The China Study bites the dust
Before undertaking our first Healthy Mind Fit Body podcast, I went to the bookstore to familiarize myself with all the latest trendy diets, and for any that I didn’t understand, I did research on Google to find out more.
Several books that I checked out were recommending a vegan diet, and a few of them referenced the China Study (by T. Collin Campbell) as proof that we all should be eating vegan. One book I read by Dr. Joel Fuhrman called “Eat to Live”, gave what appeared to be a credible review of the study, and Fuhrman used it as the basis to the recommendations in his book.
(I incidentally at that time also had someone email me and tell me I was killing myself with meat and that I should read the China Study to find out how I should be eating!)
So I googled it. I came across a few sites praising the China Study as the gospel truth, not to be questioned and a revolutionary study in nutrition. But the most well researched site I came across was this one: http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-8e.shtml
This page correctly points out that:
-Level of aggregation of the study data yields, at most, 65 observations (data points) for analysis. This was enough for me to throw out the whole thing, but there’s much more!
-The China Study report lists only 6 statistically significant correlations between meat-eating and disease mortality. Further, 4 of the correlations are negative. The tiny numbers are alarming, or rather, embarrassing to the author’s conclusion.
And then there are these logical fallacies:
-Lack of actual income data for the survey participants is a serious flaw. It makes adjustment of the data for the effect of income less reliable
-Attempts to use the China Study to prove that all omnivore diets are bad
So after reading this article, I was ready throw out the China Study as anything but an attempt to generate a hypothesis rather than prove one.
But if that weren’t bad enough, there is now a much deeper look at the China Study (by someone who read every page of the actual study, not just Campbell’s book) on this blog by Denise Minger: http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/
What we find here is:
Point #1: “…when we actually track down the direct correlation between animal protein and cancer, there is no statistically significant positive trend. None. Looking directly at animal protein intake, we have the following correlations with cancers:
Lymphoma: -18
Penis cancer: -16
Rectal cancer: -12
Bladder cancer: -9
Colorectal cancer: -8
Leukemia: -5
Nasopharyngeal: -4
Cervix cancer: -4
Colon cancer: -3
Liver cancer: -3
Oesophageal cancer: +2
Brain cancer: +5
Breast cancer: +12″
No proof of a cancer-meat link here!
Point #2: “But what about plant protein? Since plant protein correlates negatively with plasma cholesterol, does that mean plant protein correlates with lower cancer risk? Let’s take a look at the cancer correlations with “plant protein intake”:
Nasopharyngeal cancer: -40**
Brain cancer: -15
Liver cancer: -14
Penis cancer: -4
Lymphoma: -4
Bladder cancer: -3
Breast cancer: +1
Stomach cancer: +10
Rectal cancer: +12
Cervix cancer: +12
Colon cancer: +13
Leukemia: +15
Oesophageal cancer +18
Colorectal cancer: +19″
More of a link to cancer with plants than animals!!!
Point #3: “In these high-risk areas for liver cancer, total animal food intake has a correlation with liver cancer of… dun dun dun… +1.
That’s it. One. We rarely get a perfect statistical zero in the real world, but this is pretty doggone close to neutral. Broken up into different types of animal food rather than total consumption, we have the following correlations:
* Meat correlates at -7 with liver cancer in high-risk counties
* Fish correlates at +11
* Eggs correlate at -29
* Dairy correlates at -19″
Point #4: “Basically, Campbell’s implication that green vegetables are associated with less cardiovascular disease is misleading. More accurately, certain geographical regions have strong correlations with cardiovascular disease (or lack thereof), and year-round green vegetable consumption is simply an indicator of geography. Since only frequency and not actual quantity of greens seems protective of heart disease and stroke, it’s safe to say that greens probably aren’t the true protective factor.”
More flaws in the author’s conclusions from data gathered.
The great points Denise made in her blog post go on and on, and go to show that my initial inclination to throw out the China Study was the right one.
She goes on to say:
“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?
Speaking of wheat, why doesn’t Campbell also note the astronomical correlations wheat flour has with various diseases: +46 with cervix cancer, +54 with hypertensive heart disease, +47 with stroke, +41 with diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs, and the aforementioned +67 with myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease? (None of these correlations appear to be tangled with any risk-heightening variables, either.)”
Bingo. Carbohydrate and grain intake and its affects on health are not even considered!
