Pizza without bread: Meatza


Here is yesterdays dinner: Meatza. It’s LCHF pizza with minced meat as the bottom. Not bad at all, and after just two pieces I was completely full. That never happened when I ate flour pizza.

Eating this delicious meatza I missed nothing, and I suspect any kids in the family would feel the same way.

Want to try it?

1 2 3


  1. Kärnfrisk
    I'm talking real life here, not studies. It does not matter if your stomach is full of cabbage. The nutrient density is so low that you in fact starve on such a diet, despite a high caloric count. You now, calories don't equal nutrients. And calories from carbs isn't the same thing as kalories from fat or protein. The body metabolise them in quite different ways. If you don't know that you don't even have the most basic ideas of how the body works. 

    Oh wow, the dude survived one whole week on potatoes. Fantastic. Even I would do that. And of course you haven't looked in to Viljamur Stefansson. He ate nothing else, absolutely nothing else than meat for a year. With your theory he should propably not have survived. At least be very sick after the trial. But guess what?

    Get a reality check, Göran S...sorry Jon.

  2. Kärnfrisk
    Oh wow. But I had a great grandmother who got 98 years old on real meditteranian diet (lots of pork and lard) with a perfect health up to a couple of weeks before her death (she even didn't need glasses to read, only a good lamp). And she was a heavy smoker as well. Unfortenately I don't have a youtube clip to proof it, since internet wasn't invented when she died.
  3. Funderaren
    First: What LCHF trails?
    Second: LCHF is not calorie restricted.

    You seem to have no idea what LCHF is. Because you constantly mix it up with other diets. The obvious answer is that you just post any criticism you can find about lowcarb diets. When your information isnt correct like your notion that LCHF is a high protein diet or a calorie restricted diet you ignore that information and continue to post because otherwise your critique wouldnt work. Please read what LCHF is before giving critique.

    A lowcarb diet is any diet low on carbs. LCHF is a diet low of carbs high in fat and medium in protein. Some low carb diets is low carb, low fat and high protein. LCHF is also very much about natural food, were other lowcarb diets seems to promote industrial products like low carb candy or low carb pasta.

  4. Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt, MD Team Diet Doctor

    I didn't have an access to personally check the references. Only heard about the results via third party.

    And yet you say you are 100% sure? That sounds like a strong religious faith in veganism to me, not science.

  5. Jon

    When I read about a work by a scientist, highly decorated one from an Ivy League University I expect the sources are correct. And I still do. That's not religious. The burden of evidence is on you.


    I cannot come up with many more food items which would be more nutrient-rich than cabbage. Maybe kale. The only problems with these super-duper nutrient-rich foods, veggies, is that they don't have enough stored sugar (starch) or simple sugar (fruit). That's why they are low in calorities and cannot never make the bulk of our diet. We would have to eat them all day along to live. We humans are sweet-seekers. Sugar-eaters (starch & fruits). I prefer just fruits, and just occasionally, or when broke, eat starches (batates or potatoes, buckwheat or millet, the last ones being the only alcaline-forming grains, I don't want to burden my body too much with acidic-forming foods, health-nut as I am).

    Anyways, I understand your point. I have a LCHF-grandmother as well. Although, yesterday we heard that a she had finally been diagnosed with lugn cancer. Already over eighty, had smoked atleast five decades. Other than that, doing great. All of her friends who lived more or less likely as she are dead, though. There's are always those with exceptional genes, who can takes almost burden imaginable, those at the extreme right of the bell-curve.


    The patients in in almost all of the LCHF-trials have been forced to restrict their calories.

  6. Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt, MD Team Diet Doctor

    ...I expect the sources are correct... The burden of evidence is on you.

    None of the three references you gave were a randomized controlled trial. That's not rocket science, that's not even debatable, that's just a simple fact. Anyone with an internet access can easily check it for themselves using pubmed.

    Denying it without even looking yourself is just silly I'm afraid.

  7. Jon

    It's you who have no idea about LCHF. The WHO recommendation for protein intake for Westerners is 5%, and there's 2,5% safety marginal (they have a two-tier recommendation for developed and developing countries). You can top that requirement no matter what food you eat, as long as you eat enough calories. Rice has 8% of protein f.e. Fruits have 4-9% protein. When the bulk of your calories come from meat and/or dairy it's impossible to be on a "medium protein-diet". You'll protein intake will automatically heavily towards the 20%. For LCHF-crew, that's even more.

  8. Jon

    The burden of evidence is on you.

    None of the three references you gave were a randomized controlled trial. That's hardly rocket science, that's just a simple fact. Anyone with an internet access can easily check it for themselves using pubmed.

    Denying it without even taking a look for yourself is just silly I'm afraid".

