https://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/minger_formal_response2.pdf
Conclusion:
If both whole-food vegan diets and non-Westernized omnivorous diets yield similar health benefits, this is a strong indication that the results achieved by McDougall, Esselstyn, Ornish, et al are not due to the avoidance of animal products but to the elimination of other health-harming items. Western diets involve far more than increased consumption of animal products, and for some groups—such as Alaskan Natives—a switch from a traditional diet to a Westernized one entails reduced animal food consumption, with the caloric void replaced by refined carbohydrates, hydrogenated oils, grains, sugar, and convenience foods. The fact that a dietary shift towards Western fare inevitably leads to proliferation of ―diseases of affluence‖— regardless of changes in animal food consumption—suggests that another factor, or lattice of factors, instigates this decline in health. The success of the Chinese on plant-based diets does not invalidate the experiences of other populations who evade disease while consuming animal products. Nor does individual success on a vegan program nullify the disease reversal seen by those adhering to specific omnivorous diets. Rather than studying the dissimilarities between healthy populations, perhaps we should examine their areas of convergence—the shared lack of refined carbohydrates, the absence of refined sweeteners and hydrogenated oils, the emphasis on whole, unprocessed foods close to their natural state, and the consumption of nutritionally dense fare rather than empty calories or ingredients concocted in a lab setting. Modern foods, and the diseases they herald, have usurped the dietary seats once occupied by more wholesome fare. It is this commonality—the thread bonding healthy populations—that may offer the most meaningful insight into human health. A theory as purportedly universal as Campbell’s should, by definition, unite the various health and disease patterns of global cultures without generating frequent anomalies. By naming animal products as the source of Western afflictions, Campbell has created a hypothesis valid only under hand-picked circumstances—one that cannot account for other epidemiological trends or even recent case-controlled studies. This is a symptom of a deficient theory, embodying only partial truths about broader diet-disease mechanisms. I propose that the China Study remains a largely untapped resource for revealing potential diethealth patterns, expanded awareness of the source of disease, and inlets for future nutritional research—possibilities Campbell has not fully explored in his quest to validate a predetermined hypothesis. I invite Campbell, if he has the time and the interest, to present a more detailed account of his methodology, such as the unpublished book chapter he cited in his first response to my critique.129 It is only through ongoing discussion and clarification that the field of nutrition can continue to evolve, progressing towards an increasingly unified understanding of health. Lastly, I suggest that the ―symphony‖ Campbell has heard thus far is only a partial opus. To cease listening now would be—at best—a missed opportunity for heightened health awareness, and at worst a perpetuation of the misinformation already degrading public and scientific understanding of diet and disease. I thank Dr. Campbell for both the harmonies and the dissonance his work has supplied to the field of nutrition, but implore him to continue listening. The final note has not yet sounded.
Conclusion:
If both whole-food vegan diets and non-Westernized omnivorous diets yield similar health benefits, this is a strong indication that the results achieved by McDougall, Esselstyn, Ornish, et al are not due to the avoidance of animal products but to the elimination of other health-harming items. Western diets involve far more than increased consumption of animal products, and for some groups—such as Alaskan Natives—a switch from a traditional diet to a Westernized one entails reduced animal food consumption, with the caloric void replaced by refined carbohydrates, hydrogenated oils, grains, sugar, and convenience foods. The fact that a dietary shift towards Western fare inevitably leads to proliferation of ―diseases of affluence‖— regardless of changes in animal food consumption—suggests that another factor, or lattice of factors, instigates this decline in health. The success of the Chinese on plant-based diets does not invalidate the experiences of other populations who evade disease while consuming animal products. Nor does individual success on a vegan program nullify the disease reversal seen by those adhering to specific omnivorous diets. Rather than studying the dissimilarities between healthy populations, perhaps we should examine their areas of convergence—the shared lack of refined carbohydrates, the absence of refined sweeteners and hydrogenated oils, the emphasis on whole, unprocessed foods close to their natural state, and the consumption of nutritionally dense fare rather than empty calories or ingredients concocted in a lab setting. Modern foods, and the diseases they herald, have usurped the dietary seats once occupied by more wholesome fare. It is this commonality—the thread bonding healthy populations—that may offer the most meaningful insight into human health. A theory as purportedly universal as Campbell’s should, by definition, unite the various health and disease patterns of global cultures without generating frequent anomalies. By naming animal products as the source of Western afflictions, Campbell has created a hypothesis valid only under hand-picked circumstances—one that cannot account for other epidemiological trends or even recent case-controlled studies. This is a symptom of a deficient theory, embodying only partial truths about broader diet-disease mechanisms. I propose that the China Study remains a largely untapped resource for revealing potential diethealth patterns, expanded awareness of the source of disease, and inlets for future nutritional research—possibilities Campbell has not fully explored in his quest to validate a predetermined hypothesis. I invite Campbell, if he has the time and the interest, to present a more detailed account of his methodology, such as the unpublished book chapter he cited in his first response to my critique.129 It is only through ongoing discussion and clarification that the field of nutrition can continue to evolve, progressing towards an increasingly unified understanding of health. Lastly, I suggest that the ―symphony‖ Campbell has heard thus far is only a partial opus. To cease listening now would be—at best—a missed opportunity for heightened health awareness, and at worst a perpetuation of the misinformation already degrading public and scientific understanding of diet and disease. I thank Dr. Campbell for both the harmonies and the dissonance his work has supplied to the field of nutrition, but implore him to continue listening. The final note has not yet sounded.
