The China Study and T. Colin Campbell on Amazon’s Low-Carb Forum

t colin campbell I’m going to address a couple of potential questions or objections right off the bat, hopefully avoiding taking up time & space in comments.

1) Seeing as I was taken to task by a couple of people for my “disrespectful” words toward Dr. Campbell here, is this going to be more of the same?

Answer: It’ll start off much milder than the title to that last, but no guarantees. We’ll just have to see how worked up I get. In any case, whatever it is, it’ll be what it is and I’ll make sure I enjoy it.

2) Why bother with Dr. Campbell?

Answer: I’m not. I’m using him. Look, it’s clear to me that he’s operating under his own agenda, in the making for decades. There’s no chance I’m going to convince him of anything. But with more than 100,000 visits to this blog each month and more than double that in pages viewed — combined with the fact that search logs consistently show vegetarian subject matter near the top, when not actually the top — I want to continually build material that meets that demand. The Amazon discussion is well over a thousand posts now. I’m taking a few important ones, bringing together other relevant material, and creating something more accessible for everyone, particularly those new or confused.

So let’s get on with it, now that my own agenda is unabashedly right out there in front. I had put this out on Twitter for laughs when Dr. Campbell showed up in the forum again the other day to whine at length about how badly he’s been treated by myself & others. I’ll excerpt a bit.

So what do I get? Mostly, it is hostility, anger and worse. It has been virtually impossible to find reasoned explanations in the midst of so many attacks and lies. Because there are so many kooks on this site, I have lost faith in almost anything that is said. […]

I am guided by the famous suggestion of President Kennedy, “Ask no what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country (i.e., others).” People on this site seem not to give a whit about the societal effects of eating animals and other high resource-requiring foods on our society and our environment. It’s all about you and only you. Have you heard the recent analysis of two World Bank people (of all things!) who recently published findings showing that livestock production causes more than 50% of global warming?

Yes folks: step right up; you too can put the spurious claims of unnamed “others” above your own health, well-being and enjoyment of your food in the name of general, various, unspecified environmental causes. …Oh, yea, the crumbling AGW movement.

You’d need to read a lot of the discussion yourself, but in actuality it has been Dr. Campbell who almost never answers questions directly (ignores most of them), never gives much in the way of reasoned explanations but spends pretty much all of his time telling us how well his book sells, how long he’s been doing this, dropping names, and letting us know how much he’s adored by so many. As poster Greg observed in a half-dozen or so posts — that are pure gold — in describing precisely the way Dr. Campbell operates (his posts start here)…

And THAT’S been shown in many studies, too, which you apparently won’t look at because you already know they’re wrong. How many more times should we link them? And how many more times should I call you to task for ad hominem attack? It’s just ridiculous. You just did it again in this post. Do you even realize this? I guess you obviously think it’s a valid form of argument, because it’s literally the only one you use: we’re wrong because we’re angry, disrespectful, have no experience in science, are pretentious, are primarily concerned with excess body weight, and “claim” we can lose weight and improve our health with low carb. That’s all in one paragraph! […]

Your arguments are all based on setting yourself up as the ultimate authority who can’t be questioned and then discounting everyone else – if they’re not credentialed, then they’re just making stuff up or relying on editors; if they have science backgrounds, then they’re not doing primary research; if they’re medical doctors, then they’re cynically writing harmful books and possibly faked their medical degrees. You are really Mr. Ad Hominem Ad Nauseum. Based on your biography it seems to me that you MUST have a lot more you could be contributing to the conversation, but I guess you just have no interest.

And here’s how he operates in debates with other scientists who actually do their own research. This one, The Protein Debate (PDF) between Cordain & Campbell. Dr. Eades was going to review that but one of his readers did an excellent job of it. An essential excerpt:

Cordain’s paper contains no less than 134 references, and his rebuttal to Campbell contains another 30. Campbell, in support of a low protein, low fat, diet provides, uh, let me count, ZERO citations. He manages a few in his rebuttal to Cordain, but a couple of those are to himself, and only one that I saw appeared to be a peer-reviewed article. He makes some fairly bold statements, like “overwhelming findings on the adverse health effects of dietary protein” and “remarkable healing effects now being routinely accomplished by my clinician colleagues”, again with no citations to supporting peer-reviewed literature.

Campbell’s stance appears to be largely one of “because I said so”. The first sentence in his rebuttal is “My critique of Professor Loren Cordain’s proposition almost entirely depends on my philosophy of nutrition”; as opposed, say, to evidence gathered via the scientific method? In fact, he goes so far as to argue in favor of what is essentially sloppy research in nutrition science.

