The China Study

I just finished reading The China Study. It mentions the PCRM suing in the past to force some people to disclose their (meat and diary) funding. Great book.

Yea, it's a decent book that covers a lot of ground. What is really needed is actual continuation of the research by other people so we can confirm some of the findings....but I don't think the funding is going to appear. It would just shake up everything too much is it was suddenly proved that meat & dairy does actually promote disease, so I cannot see it being seriously looked into in the near future as they just can't risk meat & dairy receiving any more negative press.

I don't understand what you think needs to be confirmed from the book and/or if you think the book was a study just on rats and casein? (I'm posting here after posting in the other thread. Sorry for the confusion.)

I do agree otherwise. The author Colin Campbell was on governmental nutrition councils and he saw and describes with great detail the very heavy influence of the food industry and in particular the meat and diary industry in warping the direction of funding and what the public gets told about the existing research.

The book is based on the work of one team. Confirmation is vital in all research. There could be unforeseen factors that caused the results?
Like the idea IGF-1 raising by the eating of animal proteins causes or promotes cancer. If this is the case as proposed by some people,then later research has shown that exercise causes a much higher rise in IGF-1 (ANY exercise), also total caloric intake also causes changes in IGF-1.
The rat studies in the China study show an association NOT a cause & effect. You don't know that in all situations the results will be the same, you do not even know that in all species the effects will be the same?
There are studies out that show inverse cancer to dairy intake in a few countries. What does that say? Like the rat studies we do not know how the local environment affected the results, we need many studies before we can begin to get any idea of how these things are affecting us. I can prove an association between totally unrelated things - I heard one today. The association between flushing toilets & colon cancer. This was a comparison between the New York population (who use flushing toilets) & some African tribes people (who do not have access to flushing toilets)...what do we find...WOW! Using flushing toilets are linked to colon cancer! Statistically proven by this study! ...obviously this is a terrible study, but the ASSOCIATION is there! We just didn't take into account all the factors. That's the issue with any one study, or group of studies done by a single team, there can be flaws, sometimes unavoidable flaws in any protocol & so we need others to take & build upon that work before we can say it seems likely to be true. At the moment we are still at the 1st point on the journey, it needs to be really looked at before we decide.
The main 'bulk' of the book was a study of people, which in & of itself has so many possible variables you'd need decades, maybe longer of study to prove anything as there are so many factors. It will take a long time to prove (or refute) these findings as you need to find correlations, then (hopefully) causal agents as well.

The China study is really the work of one team (or group of teams under one man) & their findings. Yes, they found some pretty worrying things, that should be really looked into & checked, but they did not PROVE anything. What they did was show some associations, & these need to be looked at, studied & either proven or disproven.

You can still quote the research, that is still valid & still useful research. I see the actual China study being more useful than animal studies as animals are so different from people, you never know what things mean if they happen to an animal. Even if you showed casein gave cancer to rats, then...well what? It means very little. The study of people showed a more interesting result in my eyes. I don't know all the factors of region & lifestyle & even if I did, I'm no expert in these things, so I couldn't figure them all into a result. But I do know these sorts of things have so many variables that you would need to do them many times, in many areas of the world, by many different researchers using different methods to begin to get something that is approaching absolute proof.

I agree that more research would still be nice but I think we have enough to say that a low fat vegan diet reduces cancer risk.

Pete wrote:

The book is based on the work of one team. Confirmation is vital in all research. There could be unforeseen factors that caused the results?
Like the idea IGF-1 raising by the eating of animal proteins causes or promotes cancer. If this is the case as proposed by some people,then later research has shown that exercise causes a much higher rise in IGF-1 (ANY exercise), also total caloric intake also causes changes in IGF-1.
The rat studies in the China study show an association NOT a cause & effect. You don't know that in all situations the results will be the same, you do not even know that in all species the effects will be the same?

