Canibais e Reis

Vídeo: T. Colin Campbell, autor do "China Study".

O Dr. Colin Campbell, da Univ. de Cornell, nos EUA, activista vegetariano/vegano, conselheiro do grupo vegetariano PCRM e colaborador do famoso China Study, um vasto estudo epidemiológico realizado com base nos hábitos alimentares da população chinesa rural, tenta demonstrar-nos, através da sua "cruzada anti-proteína animal", que ao consumo destas proteínas estará alegadamente associada uma elevada incidência de doenças mortais, nomeadamente de cancros, diabetes, doença cardiovascular, obesidade, doenças auto-imunes, etc.

A ideia subjacente a todo "China Project" é fazer-nos crer que existe uma elevado correlação entre dietas de origem animal e doenças variadas. Os autores concluem, sem grande primor pelas regras básicas do método científico, conforme os seus críticos tão bem fazem notar, sem grande contestação científica por parte do próprio, como verá adiante, que dietas ricas em proteínas animais, incluindo caseína de leite, estão fortemente associadas às doenças já referidas. A sua recomendação final é portanto a de que consumamos comidas de origem vegetal "saudáveis" e evitemos carne, peixe e leite como única forma de minimizar ou reverter inúmeras doenças crónicas. Por outras palavras, torne-se vegetariano e fique saudável!

Os autores do "China Study" argumentam, através do livro "The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, and Long-Term Health" (2005), que níveis elevados de colesterol (total) estão associados às dietas com proteínas de origem animal e com elas maior mortalidade, e é por isso que nas sociedades ocidentais, onde o colesterol (total) médio ronda os 215 mg/dl, a incidência de doenças da civilização é muito superior à da verificada na China, onde supostamente o colesterol médio é 127 mg/dl. Em determinadas zonas da China rural o aporte de proteína animal é somente 7.1 gr, enquanto que os americanos consomem, em média, 70 gr. Ou seja, mais uma vez o mito do colesterol (total) "assassino" a servir de suporte às mais incongruentes extrapolações. Mas adiante.

Entretanto, o estudante de doutoramento emn ciências da nutrição (nutrição bioquímica e molecular) Chris Masterjohn, membro da WAPF, fundação esta que, de acordo com o Dr. Colin Campbell, não terá pessoas com formação científica - o que você poderá julgar por si próprio visitando, por exemplo, o website da fundação em www.westonaprice.org ou os websites de Masterjohn e de Mary Enig, ambos proeminentes membros da WAPF - escreveu um artigo de revisão do China Study digamos que muito pouco favorável a Campbell, em que critica o seu posicionamento "científico" tendencioso e selectivo. O jovem Masterjohn escreve, por exemplo, o seguinte:

"What is most shocking about the China Study is not what it found, but the contrast between Campbell’s representation of its findings in The China Study, and the data contained within the original monograph. Campbell summarizes the 8,000 statistically significant correlations found in the China Study in the following statement: "people who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease."26 He also claims that, although it is "somewhat difficult" to "show that animal-based food intake relates to overall cancer rates," that nevertheless, "animal protein intake was convincingly associated in the China Study with the prevalence of cancer in families."

But the actual data from the original publication paints a different picture. Figure 1 shows selected correlations between macronutrients and cancer mortality. Most of them are not statistically significant, which means that the probability the correlation is due to chance is greater than five percent. It is interesting to see, however, the general picture that emerges. Sugar, soluble carbohydrates, and fiber all have correlations with cancer mortality about seven times the magnitude of that of animal protein, and total fat and fat as a percentage of calories were both negatively correlated with cancer mortality. The only statistically significant association between intake of a macronutrient and cancer mortality was a large protective effect of total oil and fat intake as measured on the questionnaire. As an interesting aside, there was a highly significant negative correlation between cancer mortality and home-made cigarettes!