Alright, so now you know what we’re up against. So then…this morning, a bit of a different tone from Dr. Campbell.

Greg and Richard et al,

Why don’t you comment on my reporting of evidence that animal protein-based foods, when exceeding the amount of protein (as in dairy) that the body needs, causes cancers to grow robustly, increases blood cholesterol, increases atherogenesis, increases calcium loss and bone fracture incidence, increases formation of kidney stones? Are you interested in the idea that cow’s milk protein is the most relevant carcinogen that humans consume? Are you interested in the idea that this protein-specific effect is only the tip of a much larger story? Are you interested in why it is so easy to cure heart disease in its advanced stages? Or that the dietary effect, when done right, acts so fast that for those on diabetic meds, they could go into glycemic shock if they failed to decrease meds in the first day or so?

Do you want to know how I got those conclusions?

Well, though I’ve read all of these before, poster Markus from Germany helps us out on the protein issue. As to most of the rest of it, note the supplementation section in my reply which I cover below.

From: The Protein Debate (PDF)

Aflatoxins are naturally occurring toxins ….The toxin is also found in the milk of animals fed contaminated feed. Aflatoxins are metabolized in the liver to become potent liver carcinogens for all mammals including humans (157). ….

Colin’s research group developed a rodent model of liver cancer in which they dosed the animals with high concentrations … of aflatoxin and then fed them diets containing varying amounts …) of casein (158-161). Regardless of the casein dose, all animals developed cancerous or pre-cancerous liver lesions (161), however the animals fed the higher amounts of casein developed more cancerous lesions, particularly when a level of approximately 12 % casein was reached (160)….

Although Colin has inferred from his experiments with rodents that high protein diets promote cancer and low protein diets repress it following cancer initiation by a carcinogen, this interpretation is incorrect. The only logical conclusion that can be reached from his series of experiments is that only the milk protein, casein, when consumed at more than 10% of energy, promotes liver cancer in rodents exposed to high concentrations of aflatoxin. His experiments cannot be generalized to other animal proteins, such as those found in lean meats. …. Accordingly, current consumption of casein in the U.S. diet would have little or no bearing on cancer incidence rates if we assume Colin’s rodent model of cancer is correct and applicable to humans.

From: The China Study: More Vegan Nonsense, Anthony Colpo

Extrapolating from the deleterious effects demonstrated by casein in rodents, Campbell goes on to warn that all animal proteins are a deadly threat to humans.

Campbell’s position constitutes little more than a totally unscientific leap of faith. Casein is one of the major protein-containing fractions of milk; the other is whey. Campbell does not mention that while casein is often observed to promote cancer in rats, whey protein does the exact opposite. Numerous experiments have shown that rats lucky enough to be fed whey experience greatly reduced tumor incidence when compared to rats fed casein, beef, soy or standard rat chow[Badger TM][Hakkak R][Hakkak R][McIntosh GH][Papenburg R][Bounous G].

From: The China Study by T. Colin Campbell, Chris Masterjohn

Campbell is aware that casein has been uniquely implicated in health problems, and dedicates an entire chapter to casein’s capacity to generate autoimmune diseases.17 Whey protein appears to have a protective effect against colon cancer that casein does not have.18 Any effect of casein, then, cannot be generalized to other milk proteins, let alone all animal proteins. Other questions, such as what effect different types of processing have on casein’s capacity to promote tumor growth, remain unanswered. Pasteurization, low-temperature dehydration, high-temperature spray-drying (which creates carcinogens), and fermentation all affect the structure of casein differently and thereby could affect its physiological behavior. What powdered, isolated casein does to rats tells us little about what traditionally consumed forms of milk will do to humans and tells us nothing that we can generalize to all “animal nutrients.”

So I ask you dear reader: how far do you want to go down that rabbit hole of finding out that, because casein by itself (without the whey as occurs naturally) in high doses gives rats cancer, we ought to be overwrought with fear of eating what our ancestors have been eating for millions of years? And while we’re at it, let’s refresh our memories as to the overall association with dietary protein in The China Study. From Masterjohn’s review, linked above.

What is most shocking about the China Study is not what it found, but the contrast between Campbell’s representation of its findings in The China Study, and the data contained within the original monograph. Campbell summarizes the 8,000 statistically significant correlations found in the China Study in the following statement: “people who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease.”26 He also claims that, although it is “somewhat difficult” to “show that animal-based food intake relates to overall cancer rates,” that nevertheless, “animal protein intake was convincingly associated in the China Study with the prevalence of cancer in families.”27

Let’s take a look at Table 1 from Masterjohn’s review.