T. Collin Campbell’s conclusion to his book was that animal products are deleterious to our health, and that we should be eating plant-based foods instead. Unfortunately, he not only did not prove this, but has lead many people to believing in more nonsense that if followed, will have negative consequences on their health in the long term.
Sign Up here and receive:
“The Three Pillars of Achieving Your Perfect Weight Through the Mind-Body Connection” Audio
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Linda Middlesworth on Thu, 15th Jul 2010 9:36 pm
People feel threatened when facts are released that go against the standard, cultural beliefs. We are raised as children to eat animals and animal secretions and so it is understandable why so many people feel threatened when they find out that the food mama gave them is helping to promote heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity, autoimmune diseases, digestive disorders, etc. The China Study is the longest, most unbiased studies ever conducted and show statistically significant results, worldwide, that ingesting animal foods create chronic ill heath in humans. I have helped 400 people in the last 4 years to eat a healthy, low fat, plant based diet and they have all rid themselves of the diseases listed above. Now, I have also some Kaiser doctors who, instead of handing pills or surgery, are handing out this book and getting the same results. Thank you Dr. T. Colin Campbell for your 35 year long work. And, I know that you went into this study trying to prove the opposite results!
When people hear that their upbringing needs to be challenge, they lash out with untruths….just as yound, 23 yr old Mindy has done.
Mike Teehan on Fri, 16th Jul 2010 5:19 pm
Instead of driving yourself with all these numbers why not just look for visable proof in REAL people. I decided to try plant based eating and here is what happened: (the numbers have actually gotten better since this was published last October) Why I’m a believer in Dr. Campbell’s advice:
http://www.drmcdougall.com/stars/mike_teehan.htm
Kevin on Sun, 18th Jul 2010 5:42 pm
Hi Linda,
Thanks for your comment.
You definitely have a point about people having a hard time changing their beliefs from what they were raised with. Wes & I tend to go against the grain here at Healthy Mind Fit Body, and are always open to new information that may contradict our current beliefs about nutrition. Mindy’s article brought up some glaring facts surrounding the China Study, and I felt that it was important to bring them up to readers here. If you have specific criticisms of the data she provided, I would be happy to hear about them. If she’s 23 or 83 makes no difference to me, it’s strictly the scientific facts that are important. What specifically do you see in her blog post (or this one) that is an “untruth”?
Kevin
Kevin on Sun, 18th Jul 2010 5:50 pm
Hi Mike,
I don’t doubt that you have gotten better after changing your diet. However, the important thing is, what was your diet like before the change? We must compare apples to apples here. If you are going from a traditional American diet to what Campbell recommends, I would not be at all surprised to see some improved numbers. However, the real test is if we compare a diet such as what Campbell recommends to a more paleo or primal-type diet. And numbers do matter, you are even judging your health by numbers! We must look at scientific findings as opposed to using confirmation bias (i.e. taking individual or small sample results).
If you check out the findings on Mindy’s blog post, it’s possible that there are some areas you have overlooked- and can continue on your path of health improvement by cutting out grains and adding in some healthy meats and fish.
Good luck!
Kevin
Linda Middlesworth on Sun, 18th Jul 2010 6:54 pm
HI Kevin,
I am slammed for time right now, but I will address specific statements by Mindy right after I finish my screenwriting class…and I can do that, no problem!.
I am glad you critique everything and want the facts. So do I. Open minded people get the best results, especially when it comes to nutrition. Nutrition is such an emotional subject because it goes against what our mothers taught us and that is hard to swallow…no pun intended.
Be back to you soon.
I like you.
Linda
Linda Middlesworth on Thu, 22nd Jul 2010 7:03 pm
Here it is from Dr. Campbell. He says it best Kevin.Reply To Denise Minger
by Dr. T. Colin Campbell, PhD, author The China Study
Ms. Denise Minger has published a critique of our book, The China Study, as follows.
The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? by Denise Minger – article found at: http://bit.ly/9s5pn8
It is both interesting and gratifying that there has been such a huge response, both on her blog and on those of others. This is a welcome development because it gives this topic an airing that has long been hidden in the halls and annals of science. It is time that this discussion begin to reach a much larger audience, including both supporters and skeptics.
I hope at some point to be able to read all of the discussions and the questions that have been raised, but present deadlines and long-standing commitments have forced me, for now, to focus on the most common concerns and questions, in order to respond in a timely manner here.