(…)

The China Study contains many excellent points in its criticism of the health care system, the overemphasis on reductionism in nutritional research, the influence of industry on research, and the necessity of obtaining nutrients from foods. But its bias against animal products and in favor of veganism permeates every chapter and every page. Less than a page of comments are spent in total discussing the harms of refined carbohydrate products. Campbell exercises caution when generalizing from casein to plant proteins, but freely generalizes from casein to animal protein. He entirely ignores the role of wheat gluten, a plant product, in autoimmune diseases, so he can emphasize the role of milk protein, an animal product. The book, while not entirely without value, is not about the China Study, nor is it a comprehensive look at the current state of health research. It would be more aptly titled, A Comprehensive Case for the Vegan Diet, and the reader should be cautioned that the evidence is selected, presented, and interpreted with the goal of making that case in mind.

Fonte: WAPF, C. Masterjohn.

Foto: Pirâmide alimentar vegetariana,
baseada em cereais/amidos.

O Dr. Colin Campell responde a estas críticas através de um artigo no VegSource, sem apresentar qualquer contra-argumentação científica notória às citadas críticas, algo similar ao que faz no vídeo que consta do início deste artigo, mas somente produz com ataques depreciativos acerca da suposta falta de formação científica dos seus críticos, C. Masterjohn e S. Fallon, donde talvez se possam destacar as seguintes passagens:

"Price’s main book was published in the late 1930s—at least this is the book that is most commonly cited by WAPF. I bought the book, carefully read it and learned that the WAPF staff and associates substantially exaggerate, in my opinion, the importance of Price’s observations and the importance of his book. Price was a dental surgeon who visited more than a dozen indigenous populations around the world and became quite impressed with the overall good health of these geographically isolated people when compared with their kin who had become exposed to commerce from other lands. He seemed to regard these native peoples as the nearest link to our own past. With background in dentistry, Price assessed their health mainly by dental caries incidence and facial structures, supplementing his observations with many photographs. Although he made certain inferences about health in general, he published no reliable empirical data to support this view.

In brief, Weston Price’s suggestion that dental caries was associated with the introduction of commerce (probably including processed and sweetened food products) was quite convincing, not unlike similar reports of others. He also speculated about an ‘X’ factor in milk fat, supposedly suggesting health benefits for cow’s milk, but no follow-up findings on this ‘X’ factor consistent with human health have since been reported. In no way did Price publish reliable data in this book that could be used to evaluate the relationship of food with overall health. He did speculate, however, with some evidence, on the loss of nutritional value of food at that time (1920s-1930s) as a result of soil depletion and overuse. Excepting his observations on an association of dental caries incidence with processed food, Price’s study, in my opinion, is of limited scientific value."

(…)

The fact that the WAPF people and their enthusiasts are so hostile to our book, to me personally and to anyone reflecting similar views needs some elaboration. Masterjohn, for example, claims in his website that, in effect, I am primarily being subservient to the animal rights agenda and more specifically to the Physicians’ Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) who according to Masterjohn, are associated with PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). (I have been for some years on the PCRM science advisory board and am pleased to continue doing so.) He assigns guilt by association for me by pointing out how the US Department of Justice has labeled PETA a domestic terrorist threat.

(…)

Masterjohn also strongly laments, both on the WAPF website and on his own website, the negative publicity long given to high cholesterol foods like eggs, butter and liver, and says that these are "super foods" that must be consumed. He claims that dietary cholesterol itself must be consumed and that the concept of good and bad blood cholesterol (HDL and LDL, respectively) is a myth. He then goes on to label the government’s diet and health recommendations to lower dietary fat as "totalitarian". Strong views, strong language, lots of confidence, especially for someone with no nutrition research training or experience. When I asked him who supports WAPF, he told me that farmers, among others, were important contributors. Because factory farms now produce most of the food in the U.S., I would be more comfortable if I knew how much influence these ‘farmer’ conglomerates have on WAPF itself. I don’t decry the industry promoting its product—honestly of course—but I question the blatant attempt of WAPF writers to convey seemingly objective opinion that favors the industry without making clear their serious lack of qualifications and conflicts of interest.

WAPF Founder Sally Fallon who has Bachelors and Masters degrees in English sums up her organization’s views as follows, "Animal fats and cholesterol are not villains but vital factors in the diet, necessary for normal growth, proper function of the brain and nervous system, protection from disease and optimum energy levels." It is time to seriously question the scientific objectivity and professional qualifications of WAPF staffers and their writers. It also is time to question their excessive exaggeration of Weston A. Price’s observations."

