Thanks so much for this. I'm a T2 diabetic controlling my blood sugar with a low carb diet. The only thing in my recent lab work that my GP is unhappy with is an elevated vitamin D level. A few years ago, a friend gave me a copy of The China Study (along with Fuhrman's Eat to Live, because they had "changed [her] life" and she hoped they would change my life as well. Based on my experience and reading about blood sugar regulation and insulin levels, what both had to say just felt wrong to me, over and beyond the simplification one might expect in a mass-audience book. So, I was skeptical about their broader health-related claims, though I wasn't concerned enough to investigate further (and have actually considered the ethics of regifting books that I think make dangerous recommendations). Because of this, it's quite gratifying to find my initial suspicions confirmed by detailed analysis.

When I looked up The China Study on Amazon, I found this statistical analysis of the China Study dataset under the comment section.  This is simply amazing and backs up pretty much everything you've said in your blog.  I hope someone can do an analysis to confirm this analysis.

http://www.amazon.com/Analyzing-the-China-Study-Dataset/forum/Fx1YJPR95OHW08P/TxY4S5EZD8Y2XE/1/ref=cm_cd_dp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&s=books&asin=1932100660&store=books

Very glad to see this analysis featured here, too.  I groan every time someone recommends The China Study to me as a great authoritative book, so Minger's detailed review was most welcome.

We must keep in mind however, Minger's review and different conclusions not withstanding, that The China Study is epidemiological data and it can only show association, not causation.   It still doesn't prove in any way that consuming wheat is harmful to health.  Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of wheat anymore and no longer consume it myself or serve it to my family.  But it *is* fuel for the argument that considerably more study is needed before the government and health agencies continue to push wheat consumption on the public as matter of policy.

Perhaps the most astonishing thing about this analysis is that is is done by an "amateur" without any axes to grind.  It is a telling comment on the dihonesty and/or stupidity of most government and industry funded research.

Campbell doesn't deny that processed refined wheat flour (which is what they eat in china) is unhealthy.  He advocates eating whole plant foods.

Whole wheat, brown rice, beans, and steel-cut oats all seem to raise my blood sugar about the same amount, which is quite a lot depending on how much I eat.  Are they equally problematic?

happy to see denise mingers study featured here.

    wheat asides, milk pasteurised or uht causes a pretty massive immune system flare up for me.

How do we explain the positive correlation between plant protein and cancer?  I'm not ready to give up my kale and chard just yet!

Denise's astute analysis gives rise to the importance "digging a little deeper". I have always thought the benefit of eggs was contrary to the "official" line of thought. Little did I know the controversial aspects of wheat until stumbling along Dr. Davis' musings.

Sorry to come off topic here but i dont have the program in my  computer to email you. Dr. what do you think of this http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/are-some-people-pushing-their-vitamin-d-levels-too-high.html

ramon25-

Very interesting study.  I would love to hear a reply as well.

Here is the T Colin Campbell's response to Denise's debunking of the China Study:

http://tynan.net/chinastudyresponse

Some commenters have wondered whether the wheat flour assessed in the study was refined wheat.  Chinese today eat mostly refined wheat products, but in the 70s, rural Chinese on collectives might have eaten differently, so I emailed a few Chinese professors of nutrition to ask.  It's morning now in China, and I got one response from Dr. Duo Li of Zhejiang University.  He told me in a brief reply that rural Chinese ate whole wheat products and the refined wheat was rare.

Denise's analysis of The China Study is heavily flawed and therefore invalid.  Debunked by a cancer epidemiologist...

Here it is...
http://www.30bananasaday.com/group/debunkingthechinastudycritics/forum/topics/a-cancer-epidemiologist

The proper testing procedure as stated by an expert on analysing stats...
http://www.30bananasaday.com/group/debunkingthechinastudycritics/forum/topics/my-response-to-denises

Campbells response to Denise..
http://www.30bananasaday.com/group/debunkingthechinastudycritics/forum/topics/campbells-response-to-denises

Campbell, in his response, thinks Minger is probably an undercover agent in a larger conspiracy.  The  debunking epidemiologist, in his, points out that correlation and association aren't the same, which will probably not come as news to Minger.  Could be Minger has kicked the hornets' nest.

