Two Books -- Carnivore vs Vegan
Many people are rightly confused by the differing and changing advisories handed down to the public by nutritionists and governments. I've just read two books with diametrically opposed messages and would like to present a brief critique.
1. "Whole", by Colin Campbell, is the sequel to his best-selling book, "The China Study". These books provide major support for complete avoidance of animal product consumption.
2. "The Big Fat Surprise", by Nina Teicholz, "lays out the scientific case for why our bodies are healthiest on a diet with ample amounts of fat and why this regime necessarily includes meat, eggs, butter, and other animal foods high in saturated fat."
As a naturopath with unending thirst for knowledge, insatiable curiosity, and an open, but critical mind wanting to uncover truth wherever it is found, I approached these books with hope of clarifying the issue of carnivore vs vegan. The following are my impressions.
Teicholz, an investigative journalist, spent 9 years reading thousands of scientific papers, attending conferences and conducting hundreds of interviews of nutrition experts and food company executives. One cannot help but be impressed by her thoroughness. The book discusses dozens, if not hundreds, of the studies used to support the hypotheses that saturated fat from animal products must be reduced in order to prevent heart disease, obesity and cancer. She traces in detail the development of the hypotheses, the personalities involved, and the path to public acceptance. She also presents many studies favorable to animal fats, plus real-world evidence of populations which maintain excellent health while receiving a large proportion of their calories from animal fat.
In my opinion, she succeeds in demolishing this particular "fat causes disease" hypothesis. It was never based on solid science, but on correlations between populations, beginning with the work of leading nutritionist, Ancel Keyes, who chose several populations and found that those who ate the most animal fat had the most heart disease. So what? The basic tenet of this type of study is that correlation does not imply causation. Keyes did not ask the questions of whether the same people also ate more sugar or trans-fat, or whether exercised or were exposed to more stress and toxins. He also chose certain populations, while ignoring others with different statistics.
For over thirty years after the United States government agencies began recommending lower fat consumption, there were no clinical trials done to support Keyes' hypothesis. Finally when the results came back from the Woman's Health Initiative (WHI) trial including 49,000 women, it was found that after a decade of eating more fruits, vegetables and whole grains, while cutting back on meat and fat, these women failed to lose weight and showed no reduction in their risk for heart disease or cancer.
The above is merely a couple of details. I highly suggest reading this book, and I give it 5 stars. Quite simply, Teicholz does not expect us to believe her, but to examine the evidence. I believe her conclusions.
Colin Campbell has a long list of scientific credentials – PhD at Cornell and Research Associate at MIT in nutrition, biochemistry and toxicology, author of over 300 scientific papers and service on expert committees. I began reading "Whole" with the hope and expectation that he would convincingly and thoroughly present the case for consumption of a Whole-Food, Plant-Based (WFPB) diet, as he calls it.
Not only was I disappointed, but actually shocked at the discrepancy between Campbell's credentials and how poorly this scientist presents his case. After reading the book, I simply don't believe him.
His journey to the conclusion that animal protein is the primary cause of cancer and other diseases began with his experiments on rats exposed to large amounts of aflatoxin. He clearly showed that rats fed the milk protein, casein, developed cancer, while those who ate plant proteins did not. One of Campbell's foundation principles is that what he calls "reductionist" science – the "mental prison" of isolation of a nutrient, biological process or other detail, while ignoring the big picture – has led to the ills of modern society. Although he himself recognized that these rat experiments conducted early in his career were reductionist science, he certainly seems to have ignored his own warnings. These studies are presented as an important foundation for his eventual blanket conclusion that all animal protein is bad for us.
The merits of, and problems with the China Study have been debated in depth on the internet, so I won't present full arguments here, but again, Campbell breaks his own rules. Large parts of both of his books are dedicated to ranting against the way research is conducted and interpreted, yet I was unable to understand how he can jump from the epidemiological data presented in the study to his broad conclusions about the dangers of animal protein.
Campbell accuses researchers of ignoring "outlier" evidence which challenges their paradigms. However, Campbell himself fails to relate to any outlier evidence, as opposed to Teicholz's meticulous examination of challenging studies. As one example, Campbell does not mention Dr. Weston Price, who examined tens of tribal cultures around the world and found health and longevity despite the fact that all of them favored animal-derived foods. As far as I know, there has never been a vegan society in the history of the world, and yet, the human race has survived.
On page 151, Campbell states that there is "no evidence" that vitamin C in pill form is good for us. Later, he makes similar blanket statements about all nutritional supplements. This is truly shocking to me, and left me staring at the 17 books on my shelf about vitamin C, which summarize over 5000 studies carried out over 70 years showing the benefits of supplemental vitamin C alone, plus dozens of books about orthomolecular medicine in general. For 16 years, I have studied the subject of nutrient supplementation, and I have seen their positive effects on patients, over and over. Campbell's ignorance on this subject does not stop him from negating the work of great doctors and researchers, including Nobel Prize winners, who dedicated their careers to helping people with "reductionist" supplementation.
Campbell's presentation includes a report of how a "mostly" plant-based diet had potential to inhibit melanoma and other cancers. The cases in the report were from the Gerson Institute. What Campbell fails to mention is that the Gerson program includes dozens of supplements, including injectable and pill form liver and thyroid extracts, ox bile and pancreatine.
In conclusion, I can give two stars to "Whole", rather than just one, because he has important things to say about what needs fixing in the medical world, a subject to which he dedicated most of the book, despite its irrelevance to the subject of whether or not to eat animal products.
My criticism of Campbell's work is not meant to negate the fact that many people improve their health by eating a vegetarian or vegan diet. However, it is unproven whether this is because these same people also cut out sugar and trans fat and are far more health conscious than average about exercise and avoidance of toxins. Many vegans also take supplements. It is possible that the same people would be just as healthy or healthier if they ate some meat or eggs once, or several times, each week.
This comparison of books also does not touch on the moral issues of killing animals. To each his own.