Fonte: VegSource, Colin Campbell.

Mais tarde, no meio de alguma tempestade que se gerou, parece que um anónimo, com a alcunha de JaY, colocou na Amazon um longo comentário ao livro de Campell. Esse comentário era, nem mais nem menos, um artigo anteriormente publicado no Omnívoro, da autoria de Anthony Colpo! Para quem não leu o "The Great Cholesterol Chon" e não sabe quem é Colpo, digamos que ele é uma espécie de cientista nutricional de topo, um dos mais coerentes detractores da vantagem metabólica em dietas isocalóricas e, talvez o pior de tudo, um indivíduo com baixíssima tolerância ao que designa por "bad science" (BD). No seu artigo que pode ser lido aqui, Colpo refere sem rodeios que o China Study é um dos piores trabalhos que já leu. E explica tim tim por tim tim porquê. Leia o que vem a seguir:

"Campbell’s response to these claims is…no response. He appears to be lost for words; except of course, when it comes to personally belittling the qualifications of Masterjohn and myself.

You know, I’m all for a good scorch when the person truly deserves it, and have been known to let loose with a bit of unbridled flaming myself on occasion. But when people cannot justify their venom with actual scientific facts, then what they are really telling the world is that they have no answer for the criticisms. If all you can do is attempt to shoot the messenger, instead of explaining in a clear and concise manner just why his message is wrong, then your game is truly transparent, at least to those with any meaningful degree of intelligence and perceptiveness.

For Campbell’s edification, I am in possession of the most important qualification of all: A fully functioning, objective, reasoning brain. It is this qualification, not years of struggling to stay awake during university lectures filled with questionable content, that allows me to see straight through the writings of folks like Campbell.

I will make some quick comments, then reprint my original critique. I wholeheartedly urge readers to read my review, then read Campbell’s attempted rebuttal. Readers can then decide for themselves who is basing their argument on solid science, and who is relying on fantasy-based dogma."

Fonte: "The China Study: More Vegan Nonsense!", Anthony Colpo.

Uma das grandes vantagens de Colpo é, a meu ver, o facto de ser solidamente científico e inteligente em todas as suas argumentações, isto quando está bem disposto!, um dos autores mais objectivos e lúcidos que já tive oportunidade de ler, talvez o meu favorito a par de Lyle McDonald. E independente, o que significa não-filiado a qualquer grupo ou organização promotora de ideologias, à excepção do grupo de reflexão THINCS, o que a meu ver lhe confere uma enorme vantagem interventiva e de crítica, tal como o próprio explica:

"As for casting aspersions on my motives, Campbell might be able to dubiously use the Weston A. Price Foundation angle against Masterjohn, but it won’t work against me. After all, I am not and never have been a member of the Weston A. Price Foundation, nor any other ‘foundation’, ‘institute’, or ‘organization’. Being a staunchly independent individual, I have a strong aversion to joining such organizations - in my observation, they tend to encourage the phenomenon of groupthink. In order to fit in and be accepted by the group, individuals start thinking, talking and acting like the group. Explicitly or implicitly, any behavior or expression of ideas that runs contrary to the cherished dogma of the group is often frowned upon.

For a few years I was involved with a group called THINCS, which is not an official organization (non-profit, business or otherwise) but simply a loosely affiliated network of researchers, medical practitioners, and science writers who share a common skepticism of the reigning cholesterol paradigm of heart disease. However, earlier this year I wrote to the network’s founder Uffe Ravnskov and asked for any indication of me as a member to be removed from the THINCS web site. I have the utmost respect for Uffe Ravnskov, but simply do not wish to be a ‘member’ of any group that could be perceived as pushing a certain ideology.

The bottom line is that I think for myself, do my own research, and come to my own conclusions. Period.

And try as they might, despite my lack of formal education qualifications, no-one has ever provided anything resembling an effective, scientifically-based refutation of my contentions regarding the cholesterol/saturated fat paradigm or weight loss."

Fonte: "The China Study: More Vegan Nonsense!", Anthony Colpo.

Vídeo: How to Be Vegan:
Protein Sources for Vegan Diets.