    Okay, let's say you are correct. Anderson and Pritikin center certainly performed controlled studies on diabetes. And the results are exactly those who I reported them. I don't have the book with me, so I cannot tell whether I gave you the correct sources. Let's assume for now on, that I screwed up and accidently recited false sources. I get back on this by tomorrow evening. Why would Campbell have stated that they were controlled studies, when basically everyone can check them?

  9. Jon

    did you saw this already?

    Check out this as well,

    Under the headline...

    "Results of the Pritikin Program in controlling Type 2 diabetes"

  10. Jon

    Yeah, I checked. Yes, you were correct, these were pilot studies, which lacked the random-component. Nevertheless the content is exactly as I reported it. Campbell never used the term "random", so this was totally my mistake. Nevertheless we received very good info, achieved in a clinical set-up. Lot of good info which you will ofcourse pass to your patients, unless you have better way of curing diabetes and putting people off from pills and shots.

  11. Funderaren
    Jon so if 10% are low and 20% are high, is medium 15% then?

    And if 20% is high would a diet of 20% carb, 20% fat and 20% protein be a HighCarb, HighFat and HighProtein diet? HCHFHP?

  12. Milton
    Campbell responded to Minger twice. In his original reply ( he admits he "quickly scan[ned] the text" of her deconstruction of his work, then complains that her comments are "almost all [...] based on her citing univariate correlations in the China project" and admits that these correlations can be used to create a misleading impression. In his second and more formal response ( he starts, once again, by admitting that he was unable to 'read all of the discussions and questions raised.'

    Both times, he makes sure to remind us that she is just a young lady, and not a statistician or epidemiologist. Once again, he bases much of his response on her use of "unadjusted correlations." He implies that she may be funded by groups like the Weston Price Foundation, though she denies this and he has no proof of such funding. This also ignores that most researchers are able to complete their work via grants from industry and government groups who have their own agendas. And of course, he cannot hang this accusation on Colpo, who clearly states up-front that he has no ties (financial or otherwise) to any industry concerns or lobbying groups.

    Campbell also refers to some of his own scientific research, but Colpo blew some very big holes in that portion of Campbell's work (for example, Campbell notes research showing that feeding casein to lab rats increased their cancer risk. Colpo responds that Campbell omits, deliberately or otherwise, research showing that feeding rats whey protein lowered the risk of cancer significantly). Campbell's response to Colpo's claims were much the same as his response to Minger; Colpo isn't a scientist or epidemiologist, and thus can be safely ignored. He did not respond to the points Colpo made, however.

    Colpo's response is the natural one: it does not inspire confidence in Campbell or his book, when such unlearned non-professionals can so effectively dismantle his work. Minger took Campbell's replies more seriously and produced an extensive and detailed counter-response ( which we can only assume Campbell is "too busy" to read. While she goes into considerable detail, she begins by pointing out that "[e]very time I employed a univariate correlation, it was because Campbell had done so first, under the same circumstances. Every. Time." Which is a reminder that Campbell is being remarkably hypocritical when he tries to dismiss her work because of the data she used and how she used it.

    Jon accuses people of being like a religion or cult, and there is merit to the idea. For many people, the discovery that conventional advice on diet is very wrong and potentially dangerous is indeed an epiphany; a revelation. And I think we are programmed to overreact to such discoveries at first. Most of us will eventually regain our senses and take a more critical look at what we've learned, while others will cling to their new-found faith with dogmatic zeal. I don't doubt that there are many who do so with the low-carb approach. I am just as certain that there are many who do so with the vegan or vegetarian approach. Jon strikes me as an example of this. I suspect that Campbell's China Study had a profound impact on how he views foods and diet, and has taken a dogmatic and religious approach to the book and what it claims.

    I am not concerned about 'converting' Jon, but like him, I see this as an opportunity to help people learn more about diets and health. In this case, I think it's important for a dangerous work like The China Study to be seen for the farce that it is, and for people to understand that the notion that fat or meat are bad for us is nonsense. I would urge anyone who is unsure about the issue to read Minger and Colpo's critiques, as well as Campbell's responses and the counter-responses. See for yourself who is being honest and who is pushing an agenda that could hurt your health over the long term. There is no substitute for learning for yourself what is best for you.

  13. Jon

    10% is definitely the upper-limit for protein. No health seeker should go above. Unless ofcourse you want say "hello" to these symotoms/diseases: bone loss, osteoporisis, kidney damage, kidney stones, immune dysfunction, arthritis, cancer promotion, low-energy, and overall poor health. All of which are linked to high protein consumption.

    A diet cannot be "20% carb, 20% fat and 20%". That would be impossible, since the minerals just make very tiny fractions of our calories. Where would you make the lacking 40% , from alcohol? Well, that contains carbs as well. Anyways, good rule is that we always eat 100% in terms of macronutrients, carbs, fat and protein, out of which protein converts to energy on emergency situation only, you don't want to go on that mode.

