Nail to the coffin of prof Campbell's theory of cancer supposedly triggered by protein

.

A long-time vegan diet promoter Prof-emeritus T.C Campbell of Cornell University, author of The China Study book, used to claim in his studies that adding protein to high carbohydrate mice diet does trigger the cancer while removing it reduces the frequency and size of cancerous tumors. Campbell argues that casein, a protein found in milk from mammals, is "the most significant carcinogen we consume" (see Wiki T. Colin Campbell and Talk by T. Colin Campbell Archived 2011-04-17 at the Wayback Machine, Google Videos, 20:24 mins, accessed December 3, 2010.).

Campbell's theory has been questioned for some time. Most notably, Denise Minger has posted some very in-depth and thorough analyses on-line discussing what exactly may have gone wrong with Campbell's research.

This study found that the reality is in fact quite the opposite to the scientist's claim, showing that a high protein low carbohydrate diet had in fact almost completely protected the genetically-modified cancer-susceptible mice against getting cancer (while the high-carbohydrate control group got 50% cancer!)

"A Low Carbohydrate, High Protein Diet Slows Tumor Growth and Prevents Cancer Initiation", by
Victor W. Ho, Kelvin Leung, Anderson Hsu, Beryl Luk, June Lai, Sung Yuan Shen, Andrew I. Minchinton, Dawn Waterhouse, Marcel B. Bally, Wendy Lin, Brad H. Nelson, Laura M. Sly and Gerald Krystal, Published in Cancer Research/AACR, July 2011


Quote

Abstract

Since cancer cells depend on glucose more than normal cells, we compared the effects of low carbohydrate (CHO) diets to a Western diet on the growth rate of tumors in mice. To avoid caloric restriction–induced effects, we designed the low CHO diets isocaloric with the Western diet by increasing protein rather than fat levels because of the reported tumor-promoting effects of high fat and the immune-stimulating effects of high protein. We found that both murine and human carcinomas grew slower in mice on diets containing low amylose CHO and high protein compared with a Western diet characterized by relatively high CHO and low protein. There was no weight difference between the tumor-bearing mice on the low CHO or Western diets.

Additionally, the low CHO-fed mice exhibited lower blood glucose, insulin, and lactate levels. Additive antitumor effects with the low CHO diets were observed with the mTOR inhibitor CCI-779 and especially with the COX-2 inhibitor Celebrex, a potent anti-inflammatory drug. Strikingly, in a genetically engineered mouse model of HER-2/neu–induced mammary cancer, tumor penetrance in mice on a Western diet was nearly 50% by the age of 1 year whereas no tumors were detected in mice on the low CHO diet. This difference was associated with weight gains in mice on the Western diet not observed in mice on the low CHO diet. Moreover, whereas only 1 mouse on the Western diet achieved a normal life span, due to cancer-associated deaths, more than 50% of the mice on the low CHO diet reached or exceeded the normal life span. Taken together, our findings offer a compelling preclinical illustration of the ability of a low CHO diet in not only restricting weight gain but also cancer development and progression. Cancer Res; 71(13); 4484–93. ©2011 AACR.

What was also interesting that an addition of an anti-inflammatory COX-2 inhibitor drug (Celebrex, 1g/kg body) slowed down the tumor growth by about a half, regardless of a diet! Not sure how to interpret it, perhaps that inflammation accelerates the tumor growth in general?

Potatoes and cereals are heart disease risk while dairy, fat and meat are good for you

.
- says the new study: "FOOD CONSUMPTION AND THE ACTUAL STATISTICS OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES: AN EPIDEMIOLOGICAL COMPARISON OF 42 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES" .

Results: ...The most significant dietary correlate of low CVD risk was high total fat and animal protein consumption. Additional statistical analyses further highlighted citrus fruits, high-fat dairy (cheese) and tree nuts. ... The major correlate of high CVD risk was the proportion of energy from carbohydrates and alcohol, or from potato and cereal carbohydrates.

