Something I've been wondering about....
- Thread starter Fit_mommy
- Start date
The first study clearly states results were inconclusive (plus if a man lives long enough, he WILL get prostate cancer.) As for the second site, it cites the first article. The third site is called "milk sucks"...I choose not to believe anything on it...doesn't sound scientific.
4th link (harvard) doesn't work. 5th link is just text...no references to studies
As with the allergies thing...I would like to see studies that compare whether or not it really is a milk allergy (which sensitizes IgE in the body to other allergens) or that milk increases allergies. I would like a meta-analysis of RCT to believe this.
So, instead of going to sites like "Diagnose me", go instead to www.webmd.com (or www.emedicine.com)
These 2 sites are reputable, based on peer-reviewed scientific medical literature. Remember peer-reviewed is a biggie. Any crazy could make a journal. But if no one reads it, CHECKS THE STATISTICS, determines whether studies were properly developed, etc, it ISN'T WORTH ANYTHING.
-Becky
Edited to fix grammar.
4th link (harvard) doesn't work. 5th link is just text...no references to studies
As with the allergies thing...I would like to see studies that compare whether or not it really is a milk allergy (which sensitizes IgE in the body to other allergens) or that milk increases allergies. I would like a meta-analysis of RCT to believe this.
So, instead of going to sites like "Diagnose me", go instead to www.webmd.com (or www.emedicine.com)
These 2 sites are reputable, based on peer-reviewed scientific medical literature. Remember peer-reviewed is a biggie. Any crazy could make a journal. But if no one reads it, CHECKS THE STATISTICS, determines whether studies were properly developed, etc, it ISN'T WORTH ANYTHING.
-Becky
Edited to fix grammar.
I haven't read the book nor the study. I do know straight off the bat from what you said that other factors are involved (multifactorial cause).
In rural China, people are laborers. They do manual labor. This (exercise) increases bone mineral density more than anything! In the US, most people sit on their bums all day (decreased bone mineral density).
I don't think there is anything wrong with vegans. I think that not eating animal products due to personal reasons is fine, as long as you maintain nutritional stability. But...I don't think animal products necessarily are terrible for the body. Everything in moderation. I mean, society was formed from survival of the fittest...and people had to eat meat "back in the day" and we are all here today. (NOT saying vegans aren't the fittest...just making the point that meat-eaters aren't less fit).
-Becky
In rural China, people are laborers. They do manual labor. This (exercise) increases bone mineral density more than anything! In the US, most people sit on their bums all day (decreased bone mineral density).
I don't think there is anything wrong with vegans. I think that not eating animal products due to personal reasons is fine, as long as you maintain nutritional stability. But...I don't think animal products necessarily are terrible for the body. Everything in moderation. I mean, society was formed from survival of the fittest...and people had to eat meat "back in the day" and we are all here today. (NOT saying vegans aren't the fittest...just making the point that meat-eaters aren't less fit).
-Becky
pixiesis
Cathlete
If you believe that you need to have dairy, or whatever, (because you love it, think you can't live without it, or think it's good for you), you will find convincing reasons to have it. Failing that, you'll just close your mind. Instead of listening to evidence that it isn't so good for you, you will just cover your ears and close your eyes and say something childish like "hogwash!". This mindset bugs me endlessly, a million times more than those who LISTEN and THINK before they disagree. This mindset is dangerous. My MIL was unwilling to listen to people who told her that she should quit smoking. Eventually, everyone gave up. She passed away last May. And we all miss her because she was a beautiful person. She just couldn't face the truth. I don't mean to imply that eating dairy is the same thing as smoking-I'm simply saying that having a closed mind is not a good idea. Even if, or especially if, you are confronted with something that you are inclined to deny based only on illogical, emotional reactions.
I'm not saying that everyone needs to give up dairy and become vegan. But I think it's reasonable to expect that people be open and willing to listen without childishness or knee-jerk dismissals.
