GreenSmoothieGirl Logo
Lose 10 Pounds in 10 Minutes. Add 10 Years to your life.
Our beautiful template for infinite variety of greens and superfoods in your smoothies—print this and eliminate the need for recipes! Get it now for free!

Weston Price Foundation versus The China Study


Robyn Openshaw - Nov 29, 2009 - This Post May Contain Affiliate Links


A yahoo group I belong to, “Natural LDS Women,” is having a debate about the “science” of the Weston Price Foundation, versus The China Study.” A recent poster said that with scientific “facts” so conflicting, you really just have to pray about it and go with your gut. “LDS” means Mormon (my religion), and in this post I refer to the famous before-its-time scripture known as the Word of Wisdom, as I have in other places in my writings, about nutrition:

I rarely have time to respond to yahoo groups even though I follow some threads, but this morning I responded with this posting, about the two research titans, about research in general, and about navigating the “science” versus “gut” decision making tension:

The first people to tell you there are no scientific “facts” are scientists themselves. We have evidence, but not proof. Good science is hard to come by. In the modern world, the vast majority of our “science” (not even qualifying as “facts”) is bought and paid for. That is, the science looks objective but is funded by someone with a profit motive.

Industries paying for lots of research such as pharmaceuticals, dairy, meat, or processed foods (four huge industries that are very powerful) may have sifted through a lot of data and cherry picked whatever makes them look good, for promotion and publication.

Studies begin to become compelling when they are valid and reliable, the two highest standards in research. Briefly, VALID means the study truly measures what it purports to measure. (If a study saying wine consumption reduces heart disease is valid, it will have controlled for the fact that wine drinkers are more affluent than beer drinkers–so they also eat more fruits and vegetables. That’s hard to do!) RELIABLE means the research study was repeatable with consistent results.

The China Study is one of the most reliable studies I have ever encountered. Colin Campbell (PhD, Cornell) conducted the original animal studies, but other researchers all over the world copied them with the same results, over and over. Then he found similar findings in humans–in a huge study of 6,500 people spanning now 30 years (so the study is also longitudinal–that’s expensive and very rare in research, but one of the ways to achieve validity).

When you see a study saying oatmeal prevents heart disease, you don’t run out and buy all the oatmeal you can and knock every other good thing out of your diet. You watch and wait until you see lots of OTHER studies showing the same thing. You have a healthy skepticism about what you read–open minded, keen eye looking for more data. You are waiting for further light and knowledge. And you use your common sense. (For instance, in this case, “Well, I know that UNREFINED oats have bran and germ–vitamins, minerals, and fiber–so it’s good. But other grains have the same thing, so I’ll keep using them, too.”)

Vitamin D is one of those issues. The first time I read a study that those getting more sun get vastly less cancer, I was intrigued but skeptical. Now, more and more research is coming out with consistent conclusions, and I am beginning to believe strongly that getting more Vitamin D is critical to the strength of our immune systems, to our ability to minimize disease risk, to our ability to build and maintain bone mass. And it’s hard to get enough D in places with long winters, or for people who aren’t outside much–without supplementation. It has given me pause, since I have not been much of a fan of taking vitamin supplements in the past. Now that it’s cold here in Utah, I can’t get sun. I took a Quest Diagnostics baseline test during my peak of sun exposure in July, and now I’m supplementing with Vitamin D tablets and will test again in Feb. or Mar. I want to know if my synthetic Vita D consumption actually is utilized in my own body.

Double blinded, placebo-controlled studies are the best. Peer reviewed articles in journals are the best. Even they are not foolproof, though. Plenty of flawed research has been published in the most prestigious journals of the world. Studies that have had to be pulled back when their flaws are revealed. Good research is extremely hard to achieve. It’s meticulous, it’s difficult to isolate one factor, and above all, it’s time consuming and expensive.

This is not the place to go into why I vastly prefer the more recent, more thorough work in The China Study to the much older, much more flawed, much more biased work the Weston Price Foundation has done.

But let me say this, briefly: the findings of China Study match the LDS Word of Wisdom that we discuss in this yahoo group and are a fan of. Campbell’s studies weren’t meat eaters versus vegetarians. They were meat eaters (20%, matching the Standard American Diet in that respect at least) versus eating meat sparingly, in times of winter, cold, and famine. (Language culled from D&C 89, The Word of Wisdom.) Following the Word of Wisdom wins–with more than 200 statistically significant findings. (That means that the margin of error is NOT the reason for the finding.)

Yes, pray and receive revelation to guide your journey through what is admittedly a CONFUSING path in nutrition and health. But also be smart, savvy, educated consumers of information. Some research–though NONE of it qualifies as “fact”–is better than others.

That’s my $0.02. With that and a quarter, you can buy a phone call.