Conclusion: Our results do not support the association between CVDs and saturated fat, which is still contained in official dietary guidelines. Instead, they agree with data accumulated from recent studies that link CVD risk with the high glycaemic index/load of carbohydrate-based diets. In the absence of any scientific evidence connecting saturated fat with CVDs, these findings show that current dietary recommendations regarding CVDs should be seriously reconsidered.

(CVD stands for "Cardio Vascular Disease")

by Cecilia Bleszynski (C) 2017

The first graph published in the paper:

is the most interesting in conjunction with the rest of the results, showing that the high consumption of animal fat and protein correlates very well with high blood cholesterol level and at the same time (see for example Fig.4 and 7) the high cholesterol and high consumption of animal fat and protein correlate consistently and strongly with the low cardiovascular and other diseases' risk! That is yet another nail to the coffin of the cholesterol-heart hypothesis and an indication that the blood cholesterol correlation with cardiovascular disease (+ or -) is secondary and spurious while the primary risk factor appears to be related to the carbohydrate contents of the diet! Note that some of the graphs refer to women some for men but the actual correlation factors are similar for men and momen (see Table 1) with the exception of correlations involving BMI and smoking which are opposite for women and men (that is another interesting subject).

Most of the results point consistently and strongly, see for example Fig.10 towards the carbohydrates contents of the diet as being the strongest positive correlator with the cardiovascular disease risk, where as the animal and most plant fats correlate most negatively (that is being protective) against cardiovascular disease, see Table 1, with the notable exception of sunflower oil which correlates strongly and positively with the CVD.

It is also interestingly to notice a strong linear correlation graph with very low data scatter, between the prevalence of raised blood glucose and consumption of carbohydrates plus alcohol ('CA' variable), on Fig.9:

Although diabetes risk was not directly measured in the study, Fig.9 appears to indicate that diabetes risk may be steeply correlated to the total consumption of carbohydrates plus alcohol, and strongly inversely correlated with the consumption of animal fat and protein (see Table 1). For example an increase of the dietary carbohydrate+alcohol contents from 42% to 68% seems to increase the prevalence of high blood glucose (and thus probably diabetes risk as well) by a factor of 3!

The overall results of this study are also remarkably consistent with the original China Study data as published on the Oxford University web site and  discussed on this blog (see my previous posts).

The study is also discussed in the following journalistic article:

"Potatoes and cereals are health risk, while dairy is good for you, says new study".

A long-time vegan guru changes from fatophobic to favoring saturated fat!

.

Plant Oils Are Not a Healthy Alternative to Saturated Fat
By T. Colin Campbell, PhD July 21, 2016

My take on Dr. TCC's change of opinion about saturated fat:  I think his claims of expertise and consistency in terms of understanding the effects of various fats are not true, and it can be very easily checked by looking at his academic papers, popular publications and articles. He has always been the low fat exclusively plant-based diet promoter discouraging his followers against consuming any kinds of fats, especially dairy and animal fat. I would not be surprised if we shall soon witness a similar complete re-evaluation of his anti-animal protein beliefs as well, by himself or his colleagues.

In the last 15 years I have been warning many professional low fat vegan diet promoters on various forums, to bail out of their belief system earlier while they still could, rather than later. Not only to prevent hurting their  followers but also to minimize the damage to their own professional careers. The best time of jumping the sinking ship of low fat vegetarianism was a few years ago before it begun getting discredited rather than now when it is sinking like a boat anchor.

It is too late for Dr. TCC and others. He appeared to have sacrificed the truth about fats for short term career benefits in the past several decades of his work and now all that is coming back to bite him. However, all the pseudo-scientific anti-fat vegan garbage that various gurus have been spewing out in the mass media, on-line websites and in printed popular literature over the years is out there for all to re-read and ponder... - It cannot be undone!

(Thanks for the link, JC)

Quote (from somebody):
It's is not what is taken into one's mouth that can can be most harmful, it is what comes out!