I have to get to work now, but I will say that there are a great deal of reliable, peer-reviewed studies out there supporting the benefits of plant-based diets and the dangers of animal products. I think that in Dr. Joel Fuhrman's book Eat to Live, he cites around 600 peer-reviewed studies in support of his diet plan. He is extremely methodical and research-based.
And to address your doubts about The China Study, beckymd, it is my understanding that The China Study is one of the largest, most long-term, and most well-researched diet studies ever conducted. I also recall that it does take into account other lifestyle factors besides diet. And it compares areas in China that consume more animal products with areas in China where peoples' diets are mostly or completely plant-based. The people in these different areas in China had similar lifestyles; the main difference was diet. So, I feel that it does convincingly establish it's main claim that a plant-based diet is more healthy.
Amy
I'm not saying that everyone needs to give up dairy and become vegan. But I think it's reasonable to expect that people be open and willing to listen without childishness or knee-jerk dismissals.
I have to get to work now, but I will say that there are a great deal of reliable, peer-reviewed studies out there supporting the benefits of plant-based diets and the dangers of animal products. I think that in Dr. Joel Fuhrman's book Eat to Live, he cites around 600 peer-reviewed studies in support of his diet plan. He is extremely methodical and research-based.
And to address your doubts about The China Study, beckymd, it is my understanding that The China Study is one of the largest, most long-term, and most well-researched diet studies ever conducted. I also recall that it does take into account other lifestyle factors besides diet. And it compares areas in China that consume more animal products with areas in China where peoples' diets are mostly or completely plant-based. The people in these different areas in China had similar lifestyles; the main difference was diet. So, I feel that it does convincingly establish it's main claim that a plant-based diet is more healthy.
Amy
Beavs
Cathlete
Amy,
Often likewise for people who are against dairy consumption.
I also hope that my comments regarding peer reviewed articles were not interpreted as dismissive to Kathryn's comments. Rather, I like to see people making informed decisions based upon reliable, accurate, and unbiased sources. As for the final decision, well, that's up to the individual.
Often likewise for people who are against dairy consumption.
I also hope that my comments regarding peer reviewed articles were not interpreted as dismissive to Kathryn's comments. Rather, I like to see people making informed decisions based upon reliable, accurate, and unbiased sources. As for the final decision, well, that's up to the individual.
My only problem with The China Study is that I couldn't find it nor it's author on PubMed and nowhere on The China Study's website (which is trying to sell their book) does it list where their data was published in a peer reviewed medical journal. It does mention news publications though. You'd think if it was actually published in a peer-reviewed source that they would have at least listed an abstract.
I don't think my questioning is childish. I think it should make people think. We must all be careful to not take everything we hear as fact.
I do believe that too much animal protein is not good for the body. EVERYTHING in moderation. That is the problem with our society today. We no longer plow the fields (expending energy and calories) but we still eat (which is usually convience food meant to last a long time with many unnatural substances) and actually eat more. A bagel in the 1970s had 140 calories in it. Now a bagel runs around 300+ calories. (just an example) I applaud those who eat healthy. I try to myself (although it can be difficult sometimes with the stress and time crunch of medical school).
I don't feel I have "denied anything based on illogical, emotional reactions". In fact, I feel I have been exquisitely logical.
I did find evidence from articles on PubMed (a conglomerate site where one can search through MANY scientific journals at once...if you are a subscriber) that advocated that diet does have an effect on cancer. I whole-heartedly agree. My issue is with taking one whole grouping of foods and saying that they are the culprit. Yes, if you decrease your animal fats and eat a more Mediterranean diet, you will be healthier. That can decrease cholesterol, improve cardiovascular fitness, decrease the incidence of cancer. These diseases haven't been shown (to my understanding) to occur just because you have milk with breakfast and cheese on you sandwich. A lot of what I have learned in medical school is that the risk is high dietary FAT. We all know dairy and red meat are high in fat. So yes, those products do cause problems, but if one moderates what he/she eats, he'll/she'll be fine.
