The China Study: More Vegan Nonsense!

Anthony Colpo, author of the well researched book The Great Cholesterol Con and the e-book The Fat Loss Bible, lands a devasting blow to vegan advocates of the "remarkable" book The China Study.

Mr. Colpo's paper, LDL Cholesterol: "Bad" Cholesterol, or Bad Science?, has been published in the peer reviewed medical Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.


Why T. Colin Campbell's Book is Extremely
Misleading.
Anthony Colpo,
May 17, 2006.

PLEASE NOTE: To pre-empt scandalous claims by those who can't
factually dispute what I'm saying and must instead resort to baseless
attacks on my integrity, I want to make it clear that I do NOT and NEVER
have received ANY form of compensation from the meat, dairy, egg or
nutritional supplement industries.

I've always held it as a maxim that the more a person boasts about how
honest, ethical and trustworthy they are, the more you should be wary of
them. In his book The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of
Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss
and Long-Term Health, T. Colin Campbell goes to great pains to assure us he
is a wonderful and worthy disseminator of health and nutrition advice.
Throughout the book, Campbell repeatedly reminds us of his glowing
academic qualifications, his appointments to a multitude of government
advisory panels, his prolific receipt of government grants, and his numerous
published papers. The implicit message is: "I'm ethical, I've got impeccable
credentials, and I know what I'm talking about. You can trust me."

Well, I've never sat on a government advisory panel, never attended even a
single university lecture, and cannot yet boast of having the same volume of
published literature as Campbell, but I'm smart enough to know most of the
claims made in his book are utter rubbish. Campbell might be deeply
impressed with his own credentials, but after reading The China Study my
trust in his ability to deliver accurate nutrition information ranks somewhere
between zilch and zero.

Protein Prejudice
Campbell is sadly misinformed when it comes to the topic of protein,
something especially regrettable for someone whose "entire professional
career in biomedical research has centered on protein". Within minutes of
beginning his book, even the dullest reader will quickly realize that Campbell
is on a zealous mission against animal protein, which he believes to be public
healthy enemy number one.

Campbell's anti-animal protein bent began while working in the Philippines,
where he observed that children from the wealthiest families reportedly ate the
most protein and had the highest rates of liver cancer. In itself, this
observation is next to useless. Wealthy inhabitants of third world countries are
often the first to adapt Western-style diets, which include not just more animal
foods but a vast array of nutrient-depleted processed food items loaded with
refined flours and sugars. Why blame animal protein--a perfectly natural food
for the human species, one that we have been eating with great benefit for our
entire 2.4 million year history--yet ignore the role of the nutrient-depleted
garbage that we only began consuming during the last 150 years? It is the
proliferation of the latter--not animal protein--that corresponds with the
rise of degenerative diseases in the Western world.

According to Campbell, his protein suspicions were confirmed when Indian
researchers found that feeding casein (a type of milk protein) to rats increased
their susceptibility to aflatoxin-induced liver cancer. Campbell and his
colleagues began replicating these experiments and repeatedly found that
casein did indeed trigger cancer in susceptible rodents. According to
Campbell, "The safe proteins were from plants, including wheat and soy."

Extrapolating from the deleterious effects demonstrated by casein in rodents,
Campbell goes on to warn that all animal proteins are a deadly threat to
humans.

Campbell's position constitutes little more than a totally unscientific leap of
faith. Casein is one of the major protein-containing fractions of milk; the other
is whey. Campbell does not mention that while casein is often observed to
promote cancer in rats, whey protein does the exact opposite. Numerous
experiments have shown that rats lucky enough to be fed whey experience
greatly reduced tumor incidence when compared to rats fed casein, beef, soy
or standard rat chow[Badger TM][Hakkak R][Hakkak R][McIntosh
GH][Papenburg R][Bounous G].

