > >> then withholding animal protein - casein, to be exact. > >> > >> Nina > >> > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 I would also like opinions regarding soy milk. I love it so it must be bad for me (grin). Re: Fwd: [ CaveManFood] NY Times: > > Low-Fat Diet Does Not Cut Health Risks, Study Finds > > > > > > However, a " marker " indicating the possibility of a developing > > cancer is NOT the same as a cancer. > > > > Wed humans tend to share a very odd trait. We call ourselves > > Homo sapiens, meaing we perceiv e ouselves as thinking rational > > beings. However, we tend to think as little as possible. We > > follow a pattern which we believe in. Wed avoid critically thinking > > about deeply held beliefs (dietqary, religious, political, etc.) we > > treasure because if we examined the evidence clearly, we may have to > > discard our deelply treaured beliefs, and that would upset us. Here > > is a link to a story about political decision making which speaks of a > > study done on decision making: > > http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060124_political_decisions.html > > > > Even being aware that this goes on, it is still very difficult > > for me to remain rational at all times. I try. But it is not easy, > > and I do not feel I am always successful. I suspect that some (both > > researchers and in the general population) never even try to be > > rational about some subjects. The appear to me to be blind to this > > very human foible. And this seems to me to be at the root of why > > " scientific " research tends to contradict itself, even beyond the > > money scandals of power groups wanting to sell more of what they have > > to sell by trashing a competitor's product. > > > > Alobar > > > > > > On 2/11/06, Nina Moliver <ninalynn@...> wrote: > >> did repeated animal experiments over a period of many years - > >> repeated not just by him but by students and other scientists as well. > > You > >> could turn cancer markers on and off with a switch just by > administering > > and > >> then withholding animal protein - casein, to be exact. > >> > >> Nina > >> > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2006 Report Share Posted February 14, 2006 Bruce, your point on the animal experiments is well taken. I know not to put too much stock in animal research. 's book, however, is not so much about the animal experiments as the human and epidemiological evidence. 's book is not about protein, or fat, or carbs. He is no more anti-fat than he is anti-protein. He favors ~vegetable~ proteins and ~vegetable~ fats over ~animal~ protein and ~animal~ fats. He supports eating beans (high in fat, protein - and fiber, which animal products don't have) and avocado (very high saturated fat). Here he goes: " Any plant-based food has many more similarities in terms of nutrient compositions to other plant-based foods than it does to animal-based foods. The same is true the other way around; all animal-based foods are more like other animal-based foods than they are to plant-based foods. For example, even though fish is significantly different from beef, fish has many more similarities to beef than it has to rice. " Or, I would add, to coconut. Coconut is a plant. There is no greater divide among living things than the divide between plants and animals. They dwell in separate kingdoms. Plants are rooted to the ground and lack a nervous system. Animals move on their own and they have a face. All of life is divided into these two kingdoms, although it goes without saying that some organisms are borderline between them, as life is never clean-cut. The idea of dividing food up into protein, fat and carb, without regard for which kingdom it comes from, to me is a good example of the Cartesian, Western-style science that I don't put much stock in except under very limited circumstances. I think the fact that coconut is a plant is an important part of its healing power. A plant-based source of saturated fat is, IMHO, a gift from the Divine. doesn't say we should eat NO meat or animal products. He advises keeping it down to 10-15% of the diet, a proportion found worldwide. For example, natives of India tell me they eat milk in India: raw, freshly milked, fermented while it is still raw: one small bowl per day, shared among the whole family. It is when you eat too much animal protein that the excess becomes harmful. I have been in personal touch with and he is very supportive of my coconut consumption. Nina Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 " When we read these types of studies the first thing we need to do is ask ourselves what are these studies showing? And do the conclusions people are drawing make sense? The idea that all proteins cause cancer because these studies shown artificially manipulated casin may promote cancer is not valid. This is the idea was promoting in his book. Also, the idea that casin promotes cancer doesn't make sense. That would mean that mother's milk is carcinogenic! This idea is totally preposterous. Milk is probably the healthiest food on earth. To say the protein in milk causes or promotes cancer doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Sometimes people get so wrapped up in proving a pet theory that they are blind to the truth. I think is sincere, but blinded by his prejudices. " Hi Bruce, So where does this mentality come from,that you can take an element from it natural substance,like casin from milk,then say that milk is bad for you even though the study wasnt done on milk,but on a refined fraction of milk? This cant be true science because to do this borders on being a lie.Casin is in a substance where the rest of it helps casin to usefull...right? Casin