Getting ripped and Paleo eating



not sure why... but here you go

If Dr Campbell promotes moral or environmental reasons for going vegan, I'd congratulate him. But he is promoting it as the ultimate diet for humans.

Unfortunately, his advice that we should go vegan is not backed by his own study.

After reading this book, I went to find the actual study (the monograph "Diet, Life-style and Mortality in China") and there were many holes in his hypothesis. There was no correlation between animal protein and disease! I also found conflicting evidence in science journals. He ignored contrary results and left out data that did not support his view.

What I find disturbing is, this book is for the general public and will affect the dietary choices of many people. Most people don't have the time to research these facts for themselves so he takes advantage of that (but if you do, PLEASE go check the information for yourselves before making a decision on removing meat entirely for health reasons). Critical thinking is important.

Anyway, here are the problems with the information in this book:
- This study was an observational study. Problems with studies like these, it doesn't prove causality. Even with that, the results showed no correlation. In fact, it revealed that wheat had a stronger correlation than animal protein intake - which of couse, he left out of the book.

- Casein in milk, he demonstrated, causes cancer. But he also left out feeding SUGAR along with the protein. Sugar has been shown to promote tumor growth. He also didn't mention that casein is not consumed isolated in nature (human breast milk has casein too, should we ban that too?)

- He cited an Indian study that showed rats taking 20% casein with the toxin aflatoxin will develop cancer whereas rats taking 5% casein did not. He just forgot to mention that the rats on the low casein diet died after 6 months. While the 20% casein rats lived for 2 years.

- Protein from plants can also be "complete proteins" if you eat a wide variety of plant foods, based on Campbell's conclusions that complete protein like animal proteins can cause cancer, that must apply to plant proteins as well.

- He says "..there is a mountain of scientific evidence to show that the healthiest diet you can possibly consume is a high-carbohydrate diet". Actually, clinical studies show the opposite - that high carb diets (particularly refined carbs) are bad for diabetics, those who are obese, those with metabolic syndrome and some even show that it's bad for people with heart disease.

- He links total cholesterol with cancer mortality rates. Researchers still have trouble proving high cholesterol is associated with heart disease let alone cancer! (high triglycerides, with high VLDL and low HDL are better indicators than cholesterol. In fact, 50% of people who develop heart disease have mid to LOW cholesterol levels).

- He says overall, the more meat the Chinese consume, the higher the cancer rates. But unfortunately, he left out the county of Tuoli (as demonstrated by Denise Minger) a county with high consumption of meat AND dairy enjoyed ironically low incidences of cancer. The Masai, the Eskimos and even the French with their diets of high fat or dairy and animal protein have good health (low rates of heart disease, low cancer rates, low obesity).

- He believes that the lower rates of cancer among the Chinese compared to Americans must be due to their diet of low animal protein. It is well known that calorie restriction in animals and even in humans can improve health and longevity. This was shown during the world wars when food was rationed, rates of cancer and other diesases fell! The China study was done in the mid 1970's to 1980s - the tailend of the mass starvation of the Chinese before the Mao government loosened its grip on capitalism in the late 80s. For decades prior to the China Study, many counties had little food to eat. Ask any Chinese baby boomer from China and they can tell you how poor they were as children. I've heard stories of people eating roots and bark from trees out of desperation. Meat was highly valued and hard to come by. So the whole notion that the Chinese CHOSE to be vegans is insulting.

- Campbell makes it out as though we should all eat like the Chinese, for disease-free long life. Go find the statistics for longevity of the Chinese and you'll find the average life expectancy of the Chinese is lower than Americans. Yes, you heard right. You can check this yourself online. In fact, the countries with the highest life expectancy are the ones who consume the highest intake of fat and meat. It is a myth that the Japanese centenarians in Okinawa eat a low fat diet. They eat plenty of fish and seafood and their dishes are greasy.

There are more inconsistencies with the information. But you get the point. Before anyone accuses me of being a Campbell basher, think about this: he is SELLING a book, he has his reputation to defend, I don't sell anything, I'm not associated with the meat industry (I dislike them in fact), I bought this book (verified by Amazon) and giving an honest review without vegan-rose-colored-glasses on. I read it with an open mind and came out disappointed and mildly disgusted. Why? Because his suggestions may cause harm to his readers.

I'm not suggesting we go and eat as much factory farmed meat as we want. But free range, organic grass fed meat is healthy - high in omega3, low in omega6, low e.coli count, higher vitamin A and vitamin D in organs.