  14. Al
    10% protein? that's just plain nuts, I'll listen to my own body before I listen to any government or UN body, I've seen the inside of these organizations and they're full of people who can't get a real job and have an ideological axe to grind. Jon you're welcome to eat what you like and may you live to be 101 but your zealotry is becoming annoying.
  15. Jon
    Deleted, repetitious. / Doc
  16. Jon
    Deleted, repetitious. /Doc
  17. Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt, MD Team Diet Doctor
    You have posted 81 comments in two weeks. It's been interesting hearing your ideas, but now you are just repeating the same old stuff time after time. Hint: That's what people start their own blogs to do.

    You are welcome if you have any new insights. However: just repeating the same stuff that everyone has already heard time after time looks like spam and is just annoying to others. Several people has already complained. That will be deleted.

  18. Al
    Some monkeys are herbivores, some are omnivores, so which monkeys are studied is relevant only if one can show that particular species of monkey havs an identical diet and dietary needs as a human. If I stuff a moneky with dry rice and water I'm going to kill it, does that make rice a poison? As for "surges of energy" let me tell you I feel a "surge of energy" every time I eat a chocolate brownie with soft serve ice-cream, so what? I should live on cake and ice-cream?
  19. Jon
    @Milton, the way it works is that medical journals are always eager to publish critique against studies done. But in order for them to protect their credibility they cannot just publish just anything. They have strict standards, studies must be reviewed and no layman critique is allowed. If the critique by the bloggers was professional the journals would publish it, no other crititeria must be fullfilled. No scientific journal that I am aware has published critique against the China study. The only reason why CC bothers to reply to these laymen is because they excersise big public opinion, unfortunately. I'm not a fad dietist, nor part of religous-like cults. I only read medical journals when it comes to nutrition. This shall be my last post. Doc, I contact you via email at the end of summer. I want to hear your opinion about China S. Is that okay?
  20. Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt, MD Team Diet Doctor
  21. Milton
    The China Study is not a peer-reviewed study or paper, it is a commercially sold book. Therefore, there are no avenues for providing peer-reviewed critiques of it. In any case, that is irrelevant, since the question is whether or not the criticism is accurate or not. That Campbell is unable to respond to specific criticisms of his work indicates that he has taken an untenable position. If his critics truly had nothing useful to say and were just making noise, then he would not have a problem responding to their criticisms and could easily address them.

    And scientific groups and journals are just as capable of being controlled by money and politics as any other. Since so many researchers rely on grants in order to carry out their work (and remain employed) they are often beholden to financial interests. Drug companies, for example, fund a lot of the research into cardiovascular disease, and it's no surprise that so many studies will support drug treatment for health issues, even if the data is unclear or even contradicts their premise! Agriculture is also a big spender, and they have the influence of government on their side as well, since it subsidizes so many big money crops like wheat, corn and soy.

    T. Colin Campbell is not a voice in the wilderness. He is the face of the modern dietary establishment, which has taken an irrational stance against dietary fat and will defend it regardless of what research actually shows (Colpo found that the China project's data showed that meat eaters actually had BETTER indicators for health, the opposite of what Campbell claimed-- Campbell did not address this claim!).

  22. Margaretrc
    @Jon, and oh, the myth that Dr. Atkins died obese and of heart disease persists, thanks to the PETA group. Actually, according to reliable sources, he died from falling on ice and hitting his head. When he entered the hospital he was not obese--not even close--195 lb., I think. He gained (water) weight while in the hospital from the drugs he was put on.
    "What on earth? The vegan-diet did very well. Again you try to confuse people by using the NO-SIGNIFICANT-DIFFERENCE -concept. Basically that's like saying that a car is cheap because it's -17% off. Well, is it cheap? You don't know, since you don't know the base. Skip those market gimmicks." So you are saying that, even though in an actual controlled trial it showed no significant difference from the current standard (and horrible) American diet, the vegetarian diet is somehow wonderful? If you think about it, your car analogy proves our point, not yours!
    "not only are there tons doctors and biochemists who turned from standard American diet to full-fledged plant-eaters (vegans), but thanks to this video you can actually learn to know a man who converted from the standard diet to fully-fledged raw-vegan, only fruits, greens, little bit of nuts and seeds. He has been eating this way for almost 30 years. But pay attention, he eats 3-times a day, but tops atleast, minimium 1000kals at every meal." Anecdotal evidence--doesn't prove anything. I don't think anyone here would say that certain genetically gifted people can't live well on such a diet, which is certainly way better than the average American diet. Just not everyone.
  23. Margaretrc
    @Jon , "@Milton, the way it works is that medical journals are always eager to publish critique against studies done. But in order for them to protect their credibility they cannot just publish just anything. They have strict standards, studies must be reviewed and no layman critique is allowed. " Yes, they have strict standards that anyone who writes anything that goes against established dogma doesn't get published. I know of at least two scientists/doctors with impeccable credentials who could not get articles published in peer reviewed journals because what they found in their research did not fit with the conventional dogma. Personally, I am not interested in where something is published or not or by whom, just whether or not it makes logical and scientific sense. Does the data match the conclusions? Were the studies Random, Controlled studies with an actual control group? Nothing else matters.
  24. Margaretrc
    @ Milton, #62, Well said. I couldn't agree more.
  25. Dalila

    I've never been happier to read a post of yours. So glad you will be leaving.