Table 1
Table 1

So for those not used to postitive vs. negative correlatioins, the plus sign means the more they ate it on average, the more average death from cancer. The minus signs mean that the more they ate it, the less death from cancer. Finally, only one of the above reached statistical significance, which is sort of an arbitray line of 5%; meaning, an association (more or less of A is assocated with more or less of B) must be less than 5% due to simple chance. What do you notice? Of all these associations (among a total of 8,000 identified associations in The China Study) all Dr. Campbell seems to wish to place focus is on…

…animal protein intake was convincingly associated in the China Study with the prevalence of cancer in families.

Amazing. Oh, and one other thing. There was another negative association orders of magnitude higher than animal protein and unlike animal protein which wasn’t significant at all, was highly significant (2 **): home-made cigarettes. That’s right, those smoking their hand-rolled tobacco had a highly significant negative correlation in death from cancer.

I won’t be holding my breath for Campbell to be coming out with that. Which — and given the shocking nature of the above picture and what he’s out rabidly promoting — scaring people off the high-density nutrition of animal products — means really only one thing. He’s merely — as mentioned earlier in his own words — promoting “[his] philosophy of nutrition.” Now, if he were out there dissing processed foods, flour and sugar in favor of his veganesque philosophy, I wouldn’t have a complaint in the world. Instead, and it’s critical to understand, he’s promoting his philosophy of nutrition by tearing down your animal food, relentlessly and, as you can see above, quite dishonestly. And then when you combine it with the tripe about environmental concerns you begin to get into areas of public policy and how do you think that’s going to go?

And he’s good at it, which is why I make the effort. No doubt about it, in terms of sales, The China Study is a phenomenal success. As of this moment, Amazon lists it as #84 in sales rank. And of course, that’s only because people are swallowing the message and telling their friends. So, I think that a compilation like this is worthwhile, given the power of Google.

I did have my own reply on the forum this morning that I’ll recompose to follow, perhaps with a few edits.



Excellent digging, sir. I had read all those in the past but this was a good review. Since Dr. Campbell adressed me in his last and this discussion forum is explicitly about low carbing, I ought to perhaps lay out where I differ.

I’m a paleo lifestyler, and that applies to things beyond diet as well; such as the way I exercise, the way I intermittently fast, the way I spend time in the sunshine, the way I sleep and the way I interact socially — eschewing modern collectivist politics completely, i.e., I don’t vote as I’m not interested in a 1/270 millionth say in my own affairs. Rather, I cultivate close bonds and relationships with family and a manageable number of close friends.

At to diet specifically, I practice avoidance behavior rather than seeking behavior.

I avoid grains, flour, sugar, processed foods in general, and industrial vegetable & seed oils. All else is fair game; however, due to concerns about the overload of fructose and omega-6 poly-unsaturates that ancient man would not have gotten chronically, I limit fruit to berries now & then and I keep nuts to a minimum, sticking mostly to macadamias with a fatty-acid profile similar to olive oil.

As to carbohydrate, here’s a study that demonstrates a profound difference between 100% fructose carbs and 100% glucose carbs (starch).

Dr. Stephan Guyenet:

The investigators divided 32 overweight men and women into two groups, and instructed each group to drink a sweetened beverage three times per day. They were told not to eat any other sugar. The drinks were designed to provide 25% of the participants’ caloric intake. That might sound like a lot, but the average American actually gets about 25% of her calories from sugar! That’s the average, so there are people who get a third or more of their calories from sugar. In one group, the drinks were sweetened with glucose, while in the other group they were sweetened with fructose.

After ten weeks, both groups had gained about three pounds. But they didn’t gain it in the same place. The fructose group gained a disproportionate amount of visceral fat, which increased by 14%! Visceral fat is the most dangerous type; it’s associated with and contributes to chronic disease, particularly metabolic syndrome, the quintessential modern metabolic disorder (see the end of the post for more information and references). You can bet their livers were fattening up too.

The good news doesn’t end there. The fructose group saw a worsening of blood glucose control and insulin sensitivity. They also saw an increase in small, dense LDL particles and oxidized LDL, both factors that associate strongly with the risk of heart attack and may in fact contribute to it. Liver synthesis of fat after meals increased by 75%. If you look at table 4, it’s clear that the fructose group experienced a major metabolic shift, and the glucose group didn’t. Practically every parameter they measured in the fructose group changed significantly over the course of the 9 weeks. It’s incredible.

Here’s the link to the table he references.

And it makes perfect evolutionary sense. Paleoman, at least in most times & places would have had far more access to starchy tubers than fruit, and keep in mind that the fructose concentrations in wild fruits were significantly lower than our selectively bread fruit of today.