My review is not an attack on Dr Campbell as a person. I have not made any personal remarks about him. Nor am I attacking veganism or vegetarianism. I think they're morally valid ways to eat that work for some people. What I am attacking is the information, the content and what adverse affects it could have on people's health.

If you're hell bent on giving veganism a go, please take out sugar, refined wheat and Western tofu products from your diet.

I highly recommend this book - read it, check the facts and judge it for yourself.
Click to expand...
 
and comment 2... lots of omissions in this study... everyone here should realize how easy it is to manipulate numbers

I am a scientist, not specifically in the field of nutrition, though I have touched on it as an aside of my main focus, and I know how to research and interpret (correctly!) scientific work. I have read The China Study and the China Project (a publication of the actual data from the study). Normally when reading bad science information I would just shrug it off and move on but thought that there would be people out there that would just take the authors word of the truth of the book, resulting in unnecessary dietary alterations and damage to health all with the aim of trying to get healthier. As such I have written my thoughts on the book - take from them what you will.

The China Study is an attempt by Campbell to promote veganism as a dietary lifestyle through scientific research. Unfortunately the scientific basis of the book if full off misinterpretations, omissions of conflicting data, and conclusions and statements based on unreferenced facts (possibly not facts?). I began reading the book with an open mind but from the outset it was clear that Campbell had one mantra - animal based food is bad, plant based food is good, and this is repeated over and over throughout the book.

Let's first look at Campbells own laboratory studies. In the presence of Aflatoxin, a carcinogen, rats fed a diet of 20% casein, a milk protein, develop cancer while those that are fed 5% casein do not. Okay, I am willing to accept that study on face value. How much casein causes cancer then? In a dose response study Campbell found that 10% casein doesn't contribute to cancer development, but above 10% does. Again, I am happy to accept that. A diet made up of 10% casein contributes to cancer development. How does that apply to humans? After describing a study about nitrosamines and how the dose wasn't relevant to the human population (page 45), Campbell has done the exact same thing with his Casein study. Casein is a milk protein. In 100ml of whole milk, the macro nutrient content is 5.2g of carbohydrate, 3.25g of fat and 3.2g of protein that equals 11.65g of nutrients, the rest of the 100ml mostly made up of water. Milk protein is 80% casein, 80% of 3.2g is 2.56, so out of that 11.65 total, 2.56 is casein which equals 22% of the total. Oh no! Milk will cause us to develop cancer! But don't worry, as long as we get the casein down to 10% we will be safe. How do we do that? Eat 13.95g of anything that is not casein. Pretty easy to do. So as long as we are not living of more than about 50% milk, then we are safe from cancer as a result of the casein in the milk. Do you know anybody that has that much milk? And that is ignoring the fact that casein extracted from milk for the purposes of his study is not exactly a healthy, natural source of protein purely as a result of the chemical extraction.

But hang on, what if other proteins contribute to the development of cancer? Campbell thought that so he investigated gluten and soy and found that neither of them had the same impact as casein. That clearly shows that not all proteins contribute to cancer, and having tested 2 plant proteins and 1 of the many animal proteins, we must therefore conclude that ALL animal proteins lead to cancer and ALL plant proteins do not. Does anybody else see a problem with this? All that we can conclude from these studies is a diet made up of above 10% casein, may contribute to the development of cancer and a diet below 10% casein does not contribute. That is all. Other proteins, both animal and plant, like gluten and soy, may behave differently and unless you have a milk fetish or you are downing large amounts of casein based protein powder (like the rats in the study) then the study is largely irrelevant to your diet or your health.

Before moving on I have one more observation; To test the impact of decreased protein from 20 to 5% they replaced some of the protein with carbohydrates to keep the calories the same. Commenting on the addition of carbohydrate he says "the extra starch and glucose in the low-protein diets could not have been responsible for the lower development of foci because these carbohydrates, when tested alone, actually increase foci development" (page 351). So carbohydrates, which come from plants, increase the development of foci? PLANTS CAUSE CANCER TOO?? Could this be something worth elaborating on or including in a conclusion? No, better not, lets keep that brief mention of carbohydrates causing cancer stuck away in an appendix in case anybody gets the wrong idea.

It is apparent from his casein studies that Campbell has come to the conclusion that "20% casein causes cancer, therefore all animal protein is bad". It is with this mindset that he then set out on the giant study of the China Project, a commendable effort that could have had many beneficial outcomes. Unfortunately, possibly as a result of his previous work, Campbell has gone in with blinders on, and all he can see is animal protein and the negative health outcomes associated with its' consumption. The project itself and the original publication arising from it produced a vast amount of data that provides some interesting insight into health and disease. However, what Campbell has shown in the China Study is but a fraction of the information to be gained from the project. It would require a whole new study (unbiased this time preferably) to go into all the beneficial knowledge we could gain, but I will touch on a few things here.