must be there for a reason. How many other studies have we heard of where a substances are taken out of there context and then shown to be dangerous ? I dont get this idea...or where it comes from. If all studies are done like this,then you never really know if its the original substance...like milk...that is the problem,or the the highly refined element ...like casin...that is the problem. Wouldnt it serve us better to deal with things in context so that we know EXACTLY what it is thats giving benifits or not? Surely to pull a substance out of its context serves no real benifit and is misleading.In real like no-one just eats casin or any other substance pulled out of its original context. Science is supposed to be about helping people in real life who eat things in their natural context...not a hypothetical situation where we eat refined fractions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 The author never said that all proteins caused cancer. He was talking about animal proteins only, and then only in certain quantities (in proportion to plant foods consumed). Nina Re: Fat and Protein > > > " When we read these types of studies the first thing we need to do is >ask >ourselves what are these studies showing? And do the conclusions people >are >drawing make sense? The idea that all proteins cause cancer because >these >studies shown artificially manipulated casin may promote cancer is not >valid. This is the idea was promoting in his book. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Let's play the Blame Game! Impeach Bush and Cheney ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NO: Shell, Chevron/Texaco, Exxon /Mobil, Marathon/Speedway, Amoco OK if we must: Citgo, Sunoco, Conoco, Sinclair, BP/, Hess, ARCO ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 A while back, Nina, you said something I could agree with. You said plants and animals are vastly different. Now, I do not know about you, but I am definitely an animal. My body's makup is far more like a cow than a bean or a spinach plant. I do not take the extrme view that plants sholuld nolt be esaten, but I do feel that a diet rich in animal flesh is the road to health and logevity. Alobar On 2/15/06, Nina Moliver <ninalynn@...> wrote: > The author never said that all proteins caused cancer. He was talking about animal proteins only, and then only in certain quantities (in proportion to plant foods consumed). > > Nina > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 The macrobiotic perspective is that we eat best when we eat a polar opposite of ourselves. For example, eating human flesh is rejected by almost all cultures, and it will lead to insanity if you do it enough. It's too similar to us. The polar opposite transforms in a healthy way inside of us. The polar opposite of humans, in the macrobiotic view, is the most highly evolved plant form, which is whole grains. Once again, I am not judging how others eat. Eat what you like, and enjoy yourselves! Nina Re: Re: Fat and Protein A while back, Nina, you said something I could agree with. You said plants and animals are vastly different. Now, I do not know about you, but I am definitely an animal. My body's makup is far more like a cow than a bean or a spinach plant. I do not take the extrme view that plants sholuld nolt be esaten, but I do feel that a diet rich in animal flesh is the road to health and logevity. Alobar On 2/15/06, Nina Moliver <ninalynn@...> wrote: > The author never said that all proteins caused cancer. He was talking about animal proteins only, and then only in certain quantities (in proportion to plant foods consumed). > > Nina > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 , You would be surprised and perhaps even shocked at how many studies there are that are misleading and worthless, yet people latch onto them as " proof " for their personal beliefs. Most of these studies are sponsored by food and drug companies to promote their products. If you knew even a tenth of the tricks researchers play you would be appalled. Bruce Re: Fat and Protein > > " When we read these types of studies the first thing we need to do is > ask > ourselves what are these studies showing? And do the conclusions people > are > drawing make sense? The idea that all proteins cause cancer because > these > studies shown artificially manipulated casin may promote cancer is not > valid. This is the idea was promoting in his book. Also, the > idea > that casin promotes cancer doesn't make sense. That would mean that > mother's > milk is carcinogenic! This idea is totally preposterous. Milk is > probably > the healthiest food on earth. To say the protein in milk causes or > promotes > cancer doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Sometimes people get so > wrapped up > in proving a pet theory that they are blind to the truth. I think > > is sincere, but blinded by his prejudices. " > > > Hi Bruce, > So where does this mentality come from,that you can take an element > from it natural substance,like casin from milk,then say that milk is > bad for you even though the study wasnt done on milk,but on a refined > fraction of milk? > This cant be true science because to do this borders on being a > lie.Casin is in a substance where the rest of it helps casin to > usefull...right? Casin must be there for a reason. > > How many other studies have we heard of where a substances are taken > out of there context and then shown to be dangerous ? > I dont get this idea...or where it comes from. > If all studies are done like this,then you never really know if its the > original substance...like milk...that is the problem,or the the highly > refined element ...like casin...that is the problem. > > Wouldnt it serve us better to deal with things in context so that we > know EXACTLY what it is thats giving benifits or not? > > Surely to pull a substance out of its context serves no real benifit > and is misleading.In real like no-one just eats casin or any other > substance pulled out of its original context. > Science is supposed to be about helping people in real life who eat > things in their natural context...not a hypothetical situation where we > eat refined fractions. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 Nina, Re: your statement, " Plants are rooted to the ground and lack a nervous system. Animals move on their own and they have a face. All of life is divided into these two kingdoms, although it goes without saying that some organisms are borderline between them, as life is never clean-cut. " What on earth does this mean? Great use of " all " and " never " . Also, please read this review of _The China Study_: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html (review is copy/pasted and citations can be found by following link) " The Truth About the China Study *The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, and Long-Term Health*<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?link_code=ur2 & camp=1789 & tag=w\ wwmasterjohn-20 & creative=9325 & path=tg/detail/-/1932100385/qid=1123207025/sr=8-1/\ ref=pd_bbs_1?v=glance%26s=books%26n=507846>by *T. Colin * * " Eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy. " -- T. Colin , The China Study* It was growing up on one of the many dairy farms of the rural American landscape, long before the China Study had taken place, and yet longer before the book was written, that the young T. Colin formed the views that would shape the early portion of his career. Cow's milk, " Nature's most perfect food, " was central to the existence of his family and community. Most of the food that 's family ate they produced themselves. milked cows from the age of five through his college years. He studied animal nutrition at Cornell, and did his PhD research on ways to make cows and sheep grow faster so the American food supply could be pumped up with more and more protein.1 Fast forward to the present. is now on the advisory board of the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine,2 which describes itself as " a nonprofit organization that promotes preventive medicine, conducts clinical research, and encourages higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in research, " 3 but whose pro-vegan agenda reflects its ties to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and other animal rights groups, including, according to Newsweek, Stop Hunting and Animal Cruelty, which the Department of Justice calls a " domestic terrorist threat. " 4 The China Study Hits Shelves 's new book *The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, and Long-Term Health* hit shelves in January 2005 and details the turning points in his post-graduate research that led him to become a famed opponent of animal foods and an advocate of the vegan diet. It takes the reader on a tour through 's early animal experiments, which he interpreted to implicate animal protein as a primary cause of cancer, through the massive epidemiological study after which the book was named. Only 39 of 350 pages are actually devoted to the China Study. The bold statement on page 132 that " eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy, " 5 is drawn from a broad—and highly selective—pool of research. Yet chapter after chapter reveals a heavy bias and selectivity with which conducted, interpreted, and presents his research. Protein and Cancer The first strike against the pro-protein mantra had inherited from his nutritional forbears came while he was studying the relationship between aflatoxin (AF), a mold-related contaminant often found in peanut butter, and cancer in the Philippines. was informed by a colleague that, although the areas with the highest consumption of peanut butter had the highest incidence of liver cancer, it was the children of the " best-fed families, " who consumed the most protein, who were getting liver cancer. Whether the best-fed Pilipino families ate the many staples of modern affluent diets like refined breads and sugars isn't mentioned.6 This observation was corroborated by a study published in " an obscure medical journal, " that fed AF to two groups of rats, one consuming a 5% protein diet, one consuming a 20% protein diet, in which every rat in the latter group got liver cancer or its precursor lesions, and none in the former group got liver cancer or precursor lesions.7 went on to investigate the possible relationship between nutritional factors, including protein, and cancer, a study that proceeded for 19 years with NIH funding.8His conclusion was revolutionary and provocative: while chemical carcinogens may initiate the cancer process, dietary promoters and anti-promoters control the promotion of cancer foci,9 and it is nutritional factors, not chemical carcinogens, that are the ultimate deciding factors in the development of cancer.10 Yet the 19 years of research into this project leave us with more questions than answers, and have left T. Colin with a foundation of unsupported conclusions upon which he has built his tower of vegan propaganda. began his studies using AF as an initiator of cancer foci and the milk protein casein as the promoter protein of study. His results corroborated the earlier results of other researchers: a dose-response curve existed for AF and cancer on a 20% casein diet, but disappeared on a 5% casein diet.11 He found that adjusting the protein intake of the same rats could turn cancer promotion on and off as if