Life isn't all about restricting. In fact, philosophically, if one restricts too much, is one really living? If you don't like meat or animal products, that is fine. I would just make sure that you are getting the proper nutrients and the correct amount of calories (especially important if a vegan intends to get pregnant). But, if a person does enjoy the taste of a steak now and then, by all means indulge. You won't get prostate/ovarian/colon cancer from foods if you live in moderation.
Now remember, we are still uncovering genetic links to cancer. Some colon cancers and 13% of breast cancers have a genetic link. We are always learning more. So, just because one eats healthy doesn't mean they are free from cancer risk. Sometimes people just get the short end of the stick. I hope that during the lifetime of my practice, we find a cure for cancer, or at least understand it better (although science HAS come a long way).
-Becky
I don't think my questioning is childish. I think it should make people think. We must all be careful to not take everything we hear as fact.
I do believe that too much animal protein is not good for the body. EVERYTHING in moderation. That is the problem with our society today. We no longer plow the fields (expending energy and calories) but we still eat (which is usually convience food meant to last a long time with many unnatural substances) and actually eat more. A bagel in the 1970s had 140 calories in it. Now a bagel runs around 300+ calories. (just an example) I applaud those who eat healthy. I try to myself (although it can be difficult sometimes with the stress and time crunch of medical school).
I don't feel I have "denied anything based on illogical, emotional reactions". In fact, I feel I have been exquisitely logical.
I did find evidence from articles on PubMed (a conglomerate site where one can search through MANY scientific journals at once...if you are a subscriber) that advocated that diet does have an effect on cancer. I whole-heartedly agree. My issue is with taking one whole grouping of foods and saying that they are the culprit. Yes, if you decrease your animal fats and eat a more Mediterranean diet, you will be healthier. That can decrease cholesterol, improve cardiovascular fitness, decrease the incidence of cancer. These diseases haven't been shown (to my understanding) to occur just because you have milk with breakfast and cheese on you sandwich. A lot of what I have learned in medical school is that the risk is high dietary FAT. We all know dairy and red meat are high in fat. So yes, those products do cause problems, but if one moderates what he/she eats, he'll/she'll be fine.
Life isn't all about restricting. In fact, philosophically, if one restricts too much, is one really living? If you don't like meat or animal products, that is fine. I would just make sure that you are getting the proper nutrients and the correct amount of calories (especially important if a vegan intends to get pregnant). But, if a person does enjoy the taste of a steak now and then, by all means indulge. You won't get prostate/ovarian/colon cancer from foods if you live in moderation.
Now remember, we are still uncovering genetic links to cancer. Some colon cancers and 13% of breast cancers have a genetic link. We are always learning more. So, just because one eats healthy doesn't mean they are free from cancer risk. Sometimes people just get the short end of the stick. I hope that during the lifetime of my practice, we find a cure for cancer, or at least understand it better (although science HAS come a long way).
-Becky
pixiesis
Cathlete
>I don't think my questioning is childish. I think it should
>make people think. We must all be careful to not take
>everything we hear as fact.
>
>I don't feel I have "denied anything based on illogical,
>emotional reactions". In fact, I feel I have been exquisitely
>logical.
Becky, I wasn't referring to you when I said these things. The only time I addressed you specifically was in the last part of my post regarding the China Study. In fact, my gripe was aimed at people who aren't willing to listen, think, and learn something new. Clearly this does not describe you. You are absolutely not childish or illogical. I'm really sorry that you thought these comments were aimed at you! I was mainly referring to the person who posted the "hogwash" comment. I appreciate your contributions to this thread!
Anyway, I don't have a copy of The China Study (but I have read it), so I can't speak to the book's references at the moment. It did seem to me to be solid and research-based. No flakiness whatsoever. Maybe someone else who has it or has read it can be more helpful. But as I said in my earlier post, Dr. Fuhrman's book does reference many peer-reviewed articles and if you are interested I would look into that.