Campbells main conclusion in the China Study is that all animal protein contributes to disease and all plant protein prevents disease. In the original project, they performed a diet survey over 3 days, analyzing all the food consumed per person in that time. Guess how many of the measured mortality factors (about 50 of them), were associated with animal protein consumption measured from the diet survey. Zero. Zero. Zero. Okay, so Campbell can't have come to his conclusions from there. They also had study participants fill out a questionnaire that included one question on meat consumption. Guess how many mortality factors correlated with that? One type of cancer (naso-pharyngeal or something I think it was). An example of some of the many other inclusions in the questionnaire are canola oil and potatoes (not sweet potatoes) which both had a number of positive associations with the development of different types of cancer. Apparently that wasn't worth mentioning in the China Study. Speaking of oil, Campbell makes reference to %fat in the diet being a good indicator of animal protein consumption, despite the fact they clearly use enough canola oil (a vegetable fat) to measure in the study.

So a 3 day food consumption survey shows no association between animal protein and mortality and a questionnaire shows an association between meat and one of many cancers measured. From where can Campbell come to his evil animal protein conclusion then? They also took plasma samples and measured them for blood biomarkers of animal protein consumption. These biomarkers, listed in the references for chapter 4 #39 are "plasma copper, urea nitrogen, estradiol, prolactin, testosterone and, inversely, sex hormone binding globulin, each of which has been known to be associated with animal protein intake from previous studies". No mention of these previous studies of course. So the associations with most of those biomarkers and mortality rates are dubious, and the only biomarker statistically associated with cancer mortality is copper. Many places show food sources of copper and I went to [...] find the best sources of copper. The best? Calfs liver. The next 40 best? All from plants. 42 and 43 are shrimp and venison, the only other animal source in the list on the site. So for copper to be a biomarker of animal consumption then the participants in this study must be eating a lot of calf liver and avoiding a lot of vegetables. Sound realistic?

So from an association between blood biomarkers, the only real one being copper, and cancer mortality, Campbell has concluded that animal protein gives you cancer, despite the fact that the majority of dietary sources of copper are actually from plant sources. So that basically leaves Campbell with no actual evidence between animal consumption and mortality as a result of the original China project.

A final note. In his eating right section Campbell says supplements are bad (principle 2). Principle 3 then says "there are virtually no nutrients in animal-based foods that are not better provided by plants"(page 230), but over the page he says plants are not a good source of vitamin B12 and you probably should take a supplement. What? Then in the how to eat section on page 242 he says "the findings from the China Study indicate that the lower percentage of animal-based foods that are consumed, the greater the health benefits-even when the percentage declines from 10% to 0% of calories". As I've clearly shown, the China Study does not show this, and his own study with Casein proved that there was no benefit in eating less then 10% of your diet from Casein.

Clearly Campbell is a vegetarian, as he states in the book, and promoting vegetarianism is his main goal, which he tries to back up with scientific research that actually disagrees with him, but that he has interpreted in a way that makes it agree with him. Bad science, bad book and definitely bad recommendations as far as health. While I'm not saying go out and live on animal products alone, I don't think you should stop eating them, especially because they are tasty, but even if only for a natural source of vitamin B12.
Click to expand...
 
^^
Or just Google "bodybuilding forum the china study". Those guys have already ripped it to shreds.

Veg / Vegans gonna Veg / Vegan.
 
I love the China study. People hold it up as proof of something.

Guy #1: I am thinking about going Paleo

Guy #2 : CHINA STUDY!

Guy #1: What is China Study?

Guy #2: Meat will kill you! CHINA STUDY!
 
Just want to drop some random knowledge before this thread completely derails:

* China study is total BS, there is no science behind it. It was totally debunked multiple times. Please do not use this as a reference.
* Paleo is NOT a new fad diet, although it is being currently the most popular one. It has 30 years of ACTUAL scientific research backing it up. I think what happened is that the momentum of the community got so big that it is now going mainstream, and I think it is good.
* You don't need to eat "mostly protein" while eating paleo. Eat about 30-40% fat from good sources.

These 2 videos will answer most people's questions:

2 1MarkSissonQT 1

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PdJFbjWHEU]Paleo Diet & Strength Training Biochemistry | Doug McGuff M.D. | Full Length HD - YouTube[/ame]
 
Funny, this reminds me of every god/religion thread we had on this forum... basically arguing that leads nowhere...

There will always be a counter-argument to everything that we don't fully understand.