Again, the rat study was first done by a group out of India that had no relation to Campbell. I did, by the way, work at a national laboratory for a few years as a scientist. Before I became vegan I designed an animal inhalation chamber even. I have as a matter of fact researched the different types of rats commonly used for animal experimentation and there definitely are differences. And actually I think the vast majority of animal experimentation is utterly useless. And that they still do it anyway because they don't want to admit what a huge waste of time and money it's all been.

So anyway, I don't think too much should be made of the rat study, but just FYI again, it was independently verified by a group from India. It was also a perfect 0% versus 100% cancer mortality in each case which certainly is noteworthy. I've read a lot of animal experimentation studies and I don't recall any that were a perfect 100% versus 0%. Generally, rats just get cancer a lot. Even the controls of the various types used for experiments.

So what does it all mean? As Campbell says, it caught his attention. Of course it didn't prove anything concerning humans.

Quote :

There are studies out that show inverse cancer to dairy intake in a few countries. What does that say?

People eat more than diary. Look at their whole diet and all their resulting disease and then say take 65 different provinces and then we'll have something to work wtih.

Quote :

Like the rat studies we do not know how the local environment affected the results, we need many studies before we can begin to get any idea of how these things are affecting us.

OK I understand where you coming from. Most epidemiological studies probably miss all kinds of important factors. But in this case the differences in local environment are surely going to average out when you're looking at 65 different provinces. (Pollution, work stress, sunshine, average amount of exericise, etc.). Otherwise you're talking about people with somewhat different genetics than say caucasians. But it's been shown repeatedly in immigrants that when they move to industrialized nations they start getting heart disease, cancer, etc.

I really think this is enough to say with some very high probability that a low fat vegan diet will reduce one's risk of cancer.

And of course you wouldn't need to go back to China and reproduce an epidemiological study. You can try to look at different areas to compare. But one doesn't need to reproduce epidemiological studies in the same way that lab experiments must be reproduced, unless one just thinks everyone involved in the previous effort was lying.

Quote :

I can prove an association between totally unrelated things - I heard one today. The association between flushing toilets & colon cancer. This was a comparison between the New York population (who use flushing toilets) & some African tribes people (who do not have access to flushing toilets)...what do we find...WOW! Using flushing toilets are linked to colon cancer! Statistically proven by this study! ...obviously this is a terrible study, but the ASSOCIATION is there! We just didn't take into account all the factors. That's the issue with any one study, or group of studies done by a single team, there can be flaws, sometimes unavoidable flaws in any protocol & so we need others to take & build upon that work before we can say it seems likely to be true. At the moment we are still at the 1st point on the journey, it needs to be really looked at before we decide.

Yes, and I agree about that sort of thing. I hear stuff in the news all the time where I think there's stuff they probably didn't take into account.

But here though, we're talking about a massive epidemiological study that took decades. They looked at 65 different provines. If they were only looking at two provinces. Or even ten, then maybe some pollution wasn't taken into account that actually played a large role. But when you're looking at 65 different provinces what are the odds that some such factor/s could still be skewing the results?

Quote :

The main 'bulk' of the book was a study of people, which in & of itself has so many possible variables you'd need decades, maybe longer of study to prove anything as there are so many factors. It will take a long time to prove (or refute) these findings as you need to find correlations, then (hopefully) causal agents as well.

They have spent decades.

Quote :

The China study is really the work of one team (or group of teams under one man) & their findings. Yes, they found some pretty worrying things, that should be really looked into & checked, but they did not PROVE anything. What they did was show some associations, & these need to be looked at, studied & either proven or disproven.

What do you mean by 'prove'? What epidemiological study has ever proved anything? I for one have seen enough to know that my chances of getting cancer will be higher if I eat a high fat meat diet, the same as if I start smoking.