with a switch,12 and found casein to have the same effect when other cancer initiators, such as the hepatitis B virus, were used.13 Rather than throwing a blanket accusation at all protein, acknowledged that the study of other proteins would be required before generalizing, just as the study of other cancer initiators would be required before generalizing to them. Wheat and soy protein were both studied in lieu of casein, and both were found not to have the cancer-promoting effect of casein.14 Amazingly, 's reluctance to make unwarranted generalizations ends here. After briefly describing some research finding a protective effect of carotenoids against cancer, concludes this chapter of *The China Study* by noting the following overarching pattern: " *nutrients from animal-based foods increased tumor development while nutrients from plant-based foods decreased tumor development.* " 15 (His italics.) Jumping the gun... The generalization from the milk protein casein to all " nutrients from animal-based foods " is clearly unwarranted. If took caution to study the issue further before generalizing from casein to all proteins, why didn't he take the same caution before generalizing from casein to all animal proteins or all animal nutrients? Indeed, in later pages of *The China Study,* acknowledges that he is making this generalization: " . . . casein, and very likely all animal proteins, may be the most relevant cancer-causing substances that we consume. " 16 Why this generalization is " very likely " to be true is left unexplained. is aware that casein has been uniquely implicated in health problems, and dedicates an entire chapter of *The China Study* to casein's capacity to generate autoimmune diseases.17 Whey protein appears to have a protective effect against colon cancer that casein does not have.18 Any effect of casein, then, cannot be generalized to other milk proteins, let alone all animal proteins. Other questions, such as what effect different types of processing have on casein's capacity to promote tumor growth, remain unanswered. Pasteurization, low-temperature dehydration, high-temperature spray-drying (which creates carcinogens), and fermentation all affect the structure of casein differently and thereby would affect its physiological behavior. What powdered, isolated casein does to rats tells us little about what traditionally consumed forms of milk will do to humans and tells us nothing that we can generalize to all " animal nutrients. " Furthermore, fails to address the problems of vitamin A depletion from excess isolated protein, unsupported by the nutrient-dense fats which accompany protein foods in nature. Lessons from China -- The China Study In the early 1980s, along with Chen Junshi, Li Junyao, and Peto, T. Colin presided over the mammoth epidemiological study referred to as the China Project, or China Study. The New York Times called the China Study " the Grand Prix of epidemiology, " and it gathered data on 367 variables across sixty-five counties and 6,500 adults. Amazingly, from the more than 8,000 statistically significant associations found in the China Study, was able to draw a single unifying principle: * " People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease. . .. . People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. " *19 The study utilized recall questionnaires, direct observation and measurement of intakes over a three-day period, and blood samples.20 The blood samples were combined into large pools for each village and each sex.21 This had the drawback of dramatically decreasing the number of data points relative to the enormous number of correlations being generated, and the advantage of allowing the blood to be tested for many, many more variables than would be testable using individual samples. One of the benefits of the China Study's design was that the genetic stock of the study subjects had little variation, while there was wide variation among cancer and other disease rates. While the dietary surveys were conducted in the autumn of 1983,22 the mortality rates were taken a decade earlier in 1973 through 1975. 23 Rural areas were thus deliberately selected to ensure that the people in the area had for the most part lived in the area all their lives and had been eating the same foods native and traditional to that area, so that the mortality data would reliably match the dietary data. One of the drawbacks of the China Study was that nutrient intakes were determined from food composition tables, rather than measured directly from foods.24 This disallowed any consideration of differences in nutrient composition of foods in different areas due to soil quality, which was a primary theme of Weston Price's research.<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?link_code=ur2 & camp=1789 & tag\ =wwwmasterjohn-20 & creative=9325 & path=ASIN/0879838167/qid=1123512831/sr=2-1/ref=p\ d_bbs_b_2_1> Another drawback of the China Study was that the questionnaire did not adequately account for the diversity of animal foods. Questions about the frequency of consumption of sea food, meat, eggs, and milk were included, but questions about organ meats and insects were not included on the questionnaire, nor was fish differentiated from shell fish, despite the very different nutrient profiles of these foods.25 Additionally, the autumn dietary survey could not take into account foods that were not in season at the time. Does the data match up? What is most shocking about the China Study is not what it found, but the contrast between 's representation of its findings in *The China Study*, and the data contained within the original monograph. summarizes the 8,000 statistically significant correlations