Bottomline is, and I said this in many other threads, is that everyone should build their own diet based on their genetics/lifestyle/allergies, etc... There is no such thing is 1 diet for everyone.
 
Gunner Steele said:
Fuck fruits and vegetables. We've been sold a bill of goods on how to eat healthy. Grains, wheat, flour, sugar - all of that shit is poison.

Paleo and keto are good ways to ease you into Intermittent Fasting, because with a diet that is so high in protein your appetite is essentially non-existant.

Check out Leangains.com if you want to gain lean muscle mass with insanely low body fat%.

LG = IF + Proper Macro Ratios + Proper Workout (2x/wk, compound lifts, high weight, low reps, no cardio) + Fasted Training (Optional)

At its core, the LG method doesn't care where the macros come from - as long as you hit the proper ratios. You've got people hitting their carb macros with chocolate cake and shit...

Leangains.com has tons of information about the scientific basis of LG, IF, and fasted training but Martin Berkhan is a bit of a rambling writer. Check out the links on the leangains reddit for some concise guides on how to do it.

GS
Click to expand...

Exactly. LeanGains was really eyeopening for me once I dove right in. You can cut weight while eating chocolate chip cookies, and even gain strength. It's crazy and it works.

Not to mention, I get to work all morning and into the afternoon before I even have to worry about preparing a meal or eating. My productivity has gone way up.
 
BlueYonder said:
Coconut oil is loaded with saturated fat that acts like a butt plug for your arteries. All fats have about 100 calories per tablespoon, so less grease on your food means more weight loss.

I was good today. I'll be good tomorrow. I'm fucking hungry. :ticking:
Click to expand...

The Surprising Health Benefits of Coconut Oil | The Dr. Oz Show

Conventional thought used to consider fats like coconut oil to be unhealthy and contribute to heart disease. We now know that this isn’t true. In fact, coconut oil is actually a heart healthy food that can keep your body running smoother in a few different ways

What are the health benefits of coconut oil?
Studies have show that intake of coconut oil can help our bodies mount resistance to both viruses and bacteria that can cause illness. Even more, it also can help to fight off yeast, fungus, and candida.

Coconut oil can also positively affect our hormones for thyroid and blood sugar control. People who take coconut oil also tend to have improvements in how they handle blood sugar, for coconut can help improve insulin use within the body. Coconut oil can boost thyroid function helping to increase metabolism, energy and endurance. It increases digestion and helps to absorb fat-soluble vitamins.

Can coconut oil reduce cholesterol?
Coconut oil has a saturated fat called lauric acid, a type of MCT. It has been shown that lauric acid increases the good HDL cholesterol in the blood to help improve cholesterol ratio levels. Coconut oil lowers cholesterol by promoting its conversion to pregnenolone, a molecule that is a precursor to many of the hormones our bodies need. Coconut can help restore normal thyroid function. When the thyroid does not function optimally, it can contribute to higher levels of bad cholesterol.

How does coconut help keep weight balanced?
Coconut fats have special fats called medium chain triglycerides (MCTs). It has been shown that breaking down these types of healthy fats in the liver leads to efficient burning of energy. One 2009 study found that women who consumed 30 milliliters (about 2 tablespoons) of coconut oil daily for 12 weeks not only did not gain more weight, but actually had lowered amounts of abdominal fat, a type of fat that is difficult to lose, and contributes to more heart problems.
Click to expand...


All Wheat should be cut from our diets:
Wheat Belly: Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight, and Find Your Path Back to Health - William Davis, MD - Google Books
 
charlie.simm said:
Speaking of "best choice for everyone"... there's no such thing!

Most of you are marketers, so the concept of split testing should be at least vaguely familiar to you.

....

Or if you decide to go paleo, don't go overboard like the guy I quoted by saying ridiculous things like "fuck fruits and vegetables"... try to avoid extremes.
Click to expand...

Amen to that.

I've split tested the fuck out of diets my whole life, went paleo, and lost 85 lbs over the course of a year from 270 to 185, so I totally stand by everything I said in my post. Didn't work out or exercise once.

OK - I rode my bike twice, and went to the gym for a half-hearted weights workout once.

Fuck fruits and vegetables...

Grains and sugar will kill you.

Only thing - I forgot to add the Disclaimer and TOS.

Everybody is different, find what works for you, take a multivitamin, still eat salads, void where prohibited...

GS
 
Thanks everyone for all the links and info ... I think I passed out all the likes and rep that was needed.

I am leaving for a quick beach trip in the morning but when I get back I am going to start converting my garage into a gym and hopefully will be hitting the weights by late feb or early mar.

