Confused by T. Colin Campbell article

For those questions and discussions on the McDougall program that don’t seem to fit in any other forum.

Moderators: JeffN, f1jim, John McDougall, carolve, Heather McDougall

Re: Confused by T. Colin Campbell article

Postby joseph » Tue Apr 22, 2014 3:13 am

I don't understand the confusion over what T. Colin Campbell is saying in his very perceptive article.

Consider this:

Can you now see the folly of the NY Times article[1] and the research report being discussed?[2] The researchers published their findings by focusing their attention on single dietary (i.e., saturated fat and cholesterol) and clinical factors (i.e., serum total, HDL and LDL cholesterol) as causes of heart disease. This is reductionist experimentation that encourages the development of out-of-context remedies targeted to one risk factor or one causal event at a time, a recipe for failure. Reductionist experimentation is valuable for understanding nutrient structure and function, but it too often encourages endless speculation and confusion caused by highly subjective, personal preferences as to which factor to favor in research and to offer to the market.


He is accusing the NY Times of burying the real story once again. I personally know of a few people who decided to eat ultra lean fish (5 - 10 % fat) to avoid the animal fats and ended up eating a lot of animal protein. This is the sort of "fix" that Dr. Campbell is talking about. You need to know all the research on the subject of health and that research leads one to conclude that whole, pant based foods are the route to go if one wants to be healthy.

This was a good article by Dr. Campbell. Read it again and see that he is railing against those who use reductionist arguments to shift the blame to one "bad guy" when there is more than one culprit.
joseph
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Confused by T. Colin Campbell article

Postby baardmk » Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:10 am

FlowerPower wrote:It really is that one comment about saturated fat not being a major contributor to heart disease that I"m having trouble with. And I admit, the fault is probably my own, but it's hard to reason around.

I understand where you're coming from. Although others here have done a good job of "deconfusing" me about what Campbell suggests we actually should be eating (coconut and nuts should still be very limited) I think he comes across as
  • too wholistic in saying whole plants are the answer to nearly all of our problems
  • too reductionistic towards protein being a major culprit while saturated fat maybe not so much
So I'm getting more wary about his professional opinions. I know his point was to see beyond the reductionist labels, but I would argue that this is also missing the truth. If I've understood the science correctly.... Saturated fat really is a "bad guy" in heart disease. It's not the only one, of course, but it's a major player. It raises cholesterol & LDL and these substances are causally(physiologically) linked to the process of atherosclerosis. Everybody who's an honest professional, I think, will agree. And what about the experiments done on our close primate relatives? I think they clearly show that too much fat causes atherosclerosis, irrespective of other factors, and that saturated fat is worse than other kinds.

Some anecdotal evidence. I tried some chunks of coconut(whole) in my rice a while ago, just too see how my body would react. Maybe it was partly psychological, but I didn't feel as good as I do when I just have the rice. I felt a bit sluggish, and I'm convinced enough now that although I'm doing the whole WFPB-thing*, I still should heed the well established findings that reductionist science has to offer and the dietary practices that people have followed with great success.

*I think many on the board should consider not referring to themselves as eating WFPB. To me the WFPB runs the risk of being associated with too much mythical thinking and questionable dietary practices(very easy to think that whole means OK). It has some good things going for it, but I like McDougall's description of the best diet much better, even the 80 10 10 is a better descriptor, giving people a clear idea on what they should be eating (and avoid eating).
User avatar
baardmk
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 9:53 pm
Location: Norway

Re: Confused by T. Colin Campbell article

Postby landog » Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:33 am

baardmk wrote:*I think many on the board should consider not referring to themselves as eating WFPB. To me the WFPB runs the risk of being associated with too much mythical thinking and questionable dietary practices(very easy to think that whole means OK).

I proudly follow a low fat, whole foods, plant based diet! It's not based on mysticism. It's based on science.

I think that Dr. Campbell is misunderstood by many laymen because he is a scientist. He speaks as a scientist and he lets the facts take him where they will.
User avatar
landog
 
Posts: 2209
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 6:26 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Confused by T. Colin Campbell article

Postby ulialen » Tue Apr 22, 2014 6:03 am

baardmk wrote:
FlowerPower wrote:It really is that one comment about saturated fat not being a major contributor to heart disease that I"m having trouble with. And I admit, the fault is probably my own, but it's hard to reason around.

