The Best Foods: test your nutrition knowledge

The Best Foods: test your nutrition knowledge

November 6, 2011 by Michael Greger M.D. in News with 11 Comments


Today I’m highlighting twenty questions from twenty NutritionFacts.org “best of” videos ranking different classes of foods. Ultimately, the “best” apple, bean, vegetable, etc. is whichever one you actually eat (in the same way that the “best” exercise is the exercise you actually do), but if you’re in a position to choose, then why not shoot for the best of the best?

The first 20 people to email me all 20 correct answers will win my latest nutrition DVD. Watch the videos for the answers and email me atnutritioncontest@gmail.com—and good luck!

1. The best apple:
a. Braeburn
b. Cortland
c. Empire
d. Fuji
e. Gala
f. Golden delicious
g. Golden nugget
h. Granny Smith
i. Honeycrisp
j. Idared
k. Red delicious

2. The best bean:
a. Black
b. Chickpea
c. Green split pea
d. Kidney
e. Lentil
f. Pinto
g. Yellow split pea

3. Best anticancer vegetable:
a. Acorn squash
b. Asparagus
c. Beets
d. Bok choi
e. Boston lettuce
f. Broccoli
g. Brussels sprouts
h. Carrot
i. Cauliflower
j. Celery
k. Cucumber
l. Curly cabbage
m. Eggplant
n. Endive
o. Fennel
p. Fiddlehead ferns
q. Garlic
r. Green bean
s. Green cabbage
t. Green onion
u. Jalapeno
v. Kale
w. Leek
x. Orange bell pepper
y. Potato
z. Radicchio
aa. Radish
bb. Red cabbage
cc. Romaine lettuce
dd. Rutabaga
ee. Spinach
ff. Tomato
gg. Yellow onion

4. The best cooking method:
a. Baking
b. Boiling
c. Frying
d. Griddling
e. Microwaving
f. Pressure cooking

5. The best mushroom (based on antioxidant content):
a. Button
b. Chanterelles
c. Morels
d. Oyster
e. Porcini
f. Shiitake

6. The best mushroom for breast cancer prevention:
a. Button
b. Chanterelle
c. Crimini
d. Enoki
e. Italian brown
f. Oyster
g. Portobello
h. Shiitake
i. Stuffing
j. Woodear

7. The best rice:
a. Black rice
b. Brown rice
c. Red rice
d. White rice

8. The best nut:
a. Almond
b. Brazil nut
c. Cashew
d. Macadamia
e. Pecan
f. Peanut
g. Pine Nut
h. Pistachio
i. Walnut

9. The best airplane beverage:
a. Apple juice from concentrate
b. Cranberry juice cocktail
c. Hot coffee
d. Hot tea
e. Orange juice from concentrate
f. Tomato juice from concentrate
g. Water

10. The best onion:
a. Red
b. White
c. Yellow

11. The best lentil:
a. Red
b. Green
c. French green

12. The healthiest sweetener:
a. Agave nectar
b. Blackstrap molasses
c. Brown rice syrup
d. Corn syrup
e. Dark brown sugar
f. Date sugar
g. Honey
h. Light brown sugar
i. Maple syrup
j. Raw cane sugar
k. Sugar
l. Turbinado sugar

13. The best low-calorie sweetener:
a. Acesulfame-K
b. Aspartame
c. Cyclamate
d. Erythritol
e. Saccharin
f. Stevia
g. Sucralose
h. Xylitol

14. Healthiest chocolate fix:
a. Baking chocolate
b. Chocolate syrup
c. Cocoa powder
d. Dark chocolate
e. Milk chocolate
f. Semi-sweet chocolate

15. The best tea:
a. Black
b. Green
c. White
d. Depends on whether you add lemon

16. Which is the healthiest soy food?
a. Edamame
b. Soy milk
c. Tempeh
d. Tofu

17. The best microscopic green:
a. Blue-green algae
b. Chlorella
c. Spirulina
d. None of the above

18. The better seed:
a. Chia
b. Flax

19. Most antioxidants per serving:
a. A half cup of acai berries
b. A half cup of blueberries
c. A half cup of cranberries
d. A half cup of goji berries
e. A handful of pecans
f. A pomegranate
g. A tablespoon of cocoa powder
h. A teaspoon of cinnamon
i. An apple
j. An artichoke
k. One black plum
l. One pear

20. Best antioxidant bargain:
a. Acai
b. Apples
c. Artichokes
d. Cinnamon
e. Cloves
f. Cranberries
g. Goji Berries
h. Pecans
i. Purple Cabbage

Email me your answers at nutritioncontest@gmail.com along with your mailing address to win!

-Michael Greger, M.D.

Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death

Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death

Death in America is largely a foodborne illness. Focusing on studies published just over the last year in peer-reviewed scientific medical journals, Dr. Greger offers practical advice on how best to feed ourselves and our families to prevent, treat, and even reverse many of the top 15 killers in the United States.

July 26, 2012 |

Diet Benefits Prostate Cancer

John McDougall, MDDr John McDougall

Diet Benefits Prostate Cancer (Another Ornish Contribution)

Clinical events in prostate cancer lifestyle trial: results from two years of follow-up by Joanne Frattaroli published in the December 2008 issue of the journalUrology found, “Patients with early-stage prostate cancer choosing active surveillance might be able to avoid or delay conventional treatment for at least 2 years by making changes in their diet and lifestyle.” By 2 years of follow-up, 13 of 49 (27%) control patients and 2 of 43 (5%) experimental patients—those encouraged to adopt a low-fat, plant-based diet, to exercise and practice stress management, and to attend group support sessions—had undergone conventional prostate cancer treatment (radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy, or androgen deprivation).

Comment: This is the second report of the Prostate Cancer Lifestyle Intervention Trial started by Dean Ornish, MD.  Given the honest facts about standard prostate cancer treatments, most patients would elect diet, and delay or avoid surgery, radiation, hormone deprivation (pills or cutting off their testicles), and chemotherapy. These damaging treatments fail to produce consistent survival benefits—and every doctor and patient should know the results of a century of research.  Doing nothing would be a better option for most patients.  Research also shows that the high-fat, meat- and dairy- rich Western diet causes this disease. Common sense says “Don’t throw gasoline on a fire.” 