What I'd like to know is how correlations > 1 and < -1 are being generated, since that's impossible.

Thanks for sharing the research point of view,yes with the obesity that is hitting America it is necessary to learn that the cause of obesity is eating more of high protein diets and fats over vegetables and fruits.

Gary Taubes says Campbell's co-worker on the original study, Oxford professor of epidemiology and statistics Richard Peto also thought the data did not support Campbell's hypotheses.

Dr. Davis

The way wheat is consumed  in the west is very different from the way it is consumed in the east(fermenting/sprouting/sourdough etc.).

This post might be helpful to 300 million americans but mislead 4 billion asians.

With due respect I'd suggest you consider the above before going all guns blazing against global wheat consumption.

But Pallav, how can the Chinese be mislead when it's the Chinese's own wheat consumption that is being looked at in The China Study?

In reality, that study can only generate ideas, it can't test them. So even if it generates the idea that wheat is bad for humans, we must test that idea before it becomes the truth. As far as I know, Dr Davis did test this idea and came with the conclusion that it was the type of wheat that made the difference. Maybe the Chinese ate the bad wheat and that's why it shows up that way?

Anonymous wrote: "What I'd like to know is how correlations > 1 and < -1 are being generated, since that's impossible."

Denise says right in the post that she gave the numbers in percentage rather than decimals to make it easier to read. I.E. +33 = 33% = .33

Martin,
The way Dr. Davis tested einkorn and wheat currently generally available in usa (http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/in-search-of-wheat-einkorn-and-blood.html) is probably is what brings real value to this blog.
The subhead Europe:Sourdough bread http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/06/fermented-grain-recipes-from-around.html is very close to how wheat is consumed in India. This process very likely breaksdown a large part of the offending ingredients such as gluten and phytic acid from a cursory search i did on google scholar.
I would trust a test on this process by Dr. Davis than on statistics, which as you rightly said generate ideas but need testing.
However, when Dr Davis goes on to implicate wheat in general for all sorts of diseases like in this blogpost, that applies to americans (the specific way of consuming wheat) and not necessarily to those who process grain differently like in asia.
That is the point where things get icky and can be misleading for those consuming wheat in asia and reading such posts.
Perhaps we can all come to a better way of processing grains than cutting them out from the diet altogether?

"a diet high in animal protein, especially casein"

Quickly, briefly, because my story is only tangentially related to this post by means of Dr Davis's almost stray remark I quote above...

I am ~5 weeks into my wheat free diet -- to zero success. I do not measure myself daily in any way, but the obvious one: do I lose weight? Yes, but only ~5lbs, which represents 2% of my total body weight. I should have lost that amount easily within 1 week, if I were proceeding on this diet correctly.

And then the other stray remarks began to pile up:
1) The 20 year old girl with celiac disease who dropped wheat AND 20lbs in 2 months. (What about me?!)
2) The dinner at PF Changs. I ordered the chicken lettuce wraps and skip the rice noodle thingees. Good job, I thought. Then I lingered over the menu, saw the restaurant offers an entire page of gluten free items, and the dish I just ordered was not one of them. I called for the waiter. He explained the sauce...
3) I drink protein shakes. A lot. As fate would have it, I migrated to casein protein because it broke down more slowly thus causing satiety to last longer. Until I read this post from Dr Davis with his stray remark, did my homework, and discovered to my chagrin that on a cellular level casein protein is so similar to gluten that it might as well be the same. (In essence.)

Okay, lesson learned. This gluten free, wheat free, grain free, carb free diet is not as easy as it looks at first glance. There is way more to it than skipping bread, and pasta, etc. But now I think I have it. So Sunday is Day 1. Shame I lost those first 4 or 5 weeks, but this time...

It may be true that wheat is a major cause of heart disease, but I'm not sure the high correspondence between wheat and cvd in this study makes that case.  Richard Peto, the Oxford professor of epidemiology who was part of the original study said what the data showed was that in places where people started adopting more of a western diet their health deteriorated.  I doubt the study spells out which parts of the western diet did the harm, wheat might be a marker for western diet.

People feel threatened when facts are released that go against the standard, cultural beliefs. We are raised as children to eat animals and animal secretions and so it is understandable why so many people feel threatened when they find out that the food mama gave them is helping to promote heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity, autoimmune diseases, digestive disorders, etc. The China Study is the longest, most unbiased studies ever conducted and show statistically significant results, worldwide, that ingesting animal foods create chronic ill heath in humans. I have helped 400 people in the last 4 years to eat a healthy, low fat, plant based diet and they have all rid themselves of the diseases listed above. Now, I have also some Kaiser doctors who, instead of handing pills or surgery, are handing out this book and getting the same results. Thank you Dr. T. Colin Campbell for your 35 year long work. And, I know that you went into this study trying to prove the opposite results!
When people hear that their upbringing needs to be challenge, they lash out with untruths….just as yound, 23 yr old Mindy has done.

People feel threatened when facts are released that go against the standard, cultural beliefs. We are raised as children to eat animals and animal secretions and so it is understandable why so many people feel threatened when they find out that the food mama gave them is helping to promote heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity, autoimmune diseases, digestive disorders, etc. The China Study is the longest, most unbiased studies ever conducted and show statistically significant results, worldwide, that ingesting animal foods create chronic ill heath in humans. I have helped 400 people in the last 4 years to eat a healthy, low fat, plant based diet and they have all rid themselves of the diseases listed above. Now, I have also some Kaiser doctors who, instead of handing pills or surgery, are handing out this book and getting the same results. Thank you Dr. T. Colin Campbell for your 35 year long work. And, I know that you went into this study trying to prove the opposite results!
When people hear that their upbringing needs to be challenge, they lash out with untruths….just as yound, 23 yr old Mindy has done.

To David M Gordon - how much of the lettuce wraps did you eat. PF Changs has nutritional info on the website and says this dish has 4 servings of 5oz. Each serving is 11 carbs so if you ate the whole thing yourself, that was 44 carbs.

It is very easy to underestimate carb counts. I have found a scale can be very useful. Mine measures carbs and other stuff.

That little dish is 4 servings?  C'mon! You bet, I bet I ate the whole thing, Anne.

What is in it that weighs so much? Some iceberg lettuce leaves, chicken, the rice noodle thingees I did without, and the sauce -- which is NOT gluten free, but I changed to a gluten free sauce. I bet that swap changes the calorie count etc. (Hey, I can hope!

Sure I want to lose weight -- okay, I must lose weight -- but my issue is visceral fat and its resulting potential problems: diabetes and heart issues (inflammation).

Thank you for your comments.

Instead of driving yourself with all these numbers why not just look for visable proof in REAL people.  I decided to try plant based eating and here is what happened:  (the numbers have actually gotten better since this was published last October)  Why I'm a believer in Dr. Campbell's advice:
http://www.drmcdougall.com/stars/mike_teehan.htm

Instead of driving yourself with all these numbers why not just look for visable proof in REAL people.  I decided to try plant based eating and here is what happened:  (the numbers have actually gotten better since this was published last October)  Why I'm a believer in Dr. Campbell's advice:
http://www.drmcdougall.com/stars/mike_teehan.htm

Mike, good for you. See this:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ketones-and-ketosis/low-carb-gaining-a-foothold-with-the-mainstream/

If Campbell is right that a plant-based diet is best for most humans, why did the low carb group do better than the other two groups (Ornish and LEARN diets) in the intervention study above? Not only did the low carb group do better in weight loss, they did better in all things measured.

Denise Minger wrote:

"Here we have evidence that areas in China with the highest rates of Western-type diseases also eat the most processed starch and sugar. Maybe not in the grotesque amounts that Americans eat them, but then again, China’s “affluent disease” rates were also lower than America’s"

This could easily be the headline "Minger accuses Americans of grotesque eating habits"

Debate is good but be healthy, not paranoid
Trevor

How can anyone tell anyone else what to eat?  We all NEED plants to survive.  However, some do better with wheat in their diet and some do better with meat in their diet.  It all depends on the person.  I wouldn't go bashing The China Study until you try the whole foods plant-based diet.  Dr. Campbell also stresses that nutrition is NOT about a single nutrient or food group.  It's all about the synergy of everything working together.  I would love to see Denise's analysis of the aflatoxin rat studies.  Everyone needs to take control of their own health.  No one should rely solely on the china study as what they should do.  I personally believe in what the china study is saying, but it might not work for everyone - especially when people are raised to eat animal protein.  I know I have issues with animal protein, but others might be able to tolerate it.  Don't go bashing Dr. Campbell for trying to help people.

Dr. Bill Misner Ph.D. said:
The BMI body mass index of rural Chinese is 21.0 supported by a daily calorie intake of over 2600k/cal/day from largely plant foods.
Americans on the other hand consume largely animal sourced foods of 1989 calories per day resulting in an obese BMI of over 27.0! All one has to do is compare the source of total calories with resulting BMI.

Eating 2600 calories whole plant foods that contribute to a lean healthy BMI of 21.0 is preferred to eating 1989 calories from largely animal sources resulting in an obese 27.0 BMI.

Elevated Body Mass Index associated with food category choice are also associated with the typical disease patterns in obese persons.  The China Study shows these numerical correlations precisely.

I confirm the report that overweight exists more in cultures consuming largely animal source calories than in those whose diet is primarily whole plant foods.

Interestingly, I have observed all of the above in Americans who change their menu from animal source to whole plant source food protocols.

Warm regards,

Bill Misner Ph.D.

"I would love to see Denise's analysis of the aflatoxin rat studies."

You can read an excellent analysis HERE. In a nutshell, what those rat studies prove is that complete protein provides better nourishment than incomplete protein. Wheat is naturally deficient in lysine, and when lysine was added to the wheat protein diet, it behaved just like the casein.

Cancers are very fast growing cells, so of course they're going to grow a whole lot better if they're better nourished. I'd wager that if the rats had been fed a complete vegetable protein blend, e.g. rice and pea protein in the correct ratio, the tumor growth would have matched both the casein and wheat plus lysine.

Really trustworthy blog. Please keep updating with great posts like this one. I have booked marked your site and am about to email it to a few friends of mine that I know would enjoy reading
Sesli sohbet Sesli chat
Seslisohbet Seslichat
Sesli sohbet siteleri Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli Chat
Sohbet Sesli siteler
Sohbet siteleri Chat siteleri
Sohbet merkezi chat merkezi
Sesli merkezi sesli Sohbet merkezi
Sesli chat merkezi Sohbetmerkezi
Sesli Sohbet Sesli Chat
SesliSohbet Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli sohbet siteleri SesliChat
Sesli Sesli siteler
Seslimuhabbet sesli muhabbet
sesli sohbet sesli chat siteleri
sesli sohbet siteleri sesli chat
seslisohbet seslichat
seslikent sesli kent
sesli sohbet sesli sohbet siteleri
sesli chat sesli chat siteleri
seslisohbet seslichat

Friends,

  You don’t need to believe Dr. Campbell. Just read The China Study, slowly and completely, and figure out the truth for yourself. Facts speak for themselves.

  I, and a few of my acquaintances, tried a whole-foods plant-based diet (coupled with biweekly exposure to sunlight in noon and some physical activity) for a few months (strict compliance), and it is working wonders for us, so we continue to be on it. Some of my friends failed, because they were mostly eating junk (plant-based) foods.

  The China Study book is not just about Dr. Campbell’s work, but more than that it describes the work and results of numerous other research studies, independent and unbiased, that point to the undeniable benefits of a whole-foods plant-based diet.

  Denise has adopted a detailed but very narrow view that is insufficient to relate to the larger context. This approach will only add to confusion and misleading conclusions.

As a physician with the health of your patients at stake, Would you accept conclusions that were not peer reviewed?

Wonderful post... Very informational and educational as usual!

Acai Berry Optimum

How would those of us who have had valve repair and bypass surgery track our plaque if blood tests don't provide the whole picture ?

This is a problem area. One possibility is carotid ultrasound. Though less precise and an indirect measure of the body's burden of atherosclerotic plaque, it's the best that I am aware of once the heart's arteries have been changed or distorted by bypass.

I've been wondering about heart scans and plaque burden.  I have a  vested interest in this as I have a strong family history of early CHD. (FWIW, my CCS is 29 at age 41; not dramatically bad, but I believe that places me somewhere around the 90th percentile for my age; or potentially with the plaque burden of a 54 year old).

Once a person is old enough -- or has sufficient calcification of the plaques -- then there is a very good correlation between plaque burden and CCS.  That is my understanding as to why heart scans are not generally recommended for people under 40 and to some degree even for people in their early 40s.

So, in my case I worry that my low score may actually be an under indication of my burden.  The only way to figure that out though would be angiography or maybe carotid IMT, right?

Which leads me to my second questions: I think what you are doing here is fantastic, but have wondered, is the reduction in CCS a reduction in the plaque burden?  Or is it simply a reduction in the calcium in the plaques?  And how does that impact the stability versus the instability of the plaques?

Whew!

Unfortunately, too much to cover in a Blog. That's why we have an entire website devoted to this topic. You are invited to go to www.trackyourplaque.com to read further. You raise important issues that simply cannot be covered in a few sentences.

I'm so interested in the post ! I live in the UK where we don't get much sun, even in the summer. I'm in my mid 50s and am pale skinned and slim. Because I have osteoporosis and a heart valve defect I guessed I needed some vitamin D to help these conditions, and, after doing much research, started to take 4,000 ius of D3 per day last January. A blood test, four months later, at the beginning of May revealed that my blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D was 153 ng/ml (384 nmol/L), more than twice the 'normal level ! Certainly not the kind of level that 4,000 ius of D3 per day should produce ! I stopped taking the D3 and a couple of months later my 25-hydroxy vitamin D had dropped down to 64.8 ng/ml (162 nmol/L). My endocrinologist has now advised me to resume taking D3 but at 2,000 ius per day and I will have another blood test in two weeks time and then review the amount I should take based on those results. This shows how important it is to get tested !

Anne

If we do have known level from testing, do you have a formula or algorithm for calculating how much more we should add to raise blood levels of Vitamin D by a specific amount?

I found one such formula in a book touting Vitamin D but the whole tone of the book was pretty snake-oil like and low on information for intelligent people so I did not have complete confidence in his tables.

You said "the ability to activate Vitamin D is lost by the majority of us by age 40".

Did you mean to say it declines after age 40?

Dr Cannel has some interesting points to make on the accuracy of some Vitamin D test results here.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/2008-july.shtml

I am a 64yr old male living in the UK. My skin is fairly tanned as I try to get as much full body sun exposure as is available here however I have also been taking 5000iu/daily for a couple of years now. When I was last tested my score was 147.5nmol/l 59ng/ml. I wonder if Anne's numbers are the result of a faulty test.

where do we get enough vitamin D wihout worring about laboratory tests? What about the good old cod liver oil spoon some mothers used to give us when we were children? And what about getting of the sofa and start walking half an hour every day? I live in sunny Portugal. In the summer we eat a lot of sardines and other fish, and also spend hollidays in the beach. Instead of worring about things science or medicine may never understand, we could start looking back to our healthy paleolithic ancestors and ask what changes civilization has brought that made diabetic 7% of the total population. Excelent blog, Dr.!

I am the other Anne. I will add GF to my name for "gluten free" so you can tell us apart.

I think it important to stress that vitamin D supplementation needs to be continued long term. I have met too many people who have been prescribed 50,000 IU of D2 for 8-12 weeks and then told to stop because their 23(OH)D went over 30ng/ml. I know one person who's doctor stopped and started the D2 3 times.

I agree that testing is important. I have had a difficult time raising my vitamin D to an optimal level. I am hoping my next test will be good. I have to wonder what role my low vitamin D played in my CAD.
AnneGF

Jenny-
Vitamin D dosage effects appear to be quite idiosyncratic.  I started out at a 25OH-vD level of 21 ng/ml, and currently have to take 10,000 IU (softgel) daily to keep my 25OH-vD level at 66 ng/ml.

I'm male, and a big guy, plus T2 diabetic, so I probably need a larger dose.

Take a look at the Vitamin D Council web site below. Search for the string "rule of thumb" in either of the links below, in which it is mentioned as a rule of thumb to increase 25OH-vD levels by 10 ng/ml would require 1000 IU vitD.

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/2008-may.shtml
-- or --
http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/vitamin-d-newsletter-reprinted.html

BTW:  I bought your recently-published “Diabetes 101”  book (great job!). I want to give it to some of my poorly-managed diabetic friends, which tends to be most people, due to the poor level of diabetic care.

I was a patient of Dr. Richard Bernstein, who I hear complimented your book.  He is quite a character, but taught me more about diabetes than all of my doctors forgot. I owe to him my current state of relatively good health in spite of diabetes.

I personally went from 30ng to  60ng in 3 months by taking 8,000 ius of D per day.
Any opinion from anyone on how often this blood level should be tested to regulate dosage?

Another interesting post, thank you. I'm wondering about your opinion on how often you think Vit. D levels should be tested after the initial test is done, especially if the levels are drastically low.

Excellent, excellent, excellent post.

I, too, often get asked how much D someone should take.

People tend to want to take it prior to checking (or in lieu of checking) blood levels. Often times, they're afraid to ask their doctor to order the test since many in our community have flat out refused to order it.

My doctor says, "taking vitamin d without checking blood levels is like baking a cake without knowing the temperature of the oven."

It's true. Without knowing your level, you don't know how much to take or for how long to take that dose.

You may also need more at different times of year.

I take 10,000 IU daily starting in mid November and continue until mid-May or so.

I get my 25(OH) and serum calcium levels checked every 3 months.

What drives me nuts is the media and other health professionals "warnings" against taking too much and/or their suggestion that you get more D through sunlight.

Almost every article on D has some disclaimer from a medical professional warning against too much D. But, they fail to really communicate how RARE D toxicity is and how the risks of NOT taking enough D FAR outweigh the risks of taking too much D.

And, to suggest that people get their D by spending time in the sun is irresponsible. As you know, the bodies ability to activate D from the sun decreases with age.

We should be measuring levels and then managing levels through supplementation.

Do you also check serum calcium levels?

Jessica,

I get my serum calcium, serum inorganic phosphate and alkaline phosphatase measured at the same time as my 25(OH)D level. So far, even when my D was much too high, the levels of calcium and inorganic phosphate have been normal but the alkaline phosphtase was above normal. I think I'm lucky that my GP and endocrinologist will measure my levels judging from the problems other people have getting tested. My endocrinologist told me that he fully supports me having D3 supplementation so maybe that's why.

Anne

Jessica,

Don't forget to check Magnesium -- as we build stronger bones and drive mineralization there, Mag can get depleted from the blood and intracellular stores.

Have you read the Magnesium report at TYP?

-G

Jessica,

Don't forget to check Magnesium -- as we build stronger bones and drive mineralization there, Mag can get depleted from the blood and intracellular stores.

Have you read the Magnesium report at TYP?

-G

Great book on this topic is The Vitamin D Cure.  It has a table that shows how much you individually need to take based on your weight and current level to reach your goal vitamin D amount...p49.  The average American needs 20 to 25 iu per pound to raise their level to 50 - 70.

here is a good site on vitamin D, www.vitaminD3world.com The site also has links to a neat micro tablet form of vitamin D

It all makes sense when vitamin D is viewed as a hormone, a steroid hormone, not a vitamin. Vitamin─no, steroid hormone─D exerts potent effects in tiny quantities with hormone-like action in cells, including activation of nuclear receptors.

We have been working on a project to help people with health challenges. who do you know with health challenges. you can check out www.amiraclemolecule.com/lincolnmanutai

any questions email lincoln.manutai@gmail.com

we also have a potent vitamin D3 availble for a cheap price.

You know, I have always made the assumption that our ancestors' teeth didn't rot because they weren't exposed to refined sugars and carbohydrates. I know accessible fluoride wasn't around then, but then again, I'm hearing that even fluoride may not be the best thing for teeth or bones (or humans) anyway.  What about Weston Price's research?
Good post!
Adam

I agree with DietKing...everything I've read has indicated that dental carries were seen only after the start of agriculture. I've also read several studies that indicate that early man more likely made a big kill and then fed off it for several days....kinda like wild cats do today. I agree that it often took several days to make a kill, but once done, it fed them for more than just 1 day.

Otherwise I agree....get back to natural as much as possible and you'll fare much better.

We are very much least we are slaves to our ancestors dna.

ironic that modern "progress" intended on increasing our survival is in fact killing us. We have built an impressive civilized society but it is not really compatible with our genetics. Maybe we need a genetic software update, nature tries to update our dna by natural selection but we have done everything possible to try to stop it either because of emotions or greed. (democrats or republicans)

Fascinating and funny. Thanks for the post. I'm glad I found your blog

Jeff Brailey
http://wordworks2001.blogspot.com

Check my blog and find out why I refused to have a quintuple coronary artery bypass in the spring of 2004 and am alive to tell about it almost three years later.

Dr. William Roberts, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology and cardiovascular pathologist, is a perennial source of clever ideas on heart disease.


He's also on the advisory board of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) - an organization with a very clear agenda.

(2) The intestinal tract of carnivores is short (about 3 times body length); that of herbivores, long (about 12 times body length). (Since I am 6 feet tall my intestinal tract should be about 60 feet long. As a consequence, if I eat bovine muscle [steak], it could take 5 days to course through those 20 yards.)

I can't believe a physician thinks the human intestine is "about 60 feet long". At most, it's about 25 feet long.

Provocative thoughts, yes....

By way of full disclosure, the leadership and advisory board of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) includes:

PCRM Board of Directors: Neal D. Barnard, M.D., President; Roger Galvin, Esq., Secretary; Andrew Nicholson, M.D., Director.

PCRM’s advisory board includes 11 health care professionals from a broad range of specialties:

T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D. Cornell University
Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., M.D. The Cleveland Clinic
Suzanne Havala Hobbs, Dr.PH., M.S., R.D. The Vegetarian Resource Group
Henry J. Heimlich, M.D., Sc.D. The Heimlich Institute
Lawrence Kushi, Sc.D. Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente
Virginia Messina, M.P.H., R.D. Nutrition Matters, Inc.
John McDougall, M.D. McDougall Program, St. Helena Hospital
Milton Mills, M.D. Gilead Medical Group
Myriam Parham, R.D., L.D., C.D.E. East Pasco Medical Center
William Roberts, M.D. Baylor Cardiovascular Institute
Andrew Weil, M.D. University of Arizona

Clearly, as a comment mentioned, they have a viewpoint or agenda, however that doesn't mean they are wrong, anymore than carnivore-type programs may be right for everyone.

In my opinion, there's plenty of room for 'novel' thoughts in the field of preventive cardiology and I appreciate Dr. Davis bringing them forward.

And most clearly of all, there's plenty wrong with the conventional "standard American diet" no matter which end of the dietary spectrum one embraces.

Whatever WORKS to help with plaque reversal!

"However, modern livestock raising practices have substantially modified the composition of meats."

Is patient education difficult on such subject matter?  Curious; had to ask.

And how about the flesh of grass fed beef and wild game?  Is that good, better, more acceptable but still bad?  How about the folks who believe anthropologically we were meant to to eat a hunters and gatherers diet?

Polar bears have the longest intestine of all the bears. I'm like a polar bear.

Hi Dr. Davis,
Your favorite internet TYP promoter checking in. : )  Thought to mention a possible opportunity - a friend of mine mentioned that he printed out and passed on a copy of your latest blog posting, the Big Squeeze, to his friend, Congressman Jim Marshall.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Marshall_%28U.S._politician%29
Don't know if much will come of it, but being an opportunity thought to bring to your attention.  
You might want to delete my mentioning of this.

Just found your blog and am enjoying it.

On this topic, I read such a comparison by a veterinarian who had cared for sheep, dogs and cows for 30 years.  Unfortunately I can't find it at the moment

His take was the opposite.  

Some things I remember were that humans, like carnivores, can swallow very large chunks of food that would kill a herbivore.

Humans don't have 4 stomachs and don't chew cud.

Human stereo vision is much more like all types of predators (eagles, cats, dogs, hawks, predatory fish) than almost any herbivore (eyes almost on the sides of the head)

If you look at human hands, they look a lot like the Bonobo monkey's hands and NOT at all like a gorilla's hands.  Bonobos eat a lot of meat - insects, rodents, birds, and gorillas eat a lot of fruit and vegetables.

That's basically what I remember.

I'll post a link later to the fill thing if I can find it.

Sam in Toronto

Another thing I remember - the intestine length argument goes both ways - some carnivores do have long intestines.

Something that does not go both ways - human intestines have the enzyme systems needed to degest lots of chemicals that ONLY exist in MEAT.

As far as I know, you cannot get these from plants, or from only 1 or 2 plants in the world  

Heme iron (not a big deal these days, but this was huge in the past, where every human, even kings, had dozens of blood-extracting parasites on the skin, in the hair and intestines)

creatine (vegetarians can be synthesize this out of plant methionine)

EPA/DHA (from fish oil - in ancient times, in meat - none in vegetables - there's no plant source for EPA, and only seaweed for DHA)

B12

also, as an efficiency measure over and above the efficiency of digesting individual amino acids, human digestion can grab large chunks of protein, many of which occur only in meat ( very, very large peptices -  but I forget what these are called - globulins or antigens)  

Sam in Toronto (that's me, the author, not a chemical that humans can digest and that does not occur in vegetables)

Robert's comment is interesting, it's also grossly in error.  

We're not rabbits or dogs, we're humans, and we're omnivores.

The anthropological record is quite clear at this point.  We evolved large brains to hunt prey, and the fat of that prey allowed our brain to get larger, making us better hunters.  We sweat because we could outrun our herbivorous prey, using our naked skin as a superior cooing mechanism.  We have smaller teeth because we've been cooking our food for 1.5 million years, or so.

We do seem to need some vegetable matter in our diets.  Even the Eskimos eat some.  But we do fine on a primarily animal diet.  A cow would not.

It'd be nice if a physician was a little more familiar with the species he's treating.  A veterinarian couldn't get away with this degree of ignorance.