I understand where you're coming from. Although others here have done a good job of "deconfusing" me about what Campbell suggests we actually should be eating (coconut and nuts should still be very limited) I think he comes across as
  • too wholistic in saying whole plants are the answer to nearly all of our problems
  • too reductionistic towards protein being a major culprit while saturated fat maybe not so much
So I'm getting more wary about his professional opinions. I know his point was to see beyond the reductionist labels, but I would argue that this is also missing the truth. If I've understood the science correctly.... Saturated fat really is a "bad guy" in heart disease. It's not the only one, of course, but it's a major player. It raises cholesterol & LDL and these substances are causally(physiologically) linked to the process of atherosclerosis. Everybody who's an honest professional, I think, will agree. And what about the experiments done on our close primate relatives? I think they clearly show that too much fat causes atherosclerosis, irrespective of other factors, and that saturated fat is worse than other kinds.

Some anecdotal evidence. I tried some chunks of coconut(whole) in my rice a while ago, just too see how my body would react. Maybe it was partly psychological, but I didn't feel as good as I do when I just have the rice. I felt a bit sluggish, and I'm convinced enough now that although I'm doing the whole WFPB-thing*, I still should heed the well established findings that reductionist science has to offer and the dietary practices that people have followed with great success.

*I think many on the board should consider not referring to themselves as eating WFPB. To me the WFPB runs the risk of being associated with too much mythical thinking and questionable dietary practices(very easy to think that whole means OK). It has some good things going for it, but I like McDougall's description of the best diet much better, even the 80 10 10 is a better descriptor, giving people a clear idea on what they should be eating (and avoid eating).


Campbell want scientists to think in a different manner. He say that it is misleading to speak about of a single nutrient (saturated fat, protein etc) without the compound in which it is found in nature. If scientists make so (reductionism), they are forced to find some misleading findings. He suggest to study the whole food not a single part of the food.
Saturated fat are also in an apple or in lettuce, but the sum of saturated fat of the apple and the compound of the apple produce the effect to promote health. Instead the sum of saturated fat of meat with the compound of meat produce the effect to promote disease.
So you are perfectly right to say that meat promote disease always but you are not right to say that saturated fat produce disease always: the saturated fat fat that are inside an apple are not promoting disease.
If you say that the body havent to eat any saturated fat, you are sayng that you cant eat also any plant based food.
Instead if you say that the body need of whole plant based food and have to avoid meat, cheese,eggs, fish and vegetable processed food, you are saying the correct thing without mention saturated fat. In this last manner saturated fat are eaten in the right quantity and in the right compound and in this manner they promote health. Sure that if you extract saturated fat from an apple, and you build a food of only saturated fat of apple, sure that it produce disease. But the same is true for protein and carbohydrates when they are extract away from their natural compound.And making so you can produce articles with no scientific value that are misleading. And worst of all, you can realize epidemiologic studies that go to analize the single nutrient.
What he say is that you have to analize the effect of whole food. For example what is the effect on health for people that eat whole plant based food? what is the effect on health of people who eat meat?
So the culprit is the animal protein. But animal protein are only in animal food. So when campbell say animal protein dont thing to the nutrient but to the food. Animal protein are only in animal food.
So in conclusion the culprit is the animal food. if you eliminate all the animal food (animal protein) and you eat only whole plant food limiting the most fattest vegetable food as he say in the article, all the nutrient that you eat fat (also saturated fat),carbohydrates and protein promote the health.
ulialen
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:21 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Confused by T. Colin Campbell article

Postby FlowerPower » Tue Apr 22, 2014 7:16 am

Yes, I understand his frustration with scientists and reductionist science, but my question (from this article) still remains--if saturated fat is not a major contributor to heart disease, then why limit the consumption of whole foods such as avocados, nuts, olives, and coconut for heart patients? What, if not the fat, is the problem with these foods? It's not animal protein.

Oils seem to be attacked for not being whole foods and having no nutritive value, but I had gotten the impression from Esselstyn's writing that they also had harmful effects beyond their empty calories. Again, no animal protein.
FlowerPower
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 1:32 pm

Re: Confused by T. Colin Campbell article

Postby petero » Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:15 am

FlowerPower wrote:Oils seem to be attacked for not being whole foods and having no nutritive value, but I had gotten the impression from Esselstyn's writing that they also had harmful effects beyond their empty calories.