Quote :

You can still quote the research, that is still valid & still useful research. I see the actual China study being more useful than animal studies as animals are so different from people, you never know what things mean if they happen to an animal. Even if you showed casein gave cancer to rats, then...well what? It means very little. The study of people showed a more interesting result in my eyes. I don't know all the factors of region & lifestyle & even if I did, I'm no expert in these things, so I couldn't figure them all into a result. But I do know these sorts of things have so many variables that you would need to do them many times, in many areas of the world, by many different researchers using different methods to begin to get something that is approaching absolute proof.

Well I don't think one needs to have an independent team go back to China and further decades recollecting the data. This is epidemiology not a lab experiment. Also they looked at 65 different provinces. I think that's many areas. As we're talking about epidemiology I don't understand what different methods you mean. As to seeing this done in other nations. It has been. Just not to this extent.

Also the book talks about other work that had no relation to Dr. Campbell. Dr. Esselstyn for example off the top of my head. Also goes into quite a bit of detail concerning epidemiological data far beyond China which Campbell had nothing to do in collecting.

Don't get me wrong Pete, I'm all for more research being done. For example what about a high protein, relatively high fat vegan diet? Campbell doesn't say anything about such a diet. But I think you're being really dismissive of this book. It's called "The Most Comprehensive Study on Nutrition Ever Conducted" and yet you make it sound like nothing special.

Yes, the research is important. But it could point to (for example) low meat intake being the ideal human diet (not the rat studies here, just the actually studies done in China) as there were as far as I could tell no vegan people actually studied. It could be seen as low meat intakes make you healthier, nothing at all about zero meat or dairy (there might be zero dairy in some regions of China I think, but certainly not zero animal product intake by any region as a whole) - I'm NOT say that it does say that, but there is interpretation to data like this, human health depends on so many factors - for example, those with lower meat intake may well be in the less urban areas, do more manual labour, eat less processed foods, that could be a factor?
It's been a long time time since I read the China study. I think I at least prefer to be cautious about taking on new ideas, especially ideas that are very controversial, without a LOT of evidence from many sources. The China study has only sources from this study. Yes, it was extensive, yes it has shown a possibility that serious issues may be involved with meat consumption, but I think we need more more evidence. That is my belief, the China study is a LOT of data funnelled through a relatively small team, the data to be collected was chosen by that team, the results found were by that team. Other teams working on other populations need to create their own methods & results & see if these agree or disagree with the China Studies findings - that's how we can move on with certainty. All research is RE-search, the proving of theories by probing different areas of a problem in different ways, no one program, however large, however important can answer all the questions. It can open the doorway to finding answers.

At least that's my view.

As a side note does not the Indian study you mention (at least one of them), show that more animals died on the low protein group, but less got cancer? That is after 6 months of injecting with aflatoxin toxin they stopped & 50% of the low casein rats were dead, but 100% of the high casein rats were alive? I no longer have access to the studies, but I believe it was this one. So, you don't get cancerous changes, but just have a 50% chance of dying younger (if you're a rat & injected with aflatoxin daily). It seems that adding the limiting factor amino acid may also have an affect on cancer creation within rats (again a study by Campbell himself here - again you'll have to dig out the full study Jay, sorry mate!). Also if you are accepting the rat studies done by Campbell then you also accept that the low casein rats just didn't grow right & suffered stuff like fatty livers & other issues Note in his study here increased toxicity of aflatoxin on a low protein diet (they use the words 'protein deficient'). So low protein intake could be said to stunt the growth of rats (see the table on page 55 of Campbells study above) - does that STILL look like a good idea to suggest, especially for children or growing adults? I can go on, but you get the point - these things are open to interpretation. AND that is on a rat. I do not believe a human & a rats biological need for protein is likely to be the same, it just wouldn't make sense, rats grow & die fast, we take decades to grow & then maintain full grown life for a long time (barring issues that shorten normal human life, like disease, accident etc etc).

