3 ms·

Here is a debate between the author of The China Study and another scientist in the field who disagrees with his findings: http://www.catalystathletics.com/art

by scythe 8y ago

Here is a debate between the author of The China Study and another scientist in the field who disagrees with his findings: http://www.catalystathletics.com/articles/downloads/proteinDebate.pdf http://www.catalystathletics.com/articles/downloads/proteinD... (I have no idea why Campbell chose not to cite any sources.) and here is a simplified take by the excellent skeptic Harriet Hall: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/385/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/385/ As Hall notes: >He criticizes conventional recommendations for a diet with 45-65% of calories from carbohydrates, 20-35% from fat and 10-35% from protein, showing how the following menu satisfies those requirements: >[example of an obviously unhealthy diet] >But that’s a bit of a straw man argument. In reality, most current nutritional advice makes very much the same recommendations Campbell does except for his strict prohibition of animal protein. For instance, for cancer prevention the American Cancer Society recommends (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/MED_2_1X_American_Cancer_Society_guidelines_on_diet_and_cancer_prevention.asp http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/MED_2_1X_American_...) a diet high in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes and low in red meat and alcohol, along with regular exercise and weight control. In these (and other) debates, Campbell repeatedly shows, IMO, an unwillingness to take his critics seriously, instead always resorting to the broadside of "reductionist!". At first he seems to have a point, but when you read more of his responses to more people, you just find yourself hearing "reductionist! reductionist! reductionist!". This is particularly concerning since all atomistic theories (i.e. physicalist theories, i.e. the modern scientific view of reality) are ultimately reductionist in some way. Furthermore, his attack on the standard recommendations is extremely reductionist, as seen above (and a similar diet can easily be constructed with less protein and no animal foods!). I'm particularly glad to link the critique from Science-Based Medicine as they're equally critical (if not more) of the paleo milieu.

tomstoms 8y ago
Campbell does not advocate strict prohibition of animal protein. He observes, merely, that it’s probably easier to avoid it altogether than to reduce the intake to safe levels. The argument is as follows, albeit simplified: When you eat an animal-based diet you are likely to eat a lot more protein than you should, say 20-40% of calories. Recommenced is 10% which is nowadays very close to what authorities generally recommend regardless of source. Campbell argues that it is very challenging to achieve that 10% on a traditional western animal based diet, therefore suggests avoiding animal based protein. He does not say that an occasional meal with meat is harmful. A varied Whole Foods plant based diet just happens to average out at around 10% protein of calories.

by scythe 8y ago

tomstoms 8y ago

Campbell does not advocate strict prohibition of animal protein. He observes, merely, that it’s probably easier to avoid it altogether than to reduce the intake to safe levels. The argument is as follows, albeit simplified: When you eat an animal-based diet you are likely to eat a lot more protein than you should, say 20-40% of calories. Recommenced is 10% which is nowadays very close to what authorities generally recommend regardless of source. Campbell argues that it is very challenging to achieve that 10% on a traditional western animal based diet, therefore suggests avoiding animal based protein. He does not say that an occasional meal with meat is harmful. A varied Whole Foods plant based diet just happens to average out at around 10% protein of calories.