Can giving up grains cause cancer?
Could giving up grains cause heart disease and cancer? This is what Colin Campbell claims in his new book The Low-Carb Fraud:
MailOnline: Are low-carb diets BAD for you? Nutrition expert claims giving up grains can lead to heart disease and cancer
Biochemist T Colin Campbell is the author behind the well-known vegan book The China Study and according to him, we should eat a low-fat vegan diet to keep us healthy.
There is a lack of evidence to support Campbell’s ideas. The book The China Study rests on an observational study – uncertain statistics – that doesn’t prove anything. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that the statistical data in the book were cherry-picked to fit the author’s preconceptions. Statistics that pointed strongly in the other direction were not included.
A new review of all relevant similar studies shows that Asians who eat more red meat on the contrary are healthier. They suffer less heart disease and less cancer. Not quite what Campbell managed to cherry pick from his one China study.
There may be good ethical reasons to be a vegan – it’s open for discussion. But those who fear animal foods for health reasons are afraid for no good reason.
Asian Meat-Eaters are Healthier!
Meanwhile, on "There may be good ethical reasons to be a vegan ..."
Here's a nice up-to-date update on the hazards & work-arounds for eating vegetarian/vegan:
But you used the magic words... "T. Colon Campbell" and "The China Study".. let's see how long it takes to fire up the veg*n jungle telegraph system and rally the troops to leap to his defense! :-P
I had to chuckle when I read his claim that LCHF is even worse than SAD! LOL
In addition to Chrs Kresser's blog (that post is at over 600 comments!)... Kris Gunnars also has a timely post...
But has he ever addressed how humans before agriculture, (or current meat-centric cultures) didn't seem to die willy-nilly of cancer?
I hope the claim is that they died too young is not it.
If you are bored, there are some choice comments on the Amazon review page of his book:
Anyway, I have now switched to a low carb, no-grain diet, and I feel better than I ever have before.
How do you become a nutrition expert with 40 years experience? Is just consuming O2 sufficient?
He is not a physician either!
Ans: If you ate broccoli type vegetables, it would take 20 lbs to get 3000 kcals.
If you encountered a prolonged drought, what would you do?
Assuming the the same scenario, but ate animals?
Ans: If you killed and chopped up a buffalo, 1 lb of pemmican (meat and fat) = 3000 calories.
If you encountered a prolonged drought, what would you do?
Ans: Eat more animals
Eat meat and fat, and live.
I would strongly advice you not to take any advice from any source that is fear based. "If you don't do this and that you'll go to Hell and die forever!!!"
Because then that advice isn't an attempt to inform you but to manipulate you.
And manipulation is lame.
Where have I heard that before...... Oh, yes, that's right...... Ancel Keys.
One nut case following in the footsteps of the other nutcase.
Hopefully we have learned from the one, not to give any credance to the other.
Ancel Keys gave us the Low Fat diet, and look where it got us. And now Colin Campbell wants us to go vegan, no meat at all. We know what the outcome of that will be.... We will get sicker than we already are. Are we waiting for that?
Not me. And no one else responding on this site.
Worse than that he has blood on his hands with his crackpot 'advice'.
Am J Epidemiol. 2013 Nov 15;178(10):1542-9. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwt178. Epub 2013 Sep 5.
Dietary carbohydrates, refined grains, glycemic load, and risk of coronary heart disease in Chinese adults.
Yu D, Shu XO, Li H, Xiang YB, Yang G, Gao YT, Zheng W, Zhang X.
The potential long-term association between carbohydrate intake and the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) remains unclear, especially among populations who habitually have high-carbohydrate diets. We prospectively examined intakes of carbohydrates and staple grains as well as glycemic index and glycemic load in relation to CHD among 117,366 Chinese women and men (40-74 years of age) without history of diabetes, CHD, stroke, or cancer at baseline in Shanghai, China. Diet was assessed using validated food frequency questionnaires. Incident CHD cases were ascertained during follow-ups (in women, the mean was 9.8 years and in men, the mean was 5.4 years) and confirmed by medical records. Carbohydrate intake accounted for 67.5% of the total energy intake in women and 68.5% in men. Seventy percent of total carbohydrates came from white rice and 17% were from refined wheat products. Positive associations between carbohydrate intakess and CHD were found in both sexes (all P for heterogeneity > 0.35). The combined multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios for the lowest to highest quartiles of carbohydrate intake, respectively, were 1.00, 1.38, 2.03, and 2.88 (95% confidence interval: 1.44, 5.78; P for trend = 0.001). The combined hazard ratios comparing the highest quartile with the lowest were 1.80 (95% confidence interval: 1.01, 3.17) for refined grains and 1.87 (95% confidence interval: 1.00, 3.53) for glycemic load (both P for trend = 0.03).