  26. Jon
    Well, I couldn't resist the last one. Vegan propaganda of the highest order. Vegans the most healthiest, new study.

    "Using the Harvard School of Public Health’s Alternate Healthy Eating Index (AHEI) score, we have found that vegan participants excel in every AHEI category".

    Make sure to not miss "how get diabetic in six-hours", by consuming healthy oils. This is good video also for vegeterians as well, not just for low-carbers.

    Take care, all the best, may you all succeed with your diet/lifestyle

    Buy, Doc!

  27. Jon
    I try to say goodbyes, but it's hard. Quot lying about The China Study, and I'll be off.

    "The China Study is not a peer-reviewed study or paper, it is a commercially sold book. Therefore, there are no avenues for providing peer-reviewed critiques of it"

    Completely rubbish, the data provided by China Study yielded hundreds of articles in peer-reviewed journals. The book China has barely nothing to do with the actual China Study since it's more about the whole story. The message being short from unique. This would be clear to you had youy actually read what Colin Campbell had to say about the study.

    Yes, you are right about drug-money and influence being poured to academia. Colin Campbell tells the whole story, and reveals all the confusion which makes people these days to think eating saturated-fat is good. Cornell University wanted to quit Campbells course thanks to pressures from dairy industry who sponsors the uni. In 2010 Dairy industry sponsored a study which claimed eating saturated fats is good for you. You are exactly on the mainstream league. You parrot the message which dairy & industry has echoed for about hundred of years. Campbell is extremely skeptic curing people with medicine, he is deeply against the influence of drug-industry. His buddy surgeon Esselstyn reversed heart-disease with a diet. He put people of from drugs. There's two people on the planet of earth who have reversed heart-disease on their patients and put them off from the meds for good.

    I am pretty confident that there's not single person the LCHF-fora who has actually read the popularized book, let alone the peer-reviewed research the Cornell-Oxford study yielded.

  28. Kärnfrisk
    And of course our bodies are really stupid, saving excess energy as saturated fat and in fact poison it self. The "helathy" oil has really messed your brain up.
  29. Milton
    @Jon, my response was to your claim that the critiques of the China Study were not peer-reviewed. When I point out that there is no avenue to critique the book, you suddenly change direction and claim that there are lots of articles in peer-reviewed journals. That is not what you said, and not what I was responding to. It's kind of cheap to change course like that and then accuse others of lying or stating rubbish.

    As for reading it, the two people whose critiques I referred to did read it, while Campbell responded to their critiques after admitting that he only skimmed them. You are starting to sound a bit like Campbell, not bothering to respond to the points actually made and moving the goal posts instead. It seems that your source for the claims of monetary influence are Campbell himself-- what a surprise then, that he misleads you into thinking that it only works in one direction!

  30. Jon

    China Study is Oxford-Cornell study, world's most comprehensive epimologic study in nutrition ever carried. The data from the yielded hundreds of paper published in highly looked-up medical journals. Popularized book "The China Study" is about life of Colin Campbell which covers research, society, drug & food industry. The publisher gave the book a silly and misleading name.

    Food industry, especially dairy industry buys all the time studies in appreciated journals publish them. One of these sponsored studies, favoring saturated fats was just published in 2010 in American Journal of Clinical nutrition. So much of of your consipiracy theories and claims of unability to produce articles that challenge the consensus. These papers publish anything that's been camouflaged as professional, but even these journals have some kind of treshold. They cannot make themselves as laughing stocks.

    Papers which indicated that cancer can me produced in mices simply by administrating the level of animal protein appeared already in the 1960's, not done by Campbell. It's long story which you know nothing about. Now, you pretent that a blogger with no formal education has "debunked" biochemist who have discovered a dioxin, a chemical. Please!

  31. Ryan
    Looks delicious (a bit like lasagna). Can you post the recipe?
  32. Milton
    It's amazing how you try to jump around. You said "If the critique by the bloggers was professional the journals would publish it[.]" Those bloggers were critiquing a book based on the China project, not the original epidemiological study. There is no reason to critique the original study, since it is just data! Both Colpo and Minger showed that the data can be used to support the exact opposite of the claims that Campbell made. Their critiques were of Campbell's book, which is NOT a peer-reviewed article!

    And Colpo pointed to work (peer-reviewed research, which he cites!) showing that whey protein fed to rats lowered their risk of cancer significantly. He did so to show that the fancy biochemist with his published work apparently is ignorant of the very area of science that he claims to specialize in!