Preliminary research suggests a similar effect may even occur in humans. A
pilot study by researchers at Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, Canada
followed 7 cancer patients who were fed 30 grams of whey protein
concentrate daily for six months. Five patients had metastatic carcinoma of
the breast, one of the pancreas and one of the liver. Two patients exhibited
signs of tumour regression, 2 showed stabilisation of the tumour, while the
disease progressed in the remainder but with a trend toward higher
lymphocyte glutathione levels. Glutathione is a potent antioxidant and whey
consumption has been shown to raise glutathione levels in the body. The
researchers concluded that "These results indicate that whey protein
concentrate might deplete tumour cells of GSH and render them more
vulnerable to chemotherapy."[Kennedy RS]

Whey protein concentrates and isolates are now widely available in health
food stores and supermarkets. But nowhere in The China Study does
Campbell discuss the potent anti-cancer effects of whey in rats, and nowhere
does he call for further research into the promising cancer-fighting benefits of
whey in humans. I guess that would conflict with his rabid venting against
animal protein…

Changing the facts
The whey-cancer issue is not the only one in which Campbell deletes
inconvenient facts that would dramatically weaken his anti-animal protein
hypothesis. After turning the discussion to heart disease, Campbell cites the
work of Dr. Lester Morrison, the Los Angeles physician who conducted the
earliest clinical trials into the effect of diet on heart disease recurrence.

Morrison took 100 heart attack patients and placed half of on what he himself
described as a "high-protein, low-fat" diet and a regimen of nutritional
supplements that included calcium, phosphorous, wheat germ, and brewer's
yeast. After eight years, thirty-eight of the fifty control patients had died,
compared to only twenty-two of the treatment patients[Morrison LM].

To listen to Campbell though, you would think that Morrison's dietary
intervention group subsisted on anemic protein intakes. Campbell is quick to
point out that Morrison allowed only two ounces of meat for lunch and two
ounces at dinner. He further points out that whole eggs and whole dairy were
prohibited on the diet. What he doesn't mention--but would full well know
seeing that he has obviously read Morrison's papers--is that Morrison also
prescribed the consumption of 13 ounces of skim milk daily. Morrison's
published "Foods Permitted" list also allowed for "egg whites as
desired"[Morrison LM]. Clearly, Morrison's diet was not the very low-protein
diet regimen that Campbell would have us believe; in fact, the patients
consumed protein levels in excess of the RDA and far greater than the
miniscule amounts recommended by Campbell. So why doesn't he just level
with us? Is it because he has already spent a good portion of his book
dumping on protein and dairy products, and can't bring himself to
acknowledge that a diet that prescribed daily milk consumption and relatively
high protein levels was successful in reducing heart disease?

Campbell also neglects to mention Morrison's intervention was multi-faceted;
it also incorporated overall calorie restriction that resulted in weight loss and
the use of nutritional supplements. Excess weight has long been linked to
higher rates of CHD, while weight loss has been clinically demonstrated to
improve various measures of cardiovascular health. Along with a number of
vitamins and minerals, Morrison prescribed supplemental wheat germ and
brewer's yeast because of their high B-vitamin content, the latter also
containing the important antioxidant mineral selenium. It is now wellrecognized
that certain B-vitamins lower blood levels of a potentially
atherogenic substance known as homocysteine, while a small pilot trial found
a marked reduction in mortality among CHD patients taking selenium-rich
yeast on a daily basis[Schnyder G][Korpela H].

Maybe Campbell didn't feel the supplements were worthy of mention. After all,
despite their clinically-proven effectiveness, Campbell doesn't like nutritional
supplements

Anti-supplement anti-logic
Campbell repeatedly pooh-poohs nutritional supplements, insisting they are of
little to no value when it comes to improving health and fighting disease. I
agree that healthy eating habits should form the foundation of one's dietary
arsenal against disease, but to denigrate nutritional supplements as largely
useless is downright wrong.

Nowhere does Campbell mention the numerous large placebo-controlled
clinical trials--involving real live humans, not lab rats--that showed substantial
reductions in cancer incidence and mortality in the subjects randomized to
take selenium supplements (ironically, two of these trials were conducted in
China…)[Clark LC][Yu SY][Blot WJ].