found in the China Study in the following statement: " people who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease. " 26 He also claims that, although it is " somewhat difficult " to " show that animal-based food intake relates to overall cancer rates, " that nevertheless, " animal protein intake was convincingly associated in the China Study with the prevalence of cancer in families. " 27 ============================= *Figure 1 Associations of Selected Variables with Mortality for All Cancers in the China Study* Total Protein +12% Animal Protein +3% Fish Protein +7% Plant Protein +12% Total Lipids -6% Carbohydrates +23% Total Calories +16% Fat % Calories -17% Fiber +21% Fat (questionnaire) -29%* * statistically significant ** highly significant *** very highly significant ============================== (Data taken from the original monograph of the China Study.) But the actual data from the original publication paints a different picture. Figure 1 shows selected correlations between macronutrients and cancer mortality. Most of them are not statistically significant, which means that the probability the correlation is due to chance is greater than five percent. It is interesting to see, however, the general picture that emerges. Sugar, soluble carbohydrates, and fiber all have correlations with cancer mortality about seven times the magnitude of that with animal protein, and total fat and fat as a percentage of calories were both negatively correlated with cancer mortality. The only statistically significant association between intake of a macronutrient and cancer mortality was a large protective effect of total oil and fat intake as measured on the questionnaire. As an interesting aside, there was a highly significant negative correlation between cancer mortality and home-made cigarettes!28 ==================== SIDEBAR It isn't uncommon for researchers to claim they found one thing while their own study says they found another. Too often, researchers put the real data in the full text, but then freely contort it to fit their own ideas when they write in the summary. And then doctors, other researchers, and journalists will rely on the summary alone, simply because there are so many studies! Our newsletter <http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Newsletter.html> will deliver insightful commentaries on current research based on the *actual study*. You'll get information you won't find anywhere else. ==================== 's case for the association between animal foods and cancer within the China Study is embedded within an endnote. states: " Every single animal protein-related blood biomarker is significantly associated with the amount of cancer in a family. " 29 Following the associated endnote, these biomarkers were " plasma copper, urea nitrogen, estradiol, prolactin, testosterone, and, inversely, sex hormone binding globulin, each of which has been known to be associated with animal protein intake from previous studies. " 30 Since does not cite these " previous studies, " the reader is left in the dark regarding the reliability of his assumptions. Blood biomarkers are generally associated with food intake patterns, rather than specific foods. Since food intake patterns differ in different populations, an association found between a biomarker in one population cannot necessarily be generalized to another.31 For example, people who eat more whole grains in a given population might have higher levels of vitamin C, even though whole grains do not contain vitamin C. This would be true in one population where people who eat whole grains tend to eat more fruits and vegetables, but untrue in another population. In other words, if the mysterious " previous studies " that doesn't cite were conducted in America, their data would be irrelevant to a study conducted in China, where food intake patterns could be very different. As we will see below, the China Study's own data indicated that these were * not* reliable biomarkers. It isn't at all clear why this roundabout and extremely unreliable way of measuring animal protein consumption is superior to the direct methods of the study, such as the food questionnaire and the dietary observations-- especially when they directly contradict each other! Of the biomarkers measured, estradiol only had a statistically significant relationship with animal protein in women under 45,where the correlation was *positive* as is true for sex hormone-binding globulin, both of which had * negative* correlations in women aged 55-64. There was no statistically significant relationship between animal protein and testosterone in men of any age, which were *negatively* correlated in all age groups, nor in females except those aged 55-64, where the correlation was *positive.* Plasma prolactin was only statistically significantly related to animal protein consumption in the oldest group of females (positively) and was negatively correlated in other age groups.32 Only urea nitrogen and copper were consistent and significant indicators of animal protein consumption, and of these two *only copper was significantly related to cancer mortality. *33 It is difficult to see how can so emphatically draw the conclusion that animal foods are the cause of most diseases from this data. Only Half the Story? By the title, one would expect *The China Study* to contain objective and complete information derived from the China Study. Page one touts " real science " above " junk science " and " fad diets. " Yet consistently presents only half the story -- at best -- through the duration of the book. In Part II, presents evidence incriminating animal products as the cause of nearly every disease. He cites several health