So, I'd say yes I cannot say I support a low protein diet, nor can I even say a low fat vegan diet reduces cancer risk as we've had no real studies comparing higher fat & lower fat vegans (& which types of fat should we be looking at with each group). What I think you can say it that a vegan diet that focusses on wholefoods could probably lower the chances of some cancers - that seems to be the case when you look at the research. I know a LOT of the lower fat &/or lower protein vegan proponents seem to be focussed on IGF-1 as a major cancer 'fueller'. My main issue with this idea is unless you are saying that exercise causes cancer then you cannot believe that as exercise raises IGF-1 loads more than animal protein intake....so unless these people are suggesting you eat low fat &/or protein, sit on your couch all day (oh yea & don't eat too much as total calories ingested also affects IGF-1 levels) then I know you must be high on the list for cancer Jay as you've done a fair bit of exercise (me too!) ...so as I said the whole low fat/protein vegan diet because of IGF-1 makes no sense to me as there is no way exercise increases cancer risk & IGF-1 is raised VERY high by exercise.

So, my recommendations are for people generally (not athletes) moderate protein, moderate fats & carbs should be as natural a state as possible. For athletes it will depend on the sport & how the individual responds, but for strength slightly higher (but not mega dosing!) protein, moderate fat & carbs to make up the necessary calories (again the carbs should be in the most natural state you can get them), other sports will vary, so will people needing to make weight, cut down to low single figure bodyfat levels etc.

Sorry I've had to jump about on this one a bit. It's really hard to argue points when no longer have access to full research papers - you can't do much to back up your case (at least not as much as I used to be able to do!). Still you have access to all the research so you should be able to dig up some useful bit (& luckily the whole Campbell research paper was available)

As to the rats, in the book Campbell makes it seem that the low protein group had no negative issues whatsoever, in fact pointing out additional benefits. (Double the revolutions of an exercise wheel.) But I haven't looked at those papers you link to. I will do so.

I agree with Campbell that one shouldn't focus on one single single hormone (or nutrient or vitamin, etc). I think it's a mistake that researchers do so. "Reductionism" as Campbell says ultimately looking towards creating the magic pill to take (along with not changing one's diet at all.) And so I don't make anything of IGF-1 one way or the other. And I think you agree.

I don't think that's what the Indian study showed, at least certainly not as related by Campbell. I'll check the study you've linked eventually and see if it's the same study Campbell was referring to, etc.

What I think you can say it that a vegan diet that focusses on wholefoods could probably lower the chances of some cancers - that seems to be the case when you look at the research.

That amounts to the same thing though. A vegan diet that focuses on wholefoods is a low protein, low fat diet relative to the standard diet at least in the UK and USA.

Well anyway, I agree there's plenty of room for more research.

As a side note does not the Indian study you mention (at least one of them), show that more animals died on the low protein group, but less got cancer? That is after 6 months of injecting with aflatoxin toxin they stopped & 50% of the low casein rats were dead, but 100% of the high casein rats were alive? I no longer have access to the studies, but I believe it was this one. So, you don't get cancerous changes, but just have a 50% chance of dying younger

That does appear to be the right reference, but I'm going to have to physically go to the library to get that particular article. In the Appendix Campbell goes on at great length about the low protein rats being healthier, using an exercise wheel twice as much and having zero mortality, at least for his particular study. ...I'm curious to see now if Campbell was maybe being a little dishonest in not mentioning such differences compared to the other study so I'll eventually go to the library (it's 40 minute drive one way) and see.

Relevant studies (on the rats) (which again, is really a minor issue as previously discussed...):
Wogan, Newberne "Dose-response characteristics of aflatoxin B1 carcinogenesis in the rat. Cancer Res.
Wogan, Paglialunga, Newberne, "Carcinogenic effects of low dietary levels of aflatoxinB1 in rats" Food Cosmet. Toxicol.
Madhavan, Gopalan "the effect of dietary protein on carcinogenesis of aflatoxin." Arch. Path.

Pete wrote:

The book is based on the work of one team.

Actually it was a collaboration between Cornell University, Oxford University and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine.

..well I guess that can still be called one team. Not independent of each other.