PDA

View Full Version : "the china study"



bball55
04-01-2009, 08:09 PM
its a comprehensive book regarding nutrition and the crux of its theme is that protein from animal products are bad, and plant based foods are good.

when i 1st learned about the atkins diet, i ate just meat for a week and nothing else. it made me feel like dog ****. then i realized diff proteins have diff affects.

are there any other good proteins other than whey and soy?

btw, china study makes a solid point, but correlation does not equal to causation. there are also many other claims in the book, some conclusive, some ridiculously inconclusive.

Travis Bell
04-01-2009, 09:43 PM
you felt like crap when you did atkins because you cut all your carbs out

animal proteins are fine

VikingWarlord
04-01-2009, 09:45 PM
There are many, many different types of protein. Myocin, casein, egg, collagen, and a whole lot of other ones. Some are useful, some are not.

I'd need to read more, but it doesn't make a lot of sense. What makes animal products "bad" protein sources vs "good" plant sources? Plant proteins tend to be incomplete and have a low bioavailability. Depending on how it's defined, it sounds like it's PETA-style propaganda.

bball55
04-01-2009, 10:51 PM
http://a3.vox.com/6a00cd9719d53d4cd500e398a3ed430004-500pi

heres the book, theres probably e-books out there /cliffnotes. basic idea is that thru case studies, those that consume more animal products have more diseases. not sure if its peta propaganda, part truths, or the real deal. im leaning towards the 2nd.

VikingWarlord
04-02-2009, 08:55 AM
I need to read that book. After looking into it, it really does look like it's just forwarding a pro-vegetarian agenda.

One thing to keep in mind is that nothing that hits the mass media is geared toward sports nutrition AT ALL. Every popular diet plan is aimed at the most profitable market which is pretty much everyone that doesn't frequent sites like this.

Holto
04-02-2009, 10:19 AM
There is only one kind of protein. There are, however, various sources. Look at any nutrition label. Carbs are simple and complex, fats are mono/poly/saturated. The protein you eat can't enter your blood until it's broken down into aminos.

VikingWarlord
04-02-2009, 11:38 AM
There is only one kind of protein. There are, however, various sources. Look at any nutrition label. Carbs are simple and complex, fats are mono/poly/saturated. The protein you eat can't enter your blood until it's broken down into aminos.

You're just being pedantic.

It's just a matter of convention to call them all different types just because it's easier to fathom the different rates of absorption of different sources. Some, like collagen, have basically zero bioavailability.

Not all sources have all the same amino acids, some are more complete than others. It just becomes more convenient to refer to them as different types, whether technically accurate or not.

MadScientist
04-02-2009, 11:49 AM
There is only one kind of protein. There are, however, various sources. Look at any nutrition label. Carbs are simple and complex, fats are mono/poly/saturated. The protein you eat can't enter your blood until it's broken down into aminos.

Better inform every supplement company, as they are mislabeling.
Whey Protein is now changed to Protein from Whey
Etc Etc,
boy, this extra "from" is going to increase our printing costs and make it look like our product is broken english and made in china.




To state that Vegetarians are, on average, in better health and shape

Could be true, but not because what they eat, but only because vegetarians as a smaller group, are generally more aware of what they are eating.

But as for me and my meatitarians, you are grouping us elite athletes with the McDonalds morbidly obese.

Just because we are a larger group of meat eaters, and include more people who are literally dying under their own weight, doesnt mean vegetarians are more healthy.

Lets instead poll only olympic athletes and compare the results of vegetarian olympic athletes to meatitarian olympic athletes, as would be a more relevant study. That is, if there are any vegetarian olympic athletes, as most vegetarians are somewhat thin and frail.

Pimpstick
04-02-2009, 11:54 AM
You're just being pedantic.

It's just a matter of convention to call them all different types just because it's easier to fathom the different rates of absorption of different sources. Some, like collagen, have basically zero bioavailability.

Not all sources have all the same amino acids, some are more complete than others. It just becomes more convenient to refer to them as different types, whether technically accurate or not.

Family Guy has made me love to misuse the word pedantic. It's probably my favorite word right now.

MadScientist
04-02-2009, 12:12 PM
Family Guy has made me love to misuse the word pedantic. It's probably my favorite word right now.

