<p>I came across the website for this book, and am wondering what the nutrition experts here might think. This study claims to prove a connection between eating animal protein and all sorts of diseases: “The findings? ‘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. These results could not be ignored,’ said Dr. Campbell.”</p>
<p>In particular, the website mentions a correlation with liver cancer. Does this worry any other fellow low-carbers?</p>
<p>The quality of studies varies widely and some are absolute junk. One should dig deeper into the research, methodology, whether the findings are repeatable, etc. to determine whether or not to give it any value.</p>
<p>That said, one can go low-carb without eating a lot of (or any) meat.</p>
<p>Perhaps you could post a link to the website and the research-types here could take a look.</p>
<p>Credentials seem good as do the institutions involved.</p>
<p>There may be something to what they say but I didn’t see any papers referenced so it’s hard to take a look at their science without buying their book.</p>
<p>At any rate, I’ve already moved towards getting more protein from plant sources instead of animal sources. My main efforts lately have been focused on beans and, to a lesser extent, fish. I still eat meat and chicken but not so much as before.</p>
<p>For those that are overweight, the cardiovascular and other benefits to a low-carb approach, may outweigh the risks that your book discusses. For those in Asian countries where weight isn’t a problem, the risks could be different.</p>
<p>As you might have guessed, he’s not impressed:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it is very hard to make the case that a vegan diet (or “plant-based diet” as T. Colin Campbell calls it) is inherently “healthier” than some other diet.</p>
<p>Hah. I clicked the link to the China Study website and saw this ‘endorsement’:</p>
<p>“The New York Times has recognized the study (China-Oxford-Cornell Diet and Health Project) as the “Grand Prix of epidemiology” and the “most comprehensive large study ever undertaken of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease.””</p>
<p>This caught Dr. Eades’ eye as well judging from mention in his review:</p>
<p>Punched the clock. 18 miles. 2:28 - done. As I was finishing my run, I passed an over 40 dude who clearly was not happy about being chicked. He joked that I had to keep the tortoise and the hare in mind when running. I reached my turning point at 16.5 miles and ran into the same dude on the way back. He waved at me thinking that I had ran out of steam so quickly, but his jaw dropped when I told him that I only had one more mile to go to reach my target of 18 miles.</p>
<p>Yay, BB! Great run. Y’all are doing great. Congrats, BCE!</p>
<p>In the car for the 9 hour drive home. 3 hours done. Hot and humid in Charlottesville this morning. 4 miles for 41 mile week. Daughter wouldn’t go with me today. 7 miles behind pace bunny.</p>
<p>Wow, MOfWC, great job on your mileage. Of course, you know this, but please try to keep your feet up and drink lots of water during your ride home. It took only 5 hours in the car for me to swell like an elephant. I gained 5 pounds in a day, LOL. Of course, it did not help that we tasted wine in 95 degree weather. (If you ever end up in Eastern WA/Richland area, visit Terra Blanca Winery. It is simply awesome.) I drank close to 3 pounds of liquids during/after the run, but still lost 5 pounds. My feet are much better, but still a bit swollen.</p>
<p>Thanks idad. Like BC I looked at the author’s credentials and thought good institutional credentials ought to equal good research. How disappointing to find out that he seems as agenda-driven as the lobbyists he criticizes. At least I can eat my chicken curry (no rice) in peace tonight.</p>
<p>I think Campbell’s original population study of Chinese mortality rates was probably impressive research, as far as those kinds of studies can be – although I doubt that it tells us much definitive in the way of useful nutrition guidance.</p>
<p>I suspect that where we get our protein - animal or plant – is probably way, way down the list of things to worry about. For starters, it’s probably more important to worry about getting enough protein. We don’t need much to live, but it’s hard to maintain lean muscle mass without it. I think many vegans struggle to get sufficient protein over the long haul. The options are limited without meat, seafood, pountry, dairy, and cheese.</p>
<p>All the study participants had type 2 diabetes, a body mass index >30 (obese), and a waist circumference ≥102 cm. They were randomized to two dietary plans:</p>
<pre><code>Liquid meal-replacement consumed twice daily and one small, nutritionally balanced meal, providing a total energy of about 900 kcal/day (low-calorie diet)
A high-protein, low-fat, low-carbohydrate diet designed to reduce energy intake by about 600 kcal/day
</code></pre>
<p>Men randomized to the low-calorie diet had about a 10% reduction in mean body weight and waist circumference at eight weeks, as compared with about 5% among men assigned to the high-protein diet (P<0.01). Weight loss at eight weeks averaged 9.5 kg (20.9 lbs.) with the low-calorie diet and 5.4 kg (11.9 lbs.) with the high-protein diet, both of which were statistically significant (P<0.o5).</p>
<p>The primary topic of the article is libido but this snippet is interesting. Unfortunately it didn’t say what was in the shakes and it was high-protein, low-fat instead of high-protein, high-fat.</p>
<p>That’s the kind of nonsensical study that just leaves you scratching your head. Why would you study a 900 calorie a day diet for fat men? And, then why would you design a study that compares that to what had to be at least 2000 calories a day, but high protein? How about studying stuff that people might actually do? Can you imagine a big ol’ fat guy lasting very long on a 900 calorie a day diet?</p>
<p>It’s like this one, that is a good study, but infuriating:</p>
<p>They spent a ton of NIH taxpayer money studying two groups: One on a calorie restricted low-fat diet (1200-1500 calories a day for women, 1500-1800 calories a day for men). The other on an Atkins diet: very low carb to start, increasing over time, but eat as much protein and fat as you want. They were told, “Eat liberal amounts of fat and protein foods (i.e., poultry, fish, shellfish, red meat). When you consume fat, use butter, mayonnaise, olive oil, safflower oil, sunflower oil and other vegetable oils rather than margarine.” No calorie counting.</p>
<p>At the end of two years, both groups had lost the same amount of weight, but the glaring omission is that they never say what the calorie intake of the low-carbers was. I mean, if I could eat as much protein and fat as I want and lose the same amount of weight as someone counting calories on a semi-starvation diet, that would be a pretty good deal. They had the data from detailed food diaries. They just “forgot” to include it, I guess! Also, if the calories were different and the two groups lost the same amount of weight, that would blow a gaping hole in the hypothesis that it’s all “calories in/calories out”, which is why I suspect they “forgot” to include the data.</p>
<p>The conclusion of the study was that both diets are equally effective for weight loss.</p>
<p>My guess is that there was an actual shake-based diet plan with some kind of apetite suppressant involved. It did say that there were men that kept with the diets for quite some time.</p>
<p>No rest between exercises. No rest between sets. I noticed with some trepidation that iPod nazi couldn’t do it. He had to “hit the pause button” for thirty seconds before the third and fourth sets. </p>
<p>I think I can do it, but I guess we’ll find out. I’m going to plug in a short, easy strength training section and be ready to bail depending on how this goes. Alternatively, I may end up making these my short interval sessions separate from strength training. We’ll see.</p>