What does Rip think about The China Study nutrition book?

[matt_217]

Hello Rip,

For the record, I started SS at 170 and 6'0 now I am 207 and squatting 355 in the Novice stage of the program, so I understand the book and diet advice well. I am libertarian, not leftist.

I have not read the China Study nutrition book but I am familiar with it and I am thinking about reading it. It essentially talks about how someone should base the majority of their diet off of plant and whole foods as opposed to animal products.

I personally think that vegans and vegetarians are mentally-ill, leftist fucks. Believe me, I am on board with everyone here.

My question is that these type of nutrition narratives always say that animal products cause cancer and heart disease, and they have some research suggesting that it does. That doesn't mean its true, I know that. However, I am wondering what Rip thinks.

Does Rip have a hefty dairy and red-meat diet on a day to day basis?

What book would you recommend about diet?

[Mark Rippetoe]

This isn't the Nutrition board. I'd recommend any book on nutrition before this one. What was the first organized human cooperative activity? Hunting, I believe.

[tertius]

I find the need of the OP to make sure that everyone knows his politic--in a thread nominally about diet--rather absurd.

Has being a libertarian turned into the political equivalent of being a vegan or a crossfitter, and as such one's status as a libertarian must be shoehorned into every conversation, regardless of relevancy?


To the original topic, humans are omnivores for a reason. It's pretty goddamn difficult to acquire adequate nutrition for a human being without using animal food sources, which is why the vast majority of human societies have chosen to eat some significant portion of the local fauna. Typically as often as they could manage. A modern person might go through the trouble of not eating animals, for whatever reason they desire. I don't care, it's not my business what they do with their own bodies.

However, it's rather difficult to mount a good argument based on 'nutritional science' for any one specific dietary structure above all others, for all people, at all times.
Anyone who does so is probably trying to sell you something.

[shabu]

the thing to think about in this "red meat causes cancer" claim, is that it didnt differentiate between processed meat and natural meat. You could assume that people who eat a lot of processed meat, probably make generally bad lifestyle choices in other areas as well.

The China study has been debunked in a lot of sites as vegetarian propaganda. meat, fruit, vegetables. its not that hard.

[FatButWeak]

The faggotty China Study has been throrughly debunked as Silly bullshit, many times over by esteeemed scientists, especially a woman named Denise Minger. Google that shit. Ir, if Rip allows, here's a link to Ms. Minger's site: https://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/th...act-or-fallac/

[Brodie Butland]

I have not read the China Study nutrition book but I am familiar with it and I am thinking about reading it. It essentially talks about how someone should base the majority of their diet off of plant and whole foods as opposed to animal products.

I personally think that vegans and vegetarians are mentally-ill, leftist fucks. Believe me, I am on board with everyone here.

My question is that these type of nutrition narratives always say that animal products cause cancer and heart disease, and they have some research suggesting that it does. That doesn't mean its true, I know that. However, I am wondering what Rip thinks.

To the extent you can, it would be very valuable to actually read the underlying studies and examine the data yourself. You'll learn a lot about the studies, what they show, what they don't show (even if the authors claim otherwise), and the like.

An example--a few years ago, a study was released showing that consumption of red meat increased one's chances of developing colon cancer by a whopping 20%. That sounds bad. But when you examined the underlying data, it showed that out of every 100 non-red-meat eaters (vegetarians, vegans, pescatarians, etc.), 5 developed colon cancer over a given period, and that out of every 100 red meat eaters, 6 developed colon cancer over a given period.

So the question isn't "do I become vegetarian and reduce my risk of cancer by 20%?" The real question is, "do I become vegetarian to increase my chances of not developing colon cancer from 94% to 95%?" (all things being equal)

I have not given up bacon as a result of that study.

[Brian Patton]

What was the first organized human cooperative activity? Hunting, I believe.