Moreover, if you look at what happens to bears when they consume massive amounts of wild berries, they pretty much become obese & near diabetic in advance of hibernation. It’s reasonable to speculate that for humans, seeking out fructose when available in the summer and fall was a specific mechanism we evolved to fatten up a bit so as to help us through the leaner months. Speculative, but I’m practicing a precautionary principle, here. It’s easy enough to just toss another piece of meat, fish, or fowl on the barbie.

So, essentially, unless you are trying to loose weight or are diabetic, I don’t think “low carb” is that essential for most people; but, those carbs should come primarily from starch and not fructose and in particular, not refined sugar and all the foods loaded with sugar.

My supplementation regime is pretty simple (there’s a couple more, but this is the foundation):

Vitamin D3, as I’m not in the sun nearly as much as our ancestors would have been and as well, the epidemiology of cancer when plotted against latitude is pretty interesting.

Omega 3s, to balance out the n-6s I get from trips to restaurants and so on.

Vitamin K2 (MK-4, menatetrenone). This is the form made from K1 by ruminants (found in marrow, organ meats & milkfat) and is also found in eggs, particularly fish eggs. This is Weston Price’s “Activator X.”

The combo of D and K2 in particular has had profound health effects for me. My personal anecdote is that I have always had huge plaque / calculus buildup on my teeth, particularly around the molars & the inside lower front. In time, this created places for bacteria to grow, invade the gum tissue, finally resulting in deep pockets, inflammation, bleeding gums and eventually two surgeries in 2001. But the surgery was only successful in setting back the clock. I still had to have four deep cleanings per year just to hold things at bay.

But when I went paleo and dropped the grains, flour & sugar, something interesting happened. My gum disease began to reverse, as documented by the dentist’s measurements. I still got the plaque and calculous buildup but it wasn’t having an adverse effect on my gum tissue.

Then I began taking the D and K2 and now, I have zero plaque or calculous. My teeth are like smooth pearls every morning and in fact, I only brush now & then — and I use wooden toothpicks instead of floss. The last cleaning I had, well over six months ago demonstrated my gums to be in better shape than when the dentist began warning me back in 1993, 17 years ago.

What do I take away from this? Well, if you read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston Price and take stock in the huge disparity in tooth decay and malocclusion (crowded teeth) between people existing on their traditional diets and those who left for contact with civilization it becomes quite clear that replacing high nutrient-density foods like raw milk, eggs, organ meats, meat, fish and organically grown vegetables with flour and sugar has profound costs.

And, I think that dental health is a great surrogate for asking: how healthy are your bones? How about your arteries? The combo of D and K2 helps to ensure that calcium and other mineral salts go everyplace they should (bones, teeth) and no place they shouldn’t (artery walls, kidney stones, etc.).

Here’s my links on K2.

And you might want to read Dr. Stephan Guyenet’s nine part series, Malocclusion: Disease of Civilization. Go to the bottom and read the posts in reverse. This is amazing work on Dr. Guyenet’s part.

In the end, everyone needs to decide for themselves. I took charge of my own health going on three years ago, now. Rather than paralyze and scare myself to death with contradictory, agenda driven, profit driven “science,” I sought to find out what healthy people were doing, then copy and experiment. Now I’ve lost 60 pounds, am stronger at 49 than ever in my life by far, sleep an average of 7 1/2 hours every night, have far better relationships, never watch the news or fret about quotidian politics, have dispensed with prescription medications for allergies & GURD and above all, feel great and happy.

You have to figure this out for yourself. Gather information, think about it, use what makes sense in your own life, but let no one — including me — tell you what’s right for you.


Well, as you can see by now, I didn’t end up blowing a gasket in this one. That’s fine. As I got going into it I was caught up in the idea of creating a fairly decent narrative of the whole shebang, and I’m pretty happy with it. In particular, if you read some of the links and look especially into Nutrition and Physical Degeneration and search posts using that title at my blog & Dr. Stephan’s, what begins to emerge is a picture of a time when health was a cinch. They simply ate the unadulterated, natural foods available in their environments without silly discrimination, like not eating animal products.

Propose to any currently living true hunter-gatherer group that they forego animals as a source of food. You will leave them befuddled.

Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. The cost of two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance the travel to write, photo, and film from interesting places and share the experiences with you.


  1. Lucky on February 24, 2010 at 17:00

    Those of us who follow a paleo lifestyle have made a decision based on how we feel, look, and act when we eat the way we eat, when we play the way we play, when we sleep and dream and act. Our lives feel better, our bodies perform better, our teeth our stronger, our muscles are satisfied and we move with animal grace and speed.