Robyn
GreenSmoothieGirl.com

Posted in: Whole Food

15 thoughts on “Weston Price Foundation versus The China Study”

Leave a Comment
  1. Anonymous says:

    glad you posted about this, saw it in your recent vid ^^

  2. I loved the China Study and I also read a lot of the work promoted by the WAPF. I find that both inform my personal nutrition philosophy and as I launch myself as a nutritionist, they will both serve as major resources for my work. I’ve written a bit about the WAPF, from a vegetarian perspective, if you’re interested: http://www.phytophiliac.com/2009/09/nourishment-minus-tradition.html

    There is a LOT that bothers me about Nourishing Traditions. I don’t like the studies Fallon references, many of them outdated and since overturned, some of them misrepresented. I don’t like that she so frequently references herself and her co-writers at the WAPF instead of an independent, unrelated third party. I don’t agree with most of the perpetual romanticizing of “traditional” cultures that comes out of the WAPF. I really dislike their aggressiveness. And I found myself perpetually nauseous while studying the recipe section of Fallon’s book. 🙂 But I do credit the WAPF with forcing me to take a hard look at my own rhetoric and to constantly be on my game, updating myself and being skeptical and non-dogmatic. Ultimately, I believe that a whole-food, plant-based diet is the best way to prevent disease and promote well-being, and that’s my root philosophy – but there are a lot of branches that have been heavily and positively influenced by the WAPF.

  3. Anonymous says:

    The China Study is an amazing book that should be required reading for all children in school. He just presents the facts and results from his study as well as revealing a lot we do not know about the food industry. It’s a excellent read and I appreciate the work Dr. Campbell has done and his boldness to “go against” the status quo.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Please post the results from your Vit D test. I wonder about the same things.

    Jessica

  5. Anonymous says:

    I’m all for eating more vegetables and fruit, and I haven’t actually read the China Study, but here is a review that does point out some of the “bad science” found in the China Study. I would like nothing more than to trust someone (anyone!) who heartedly, but when it comes to nutrition there is just too much conflicting evidence. Yes, sometimes you have to go with your gut, but trying to get a clearer picture of what the truth really is, is a good idea soon. Here’s that review. It makes some good points.

    http://www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/chinastudy.html

  6. Anonymous says:

    D&C 9: 8

    8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind…

    D&C 109: 7

    7 … seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith…

    We are expected to do our homework first, then ask of God, and *then* he will confirm to us whether it is correct…

    and there is my $0.02 worth…

  7. Anonymous says:

    Fringey —

    The review you linked was from Chris Masterjohn, who is part of the Weston A. Price Foundation. Dr. Campbell wrote a response to that review, and Masterjohn wrote a response to Campbell’s response. There are links to these responses on Masterjohn’s site:

    http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html

    Both men have misrepresented the opposing group. I don’t know if this is out of laziness, or if they are intentionally deceitful. But it’s very upsetting, because I can’t trust either of them! You’re so right — you just can’t get the truth from what people say/write.

    The Masterjohn article (and all WAPF articles) contain extensive footnotes. I really like that I can verify the information he’s citing. I won’t trust any author who doesn’t cite their sources. However, you need to be aware that one of the common criticisms of the WAPF is that they cite articles written by their own members, and that they cite studies that had very different conclusions than what they said. So don’t trust the references just because they’re there. You actually have to go to your local university library and check the studies out yourself if you want to get the true picture.

    You’ll notice that I haven’t said if I agree with either man or group. I have not read the original research of either group myself (meaning Campbell’s 894-page study, not ‘The China Study’ book, and the 530-page ‘Nutrition and Physical Degeneration’, not anything the WAPF has written about it). I don’t think I should form an opinion until I’ve done that.

  8. Fringey – just a note on your comment – that link is to the Weston A. Price Foundation, the same foundation that is at odds with the China Study in this debate. That is not to say that the China Study was perfect and that WAPF does not have some valid points, however it is important to consider the source of the criticism. WAPF has a vested interest in refuting the major claims of the China Study. And it is not like WAPF’s supporting data for their position is without shortcomings.

  9. Anonymous says:

    I forgot to ask what kind of vit d supplement are you taking? Pill, liquid, powder?

    And I think the China study is the best science I have ever seen. Its finally convinced my husband.

  10. Anonymous says:

    I CANNOT believe I missed the group buy–I was going to put it in last night (getting last minute money,etc) and then my kids were up screaming–BLAH. I wanting things besides the almonds—will there be extras? (just asking–I’m so annoyed at myself–whever people come and say I missed it I just roll my eyes because umm how long has this buy been live?!! UGH I’m going crazy)–well you win some you lose some–let me know

  11. Robyn Openshaw says:

    Lala, please write me offline and I’ll see what I can do. We cannot see your email here.