Wiki Butter

Animal protein and osteoporosis myth

.

This is a compilation of my past discussions (2007). Since this issue comes back so often, I decided to re-post it here, as the reference [or just to annoy] 8-:) . 

------------------------

Myth 1: "Populations which consume a very high amount of dairy get more hip fractures than those which don't."

and

Myth 2: "It isn't only the calcium that comes in which is important but the calcium which is leached out due to high animal protein diets.

I am sorry to disappoint the true believers, but it is just the opposite! People who avoid animal protein believing that they are saving their bones are in fact increasing the risk of osteoporosis.

The following study found that women who consumed the most animal protein (+43%) had only one-fifth risk of hip fractures:

"Prospective study of dietary protein intake and risk of hip fracture in postmenopausal women"
by Ronald G Munger, James R Cerhan, and Brian C-H Chiu Am J Clin Nutr 1999;69:147-52.

Results: Forty-four cases of incident hip fractures were included in the analyses of 104 338 person-years (the number of subjects studied times the number of years of follow-up) of follow-up data. The risk of hip fracture was not related to intake of calcium or vitamin D, but was negatively associated with total protein intake. Animal rather than vegetable sources of protein appeared to account for this association. In a multivariate model with inclusion of age, body size, parity, smoking, alcohol intake, estrogen use, and physical activity, the relative risks of hip fracture decreased across increasing quartiles of intake of animal protein as follows: 1.00 (reference), 0.59 (95% CI: 0.26, 1.34), 0.63 (0.28, 1.42), and 0.31 (0.10, 0.93); P for trend = 0.037.

Conclusion: Intake of dietary protein, especially from animal sources, may be associated with a reduced incidence of hip fractures in postmenopausal women.

Table 4 of the study shows some really interesting data on the risk of hip fractures (from 6-th column). Namely, in addition to much lower (factor of 0.31) risk for the 43% higher consumption of animal protein, they found 1.9 times HIGHER risk associated with the 31% higher consumption of VEGETABLE protein!

Carbohydrate consumption turned out to have been a much bigger factor, perhaps the biggest factor:

23% higher consumption of carbohydrates was associated with 3 times higher rate of fractures!

If we recalculate (normalize) those risk factors per 100% (i.e. per doubling) increase of the consumption of each: total protein, animal protein, veg protein and carbohydrates, then we obtain the following:

Hip fracture risk correlation:

• Total protein: - risk reduction 3.6 times
• Animal protein:- risk reduction 4.5 times
• Vegetable protein:- risk INCREASE 2.9 times
• Carbohydrate:- risk INCREASE 4.9 times

In addition, women who experienced hip fractures (as opposed to those who didn't) consumed less animal fat, less saturated fat, less alcohol, had lower body mass index, had fewer pregnancies, smoked less, consumed more calcium, more vegetable fat and more vit D.

Heretic

------------------------------------------------------
REFERENCES

Papers:

"Controlled High Meat Diets Do Not Affect Calcium Retention or Indices of Bone Status in Healthy Postmenopausal Women"

"Protein intake: effects on bone mineral density and the rate of bone loss in elderly women"

"Effect of Dietary Protein on Bone Loss in Elderly Men and Women: The Framingham Osteoporosis Study"

"Factors associated with calcium absorption efficiency in pre- and perimenopausal women"

Quote: "Women in the lowest tertile of the ratio of dietary fat to fiber had 19% lower fractional calcium absorption values than did women in the highest tertile of ratio of dietary fat to fiber"

Articles:

"Protein Saves Bone in Elders"

"New Data on Dietary Protein and Bone"

------ More references, update 1-Aug-2001 ---------------------------------------

This is based on the most recent blog article by Denise Minger quoting various peer-reviewed publications using China Study data. This is a MUST READ!