    When I ate the way Dr. Campbell recommends, I was ill so much of the time, my hair was thin, I looked and felt tired, and my outlook on life was negative and grumpy.

    I’m not trading my paleo life for any manufactured house of cards. I don’t care what anyone says.

  2. Nigel on February 24, 2010 at 15:59

    “I want to continually build material that meats that demand.” I see what you did, there!

  3. Rick on February 24, 2010 at 16:38

    God its beautiful to watch you guys dismantle that arrogant old prick. I swear I can hear music coming off of those pages.

    I love the argument about weight loss being equivalent to eating lard. It’s just flawless…one of those “Why didn’t I think of that?” arguments. It makes anyone who argues against it look foolish.

  4. Primal Buckeye on February 24, 2010 at 16:55


    Great post! Two questions for you: (1) what k2 do you supplement with? and (2) what starches do you eat other than the mashed potatoes I see in your photos?


    • Richard Nikoley on February 25, 2010 at 12:59

      I was using Carlson 5mg but just switched to the LEF K2 complex with 1mg mk-4 and 100mcg mk-7, as well as some k1 I think.

      Potatoes, sweet potatoes, parsnips, and sometimes a few other things like tunips and other roots. Mostly potatoes though, however, I’m currently in a pretty low carb state. I never like to do anything too long, too regular, too chronically.

  5. RR on February 24, 2010 at 17:02

    I’m not sure if it was just an unconscious slip or intentional, but I loved the meats in “… material that meats that demand.” in the intro bit.

  6. Rick on February 24, 2010 at 17:09

    I love how he blames livestock for Global Warming in that first quote you have. Global warming? haha

  7. Greg on February 24, 2010 at 17:20

    Thanks for the compliments on my part of the back-and-forth with Dr. TCC. The ad hominem stuff (and appeal to authority, and any number of other logical fallacies) are almost comical in their overuse by this guy. Were you reading the discussion a few months back when he said some guy told him Atkins wouldn’t show him his medical degree, so therefore Atkins probably wasn’t a real doctor? Actually, he went beyond that…Atkins was a fake doctor who knowingly wrote false diet books solely to ruin peoples’ health for money. Anyway, just ridiculous. He doesn’t seem to understand that for many people, he’s totally lost us with that kind of stuff. I could never read something of his and trust him after seeing how his mind works in this forum. I’m not sure how anyone could take him seriously if they ever encountered any of this. Anyway, I’m glad you and others stepped in and refuted some of the other specific things he said – I feel confident in pointing out his errors in proper debate strategy, but the science stuff is better left to others.


  8. Greg on February 24, 2010 at 17:38

    Also, and this is relatively unimportant, but he’s been writing about science for what, fifty years, and still doesn’t know the difference between “infer” and “imply”? I mentioned that last time through and snuck a little reference in again this time, but it just won’t take. Oh well.

  9. Suzan on February 24, 2010 at 17:51

    We need to (humanely of course) tie the man to a chair and have Lierre Keith read him her book, “The Vegetarian Myth.” After that, we send him to Polyface Farm to work with Joel Salatin for a couple of months. Finally, we book him on Jimmy Moore’s Low Carb Cruise. If he still doesn’t get it after that, then we banish him to a vegan monastery where the residents have taken an eternal vow of silence.

  10. Mark on February 24, 2010 at 18:03

    I’ve been silently watching the amazon thread for a while now and the poster who claims to be TCC sounds so ridiculously childish I often think that it can’t be him.

    I’ve enjoyed watching you, Greg and others tear him a new one. Not that this comment means much because I don’t really have the credentials.

  11. Greg on February 24, 2010 at 18:10

    The best evidence that it’s him is that his “response” to Chris Masterjohn is obviously written by the same person. And, like his posts, opens with the 1-2 punch of HEY, LOOK AT MY BOOK SALES and YOU’RE WRONG BECAUSE YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND MY WORK AND YOU HAVE “EDITORS” AND A PRO-MEAT AGENDA!

  12. Lute Nikoley on February 24, 2010 at 18:20

    Wow, what great reading while consuming my 2 beers (Coors Light, 7g each).
    My first carb intake for the day. I did have a hard boiled egg for breakfast lunch.


  13. Dave RN on February 24, 2010 at 18:25

    Global warming… right. Do people still believe that? I guess in Campbell’s mind it ‘s a good thing we killed all the countless millions of buffalo that used to roam the plains or we’d surely be over the edge by now…

  14. Michael Miller on February 24, 2010 at 18:31

    Hi Richard,

    Re: Low-carb/VLCKD and cancer. Ask TCC if he’s ever heard of the Warburg effect for crissakes. I will have to agree to agree with you on this one–he’s as stupid as he is nerdy looking.