Frattaroli J, Weidner G, Dnistrian AM, Kemp C, Daubenmier JJ, Marlin RO, Crutchfield L, Yglecias L, Carroll PR, Ornish D. Clinical events in prostate cancer lifestyle trial: results from two years of follow-up. Urology. 2008 Dec;72(6):1319-23. Epub 2008 Jul 7.

Would We Be Healthier With a Vegan Diet?

 

A July 2012 Gallup poll puts the percentage of American adults who say they consider themselves vegetarian at 5%, and those who consider themselves vegans—who eat no meat or dairy products—at 2%.

Do they know something everyone else doesn’t?

Far more Americans in a 2006 Gallup poll said they eat red meat and dairy regularly: 60% and 71%, respectively.

But of course, that isn’t necessarily confirmation of the benefits of meat and dairy: Good health, like good sense, does not always reside with the majority.

No one is arguing that Americans should be required to eat meat or dairy products—or broccoli, for that matter. For many people, the decision comes down to convenience, habit and taste.

But whatever you currently like to eat, digging into some of the issues that define this debate could be good for your health. Indeed, there’s obviously more at stake here than pleasing our taste buds.

What does science say on the subject? Here, two scientists offer their thoughts.

T. Colin Campbell, who argues that a vegan diet is healthier than diets that include meat and dairy products, is professor emeritus of nutritional sciences at Cornell University and co-author of “The China Study.” Nancy Rodriguez, who says it’s healthy to eat meat and dairy products as part of a balanced diet that includes each of the major food groups, is a professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Connecticut, in Storrs.

Yes: Cut Animal-Based Protein

By T. Colin Campbell

I was raised on a dairy farm. I milked cows until starting my doctoral research over 50 years ago at Cornell University in the animal-science department. Meat and dairy foods were my daily fare, and I loved them.

G. Hodges/Jon Reis PhotographyT. COLIN CAMPBELL: This diet ‘can prevent and even reverse 70% to 80% of existing, symptomatic disease.’

When I began my experimental research program on the effects of nutrition on cancer and other diseases, I assumed it was healthy to eat plenty of meat, milk and eggs. But eventually, our evidence raised questions about some of my most-cherished beliefs and practices.

Our findings, published in top peer-reviewed journals, pointed away from meat and milk as the building blocks of a healthy diet, and toward whole, plant-based foods with little or no added oil, sugar or salt.

My dietary practices changed based on these findings, and so did those of my family. So, what is this evidence that has had such an impact on my life?

In human population studies, prevalence rates of heart disease and certain cancers strongly associate with animal-protein-based diets, usually reported as total fat consumption. Animal-based protein isn’t the only cause of these diseases, but it is a marker of the simultaneous effects of multiple nutrients found in diets that are high in meat and dairy products and low in plant-based foods.

Trojan Horse

Historically, the primary health value of meat and dairy has been attributed to their generous supply of protein. But therein lay a Trojan horse.

More than 70 years ago, for example, casein (the main protein of cow’s milk) was shown in experimental animal studies to substantially increase cholesterol and early heart disease. Later human studies concurred. Casein, whose properties, it’s important to note, are associated with other animal proteins in general, also was shown during the 1940s and 1950s to enhance cancer growth in experimental animal studies.

 

image

credit info is included on the chart

Casein, in fact, is the most “relevant” chemical carcinogen ever identified; its cancer-producing effects occur in animals at consumption levels close to normal—strikingly unlike cancer-causing environmental chemicals that are fed to lab animals at a few hundred or even a few thousand times their normal levels of consumption. In my lab, from the 1960s to the 1990s, we conducted a series of studies and published dozens of peer-reviewed papers demonstrating casein’s remarkable ability to promote cancer growth in test animals when consumed in excess of protein needs, which is about 10% of total calories, as recommended by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences more than 70 years ago.

One of the biggest fallacies my opponent presents is that a diet including meat and dairy products is the most efficient way of giving the body the nutrients it needs with a healthy level of calories. Plant-based foods have plenty of protein and calcium along with far greater amounts of countless other essential nutrients (such as antioxidants and complex carbohydrates) than meat and dairy.

Higher-protein diets achieved by consuming animal-based foods increase the risks of cancer, cardiovascular diseases and many similar ailments, caused by excess protein and other unbalanced nutrients as well.

It’s also worth noting that the government recommendations for certain population groups to increase their protein and iron consumption come from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, an agency long known to be subservient to the meat and dairy industries.

The dairy industry has long promoted the myth that milk and milk products promote increased bone health—but the opposite is true. The evidence is now abundantly convincing that higher consumption of dairy is associated with higher rates of bone fracture and osteoporosis, according to Yale and Harvard University research groups.

Pain Relief

Some of the most compelling evidence of the effects of meat and dairy foods arises when we stop eating them. Increasing numbers of individuals resolve their pain (arthritic, migraine, cardiac) when they avoid dairy food. And switching to a whole-food, plant-based diet with little or no added salt, sugar and fat, produces astounding health benefits. This dietary lifestyle can prevent and even reverse 70% to 80% of existing, symptomatic disease, with an equivalent savings in health-care costs for those who comply.

The Wall Street Journal

This treatment effect is broad in scope, exceptionally rapid in response (days to weeks) and often, lifesaving. It cannot be duplicated by animal-based foods, processed foods or drug therapies.

By contrast, any evidence that low-fat or fat-free-dairy foods reduce blood pressure is trivial compared with the lower blood pressure obtained and sustained by a whole-foods, plant-based diet.

Based on the scientific evidence, and on the way I feel, I know beyond any doubt that I am better off for having changed my diet to whole and plant-based foods.

Dr. Campbell is professor emeritus of nutritional sciences at Cornell University and co-author of “The China Study.” He can be reached at reports@wsj.com.

No: It’s a Question of Balance

By Nancy Rodriguez

For years a wealth of scientific research has supported the idea that healthy nutrition begins with a balanced diet consisting of the basic food groups: fruits, vegetables, grains and protein and dairy.

University of ConnecticutNANCY RODRIGUEZ: ‘It is simply untrue to suggest that animal protein causes cancer.’

Each group offers nutrients that are essential to our health. Experts agree that the most important thing to remember when considering a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle is that essential nutrients removed from the diet with the elimination of meat or dairy need to be obtained from other foods.

Individuals who stop eating meat and dairy products are at risk of not getting enough calcium, vitamin D, protein, vitamin B12, zinc and iron in their diets—all nutrients that come mostly from food products derived from animals.

