interesting blog

[michaelwh]

I recently found a very interesting blog by raw foodist Denise Minger -

http://rawfoodsos.com

She recently dug up the raw China study data, analyzed it in great detail, and debunked Campbell's pro-vegan claims. There's also some interesting posts about raw foodism in general.

[michaelwh]

News of this China study critique spread like wildfire over all the paleo blogs. No discussion here, though. I guess we all already know that Campbell's analysis of the China study has more holes than swiss cheese.

http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2010/7/8/the-china-study-polish-a-turd-and-find-a-diamond.html
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/07/china-study-problems-of-interpretation.html
http://freetheanimal.com/2010/07/the-china-study-smackdown-roundup.html

I find it quite ironic that the data which supposedly proves that veganism is healthy, may well instead turn out to support the paleo diet, by connecting wheat with coronary heart disease. And even more ironic, is that this was uncovered by a 30BAD member.

The 30BAD crowd is attacking the work, and even Colin Campbell wrote a reply. But it looks like Denise's work is quite solid, and she's planning on posting more details, and investigating the wheat-CHD connection further. It'll be interesting to see how this drama plays itself out.

Campbell's response:
http://tynan.net/chinastudyresponse

30BAD response:
http://www.30bananasaday.com/group/debunkingthechinastudycritics

[KD]

heh, I'm following this a bit. Campbell said the Tuoli had alot to eat those days, they wanted to impress the surveyors with how much meat they could eat but that they ate differently throughout the year.

despite the fact that they eat very little vegetation and largely meat, milk, and wheat in whatever ratio, they were somehow just such a good example of low fat high carb Chinese diet that they thought it would be a fun trick to collectively pull a fast one on old Campbell by eating a bunch of more meat and NONE of the vegetables they never eat, there should be a bloopers sections for those crazy antics! Of course they wouldn't make it in the book, sheesh.

Also wasn't the whole point of the study to follow locations for really long periods of time?

[michaelwh]

This actually brings up an important issue -- the mere presence of a researcher can change the behaviour of the people being studied. For example, it's quite plausible that primitive carnivorous tribes, when studied by a "civilized" researcher, would cook much more than usual, in order to proudly demonstrate how "civilized" they are.

I remember listening to an interview with Wrangham, and the interviewer asked if Wranham hides behind bushes and watches chimps through binoculars. But Wrangham said that you can't get much detailed information that way -- instead, he lets the chimps get used to him, and observes them from up close. But he admitted that he can't know for sure that his presence isn't influencing the chimp behaviour in some way.

[Omniverse]

This is pretty big news. I don't know how many times I've heard The China Study referenced as definitive proof of a plant based diet being the healthiest diet for humans. I've even had a close person friend cite it to me as reason to adopt veganism for better health. When I was wrapped up in the dogma of raw veganism I also believed it probably was very accurate and solid evidence of the superiority of a plant-based diet even though I've never read the book.

Judging by Campbell's response, he seems to be rattled to say the least. I'm excited to see how it will continue to play out.