Nowhere does Campbell mention SUVIMAX, the large randomized, doubleblind,
placebo-controlled trial involving over 13,000 healthy French adults
aged 35-60. The participants took a single daily capsule containing 120
milligrams of ascorbic acid, 30 milligrams of vitamin E, 6 milligrams of beta
carotene, 100 μg of selenium, and 20 milligrams of zinc, or a placebo. After
7.5 years of supplementation, cancer and overall mortality rates in men were
significantly reduced, by thirty-one and thirty-seven percent,
respectively![Hercberg S]

Of course, denigrating nutritional supplements and recommending a vegan
diet, as Campbell does, presents a huge problem--namely, how to get enough
B12? After all, animal foods are the only meaningful source of vitamin B12.

Campbell infers that only plants grown on "lifeless" soil lack B12 (actually
plants grown in any soil will lack B12, unless they are grown in manure and
eaten without washing prior to consumption). Campbell also laments that
modern-day vegetables are scoured of all soil before consumption, and thus
grudgingly acknowledges that B12 supplements for vegans are a good idea.
He also suggests that "..if you never get any sunshine exposure, especially
during the winter months, you might want to take a vitamin D supplement".

So this is Campbell's solution to the lack of B12 presented by veganism, a
pattern of eating that humans were never meant to follow on a long-term
basis: Take B12 supplements...or eat dirt!

Thanks, but no thanks! I'll obtain my B12 the way nature intended--from fresh,
nutrient-dense meats.

More anti-animal food fanaticism
On page 230, Campbell states in bold type:
"There are virtually no nutrients in animal-based foods that are not better
provided by plants."

Clearly, Campbell knows little about the nutritional content of animal foods.
Animal flesh contains many nutrients that are either found in scarce amounts
or entirely absent from plant foods. Here are some examples:

Creatine is used to form adenosine tri-phosphate (ATP), our ultimate source
of cellular energy. Creatine availability is critical during situations when neither
fat nor glucose can be processed quickly enough to form ATP, such as during
the first few seconds of high-intensity physical activities like sprinting and
picking up heavy objects. Creatine supplements have been shown in
numerous studies to aid performance in power-oriented sports, and to
improve muscular strength in patients with congestive heart failure[Kreider
RB].

Creatine only occurs naturally in animal foods, with meat by far the richest
source. Not surprisingly, habitual vegetarians exhibit poorer creatine status
than omnivores[Maughan RJ].

Meat, along with certain species of fish and seafood, is a rich source of
taurine, an important amino acid whose concentration in eggs, milk, and plant
foods ranges from negligible to none[Laidlow SA][Pasantes-Morales H].
Taurine is found in high concentrations in the heart, brain, and central nervous
system, where it helps stabilize the cellular response to nervous stimulation.
Taurine possesses antioxidant capabilities and has been shown in doubleblind
clinical trials to improve cardiac function in patients with congestive heart
failure[Schaffer SW][Azuma J][Azuma J].

Taurine cannot be found in plant foods. Humans are able to manufacture their
own taurine but with far less efficiency than herbivorous animals, as
evidenced by significantly lower blood taurine levels in vegans and rural
Mexican women reporting low meat intakes[Laidlaw][Pasantes-Morales H].

Carnitine is a remarkable amino acid that plays a pivotal role in energy
production, and is absolutely essential for the fat-burning process to proceed.
Because of its pivotal role in energy production, high levels of carnitine are
found in the heart and skeletal muscle. Clinical trials have observed markedly
improved survival outcomes resulting from carnitine supplementation in
patients with heart failure and coronary heart disease[Davini P][Rizos I][Singh
RB][Iliceto S]. A review of the scientific literature shows that this versatile
amino acid has been shown to benefit anorexia, chronic fatigue syndrome,
heart disease, male infertility, sexual dysfunction and depression in aging
men, and pregnancy outcomes. Exercise, even at moderate levels, can cause
a significant drop in muscle carnitine levels; in patients with angina and
respiratory disorders, carnitine enhances exercise tolerance[Kelly
GS][Cavallini G][Gentile V].

The richest food source of carnitine, by far and away, is meat. Compared to
omnivores, vegetarians repeatedly exhibit lower blood levels of
carnitine[Krajcovicova-Kudlackova M][Lombard KA]. Carnitine status appears
to also be worsened by the high-carbohydrate diets recommended by folks
like Campbell. In healthy men receiving the same amount of dietary carnitine,
blood levels of this all-important amino acid rose significantly in individuals
following a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet, while no change in carnitine levels
were observed in individuals on a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet[Cederblad
G].