What happens then? Insufficient calcium and vitamin D can compromise bone structure. Lack of zinc can hinder growth in children. B12 and iron assist production of red blood cells, which deliver oxygen throughout the body. Proteins are essential for building and maintaining muscle and keeping our brains healthy. And animal proteins provide all the essential amino acids, nutrients our bodies cannot make on its own.

Calorie Efficiency

Including dairy and meat in a balanced diet can be an important way to get essential nutrients without excess calories—a key consideration given concerns about our overweight and undernourished nation. Our average daily consumption of dairy products, for example, provides more than half of the recommended daily amount of calcium and vitamin D in our diets, for only one-tenth of the calories. A three-ounce serving of beef has less than 10% of the calories in a typical 2,000-calorie-a-day diet while supplying more than 10% of the daily value for 10 essential nutrients.

Contrary to popular belief, Americans aren’t eating too much protein. According to Economic Research Service data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the daily caloric contribution of flour and cereal products increased by about 200 calories per person from 1970 to 2008, compared with only a 19-calorie increase from meat, eggs and nuts.

The Dietary Guidelines (the U.S. government’s science-based nutritional recommendations, compiled and issued every five years) have noted that some Americans need more protein, and that adequate consumption of iron and B12 (both found in lean meat) is a concern for specific population groups. The Dietary Guidelines are founded on evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific literature, and take into account the entire body of research, not just a single study.

Proponents of a vegan diet paint a grim picture of the effects of animal protein on human health. But the effects of powdered, isolated casein on rats tells us very little about what traditionally consumed forms of milk will do to humans. And it tells us nothing that can be generalized to all “animal nutrients.” Casein is one of many proteins found in milk and is recognized around the world for its nutritional quality.

It is simply untrue to suggest that animal protein causes cancer. The American Cancer Society, along with other leading health organizations, emphasizes that the effects of foods and nutrients need to be considered in the context of the total diet. Research from many sources shows that other factors, such as not smoking, responsible alcohol consumption, maintaining a healthy weight and regular physical activity, are much more important to reducing cancer risk than eating or avoiding any individual food.

There is scientific evidence that low-fat or fat-free dairy and lean meat, as part of a balanced diet, produce specific health benefits such as reducing blood pressure. Fat-free, low-fat and reduced-fat options are widely available, as are lactose-free milk and milk products. Many of the most popular beef cuts are lean, including top sirloin, tenderloin, T-bone steak and 95% lean ground beef.

Calcium Question

Finally, contrary to my opponent’s assertions, dairy’s role in strengthening bones has long been established by the nutrition and science community. Don’t take just the Dietary Guidelines’ word. Dozens of randomized, controlled, clinical trials—the gold standard in research—have demonstrated that calcium and dairy products contribute to stronger bones. These trials far outweigh any observational studies which, by their very design, cannot show a causal relationship between eliminating meat and dairy foods and a subsequent improvement in health.

Government and public health organizations around the globe encourage daily consumption of dairy foods to promote good health and help prevent disease. We all have emotional and cultural connections to various foods; many of us have opinions on what to eat, how much and why. But appreciating the science behind nutrition helps us make smart choices about the best way to feed ourselves and the world.

Dr. Rodriguez is a professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Connecticut, Storrs. She can be reached at reports@wsj.com.

Statins? Everyone or No One?

Who Should Take Cholesterol-lowering Statins? Everyone or No One?

By    |   Posted on June 10, 2013

Lipitor570x299 Who Should Take Cholesterol lowering Statins? Everyone or No One?Should cholesterol-lowering statins be added to our drinking water in order to prevent atherosclerosis, like fluoride is added to prevent tooth decay? Some medical doctors and scientists have recommended this public health measure because heart disease and strokes threaten the lives of more than half of all people following the Western diet. Apparently, even healthy people are now being told to take statins, with recommendations that over the age of 50, regardless of their health history, people should take these medications daily.

Statins Lower Cholesterol but Do Little for Better Health

In my practice over the past decade I have limited my prescriptions for cholesterol-lowering medications to people who are at high risk for future troubles. Unless there is a contraindication, I have recommended statins to patients with a history of heart surgery, heart disease, TIAs, or strokes, with a goal to take a dosage sufficient to lower their blood cholesterol levels to 150 mg/dL (4 mmol/L) or less. Furthermore, based on the recommendations of the highly respected Cochrane Collaboration and others, I have adviced that otherwise healthy people, even those with high cholesterol, not take cholesterol-lowering statins. Of course, I have strongly recommended that everyone eat a healthy diet.

Statins effectively lower blood cholesterol by inhibiting an enzyme (HMG-CoA reductase) involved in the production of cholesterol in the liver. The cholesterol numbers, revealed by simple blood tests, are dramatically reduced with this commonly prescribed treatment. Unfortunately, the reduction in blood cholesterol translates into only very small improvements in the health of the arteries, as seen by tiny (but statistically significant) reductions in heart disease. These weak benefits can be appreciated in very sick people who are at high risk for future health problems. This strategy is called secondary prevention. They have already had a serious problem.

However, the benefits from statins are very difficult to demonstrate in healthy people because their risk of future troubles is very low, and remember I wrote, the real-life benefits from statins are very small. This strategy is called primary  prevention. Nothing serious has happened, yet. Intervention is being recommended in hopes of preventing a serious event in the future.

There is an ongoing controversy as to whether or not statins should be more widely prescribed. The doctors and scientists working for pharmaceutical companies think they should be. But, consider the influence of money on their findings and opinions. Annually, $37 billion is spent on cholesterol-lowering medications worldwide.

My Recommendations for Statins Are Changing*

The most recent review (January 2013) by the Cochrane Collaboration has concluded that there is, “…strong evidence to support their use in people at low risk of cardiovascular disease.” This is a reversal from their previous conclusions, which recommended against such treatment for people without a history of heart disease (for primary prevention). As a result, I am changing the way I present information to people on the use of statins. For practical purposes, choosing whether or not to take these kinds of medication should be based on an understanding of the actual benefits and risks as assessed by various experts. Currently, the data is based on the study of people who eat the Western diet. I believe the benefits will be found to be far less in people who consume a starch-based McDougall-type diet.

recent analysis, published in the medical journal, the Lancet, by John Abramson, MD, a guest speaker at two previous McDougall Advanced Study weekends, summarizes the effects of statin therapy: “Our analysis suggests that lipid-lowering statins should not be prescribed for true primary prevention in women of any age or for men older than 69 years. High-risk men aged 30–69 years should be advised that about 50 patients need to be treated for 5 years to prevent one event. In our experience, many men presented with this evidence do not choose to take a statin, especially when informed of the potential benefits of lifestyle modification on cardiovascular risk and overall health.”