    Your arguments about the legitimacy of mere bloggers and that of Campbell is exactly the same diversionary tactic that Campbell has employed. He waves his credentials and implies that those bloggers are uneducated and ill-informed. Yet their critiques are quite simple and easy to understand, and he has not refuted them, preferring insults and put-downs instead. It is the sign of someone who cannot defend his position.

    You are willing to cite and accept studies and research that is backed with government and industry dollars if they support your beliefs, then you reject studies and data that go against your beliefs because they are backed by industry dollars. You speak to the purity of the publishing process, then dismiss those published studies that do not support your position. Yet you refer to others as acting like religious fanatics. Heh, okay...

  33. Jon

    "Those bloggers were critiquing a book based on the China project, not the original epidemiological study"

    I don't think you even realize what you talking anymore. Mingers fairytales were already ridiculed by professionals, some of the actually posted in her blog, but Minger was quick to remove them from her site. Normally not a single scholar would publish the rata-date of her/his research, this rarely never happens. What the authors of China Study did was quite exceptionall, because they wanted to be as transparent as possible, the results are too clear. For everyone with a proper education.

    "I should conclude by noting the suggestion of the professional epidemiologist, cited above, who suggested that ultimately Denise may wish to publish her findings in a peer-reviewed journal but who presently felt strongly that the current version would not be accepted. I concur".


    Now, show me critique published in scientific journal in regards to, let say these peer-reviewed articles taken from the data. If you find one, I might actually read it. For the time being, I do not have the time for the blogs of English-teachers.

    Breast-cancer (Marshall JR, Qu Y, Chen J, Parpia B, Campbell TC. Additional ecologic evidence: lipids and breast cancer mortality among women age 55 and over in China. Europ. J. Cancer 1991;28A:1720-1727; Key TJA, Chen J, Wang DY, Pike MC, Boreham J. Sex hormones in women in rural China and in Britain. Brit. J. Cancer 1990;62:631-636.)

    Liver cancer (Campbell TC, Chen J, Liu C, Li J, Parpia B. Non-association of aflatoxin with primary liver cancer in a cross-sectional ecologic survey in the People's Republic of China. Cancer Res. 1990;50:6882-6893; .Youngman LD, Campbell TC. Inhibition of aflatoxin B1-induced gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase positive (GGT+) hepatic preneoplastic foci and tumors by low protein diets: evidence that altered GGT+ foci indicate neoplastic potential. Carcinogenesis 1992;13:1607-1613).

    Energy utilization (Horio F, Youngman LD, Bell RC, Campbell TC. Thermogenesis, low-protein diets, and decreased development of AFB1-induced preneoplastic foci in rat liver. Nutr. Cancer 1991;16:31-41:Campbell TC. Energy balance: interpretation of data from rural China. Toxicological Sciences 1999;52:87-94).

    Colon cancer (Campbell, T.C., Wang G., Chen J., Robertson, J., Chao, Z. and Parpia, B. Dietary fiber intake and colon cancer mortality in The People's Republic of China. In: Dietary Fiber, Chemistry Physiology and Health Effects, (Ed. Kritchevsky, D., Bonfield, C., Anderson, W.), Plenum Press, New York, 473-480, 1990).

    Affluent-Poverty Diseases (Campbell TC, Chen J, Brun T, et al. China: from diseases of poverty to diseases of affluence. Policy implications of the epidemiological transition. Ecol. Food Nutr. 1992;27:133-144).

    Protein-growth rate (Campbell TC, Chen J. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases: a summary of results from an ecologic study in rural China. In: Temple NJ, Burkitt DP, eds. Western diseases: their dietary prevention and reversibility. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 1994:67-118; Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases"perspectives from China. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1994;59:1153S-1161S).

  34. Jon
    I could add that theres no data whatsoever in the book itself. It a story, not a study. So long Miltton, no more to add, peace!
  35. Milton
    I know exactly what I'm talking about. And amazingly, you simply repeated yourself-- condescending to Minger and insinuating that she doesn't know what she is talking about, but NEVER actually addressing the points she made! Amazing. And her response to Campbell's comments contained a wealth of links to research papers and studies printed in those same journals that you believe would not accept shoddy work.

    In fact, she also points out that a 1989 paper by Campbell himself indicated that the causative agent in the cancer-increasing properties of casein intake was not the protein, but the amino-acid lysine was withheld. Once it was reintroduced (a normal occurrence in a typical human diet) the proteins showed cancer risk REDUCTION in rats. Therefore, Campbell KNEW that his claims were false!

    To try to dismiss Minger's work because it isn't in a peer-reviewed journal makes no sense, since for one, she is not critiquing a peer-reviewed work. Second, she has a large number of links to published and peer-reviewed work that backs her claims, and uses Campbell's own work to discredit him. I don't think you've read any of Minger's work at all, or you would understand how absurd it is to try and dismiss it based on her credentials or based on attempts to hand-wave them instead of addressing them.