Some of the papers were co-authored by the well known expert vegan scientist Dr. T.Colin Campbell but unlike in his popular book, those papers are based on individual rather than county-averaged data. They also state completely opposite conclusion regarding heart disease, cancer and bone health which is quite remarkable for a senior mainstream academic scientist! The same man but two opposite views! Now to the subject of osteoporosis, bone density, calcium and diet:


* Dietary calcium and bone density among middle-aged and elderly women in China" by Ji-Fan Hu, Xi-He Zhao, Jian-Bin Jia, Banoo Parpia, and T. Colin Campbell.

Quote:

However, decline in bone mass after menopause for women in county WA (higher dairy calcium) was at a somewhat slower rate than for women in the nonpastoral areas (without dairy calcium).
...

Thus. differences in the rate of bone loss between these areas may be related to differences in dairy calcium intake, given that 34.6% ofealcium in county WA and none in the other nonpastoral areas was from milk. Indeed, dairy calcium was found to be more significantly correlated with bone mass than was nondairy calcium (Table 7), even though these analyses only included women with dairy food intake in counties YA and WA (n= 253). Nondairy calcium. in contrast, showed no association with bone variables after age and/or body weight were adjusted for (Table 7).

BMC and BMD at the distal and midradius were positively associated with consumption of milk (r = 0. 1 5-0.26, P [less than] 0.003) and with consumption of hard cheese and other dairy foods (r = 0.22-0.29, P [less than] 0.01) (data not shown). These results agree with those reported in other cross-sectional studies (35, 37). A similar association between daily milk intake and bone density was also reported by Yano et al (10) in Hawaiian Japanese males and females and by Shiehita (23) in 85 healthy Japanese males and females, whose calcium intakes were as low as in our study. Increasing calcium intake with calcium-rich foods (milk and cheese) was found to reduce bone loss in adolescent (34), osteoporotic (38), premenopausal (14), and lactating (39) women.

* Veganism and osteoporosis: A review of the current literature. "The findings gathered consistently support the hypothesis that vegans do have lower bone mineral density than their non-vegan counterparts."

* A Comparison of Bone Mass Measurements of Vegetarians and Omnivores. "In this review of 9 cross-sectional and 1 longitudinal study, little statistical significance between bone density and bone content was found between vegetarians and omnivores."

* Effect of vegetarian diets on bone mineral density: a Bayesian meta-analysis. "The results suggest that vegetarian diets, particularly vegan diets, are associated with lower BMD, but the magnitude of the association is clinically insignificant."

* Long-Term Vegetarian Diet and Bone Mineral Density in Postmenopausal Taiwanese Women. "Long-term practitioners of vegan vegetarian were found to be at a higher risk of exceeding lumbar spine fracture threshold … and of being classified as having osteopenia of the femoral neck."

The rest of Denise article quotes more papers co-authored by T.C.Campbell, that conclude a positive protective role of dairy, meat and fish rich diets against cancer, heart disease and other disease in China. Read it all!

.

Cow's milk formula triggers t1 diabetes, new study

.

Dietary Intervention in Infancy and Later Signs of Beta-Cell Autoimmunity

A journalist's write-up is here

Double-blind study on 230 infants with HLA-conferred susceptibility to type 1 diabetes and with at least one family member with type 1 diabetes, were split into test group fed casein hydrolizate based formula, and the control group fed conventional cow's milk based formula.

Autoantibodies to insulin, glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD), the insulinoma-associated 2 molecule (IA-2), and zinc transporter 8 were analyzed, as well as monitored for the incidence of diabetes t1, until the age of 10.  

The risk of developing diabetes t1 markers in the casein hydrolizate group was substantially reduced - by  ~50%, compared with the control group reciving cow's milk formula!

-------------------
Updated (14-Nov-2010)   This is going to be a story of two food villains and one food hero.

There is more to milk that 1 paper. Much more: a study involving a billion people. The China study. I am going to dump some facts here for the reference.