John Abramson, MD, Author of Overdo$ed America
Recorded at the March 2013 McDougall Advanced Study Weekend

Cholesterol-lowering statin therapy is based on the observation that high cholesterol levels in a person’s blood are associated with more heart attacks and stroke. The organic substance cholesterol is found in large amounts in all animal foods. When people eat meat, poultry, fish, eggs, and dairy products their blood cholesterol levels rise. The rationale is that lowering these levels with medication will fix the problem. As discussed above, the real-life benefits have been minimal. Not surprisingly, this failure has led researchers to look into other mechanisms to explain how eating animal products and other unhealthy foods cause artery damage.

mmmm4 Who Should Take Cholesterol lowering Statins? Everyone or No One?MMM22 Who Should Take Cholesterol lowering Statins? Everyone or No One?M34 Who Should Take Cholesterol lowering Statins? Everyone or No One?

Antibiotics May Be the Next Blockbuster Drugs to Treat Heart Disease

In April of 2013, an article in Nature Medicine and one in the New England Journal of Medicine found that a diet of meat, dairy products, and eggs caused damage to the arteries by increasing the production of trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO). Carnatine and choline, found in these animal foods in high concentrations, are metabolized by gut microbes (bacteria) into trimethylamine (TMA), which in turn is absorbed into the bloodstream and then metabolized by the liver into TMAO. This organic compound has been shown to cause artery damage in animal experiments and is strongly associated with heart disease in people.

Meat, dairy products, eggs, and other animal foods favor the growth of bacteria that readily convert carnatine and choline to TMA. Vegans and vegetarians grow few of these kinds of bacteria and as a result produce very little artery-damaging TMAO. This research may lead to medical treatments, including the use of probiotics (bacteria supplied in pills and fermented foods), medications to limit the synthesis of trimethylamine from carnatine and choline, and/or antibiotics to suppress specific TMA-producing bacteria in the intestine. In all three pharmacologic approaches the medications would need to be taken for a lifetime. Great profits will be generated as a result, just like with statins.

Who Should Take Statins? A Starch-based Diet Is the Non-profit Solution

Starches, vegetables, and fruits are essentially cholesterol-free and discourage the growth of intestinal bacteria that lead to the synthesis of artery-damaging TMAO; and these foods contain very little carnatine and choline (the precursors of TMAO). Unarguably,—whether blaming cholesterol, carnatine, choline, or bad-bowel-bacteria—diseases of atherosclerosis (heart attacks, strokes, kidney failure, etc.) are due to consuming meat, dairy products, and eggs. Therefore I recommend the McDougall Diet to prevent and treat heart and other artery diseases.  In other words, fix the problem.

Lack of profit is the primary reason for lack of acceptance of this simple, safe approach. Consider that the most popular brand name statin, Crestor, purchased at a discount pharmacy like Costco or CVS, costs about $6 a day. Comparatively, a starch-based diet costs $3 a day for all of the food (2500 calories). The rivers of profits from a drug-over-diet approach entend to the food and medical industries. (Generic statins are much less expensive.)

Our research shows that the cholesterol-lowering benefits of the McDougall Diet are comparable to statins. We have analyzed the results of 1700 people who have been through the McDougall residential program in Santa Rosa. In seven days people starting with total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or more experience a reduction of 34.2 mg/dL on average. If the starting number is 240 mg/dL or more, the average reduction is 42.1 mg/dL. (If LDL is initially 100 mg/dL or greater, the average reduction is 21.1 mg/dL; if 160 mg/dL or greater, the average reduction is 31.5 mg/dL.)

To answer the question, “Who Should Take Cholesterol-lowering Statins? Everyone or No One?” My response is slightly more complex than all or none. The decisions made primarily depend upon what a person chooses to eat. Eat meat, dairy products, eggs, and other unhealthy foods and you may benefit from taking statins (a little). Eat a starch-based McDougall Diet and any benefits from statins for an otherwise healthy person vanish, and all that is left are side effects and costs. However, as a medical doctor trained in traditional drug therapy, I want to take advantage of both worlds: diet and drugs. For most patients with serious existing disease, such as those with a history of heart surgery, heart disease, TIAs, or stroke, in addition to my diet I recommend sufficient cholesterol-lowering statin medications to lower their blood cholesterol to 150 mg/dL or less.

mmmmm6 Who Should Take Cholesterol lowering Statins? Everyone or No One?*I reserve my right to change my opinion on medications and surgeries because the foundations—the scientific research—for my recommendations are incomplete, inaccurate, and constantly changing. However, in case you are wondering, my advice on what you should eat (a starch-based diet) will not waiver because the scientific underpinnings are rock solid.

T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D.

T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry, Cornell

For more than two decades, many commentators have discussed and cussed so-called low-fat diets and gotten away with talking nonsense. It is time to look at some facts.

Virtually all of these discussions are based on recommendations of reports of the National Academy of Sciences during the 1980s when the initial suggestion was made to reduce total dietary fat to 30 percent (from the average of 35-37 percent of calories) — I know because I co-authored the first of these reports on diet and cancer in 1982. Then, during the next decade or so, this 30 percent benchmark became the definition of a low fat diet. A myth was born because this diet did not lead to obesity, as claimed.

During the next 10 years when this low fat myth was growing, average percent dietary fat barely changed — maybe decreasing a couple percentage points to about 33 percent, at best. In reality, the amount of fat consumed INCREASED because total calorie consumption also increased. Furthermore, during this same period of low fat mythology (1980s-1990s), obesity incidence increased.

Now, enter Robert Atkins and other writers who argued that obesity was increasing because of our switch to low fat diets. By going low fat — so the mythical story went — we were consuming more carbohydrate, an energy source from plant-based foods. This was a serious misrepresentation of the facts.

By falsely blaming low fat, ‘high carb’ diets for the obesity crisis, these writers were then free to promote the opposite: high fat, low ‘carb’, high cholesterol and high protein diets rich in animal-based foods, a so-called low ‘carb’ diet. During the initial discussions of this ‘low carb’ diet, no distinction was made between the refined carbohydrates (sugar and white flour as commonly present in processed foods) and the natural carbohydrates almost exclusively present in plant-based foods.