Kudos to Ms. Minger for having the interest, and taking the time, to do considerable analysis, and for describing her findings in readily accessible language. And kudos to her for being clear and admitting, right up front, that she is neither a statistician nor an epidemiologist, but an English major with a love for writing and an interest in nutrition. We need more people with this kind of interest.
I am the first to admit that background and academic credentials are certainly not everything, and many interesting discoveries and contributions have been made by “outsiders” or newcomers in various fields. On the other hand, background, time in the field, and especially peer review, all do give one a kind of perspective and insight that is, in my experience, not attainable in any other way. I will try to make clear in my comments below when this is particularly relevant.
My response can be divided into three parts, mostly addressing her argument’s lack of proportionality–what’s important and what’s not.
Misunderstanding our book’s objectives and my research findings
Excessive reliance on the use of unadjusted correlations in the China database
Failure to note the broader implications of choosing the right dietary lifestyle
…snip… [by w.b., due to length; please just provide a link next time]
Obviously, the title of our book has been misleading for some because of the inappropriate weight suggested by the China project itself. When these rather novel data are considered both in reference to biologically plausible, multi-factor models of causation and in reference to the large body of other kinds of studies discussed in the book, the China project database becomes very important. But relying on the results of this study in isolation, especially when unadjusted univariate correlations are used, is not appropriate.
I should conclude by noting the suggestion of the professional epidemiologist, cited above, who suggested that ultimately Denise may wish to publish her findings in a peer-reviewed journal but who presently felt strongly that the current version would not be accepted. I concur.
Kevin on Mon, 26th Jul 2010 6:05 pm
Linda,
Thanks for following up.
This article by Campbell still does not address the facts laid out in Minger’s post. In fact, 2 rebuttal articles to Campbell’s piece that you have pasted here have already been written- and one by Minger herself. Here are the links to those articles:
http://westonaprice.org/blogs/denise-mingers-refutation-of-campbells-china-study-generates-continued-debate.html
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/16/the-china-study-my-response-to-campbell/
I think these thoroughly refute Campbell’s rebuttal. If we stick to science and the facts, and stay away from ad hominem attacks such as “Minger is only 23!”, we will be more likely to reach the correct conclusion here.
Cheers,
Kevin
Parag on Wed, 28th Jul 2010 12:12 pm
Friends,
You don’t need to believe Dr. Campbell. Just read The China Study, slowly and completely, and figure out the truth for yourself. Facts speak for themselves.
I, and a few of my acquaintances, tried a whole-foods plant-based diet (coupled with biweekly exposure to sunlight in noon and some physical activity) for a year (strict compliance), and it had been working wonders for us after the first few months itself, so we continue to be on it. Some of my friends failed, because they were mostly eating junk (plant-based) foods.
The China Study book is not just about Dr. Campbell’s work, but more than that it describes the work and results of numerous other research studies, independent and unbiased, that point to the undeniable benefits of a whole-foods plant-based diet.
Denise has adopted a detailed but very narrow view that is insufficient to relate to the larger context. This approach will only add to confusion and misleading conclusions.
Warm Regards,
Parag.
Linda Middlesworth on Wed, 28th Jul 2010 7:55 pm
Parag,
I spent 6 months studying The China Study so I believe YOU are the one who is so misinformed. Study it. These is peer reviewed and the most unbiased study done in the history of the world.
Kevin on Wed, 28th Jul 2010 8:23 pm
Parag, please explain where Denise when wrong specifically in her blog post and her follow up response to Campbell. I’m not doubting that you have seen positive results, but what we’re after here is science-based double-blind studies as opposed to anecdotal evidence.
Cheers,
Kevin
Kevin on Wed, 28th Jul 2010 8:31 pm
Linda,
Parag was actually arguing on your side. :)
I’m not denying that the China Study is peer reviewed, but this doesn’t address the critiques that Monger made in her two blog posts now. She is pointing out facts, and I’m happy to have a debate about these facts if you have counter-evidence that goes against the points Denise Monger has made.
Cheers,
Kevin
Linda Middlesworth on Wed, 28th Jul 2010 8:40 pm
HI Kevin, I am still under deadline, but can you send me the whole M post and so I can, when I have time, go over her conclusions carefully. Send to: graphside@aol.com
Aurora Cooney on Thu, 29th Jul 2010 6:10 pm
I would just like to say that the vast majority of people I know who are vegan are eithical vegans. We don’t need to eat meat and therefore, choose not to participate in that violence. That being said, from a health point of view, I have been vegan for 6 years and am now performing better than I did in my 30s. I can honestly say I haven’t had even a cold in 4 years. If you eat all the fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes recommended, there isn’t room for anything else. It doesn’t bother me that Mindy is 23, but it does bother me that she is not a scientist but an english student with an interest in nutrition. Hardly credentials I would hold much stock in.