care practitioners, including Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn Jr. and Dr. Dean Ornish, who claim to have been able to reverse heart disease with plant-based diets,34 and cites the Papua New Guinea Highlanders as an example of a traditional society without the occurrence of heart disease. Yet the pages of *The China Study* make no mention of Mann's and other researcher's extensive study of the heart-healthy Masai or the healthy primitives of Weston Price, who relied extensively on fatty animal foods. That the programs of Ornish and Esselstyn involved more than abstention from animal foods—- especially the program of Ornish, of which diet is only a small part—- is not seen as a confounding factor that detracts from our ability to incriminate animal foods in heart disease. Nor does he bother to mention the cannibalism or the swollen bellies of children that accompanies the protein-starved diet of the New Guinea highlands.35 In *The China Study's* discussion of diabetes, Dr. concludes that " high-fiber, whole, plant-based foods protect against diabetes, and high-fat, high-protein, animal-based foods promote diabetes. " 36 He discusses the possible role of cow's milk (an animal food) in causing type one diabetes via an autoimmune reaction,37 but makes no mention that wheat gluten (a plant food) has been implicated in Type 1 diabetes by a similar process.38He similarly fails to mention the role of fructose consumption (from plant foods) in causing insulin resistance,39, 40 and the increase in high fructose corn syrup consumption that has paralleled the increase in diabetes. discusses the suspected role of animal foods in causing prostate cancer, but makes no mention of the potent preventative role current research is attributing to vitamin A, a nutrient found in animal foods.42 He devotes 19 pages of *The China Study* to discussing the role of cow's milk in causing autoimmune diseases,43 but zero pages to the role of wheat gluten in causing autoimmune diseases.44 reiterates the myth that dietary fat and cholesterol contribute to Alzheimer's<http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Cholesterol-Alzheimers.html>an\ d discusses the potential protective effects of plant foods, 45 but makes no mention of the protective effect of DHA, an animal-based nutrient, that is currently being investigated and has been known about for years.46 *The China Study* frequently ignores the contribution of animal foods to certain classes of nutrients, such as B vitamins and carotenes. Both classes of nutrients are assumed to come from plant foods, despite egg yolks and milk from pastured animals being a good source of carotenes, and the high B vitamin content of liver. The most curious of such statements is one found on page 220, where declares, " Folic acid is a compound derived *exclusively* from plant-based foods such as green and leafy vegetables. " 47 (My italics.) This is a fascinating statement, considering that chicken liver contains 5.76 mcg/g of folate, compared to 1.46 mcg/g for spinach!48 A cursory look through the USDA database reveals that the most folate-dense foods are organ meats. *The China Study* contains many excellent points in its criticism of the health care system, the overemphasis on reductionism in nutritional research, the influence of industry on research, and the necessity of obtaining nutrients from foods. But its bias against animal products and in favor of veganism permeates every chapter and every page. Less than a page of comments are spent in total discussing the harms of refined carbohydrate products. exercises caution when generalizing from casein to plant proteins, but freely generalizes from casein to animal protein. He entirely ignores the role of wheat gluten, a plant product, in autoimmune diseases, so he can emphasize the role of milk protein, an animal product. The book, while not entirely without value, is not about the China Study, nor is it a comprehensive look at the current state of health research. It would be more aptly titled, *A Comprehensive Case for the Vegan Diet, * and the reader should be cautioned that the evidence is selected, presented, and interpreted with the goal of making that case in mind. " B. From: " Nina Moliver " Bruce, your point on the animal experiments is well taken. I know not to put too much stock in animal research. 's book, however, is not so much about the animal experiments as the human and epidemiological evidence. 's book is not about protein, or fat, or carbs. He is no more anti-fat than he is anti-protein. He favors ~vegetable~ proteins and ~vegetable~ fats over ~animal~ protein and ~animal~ fats. He supports eating beans (high in fat, protein - and fiber, which animal products don't have) and avocado (very high saturated fat). Here he goes: " Any plant-based food has many more similarities in terms of nutrient compositions to other plant-based foods than it does to animal-based foods. The same is true the other way around; all animal-based foods are more like other animal-based foods than they are to plant-based foods. For example, even though fish is significantly different from beef, fish has many more similarities to beef than it has to rice. " Or, I would add, to coconut. Coconut is a plant. There is no greater divide among living things than the divide between plants and animals. They dwell in separate kingdoms. Plants are rooted to the ground and lack a nervous system. Animals move on their own and they have a face. All of life is divided into these two kingdoms, although it goes without saying that some organisms are borderline between them, as life is never clean-cut. The idea of dividing food up into protein, fat and carb, without