    P.S. — Now you know how I feel about Taubes. :) (After agreeing with you above I had to restore balance to the universe).

    • Kurt G Harris MD on February 24, 2010 at 19:01

      Hey Michael

      I get the smug/jib joke now that Alan explained it to me. Didn’t mean to me so thin-skinned – I don’t spend much time at T-nation, as you might imaging.

      I have a post on what to eat if you get cancer coming up in a few weeks. You might enjoy it.


      • Michael Miller on February 24, 2010 at 19:22

        Hi Dr. Harris,

        All was good when you credited my cleverness. I didn’t think that you would know the jib joke, so I was having some fun at your expense. Any professional with a reputation to protect will naturally take offense to a random “sockpuppet” besmirching their good name. (If you saw the link that Alan provided to the origin of the inside meme you’ll see that I left “prick” out of it).

        Isn’t there that one brain cancer study where the subjects were already passed their expiration date and the researchers put them on a keto diet and the one’s that adhered to the diet managed to outlive the expiration date by a substantial amount of time?



      • Kurt G Harris MD on February 24, 2010 at 20:24

        Unfortunately only 2 patients, but a disease that usually kills you. There is actually a trial being recruited for I’ll be commenting on.

        T-Nation slagging your buddy Alan is a feather in his cap.

    • Skyler Tanner on February 25, 2010 at 06:11

      There’s a place for us over here, Michael. It’s like the Unitarian Universalist Church for Paleo types. :D


      • Richard Nikoley on February 25, 2010 at 13:12

        How about the Paleo Humanist Universal Church, or PHUC?

        I’ll have to run that by my good friend Nancy, the minister of the San Jose UUC.

      • Michael Miller on February 25, 2010 at 13:17

        Hi Richard,

        I’ll come over and hang out and sing Kumbaya with you and your meatpuppets (HA! I crack myself up! Just kidding…), but I’m allergic to that world Paleo.



      • Richard Nikoley on February 25, 2010 at 13:25

        I actually am going to come up with a new word. Been chewing on it a lot. I tend to like Ancestral. We’ll see. Suggestions always welcome.

      • Michael Miller on February 25, 2010 at 13:29

        The Food Amish.

      • Dave, RN on February 25, 2010 at 13:42

        I like “Meatatarians”

  15. mallory on February 24, 2010 at 18:35

    confused about the fructose vs starch…. carbs should come from starch?? arent the carbs in vegetables frustose though?

    • Michael Miller on February 24, 2010 at 18:41

      Hi Mallory,

      Some vegetables, such as onions and red peppers have fructose in them, but at ~2g of fructose per 100g serving, I see no reason to worry about it. The whole “fructose comes from vegetables” thing is probably due to sugar cane being a vegetable.



    • Marnee on February 24, 2010 at 19:00

      Much of what we call vegetables are actually fruits. Anything with seeds that grows on trees or vines are fruits by definition and therefore contain fructose.

      • Michael Miller on February 24, 2010 at 21:00

        Dandelions?!?!?! That’s what’s been holding me back from my goal this WHOLE TIME!!! God, they are so easy to binge on–once I have a bite I just cannot stop, I’m like a ravenous lawn mower. I should have known…

      • Skyler Tanner on February 25, 2010 at 07:01

        But you’ll lose weight because dandelion is a diuretic!

  16. Greg on February 24, 2010 at 19:18

    Richard: please forgive me my ignorance, but does your site discuss your travails with erectile dysfunction anywhere? Because if not, T. Colin has really gone over the edge. Also, apparently he’s reading this thread too, so HI!

    • Richard Nikoley on February 24, 2010 at 20:31

      Damned amazing. You know, I was reading your comment from my iPhone and due to the ED ref, where I’d normally just wait, I clicked over to the Amazon emails for new posts but I didn’t catch it.

      Of course, he said it as though it would be a “benefit,” but we both know what that implication meant. Yea, we’re here, animal eaters ’cause we couldn’t gert it up.

      Hey, my instincts were correct. This is a gift. I get to talk about my 4am woodies that wake me up, tomorrow.

      • Sue on February 25, 2010 at 00:23

        Sounded like Campbell was saying that you act all macho and use foul language to hide the fact that you are a pussy who can’t get it up.

        Its laughable. He just attacks people .

      • Zach on February 25, 2010 at 15:19

        A vegetarian diet was first perpetuated by crackpots like Graham and Kellogg to reduce people’s sexual drive, not to excite it, because they knew even that meat maintained/increased one’s healthy libido, it certainly didn’t inhibit it.

