'But the problem is this is how alternative research is always refuted, by pointing out some negative aspect of the comment er. By the way she never claimed to be a researcher, just a data junkie. I have also heard criticism of the researcher of the China study by another researcher. So people opposed to it may disregard everything in it because of something that bothered one researcher about another. '
I didn't say that she claimed to be a researcher; I mention this because it puts her comments in some context.
CT Campbell's research can be read in the database of published studies, NCBI. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
When doing a search, notice that there are two TC Campbells with published studies.
Following articles that cite the China study, related studies, and discussions among researchers, you will find that research is still being done on the population in China. It matters whether the focus is on rural or on urban populations. It matters what the focus is (obesity or cvd or other areas of interest such as cancer). It matters what is being measured and what tools are available for measurement. One thing is for sure - there are a LOT of people in China and the number of observations correspondingly large.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/98603 69 'Diet, lifestyle, and the etiology of coronary artery disease: the Cornell China study.'
.http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/ 850.full 'Reply to TC Campbell' 'In the Nurses' Health Study, however, we identified several important dietary factors for risk of ischemic heart disease, including trans fatty acids (5), the ratio of polyunsaturated to saturated fat (5), α-linolenic acid (6), cereal fiber (7), nuts (8), whole-grain products (9), and fruit and vegetables (Kumudi unpublished observations, 2000).'
A decade later, from W. Willett: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24088 718 'Our data suggest that absolute quantity, rather than variety, in fruit and vegetable intake is associated with a significantly lower risk of CHD. Nevertheless, consumption of specific fruit and vegetable subgroups was associated with a lower CHD risk.'
Fitness Minutes: (30,969)
2/11/14 5:14 P
Full disclosure, I like and eat plenty of fresh fruits and vegetables, feel better eating whole, fresh foods and therefore am more likely to feel positive about the findings of the China Study. As a previous poster stated, you have likely decided to like or dislike the results of the study based on ones biases.
The China Study is a well researched study looking at the lifestyles and diseases of dozens of different communities spanning over 50 years. It is comprehensive and very detailed. Few studies have been able to control variables such as genetic predisposition and this is where the China Study has been so successful. It looked at various rural communities throughout China eating diets traditional to their territory. This included coastal regions that consumed fish, meat eating communities and communities that consumed mostly vegetables. The people were genetically identical and removed from western influences ( ie; processed foods). No surprises really on the outcome, eating veggies are good for you, too much protein, especially red meats, not so much. If you already believe this is true you will agree with the Study. If you still really want your meat and eat it too, you will likely find fault. The study was independently funded and therefore the outcome was not predetermined. In fact the researcher was as surprised as anyone in the results. He had been trained like all nutritional experts that protein, protein, protein was the way to go. In fact we need far less protein than we typically consume to eat a healthy diet.
But the problem is this is how alternative research is always refuted, by pointing out some negative aspect of the comment er. By the way she never claimed to be a researcher, just a data junkie. I have also heard criticism of the researcher of the China study by another researcher. So people opposed to it may disregard everything in it because of something that bothered one researcher about another.
Alternative points need to be refuted not by disregarding anyone who is opposed but by actual science. I constantly see Dr William Davis dismissed but he is a researcher as well as a doctor. Again he may be all wet (I don't think so but I am not a scientist) but he should be dismissed on science not some single aspect that disqualifies everything he has written.
Should all research done by pharma be dismissed because they have a vested interest? I don't think so but it should be accepted by rote either.
We risk getting to the point where any research that doesn't line up with our predetermined opinion is dismissed. This happens constantly in current events and politics and it has made those areas less credible. I believe the same thing is happening in all aspects of science not just nutritional science
Edited by: GIPPER1961 at: 2/11/2014 (15:07)
2/11/14 1:27 P
'but the author of this article lost me almost from the word go as soon as she started even discussing non-statistically-signficant results ... and then comparing them to each other! '
The author's Denise Minger. She's not a research scientist. But if you want to read about her 'credentials,' it's in her 'about me' section.
To me the critique gets to the difficulty of doing nutritional research. Any good scientific research has to control for all the variables that can affect the outcome. With the human body and specifically nutrition and the human body is is very difficult to nearly impossible to account for all the variables, for example just a few areas that might bias the sample, genetics, are the subjects genetically prone to diabetes or other auto-immune disease? Are the subjects sensitive to gluten, or even allergic to gluten? Are the subjects susceptible to emotional eating that can skew their adherence to a tested diet regimen? Is the study done in a captive setting or are we relying on them to log their results? What is the length of the study? We all know that a behavior that is easy for two months may get hard at six months or a year.
The reporting of a study can also be problematic. We constantly see results such as people who consume diet pop are as likely to be overweight as people who consume non diet pop. That statement has no real scientific meaning. Maybe within the study it may, but the summaries we get usually are an overly generic summary of a complicated study. (by the way I personally don't consume either I am using it for example only)
We also have research bias of who pays for the study. A massive amount of research dollars are paid for by pharma companies and the federal government who both have a vested interest in the 'right type of research' findings'. Then when alternative research is done contradicting what these groups produce is discounted by saying it isn't real research.
It really can be mine field that takes patience and reading lots of alternative and disparate sources to get the best context for your own life.
Fitness Minutes: (2,155)
2/11/14 12:37 P
Urgh. I haven't read any of these touted nutritional books, but the author of this article lost me almost from the word go as soon as she started even discussing non-statistically-signficant results ... and then comparing them to each other!
Not statistically significant means meaningless. End of story. It means even by the iffy standards of nutritional science in general and population studies in particular, this data is useless. It means ignore it. Even as a critique of a book that could hypothetically be committing worse errors, that pisses me off too much to go on.
2/11/14 11:32 A
Good guideline: don't buy any regimen 'hook-line-and-sinker'!
The China Study is one cited in very many nutritional studies and recommendations. There is, however, another side. This article points out some difficulties in taking it hook-line-and-sinker. Long, but very worth the read.
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.