    Speaking of the health of the Chinese, there was a paper in 2008...
    "Vegetable-rich food pattern is related to obesity in China"

    "Conclusion: The vegetable-rich food pattern was associated with higher risk of obesity/central obesity in Chinese adults in both genders. This association can be linked to the high intake of energy due to generous use of oil for stir-frying the vegetables."

    The funny part is their attempt at blaming the problem on fat by noting the use of oil to fry the vegetables. Which type of oil was prevalent in this group? Vegetable oil. What else did they eat a lot of? Wheat. Diets that included meat, fish, and even alcohol did not show a relationship with obesity.

    Also, Minger discusses each of the papers Campbell cites in defense of his claims re: cancer, and she shows that they don't show anything like what Campbell wants to claim. She also points out that the other low-fat diet gurus show a particular pattern when they promote healthy eating:

    "John McDougall. While McDougall’s program embraces whole plant foods, he also advises against consuming refined flour, refined and sugar-coated cereals, soft drinks, vegetable oils, white rice, and other processed carbohydrates.

    Caldwell Esselstyn, Jr. The diet promoted by Esselstyn involves not only the elimination of animal products, but also the avoidance of vegetable oils and refined grains—including white rice, white flour, and products made from enriched flour such as pastas, breads, bagels, and baked goods.

    Dean Ornish. Along with eschewing meat, Ornish’s program—as outlined in the book Eat More, Weigh Less—also involves reducing “sugar and simple sugar derivatives” such corn syrup, white flour, and white rice, avoiding margarines and vegetable oils, limiting alcohol, and avoiding commercial products with more than two grams of fat per serving, which is likely to disqualify most ready-made processed foods from dieters’ menus.

    Neal Barnard. In his book Dr. Neal Barnard’s Program for Reversing Diabetes, Barnard advises his readers to “keep vegetable oils to a minimum” and “favor foods with a low glycemic index,” which ultimately eliminates refined carbohydrates, most processed foods, high fructose corn syrup, and other common sweeteners. Barnard also recommends avoiding fried foods, including fried starches such as potato chips and French fries.

    Joel Fuhrman. Along with reducing or eliminating animal products, the diet Joel Fuhrman espouses shuns refined grains, refined oils, and refined sweets; Furhman lists these foods as less healthful than all forms of animal food in terms of nutrient density, and notes that “eating a diet that contains a significant quantity of sugar and refined flour … leads to an earlier death.” Fuhrman also notes that “a low-fat diet can be worse than a higher-fat diet” if it centers on refined carbohydrates and contains trans fat, stating specifically:

    'A vegetarian whose diet is mainly refined grains, cold breakfast cereals, processed health food store products, vegetarian fast foods, white rice, and pasta will be worse off than a person who eats a little turkey, chicken, fish, or eggs but consumes large volumes of fruits, vegetables, and beans.'"

    It is interesting to note that the low-fat gurus who blame fat and meat for our problems ALL agree on the importance of reducing or eliminating refined sugars, refined carbs, vegetable oils, and grains. Yet they blame fat and protein for our ills. It would be comical if it wasn't so dangerous!

  36. Milton
    Regarding the 2008 study, Michael Eades adds:

    "There is absolutely no difference in the amount of fat consumed in the group that ate the most vegetables as compared to the group who ate the least. In men the grams of fat were exactly the same in both groups; in women their was a slight difference, but it didn’t reach statistical significance. And as a percent of energy intake (the measurement the mainstream loves), fat intake dropped from 32 percent to 31 percent in both males and females as vegetable intake went up."

    So although the researchers tried to blame fat, their own data does not support the contention. Not surprisingly, the mainstream press ignored this study, with the exception of an online site that blamed the obesity problem on... that's right, excess fat in the diet! And yet, excess fat wasn't the problem, and if it was, it was due to the use of vegetable oils, not animal fats.

  37. Jon

    here's a response to Denise Mingers "critique" by a professional cancer epimologist. Dennis Minger removed her comment from her blog. That's so sad.

    It's here, pay as much of attention to it, as you do pay those who've "debunked" China Study.

    Posting peer-reviewed research doesn not mean a thing. You do that as well, without having the capabilities to fully absord what you are doing. And you are a football-field away from being scientific.

    You posted a link to WHI-trial which claimed that colon cancer has nothing to do with meat and fiber intake. Well you know what? That study, unlike the China Study has been refuted and debunked from the waist down, in a scientific journal. It has a huge methodologic flaw.

