Yes and no as It depends on how you define relevant.
We can learn from animal studies but they do not directly apply to humans as we have much different biochemistry's and physiology's.
So, in regard to gluten, since we have completely different dietary needs and digestive systems, the results of a mouse study would be
ir-relevant. Same with looking at the protein needs for rats which has little to do with the protein needs for humans. So again, it would be
ir-relevant.
However, we can learn some things from animal studies and from these animal studies, we can move forward and see if these things also hold true for humans in the same way. That is part of the Hierarchy of Evidence as shown here in my slide.
The "test tube" and "animal research" should be "below" the triangle, as here..
In regard to the China Study, people often confuse the actual studies that were done in China (which are known as the China–Cornell–Oxford Project) with the mass market book, The China Study, which summarized the results of the China-Cornell-Oxford Project, and Dr Campbell's other work, which is over 300 published studies.
I can't speak for him but his earlier work in animals (which may or may not have some relevance) led him to do the studies in China on diet, lifestyle and disease characteristics in humans. That makes sense to me as he saw something in his animal studies that he now wanted to test in actual humans.
It is also important to know that The China Study was an ecological study, which is a type of epidemiological study, and as such, as with all types of epidemiological studies, can only make certain assumptions and generate hypotheses. An ecological study is usually regarded as inferior to other epidemiological designs such as cohort and case-control studies because it is susceptible to the ecological fallacy.
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=35681&p=362929An ecological study, again, is a weaker version of an epidemiological study, as it looks at & compares different groups of people, not individuals, the results of which are indicative of the group as a whole and not the individuals. The ecological fallacy, that is made by many people, is applying the group results to the individual.
As you probably have seen, many people have applied the group results of the China-Cornell-Oxford Project to the individual.
Dr Campbell himself warned of this and stated this limitation very clearly in the AJCN article itself (p. 1155S):
Diet and chronic degenerative diseases: perspectives from China.
Am J Clin Nutr. 1994 May;59(5 Suppl):1153S-1161S.
Campbell TC, Junshi C.
"First, this study is ecological and includes 6,500 individuals residing in 130 villages. Thus according to widely held assumptions, any inferences concerning cause-and-effect relationships should be considered to be hypothetical only, with validation to be provided only by intervention or prospective analytic studies on individuals."So, the question is, we have data in animals, which may or may not be relevant, and we have some ecological data along with other data from other epidemiological studies looking at diet and cancer, but do we have enough data from intervention and prospective data to confirm this hypothesis. I think the 2007 AICR report, Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective, is an excellent overview of the current state of the data. I have discussed the report several times in this forum.
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=29045&p=290428#p290428I have very high regard for Dr Campbell as a friend and as a colleague and for the all the work he has done and all of his contributions, which have been many. However, I think many overly enthusiastic well meaning people with good intentions, have misapplied his work to support their agendas and/or beliefs, especially in the "vegan" and "WFPB" world.
Now, in regard to animal protein and cancer, everything has to be put into context.
I explained some of that here...
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=31203&p=312880#p312880The impact of isolated foods in isolated feeding studies has little to no meaning to the impact of what such foods have as part of an overall lifestyle.
For instance, think about the latest DVD by Dr Greger and the section on cancer. In the first study he showed that there was triple the rates of cancer for every 50 grams of poultry consumed. And then he said that for 1/4 of a chicken breast (50 grams), tripled the risk.
However, in the next 3-4 studies, he showed how powerful a plant-based diet was in slowing the growth and even in killing cancer cells. Yet, the diet he showed including chicken at 100 grams up to 3x a week.
So, did chicken triple the risk/rate or did chicken help to slow the growth and kill cancer cells?
This is why everything has to be put into proper context and properly applied to the situation at hand.
I hope that helps
In Health
Jeff