High carbohydrate intake, mainly from refined grains, is associated with increased CHD risk in Chinese adults.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jan;89(1):283-9. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2008.26356. Epub 2008 Dec 3.
Dietary carbohydrates, fiber, and breast cancer risk in Chinese women.
Wen W1, Shu XO, Li H, Yang G, Ji BT, Cai H, Gao YT, Zheng W.
Few studies have investigated the association of dietary carbohydrate and fiber intake with breast cancer risk in women in China, where carbohydrate intake is traditionally high.
The objective was to prospectively evaluate the association of dietary carbohydrates, glycemic index, glycemic load, and dietary fiber with breast cancer risk and to determine whether the effect of these dietary intakes is modified by age and selected insulin- or estrogen-related risk factors.
A total of 74,942 women aged 40-70 y were recruited into the Shanghai Women's Health Study, a population-based cohort study. Dietary intake was assessed by in-person interviews. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to evaluate associations.
During an average of 7.35 y of follow-up, 616 incident breast cancer cases were documented. A higher carbohydrate intake was associated with a higher risk of premenopausal breast cancer (P for trend = 0.002). Compared with the lowest quintile, the hazard ratios (and 95% CIs) were 1.47 (1.00, 2.32) and 2.01 (1.26, 3.19) for the fourth and fifth quintiles, respectively. A similar pattern was found for glycemic load. The association between carbohydrate intake and breast cancer was significantly modified by age; the increased breast cancer risk associated with carbohydrate intake was restricted to women who were younger than 50 y. No significant association of breast cancer risk with glycemic index or dietary fiber intake was found.
Our data suggest that a high carbohydrate intake and a diet with a high glycemic load may be associated with breast cancer risk in premenopausal women or women <50 y.
Yes I know Campbell is a very poor scientist indeed. But he has spent his working life claiming to be one. You would think he would actually display or have some respect for the power of the scientific method (when properly and rigorously applied).
Sadly that's not the case and why Campbell is a disgrace to science. Unfortunately it is an all too common trend (dumping the principles of good science) that I've witnessed in my own area of science (ecology/evolutionary biology).
The one thing I hate more than anything else in the world is an intellectually dishonest ideologue. Campbell is obviously such a creature. Data dredging is only the start of his egregious 'scientific' conduct.
(I was taught ecology by Profs. Andrewartha and Birch)
Yes Peter over at Hyperlipid is always good on pointing out many of these 'high fat low carb' animal studies have chow with 20, 30, even 40% carbs - often very simple carbs along with really bad fats.
Once this is pointed out the immediate question is thus: "can the people that conducted this study be as totally stupid as they appear to be?"
Well in some cases I'm sure they are but they can't all be. Instead science has slowly being losing its integrity with an insidious form of corruption. A game called "chase the money" , and "chase the significant p value", and "chase the peer-reviewed publication".
Is it any wonder that 'nutritional science' has been in such a bad way for so long? And that the public are so confused?
As for peer-review if only people knew just how slack that process can be they would be shocked. Like the person I know that has a policy of only spending a maximum of 30 minutes reading time on each paper he is asked to 'rigorously' review! No wonder editors love him, for some strange reason he is always very quick to get his feedback to them.
Anyway that's a whole other story (the amount of crap science - in general - published in any one year).
( The Truth About Wheat, Carbs, and Sugar - Your Brains Silent Killers)
Makes a very interesting read!!
I was ment to post this link! Sorry
Just take a hungry child and put him in a room with a banana and a rabbit, which one do you think he will try to eat? Doesn't that mean anything to you?