I have to say that I'm a bit wary of the moderation argument. I understand that you are dealing with real people and so in practice, sure, maybe we need to lower our standards and go for whatever lifestyle improvements people are willing to make. Animal products in moderation is certainly healthier than huge amounts. But I find it so unfortunate that doctors often aim so low. It seems that many (NOT YOU!) don't even want to bother addressing the whole diet/exercise issue, even though people are DYING because of this exact issue. So, why not advocate the healthiest path? Why baby people so much? It may be true that many things in moderation may not seriously harm you or kill you, but if you can avoid unhealthy foods, habits, etc. altogether, isn't that always better? Why not make the healthiest possible choices? Maybe heroin in moderation won't kill you, but does that mean that it's ok?
Amy
>make people think. We must all be careful to not take
>everything we hear as fact.
>
>I don't feel I have "denied anything based on illogical,
>emotional reactions". In fact, I feel I have been exquisitely
>logical.
Becky, I wasn't referring to you when I said these things. The only time I addressed you specifically was in the last part of my post regarding the China Study. In fact, my gripe was aimed at people who aren't willing to listen, think, and learn something new. Clearly this does not describe you. You are absolutely not childish or illogical. I'm really sorry that you thought these comments were aimed at you! I was mainly referring to the person who posted the "hogwash" comment. I appreciate your contributions to this thread!
Anyway, I don't have a copy of The China Study (but I have read it), so I can't speak to the book's references at the moment. It did seem to me to be solid and research-based. No flakiness whatsoever. Maybe someone else who has it or has read it can be more helpful. But as I said in my earlier post, Dr. Fuhrman's book does reference many peer-reviewed articles and if you are interested I would look into that.
I have to say that I'm a bit wary of the moderation argument. I understand that you are dealing with real people and so in practice, sure, maybe we need to lower our standards and go for whatever lifestyle improvements people are willing to make. Animal products in moderation is certainly healthier than huge amounts. But I find it so unfortunate that doctors often aim so low. It seems that many (NOT YOU!) don't even want to bother addressing the whole diet/exercise issue, even though people are DYING because of this exact issue. So, why not advocate the healthiest path? Why baby people so much? It may be true that many things in moderation may not seriously harm you or kill you, but if you can avoid unhealthy foods, habits, etc. altogether, isn't that always better? Why not make the healthiest possible choices? Maybe heroin in moderation won't kill you, but does that mean that it's ok?
Amy
onedayatatime
Cathlete
I think this is an interesting discussion.
One thing I'd like to add is that peer-reviewed journals are not in and of themselves a 100% guarantee that a study was done in the best possible way. Often times articles are accepted because they are viewed as helping to make a contribution to research or the field and the research design may not be optimal, despite some flaws. Even articles that are published as meta-analyses of other studies done on a particular topic will summarize research design flaws.
Also, mainstream medicine is in fact changing, especially in the past 10 years, to consider alternative approaches to treatment and prevention of disease. Many mainstream medical centers are establishing departments for alternative approaches that work as complements to mainstream medical care.
My DH is on the faculty at a medical school and he publishes in peer-reviewed journals in his field and he read the China Study and thought it was well done. I would not have bought the China Study, had Kathryn not mentioned it in posts. So she may have posted the "milk sucks" website. Maybe that's not the best resource. But Kathryn is well-read and has probably helped all of us on this forum in one way or another learn to look at something in a different way. I think that is so valuable. To learn to look at something in a new way is really great.
My DH, who is pretty conservative as a medical practitioner, has been very impressed by what he has read and has changed his diet in response. Not from nagging on my part in any way, but because he has really taken an interest in getting educated about this. I'd say the China Study made a big impression on him.
There is a section in the China Study that talks about how certain ideas about nutrition are not welcomed into peer-reviewed journals for a number of reasons, not related to the quality of the research. There are a lot of forces at play when articles are submitted to the editorial board of a journal. There are a lot of forces at play in order to get funding for a study that could eventually be published in a journal.