It does. Check out the oil-related links in Jeff Novick's FAQ sticky. Many McDougallers have reduced their cholesterol and reversed or halted their heart disease by sticking to the no oil prescription. It is not just empty calories, it's high in saturated fat (even olive oil), which raises cholesterol and LDL.
It's easy to be a naive idealist. It's easy to be a cynical realist. It's quite another thing to have no illusions and still hold the inner flame. -- Marie-Louise von Franz
User avatar
petero
 
Posts: 839
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:45 am
Location: Gatlinburg, TN

Re: Confused by T. Colin Campbell article

Postby patty » Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:13 am

FlowerPower wrote:Yes, I understand his frustration with scientists and reductionist science, but my question (from this article) still remains--if saturated fat is not a major contributor to heart disease, then why limit the consumption of whole foods such as avocados, nuts, olives, and coconut for heart patients? What, if not the fat, is the problem with these foods? It's not animal protein.

Oils seem to be attacked for not being whole foods and having no nutritive value, but I had gotten the impression from Esselstyn's writing that they also had harmful effects beyond their empty calories. Again, no animal protein.


Dr. Campbell just mentioning Dr. Esselstyn, is giving the reader enough information for them to do their own research. The learning curve of this WFPB life style is very deep. That is why Jeff Novick's dvds are so important as he clarifies fat and oil in whole intact plants aren't limited to nuts, seeds and avocados. We get enough fat and oil from Whole Intact plants while excluding them. In "Whole" Dr. Campbell shares about paradigms shifts. To make a collective paradigm shift it is like a school of fish have to be in the right place for them to make a 180 degree turn. We are in that school. When it comes to other choices besides animal fat/oil and concocted fat/oils it is a individual choice. While at the same time know the body shows the past, the mind (non-empircal) shows the future. Today quantum physics comes first and reductionist science 2nd.

Dr. Campbell "Whole":
In its broadest sense, a paradigm is a mental filter that restricts what you are able to see at any one time. Mental filters are essential; without your brain’s reticular activating system, you would be overwhelmed by stimuli and therefore unable to respond to the important ones. Without the ability to focus on one thing and shut out distractions, you wouldn’t be able to get much done. And in science, without the literal filters of microscopes and telescopes, we would know precious little about inner and outer space.

Filters—mental and literal—become problematic only when we forget about them and think that what we’re seeing is the whole of reality, instead of a very narrow slice of it. Paradigms become prisons only when we stop recognizing them as paradigms—when we think that water is all there is, so we don’t even have a name for it anymore. In a world shaped by the paradigm of water, anyone who suggests the existence of “not water” is automatically a heretic, a lunatic, or a clown.



Dr. Esselstyn "Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease":
Most of America’s health dollars are spent on the late stages of heart disease, strokes, hypertension, diabetes, and the common Western cancers of the breast, the prostate, and the colon. Like heart disease itself, these others are part of the bitter harvest of the toxic American diet. And like traditional treatments for heart disease, their treatment is not preventive. Having your breast cancer amputated, your malignant prostate gland radically removed, or your cancerous colon resected is painful, disfiguring, and costly—and too often does not resolve the underlying problem.

My own research has concentrated on coronary artery disease, and how plant-based nutrition can prevent and also arrest and reverse it. But with every year that passes, there is more proof that a plant-based diet has similar salutary effects on other chronic diseases, as well.

Take stroke, for example—the third leading cause of death in the United States. The evidence is overwhelming that if you eat to save yourself from heart disease, you eat to save yourself from stroke.

There are two types of stroke. In hemorrhagic stroke, the less common of the two, a blood vessel in the brain ruptures because of high blood pressure or a genetic weakness of the vessel wall known as an aneurysm. A plant-based diet cannot do anything to cure a genetic aneurysm. But it will definitely help reduce blood pressure, an important step in the right direction.

On the more common variety of stroke—ischemic or embolic stroke—there is even better news. These have the same origin as coronary artery disease. An ischemic stroke occurs when fat and cholesterol block blood vessels that carry oxygen and nutrients to the brain, just as they may block the coronary arteries that nourish the heart. An embolic stroke also deprives the brain of nutrients and oxygen, but in a slightly different way. When an artery sheds part of its diseased inner lining, that debris—called an embolus—is carried through the bloodstream until it gets wedged into a blood vessel that is too small for it to traverse. Now it blocks the flow of blood through that vessel. This may happen almost anywhere in the body, blocking blood flow to a kidney, an intestine, a leg, or some other organ. When it occurs in vessels that nourish the brain, it is a stroke.