Meat is the only food containing significant amounts of carnosine, an amino
acid with some rather interesting and highly beneficial properties[Chan KM].
Carnosine is a potent antioxidant, being particularly effective in protecting
cellular fats against free radical damage. Research shows carnosine may
accelerate wound healing, boost the immune system, protect against
cataracts, reduce gastric ulcer formation, rid the body of toxic metals, and
even help fight against cancer[Hipkiss AR]. The most potent effect of
carnosine however, appears to be its ability to prevent glycation, which, along
with free-radical production, is a major contributor to degenerative illness and
the aging process[Price DL, et al].

The potent anti-glycation effects of carnosine may explain why a comparison
of vegetarians, vegans and meat-eating omnivores revealed the latter to have
significantly lower levels of nasty glycation end-products known as advanced
glycosylation end-products (AGEs) circulating in their bloodstreams. The
difference could not be explained by total carbohydrate intake, blood sugar,
age or kidney function, as all these variables were similar between the
vegetarian and omnivorous groups[Sebekova K].

Meat, especially red meat, is the richest source of B-complex vitamins. The
B vitamins perform a myriad of crucial functions in the body and requirements
for these vital nutrients are dramatically increased during periods of stress,
illness and physical activity. Unfortunately, the body cannot store a surplus of
B-vitamins for times of increased need, so optimal amounts must be
consumed on a daily basis.

Meat, especially red meat, is also a rich source of iron. Iron forms an
essential component of hemoglobin, the red pigment in blood that transports
oxygen from the lungs to the various body tissues. Insufficient iron intake can
result in impaired immune function, decreased athletic performance and lack
of energy. A double-blind Swiss study of women aged between 18-55 who
had sought medical advice for fatigue, found that most of the women had low
blood concentrations of iron. After four weeks, a significantly greater number
of women receiving iron supplements reported a decrease in fatigue
symptoms than those receiving placebo[Verdon F]. Australian women
complaining of fatigue showed similar improvements when treated with either
iron supplements or a high-iron diet[Patterson AJ].

Those who need to boost their iron stores should look to read meat rather
than supplements or plant foods. When previously sedentary women were
challenged with 12 weeks of aerobic exercise, a high meat diet protected iron
stores more effectively than iron supplements[RM Lyle]. Heme iron (the form
of iron found in meat) is far more easily absorbed by the body than non-heme
iron from plant sources. Men and women on lacto-ovo vegetarian diets
consistently exhibit lower blood levels of iron, even when consuming similar
total amounts of dietary iron as omnivores[Alexander D][Hunt JR].

Animal foods are also by far and away the richest source of zinc. Apart from
oysters, meat is the richest source of this mineral, with red meats again
containing greater amounts of this mineral than white meats. Zinc is essential
for optimal growth and repair, being involved in the actions of several vital
hormones and hundreds of enzymatic reactions in the body. Zinc is essential
for the formation of superoxide dismutase, one of the body's most potent
antioxidants. Zinc deficiencies can result in growth retardation in children,
significantly weakened immune function, poor wound healing and muscle loss,
lowered testosterone levels and sperm counts, and have also been linked to
depression and gastric cancer[Prasad AS][Brown KH][Siklar Z][Dardenne
M][Ibs KH][Maes M][Nakaji S][Prasad AS][Hunt CD].

Overt zinc deficiencies are common to Third World countries where animal
protein consumption is low. Milder, 'sub-clinical' zinc deficiencies also appear
to be a common phenomenon in modernized nations. Those who follow low
fat diets are at even greater risk of zinc deficiency[Retzlaff BM][Baghurst KI, et
al].

Animal foods, most notably brains and fatty fish, are the only dietary source of
long chain omega-3 fats such as DHA and EPA (special algae
supplements containing LCPUFA have only recently become available). Some
plant foods do contain omega-3 fatty acids, but in a form known as alphalinolenic
acid (ALA). To obtain the LCPUFA the body needs, ALA must be
converted endogenously to longer-chain omega-3s such as DHA and EPA.
The conversion rate, however, is very low, with clinical studies repeatedly
showing that omega-3 fats from plant sources to be vastly inferior to those
from animal foods when it comes to boosting long-chain omega-3
status[Fokkema MR][Francois CA][Tang AB, et al].