In addition to the China Study--Dean Ornish's books on preventing heart disease through nutritional changes are more mainstream. Even Ornish writes in his book about how hard he had to fight to get his ideas accepted and now his program is paid for by insurance companies for some cardiac patients who opt for that over medication when it's considered appropriate.
So I think Amy makes a good point emphasizing how important it is to be open minded and learn from all sources of information whether you are a physican, a lay person, a patient, a Cathe-exerciser, a vegan, a non-vegan, a moderation-is-ok-eater..
I think it's good to keep an open mind and learn.
Anyhoo, just my thoughts....now I have to go make dinner!!
-Barb
One thing I'd like to add is that peer-reviewed journals are not in and of themselves a 100% guarantee that a study was done in the best possible way. Often times articles are accepted because they are viewed as helping to make a contribution to research or the field and the research design may not be optimal, despite some flaws. Even articles that are published as meta-analyses of other studies done on a particular topic will summarize research design flaws.
Also, mainstream medicine is in fact changing, especially in the past 10 years, to consider alternative approaches to treatment and prevention of disease. Many mainstream medical centers are establishing departments for alternative approaches that work as complements to mainstream medical care.
My DH is on the faculty at a medical school and he publishes in peer-reviewed journals in his field and he read the China Study and thought it was well done. I would not have bought the China Study, had Kathryn not mentioned it in posts. So she may have posted the "milk sucks" website. Maybe that's not the best resource. But Kathryn is well-read and has probably helped all of us on this forum in one way or another learn to look at something in a different way. I think that is so valuable. To learn to look at something in a new way is really great.
My DH, who is pretty conservative as a medical practitioner, has been very impressed by what he has read and has changed his diet in response. Not from nagging on my part in any way, but because he has really taken an interest in getting educated about this. I'd say the China Study made a big impression on him.
There is a section in the China Study that talks about how certain ideas about nutrition are not welcomed into peer-reviewed journals for a number of reasons, not related to the quality of the research. There are a lot of forces at play when articles are submitted to the editorial board of a journal. There are a lot of forces at play in order to get funding for a study that could eventually be published in a journal.
In addition to the China Study--Dean Ornish's books on preventing heart disease through nutritional changes are more mainstream. Even Ornish writes in his book about how hard he had to fight to get his ideas accepted and now his program is paid for by insurance companies for some cardiac patients who opt for that over medication when it's considered appropriate.
So I think Amy makes a good point emphasizing how important it is to be open minded and learn from all sources of information whether you are a physican, a lay person, a patient, a Cathe-exerciser, a vegan, a non-vegan, a moderation-is-ok-eater..
I think it's good to keep an open mind and learn.
Anyhoo, just my thoughts....now I have to go make dinner!!
-Barb
Great post Barb! I wanted to add that my DH(a physical therapist), is very evidence based in EVERY way (which can get a little annoying at times ;-) ), and he thought the China Study was well done as well. After reading it, he left any doubt he had about becoming a vegan. It was good of you to bring up Ornish's studies. From what I understand, he has found success in actually reversing heart disease with a vegan diet. Amazing!
Beckymd, here are some peer reviewed studies (I believe) regarding the vegan diet. The journal is listed first, then titles:
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Sep;5(3):214-23
Adoption of a plant-based diet by patients with recurrent prostate cancer.
• Nguyen JY,
• Major JM,
• Knott CJ,
• Freeman KM,
• Downs TM,
• Saxe GA.
Diabetes Care. 2006 Aug;29(8):1777-83
A low-fat vegan diet improves glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in a randomized clinical trial in individuals with type 2 diabetes.
• Barnard ND,
• Cohen J,
• Jenkins DJ,
• Turner-McGrievy G,
• Gloede L,
• Jaster B,
• Seidl K,
• Green AA,
• Talpers S.