Melanie on Thu, 29th Jul 2010 10:30 pm
Amazing how people will use any means possible to discredit the truth. My youngest daughter had her childhood snatched from her spending most of it in the hospital and on chemo medication for five and a half years. After reading The China Study and all of us including my husband who is a physician, changing our diet, she is one hundred per cent healthy. So for those of you who choose to discredit the science and want to believe your bologny, it is for one reason and one reason only because you like to eat dead parts of animals, because you do not want to believe the truth, because you want to keep eating animal products. Go ahead and do what you want. I am so sick and tired of people like you trying to discredit the truth and having the large corporations obviously coining the billions of dollars from you, go ahead! You can all spend your lives taking medications being owned by the pharmaceutical industry. Keep making the cruel corporations rich, keep supporting the pharmaceutical industry. But, leave the truth alone!!! We have never felt better, healthier and love the delicious food we now eat ~
Kevin on Thu, 29th Jul 2010 11:04 pm
Aurora- the ethics debate is a different argument, and I’m going to skip that one here for the purposes of this blog.
Melanie- I have no doubt that people have seen results from switching from a more traditional American diet to a China Study-type diet, and that your daughter did indeed improve her health just like you said. But, there are ways to get even healthier- much healthier, through a diet that is not vegetarian. I’m happy to debate these truths you speak of. What was it in my blog post, Minger’s post or the various counter-posts to Campbell’s hypothesis that you disagree with specifically?
What exactly are you calling “baloney”?
And to respond to your comment accusing me of simply wanting to eat animals- I am not married to any nutritional idea. If I thought that giving up meat would be better for my health, I’d do so at the drop of a hat.
Cheers,
Kevin
Kevin on Thu, 29th Jul 2010 11:13 pm
Linda, here’s the original post: http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/
And the two rebuttals to Campbell’s rebuttal:
http://westonaprice.org/blogs/denise-mingers-refutation-of-campbells-china-study-generates-continued-debate.html
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/16/the-china-study-my-response-to-campbell/
Archie L. Tucker on Sat, 31st Jul 2010 2:42 pm
Personally, I think any reply to Denise Minger’s blind leap to criticize Dr. Campbell’s work is a wasted effort and risks lending undue credence to her baseless claims. However, I do have this to say: How can she even consider that she possesses the credentials, academic or otherwise, to challenge the findings of a scientist with a PhD in biochemistry and several decades of experience in labs and fieldwork in the area of nutrition? I suppose such research facilities as Cornell and Oxford should reconsider their acceptance of his research findings in support of someone who has absolutely no academic credentials in this arena. In addition, does she think all peer reviews of his work should be reconsidered just because she “likes to crunch numbers”? Please! Give the readers some credit for intellect and common sense.
Archie L. Tucker
Certified in:
Biology, anatomy, health, and astronomy
Lynn Meyer on Sat, 31st Jul 2010 5:57 pm
I too decided about 18 months ago to follow a vegan diet. The Standard American Diet (SAD)wasn’t working for me. I was pre-diabetic, constatnly picking up weight and on 2 BP meds for more than 5 years. I weighed 180 pounds when I committed to this diet 100%. I have now lost 40 pounds, I have noticed a difference in my memory and I am off my blood pressure meds. (Still waiting for a response from my doctor as to whether I’d ever be able to go without the drugs….) In the grand old USA, 99% of doctors know how to put you on drugs and have no clue how to get you off drugs. I can vouch for the effect a vegan diet has had for me – it is the way I’ll eat the rest of my life. If I am not harming anyone by my choice of diet, please keep your negativity and name calling to yourselves. If my vegan choices harm you, then we can talk again.
Sue on Thu, 5th Aug 2010 9:35 am
Have you read Minger’s latest?
http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/minger_formal_response2.pdf
She has done a brilliant job. Read the above and then comment.
Sue on Thu, 5th Aug 2010 9:43 am
When you change from SAD to vegan or vegetarianism of course you’re going to see improvements in health – weight, BP etc.
You will see the same benefits going paleo – meat,veg, fruit, nuts and seeds, fats. Its the processed products, sugars etc that are damaging to our health.