Pterodactyl is my favorite word.

I just love it. Say it, say "Pterodactyl"

Big Jay
04-02-2009, 02:09 PM
To state that Vegetarians are, on average, in better health and shape

Could be true, but not because what they eat, but only because vegetarians as a smaller group, are generally more aware of what they are eating.

But as for me and my meatitarians, you are grouping us elite athletes with the McDonalds morbidly obese.

Just because we are a larger group of meat eaters, and include more people who are literally dying under their own weight, doesnt mean vegetarians are more healthy.

Lets instead poll only olympic athletes and compare the results of vegetarian olympic athletes to meatitarian olympic athletes, as would be a more relevant study. That is, if there are any vegetarian olympic athletes, as most vegetarians are somewhat thin and frail.
bingo.
easy to see that countries that don't eat alot of meat are shorter and don't carry as much muscle, compared to countries that eat alot of meat.
also... i once read that the human brain doubled in size once our ancestors introduced meat into their diets... if it wasn't for meat we'd still be swingin in the trees lol

VikingWarlord
04-02-2009, 02:55 PM
Family Guy has made me love to misuse the word pedantic. It's probably my favorite word right now.

I hope you're not insinuating it was misused there.

It's a bitch to deal with having a vocabulary. One of my favorite words is sesquipedalian. :D

Pimpstick
04-02-2009, 03:00 PM
I was not insinuating that. Viking, I find your accusations to be "shallow and pedantic". lolz

VikingWarlord
04-02-2009, 03:01 PM
Good, you took the bait!

Auburn
04-02-2009, 03:39 PM
It's worthless epidemiology. See also: Weston Price and Ancel Keys.

To be technically accurate, there are certainly different types of protein. It's an umbrella term, just like carbohydrate and fatty acid that define the base structure of certain organic compounds. Even though all protein is denatured during digestion (and thus loses its activity), doesn't mean protein quality isn't different across the spectrum (see PDCAAS).

Holto
04-03-2009, 07:25 AM
You're just being pedantic.

It's just a matter of convention to call them all different types just because it's easier to fathom the different rates of absorption of different sources. Some, like collagen, have basically zero bioavailability.

Not all sources have all the same amino acids, some are more complete than others. It just becomes more convenient to refer to them as different types, whether technically accurate or not.

I was trying to deflate the argument posited by this 'study'. That and it annoys me when people refer to types of protein.

Holto
04-03-2009, 07:27 AM
It's worthless epidemiology. See also: Weston Price and Ancel Keys.

To be technically accurate, there are certainly different types of protein.

If you mean structural proteins like Actin and Myosin then certainly. If you have any thing scientific that refers to different types of dietary protein, I'd love to read it.

PS: Love reading about my favorite dentist Weston...

VikingWarlord
04-03-2009, 09:29 AM
I was trying to deflate the argument posited by this 'study'. That and it annoys me when people refer to types of protein.

Have you read the book? I'm thinking about trying to get ahold of it just for curiosity.

Auburn
04-03-2009, 09:32 AM
If you mean structural proteins like Actin and Myosin then certainly. If you have any thing scientific that refers to different types of dietary protein, I'd love to read it.

I was speaking of protein as an organic categorization. All types, whether they be enzymatic, structural, hormonal, etc. As I said, this isn't differentiated between from a dietary perspective because they are all denatured and lose activity.

But, just because food labels don't differentiate proteins between broad structural classifications as they do in carbohydrates or fatty acids (because it's not feasible), doesn't mean one couldn't classify them based on biological value or amino acid content. This is essentially done in the PDCAAS scale, but it has plenty of weaknesses. See this review paper:

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/reprint/130/7/1865S

To sum up my point:
In defining carbohydrates and fatty acids into narrower structural groups, you get the added benefit of differentiating metabolic effects (simplistic, but common view). Modern nutrition doesn't define protein into narrower structural groups, but it can still differentiate metabolic effects.

Holto
04-03-2009, 10:07 AM
Have you read the book?

No but I value epidemiological evidence.