Later, some attention was given to refined carbohydrates (sugar, white flour) as a contributor to obesity, but by then the damage due to this obfuscation had been done. ‘Carbs’ were out, protein and fat were in. By initially demonizing ‘carbs’ and so-called ‘low fat’ diets and emphasizing increased protein and fat consumption, the intended path was clear: consume a diet rich in animal-based foods instead of a diet rich in plant-based foods.

Obesity continues to climb but not because of a switch to a plant-foods rich diet naturally low in fat and high in carbohydrate (TOTAL carbohydrate, that is). Rather, obesity increases as physical activity decreases and as sugary, fatty, salty processed food consumption increases.

More serious, however, is the effect that this mythology has had on suppressing information on the extraordinary health value of diets that are truly low in fat (10-12 percent). I am referring to a whole foods, plant-based diet that avoids added fat and processed and animal-based foods. This diet contains about 10-12 percent fat, sometimes pejoratively referred to as “extremely low fat”. Call it what you will, but this diet (also low in total protein, about 8-10 percent) produces, by comparison, “extremely low” incidences of sickness and disease. In fact, it now has been shown not just to prevent these illnesses but to treat them. Importantly, this dietary lifestyle cannot be dismissed by the mythological argument that so-called low fat diets have been proven to be questionable.

Professional medical researchers and practitioners also repeat this same mantra as if it is real. It has been shown for example in the very large Nurses’ Health Study at Harvard over an observation period of at least 14 years that reducing dietary fat from about 50 percent to about 25 percent of total calories has no association with breast cancer rates. Based on this and related studies, the sole manipulation of fat within this range does little or nothing when the diet still contains such high proportions of animal based and processed foods. Total protein remains very high throughout this range and worse, the proportion of protein from animal-based sources, already high when fat is high, if anything, increases even more when fat is independently decreased.

It is time that we seriously consider the health benefits of a whole food, plant based diet, which is naturally low in total fat, animal-based protein, and refined carbohydrates but rich in antioxidants and complex carbohydrates. The health benefits that are now being reported for this dietary lifestyle are unmatched in scope and magnitude of effect. It is time to discard the gibberish about low fat diets being responsible for the obesity epidemic. This demonizing of low fat diets does not apply to whole food plant-based diets, even lower in fat, because this dietary lifestyle really works. Just try it, but stay with it long enough to allow your body to overcome your taste preferences for fat that arise from its addictive nature.

An Independent Critique of Low-carb Diets

February 2013
Volume 12 Issue 2

An Independent Critique of Low-carb Diets: The Diet Wars Continue
Part 3

In the September and October 2012 McDougall newsletters, I presented readers with articles addressing the dangers of low-carbohydrate diets, which are also popularly known as Paleo and Primal diets and as Atkins-type diets. Please take this opportunity to read these articles.

In this article I look at some specific populations who lived before the globalization of the western diet and explore the health of a number of cultures that lived both on low-carbohydrate (meat, poultry, fish, egg, and milk) based diets and high carbohydrate (rice, corn, and potato) diets.

I present findings on the health of the nomadic populations from the Steppes in Central Asia and the Pampas in South America who lived the “low-carbers dream”, subsisting on enormous amounts of grass-fed meat and milk. Their ways of eating did not protect them from obesity, heart disease, and cancer. On the other hand, I present populations from Asia-Pacific and Africa, subsisting almost entirely on plant foods (up to 95% of calories from carbohydrates), which were lean, muscular and largely free of heart disease, stroke and cancer.

The Nomadic Kirghiz and Dzungarian Plainsmen

In the 1920’s, Kuczynski reported on the nomadic plainsmen of the Kirghiz and Dzungarian Steppes in Central Asia and estimated that they consumed an astonishing 20 liters of fermented mare’s milk, and between 10 to 20 pounds (4.5 to 9kg) of meat per day.1 2 Lack of systematically documented dietary data however suggests that these findings could have been slightly overestimated, as evidently has been the case for early researcher’s estimates of the Masai’s intake of milk, meat, cholesterol and total energy.3Nevertheless, these nomadic plainsmen consumed enormous quantities of organic pasture raised animals foods, perhaps among the largest ever documented.

Kuczynski noted that these nomads, evidently largely as a result of their diet experienced a high incidence of obesity, premature extensive atherosclerosis, contracted kidney, apoplexy, arcus senilis, and gout.4 5 In specific, Kuczynski asserted that:2

They get arteriosclerosis in an intense degree and often at an early age as shown by cardiac symptoms, nervous disordes, typical changes of the peripheral vessels, nephrosclerosis and, finally, apoplectic attacks. Even in men thirty-two years old I frequently observed arcus senilis.
1
The Nomadic Kirghiz Plainsmen

Kuczynski compared the diet and health of these nomadic plainsmen with Russian peasants, who had an apparent low incidence of these conditions while consuming a vastly different diet. Their diet was based on soup, bread, pickles, potatoes, with very little meat, but consumed large amounts of alcohol.5 In comparison to the nomadic plainsmen, Kuczynski asserted in regards to these Russian peasants that:2

Repeatedly I found at the age of about seventy years no signs of arteriosclerosis, no arcus senilis, etc.; they were men of youthful appearance, with no grey in their still abundant growth of hair, and with their sexual functions still intact.

For more information regarding the health of nomadic populations, Don Matesz has previously posted aninformative review addressing the high rates of obesity, cardiovascular disease and cancer among the modern, still largely nomadic Mongols consuming diets rich in organic pasture raised animal foods.

The Native Indonesians

In 1916, Cornelis D. de Langen observed that the native Javanese, the indigenous people of the Indonesian island of Java who consumed a diet which was ‘mainly vegetarian with rice as the staple, that is very poor in cholesterol and other lipids’, had very low levels of serum cholesterol and incidence of coronary heart disease.6Conversely, de Langen observed that their Javanese counterparts who worked as stewards on Dutch passenger ships and consumed traditional cholesterol laden Dutch food had much higher levels of serum cholesterol and incidence of coronary heart disease.7 Blackburn noted in regards to de Langen’s classical findings from Indonesian hospitals that:6

Pursuing this clinical impression, he reviewed 10 years of admissions charts and found only 5 cases of acute gallbladder disease among many thousands of patients passing through the medical wards and only 1 case on the surgery service among 70,000 admissions surveyed.