My source of data is Mono Mortality document. A cursory look at all diseases with the focus on correlation with milk reveals that milk correlates positively with almost all diseases! The same cursory look reveals also that two other food items: wheat flour and eggs correlate very consistently too across most diseases,
one positively one negatively. Note: positive correlation means that an increase in consumption is associated with more disease and more harm, whereas negative correlation means an increase in consumption is associated with less risk of a disease. The main bullet points of this review are these:

* Wheat flour correlates positively with almost all diseases (except pulmonary TB in adults)

* Milk correlates positively with almost all diseases (except diabetes)

* Eggs correlate negatively with almost all diseases (except cancer, diabetes and IHD)

One should keep in mind that a correlation is no causuation, however the fact that milk and wheat and eggs correlate simultaneously and follow the same consistent pattern, albeit with different signs, may indicate that something real is going on in the human biochemistry in relation to those foods. This is a strong indication that more reseaarch should be made to investigate the effect. This is also a indictment against Cornell University that sat on such a rich set of data for a decade without doing anything usefull about it. (Other than letting one of their staff profesor hijack the study title to propagate his veganism!)


--------------

Here are some examples, I will list correlation factors from the above linked document, for disease mortalities against wheat, milk and eggs only.  Correlation factors are given as two digit numbers in percentage, followed by the food item.

M015 Pullmonary TB (age 0-34):+34 Milk , -27 Eggs
M016 Pullmonary TB (age 35-69): -29 Wheat
M018 Other TB (age 35-69): +52 Wheat, -30 Eggs
M023 All cancer (age 35-69): +31 Eggs
M043 Endocrine (age 0-34): -36 Eggs
M044 Endocrine (age 35-69): -31 Milk
M045 Diabetes (age 35-69): -29 Milk, +26 Eggs
M050 Mental (age 0-34): +75% Milk
M059 All Vascular (age 35-69): +56 Wheat, +29 Milk, -26 Eggs
M060 Rheumatic (age 0-34): +37 Milk, -35 Eggs
M061 Rheumatic (age 35-69): +26 Wheat, -32 Eggs
M062 Hypertension (age 35-69): +43 Wheat, +75 Milk, -28 Eggs
M063 Ischaemic heart d.(age 35-69): +59 Wheat, +25 Eggs
M065 Stroke (age 35-69): +43 Wheat
M066 All vasc excl stroke (0-34): +33 Wheat, +42 Milk, -43 Eggs
M067 All vasc excl stroke (age 35-69):+65 Wheat, +50 Milk, -33 Eggs
M068 All respiratory (age 0-34): +50 Milk, -27 Eggs
M069 All respiratory (age 35-69): - (no correlation) -
M070 Pneumonia (age 0-34): +51 Milk, -27 Eggs
M071 Pneumonia (age 35-69): -32 Eggs
M087 Pregnancy and birth: +41 Wheat, +49 Milk, -48 Eggs
M104 Maternal mort.: +38 Wheat, +46 Milk, -42 Eggs

.

Wheat

If you haven't already seen the post, this is a must-read:
The China Study, Wheat, and Heart Disease; Oh My!

Quote (added 13/05/2015):

If you’ve been following along with the previous China Study entries (and the wild drama that ensued), you know that I’ve been promising an entry on wheat for a while now, mostly because this little snippet snagged so many eyes:

Correlation between wheat flour and coronary heart disease: 0.67

That’s a value straight from the original China Study data. Could the “Grand Prix of epidemiology” have accidentally uncovered a link between the Western world’s leading cause of death and its favorite glutenous grain? Is the “staff of life” really the staff of death? Bwah ha ha.

Two graphs from Denise Minger blog article, (the graphs are based on the Oxford China Study spreadsheet data) :

(China Study, Denise Minger blog)

(China Study, Denise Minger blog)

China Study says wheat is associated with vascular disease

.
... but probably not with cancer!