        Crazy how Campbell perpetuates the fantasy that veganism means Viagra, if anything it’s for people who like to have shit run out of them like freight trains (oooh aaah the healthy fiber!) and wear vegetable chastity belts.

        Meat is humans who aren’t afraid of their sexuality. Veganistic Campbellites are achieving the status of modern day eunuchs, sad that many don’t realize it. So, you can either support female or male genital mutilation, or support veganism, you may be unwittingly supporting two ideologies that have the same source…. sexual repression.

      • Zach on February 25, 2010 at 15:20

        Meat is FOR humans who aren’t afraid of their sexuality. Veganistic Campbellites are achieving the status of modern day eunuchs, sad that many don’t realize it. So, you can either support female or male genital mutilation, or support veganism, you may be unwittingly supporting two ideologies that have the same source…. sexual repression.

        darn iphone

      • Markus on February 25, 2010 at 03:06

        Yeah that’s the way to communicate science, by suggesting people who disagree are impotent.
        I rememberd another nice critique you might want to include in your links
        I’ve also added this to the amazon thread.

        Otherwise you have a great site Richard. Others may go deeper into the medical issues, but
        yours is the most entertaining and you speek from the heart.

        Keep it up

      • shel on February 25, 2010 at 17:33


        “keep it up”

        …(heh) of course we can. we eat meat.

  17. Greg on February 24, 2010 at 19:24

    Also, I did not realize you were a potty-mouthed “foul language” user. I guess I haven’t read enough of the site yet.

    • Richard Nikoley on February 24, 2010 at 23:10

      Guilty as charged, Greg, though not in this post. Chalk up another ad hominem. He really does his research, doesn’t he? :)

      • bovinedefenestration on February 27, 2010 at 23:12

        I’m going to be typing pretty foul here, so for those of you with sensitive eyes, cover your ears.

        What’s wrong with being a potty-mouth? Call a spade a spade, when it deserves it. “Asshole” is pretty nice. “Fucktard” is my preferred nomenclature. People’s delicate sensibilities will get upset at even the nicest, most subtle disagreement, even when it lacks invective. I personally like seeing the unedited thoughts of others, it lets me know that I’m not alone in thinking something. I LIKE your potty-mouth!

        Besides, there’s always the old standby, “I can’t say whether he’s fucktarded or not, but what he’s saying certainly is.”

  18. Michael on February 24, 2010 at 23:16

    I go away a few days and find a love-fest of sorts going on over in the paleo mythology thread between two unlikely groups ;-) and vegan propagandist extraordinaire T. Colin Campbell getting it handed to him, again, in this post. :-)

    Little does he know that 24 year old WAPF chapter leader (clearly the man has no idea what the designation means) Chris Masterjohn, who is a sycophant for the CAFO industry (I hope this isn’t indicative of Campbell’s research skills), will be handing it to him again in Tim Ferriss’s upcoming book, Becoming Superhuman. Only now he is 30, approaching the end of his Ph.D program, has had two peer reviewed articles published, and has his own thriving website.

    Some people should just quit when they are ahead.

    • Michael Miller on February 25, 2010 at 07:14

      Need acronym decoder. Found a website, but still not clear on CAFO.

      • Nigel on February 25, 2010 at 08:58

        Who needs acronymfinder when you have Wikipedia?

    • Zach on February 25, 2010 at 11:09

      Michael, really like the imagery. At 24 years old he was like David knocking down Goliath with a slingshot. So, now, at 30 after being purified like gold by the fires of intense academic pursuit, Masterjohn is like freakin’ Hercules ready to do serious damage, like a wrecking ball. Thanks for reminding me that we haven’t seen anything yet.

  19. djinn on February 25, 2010 at 07:04

    Richard –

    By god, I think you’ve got it. While the world would be a better place if TCC had been reprogrammed (or culled) 50 years ago, his best possible current service to humanity has to be serving as a horrible example. Don’t try to shut him up – hold him up and wave him proudly.
    Anyone who is not disgusted by him given enough exposure probably would have voted for that other famous vegetarian 80 years ago.
    I’m proud to know you, kid. True genius is rare.

    • jerome on February 25, 2010 at 07:24

      I’ve got to agree. Richard is very good in his justifiably pissed-off mode, but when he speaks quietly he’s deadly.
      Glad you’re not mad at me, Richard.

      • Michael Miller on February 25, 2010 at 07:37

        That’s great, but what we all want to know is HOW MUCH DOES HE BENCH?!?!?

