The China Study (book) suggested that, almost universally, food from animals = bad, food from plants = good. I started reading it about a year ago and gave up a few chapters in because it came across as very selective in its facts, so I can't give the precise details.
The article (okay, I only read the summary at the end) suggests that, while the book has some legitimate points, much of it is very biased and selective reporting of the facts. Go figure.
tl;dr - Radical claims about nutrition are found to be somewhat exaggerated. Also, eating food causes cancer, so try not to do that.
(If anyone did actually read through the entire book and/or article, feel free to elaborate a bit)
Slightly longer version: some dude published a book which said that eating meat is bad. This article says said book is largely BS. So go eat some meat.
My opinion: Complete BS outweighs good science by a factor of several thousand to one, when it comes to nutrition. There's no particularly strong evidence that one diet is significant better than any other, so as long as you're not fat or malnourished you're probably doing 90% as well as you possibly could be. So relax and stop reading fifteen-thousand-word articles debunking the statistics in some diet book.
I really agree with you when you say trying to find correlation with a specific food ingredient and one or several diseases is a fallacy in itself.
That being said there is some strong evidence that the _Okinawa diet_ is extremely good for the health. Note that the key word is "diet", meaning it's not just one single food ingredient. Actually that "diet" is actually more a lifestyle than a mere diet.
Generally speaking a healthy life isn't difficult: regular exercise, don't overeat, avoid refined sugars and alcohol, no soda, no fast food and most important: enjoy yourself!
That being said there is some strong evidence that the _Okinawa diet_ is extremely good for the health.
Actually, I tried to find out what the Okinawa diet is, but I found contradictory information. For example, some sources say that it is nearly vegetarian, some say that they eat significant amount of pork and cook on pork lard.
Also, I found some articles about research on Okinawa centenarians genetics and some genes were identified that correlate with longevity. So it might not be just about the diet.
I would appreciate any links on Okinawa diet, as long as they can be considered credible.
There is not much difference in "cancer correlation with plant proteins" and "cancer correlation with animal proteins".
High cholesterol is correlated with some cancers. But areas with high cholesterol are riddled with other risk factors. Campbell does not mention that.
Breast cancer is correlated significantly with sugar, alcohol and industry hazards. The association with animal fats is not statistically significant. Campbell does not mention that.
Areas with high animal food intake are not correlated with higher cancer rates at all.
Schistosomiasis is a profoundly strong risk factor for developing colon cancer and rectal cancer. It also happens that cholesterol also correlates with schistosomiasis infection. In regions with close to zero schistosomiasis infection there is no positive correlation between cancer and cholesterol.
Leukemia correlates strongly with working in industry. In the counties where few people work in industry, no correlation exists between cholesterol and leukemia. Cholesterol is actually slightly protective against leukemia.
The mortality rates for near-vegan and higher-animal-foods groups are quite similar, with the animal food group coming out more favorably in some cases (death from all cancers, myocardial infarction, brain and neurological diseases, lymphoma, cervix cancer). This little comparison might not carry a lot of scientific clout due to its small sample size, but it does blatantly undermine Campbell’s assessment.
Why does Campbell indict animal foods in cardiovascular disease (correlation of +1 for animal protein and -11 for fish protein), yet fail to mention that wheat flour has a correlation of +67 with heart attacks and coronary heart disease, and plant protein correlates at +25 with these conditions?
Why does Campbell overlook the unique Tuoli peoples documented in the China Study, who eat twice as much animal protein as the average American (including two pounds of casein-filled dairy per day)—yet don’t exhibit higher rates of any diseases Campbell ascribes to animal foods?
Why does Campbell point out the relationship between cholesterol and colorectal cancer (+33) but not mention the much higher relationship between sea vegetables and colorectal cancer (+76)?
Why does Campbell fail to mention that plant protein intake correlates positively with many of the “Western diseases” he blames cholesterol for—including +19 for colorectal cancers, +12 for cervix cancer, +15 for leukemia, +25 for myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease, +12 for diabetes, +1 for breast cancer, and +10 for stomach cancer?
Campbell demonstrated that casein promotes cancer in rats. He did not demonstrate that:
- The casein-cancer mechanism behaves the same way in humans as in lab rats.
- Casein promotes cancer not just when isolated, but also when occurring in its natural food form
- There are no differences between casein and other types of animal protein that could impose different effects on cancer growth/tumorigenesis.
Results of another Campbells study:
20% menhaden oil diet, rich in omega 3 fatty acids, produced a significant decrease in the development of both the size and number of preneoplastic lesions when compared to a 20% corn oil diet rich in omega 6 fatty acids. This study provides evidence that fish oils, rich in omega 3 fatty acids, may have potential as inhibitory agents in cancer development.
Why does Campbell avoid mentioning anything potentially positive about animal products in “The China Study,” including evidence unearthed by his own research?
In sum, “The China Study” is a compelling collection of carefully chosen data. Unfortunately for both health seekers and the scientific community, Campbell appears to exclude relevant information when it indicts plant foods as causative of disease, or when it shows potential benefits for animal products. This presents readers with a strongly misleading interpretation of the original China Study data, as well as a slanted perspective of nutritional research from other arenas (including some that Campbell himself conducted).