In the 1990s, Pierre Aramenco, a physician from Paris, studied this process in Frenchmen who were at risk for vascular disease.2 Using ultrasound probes inserted through the esophagus, Dr. Aramenco measured the thickness of atherosclerotic debris growing on the inside of each patient’s ascending aorta, the giant artery that climbs directly from the heart and sends branches to the brain. He divided the men into three groups. One group showed 1 millimeter of debris on the lining of the aortic wall. The second had debris measuring between 1 and 3.9 millimeters thick. The third had more than 3.9
millimeters of debris. Dr. Aramenco followed the patients for three years. Not surprisingly, the group with the greatest amount of plaque growth shed the greatest number of emboli, and had the most strokes (see Figure 17 in insert).

The buildup of fatty plaques in blood vessels can cause damage in many different ways. For example, when an aorta that contains plaque is clamped during coronary bypass surgery, plaque debris is loosened and enters the bloodstream as an embolus. Using ultrasound to monitor the middle cerebral artery in the brain, technicians can distinctly hear the embolizing plaque as it enters the brain. If the patient dies during surgery, the plaque debris may be found in the brain at autopsy.

This tragic sequence helps explain the fearful loss of cognition in coronary artery bypass patients.3 But neuroradiologists also report that using magnetic resonance imaging, they can detect little white spots in the brains of Americans starting at about age fifty. These spots represent small, asymptomatic strokes (see Figures 8 and 19 in insert). The brain has so much reserve capacity that at first these tiny strokes cause no trouble. But, if they continue, they begin to cause memory loss and, ultimately, crippling dementia. In fact, one recently reported study found that the presence of these “silent brain infarcts” more than doubles the risk of dementia.4

We now believe, in fact, that at least half of all senile mental impairment is caused by vascular injury to the brain. Not long ago, a Swedish study of five hundred eighty-five-year-olds found that fully one-third of them showed some form of dementia. A careful analysis revealed that in half of those with dementia, their mental impairment was due to a diseased arterial blood supply to the brain.5 Similarly, a study in the Netherlands focused on five thousand people between the ages of fifty-five and ninety-four.6 The researchers studied the circulation in the brains of all their subjects, then asked them to perform various written tests of mental acuity. The results were quite clear: those suffering from artery disease and thus impaired circulation in the brain performed less well on the tests than did those whose arteries were clean. Age made no difference. Arterial health was the variable that counted.

This should come as no surprise. Clogged arteries serving the brain and clogged arteries serving the heart are part and parcel of the same disease. The cause is the same: a buildup of fat and cholesterol and lethal had just one stroke. Emil Huffgard had three. As a result, both had suffered impairment of their walking. More than twenty years later, both of these men are alive and well. Neither has had any further strokes. The same plant-based nutrition that saved their hearts also saved their brains.


Aloha, patty
patty
 
Posts: 6977
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:46 am

Re: Confused by T. Colin Campbell article

Postby ulialen » Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:40 am

FlowerPower wrote:Yes, I understand his frustration with scientists and reductionist science, but my question (from this article) still remains--if saturated fat is not a major contributor to heart disease, then why limit the consumption of whole foods such as avocados, nuts, olives, and coconut for heart patients? What, if not the fat, is the problem with these foods? It's not animal protein.

Oils seem to be attacked for not being whole foods and having no nutritive value, but I had gotten the impression from Esselstyn's writing that they also had harmful effects beyond their empty calories. Again, no animal protein.


The reductioninst answer is because they contain too much saturated fat. The wholistic answer is because there are study that have shown adverse health effects passing from a diet rich in usual whole vegetable foods to a diet rich in whole fatter vegetables food.
ulialen
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:21 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Confused by T. Colin Campbell article

Postby FlowerPower » Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:51 am

Thank you all, again. Sincerely. I didn't have anyone to discuss this with who would approach it from the WFPB perspective. As for my own understanding, well, I think I'll just have to be content with letting this issue go, at least when it comes to this one particular article.