Mas vamos então ao que verdadeiramente interessa, às alegações de Colpo contra a cruzada anti-animal e vegetariana/vegana de Campbell. Colpo explica que a campanha de Campbell começou quando este começou a trabalhar nas Filipinas e verificou que as crianças das famílias mais ricas apresentavam maior incidência de cancro do fígado. Para Colpo esta observação é praticamente irrelenvante, uma vez que os habitantes abastados do terceiro mundo são os que mais rapidamente adoptam hábitos alimentares ocidentais, as quais incluem não só fontes animais mas também todo um leque de comidas processadas pobres em nutrientes e carregadas de farinhas e açúcares refinados. Mas Campbell apenas consegue ver nesta dieta moderna a conexão entre as proteínas animais e as novas doença do mundo moderno!

Porquê culpar as proteínas animais, um alimento perfeitamente natural à nossa espécie, que consumimos ao longo de todos os 2.4 milhões de anos da nossa história evolutiva, e ignorar todo o lixo alimentar que começámos a consumir apenas nos útimos 150 anos? Para Colpo é a proliferação desta junk food civilizacional, e não as proteínas animais, a grande causadora das doenças degenarativas do mundo ocidentalizado. Digamos que não é preciso ser grande cientista para entender isto. Mas e o que dizer do calcanhar de Aquiles das dietas vegetarianas/veganas, a inevitável deficiência em vitaminas do complexto B, em particular de vitamina B12:

Of course, denigrating nutritional supplements and recommending a vegan diet, as Campbell does, presents a huge problem--namely, how to get enough B12? After all, animal foods are the only meaningful source of vitamin B12.

Campbell infers that only plants grown on "lifeless" soil lack B12 (actually plants grown in any soil will lack B12, unless they are grown in manure and eaten without washing prior to consumption). Campbell also laments that modern-day vegetables are scoured of all soil before consumption, and thus grudgingly acknowledges that B12 supplements for vegans are a good idea. He also suggests that "..if you never get any sunshine exposure, especially during the winter months, you might want to take a vitamin D supplement".

So this is Campbell’s solution to the lack of B12 presented by veganism, a pattern of eating that humans were never meant to follow on a long-term basis: Take B12 supplements…or eat dirt!

Thanks, but no thanks! I’ll obtain my B12 the way nature intended--from fresh, nutrient-dense meats.

Fonte: "The China Study: More Vegan Nonsense!", Anthony Colpo.

Colpo refere que a página 230 do livro de Campbell é bem ilustrativa do seu fanatismo nutricional anti-animal, pois nela é referido que "não existem praticamente nutrientes alguns em alimentos de origem animal que não sejam melhor disponibilizados por plantas", o que, convenhamos, é dos maiores disparates que se podem dizer em nutrição. Colpo contrapõe que Campbell claramente sabe pouco acerca do conteúdo nutricional de alimentos de origem animal, que contém muitos nutrientes escassos ou até mesmo ausentes dos vegetais, tais como, por exemplo, a creatina, que é usada para formar a adenosina tri-fosfato (ATP), a nossa forma de energia celular de elite, dado que a sua disponibilidade é crítica em momentos em que nem a glucose nem os triglicéridos podem ser rapidamente mobilizados para dar resposta a instantes de elevada intensidade física como uma corrida rápida ou o levantar de pesos.

Cita também a taurina, um aminoácido encontrado em grandes concentrações no nosso coração, cérebro e sistema nervoso central, presente em quantidades apreciáveis na carne e em certos peixes e alimentos do mar e muito menos em ovos, leite e em alimentos vegetais, e que ajuda a estabilizar a resposta celular aos estimulos nervosos. A taurina possui antioxidantes relevantes, conforme atestado por ensaios clínicos, à melhoria da função cardíaca em pacientes com problemas deste foro. A taurina é inexistente em alimentos de origem vegetal e o nosso organismo é capaz de a sintetizar mas com muito menos eficácia do que os animais herbívoros, que não somos, o que é evidenciado pelos baixos níveis sanguíneos de taurina usual em indivíduos veganos.