post #140 is also written by Denise as i didnt make that clear
post 143 provides her formal response to Dr Campbell ( just provided the conclusion) .....think she spent some time on that? 36 pages with citations ..LMFAO......
i think this gives us an idea ...
'My post-college education strategy has been simple. I approach the field of nutrition like learning a new language: total immersion-style. You didnÂ’t learn your native tongue by sitting in a classroom following grammar lessons; you learned it by jumping into an initially confusing world and feeling your way around until it all started making sense. Every day, I make a conscious effort to surround myself with learning opportunities. I read everything I can get my hands on, from statistics textbooks to scientific papers. I find curricula posted on university websites, copy the lesson plans that look relevant, and acquire the reading material from the library instead of paying thousands of dollars for classroom instruction. If I canÂ’t grasp something on my own, I email or call smart people and ask them to help me. My goal is to understand. I donÂ’t stop digging until IÂ’ve plowed to the bottom and broken my shovel trying to go even deeper.'
post 143 provides her formal response to Dr Campbell ( just provided the conclusion) .....think she spent some time on that? 36 pages with citations ..LMFAO......
i think this gives us an idea ...
'My post-college education strategy has been simple. I approach the field of nutrition like learning a new language: total immersion-style. You didnÂ’t learn your native tongue by sitting in a classroom following grammar lessons; you learned it by jumping into an initially confusing world and feeling your way around until it all started making sense. Every day, I make a conscious effort to surround myself with learning opportunities. I read everything I can get my hands on, from statistics textbooks to scientific papers. I find curricula posted on university websites, copy the lesson plans that look relevant, and acquire the reading material from the library instead of paying thousands of dollars for classroom instruction. If I canÂ’t grasp something on my own, I email or call smart people and ask them to help me. My goal is to understand. I donÂ’t stop digging until IÂ’ve plowed to the bottom and broken my shovel trying to go even deeper.'
Bunch of meat eating honkies!
Thank you Trump!
Im not angry, just fed up. There is no agreeing on this subject. 90% of people have never tried being a vegan let alone sustained it. I have first hand experience. How can you argue eating animals is healthy? Especially in comparison to a plant based diet. What do think I've done the last 7 years? Research, I'm not just making this stuff up. I guarantee most people in here don't know their body chemistry and how it works. Including zit. So I have a hard time believing they no what to give their body. Just look at his comments and it's clearly illustrated he has no clue about nutrition. Only thing he will do is post some study funded by a meat/dairy corporation lol. Most of y'all are brainwashed. Wake up.
Like I said, nothing wrong with a diet with some lean meat, and even a nice fatty steak once in a while, but brain-washed assholes like you need to force your agenda on everyone around you.
I have no clue about nutrition? Fuck off asshole, I have more brain cells in my fucking hemorrhoids than you'll ever have. You're not educated, you're not intelligent *and* you're a douche bag.
well i'm glad you're not angry. Not a good way to live ...with resentment. Anyway, i'm a bit confused. If you're fed up then why did you bump this thread with a post on 9/3, then two days later 9/5? If you know there is no agreeing on this subject then why do you continue with it? Why are you letting the opinion of non-vegans bother you so (these are people you've never met)?
glad the lifestyle is working for you. My brother is a vegan as well
many ways to skin a cat.Be careful with creating dogma bro, it closes the mind. We go looking to feed it. Just sayin'...