There is an island in the south pacific that has a religion based on tobacco. They start smoking it at age 9. They smoke it a lot. There is not a single recorded incidence of lung cancer in their history and the average lifespan is much higher than the average north americans. This is from the makers diet, in respect to how processing our food makes it toxic. Even our tobacco is made more deadly than nature made it.

Kenny Croxdale
04-03-2009, 11:32 AM
its a comprehensive book regarding nutrition and the crux of its theme is that protein from animal products are bad, and plant based foods are good.

when i 1st learned about the atkins diet, i ate just meat for a week and nothing else. it made me feel like dog ****. then i realized diff proteins have diff affects.

are there any other good proteins other than whey and soy?

btw, china study makes a solid point, but correlation does not equal to causation. there are also many other claims in the book, some conclusive, some ridiculously inconclusive.

bball55,

The China Study is an interesting read. The take home theme for me was the medicinal properties of consuming plants.

However, I found Thomas Campbell's (the author) view on consuming protein to be a bit over zealous. Campbell appears to label things either black or white, nothing in between.

As an example, Campbell blast proteins such as whey protein. Yet research shows that whey protein can decrease blood pressure. There are some other health beneifts to whey protein.

As you basically concluded, I would not base my views on diet based on one book.

But again, what the book does do is drive home the medicinal properties of plants. I found that part very educational and interesting.

Another book that you would enjoy is Low Fat Lies. http://www.amazon.com/Low-Fat-Lies-Mary-Flynn/dp/0895262207

Kenny Croxdale

Kenny Croxdale
04-03-2009, 11:47 AM
you felt like crap when you did atkins because you cut all your carbs out

animal proteins are fine

Travis makes a good point. That is one of the initial problems with Atkins (low carb diets), you feel like crap.

The brain is a glucose (carbohydrate) hog. The brain runs off glucose. Glucose is electricity for the brain.

When you cut your carbohydrates, you basically turn off the electricity to your brain. It takes about 100-150 grams of carbohydrate a day for the brain to function.

If you take in less than 100-150 grams of carbohydrate, your going to feel like crap for about three days.

Protein can be converted to glucose, gluconeogenesis. However, that initally takes three days for the body to get up to speed. Thus, you'll probably feel like crap during those three days.

There's some interesting research on maintaining the rigth ph level in one's diet. Protein tend to be acidic and plants alkaline. http://www.energiseforlife.com/list_of_alkaline_foods.php

So, a balanced diet usually is best.

Kenny Croxdale

VikingWarlord
04-03-2009, 11:50 AM
No but I value epidemiological evidence.

Given what I've heard, it doesn't make a lot of sense but I also can't see dismissing anything immediately without looking further. Even the biggest load of bull**** tends to have one or two interesting and useful nuggets in it.

Whether it's worth sifting through to find them is another matter. Be damn sure I'm not gonna buy that thing.

Mercuryblade
04-03-2009, 01:43 PM
No but I value epidemiological evidence.

There is an island in the south pacific that has a religion based on tobacco. They start smoking it at age 9. They smoke it a lot. There is not a single recorded incidence of lung cancer in their history and the average lifespan is much higher than the average north americans. This is from the makers diet, in respect to how processing our food makes it toxic. Even our tobacco is made more deadly than nature made it.


Source?

Holto
04-03-2009, 02:49 PM
Source?

I gave you the source.

Mercuryblade
04-03-2009, 04:05 PM
I gave you the source.

The source of the study. I'd like to read it.

VikingWarlord
04-03-2009, 05:05 PM
The source of the study. I'd like to read it.

Presumably, it's in The Maker's Diet.

shootermcgavin7
05-06-2009, 10:08 PM
I realize I am resurrecting a somewhat old thread, but I have not been a regular to the boards as of late.

I have only read one study from this book (there are multiple nutrition studies in the actual book I believe), but given what I have read this guy has no agenda. To address the OP's point, he also does not really hint at a whole lot of causation, other than to claim "look, here's the diet, here's the lifespan". He does not address, nor attempt to address, the "Why?"

His statistics seem sound, and the actual China Study (the one I have read, and only a small part of the book) is on various subpopulations in China, which eliminates some (although not all) of the concerns with genetics.


To put this thread in perspective: In an old, old thread on these boards, someone published a study showing a very strong inverse correlation between bodyweight and lifespan. This was robust to a correction for body fat %. In other words, even if you are 5% bodyfat, but 280 lbs, you have a shorter life expectancy.
This study was not well received on WBB..... Until a veteran poster (I believe it was galileo, but I could be wrong) said "I've seen this study and tons like it. I believe them. But it is a tradeoff I am willing to make."


I think the sooner all of us realize that, although a bodybuilding lifestyle may be healthier than being an obese load sprawled on the couch eating cheetos, it is probably not healthier than being in great shape but at a weight of 180lbs, the better off we will all be. The tradeoff is that the bodybuilder is a hell of a lot stronger and looks a hell of a lot better than a 180lb scrawny guy.
In the end, as long as we have correct information, the choices are our own.

Which is why I wish people like galileo would post here more often.

Songsangnim
05-07-2009, 12:18 AM
I realize I am resurrecting a somewhat old thread, but I have not been a regular to the boards as of late.

I have only read one study from this book (there are multiple nutrition studies in the actual book I believe), but given what I have read this guy has no agenda. To address the OP's point, he also does not really hint at a whole lot of causation, other than to claim "look, here's the diet, here's the lifespan". He does not address, nor attempt to address, the "Why?"

His statistics seem sound, and the actual China Study (the one I have read, and only a small part of the book) is on various subpopulations in China, which eliminates some (although not all) of the concerns with genetics.


To put this thread in perspective: In an old, old thread on these boards, someone published a study showing a very strong inverse correlation between bodyweight and lifespan. This was robust to a correction for body fat %. In other words, even if you are 5% bodyfat, but 280 lbs, you have a shorter life expectancy.
This study was not well received on WBB..... Until a veteran poster (I believe it was galileo, but I could be wrong) said "I've seen this study and tons like it. I believe them. But it is a tradeoff I am willing to make."


I think the sooner all of us realize that, although a bodybuilding lifestyle may be healthier than being an obese load sprawled on the couch eating cheetos, it is probably not healthier than being in great shape but at a weight of 180lbs, the better off we will all be. The tradeoff is that the bodybuilder is a hell of a lot stronger and looks a hell of a lot better than a 180lb scrawny guy.
In the end, as long as we have correct information, the choices are our own.

Which is why I wish people like galileo would post here more often.


I believe that it mostly comes down to genetics. I'm sure that we all know or have heard of people who drink and smoke regularly yet live well into their 90's. Likewise of people who try to live as healthily as possible yet still end up dying relatively young.

Besides which living a long life...isn't all it's necessarily cracked up to be anyway. I figure if I ever hit 75-80, with all the aches and pains I'll have by then, I'll be just about ready to meet my Maker...

shootermcgavin7
05-07-2009, 11:07 AM
I believe that it mostly comes down to genetics.


That was the primary reason this study was done on one ethnic group, in an attempt to control for the genetic aspect.

Mercuryblade
05-07-2009, 02:13 PM
I figure if I ever hit 75-80, with all the aches and pains I'll have by then, I'll be just about ready to meet my Maker...

I don't know about that necessarily. My grandma is finally starting to pass at 93, and she has had relatively no health problems up until the past year.
I'd love to live to be that old, assuming I'll be as healthy as she was.

Pimpstick
05-07-2009, 02:33 PM
Yeah the whole dying at 75-80 thing being good is some straight up Dennis Leary logic. I hope to live longer than that, but fully understand that my lifestyle probably won't take me there.

Songsangnim
05-08-2009, 12:22 AM
I don't know about that necessarily. My grandma is finally starting to pass at 93, and she has had relatively no health problems up until the past year.
I'd love to live to be that old, assuming I'll be as healthy as she was.


Which is why I stated my personal opinion as it related to myself. I wasn't extrapolating to anyone else.

Songsangnim
05-08-2009, 12:23 AM
That was the primary reason this study was done on one ethnic group, in an attempt to control for the genetic aspect.

Yes but even within one ethnic group there can be and are wide genetic disparities.

Songsangnim
05-08-2009, 12:27 AM
Yeah the whole dying at 75-80 thing being good is some straight up Dennis Leary logic. I hope to live longer than that, but fully understand that my lifestyle probably won't take me there.


I'd prefer to have a good quality of life as opposed to quantity. If my aches and pains get worse (as they often tend to do when one gets older) they could easily get to the point, where I'm spending most of my time just taking care of them. No thanks.

Mercuryblade
05-08-2009, 04:04 AM
I'd prefer to have a good quality of life as opposed to quantity. If my aches and pains get worse (as they often tend to do when one gets older) they could easily get to the point, where I'm spending most of my time just taking care of them. No thanks.

Really?
Unless I was really sick, or in amazing pain every day I would love to live to a ripe old age. By the time I'm 80 I'll probably care less about aches and pains and consider every day a blessing.

Holto
05-08-2009, 11:12 AM
The human body is incredibly complex. The correlation between bodymass and lifespan does not account for bodybuilders IMO. Having lean mass does indeed increase the load on your heart, lungs and skeleton, but what is to say that is not offset by how much stronger, healthier and more efficient these components of our bodies are due to training.

The other thing to consider is how hard it is to be 225 @ 8% when your in your 60's, etc. So if you stay lean, and as you age, you lose lean mass, your not that heavy by the time your reaching 70.

I suspect I'm healthier than my friends who are 160ish, and smoke, eat trans fat, don't exercise etc. I can't beleive that the lean mass I carry will negatively impact my life expectancy more than their detrimental habits.

True bodybuilders are extremely rare. There is just not enough data on us to determine our life expectancy is threatened.

Holto
05-08-2009, 11:12 AM
The human body is incredibly complex. The correlation between body mass and lifespan does not account for bodybuilders IMO. Having lean mass does indeed increase the load on your heart, lungs and skeleton, but what is to say that is not offset by how much stronger, healthier and more efficient these components of our bodies are due to training.

The other thing to consider is how hard it is to be 225 @ 8% when your in your 60's, etc. So if you stay lean, and as you age, you lose lean mass, you're not that heavy by the time your reaching 70.

I suspect I'm healthier than my friends who are 160ish, and smoke, eat trans fat, don't exercise etc. I can't believe that the lean mass I carry will negatively impact my life expectancy more than their detrimental habits.

True bodybuilders are extremely rare. There is just not enough data on us to determine our life expectancy is threatened.

Trainwreck
05-08-2009, 12:35 PM
If a person with a large amount of mass, a bodybuilder for example, has good cardiovascular health and a good diet then I don't see why the correlation between body mass and lifespan would apply. Sure there is more pressure on the skeletal system as well as the cardiovascular but the body will have adapted in order to accommodate for the added stress.

Virtron
05-08-2009, 01:22 PM
First off, best word ever is leopleurydon.

As far as meat protein being bad... It seems very unlikely because we've been carnivores for quite some time and its worked out pretty well... I think. I believe its Norway that has the highest average life span and they eat lots of fish. That's not a plant.

Now, as far as protein in general is concerned. First off, if all protein is the same because of nutrition facts, then whats the difference between meat and plant? So, the claim falls through the ground right there. Second, how do you explain people allergic to milk protein but not to any other protein? Third, just because the nutrition facts say "PROTEIN" doesn't mean that there is only one kind of protein. That's where the word INGREDIENTS comes in. Finally, the universal word protein applies to different kinds of protein in the same sense that the word animal applies to all animals. For example, animal is to dog, as protein is to whey.

As far as the study, I've done some social science before... the exact sample group is very important for statistics. Someone mentioned the whole vegetarian vs. non-vegetarian athletes... who does better... lets say STATISTICALLY the meat eaters do better at whatever sport... that does not mean that there are no sports that a vegetarian is the best. For example, a patient complains of back pain... statistically its muscular... rarely its cancer. you come in with back pain... even IF for some reason you get an MRI... the last thing they expect is cancer. I hope I made my point clear... I can ramble sometimes.

shootermcgavin7
05-08-2009, 04:40 PM
Yes but even within one ethnic group there can be and are wide genetic disparities.

I agree, and its why I mentioned it was an imperfect control. That said, this guy's study was extremely carefully done, and I buy at least the general story.

I don't choose to follow his advice, but at least I do so knowing this data exists and shows I am potentially shortening my lifespan by following a BB lifestyle.

shootermcgavin7
05-08-2009, 04:45 PM
Holto, this may have been discussed in the original thread (which I sadly cannot find).

We are making two different points, yours is the bodybuilder v. the average small person:


The correlation between bodymass and lifespan does not account for bodybuilders IMO. Having lean mass does indeed increase the load on your heart, lungs and skeleton, but what is to say that is not offset by how much stronger, healthier and more efficient these components of our bodies are due to training.



My point is that given identical twins with identical training regimens and death by natural causes: the one who is 185 will very likely outlive the one who is 250.

We agree that carrying more weight increases stress on vital organs; if the two individuals train identically the smaller one should live longer. That's my only point.

I am 100% in agreement that the median bodybuilder is many, many times healthier than the median US citizen who registers "normal" on a BMI scale.

Holto
05-11-2009, 10:57 AM
My point is that given identical twins with identical training regimens and death by natural causes: the one who is 185 will very likely outlive the one who is 250.

Bullseye!

Thanks dude, makes perfect sense.

Even though the 250lber will be way lighter past say, age 55, he still carried that load for all those years.

Holto
05-11-2009, 10:59 AM
First off, best word ever is leopleurydon.

As far as meat protein being bad... It seems very unlikely because we've been carnivores for quite some time and its worked out pretty well... I think. I believe its Norway that has the highest average life span and they eat lots of fish. That's not a plant.

Now, as far as protein in general is concerned. First off, if all protein is the same because of nutrition facts, then whats the difference between meat and plant? So, the claim falls through the ground right there. Second, how do you explain people allergic to milk protein but not to any other protein? Third, just because the nutrition facts say "PROTEIN" doesn't mean that there is only one kind of protein. That's where the word INGREDIENTS comes in. Finally, the universal word protein applies to different kinds of protein in the same sense that the word animal applies to all animals. For example, animal is to dog, as protein is to whey.

As far as the study, I've done some social science before... the exact sample group is very important for statistics. Someone mentioned the whole vegetarian vs. non-vegetarian athletes... who does better... lets say STATISTICALLY the meat eaters do better at whatever sport... that does not mean that there are no sports that a vegetarian is the best. For example, a patient complains of back pain... statistically its muscular... rarely its cancer. you come in with back pain... even IF for some reason you get an MRI... the last thing they expect is cancer. I hope I made my point clear... I can ramble sometimes.

There is only one type of dietary protein.

There are 2 types of carbs, and three types of fats.

People have pointed out that protein has different sources, effects in the body etc. All of these points fall flat however because they apply to carbs and fats as well. We have complex carbs with a GI of 100 and complex carbs closer to 20. They are still of the same type.

galileo
09-07-2009, 06:16 PM
I realize I am resurrecting a somewhat old thread, but I have not been a regular to the boards as of late.

I have only read one study from this book (there are multiple nutrition studies in the actual book I believe), but given what I have read this guy has no agenda. To address the OP's point, he also does not really hint at a whole lot of causation, other than to claim "look, here's the diet, here's the lifespan". He does not address, nor attempt to address, the "Why?"

His statistics seem sound, and the actual China Study (the one I have read, and only a small part of the book) is on various subpopulations in China, which eliminates some (although not all) of the concerns with genetics.


To put this thread in perspective: In an old, old thread on these boards, someone published a study showing a very strong inverse correlation between bodyweight and lifespan. This was robust to a correction for body fat %. In other words, even if you are 5% bodyfat, but 280 lbs, you have a shorter life expectancy.
This study was not well received on WBB..... Until a veteran poster (I believe it was galileo, but I could be wrong) said "I've seen this study and tons like it. I believe them. But it is a tradeoff I am willing to make."


I think the sooner all of us realize that, although a bodybuilding lifestyle may be healthier than being an obese load sprawled on the couch eating cheetos, it is probably not healthier than being in great shape but at a weight of 180lbs, the better off we will all be. The tradeoff is that the bodybuilder is a hell of a lot stronger and looks a hell of a lot better than a 180lb scrawny guy.
In the end, as long as we have correct information, the choices are our own.

Which is why I wish people like galileo would post here more often.


I miss you too, shooter.