Vegans vs Meateaters

I watched the documentary Forks over Knives online this weekend, which promotes the views of Dr. Cambpell, based on his long-term nutritional study in China.  His book on the subject is called The China Study.  If this had been first time I was exposed to Campbell and the China Study, I would have found it a bit unsettling, but I read about the China Study some time ago.  It appears to be the latest salvo in the vegan vs meateaters debate.  Some of the guys in the documentary, like McDougal and Barnard, have been promoting this view for years.  I first read a book by McDougal 20 years ago where he made all of the same points.  Nathan Pritikin and Dean Ornish are on the same track. 

These vegan guys are very good at throwing data around to support their position, but there are a lot of researchers who question their methods, and accuse them of simply throwing out data that does not support their conclusion.  There was another very famous nutritional study done in the sixties by a researcher name Ancel Keys which led to the original government food pyramid and the low-fat, high carbohydrate diets that most Americans believe in.  Most of Keys’ conclusions are now questioned or rejected by informed nutritionists, because he did the same thing with his data.  He just threw out what he didn’t like.

Campbell was on the Dr. Oz show a few months ago.  Oz was slobbering all over him for saving peoples’ lives.  Oz had a guest on at another time who told him he was full of crap.  This guest is named Gary Taubes.  It is worth looking him up on the internet.  There is also a great internet site called Mark’s Daily Apple that counters much of the China Study.  I am told there is a documentary called Fat Head that does the same thing.  I haven’t seen it yet, but I intend to.

I will admit that I have no nutritional credentials at all, but I am trying to apply some common sense to this without the hype.  I have studied the subject enough to take issue with some things in Forks over Knives.  Campbell is down on animal protein because he claims that the casein protein in milk increase cancer rates.  He may be right about casein, but I don’t see how that necessarily relates to all animal protein. 

Also, the people he used as examples of vast health improvement from a plant-based diet did not say anything about eating lots of animal protein before their conversion.  They said they ate donuts and chocolate and fast food crap.  Once again, I don’t see how that leads us to believe animal protein is the culprit.   

The doctors kept talking about how unhealthy the modern Western diet is.  I agree completely, but I don’t think it is because it contains too much meat.  It is because it contains too much sugary breakfast cereal, donuts, energy drinks, cookies, white bread, soda pop, fruit roll ups, snacks in a bag, and soy protein bars.  Most of that stuff is not even food.  It is just a mass of chemicals that food companies have made tasty enough and cheap enough that people will eat it instead of grass-fed beef and broccoli.  Our bodies know what to do with fat meat or ripe tomatoes.  I don’t think our systems even recognize most of the crap on the supermarket shelves.  It’s no wonder we get heart disease and cancer.

Campbell and friends ignore studies about the Maasai tribe in Africa.  The Maasai subsist mostly on meat, cow’s milk, and blood.  You don’t get much more animal protein than that, and yet they are very healthy and have very little heart disease.  The same is true of Eskimos, who eat a high protein, high fat, animal based diet.  How would Campbell explain that, if animal protein is so deadly?  I have also heard that stomach cancer rates are higher in China, where Campbell did his study, than most other places in the world.  It seems odd that Campbell ignored that fact.

I actually think Campbell may be right about eating dairy, but there is considerable controversy about that topic.  There is a good book out there called The Paleo Diet that discusses the negative aspects of dairy.  There is a more entertaining book called The Paleo Solution which does the same thing.  I recommend it, particularly if you suffer from Celiac disease.  

My view is that nutrition is a bit like religion.  We should look for what the factions have in common rather than their disagreements.  The vegans and the Paleo guys agree on some very important points.  Eat lots of vegetables.  Eat a reasonable amount of fruit.  Do not eat modern processed foods.  Reduce your sodium intake.  Take a walk once in a while.  Or pick up something heavy.  Or hit a tennis ball. 

There is a book I read recently that is probably one of the best I have read about nutrition, food processing, and food marketing.  It sounds dull, but it is anything but that.  It is by Michael Pollan, and is called In Defense of Food

Watching Forks over Knives can upset you.  Calm down.  It is not as bad as they made it sound.  Check out Mark’s Daily Apple and a couple of the books I mentioned.  You will find out that in nutrition, as in most things, moderation is a virtue.

Please take a look at my book God and Other Things: Conversations that Defend Faith, Question Evolution, and Search for Truth.  You can find it on in paperback and Kindle version on Amazon.com by clicking on the Buy the Book tab on the home page menu bar.

Doubts about Darwin

This post is a partial chapter from the book, God and Other Things.  It takes on the almost sacred topic of Evolution–sacred at least to Evolutionists.  It is a bit less so to me.

Darwinian Doubts

PAUL:  Evolution is adaptation, and adaptation is proven fact.  Insects grow resistant to insecticides every few years, so the chemicals have to be modified.  Bacteria become immune to anti-bacterial agents.  Let’s make it something easier to see.  Lions eat slow gazelles.  Fast gazelles run away to produce more fast gazelles.  Short giraffes starve to death.  Tall giraffes produce more tall giraffes.  Slow or stupid animals die young.  Nature is harsh.  Only the fittest survive to reproduce.  This is simply a fact of nature.  You can’t deny it.

 KAREN:  I don’t deny that natural selection exists, or that it helps maintain a species.  I have no doubt that giraffes and gazelles and lions adapt to their surroundings.  So do insects and bacteria, as creepy as that is. 

 PAUL:  Then where is the disagreement?

 KAREN:  The disagreement is over where the theory goes next.  If Evolution were defined only as change within a species, I would have no problem with it.  But the theory of Evolution goes beyond that.  It claims the mechanism of natural selection can change one species into another.  It claims that gazelles and lions and giraffes all descended from the same source.  That’s an assumption as big as theGrand Canyon, with no solid evidence to support it.  Just because they’re similar doesn’t mean they’re related. 

 PAUL:  Then how do you explain the similarity?

 KAREN:  For the moment, I don’t have to explain it.  We are examining the possibility of Evolution now, and whether it explains the similarities.  I don’t think it does, and we are back to the point where you accept Evolution not because there is reasonable evidence for it, but because you don’t want to consider anything else.

 PAUL:  There is definitely evidence for adaptation within a species.  Would you agree?

 KAREN:  Certainly.

 PAUL:  Then it seems only reasonable to deduce that, given enough time, adaptation to different environments would lead to different species.  The similarity between species only helps lead to that very reasonable conclusion. 

 KAREN:  I don’t see any facts that would lead me to that conclusion.  Only assumptions.  If new species could be created through natural selection, then why can’t artificial selection do the same thing?  Why haven’t breeders developed new species?  They can breed greyhounds, but they can’t turn them into some kind of mutated monster.  Perhaps that is because genetics won’t allow a dog to turn into anything but a variation of a dog.  Not through natural or artificial selection.

 PAUL:  We could argue this all day without reaching a conclusion.  Let me ask you a question that may settle this.  What would it take to overcome your objections?  What one piece of evidence would convince you that Evolution is true?

 KAREN:  I don’t know if there is one piece of evidence that would convince me, but there is one piece you really need.  EvenDarwinadmitted the lack of this evidence would seriously compromise his theory.

 PAUL:  Let me have it.  What do I need to produce?

 KAREN:  Consider this.  If you believe all animals descended from the same source, and they varied through chance and mutation over millions of years to develop into all the different species we now see; if you believe human beings began as ape-like creatures, and developed over millions of years into the attractive, coffee drinking individuals at this table, then there should be museums on every corner full of bones and fossils proving those very facts.  There should be thousands of half-ape, half-human skeletons preserved in ancient mud somewhere.  There should be millions of fossils available to show us how all of those species changed from one to another. 

 PAUL:  I thought you had a gift for being succinct. 

 KAREN:  My apologies.  Let’s just say I call your attention to the curious fact of the fossil record.

 PAUL:  But there is no such fossil record.

 KAREN:  That is the curious fact.

Please read the rest of the book by finding it on Amazon.com in paperback or Kindle version.  Just click on the Buy the Book tab on the home page menu bar.