regard for which kingdom it comes from, to me is a good example of the Cartesian, Western-style science that I don't put much stock in except under very limited circumstances. I think the fact that coconut is a plant is an important part of its healing power. A plant-based source of saturated fat is, IMHO, a gift from the Divine. doesn't say we should eat NO meat or animal products. He advises keeping it down to 10-15% of the diet, a proportion found worldwide. For example, natives of India tell me they eat milk in India: raw, freshly milked, fermented while it is still raw: one small bowl per day, shared among the whole family. It is when you eat too much animal protein that the excess becomes harmful. I have been in personal touch with and he is very supportive of my coconut consumption. Nina Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 Buce, does this same apply to dessicated coconut do you think? Unless it is specifically low-heat processed? B. , you bring up an interesting question. Does powdered coconut milk contain harmful oxidized fats? I've looked into this question but have not found anyone who can answer it satisfactorily. 92% of the fat in coconut is saturated. Saturated fats are resistant to oxidation, but not totally immune to it. When unsaturated fats oxidize they transform from a liquid into a solid, which can be very harmful because destructive free radicals are formed. When coconut milk is made into a powder are the saturated fats transformed into harmful products or create harmful byproducts? I don't know at this point. I've heard many people's opinions, but opinions are just opinions, not facts. Unless I can see scientific proof one way or the other I don't know. Bruce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 What a fascinating review! Thank you! Nina Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Hi Alobar, Actually I have two questions. One is not related but I will be brief. I agree with your thoughts about the importance of proteins for at least some people. What to you think about the controversy regarding soy milk. I love it and drink it every morning in a drink which also includes my coconut oil but often wonder if is wise. Also, I wonder if I could email you privately. My email address is karen.anderson9@.... I am considering a move to your area, not New Orleans, but nearby, possibly Ocean Springs Mississippi. I would like to know about the possibilities of eating " healthy " around there. I'm from California and I'm spoiled. Re: Re: Fat and Protein A while back, Nina, you said something I could agree with. You said plants and animals are vastly different. Now, I do not know about you, but I am definitely an animal. My body's makup is far more like a cow than a bean or a spinach plant. I do not take the extrme view that plants sholuld nolt be esaten, but I do feel that a diet rich in animal flesh is the road to health and logevity. Alobar On 2/15/06, Nina Moliver <ninalynn@...> wrote: > The author never said that all proteins caused cancer. He was talking about animal proteins only, and then only in certain quantities (in proportion to plant foods consumed). > > Nina > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Feel free to write me off-list, . Alobar@... I can't say as I have explored soy milk very deeply. Years ago, I thought the packaged soy milk from grocery stores tasted wretched. Then the owner of a nice Vietnamese restaurant got me to try his homemade soy milk. It was yummy! He would not sell his soy milk in bulk because he feared people would keep it too long and it would rot. After that I tried several brands of packaged soy milk and they all tasted wretched to me. Recently, I ordered a case of hot chili sesame oil from Eden foods. They sent a sample pack of their soy milk. Looking at the box, I saw that it had more carbs in the little box than I usually eat in a full day. So soy milk isn't good for diabetics like myself. I have no idea about the dangers I read about soy containing pseudo-hormones. I supect it probably would be OK for a woman who has passed menopause. I definitly would NOT give soy based formula to infants. For others, I would suggest caution and fact finding before deciding soy milk was OK to consume regularly. Alobar On 2/17/06, <karen.anderson9@...> wrote: > Hi Alobar, > > Actually I have two questions. One is not related but I will be brief. > > I agree with your thoughts about the importance of proteins for at least some people. What to you think about the controversy regarding soy milk. I love it and drink it every morning in a drink which also includes my coconut oil but often wonder if is wise. > > Also, I wonder if I could email you privately. My email address is karen.anderson9@.... I am considering a move to your area, not New Orleans, but nearby, possibly Ocean Springs Mississippi. I would like to know about the possibilities of eating " healthy " around there. I'm from California and I'm spoiled. