“The China Study” and Longevity
steemit.com
“The China Study” and Longevity
1–10 of 31 posts
Re: “The China Study” and Longevity
#2I think this analysis is incomplete. It's important to separate out longevity from cause of death. "The China Study"'s central premiss is that a vegan diet reduces the likelihood of dying of the "Western" diseases such as heart disease and cancer. A simple correlation between a vegan diet and longevity doesn't address this and also wouldn't take into account the high correlation between not being able to afford animal products and a lack of access to medical care. If you actually read the book the author goes into all this detail.
Re: “The China Study” and Longevity
#3The author is missing an important point: dietary sources of cholesterol are from animal byproducts only.
> Cholesterol comes from two sources. Your liver makes all the cholesterol you need. The remainder of the cholesterol in your body comes from foods derived from animals. For example, meat, poultry and full-fat dairy products all contain cholesterol, called dietary cholesterol.
> Those same foods are high in saturated and trans fats.
from the American Heart Association: https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/cholesterol/about-cho...
Re: “The China Study” and Longevity
#4>"The above analysis is trivially simple. Just data preprocessing simple correlations and filtering, using the most high-level overview the data allows for regarding food intake and health. The possible effect of different foods on longevity. No massaging of the data, no exposure to birthday paradox spuriousness, no statistical tricks, questionable adjustments for, etc"
There is also no controlling for anything! It seems a no-brainer that higher "Saturated Fat" and "Animal Protein" intakes correlate with higher income/access to modern health care infrastructure. Which means the author is really measuring an underlying latent "prosperity" variable. The author almost groks it with:
>"The correlations speak for themselves, the top X correlations for longevity are relatively strongly correlated amongst themselves. It is likely that multiple of these columns are indeed major contributors to longevity, yet given the inter-food correlations, it is quite impossible to isolate these from the variables that are just along for the ride."
Once the author controls for the prosperity that is the causal for all the correlated "dependent" variables, it might turn out that a Vegan diet is better than a non-Vegan diet. Or it might not. But this piece adds no value to the conversation, IMHO.
*As lspears points out, even worse is the wrong endpoint. Prob of making it to 80 != lower chance of death from Western diseases (heart attack/cancer).
Re: “The China Study” and Longevity
#5Denise Minger thoroughly critiques T. Colin Campbell's (seemingly incompetent) interpretation of the data in this study.
https://deniseminger.com/the-china-study/
EDIT: TCC's reply: http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-col...
Re: “The China Study” and Longevity
#6Denise Minger thoroughly critiques T. Colin Campbell's (seemingly incompetent) interpretation of the data in this study. https://deniseminger.com/the-china-study/ EDIT: TCC's reply: http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-col...
Why should I trust Denise Minger over Colin Campbell?
I read Capbell's China Study and I'm definitely interested in counter points to his findings, but it seems like Minger is a food blogger (and recent book author) while the other is a biochemist with a long history in their field.
Re: “The China Study” and Longevity
#7Denise Minger thoroughly critiques T. Colin Campbell's (seemingly incompetent) interpretation of the data in this study. https://deniseminger.com/the-china-study/ EDIT: TCC's reply: http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-col...
Why should I trust Denise Minger over Colin Campbell? I read Capbell's China Study and I'm definitely interested in counter points to his findings, but it seems like Minger is a food blogger (and recent book author) while the other is a biochemist with a long history in their field.
You shouldn't. Denise Minger does not know what she's analysing. And it's visible from the response.
TCC said multiple times that his study should have been a starting point for new research. Not as a definitive statement on what the optimal diet is.
Re: “The China Study” and Longevity
#8Denise Minger thoroughly critiques T. Colin Campbell's (seemingly incompetent) interpretation of the data in this study. https://deniseminger.com/the-china-study/ EDIT: TCC's reply: http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-col...
The headline given by "vegsource" to the article on T. Colin Campbell's reply ("China Study Author Colin Campbell Slaps Down Critic") is unfortunate, since his reply is surprisingly detailed and collegial.
Re: “The China Study” and Longevity
#9Here is a debate between the author of The China Study and another scientist in the field who disagrees with his findings:
http://www.catalystathletics.com/articles/downloads/proteinD... (I have no idea why Campbell chose not to cite any sources.)
and here is a simplified take by the excellent skeptic Harriet Hall:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/385/
As Hall notes:
>He criticizes conventional recommendations for a diet with 45-65% of calories from carbohydrates, 20-35% from fat and 10-35% from protein, showing how the following menu satisfies those requirements:
>[example of an obviously unhealthy diet]
>But that’s a bit of a straw man argument. In reality, most current nutritional advice makes very much the same recommendations Campbell does except for his strict prohibition of animal protein. For instance, for cancer prevention the American Cancer Society recommends (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/MED_2_1X_American_...) a diet high in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes and low in red meat and alcohol, along with regular exercise and weight control.
In these (and other) debates, Campbell repeatedly shows, IMO, an unwillingness to take his critics seriously, instead always resorting to the broadside of "reductionist!". At first he seems to have a point, but when you read more of his responses to more people, you just find yourself hearing "reductionist! reductionist! reductionist!". This is particularly concerning since all atomistic theories (i.e. physicalist theories, i.e. the modern scientific view of reality) are ultimately reductionist in some way. Furthermore, his attack on the standard recommendations is extremely reductionist, as seen above (and a similar diet can easily be constructed with less protein and no animal foods!). I'm particularly glad to link the critique from Science-Based Medicine as they're equally critical (if not more) of the paleo milieu.
Re: “The China Study” and Longevity
#10I think this analysis is incomplete. It's important to separate out longevity from cause of death. "The China Study"'s central premiss is that a vegan diet reduces the likelihood of dying of the "Western" diseases such as heart disease and cancer. A simple correlation between a vegan diet and longevity doesn't address this and also wouldn't take into account the high correlation between not being able to afford anima…
"Western" disease is caused by high intake of processed foods, soda, etc. It isn't the vegan diet that helps. It's removing processed food, soda, etc. You can be an omnivore or a carnivore and remove processed junk food and reduce "Western" disease. And you can be a vegan and eat a ton of processed vegan junk food and succumb to "Western" disease.
Processed foods and overeating is the true problem in the western diet.