    The study only studied a small, very carnivorous nurse group in the USA. There's no international context. All the reference group ate the same animal-rich diet. The only difference was that one group tinkered with fat (40% vs. 30%). We could as well say that according to the data there's no disease in the world which would be linked to nutrition. Yet, DietDoc and the LCHF-crew claims disease is linked to nutrition, yet they also use the very same data which affirms the opposite in order to advocate their fatty-diets. Where's the logic? (It would have been more meaningfull if one of the reference group had eaten vegan-diet with 30% of fat, f.e). WHI-trial and the Nurse study are the most useless papers ever published on nutrition due to the lack of international comparison. They studied a single group with identical dietary patterns.

    Now, the most comprehensive study ever done on colorectal cancer, from two weeks ago, told the very exact opposite. Colon cancer is due to red-meat.

    And now, what's the fuss with vegetable oils? They are junk food, empty calories. Completely useless products for humans. The "low-fat gurus" focus on whole-foods. Not mechanically pressed, empty concentration of calories. Which indeed make you fat and sick. I don't want to see people using dietary oils, vegetable or animal, no difference. All the essential fats are to be found in whole-foods.

  38. Kärnfrisk
  39. Jon
    After Denis Minger was completely refuted in her critique she wrote this to a forum.

    "BTW, I did run more complex modeling/multiple regression analysis on the data and found the trends held true, and in fact were even more accentuated than using simpler linear models and stratification. I didn't publish these on my critique due to space and complexity (usually readers don't want to be inundated with a bunch of statistics jargon), but I'll start compiling the data for another post that statisticians and epidemiologists might take interest in. I'll see if _______ has suggestions for other analytical methods as well.

    Thanks again. "

    I emphasize, she didn't want to publish her critique "due to space and complexity (usually readers don't want to be inundated with a bunch of statistics jargon)"


    Since she did not want to publich her crtique so she was adviced to sent it to a scientific journal :)

    After Minger published her last 30+pages critique, a legitimate concern over whether she has ever read the book of went through the raw-data was raised. (It was exceptional that the raw-data was published, a prime example transparency from behalf of the researchers, something like this rarely ever happens in science).

    Not a single scientific platform has publish Denise Mingers findings, which is weird since according to her it should be of great interest for cancer epimologist. We have to wait :)

  40. Jon
    Those links I posted provides very nice archieve of what has been said by Denise Minger and the Weston Price Foundations Chris Masterjohn (both laymen) and by those who've debunked the "debunkers". You can through of those links and eventually make your own-mind.


    I am just trying to look for Campbells and Cordain debate. I could only found this from the wikipedia-entry. Atleast Cordain was clever enough not to start to question the validity of raw-data and loose his academic credibility which would have eventually followed after such silly feat.

    "In a written debate with Campbell, Dr. Loren Cordain, a professor at Colorado State University, argued that "the fundamental logic underlying Colin’s hypothesis (that low protein diets improve human health) is untenable and inconsistent with the evolution of our own species," and that "a large body of experimental evidence now demonstrates a higher intake of lean animal protein reduces the risk for gout, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, dyslipidemia, obesity, insulin resistance, and osteoporosis." Campbell responded by questioning the implications of the evidence Cordain noted, and argued that "diet-disease associations observed in contemporary times are far more meaningful than what might have occurred during evolutionary times—at least since the last 2.5 million years or so"

    -All the best.

    Hopefully Doc won't edit this stuff eventhough I broke my promise to not leave. Atleast I haven't opened any threads. And I won't be doing so. This stuff might also interest some of the readers of his blog as well.

  41. Jon
    Here's Campbells response to critique in regards to the rat-studies, again stuff that comes from people who have never even the read the book, let alone never published anything on scientific journals. After the technical stuff, Campbell points out this.

    "On one final point, those who lament a 'serious flaw' in The China Study mostly limit their arguments to the China project itself, as if this is all there is in our book. It is not. It is only one of the eighteen chapters. These critics fail to note what Tom and I tried to do in writing the book".

    The message of the China Study is long from unique. And ultimately these critiquers enunciate that we huge pile of flawed research all the way from the 1940's. hmmm....

    "In our case, for example, we found that casein was a powerful promoter of experimental cancer… Wheat protein, unlike casein for example, did not stimulate cancer development but when its limiting amino acid, lysine, was restored, it acted just like casein".

    There's no real evidence Camobell and his team has never ignored anything.

  42. Jon
    And to make things even more intriguing. To avoid being associated with being biased, it should not a good idea to speak at the meat-producers lobby-organizations Weston Price Foundations seminar, which is exactly Denise Minger is doing this summer. Did someone actually believe a 23-year old English teacher was capable for putting up 30+pages critique on China Study herself? Hehe....

    Dr Lustig, f.e certainly has been very clear with his hopes to be not associated with the low-carb advocate -clique

  43. Milton
    30 Bananas a Day is a vegan site, and those posts were made at the time of Campbell's formal response to Minger and Minger's longer and more detailed counter-response. There is nothing there that debunks anything Minger wrote, and I've already addressed the utter silliness of asking her to submit her writings for peer-review. Campbell's book is not a peer-reviewed work. The China project is data, not a peer-reviewed work. Campbell has not addressed Minger's specific and very clear deconstruction of his work, nor did he address any of Colpo's points (which covered more than just his interpretation of the China project data).