There's actually decent evidence that the hunting of fauna was engaged in primarily for sport and success with the ladies rather than as primary sustenance as is commonly thought, and was in fact primarily a behavior supported by the gathering of flora, specifically underground storage organs (roots and starchy tubers) that were and still are quite abundant in sub-saharan Africa. (And don't require cooking to assimilate, as do our modern North American variants). Our ancestors should indeed perhaps be thought as gatherer/hunters and not the other way around. Anthropology is a lot like brain science and one-armed economists. Whole lot of speculation going on. But let's move along, shall we?

I personally think that vegans and vegetarians are mentally-ill, leftist fucks. Believe me, I am on board with everyone here.

^See, this is what I've been talking about. This is not free inquiry and empiricism, this is cultish beta-male behavior.

Rip, if you don't mind, I'll answer your question from Austin Baraki's thread here instead, as I really wanted to keep that one on topic. (Incidentally, my response to you was written on my iPhone seven minutes after yours last night before I went to bed, and as of this morning it still appears stuck in moderator limbo again. Just an FYI FWIW).

OP, if you're serious about this question--and yes, I suppose I did just call you out as a beta--but if you can get past that unpleasantness I'm happy to spend the time to outline and review plenty of great material on the subject. I am a rabid experimenter by nature. A plant-based dietary regimen (vegan is a political term that I try to avoid for all the leftist connotations; I happen to be politically quite conservative) is not something I chose first or landed on randomly. It was the logical extension of several years of performance-based (and on a minor level, physique-based--I'm only human) experimentation. Endurance sports (mainly long-course triathlon) was my main thing, so that's where I began.

I won't run through all the details of how I ended up Whole Food Plant-Based unless someone has the stones to actually brave the mob and chime in that they care enough for me to lay it all out. (I have gotten a few PM's about it since joining this forum recently, btw. I'm not going to "out" them without their prior permission, however). But I'm not going to bother if all that happens again is the peanut gallery shows up en masse to throw rotten tomatoes. I have three children, a pregnant wife, and many other priorities. I really am just here to learn about strength training, and learned a lot I have. (I'm embarrassed to admit it never truly sunk in just how counterproductive to each other simultaneous strength and endurance training really were. Fucking duh, right?)

But like it or not, I do have something of value to contribute that is outside the mainstream of thought here nutritionally. (I wasn't even planning on "outing" myself on this forum--knowing it would just be a giant pain in the ass--but hey, I get caught up in the moment sometimes).

It may even be just more grist for the mill that the CW was right all along; plant-based diets--while undeniably beneficial to healthy longevity (and if you still doubt this you really need to start investigating outside your current sphere of influence, especially all you practicing MDs)--may actually hold back maximum performance in strength sports, especially if you're like a Wendler or a Simmons and that is what's best in life, right ahead of crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentation of the vegans.

Who knows? Nobody knows. Because nobody is studying it, or even bothering to ask the question. How something became "settled science" before it was even studied is curious to me. It is positively Aristotelian in that regard. There is no settled science! It is an oxymoron.

In a few more years, long after my strength has leveled out and I feel I've squeezed out about all I can out of my potential without really going to the mat programming-wise, I'd like to return to endurance sports training and really test out this theory of Rip's that even something like cycling or running performance is improved by being stronger (swimming performance is extremely technique-based, so may not apply). Sounds great on paper, I must admit. And I really do want to believe it. But I have my doubts, just based on having been in the sport and knowing that there likely isn't a single pro cyclist or runner in the world that can squat even their own bodyweight, much less a decently strong 400-500 lbs. Yet they can average 400-500W straight up a mountain or average a blazing 4:50 mile twenty-six times in a row. Would these genetic supermen be even better if they were stronger? I don't know, and we're never going to get them to do it in order to find out. But I can maybe do it--and perhaps inspire others--and then we can extrapolate a bit from the numbers and times I know I could routinely hit with regular training in the past.