Following these observations, de Langen stated in regards to the rarity of vascular disease among the Javanese that:6

thrombosis and emboli, so serious in Europe, are most exceptional here. This is not only true of internal medicine, but also on surgery, where the surgeon needs take no thought of these dreaded possibilities among his native patients. Out of 160 major laparotomies and 5,578 deliveries in the wards, not a single case of thrombosis or embolism was seen.

These findings closely resemble observations from over 15,000 operations carried out in Norway during the period around World War II, where the changes in incidence of post-operative thrombosis was consistent with changes in the availability of cholesterol laden foods [reviewed previously]. Blackburn also noted in regards to de Langen’s 1922 experiment, which is regarded as apparently the first ever systematic feeding experiment of diet in relation to serum cholesterol levels, that:6

…he found an average 40 mg/dl increase in cholesterol in 5 Javanese natives who were shifted from a rice-based vegetarian cuisine to a 6-week regimen high in meat, butter, and egg fats.

These findings were reproduced decades later in hundreds of tightly controlled feeding experiments, firmly establishing that dietary cholesterol and isocaloric replacement of complex carbohydrates and unsaturated fat by saturated fat raises LDL and total cholesterol in humans.8

In 1908, Williams noted in regards to the findings of early doctors who practiced in Indonesia and the rarity of cancer among the Javanese that:9

…a single example of a malignant tumour in a native being esteemed a great rarity.

The Okinawans

In 1949, a government survey found that in Okinawa, known to have the highest concentration of centenarians in the world, the population consumed about 85% of their total energy intake from carbohydrates, with the staple at the time being the sweet potato. The dietary survey also showed that the Okinawans derived about 9% of their energy intake from protein and less than 4% of energy from all sources of animal foods combined (Table 1).10 These findings were largely consistent with previous dietary surveys dating back to 1879 and 1919.11

2

In 1946, Steiner examined autopsies of 150 Okinawans, of which 40 were between the age of 50 and 95. Steiner noted only seven cases of slight aortic atherosclerosis, all of which were found in those over the age of 66, and only one case of calcification in the coronary arteries. In 1946 Benjamin reported similar findings from a study of 200 autopsies on Okinawans.12

Even in 1995 the observed rates of coronary heart disease and dietary related cancers, including that of the colon, prostate, breast and ovarian in Okinawa were not only many fold lower than that of the United States, but even significantly lower than that of mainland Japan.10 This may be explained by the likelihood that these diseases are slowly progressive diseases and therefore the more traditional Okinawan diet consumed several decades prior would still have played a major role in the development and manifestation of these diseases.13 14 15

The Papua New Guineans

The Papua New Guineans traditionally subsisted on a plant based diet, of which a number of varieties of sweet potatoes typically supplied over 90% of dietary intake. They also grew a number of other crops including corn, as well as sugar cane which was consumed as a delicacy. Pig feasts are organised a few times a year, but at which pork is not consumed in excess of 50 grams. A dietary survey on the Papua New Guineans highlanders estimated that carbohydrate accounted for 94.6% of total energy intake, among the highest recorded in the world. Total energy intake was adequate, however only 3% of energy intake was derived from protein (25g for men and 20g for women), yet there was no evidence of dietary induced protein deficiency or anemia. Furthermore, this surveyed population was described as being muscular and mostly very lean, physically fit and in good nutritional state.16 17 They also drank ‘soft’ water which is considered a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. It was estimated that tobacco was smoked by 73% of males and 20% females. Also, the highlanders spend up to twelve hours a day inside a smoke-filled house due to centrally placed open wood fires with little ventilation and no chimneys in their homes, resulting in a very high exposure to hazardous smoke in this population.16

Despite cardiac risk factors including high exposure to smoke and soft drinking water, a number of authors observed a great rarity of incidence of atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease and stroke among the traditional Papua New Guineans, but also noted an increase in incidence paralleling the Westernization of the nation. In 1958, Blackhouse reported on autopsies of 724 individuals between 1923 and 1934 and found no evidence of heart attack incidence and only one case of slight narrowing of the coronary arteries. However, it has been suggested that this study was selective as only a small portion of the autopsies were performed on females or the elderly. In 1969, Magarey et al. published a report on the autopsy results of 217 aortas and found a great rarity of atherosclerosis. The authors noted that the prevalence and severity of atherosclerosis was less than had been reported in any previously investigated population.18 In 1973, Sinnett and Whyte published findings from a survey of 779 highlanders using electrocardiograms among other methods, and found little probable evidence of coronary heart disease, and no clinical evidence of diabetes, gout, Parkinson’s disease, or any previous incidence of stroke.16

For a population that consumed virtually the highest intake of carbohydrates out of any population to also have virtually the lowest incidence of atherosclerosis and diabetes ever recorded highlights the vital importance of the health properties of specific carbohydrate rich foods. These findings further question certain ‘carbohydrate-induced dyslipidemia’ hypotheses, emphasized by certain researchers, who perhaps intentionally do not always take the quality of carbohydrate rich foods into careful consideration.19

In 1900, Sir William MacGregor reported in the Lancet in regards to the observed rarity of cancer among the native Papua New Guineans, asserting that:20

For nine and a half years I never saw a case in British New Guinea ; but at the end of that time there occurred an example of sarcoma of the tibia in a Papuan, who had for seven or eight years lived practically a European life, eating tinned Australian meat daily.

In 1974, Clezy brought to attention the rarity of mortality from colorectal cancer among the Papua New Guineans, for which the observed annual rate per 100,000 was 0.6 for men and 0.2 for women. These rates were 100 fold lower than that of many developed nations during the same time period, although this could have been in part explained by underdiagnosis.17

Even in more recent statistics after modest changes towards a western diet, the Papua New Guineans still had among the lowest rates of hip fractures in the world, which Frassetto et al. observed was more than 50 fold lower than that of the Scandinavian nations.21 Although these researchers ascribed the worldwide differences in rates of hip fractures to the ratio of vegetable to animal protein, evidence from prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials, as well as experimental animal models suggests that saturated fat may be at least as great, if not an even greater contributor to poor bone health.22 23 24 2526

The Tokelauans and Pukupukans

In the video below, Plant Positive reviews the diet and health of the Tokelauans and Pupukans whose diet is rich in coconuts, as well as the diet and health of other South Pacific island populations.