The following graphs are based on the Raw China Study data  , using 1989 part of the study, total M+F, 3-rd "xiang".  My original spreadsheet is here in OpenOffice 3.2 Calc format.  The following graphs represent raw scatter plots for specific disease mortality (all vascular or all cancer)  against each of the independent variables, with no data processing of any kind.

--------------------------

I have to add a paper I found quoted by Denise Minger in her laterst response, that is definitely worth a note:

Nunes and Silva, 2009, "Systemic Correlates of Angiographic Coronary Artery Disease"

Quote:

Significant correlation values versus CADB [coronary artery disease burden] were seen with age (r 0.19, p 0.04), uric acid (r 0.18, p 0.048) and fasting plasma glucose (r 0.33, p<0.001).  

Interestingly, in addition to plasma glucose, uric acid correlates with fructose consumption. Both point to metabolic syndrome and pre-diabetes as the main causative factor behind atherosclerosis in this particular study. How is Chinese wheat consumption fitting in here? Since rice does not correlate with vascular risk while wheat does, it may indicate a presence of another factor associated with wheat that correlates positively and perhaps causuatively with the metabolic syndrome and thus with the vascular disease. I am going to come back to this issue in the future posts.

Updated 7-Aug-2010

The situation is very confusing, since some studies done in the West such as those reviewed in this compilation or the Nurses' Study  tend to indicate that consumption of the whole grain wheat correlates with lower heart disease. I can't think of any obvious explanation of that contradiciton.   Perhaps one of the following possibilities may be playing a role:
(a) China Study is wrong or is showing a spurious correlation (albeit a very strong one M059 over D038 is +56%, see page 215); (b) Western medical studies are wrong or showing a spurious (weak -17% to -29%) correlation masking some other underlying factor such as an overal carbohydrate intake? (overall carbs intake also correlated with vasc disease in China Study!); (c) It may depend on what wheat consumption is compared against - either wheat compared against rice or whole wheat consumption compared against refined wheat and sugar? In the latter case the problem is what toxic factor playes the role in the refined wheat but not in the whole wheat? Logic would dictate that it should be the other way around, for example wheat germ agglutins (ref) should be more aboundand in the whole wheat products than in the refine flour products.

China Study says animal fat is healthy!

.
The following graphs are based on the Raw China Study data  , using 1989 part of the study, total M+F, 3-rd "xiang".  My original spreadsheet is here in OpenOffice 3.2 Calc format.  The following graphs represent raw scatter plots for specific disease mortality (all vascular or all cancer)  against each of the independent variables, with no data processing of any kind.

The China Study corroborates Kwasniewski's diet

.
The data seem to corroborate Dr. Kwasniewski's Optimal Diet, to some extent, in terms of the trend.  That is, a higher fat shows a trend towards better health, where as the more protein and more carbs tend towards higher mortalities. At the same time the raw data I have seen so far do not seem to support an idea that plant based very low fat nutrition is healthier!

Dr. Kwasniewski's diet is high in animal fat, low in protein (unlike Atkins) and low in carbohydrates. Similar to Atkins but puts a restriction on protein (1g/kg of ideal body weight, per day) and does not advocate an "induction" stage followed by an increase in carbohydrates.

The following graphs are based on the Raw China Study data  , using 1989 part of the study, total M+F, 3-rd "xiang".  My original spreadsheet is here in OpenOffice 3.2 Calc format.  (Sorry, no Excel, got tired of loosing data).  The following graphs represent raw scatter plots for specific disease mortality (all vascular or all cancer)  against each of the independent variables, with no data processing of any kind.  You be the judge!   :)

_________________________________________

VASCULAR DISEASE MORTALITY VERSUS MACRONUTRIENTS AND TOTAL BLOOD CHOLESTEROL

_________________________________________

ALL CANCER MORTALITY VERSUS MACRONUTRIENTS AND TOTAL BLOOD CHOLESTEROL

"..The ‘Grand Prix’...the most comprehensive large study ever undertaken of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease....tantalizing findings"
The New York Times

China Study - Raw Data - more plant food = more heart disease!

