The Cellulite Investigation

You might think that, as a purveyor of the nutritional benefits of beef/butter/bacon (and numerous other non-alliterated animal products), ANALYST wouldn’t have many good things to say about The China Study, i.e. the modern-day Bible of the vegan movement. Surprisingly, this is not the case. Campbell’s book reveals such profound nutritional truths, at times you’d think he wrote it straight from attending a Sally Fallon lecture. Here are the top seven arguments even the most devout Real Food aficionado could advocate from The China Study.


1. Our modern diet is killing us. Campbell dutifully explains that the diseases that plague modern Americans were virtually non-existent in traditional societies, including heart disease and cancer.  He cites a prolific number of studies that implicate pasteurized dairy products, factory-farmed meats, and refined carbohydrates as the primary source of America's health crisis.  He is passionate about the fundamental role of proper nutrition in health.

Expert government panels have said it, the surgeon general has said it and academic scientists have said it. More people die because of the way they eat than by tobacco use, accidents or any other lifestyle or environmental factor. (p. 305)

2. The nutritional “experts” are not a reliable source of information. One of the greatest contributions from Campbell’s book is his insider’s take on the fundamentally flawed relationship between government, academia, healthcare providers, and industry.

The medical status quo relies heavily on medication and surgery, at the exclusion of nutrition and lifestyle. Doctors have virtually no training in nutrition and how it relates to health. Food industry groups are the ones providing the “education” material! (p. 327)

and

Industry provides funding for the public health reports, and academic leaders with industry ties play key roles in developing them. A revolving door exists between government jobs and industry jobs... It is a system built by people who play their isolated parts, oftentimes unaware of the top decision makers and their ulterior motivations. The system is a waste of taxpayer money and is profoundly damaging to our health. (p. 319)

3. The answer to the chronic ailments that plague modern society is a return to pure whole foods. Campbell’s reverence for the complexity of real foods is apparent.

As soon as food hits your saliva, your body begins working its magic, and the process of digestion starts. Each of these food chemicals interacts with the other food chemicals and your body’s chemicals in very specific ways. It is an infinitely complex process, and it is literally impossible to understand precisely how each chemical interacts with every other chemical. We will never discover exactly how it all fits together. (p. 226)

4. Like Michael Pollan and Gary Taubes, Campbell laments the incessant reductionism in nutritional research.

The mistake of characterizing whole foods by the health effects of specific nutrients is what I call reductionism. For example, the health effect of a hamburger cannot be simply attributed to the effect of a few grams of saturated fat in the meat. Saturated fat is merely one ingredient. (p. 271)

and

This gets to the heart of reductionism in science. As long as scientists study highly isolated chemicals and food components, and take the information out of context to make sweeping assumptions about complex diet and disease relationships, confusion will result. Misleading news headlines about this or that food chemical and this or that disease will be the norm. (p. 286)

5.  Shockingly, Campbell admits that he did not realize the importance of avoiding reductionism with his early research. 

It is very easy for scientists to get caught in the reductionism web of thinking, even if they have other intentions. It has not been until recently, after a lifetime of research, that I have come to realize how damaging it is to take details out of context and to make subsequent claims about diet and health. (p. 303)

6.  Nutritional research should not be conducted on select food chemicals in isolation.  It is a shame that Campbell didn't employ his non-reductionist, whole foods approach during his early research regarding the effects of animal protein on cancer development.  If he had fed his lab rats fresh whole foods instead of isolated and denatured casein protein, perhaps his life's work would have taken a different course.

Everything in food works together to create health or disease.  The more we think that a single chemical characterizes a whole food, the more we stray into idiocy. (p. 106)

7.  And I think we are all in agreement on this one; reductionism can lead to disastrous conclusions.

This method of investigating details out of context, what I call reductionism, and trying to judge complex relationships from the results is deadly. [italics his own] (p. 287)

Recommended reading:
The China Study, Part I @CelluliteInvestigation
Is Cellulite a Disease of Civilization? @CelluliteInvestigation
Butter vs. Margerine Showdown @FoodRenegade
Lessons from Okinawa @Nourished Kitchen

This post is a part of Fight Back Friday hosted at Food Renegade.
************************************************************************************