The Tokelauns, and more on the Masai

A 1908 Review on the Causation of Cancer

In 1908, William Roger Williams published an extensive review of the medical literature and documentations from a large number of populations around the world before the widespread use of intensive farming practices. Williams observed that compared to the nations with carnivorous dietary patterns there was a significantly lower incidence of cancer among the nations subsisting predominantly on a plant-based diet. He also noted that groups within nations with carnivorous dietary patterns that largely abstained from animal foods, such as nuns, monks, slaves and prison inmates had a similar low incidence of cancer.9

Williams reported on the cancer rates of the area inhabited by the Gaucho of the Argentina Pampas, another nomadic population that subsisted predominantly on organic pasture raised animal foods, noting that:9

Cancer is commoner in Argentina which comprises the pampas region inhabited by the Gauchos, who for months subsist entirely on beef, and never touch salt than in other parts of South America. On the other hand, among the natives of Egypt, who are of vegetarian habits, and consume immense quantities of salt, cancer is almost unknown.

 

3
The Nomadic Argentinean Gaucho

These findings are largely consistent with modern reviews from prominent health authorities, including the report from the expert panel of the World Cancer Research Fund that produced convincing evidence that red meat is a major risk factor for cancer and that dietary fiber provides significant protection [reviewed previously]. However, these findings raise questions as to whether the Egyptians plant-based diet that is centered on wheat provides significant protection against salt sensitive cancers. In regards to the cancer incidence among the different ethnic groups of Egypt, Williams quoted from a 1902 publication in the British Medical Journal authored by Dr. F. C. Madden of Cairo that:9

The consensus of opinion among medical men in Egypt is, that cancer is never found either in male or female, among the black races of that country. These include the Berberines and the Sudanese, who are all Mussulmans, and live almost entirely upon vegetarian diet. Cancer is fairly common, however, among the Arabs and Copts, who live and eat somewhat after the manner of Europeans.

Williams also observed that the increases in incidence of cancer within populations coincided with increases in animal food intake. For example, in regards to the observed marked increase cancer incidence among the Native American’s after gaining easier means to hunt buffaloes, Williams asserted:9

In this connexion it should be borne in mind, that in their primitive condition these savages had no horses and no firearms ; consequently it was no easy matter for them to kill the fleet buffaloes, on which they mainly depended for subsistence ; hence, in their primitive condition, they were generally less well nourished than when, after contact with whites, they had, by the acquirement of horses and firearms, become assured of a constant supply of their favourite food [coinciding with an increase in cancer incidence].

Historical Overview of the Reversal of Chronic Diseases

In 1903, John Harvey Kellogg, the founder of the Kellogg Company asserted:

Dr John Bell, who was, about a hundred years ago [now two hundred years ago], professor in a leading college in London, wrote that a careful adherence to a vegetarian dietary tended to prevent cancer. He also stated that in some cases persons who had already acquired cancer had been cured by adherence to a non-flesh dietary. When I first read this book, I did not agree with the author; I thought he was mistaken; but I have gradually come to believe that what he says on this subject is true.

These findings are consistent with Dr. Dean Ornish’s on-going Prostate Cancer Lifestyle Trial which has already produced strong suggestive evidence of reversal of prostate cancer growth.27 These findings are also consistent with experiments showing that dietary restriction of methionine, typically found in higher quantity and bioavailability in protein rich animal foods compared to unprocessed plant foods can inhibit and even reverse human tumor growth in animal models and in culture [reviewed previously].

Publications producing evidence of regression of atherosclerosis in humans dates back to the periods following both the World Wars in Scandinavia and the low countries of Europe, where a number of researchers found a trend between changes in intake of cholesterol laden foods throughout periods of food scarcity in the war and changes in the severity of atherosclerosis at autopsy [reviewed previously]. Several decades later during the 1960’s and 70’s experiments involving modest dietary and lifestyle changes or drugs produced the first angiographic evidence of modest regression of atherosclerosis.28

In experimental animal models, the first suggestive evidence of regression of atherosclerosis came from rabbit models produced by Anichkov and colleagues during the 1920’s. Beginning from 1957 much more substantial evidence of regression was produced in rabbits and then later replicated in a number of other species, including non-human primates.29 30

In 1970, Armstrong et al. published the first study producing substantial evidence of regression of atherosclerosis in non-human primates. Armstrong et al. induced severe autopsy proven atherosclerosis in Rhesus monkeys resembling that of human atherosclerosis by feeding a diet with 40% of energy from egg yolks for 17 months. The egg yolks were then removed from the diet of the remaining monkey’s and replaced by either linoleic acid rich chow or sugar rich low fat chow for three years reducing serum cholesterol to 140 mg/dl and resulting in a marked regression of atherosclerosis.28 31 These results were later reproduced in well over a dozen experiments in various primate species in which severe atherosclerosis was induced typically by feeding diets rich in dietary cholesterol and saturated fat and then reversed the process either by removing these atherogenic components, or by other means which significantly reduce serum cholesterol.30

During the late 1980’s, Dr. Dean Ornish and Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn began reversing atherosclerosis, and more importantly greatly decreased the number of reoccurring cardiac events in participants who adhered to a plant-based diet and often other lifestyle modifications.32 33 34 35 More recently Dr. Esselstyn has replicated his initial findings in around 200 participants over the period of a decade, with publication pending results showing a phenomenal success rate of a 99.5% reduction in reoccurring cardiovascular events [reviewed previously].

Caldwell Esselstyn on making heart attacks history

2013 John McDougall All Rights Reserved
Dr. McDougall’s Health and Medical Center
P.O. Box 14039, Santa Rosa, CA 95402

http://www.drmcdougall.com

Mad Cowboy

 

“Howard Lyman-As a fourth-generation family farmer in Montana for almost 40 years, I speak from a background of personal experience when I say that chemically based agricultural production methods today are unsustainable, and therefore ecologically disastrous. My experiences range from working in a large organic dairy to raising registered beef cattle to owning a large factory feedlot. I have farmed thousands of acres of grain and reproduced a herd of over one thousand commercial beef cows. In addition to raising cows, I have raised chickens, pigs, and turkeys. I have also grown crops such as wheat, barley, oats, corn, alfalfa, and grass.

I was involved in agriculture at a time when the call dictated getting bigger and better or getting out. I was educated in modern agriculture, and I can tell you from firsthand experience — it is not sustainable. I followed all the modern advice and turned a small organic family farm into a large corporate chemical farm with a thousand range cows, five thousand head of cattle in a factory feedlot, thousands of acres of crops, and as many as thirty employees. I saw the organic soil go from a living, productive base to a sterile, chemical-saturated, mono-cultural ground produced by my so-called modern methods.