Is saturated fat the chief cause (or even a major contributing cause) of heart disease? The answer is, “No”, not only because of the lack of published empirical evidence of adverse effects of saturated fats but also because it was mostly a moot question from the beginning. But we (professionals and public alike) preferred to debate the fat idea and, in so doing, we ignored what really mattered as a cause of heart and related diseases: the use of an animal protein rich diet. It is clear to me that referring to saturated fat as a main cause of heart disease (and cancer) has been a diversion of epic proportions. It is far more important to focus on the avoidance of animal-based foods—and concocted ‘foods’ of plant parts—in favor of whole plant-based foods naturally low in fat and protein.


I"m letting myself get stuck on that one point--if saturated fat isn't a major contributing cause of heart disease, why does it matter that we choose plant-based foods that are naturally low in fat. Yup, I'm stuck on the fat (just what he was saying not to get stuck on). Oh well. :?

Patty, thank you for that passage from Dr. E's book. I've picked up a copy (it's been over a year since I read it) so I can reread it. I know for myself that low fat is the way to go. For my family, well...I'll just have to admit that I don't have a good answer to explain what seems to be a contradiction when it comes to the role of high fat plant foods and heart health. I'll have to keep working at that paradigm shift, so I can get past this :D

This community is an amazing resource. I've got a lot more reading to do.
FlowerPower
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 1:32 pm

Re: Confused by T. Colin Campbell article

Postby patty » Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:24 am

FlowerPower wrote:Thank you all, again. Sincerely. I didn't have anyone to discuss this with who would approach it from the WFPB perspective. As for my own understanding, well, I think I'll just have to be content with letting this issue go, at least when it comes to this one particular article.

Is saturated fat the chief cause (or even a major contributing cause) of heart disease? The answer is, “No”, not only because of the lack of published empirical evidence of adverse effects of saturated fats but also because it was mostly a moot question from the beginning. But we (professionals and public alike) preferred to debate the fat idea and, in so doing, we ignored what really mattered as a cause of heart and related diseases: the use of an animal protein rich diet. It is clear to me that referring to saturated fat as a main cause of heart disease (and cancer) has been a diversion of epic proportions. It is far more important to focus on the avoidance of animal-based foods—and concocted ‘foods’ of plant parts—in favor of whole plant-based foods naturally low in fat and protein.


I"m letting myself get stuck on that one point--if saturated fat isn't a major contributing cause of heart disease, why does it matter that we choose plant-based foods that are naturally low in fat. Yup, I'm stuck on the fat (just what he was saying not to get stuck on). Oh well. :?

Patty, thank you for that passage from Dr. E's book. I've picked up a copy (it's been over a year since I read it) so I can reread it. I know for myself that low fat is the way to go. For my family, well...I'll just have to admit that I don't have a good answer to explain what seems to be a contradiction when it comes to the role of high fat plant foods and heart health. I'll have to keep working at that paradigm shift, so I can get past this :D

This community is an amazing resource. I've got a lot more reading to do.


What I love about Dr. McDougall and Jeff Novick demostrate time and money with this lifestyle is effortless. It is just wrapping the head around it:) Interesting... one of the posters mentioned Dr. Campbell must have a book to sell. And in reflection I remembered Dr. Campbell's daughter put out a cookbook: "The China Study Cookbook: Over 120 Whole Food, Plant-Based Recipes": http://www.amazon.com/The-China-Study-C ... 1937856755 Posters had said the recipes included nuts so I didn't bother looking at it. Reactions were confused and disappointed because of the recipes are more in effect to transitioning vs. the solution. In "The China Study", Dr. Campbell shares the power is at end of the fork. And with family and friends we have to think like a mountain. Education works, so keep questioning because we can't learn fast enough to eradicate chronic disease.

With my family and friends I am doing hydroponics so I will be able to give fresh organic veggies away. It has taken me awhile to get it going.. as it is for myself a real learning experience. Dr. Campbell, Dr. Esselstyn and Dr. McDougall has set the bar and it is just working to achieve it. Oh and I did download the book... I support Dr. Campbell and of course families:) finding their way.

Aloha, patty
patty
 
Posts: 6977
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:46 am

Re: Confused by T. Colin Campbell article

Postby ulialen » Tue Apr 22, 2014 1:13 pm

FlowerPower wrote:Thank you all, again. Sincerely. I didn't have anyone to discuss this with who would approach it from the WFPB perspective. As for my own understanding, well, I think I'll just have to be content with letting this issue go, at least when it comes to this one particular article.

