Skip to content
My WebMD Sign In, Sign Up
The China Study
 
avatar
DoloresTeresa responded:
Campbell specifically did NOT want to title the book the China Study and submitted lots of titles to the publisher which were rejected.

I agree with the author's opinion about casein and assuming other animal proteins will have the same result. I thought this quite a while ago when I first read the book.

I don't think the author points out the footnote in Campbell's book regarding fish. I still haven't received an answer about this. Were fish found to have less of an impact on heart disease and cancer? What does this footnote mean?

Campbell provided raw data of which everyone is making hay. I don't know. Is it common for other researchers, like Davis for instance, to submit raw data? Did Davis submit his raw data?

Pritikin committed suicide because of a blood cancer he got, supposedly from radiation treatments from a previous illness. However the family provided the autopsy results which showed that his arteries were as clean as a baby's. The family of Atkins on the other hand, refused to release his medical records and no autopsy was performed (Maybe for religious reasons and maybe to preserve the Atkins empire) However, information was released without the family's permission that Atkins did have heart and artery problems.

Davis used statins and niacin in one published study I read. If the low fat gurus are doing the same thing then the rest of us do not know what the most healthful diet is.

The only thing everyone agrees on is to eliminate processed foods and refined sugars and empty calorie carbs.

My own blood sugars are between 75 and 85 with no meds on a plant based diet. Yes, I do eat a couple of ounces of oily fish a couple of times a week. And occasionally a couple of ounces of clams thrown into a vat of soup (both for the B 12).

Knowing about the brachial artery test and how a high fat meal can prevent arteries from expanding and how fat can prevent blood cells from passing smoothly through the capillaries, I prefer to err on the side of low fat. Maybe our ancestors ate the (low fat) animals they hunted down or scavenged but there is no doubt that we also evolved to gather plants--and lots of them.

Dolores
 
avatar
heretk replied to DoloresTeresa's response:
I don't think there is probably anything wrong with your diet. You do not exclude anything and thus you are unlikely to develop nutritional deficiencies since since you do eat fish occasionally. I bet a steak once a weak wouldn't probably hurt you either but it is perfectly OK if you don't do that. I think that if you do adhere to a high carb low glycemic diet then it is probably better (and more natural in that case!) to limit the fat to 30% or less since an intermediate fat zone (~45%) seems the most problematic. I wrote about that before, this is based on dr. Kwasiewski's theory. Either low fat (but not 100% vegan!) or high fat, not in-between.

Yes we did evolve to eat plants too. I don't exclude anything either. I eat vegetables and/or fruit too, practically with every meal. It is still less than 50g/d carbs of course! .

Back in the drmcdougall.com forum somebody wrote once that perhaps a 95% vegetarian diet may be in fact healthier than the 100% vegan diet. That was based on his or her personal observation that less compliant people seem to avoid certain pitfalls that befall many overzealous vegans. I believe that is true!

Stan
 
avatar
DoloresTeresa replied to heretk's response:
I think it is true too,H, and I wrote something similar once on the McD group about using fish to get certain nutrients and got a private communication back asking me not to say those naughty things any more.


Dolores
 
avatar
jc3737 replied to DoloresTeresa's response:
They don't tolerate disagreement very well.You have to stay within strict guidelines or you get on their "enemies" list.

But they do have some very well informed posters.However as bright as they are I have yet to see anyone who compares to Heretic...maybe Jeff N or dr McD himself?
 
avatar
heretk replied to DoloresTeresa's response:
At least you didn't get banned.
 
avatar
DoloresTeresa replied to heretk's response:
not yet.

D
 
avatar
DoloresTeresa replied to DoloresTeresa's response:
and another thing. I have received a couple of private communications in which people say they also add a bit of animal protein or do not adhere to the philosophy of "you can eat all you want and still lose weight." The bad thing about not being allowed to say you do eat some meat is that some people reading the posts might think that everyone is compliant and getting good results because of 100% compliance. I, frankly, do not know if that is true. I do believe however that the amount of animal food eaten by most is very very low. But remember a lot of those people are ethical vegans who do not eat animals for reasons other than good health.

Dolores


Spotlight: Member Stories

Long-time fan of the Diet Debate-though infrequent contributor to the discussion.

Helpful Tips

Old Discussions
You can find some of the old discussions from the original diet debate board by looking up keywords or member names using the search on the ... More
Was this Helpful?
29 of 45 found this helpful

Related News

There was an error with this newsfeed

Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.