Good Common Sense

A dear friend recently asked me my feelings about The China Study, by T. Colin Campbell, PhD. The book draws on research conducted in rural China, on the effects of nutrition in the disease process.

I have to state that I have not read the book. I have, however, read over all of the material on Campbell's website, www.thechinastudy.com, and found it very compelling. According to Dr. Campbell, “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." In an exerpt from his book, Dr. Campbell discusses his own research that suggested diets low in protein actually helped prevent cancer, and diets high in protein caused cancer. Dr. Campbell specifically cites the milk protein, casein, as being responsible for this cancer promoting effect. Based on what I have read so far, I am almost ready to give up my favorite burgers, fillets, and my most favorite- cheese.

But then I remember how I felt after reading Neanderthin, by Ray Audette. In this book, Audette gives reasonable scientific and anthropological data to suggest that a diet rich in animal products, and avoiding grains, legumes and potatoes, is the key to avoiding disease and staying thin. Audette's arguments, for this way of eating, are also very compelling. Even to this educated woman the recommendations, at first glance, make sense.

Dr. Atkins, in his revolution, also makes compelling arguments in his discussion on the role of proteins to good health, and the "insulin-glucose" connection that causes us to gain weight. After reading Atkins' work, a carb controlled diet seems very reasonable.


Dr. Campbell states on his website, "Consumers are bombarded with conflicting messages regarding health and nutrition; the market is flooded with popular titles like The Atkins Diet and The South Beach Diet." I couldn't agree more. With each new book, website, and video, we have an entirely different message about what is healthy. This makes it incredibly hard for an individual to navigate the world of health information and make an informed decision.

In light of all of this, I found myself answering my friend with the following:

I don't advocate a diet void of animal proteins. While there is plenty of research to support the idea that vegetarians are healthier, and live longer, there is also plenty of data suggesting that omnivores can lead very health lives. For instance, research suggests that members of the Inuit populations of Alaska, who live primarily on seal meat and seal blubber, have lower rates of heart disease and cancer. The Masai tribe in Africa, who's diet consists mainly of cow's meat, milk and blood, have virtually no incidence of heart disease. And conversely, the Bantu tribes in South Africa are vegetarian, but have similar rates of arterial plaque buildup as their meat eating neighboring tribes.

Butter contains several nutrients that make us healthier. CLA- conjugated lenoleic acid- for instance, has antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anti cancer properties. Myristic acid helps to increase our good cholesterol. Lauric acid, found in both meat and dairy products, has anti-viral properties (some researchers have even studied and suggested it plays a role in halting HIV), and increases good cholesterol. Stearic acid, an 18-carbon, long chain fatty acid found in beef, has been shown to lower cholesterol in clinical research.

Why do we find such varying and often conflicting "research"? Not all research is created equal. Look deep enough, and you will find legitimate criticisms to many of these diet books' references. ( A great deal of information refuting the research of Dr. Campbell and the China Project exists, including criticism from a source I personally trust and respect, the Weston A Price Foundation, www.westonaprice.org ).

Also, when we look at different populations and compare dietary intakes with health outcomes, it is almost impossible to make an adequate comparison. Processing practices of our food supply vary greatly from region to region, and can have a huge impact the quality of nutrition. According to many, the pasteurization process of milk, for instance, depletes milk of vital nutrients, limits milk's benefits, and may adversely affect our health. The nutritional quality of beef cattle feeding the Masai tribes in Africa ( grass fed, organic, no hormones or steroids ) will be considerably better than the quality of beef in the American diet ( fed soy and corn, and pumped with hormones, steroids and antibiotics ).

Navigating the world of health information can be quite difficult these days. Everyone has an answer (that seems to make sense), but the answers rarely agree. When faced with this dilemma, I encourage my clients to go back to the "common sense test". Does this make sense? It does not make sense to me that we humans, would be provided (by God, nature, whatever) with a food source that gives us vital nutrition in such an efficient package. It does not make sense to me that prior to the industrial and agricultural revolutions, our ancestors (consuming diets dominated by animal products) lived lives largely unaffected by diseases of our modern age (cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc.). And I am satisfied that the scientific data support the health benefits of diets containing animal proteins.

As for The China Study, I am not here to criticize or promote. Likewise, I will not try to convince you that vegetarianism is unhealthy, it isn't. I am simply inspired to encourage you, the consumer, to consider the big picture when making health decisions. Do not base your decisions on any one book, single study, or one man's opinions. Get all the facts, and ultimately, use your good common sense.