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Thank you for the information about soy milk. Now I like to hear about how you like the area where you live and are you concerned about more hurricanes. I have fallen in love with Ocean Springs Mississippi, but have two concerns. The first is my concern about how I would handle a hurricane and the second is lack of access to organic food. I do get a lot of the things from the Internet but produce seem like it could be problem. I also wanted to share that Silk has put out a low carb soymilk now. I do limit my intake because I'm inclined to gain weight if I don't watch them. I am past menopause so the pseudo-hormones don't bother me. I researched it and it is as controversial as eating meat. Re: Re: Fat and Protein Feel free to write me off-list, . Alobar@... I can't say as I have explored soy milk very deeply. Years ago, I thought the packaged soy milk from grocery stores tasted wretched. Then the owner of a nice Vietnamese restaurant got me to try his homemade soy milk. It was yummy! He would not sell his soy milk in bulk because he feared people would keep it too long and it would rot. After that I tried several brands of packaged soy milk and they all tasted wretched to me. Recently, I ordered a case of hot chili sesame oil from Eden foods. They sent a sample pack of their soy milk. Looking at the box, I saw that it had more carbs in the little box than I usually eat in a full day. So soy milk isn't good for diabetics like myself. I have no idea about the dangers I read about soy containing pseudo-hormones. I supect it probably would be OK for a woman who has passed menopause. I definitly would NOT give soy based formula to infants. For others, I would suggest caution and fact finding before deciding soy milk was OK to consume regularly. Alobar On 2/17/06, <karen.anderson9@...> wrote: > Hi Alobar, > > Actually I have two questions. One is not related but I will be brief. > > I agree with your thoughts about the importance of proteins for at least some people. What to you think about the controversy regarding soy milk. I love it and drink it every morning in a drink which also includes my coconut oil but often wonder if is wise. > > Also, I wonder if I could email you privately. My email address is karen.anderson9@.... I am considering a move to your area, not New Orleans, but nearby, possibly Ocean Springs Mississippi. I would like to know about the possibilities of eating " healthy " around there. I'm from California and I'm spoiled. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 My understanding is that modern American soy milk is pretty toxic. Nina Re: Re: Fat and Protein Hi Alobar, Actually I have two questions. One is not related but I will be brief. I agree with your thoughts about the importance of proteins for at least some people. What to you think about the controversy regarding soy milk. I love it and drink it every morning in a drink which also includes my coconut oil but often wonder if is wise. Also, I wonder if I could email you privately. My email address is karen.anderson9@.... I am considering a move to your area, not New Orleans, but nearby, possibly Ocean Springs Mississippi. I would like to know about the possibilities of eating " healthy " around there. I'm from California and I'm spoiled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Thanks Nina for your answer regarding soymilk. I guess I should start making my own. I really like it and I think it is a good source of protein. And I have to apologize to all for writing Alobar the second time on list. I didn't realize that was what I was doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Soy is really not good for anyone. Soybeans are extremely high in phytates, which combine with calcium, magnesium, zinc iron and copper in the intestinal tract, blocking their absorption. Soybeans also contain powerful enzyme inhibitors which can lead to protein assimilation problems. Soy milk, yogurt, ice cream, etc. are loaded with phytates and cause mineral deficiencies. Phytoestrogens in soy products are endocrine disruptors and goitrogens (depress thyroid function). Only very small amounts of fermented soy such as miso or tempeh are worth eating. On Feb 17, 2006, at 6:23 PM, wrote: > Thanks Nina for your answer regarding soymilk. I guess I should > start making my own. I really like it and I think it is a good > source of protein. > > And I have to apologize to all for writing Alobar the second time > on list. I didn't realize that was what I was doing. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 I think the only way we should consume soy is by the traditional ways of preparation, e.g., natto, tempeh, and miso. These are all fermented. Tofu is fine if it feels comfortable for you, but not too much of it because it is not fermented. I don't agree with making your own soy products any other way. The fermentation neutralizes the phytates and the anti-absorptive factors. The epidemiology on soy is excellent, to the best of my knowledge. Soy-eating peoples are typically very healthy. But please realize that this is all based on traditionally prepared soy. Nina Re: Re: Fat and Protein Thanks Nina for your answer regarding soymilk. I guess I should start making my own. I really like it and I think it is a good source of protein. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 I have to add _ Non genetically modified soy i.e. traditionally prepared non GM soy. Nina Moliver <ninalynn@...> wrote: I think the only way we should consume soy is by the traditional ways of preparation, e.g., natto, tempeh, and miso. These are all fermented. Tofu is fine if it feels comfortable for you, but not too much of it because it is not fermented. I don't agree with making your own soy products any other way. The fermentation neutralizes the phytates and the anti-absorptive factors. The epidemiology on soy is excellent, to the best of my knowledge. Soy-eating peoples are typically very healthy. But please realize that this is all based on traditionally prepared soy. Nina Re: Re: Fat and Protein Thanks Nina for your answer regarding soymilk. I guess I should start making my own. I really like it and I think it is a good source of protein. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Hi Bruce, Could you please gives us some examples of this...maybe of mass excepted " facts " ...some that wont get you into trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.