My little project is never going to be officially officious enough to publish in the SCJ, I realize, but may at least be interesting enough for the average gym-goer/athletics enthusiast/(SSBBT4?) reader. After all, wasn't it none other than Louis Pasteur who said, "I--however benighted I may be with regard to peer-review, academic rigor, and double-blinding--know what works and what doesn't."? *

I had thought this site was intended for the general populace, as an exponential extension of the WFAC's operating principles, and not just another hangout for stubborn meatheads.

But that's just me, I could be wrong.



*Correction: Misattributed it to Pasteur. Was actually one Mark Rippetoe, SSCEO.

[Mark Rippetoe]

There's actually decent evidence that the hunting of fauna was engaged in primarily for sport and success with the ladies rather than as primary sustenance as is commonly thought, and was in fact primarily a behavior supported by the gathering of flora, specifically underground storage organs (roots and starchy tubers) that were and still are quite abundant in sub-saharan Africa. (And don't require cooking to assimilate, as do our modern North American variants). Our ancestors should indeed perhaps be thought as gatherer/hunters and not the other way around. Anthropology is a lot like brain science and one-armed economists. Whole lot of speculation going on. But let's move along, shall we?

Ha. Yes, let's.

I won't run through all the details of how I ended up Whole Food Plant-Based unless someone has the stones to actually brave the mob and chime in that they care enough for me to lay it all out.

But this was my question. Silly Bullshit Deconstructed: Austin Baraki MD For as eloquent a troll as you appear to be, it shouldn't be an insurmountable task. For someone who actually types in a public forum that Homo sapiens bands 50,000 years ago were sport hunters -- the ancient equivalent of the gaddamn Safari Club -- it shouldn't be that big a stretch to generate some plausible-sounding bullshit about how plants are such wonderful sources of fat and high quality protein, or that we really shouldn't worry about such tangential irrelevance.

So, let's see it, Brian.

[Ryan_B]

What was the first organized human cooperative activity? Hunting, I believe.

Assisted child birth may be up there too? But that probably had something to do with birthing those new big brained babies, big brains from all the high quality food sources opening up with scavenging & hunting animals!

[Ryan_B]

There's actually decent evidence that the hunting of fauna was engaged in primarily for sport and success with the ladies rather than as primary sustenance as is commonly thought, and was in fact primarily a behavior supported by the gathering of flora, specifically underground storage organs (roots and starchy tubers) that were and still are quite abundant in sub-saharan Africa. (And don't require cooking to assimilate, as do our modern North American variants). Our ancestors should indeed perhaps be thought as gatherer/hunters and not the other way around. Anthropology is a lot like brain science and one-armed economists. Whole lot of speculation going on. But let's move along, shall we?

Before we move on too fast, I would assume you're referring here to the work coming out that uses Signaling Theory from Evolutionary Biology/Behavioral Ecology, to assess why hunting may have been selected for when it was. These researchers have been using the data to assess hypotheses based upon the thought that primarily males were participating in risky behaviors of hunting that when successful, gave honest signals to females to select those males as mates. If successful over time, there was a pay-off for hunting, in terms of more babies, and the extra benefit of high-quality foods (for support of large brains, and easy-to-extract calories --> which can lead to more babies again). The fact that all of the data show a temporal match between the increase in meat consumption and brain size increases is reality, not fiction or speculation, and from our perspective here it doesn't really matter why the "original" hunters thought they wanted to hunt (1, for all those quality food sources, or 2, to show off). All of this can also explain why we have a small gut compared to our closely-related ape cousins and all the herbivores in the mammalian world: our large calorically-demanding gut system was significantly reduced in size that freed up calories for our most energy-demanding organs the brain, leading to us having a gut system that is not efficient at getting the needed resources from plant foods and fiber like the herbivores of the world and gorillas, for example. But, our evolved gut is very good at extracting what we need from animal-based foods. This is not speculation: the gut system that we all carry around with us every day does not resemble those of herbivores or animals (even the other apes) that have a heavy plant/fiber-based diet. But none of this is trying to say to anyone that they can't be vegan, just that this is what is known from well-informed and tested science.