.
At last! Finally the Raw Data behind the infamous "The China Study..." book by Dr. TC Campbell from Cornell University has emmerged out of some obscure "unobtainium" publication and became available on-line on the Clinical Trial Service Unit at Oxford University web site!

http://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/~china/monograph/chdata.htm

Below are the links to blogs and sources.

#1. Denise Minger on China Study - long and in depth analysis of the raw data with graphs. See also her article on Tuoli county the only county in the China Study that consumed a high fat medium carb diet:

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/06/23/tuoli-chinas-mysterious-milk-drinkers/

According to our prominent vegan theorists such as Drs Campbel, Ornish, McDougall, Esselstyne et al, the Tuoli people ought to have been very sick or dead. As you can read from Denise analysis nothing is farthest from truth. Tuoli seems to be healthier than in most other China counties!

#2. Fantastic comment by Richard Kroeker on Amazon forum,
- giving his own analyzis of the raw date similar to and corroborationg an analysis by Denise Minger.  Note: you should start reading from that post and then move on to #1 above, since Kroeker's article is much shorter.

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

Quote:

... This is not at all what Campbell's book implied the data said. As I said above, I am an engineer (with a PhD) with heart disease simply trying to find out what to eat. You do the math...

My day-job is analyzing hard drive failure statistics that result from usage and stress testing; I get paid to make the problems being studied "go away". I have also recently had a triple bypass, ...

For instance, the people who ate the most animal protein had 68.9% less heart disease (at 95% confidence) than those people who ate the least animal protein. The people who ate the most plant protein had 64.9% more heart disease (at 89% confidence) than those people who ate the least plant protein.

I am quoting here some interesting correlation (actually the risk ratio between the extreme sample bins for a given variable, '-' means improvement, '+' means harm) from Kroeker's post, the first column numbers are univariate (single-variable, uncorrected against possible confounders) risk ratios in %, the most negative numbers (blue) = low mortality, the most positive numbers (red) = high mortality. The second number in brackets are the "confidence" estimates in % as per Kroeker's definition (see here in his methodology document). This is for mortality of all vascular disease age 35-69.



RISK% (CONFIDENCE%) - INDEPENDENT VARIABLE

-70.7% (93%) - PERCENTAGE OF CALORIC INTAKE FROM FAT
-68.9% (95%) - PERCENTAGE ANIMAL PROTEIN INTAKE
-60.8% (92%) - HDLCHOL plasma HIGH DENSITY LIPOPROTEIN CHOLESTEROL (mg/dL)
-57.0% (89%) - PERCENTAGE OF CALORIC INTAKE FROM ANIMAL
-55.6% (90%) - ANIMAL FOOD INTAKE (g/day/ref)
-55.1% (94%) - FOLATE plasma FOLATE (ng/mL)
-54.8% (89%) - ANIMAL PROTEIN INTAKE (g/day/ref)
-54.1% (90%) - FISH INTAKE (g/day/ref)

-49.5% (84%) - TOTAL LIPID INTAKE (g/day/reference man)
-49.1% (87%) - PERCENTAGE ANIMAL FOOD INTAKE (for refere
-48.4% (83%) - MEAT INTAKE (red meat and poultry) (g/day
-48.0% (83%) - CHOLESTEROL INTAKE (mg/day/reference man)
-46.6% (81%) - RED MEAT (pork, beef, mutton) INTAKE (g/d
-42.2% (82%) - SATURATED FATTY ACID INTAKE (g/day/ref)
-40.7% (89%) - RICE INTAKE (g/day/reference man, air-dry
-38.0% (84%) - TOTAL CAROTENOID INTAKE (retinol equivale
-36.0% (84%) - POULTRY INTAKE (g/day/reference man, as-c
-42.9% (82%) - Se plasma SELENIUM (ug/dL)
-42.8% (85%) - TOTPROT plasma 1989 TOTAL PROTEIN (g/dL)
-42.6% (86%) - APOA1 plasma APOLIPOPROTEIN A1 (mg/dL) (non-pooled analysis
-40.7% (88%) - Zn plasma ZINC (mg/dL)
-38.7% (76%) - B-CAROT plasma BETA CAROTENE (ug/dL)
-38.0% (82%) - ANHYDLUT plasma ANHYDRO LUTEIN (ug/dL)
-34.6% (81%) - TOTCHOL plasma TOTAL CHOLESTEROL (mg/dL)
-34.1% (79%) - NON-HDL plasma CHOLEST.(mg/dL)[=LDL+Trig/5]