Colpo continua a sua argumentação ilustrativa do valor nutriiconal das proteínas animais citando outros nutrientes importantíssimos e que, como todos sabemos, lhes conferem um valor nutricional mágico e em que as plantas são pobres, tais como a carnitina, a carnosina, as vitaminas B, minerais como o ferro eo zinco, e os ácidos ómega-3 EPA e DHA. E termina referindo um aspecto de não menos importância e pouco conhecido, pelo menos do grande público, o grande desequilíbrio entre ómega-3 e ómega-6 presente nas dietas pobres em peixe e carne e ricas em cereais e óleos vegetais, ou seja, as dietas vegetarianas e/ou veganas. A este propósito leia-se o seguinte:

"Numerous studies have shown that vegetarians consume far lower levels of long-chain omega-3 fats--not surprising considering their avoidance of meat and fish[Rosell MR, et al]. Studies of pregnant women show that, compared to omnivores, vegetarians have significantly lower levels of DHA in their breast milk, with vegans displaying the lowest levels of all. These negative fatty acid profiles are reflected in infants, with vegan newborns displaying significantly lower red blood cell levels of DHA. This is an ominous finding, given the critical role that omega-3 fats play in healthy immune function and cognitive development[Williams C][O'Connor DL][Helland IB][Moriguchi T][Dunstan JA].

Along with lowering one’s omega-3 levels, low meat intakes also increase the concentration of omega-6 fats inside the body. A high dietary and bodily ratio of omega-6:omega-3 fats increases the risk of numerous diseases, including cardiovascular disease. A sizable portion of heart attacks are triggered when blood clots lodge themselves in narrowed coronary arteries and prevent the flow of blood to the heart, a process also known as arterial thrombosis. One of the early and key events in the development of thrombosis is platelet aggregation, the ‘clumping together’ of blood platelets. Researchers from Melbourne, Australia, compared heavy-meat-eaters, moderate-meat-eaters, lactoovegetarians and vegans and found that as meat consumption increased, platelet aggregation decreased. Heavy-meat-eaters displayed the lowest levels of platelet aggregation, while vegans displayed the highest levels.

While meat eaters ate more of the omega-6 fat arachidonic acid, vegetarians consumed significantly higher concentrations of the omega-6 fat linoleic acid and significantly lower amounts of long chain omega-3’s. The resultant unfavorable omega-6:omega-3 is believed to be responsible for the higher levels of thromboxane A2 (TXA2) seen in the vegetarian group[Li D]. TXA2 is an eicosanoid that stimulates platelet aggregation. Chilean researchers have similarly observed significantly lower blood levels of EPA and DHA, and concomitant increases in blood platelet aggregation, among vegetarians[Mezzano D]

Plant foods contain all the nutrition that animal foods do? You’ve got to be joking!"

Fonte: "The China Study: More Vegan Nonsense!", Anthony Colpo.

Fonte: American Meat Institute.

Então, mais convencido de que uma boa saúde requer o consumo de proteínas de origem animal, com um perfil ideal de aminoácidos e de outros nutrientes essenciais que só nelas se encontram? Comer a carne, o peixe, os ovos, a manteiga, o queijo, o leite, etc., tal como sempre fizemos ao longo dos nossos 2.4 milhões de anos de percurso evolutivo é perfeitamente natural e adequado, apesar de alguns modernos "cientistas" estarem empenhados em nos tentar fazer acreditar no contrário.

Ainda a respeito deste tema e para fechar de vez o assunto das proteínas animais, Anthony Colpo escreve, no seu livro "The Fatloss Bible", possivelmente o melhor livro existente sobre o tema, muito solidamente fundamentado e credível, mas ainda pouco conhecido e divulgado pois não se vende através da Amazon, o seguinte:

The Nutritional Magic of Meat

Let us now contrast the distinctly uninspiring nutritional profile of cereal grains with that of meat. Admonitions to restrict the consumption of animal flesh are issued beyond counting, despite the indisputable fact that meat is the most nutritious food known to humankind.

Meat contains high quality protein, which is essential for growth and repair of the body’s tissues and organs. And as we have learnt, protein intakes significantly higher than the anemic levels recommended by health authorities improve satiety and thus produce greater weight loss than diets delivering the official RDA of protein.