Numerous studies have shown that vegetarians consume far lower levels of
long-chain omega-3 fats--not surprising considering their avoidance of meat
and fish[Rosell MR, et al]. Studies of pregnant women show that, compared to
omnivores, vegetarians have significantly lower levels of DHA in their breast
milk, with vegans displaying the lowest levels of all. These negative fatty acid
profiles are reflected in infants, with vegan newborns displaying significantly
lower red blood cell levels of DHA. This is an ominous finding, given the
critical role that omega-3 fats play in healthy immune function and cognitive
development[Williams C][O'Connor DL][Helland IB][Moriguchi T][Dunstan JA].

Along with lowering one's omega-3 levels, low meat intakes also increase the
concentration of omega-6 fats inside the body. A high dietary and bodily ratio
of omega-6:omega-3 fats increases the risk of numerous diseases, including
cardiovascular disease. A sizable portion of heart attacks are triggered when
blood clots lodge themselves in narrowed coronary arteries and prevent the
flow of blood to the heart, a process also known as arterial thrombosis. One of
the early and key events in the development of thrombosis is platelet
aggregation, the 'clumping together' of blood platelets. Researchers from
Melbourne, Australia, compared heavy-meat-eaters, moderate-meat-eaters,
lactoovegetarians and vegans and found that as meat consumption increased,
platelet aggregation decreased. Heavy-meat-eaters displayed the lowest
levels of platelet aggregation, while vegans displayed the highest levels.
While meat eaters ate more of the omega-6 fat arachidonic acid, vegetarians
consumed significantly higher concentrations of the omega-6 fat linoleic acid
and significantly lower amounts of long chain omega-3's. The resultant
unfavorable omega-6:omega-3 is believed to be responsible for the higher
levels of thromboxane A2 (TXA2) seen in the vegetarian group[Li D]. TXA2 is
an eicosanoid that stimulates platelet aggregation. Chilean researchers have
similarly observed significantly lower blood levels of EPA and DHA, and
concomitant increases in blood platelet aggregation, among
vegetarians[Mezzano D]

Plant foods contain all the nutrition that animal foods do? You've got to be
joking!

So what about the China Study itself?
Despite it's title, only a small portion of The China Study is actually devoted to
discussing the giant epidemiological study of the same name; the rest of the
book simply reads like an extended sales brochure for veganism.

Beginning in the early eighties, Campbell was part of a group of Chinese,
British and US researchers that presided over the massive epidemiological
study known as the China Project, or China Study. The New York Times
dubbed it "the Grand Prix of epidemiology", and it gathered data on 367
variables across sixty-five counties and 6,500 adults. After the study data was
compiled, the researchers had calculated "more than 8,000 statistically
significant associations between lifestyle, diet and disease variables."

According to Campbell, the China Study data showed that: "People who ate
the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease. . . . People who
ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid
chronic disease."[p. 7]

In reality, the China Study showed nothing of the sort.

What Campbell won't tell you about the China Study

The China Study does not contain the actual data gathered from its namesake
study. So when Campbell claims that the China Study found a consistent
relationship between animal foods and various diseases, readers have no way
of verifying this information for themselves.

Unless of course, they get up off their butts and go retrieve the actual China
Study data for themselves. To do this, they will need to check their local
libraries (university libraries are the best bet) for a book titled Diet, life-style,
and mortality in China: A study of the characteristics of 65 Chinese
counties[Chen J]. Once readers have this book in their possession, they will
quickly discover that there is a galaxy-sized gap between the actual findings
of the China Study and the claims made by Campbell in his popular book
version.

Overall mortality

Let's start with overall mortality, unarguably the most important mortality
statistic of all. Animal protein, fish protein, meat intake, saturated fat, and fat
calories were all negatively associated with all-cause mortality in infants,
children, teenagers and adults, although none of the associations reached
statistical significance (for those unfamiliar with research-speak, a negative
correlation means that as intake of these foods increased, mortality risk
decreased; failure to reach statistical significance means that researchers
can't be sure these findings were not due to chance).