On a a side note ... Fuck weights are expensive!! looking to drop 3-5k on a basic setup for the garage and thats just the basic shit and not even top of the line stuff at that.
 
joshman1204 said:
Thanks everyone for all the links and info ... I think I passed out all the likes and rep that was needed.

I am leaving for a quick beach trip in the morning but when I get back I am going to start converting my garage into a gym and hopefully will be hitting the weights by late feb or early mar.

On a a side note ... Fuck weights are expensive!! looking to drop 3-5k on a basic setup for the garage and thats just the basic shit and not even top of the line stuff at that.
Click to expand...

3-5k is not basic bro. basic you need

1) bench
2) squat rack
3) barbell
4) some plates to start with, dont go crazy buy more later when needed

I'd say around 1k for all, unless you are buying some top of the line shit like york bars and oly plates.
 
capone2009 said:
Why not keep it easy and just target a caloric deficit? Do some cardio and lifting and you won't have to starve yourself. Find something with a lot of fibers and you won't feel hungry that often (-> whole grain). Weigh your food if you are serious.
Click to expand...

Because eating a deficit and lifting heavy enough to gain muscle mass is nigh impossible.

I'm 185lb/12%. Trust me if you aren't eating an excess you wont be able to lift the weights required AND recover quick enough to get all your workouts in.

Focus on the muscle first. Once you get used to hitting the gym 3-4 times a week cutting will be a breeze. During my cut phase I add in Muay Thai conditioning and bare knuckle boxing (yes I'm serious). The conditioning cycle those old thai guys employ just shreds you.
 
Here's the problem...

I can find 10 examples of why every diet is both good and bad for you on the Internet. Oil is good, oil is bad... Meat is good, meat is bad. Carbs are good, carbs are bad... Blah Blah Blah... The internet is full of shit!

If you want to follow advice on dieting, muscle gain or weight loss make sure what you're reading is pier reviewed. Other wise, it's someones version of the truth which may be the farthest fucking thing from the truth!

For someone just starting out and if you dont want to spend a lot of money on free weights, you could do something like p90x with bands and a pull up bar. Hell, they even have their version of a diet. You can do that for like 100 bucks.

If money is not an issue, then buy free weights or if you prefer to join a gym, then by all means do that.

The important thing when just starting is that your committed to doing something, every day.

What you need is a life habit change, not 1 particular workout or diet plan!
 
moltar said:
Just want to drop some random knowledge before this thread completely derails:

* China study is total BS, there is no science behind it. It was totally debunked multiple times. Please do not use this as a reference.
* Paleo is NOT a new fad diet, although it is being currently the most popular one. It has 30 years of ACTUAL scientific research backing it up. I think what happened is that the momentum of the community got so big that it is now going mainstream, and I think it is good.
* You don't need to eat "mostly protein" while eating paleo. Eat about 30-40% fat from good sources.

These 2 videos will answer most people's questions:

2 1MarkSissonQT 1

Paleo Diet & Strength Training Biochemistry | Doug McGuff M.D. | Full Length HD - YouTube
Click to expand...

I just finished watching both the video from Mark Sisson and the one from Doug McGuff, and frankly I'm not impressed. In fact I'm kind of angry.

While Doug makes a lot of sense, especially when it comes to relationship between makes and females, I find Mark to be all over the place... he says fruits are bad, but at one point in the video he says he loves blueberries. At one point he says even cheap quality meat is better than any pizza or type of rice you can have. Lulwat? Do we see people being overweight and ravaged by cancer in Italy, France and Spain as much as in the U.S.? Yet those are probably the biggest bread and pizza eaters right there. Is cancer killing Chinese and Japanese people as much as it's killing us? Not even close, yet those fuckers have been eating white rice daily for 5,000 years.

Come the fuck on. We know for a fact that red meat has been linked to a shitload of chronic diseases, from cancer to heart disease. Why does Mr Sisson deny that?
 
avatar33 said:
Come the fuck on. We know for a fact that red meat has been linked to a shitload of chronic diseases, from cancer to heart disease.
Click to expand...
Do we know that?

Also, I hate the weasel word "linked". It's either causal or not.
 
shindig said:
I question the "science" behind the paleo diet, from their own website, all the "research" is done by the same guy, or he's on every paper supporting it.
The Paleo Diet Published Research | Dr. Loren Cordain

The guy Cordain, L. is on every piece of research....Meathead science?
Click to expand...

Are you retarded or trolling? You are looking at Cordain's website. Obviously he is going to publish his own research on it. But if you could read, then you'd see that almost every research has OTHER scientists listed on it as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom