> a vegetarian/vegan diet has been shown in almost every study to be a more healthful diet in every respect
Vegetarians have a higher death rate than meat eaters of the same socio-economic class at all ages.
Every study that looks at actual disease and death rates, and not assumed correlates like cholesterol, has found health benefits from high animal fat intake.
> heart disease, cancer and strokes, though. Those illnesses are linked to higher consumption of meat (Paleo-coronary, anyone?), dairy
Population studies show decreasing rates of heart disease and cancer with increased dairy and meat consumption. Look at post-war Europe and Japan.
I'm curious if you got these ideas from a certain organization that was started by a long-dead dentist? Your use of the phrase "assumed correlates like cholesterol" made me wonder. I guess you discount the Framingham study (or the few thousand follow-up studies that were published and peer-reviewed) that DO show a strong correlation between dietary cholesterol and heart disease?
I don't have time to post a few thousand citations that contradict your viewpoint right now, so I'll just start by mentioning the Cornell China Study:
The Cornell China Study is considered the most comprehensive study of health and nutrition ever conducted. It is a joint research program between Cornell, Oxford, and the Chinese Academy of Preventative Medicine. The data was from twenty plus years of research in 65 Chinese counties. It is often cited because of its size, scope, and the fact that there was such a wide range of diet data represented (high meat consumption populations on down to populations with little or no meat consumption, for example.) It found a strong correlation between increasing meat consumption and increasing disease and mortality. It is an interesting study. You should check it out.
American men eat a great deal more meat (10 to 20X in urban areas) than Chinese men, on average. American men also die of heart disease at almost 17 times the rate of Chinese men. This trend holds true, in the aggregate, no matter where or what time period you study. The countries with the highest meat and dairy consumption have the highest rates of cancer, diabetes and heart disease. Even in post-war Europe and Japan. Even accounting for genetic differences.
I don't want to come off as a TOTAL pompous ass, so I'll only cite more studies if you're actually interested or still want to argue with me. I spend between 15 and 20 hours researching nutrition each week, so it is a pet peeve of mine when I hear total BS passed off as truth. Like I said, proper nutrition is the best medicine on earth...even though eating properly is NOT necessarily simple, easy or fun. Wanting steaks and ice cream to be healthy does not make them so.
Yes, I have a problem with the source. I thought that might be your source based on your phrasing and the fact that there are so few that criticize Campbell's research.
I won't go out of my way to criticize the Weston A. Price Foundation, though. People can make up their own minds. I just find it funny that you question Campbell's motives, but not the motives of his critics.
Campbell has spent 50+ years as a scientist, largely funded by research grants from the National Institute of Health, and has arrived at the conclusion that diets low in animal products are healthier. Since a responsible nutrition researcher is likely to share and promote news that he believes to be both lifesaving and actionable, it is only natural that he would ally himself with other physicians that have also come to the same conclusion (Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine) to spread that message. PCRM is a great organization, in my opinion, and their membership is composed of some of the leading physicians in the area of nutrition, including the physicians that are the only ones to have successfully reversed advanced heart disease without medication.
The Weston A. Price Foundation claims it is 'unbiased', in contrast to the PCRM. That is bullshit. Follow the money to smell the bias. The Weston A. Price Foundation's membership is largely composed of family farmers, including ranchers and dairy farmers. Do you think they might be a bit biased on the subject? You will notice that the foundation's homepage at http://www.westonaprice.org/ currently has logos from eight companies that sponsor their conferences. What do we see? A meat company, a seafood company, a supplement company, a publishing company, etc. Yep, no bias there.
By the way, the link you give is for a review of the book "The China Study" by Campbell and his son, which is not the ACTUAL published China research study I was citing. Only a chapter of that book is devoted to the China research study.
Campbell wrote a rebuttal to the review you cite, which is reproduced at:
Masterjohn then wrote a rebuttal to that rebuttal...and then Campbell wrote a response to that. It's all very tiring, actually, because anyone can just look at the research studies in the aggregate and see who is right based on the science.
Vegetarians have a higher death rate than meat eaters of the same socio-economic class at all ages.
Every study that looks at actual disease and death rates, and not assumed correlates like cholesterol, has found health benefits from high animal fat intake.
> heart disease, cancer and strokes, though. Those illnesses are linked to higher consumption of meat (Paleo-coronary, anyone?), dairy
Population studies show decreasing rates of heart disease and cancer with increased dairy and meat consumption. Look at post-war Europe and Japan.