...

32.4% (79%) - plasma LDL to HDL ratio
35.6% (75%) - PLANT FOOD INTAKE (g/day/reference man)
37.5% (82%) - POTASSIUM INTAKE (mg/day/ref)
39.3% (76%) - SPICE INTAKE (g/day/ref)
39.6% (84%) - TOTAL NEUTRAL DETERGENT FIBRE INTAKE (g/d/ref)
40.0% (84%) - MAGNESIUM INTAKE (mg/day/ref)
42.2% (80%) - MANGANESE INTAKE (mg/day/ref)
43.0% (90%) - OTHER CEREAL INTAKE (g/day/ref)
46.4% (93%) - TOTAL PROTEIN INTAKE (g/day/ref)
47.7% (91%) - COPPER INTAKE (mg/day/ref)

50.5% (87%) - IRON INTAKE (mg/day/ref)
54.3% (91%) - PERCENTAGE OF CALORIC INTAKE FROM CARBOHYDRATES
56.0% (87%) - PERCENTAGE PLANT FOOD INTAKE
58.9% (95%) - PLANT PROTEIN INTAKE (g/day/reference man)
62.4% (97%) - WHEAT FLOUR INTAKE (g/day/reference man)
64.9% (89%) - PERCENTAGE PLANT PROTEIN INTAKE (for ref)
65.7% (95%) - PERCENTAGE OF CALORIC INTAKE FROM PLANT PROTEIN

#3. Richard Nikoley's blog where I found the original links (thanks):

http://freetheanimal.com/2010/07/t-colin-campbells-the-china-study-finally-exhaustively-discredited.html

Stan (Heretic)

-----------------------------------

Update 13-July-2010


HILLARIOUS response (and also the comment #505 here (*) that is  http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/#comment-505   ) by Dr. TC Campbell of Cornell University to Denise Minger!

No discussion of the data, instead plenty of ad-hominem attacks, pointing out her age, questioning her character integrity and weaving some conspiracy theory implying backing by some lobbying organization having "untold financial resources" such as Weston A. Price Foundation!   :)

Dr. TC Campbell of Cornell U. (probably) wrote:

"I find it very puzzling that someone with virtually no training in this science can do such a lengthy and detailed analysis in their supposedly spare time. I know how agricultural lobbying organizations do it–like the Weston A Price Foundation with many chapters around the country and untold amounts of financial resources. Someone takes the lead in doing a draft of an article, then has access to a large number of commentators to check out the details, technical and literal, of the drafts as they are produced. I have no proof, of course, whether this young girl is anything other than who she says she is, but I find it very difficult to accept her statement that this was her innocent and objective reasoning, and hers alone. If she did this alone, based on her personal experiences from age 7 (as she describes it), I am more than impressed."

- I am not!
H.

----------

*) If someone figured it out how to link to a comment by its number, on wordpress blog please let me know. Nothing obvious such as ?comment=505 etc seems to work.

Update 17-July-2010

Reordering and reformatting. It is interesting to notice that in China Study the higher total cholesterol, and the higher LDL+Triglycerides correlated with LOWER cardiovascular mortality; while higher HDL level correlated very strongly with lower cardiovascular mortality!

Update 29-July-2010

Added confidence levels in brackets (%) and a link to Rich Kroeker's methodology document.

.