Lipids Health Dis. 2006 Jun 5;5:14
Fruits and vegetables moderate lipid cardiovascular risk factor in hypertensive patients.
• Adebawo O,
• Salau B,
• Ezima E,
• Oyefuga O,
• Ajani E,
• Idowu G,
• Famodu A,
• Osilesi O
J Am Diet Assoc. 2005 Sep;105(9):1442-6.
Nutrient adequacy of a very low-fat vegan diet.
• Dunn-Emke SR,
• Weidner G,
• Pettengill EB,
• Marlin RO,
• Chi C,
• Ornish DM
Clin Nephrol. 2005 Aug;64(2):103-12
Cardiovascular risk factors in severe chronic renal failure: the role of dietary treatment.
• Bergesio F,
• Monzani G,
• Guasparini A,
• Ciuti R,
• Gallucci M,
• Cristofano C,
• Castrignano E,
• Cupisti A,
• Barsotti G,
• Marcucci R,
• Abbate R,
• Bandini S,
• Gallo M,
• Tosi PL,
• Salvadori M.
Int J Vitam Nutr Res. 2005 Jan;75(1):28-36
Dietary intakes and blood concentrations of antioxidant vitamins in German vegans.
• Waldmann A,
• Koschizke JW,
• Leitzmann C,
• Hahn A.
Beckymd, here are some peer reviewed studies (I believe) regarding the vegan diet. The journal is listed first, then titles:
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Sep;5(3):214-23
Adoption of a plant-based diet by patients with recurrent prostate cancer.
• Nguyen JY,
• Major JM,
• Knott CJ,
• Freeman KM,
• Downs TM,
• Saxe GA.
Diabetes Care. 2006 Aug;29(8):1777-83
A low-fat vegan diet improves glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in a randomized clinical trial in individuals with type 2 diabetes.
• Barnard ND,
• Cohen J,
• Jenkins DJ,
• Turner-McGrievy G,
• Gloede L,
• Jaster B,
• Seidl K,
• Green AA,
• Talpers S.
Lipids Health Dis. 2006 Jun 5;5:14
Fruits and vegetables moderate lipid cardiovascular risk factor in hypertensive patients.
• Adebawo O,
• Salau B,
• Ezima E,
• Oyefuga O,
• Ajani E,
• Idowu G,
• Famodu A,
• Osilesi O
J Am Diet Assoc. 2005 Sep;105(9):1442-6.
Nutrient adequacy of a very low-fat vegan diet.
• Dunn-Emke SR,
• Weidner G,
• Pettengill EB,
• Marlin RO,
• Chi C,
• Ornish DM
Clin Nephrol. 2005 Aug;64(2):103-12
Cardiovascular risk factors in severe chronic renal failure: the role of dietary treatment.
• Bergesio F,
• Monzani G,
• Guasparini A,
• Ciuti R,
• Gallucci M,
• Cristofano C,
• Castrignano E,
• Cupisti A,
• Barsotti G,
• Marcucci R,
• Abbate R,
• Bandini S,
• Gallo M,
• Tosi PL,
• Salvadori M.
Int J Vitam Nutr Res. 2005 Jan;75(1):28-36
Dietary intakes and blood concentrations of antioxidant vitamins in German vegans.
• Waldmann A,
• Koschizke JW,
• Leitzmann C,
• Hahn A.
onedayatatime
Cathlete
Amy--
Thank you for saying that about my post. Funny about your DH being "evidence based." Welcome to my world! :+ You should have seen him researching dishwashers last year. You would have thought he had a a research grant to study the technical features of every dishwasher made.....
Since DH is so much that way, it has made a big impression on me that DH has been very impressed with the China Study, and Ornish (who I think recommends a near-vegan diet, but not entirely vegan).
Another interesting point, I think, is that in some of the journal-published studies is the sample sizes and the methods used.