  12. Robyn Openshaw says:

    You can google to find plenty of allegations against WAPF being supported by the meat and dairy industry. I rather seriously discount the IMMEDIATE barrage by Sally Fallon and WAPF right when China Study was released. It was a huge threat to their promotion of animal foods.

    I wish everyone were dedicated to the truth, WHATEVER that truth may be, rather than promotion of an agenda. If I found compelling evidence that eating the Atkins Diet was truly a way to be lean, energetic, and healthy into old age, I’d promote that.

    The China Study. Oxford and Cornell. The most prestigious university in the world and an Ivy League school. If Dr. Campbell had an assumption starting out, it was that animal protein is the most critical food there is. But the data went the other direction. So he repeated the study. With different animals. Different researchers. Different countries. Improved the studies, isolated factors cleanly. Expanded it to humans. For 30 years. With a huge sample size of 6,500. 200 STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS going the same direction. That a plant-based diet leads to long life, without cancer, heart disease, auto-immune diseases, or obesity.

    I know I say this stuff a lot, but it really is a profoundly well done piece of research. It just doesn’t get closer to a “slam dunk” than that. That’s why the New York Times called it the “Grand Prix of Epidemiology.”

  13. Anonymous says:

    Reading the China Study, Campbell repeatedly calls for a whole food “nutritionally” vegan diet, meaning not something necessarily devoid of animal products, but a diet low in animal source protein. This is not too far from the diet consumed by those following an Ayurvedic diet for thousands of years. As a scientist, I was most impressed with the way he described the mechanisms by which higher protein intake can promote cancer.

    Some have dismissed Campbell’s work as him reaching for conclusions due to an emotional attachment to his hypothesis. I disagree. If you look up the work Luigi Fontana MD, PhD from Washington University, in St. Louis is currently publishing on, he is also starting to show how elevated protein intake correlates with increased systemic growth factors, which others have shown in turn directly affect the expression of cancer genes.

    I’ve read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. Price really did some great work in his day. He comments on stature, as well as the formation of dental arches and caries, and loosely correlates his findings with his observations on the nutrional patterns of that particular group he is following. No mention of cancer, heart disease, median survival, etc. I think the WPF sometimes overstates what he actually wrote about…

  14. Anonymous says:

    This is a most interesting discussion. I am a meat/vegetable eater and very little carbohydrates. I am familiar with WSPF and have been using that info. I have not read China Study although it is suggested as one of our 11 books to read this year in our book club in Orem, Utah. What I am very familiar with is Blood Type Diet by Dr. Peter J. Dadamo which I have been practicing for over 5 years now and it has made all the difference. His concept is that there is NOT one diet for the whole human population and that blood type genetics divides us humans into roughly into 4 dietary groups. I am an O and as such I am one of those that digests meat very easily but cannot digest startches well. When I was trying to live as a vegetarian a few years ago, I was aging rapidly and acquiring the usual degenerative diseases. I was making my own whole wheat bread and cooking mountains of beans and legumes along with lots of vegetables and fruits. I was filling up on startches which I loved, but the weight gain and IBS and rhumatoid arthritis were getting me down.

    I read the books on Blood Type diet and changed my diet and all those health problems corrected. So, I can buy into both ideas. This is what I believe and go by now…If you are an O or B then meat and animal products are best proteins sources and good nutrition. IF you are an A or AB then you can do well on plant based proteins. Provided all groups are not consuming the bad things so common, so cheap, so tasty and co convienent to our culture. My husband, a B, and I use animal products that are pure and natural and a few steps away from what is commercially grown and produced. I do use beans but there are only a few that he and I can digest and only if carefully processed at home. We are careful with grains and by following Sally Fallon’s directions on grain and bean preparation we have added some back into our diets. Wheat gluten is a big problem for both of us, but some of the alternative grains like quinoa and millet are filling in our diets really well. My .02$ worth is to consider that not everyone should be vegetarian and not everyone should be a meat eater. It just might be that one diet does not cover evryone. I am 64 yrs old, with all my body parts and weighing only 134 lbs. with no ibs, no high blood pressure, no chloresterol problems, no drug perscriptions, all my teeth and only no. 2 readers and no pains anywhere and I sleep very well.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Robyn said “You can google to find plenty of allegations against WAPF being supported by the meat and dairy industry.”

    I’m sure you can find *allegations*, but they are just that, nothing more. Nothing I have ever read from the WAPF supports people buying meat/dairy from the meat/dairy industry. They are 100% pro-family farm. They never waver on that as far as I know. Of course I don’t do their finances, so I don’t know for sure, but as for what is publicly available, they are an enemy to the meat/dairy industries.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Skip to content