In 1979, a tumor on my spinal cord caused me to be paralyzed from the waist down. That changed my life forever. I promised myself that, whatever the outcome of the surgery, I would dedicate the rest of my life to doing what I believed to be right — no matter what changes that necessitated.

The period before and after the surgery gave me much time to think about the changes resulting form my methods of farming. Convinced that we were going the wrong way, I decided to become a voice for the family farmer and the land. In 1983, I sold most of my farm and started working for farmers in financial trouble. This led to my working for the Montana Farmers Union and from there to Washington, D.C. as a lobbyist for the National Farmers Union.

For five years I worked on Capitol Hill for America’s family farmers. In that time we had some small successes, such as passing the National Organic Standards Act. But even after the act became a law, it took the administration several years to allow funds for its implementation. I became convinced that the changes needed had to come from the producer and the consumers at the grassroots level. Until that alliance is put into play, the big money interest will continue to control public policy in the Congress of the United States.”

“The question we must ask ourselves as a culture is whether we want to embrace the change that must come, or resist it. Are we so attached to the dietary fallacies with which we were raised, so afraid to counter the arbitrary laws of eating taught to us in childhood by our misinformed parents, that we cannot alter the course they set us on, even if it leads to our own ruin? Does the prospect of standing apart or encounttering ridicule scare us even from saving ourselves?

That prospect intimidated me once, and I can only wonder now what I was frightened of. It’s hard to imagine, now that I’m a hundred thirty pounds lighter, infinitely healthier, more full of life and energy, much happier. Now that I have vegetarian friends wherever I go, and feel part of a movement that is not so much political as it is a march of the human heart. Now that I understand how much is at stake. Now that I’ve come to relish shaking people up.

I would love to see the meat industry and the pesticide industry shaken up, too. I would love to see feedlots close and factory farming end. I would love to see more families return to the land, grow crops for our own species, and raise them organically. I would love to see farm communities revive. I would love to know that I’ve wandered into my nation’s heartland by the sweet smell of grain and not the forbidding smell of excrement.

When you can’t take it with you, all that really matters is what you leave behind.”*

Colin Campbell Phd

About T. Colin Campbell

For more than forty years, Dr. T. Colin Campbell has been at the forefront of nutrition research. His legacy, the China Project, is the most comprehensive study of health and nutrition ever conducted.  Dr. Campbell is the Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. He has more than seventy grant-years of peer-reviewed research funding and authored more than 300 research papers and coauthor of the bestselling the book, The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health.

Copyright: The Dairy Education Board Text Only

Sunday, July 25, 1999 

T. Colin Campbell
      Turn to the back cover of many of today’s best-selling books on alternative medicine, and chances are that you’ll find a quote from T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D., professor of nutritional science at Cornell University.Dr. Campbell has been one of the great spokespersons for a plant-based diet and is best known for his landmark scientific study, the China- Oxford-Cornell Study. Campbell has linked heart disease and cancer to diet and his work is well respected and accepted throughout the world.

CONVINCING EVIDENCE

That study is the most comprehensive investigation of diet and disease in world history. Campbell was once a meat-eater, but the scientific evidence gathered from his work was convincing enough for him to adopt a plant-based diet. On May 8, 1990, Jane Brody of the New York Times wrote:

“Campbell’s China study is the grand prix of all epidemiological studies.”

It is interesting to note that Jane Brody is no advocate of a vegetarian lifestyle, yet, she accepts and praises Campbell’s science.

DIETARY PROTEIN

The major finding from Campbell’s study was that people who eat a typically American animal-based, protein-rich diet have seventeen times the death rate from heart disease as do people who satisfy their protein needs from fruits, vegetables, legumes, and grains. Data from his study indicated that women who derived their protein from meat and dairy products were five times as likely to die of breast cancer than those who ate a plant-based diet.

HERE ARE SOME DETAILS OF THE CHINA STUDY

The China Project is a uniquely comprehensive study that is yielding scientifically solid, groundbreaing information that can directly impact your health now and for the rest of your life -information that you can use on:cancer
heart disease
osteoporosis and
many other topics of concern to you”..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

MY CONVERSATIONS WITH DR. CAMPBELL

I met T. Colin Campbell at the North American Vegetarian Conference in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Since that first meeting, we’ve spoken many times on the telephone. T. Colin Campbell is a brilliant lecturer, commanding the attention of his “students” with his sparkling brown eyes and piercing Irish wit.

We have discussed bovine proteins. Dr. Campbell calls casein “carcinogenic.” Casein represents eighty percent of the protein in milk.

We also discussed “politics.” Cornell University has historically been a great friend to the dairy industry. Cornell professors like Dale Bauman, David Barbano, and Culberto Garza have received many millions of dollars from dairy industry sources. The influence of these three men has shaped government policy and influenced dietary guidelines and food pyramids.

CAMPBELL’S LECTURE

The subject of his talk at Johnstown was the confusion in newspapers and conflicting views concerning “information overload.” I took notes at his lecture, furiously scribbling down his words of wisdom. Campbell noted:

“I cannot imagine how the public at large can possibly understand all of the information and dis-information.”

Campbell brought his audience to laughter when he said:

“I can design a study to show that a carcinogen is actually an anti-carcinogen.”

This is exactly what the dairy industry does by promoting cheese and claiming that dairy foods prevent colon cancer.

NUTRIENTS

Campbell challenged the audience. He asked, “How many nutrients are there?” One listener called out “Nine.” That’s what the dairy industry claims can be found in milk. Nine essential nutrients.

In answering his own question, Campbell pointed out that there were countless things in foods which give us benefit, and noted that there were 600-700 different types of beta-carotene, carotenoids found in fresh fruits and vegetables.

Campbell taught me that the number of different variations of naturally occurring fiber could be measured in the tens of thousands.

Scientists speculate that an untold number of nutrients have yet to be discovered, but Campbell revealed that the number of known unique nutrients could be measured in the tens of thousands.

HOW IMPRECISE IS OUR INFORMATION

In science, we get caught up in dis-information. Campbell believes that we should re-think our concept of exatly what is a nutrient.

DIETARY PROTEIN

Campbell presented evidence that revealed the average American’s diet. The average intake of protein is 90-100 grams per day. The RDA for protein is 56 grams per day, while the minimum daily requirement is a mere 24 grams per person per day.