Is saturated fat the chief cause (or even a major contributing cause) of heart disease? The answer is, “No”, not only because of the lack of published empirical evidence of adverse effects of saturated fats but also because it was mostly a moot question from the beginning. But we (professionals and public alike) preferred to debate the fat idea and, in so doing, we ignored what really mattered as a cause of heart and related diseases: the use of an animal protein rich diet. It is clear to me that referring to saturated fat as a main cause of heart disease (and cancer) has been a diversion of epic proportions. It is far more important to focus on the avoidance of animal-based foods—and concocted ‘foods’ of plant parts—in favor of whole plant-based foods naturally low in fat and protein.


I"m letting myself get stuck on that one point--if saturated fat isn't a major contributing cause of heart disease, why does it matter that we choose plant-based foods that are naturally low in fat. Yup, I'm stuck on the fat (just what he was saying not to get stuck on). Oh well. :?

Patty, thank you for that passage from Dr. E's book. I've picked up a copy (it's been over a year since I read it) so I can reread it. I know for myself that low fat is the way to go. For my family, well...I'll just have to admit that I don't have a good answer to explain what seems to be a contradiction when it comes to the role of high fat plant foods and heart health. I'll have to keep working at that paradigm shift, so I can get past this :D

This community is an amazing resource. I've got a lot more reading to do.


We are eating whole plant foods that are low in fat not because they are low in fat but because there are many and many scientific evidence that such foods promote health.
We dont eat meat,cheese, eggs, fish not because they are rich in fat but because there are many and many scientific evidence that they promote disease.
That is the evidence. Then scientist ask themselves why some foods promote health and other promote disease and one explanation that the scientist give for these evidences is their contents in saturated fat.

But for me the most right explanation is that the body of the specie homo sapiens sapiens is not made to eat meat,cheese,eggs and fish and any types of not whole food. Instead is made to eat whole plant based food.
ulialen
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:21 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Confused by T. Colin Campbell article

Postby Rumicat1 » Tue Apr 22, 2014 1:21 pm

If he is advocating a plant based diet he is definitely promoting a diet that is low in fat. How low you need to go probably depends on your genetics, some people can eat an olive oil regularly and never develop heart disease. For me, I'm erring on the side of caution as all of my grand parents developed heart disease and dementia. Also, my genetic profile comes along with a serious fat tooth, every member of my extended family is obese, and the more they like butter the fatter they are. I've found that the more fatty foods I eat, the more fatty foods I crave. Finally losing weight again after fully adhering to the low fat aspect of the McDougall plan. I'd recommend trying the low fat aspect out if you haven't already. Good luck :)
Rumicat1
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 1:01 pm

Re: Confused by T. Colin Campbell article

Postby Jack Monzon » Tue Apr 22, 2014 1:35 pm

I err on the side of NO OIL too. I never cook with or eat oil at home. I leave room for myself when I eat out, because I'm never quite sure what oils they're putting into my meals, and I'm not willing to be one of those people who "eat before they go out to eat," like many on this forum espouse. I eat out so little that it's not going to make a difference.
Jack Monzon
 
Posts: 644
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:19 pm

Re: Confused by T. Colin Campbell article

Postby MarionP » Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:14 pm

FlowerPower wrote:I"m letting myself get stuck on that one point--if saturated fat isn't a major contributing cause of heart disease, why does it matter that we choose plant-based foods that are naturally low in fat. Yup, I'm stuck on the fat (just what he was saying not to get stuck on). Oh well. :?


I don't think that any of the experts often cited on these boards would find anything wrong with somebody who is healthy and trim to eat high fat plant foods in moderation. Their concerns and recommendations are usually directed at people who are already sick or worried about getting sick, for whom every little bit of caution can make a significant difference.
User avatar
MarionP
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:27 pm
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec

Re: Confused by T. Colin Campbell article

Postby FakeCanadian » Tue Apr 22, 2014 3:52 pm

Is it too much to ask that one of the 'powers that be' who monitor this board ask Dr. Campbell for a clarification of his current view on the connection between eating saturated fat and heart disease? I'm seriously considering adding vegetarian pizza back to my diet! :-)
FakeCanadian
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 7:12 am

PreviousNext

Return to The Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests



Welcome!

Sign up to receive our regular articles, recipes, and news about upcoming events.