      • jerome on February 25, 2010 at 08:05

        That may be less relevant than his .45 caliber hollow-point keyboard. ;-)

  20. 02/26/10 – 500m Friday – Test your Max on February 25, 2010 at 22:06

    […] Free the Animal gets after T. Colin Campbell […]

  21. donny on February 25, 2010 at 07:37

    “He also claims that, although it is “somewhat difficult” to “show that animal-based food intake relates to overall cancer rates,” that nevertheless, “animal protein intake was convincingly associated in the China Study with the prevalence of cancer in families”

    This wording is strange. Why is animal protein intake said to be associated with the prevalence of cancer in families?

    Okay, I’ve got my copy of Campbell’s rag in front of me now. He mentions a correlation of blood cholesterol with western diseases, including cancer. He also mentions a correlation of animal food consumption with an increase in blood cholesterol. Blood samples in the study were pooled, so they may have had a measure of cholesterol among family members, but not in individuals; so they could correlate blood cholesterol with cancer in families, but not in individuals. Animal fat can raise total cholesterol. (As long as you design the experiment just right.)

    So meat (animal fat) correlates with total cholesterol…
    Total cholesterol correlates with cancer… (but they only measured it in groups, not individuals)
    Therefore meat causes cholesterol causes cancer. “In families.”

    So what about genetic hyperlipidemia? Or other factors affecting cholesterol metabolism like sugar, or alcohol? Rolled cigarettes were “protective” against cancer; manufactured cigarettes might tend to associate with urbanization, processed foods, etc.

    Why does he go into detail on this point? I guess precisely because the more direct epidemiological research, as Chris Masterjohn has revealed, didn’t show any particular connection between animal protein and cancer. The fact that he turns to this whole animal fat causes cholesterol causes cancer argument, even though the strongest negative correlation between diet and cancer was found with fat intake seems highly dubious at the least.

  22. Zach on February 25, 2010 at 10:38

    Except for the egregious SAD propagandists who are wed to their points of view because of their financial stakes, the laymen like you and I (though you really are beyond layman at this point!), the doctors, researchers, we’ll all likely be more receptive to changing our views with a kind word rather than a shout. I think you have a good mix of using reason and jokes and sarcasm to get people’s attention. To show you I’m a big nerd, Campbell’s like Gollum here, he’s too far gone, he’s been corrupted by the ring.

    I think there are great examples of doctors who used to believe the lowfat nonsense that changed their views and came out for reason and truth. Jeez, all of us are practically in this camp. It will take another generation before we have children who grew up eating “right” from birth. Even Andrew Weil who has so much lowfat history it’s crazy, had enormous praise for Taubes… cuz he opened his mind.

    Regarding Davis, more power to you, Peter and Kurt in giving him a nod the right way, cuz that cat may convert when it’s all said and done. Hope that’s all understood.

    But, Campbell’s just too far gone man, he’s got too much of a stake in it, too much pride invested. I got a feeling he can’t counter your data/info above without resorting to personal attacks or claiming that he’s being personally attacked. His life would be invalidated if he were to change his views now. More power to you if you’re able. It would be quite an achievement, and Campbell could actually become quite the hero. Again, to show how much of a nerd I am, if he were to turn away from the dark side, imagine what good he could do, the force is strong in that one, too bad he doesn’t use it properly.

  23. […] Subscribe ← The China Study and T. Colin Campbell on Amazon’s Low-Carb Forum […]

  24. Greg on February 25, 2010 at 17:20

    Just thought you all might want to know that according to T. Colin, I coined the term “carb.” Thank-you. Yes, it was me. Please send your royalty checks promptly.

    • Patrick N. on February 25, 2010 at 17:37

      LOL ! I bet I could find prior art. ;-)


  25. Greg on February 25, 2010 at 17:48

    T. Colin thinks that it’s a nefarious marketing scheme, I gather from his previous posts on the topic. This from a guy who markets his book as “The China Study” – ooo, it’s the STUDY! It must be irrefutable science!

    • bovinedefenestration on February 27, 2010 at 23:19

      Does this nefarious marketing scheme involve cockpuppets? If it does, I’ll make a few socks of my own and jump right in! :D

      • gallier2 on February 28, 2010 at 03:38

        What are “cockpuppets”?

  26. Elisabeth on March 1, 2010 at 06:16

    Dr. Campbell is also accusing meat-eaters of destroying the world. It turns out that clear-cutting rainforests in order to plant soy (as though there isn’t enough) has become much more destructive than cattle ranching. My family now buys as much of the steer as has been made available in order to get more from one animal and minimalize expense and waste. Of course, this goes for all meats as everything is used, including bones. The idea that vegetarians are making earth safer and cleaner has been good for industrial seed mongers and food producers…not the planet.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.