Among those aged 0-64, total protein returned a 29% negative association
with overall mortality. This finding was statistically significant (p=0.05).

In all age groups, egg consumption was negatively associated with all-cause
mortality, with a statistically significant 43% decrease (p=0.01) in overall
mortality among those aged 0-64.

No statistically significant relationships, protective or otherwise, were found for
milk intake, fiber, cereal grains, legumes, and vegetables among those aged
0-64.

The only other dietary factor that was significantly associated with overall
mortality among those aged 0-64 was soy sauce (not soy products), which
showed a 43% decrease in mortality risk (p=0.001)

Cancer
Neither total protein (+12%), animal protein (+3%), fish protein (+7%), plant
protein (+12%), meat intake (-20%), saturated fat (+2%), fat calories (-17%),
eggs (+19%), nor milk (+6%) demonstrated any statistically significant
association with mortality from all cancers. Rice (-26%, p=0.05) and green
vegetables (-28%, p=0.05) were statistically associated with reduced cancer
mortality, as were the use of alcohol (-27%, p=0.05), home-made cigarettes (-
32%, p=0.01), and total tobacco use (-25%, p=0.05).

(Readers can now see why I have such a generally low opinion of
epidemiological research--if we were to treat the findings of the China Study
seriously, then we would all go out and start drinking and smoking cigarettes
in order to improve our odds against cancer! Despite his obvious enthrallment
with the results of the China Study, Campbell for some reason doesn't
recommend this…)

With regards to specific types of cancer, no statistically significant
associations were observed for total protein, animal protein, fish protein, meat
intake, milk intake, saturated fat, total fat, fiber, cereal grains, legumes,
vegetables and mortality from colorectal or breast cancers.

Heart Disease
No statistically significant associations were observed for total protein, animal
protein, fish protein, meat intake, milk intake, saturated fat, total fat, fiber,
legumes, and mortality from coronary heart disease.

Rice was associated with a statistically significant decrease (-58%, p=0.001)
in CHD risk, while wheat flour was associated with a statistically significant
increase in CHD risk (+67%, p=0.001). A similar phenomenon was noted for
stroke mortality, with a statistically significant risk decrease noted for rice (-
44%, p=0.01), and a statistically significant increase in risk observed for wheat
flour (+55%, p=0.001) (again, despite his apparent rapture with the China
Study results, nowhere does Campbell recommend the avoidance of wheat or
wheat flour; in fact, he encourages the consumption of whole grain cereals).

So there you have it…the "Grand Prix" study that supposedly showed "People
who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease. . . .
People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to
avoid chronic disease" actually showed that animal-based foods imparted no
increased risk of all-cause mortality, cancer deaths, or cardiovascular
mortality.

Conclusion
Is Campbell deliberately lying to us? Or is he merely suffering from an inability
to cast aside his own personal prejudices and present a full and objective
presentation of the facts, because the facts conflict with what he wants to
believe? I can't get inside Campbell's head to give you the answer, but it is not
at all uncommon for even highly decorated researchers to "ignore" or
flippantly dismiss evidence that fails to support their deeply-held beliefs, and
instead focus intently on that which does. The China Study is a classic
example of this phenomenon in action.

Campbell's lopsided presentation of the facts is most regrettable. If you visit
the The China Study page at Amazon.com you will see that the book is selling
well and has received glowing reviews from unwitting readers who clearly
have not taken the time to validate Campbell's claims for themselves. Like so
many people in today's society, these folks are too lazy to think and research
for themselves, and are therefore ready prey for misguided "gurus" peddling
scientifically unsound nonsense.

References
Badger TM, et al. Developmental effects and health aspects of soy protein
isolate, casein, and whey in male and female rats. Int J Toxicol. 2001 May-
Jun;20(3):165-74.

PLEASE ENSURE that you give full credit to the author, whether you reproduce the article in whole or part. A hyperlink to http://www.theomnivore.com/ would also be greatly appreciated! Those wishing to reprint this or any other article on TheOmnivore.com for commercial purposes should email: ac.theomnivore@gmail.com

See the following sites for more critiques of The China Study:
The Blog of Brad
The Truth About The China Study