    And again you mention Campbell's claims regarding Casein, although I already linked and quoted TWO people who point out that he effectively rigged the casein test and that other research (including that by Campbell himself!) showed that whey protein had a beneficial effect on health and cancer risk. I guess you are free to continue to mention work that has already been discredited, but that won't change the fact that it's an example of bad science. Only Campbell can address that issue, and he has not.

    And that last link is more of the same; Campbell spends several paragraphs demeaning his critics and trying to imply that financial interests are at work there, then mentions decades of studies without providing references, and complains that people are focusing on the China project data and ignoring the rest of the book. He doesn't address the issues that have been raised regarding lysine inhibition and the benefits of whey protein intake, nor does he address Minger's point-- if a plant-based diet provides the full spectrum of protein and amino acids as Campbell claims in his book, then why isn't a plant-based diet also a cancer risk?

  44. Milton
    Harriet Hall posted a pretty good critique of Campbell's book, and included references showing how a number of his claims are supported by links to questionable research, or research that doesn't actually prove his claims!

    She also links to peer-reviewed work that shows that a vegetarian diet shows no difference in cancer-related or overall mortality when compared with other diets. Most studies showing any benefit are due to factors other than meat intake; this is supported by studies that indicate an increased risk to health from a vegan or vegetarian diet. Observational studies, as I've pointed out before, can show a varied number of end results because they show the influence of many variables. By themselves, they provide a strong case that a diet that includes meat and fat, or is even rich in both, is not detrimental to health.

  45. Jon
    Sure 30bananas a day is a vegan site, pay attention to the substance, not on your ideology, or ideology of any others. We are now dealing with a professional cancer-epimologist who do publish her works in peer-reviewed papers.

    This professional cancer epimologist assisted Minger to a study of her own, using the raw-data. Check it out. Excellent lecture in statistics, btw.

    The last hint for Minger was:

    7. Publish:

    "I can't stress this enough. This is a long-term goal for sure, especially as you will likely end up with multiple papers! But once you think you've got the data set-up and analyses down, you need to write it up and send it on for peer-review. Peer-review is not perfect for sure, but it is the best measure we have for good science. It gives credibility to your efforts. Besides, you *do* want to be acknowledged for your efforts, right? By publishing in a peer-reviewed journal, you're more likely to gain more widely publicized attention, which I think should be the goal of most epidemiological studies; we want to improve public health through informing not only our peers, but also the public".


    As said Miltton, as you provide critique that has been subjected to the scrutinity of a scientific journal, I will be actually considering taking you seriously.

    And don't worry, once Minger ran down on ammo's her crew from the Weston Price Foundation indeed came up with critisism. Those rebuttals have also peen rebutted, as said those links I said provided I good archieve.


    Minger assessed that she posses highly valid information that might be of great interest to cancer epimologists. She is doing a great disservice for the world by witholding her findings. This is not good thing, only a corrupt person would withold important findings from his/her fellow human beings. Unless her finding are waiting to be published, ofcourse.

  46. Jon

    I already covered Harriet Hall's opinions on a post 32. I am asking scientific platforms, not ones which are camouflaged as one. Her critique in the form of putting links to amazon-discussion pages and linking her opinion to Weston-Price Foundations propaganda was cute. She has no clue whatsoever she is talking. She even dared to postulate Inuits having low-rates of, No Miltton she did not provide good critisism.

    On Vegan-health you read about via paper that came last week.

    "Using the Harvard School of Public Health’s Alternate Healthy Eating Index (AHEI) score, we have found that vegan participants excel in every AHEI category".


    So much for Weston-Price Propaganda and onlines pages camouflaged to look like a scientific platform. Inuits have the shortest life-span among the people of the globe. Any more "criticism" or rather propaganda in regards to China Study?

    "Low incidence of cardiovascular disease among the Inuit--what is the evidence?" (2003)

    "FINDINGS: The evidence for a low mortality from IHD among the Inuit is fragile and rests on unreliable mortality statistics. Mortality from stroke, however, is higher among the Inuit than among other western populations"

    LCHF = the brigade for Meat & Dairy industry".

  47. Jon
    Ouh, I forgot. Here's the link where a pro cancer epimologist offered herself to help-out Minger. Excellent lecture on statistics. Denise actually asked for a help from her, as she had previously refuted her completely. I love this whole story.

    "Hi Denise,

    As promised, I'm posting my response to your email [yes, she emailed me] on your site. You asked that I provide some tips on where to start and how to proceed......................"

  48. Jon
    Rudeness, deleted. /Doc
1 2 3

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts