4 ms·

On your recommendation, I just picked up The China Study from my local library (thankfully they had a copy, I doubt I would have bought one). I'm only in the i

On your recommendation, I just picked up The China Study from my local library (thankfully they had a copy, I doubt I would have bought one). I'm only in the introduction now, but something on page 4 struck me: More than forty years ago, at the beginning of my career, I would have never guessed that food is so closely related to health problems. Contrast that to a popular saying in Japan, 医食同源: medicine and food have the same origin. Compare that to the common refrain, that the difference between medicine and poison is the dose. I find it hard to believe that Western societies have always overlooked the relationship between diet and health. Perhaps it is a recent phenomenon. When did we lose our wisdom?

grandalf 17y ago
Interesting question. Keep in mind that for most of human history it was challenging to just get enough calories, so the question of figuring out the optimal diet is a fairly recent development. And, per the line you mention, the established view at the time was that the cure for worldwide malnutrition, etc, was to figure out better ways of producing protein. This was actually what TCC was trying to do initially in his research before he discovered that animal protein causes health problems. Notice that today everything is marketed as a health food. I was watching TV earlier and saw a commercial for "Sunny D" that essentially sells it (yucky orange flavored sugar water) as a health food :) One note: The first bit of the book is a bit sensational, but stick with it -- the claims are all nicely substantiated.
- pradocchia 17y ago
  He quotes Hippocrates in the opening of chapter 1: He who does not know food, how can he understand the diseases of man? ...so that answers half my question. I'm about a third of the way through now. I found the chapters on animal protein and the China Study very interesting and well presented. Thank you very much. I've read a bit online re: diets, nutrition and health, and Campbell presents a very compelling argument for vegetarianism, or at least very moderate consumption of meat. It occurs to me that traditionally cured meats have a much stronger taste, and naturally lend themselves to lower levels of consumption--just a little for flavoring, the same way one would use blue cheese. I wonder if there's more to it.
  - grandalf 17y ago
    I'm glad you're enjoying the book! I would guess that if you're going to eat meat, eating small quantities is probably far better than eating larger quantities. Maybe at some point there will be a more detailed epidemiological study that can tell us if small quantities of meat cause proportionally less harm.
- pradocchia 17y ago
  I guess the obvious question in all this is, if animal proteins above a certain threshold cause cancer (broadly stated), then what about carnivores? What is different about their metabolism that lets them survive on a diet of pure animal flesh? As omnivores, do we share any of these processes, or are we really just herbivores that have become omnivores through cooking? Do you know of any research in this area?
  - grandalf 17y ago
    I'm not familiar with specific research, but consider the following logical argument based on evolutionary theory: Any species has some set of foods it is capable of digesting. The set of such foods is a function of the environment in which the species has evolved. All of these specializations/tradeoffs of an organism's design (fangs, intestinal tract length, stomach composition, etc.) are a function of the species' unique evolutionary environmental history, and should be viewed as optimizations over past environmental factors. There is also the important factor of calorie scarcity as a driver of selection -- through most of evolutionary time, simply getting enough calories was paramount for all species, including the human species. Also note that there is significantly greater selection pressure for characteristics that facilitate survival through reproductive age even at the expense of overall longevity... so being able to eat (or even craving) a food that causes disease at age 60 historically offered a benefit well through the reproductive age and thus offered a net selection advantage. So, if one takes the list of foods a species is capable of eating and removes the notion of calorie scarcity, one can determine which foods are most optimal for vitality and longevity... Most of the arguments for why humans should eat meat, fats, etc., are based on the implicit assumption of calorie/nutrient scarcity. Of course if you're stranded in the arctic it's a great idea to eat some seal blubber... and it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective to crave it or to enjoy the smell of cooking meat. But when you're living in an advanced, rich society with essentially no calorie/nutrient scarcity, it becomes possible (and fun) to address the question of optimal nutrition.

grandalf 17y ago

Interesting question. Keep in mind that for most of human history it was challenging to just get enough calories, so the question of figuring out the optimal diet is a fairly recent development. And, per the line you mention, the established view at the time was that the cure for worldwide malnutrition, etc, was to figure out better ways of producing protein. This was actually what TCC was trying to do initially in his research before he discovered that animal protein causes health problems. Notice that today everything is marketed as a health food. I was watching TV earlier and saw a commercial for "Sunny D" that essentially sells it (yucky orange flavored sugar water) as a health food :) One note: The first bit of the book is a bit sensational, but stick with it -- the claims are all nicely substantiated.

pradocchia 17y ago
He quotes Hippocrates in the opening of chapter 1: He who does not know food, how can he understand the diseases of man? ...so that answers half my question. I'm about a third of the way through now. I found the chapters on animal protein and the China Study very interesting and well presented. Thank you very much. I've read a bit online re: diets, nutrition and health, and Campbell presents a very compelling argument for vegetarianism, or at least very moderate consumption of meat. It occurs to me that traditionally cured meats have a much stronger taste, and naturally lend themselves to lower levels of consumption--just a little for flavoring, the same way one would use blue cheese. I wonder if there's more to it.
- grandalf 17y ago
  I'm glad you're enjoying the book! I would guess that if you're going to eat meat, eating small quantities is probably far better than eating larger quantities. Maybe at some point there will be a more detailed epidemiological study that can tell us if small quantities of meat cause proportionally less harm.
pradocchia 17y ago
I guess the obvious question in all this is, if animal proteins above a certain threshold cause cancer (broadly stated), then what about carnivores? What is different about their metabolism that lets them survive on a diet of pure animal flesh? As omnivores, do we share any of these processes, or are we really just herbivores that have become omnivores through cooking? Do you know of any research in this area?
- grandalf 17y ago
  I'm not familiar with specific research, but consider the following logical argument based on evolutionary theory: Any species has some set of foods it is capable of digesting. The set of such foods is a function of the environment in which the species has evolved. All of these specializations/tradeoffs of an organism's design (fangs, intestinal tract length, stomach composition, etc.) are a function of the species' unique evolutionary environmental history, and should be viewed as optimizations over past environmental factors. There is also the important factor of calorie scarcity as a driver of selection -- through most of evolutionary time, simply getting enough calories was paramount for all species, including the human species. Also note that there is significantly greater selection pressure for characteristics that facilitate survival through reproductive age even at the expense of overall longevity... so being able to eat (or even craving) a food that causes disease at age 60 historically offered a benefit well through the reproductive age and thus offered a net selection advantage. So, if one takes the list of foods a species is capable of eating and removes the notion of calorie scarcity, one can determine which foods are most optimal for vitality and longevity... Most of the arguments for why humans should eat meat, fats, etc., are based on the implicit assumption of calorie/nutrient scarcity. Of course if you're stranded in the arctic it's a great idea to eat some seal blubber... and it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective to crave it or to enjoy the smell of cooking meat. But when you're living in an advanced, rich society with essentially no calorie/nutrient scarcity, it becomes possible (and fun) to address the question of optimal nutrition.