In the large Harvard nurses study, nutrition habits were measured through the method of self-report , e.g. the women wrote down what they eat daily. A news article released y'day, talked about the extent to which patients aren't able to be entirely truthful to doctors, just as a matter of course, about what they are eating or drinking. Sometimes we are not the best observers of what we are doing.
So even though the Nurses study is large and has major funding sources, the methods have been criticized. The interpretation of the results from that study have also been controversial in terms of how generalizable they are to the population.
So although the study is less than perfect, it is still valuable, worth being published and worth learning from.
The China Study and the Ornish work are interesting because there are some built in control factors. For the China Study, I think the fact that in certain regions of the world where diet since birth has followed certain patterns because of culture and the disease rates are different is just very interesting and worth learning from. Definitely Becky's point about exercise is a good one, too.
For the Ornish study, he has had patients in a more controlled setting through his treatment programs and lab tests were done, etc. and the fact is that his program of exercise, stress reduction and eating fewer animal-products (again not totally vegan, yet well below a "moderate" level) did lead to less heart disease.
There are so many things in American culture and lifestyle that go against optimal health, e.g. couch potato-ing vs. moving more throughout the day.
So, fair point that these sources aren't in peer-reviewed journals, but there is something to be learned from them, too. And mainstream medicine is learning from and changing from these sources, too.
Look at the recent trends in the mainstreaming of organic foods: it used to be only in Health Food Stores, now Kellog's makes "Organic Frosted Mini Wheats!" LOL....(not saying that trend is a good one, but just an example of what is thought of as "alternative" today may morph into "mainstream" tomorrow...that's the beauty of learning new things...)
Now I have to exercise and stop sitting on my butt (or as Cathey would say, "the hiney" ) writing on the Cathe forums!!!
-Barb
Thank you for saying that about my post. Funny about your DH being "evidence based." Welcome to my world! :+ You should have seen him researching dishwashers last year. You would have thought he had a a research grant to study the technical features of every dishwasher made.....
Since DH is so much that way, it has made a big impression on me that DH has been very impressed with the China Study, and Ornish (who I think recommends a near-vegan diet, but not entirely vegan).
Another interesting point, I think, is that in some of the journal-published studies is the sample sizes and the methods used.
In the large Harvard nurses study, nutrition habits were measured through the method of self-report , e.g. the women wrote down what they eat daily. A news article released y'day, talked about the extent to which patients aren't able to be entirely truthful to doctors, just as a matter of course, about what they are eating or drinking. Sometimes we are not the best observers of what we are doing.
So even though the Nurses study is large and has major funding sources, the methods have been criticized. The interpretation of the results from that study have also been controversial in terms of how generalizable they are to the population.
So although the study is less than perfect, it is still valuable, worth being published and worth learning from.
The China Study and the Ornish work are interesting because there are some built in control factors. For the China Study, I think the fact that in certain regions of the world where diet since birth has followed certain patterns because of culture and the disease rates are different is just very interesting and worth learning from. Definitely Becky's point about exercise is a good one, too.
For the Ornish study, he has had patients in a more controlled setting through his treatment programs and lab tests were done, etc. and the fact is that his program of exercise, stress reduction and eating fewer animal-products (again not totally vegan, yet well below a "moderate" level) did lead to less heart disease.
There are so many things in American culture and lifestyle that go against optimal health, e.g. couch potato-ing vs. moving more throughout the day.
So, fair point that these sources aren't in peer-reviewed journals, but there is something to be learned from them, too. And mainstream medicine is learning from and changing from these sources, too.
Look at the recent trends in the mainstreaming of organic foods: it used to be only in Health Food Stores, now Kellog's makes "Organic Frosted Mini Wheats!" LOL....(not saying that trend is a good one, but just an example of what is thought of as "alternative" today may morph into "mainstream" tomorrow...that's the beauty of learning new things...)
Now I have to exercise and stop sitting on my butt (or as Cathey would say, "the hiney" ) writing on the Cathe forums!!!
-Barb