Cereal grains have a very low protein content. One would need to consume seven to eight slices of wholemeal bread, or four to five cups of cooked brown rice, to equal the amount of protein contained in one three ounce serving of porterhouse steak. Furthermore, cereal protein is of very low quality. While animal products contain high levels of all the essential amino acids, cereal grains are deficient in the essential amino acid lysine. In fact, all protein-containing plant foods possess distinctly inferior amino acid profiles when compared to meat, eggs, and dairy products. Legumes, for example, are low in tryptophan, threonine and the important sulfur-containing amino acids methionine and cysteine[68].

Vegetarian proponents claim that this shortcoming of plant foods can be overcome by eating cereal grains together with legumes, as each will supposedly compensate for the amino acid deficiencies of the other. It sounds good in theory, but legumes also have a very low total protein content; four ounces of boiled lentils contains less than eight grams of protein, while the same amount of untrimmed porterhouse steak contains twenty-one grams. No matter how creative you get with your cereal/legume combinations, you will still be faced with the task of consuming copious amounts of these bulky, gas-forming foods in order to achieve an optimal protein intake. In addition to sending your antinutrient intake through the roof and exerting some rather anti-social effects upon your intestinal canal, attempting to satisfy your protein needs in this manner will effectively turn your diet into a highcarbohydrate regimen. If your goal is superior weight loss, optimal body composition, and the most efficient blood glucose and insulin function possible, then that’s something you definitely do not want.

Meat is the richest source of the all-important B-vitamins. This includes vitamin B12, which is found in small amounts in eggs and milk and whose bio-available form is non-existent in plant foods. Abstinence from meat is a major reason why vegetarians are far more likely to suffer from B12 deficiencies than omnivores[69].

Meat - especially chicken, pork and red meat - is the only appreciable source of carnosine[70]. Emerging research suggests this novel amino acid may accelerate wound healing, boost the immune system, rid the body of toxic metals, and even help fight against cancer[71]. Carnosine is a potent antioxidant and is shaping up as an especially effective agent against glycation, a harmful process that is accelerated by high blood sugar levels. During glycation, sugar molecules bind with protein molecules, causing your tissues and organs to literally stiffen and age at a greatly accelerated rate. Glycation is a major reason why diabetics suffer a dramatically increased rate of organ failure and premature death. In laboratory studies, carnosine exhibits a far stronger ability to prevent glycative damage than the more widely studied anti-glycation compound, aminoguanidine[72].

The potent anti-glycation effects of carnosine may explain why a comparison of vegetarians, vegans and meat-eating omnivores revealed the latter to have significantly lower levels of nasty glycation end-products circulating in their bloodstreams. The difference could not be explained by total carbohydrate intake, blood sugar, age or kidney function, as all these variables were similar between the vegetarian and omnivorous groups[73].

Carnitine is a remarkable amino acid that plays a pivotal role in energy production. Carnitine transports fatty acids across our cell membranes and into the mitochondria, the ‘engines’ of our cells, where they are then used to produce ATP. The presence of carnitine is absolutely essential for the fat-burning process to proceed. Because of its pivotal role in energy production, high levels of carnitine are found in the heart and skeletal muscle. Clinical trials have observed markedly improved survival outcomes resulting from carnitine supplementation in patients with heart failure and coronary heart disease[74-76].

This versatile amino acid has been shown to benefit anorexia, chronic fatigue syndrome, heart disease, male infertility, kidney disease and pregnancy outcomes[77-79]. Exercise, even at moderate levels, can cause a significant drop in muscle carnitine levels; in patients with angina and respiratory disorders, carnitine enhances exercise tolerance[77]. Italian researchers have even shown that carnitine supplements are more active than oral testosterone pills in improving sexual dysfunction and depression among elderly men[80]. In another experiment with elderly patients, they found that carnitine enhanced the efficacy of Viagra![81] The richest food source of carnitine, by far and away, is meat. For the modern-day ‘hunter-gatherer’, lamb is a particularly rich source. Similar to creatine and taurine, the body can synthesize carnitine from other amino acids, but this ability is limited; compared to omnivores, vegetarians repeatedly exhibit lower blood levels of carnitine[82,83].

Along with vegetarian regimens, the high-carbohydrate diets so enthusiastically endorsed by our health authorities will also lead to inferior carnitine status. In healthy men receiving the same amount of dietary carnitine, blood levels of this all-important amino acid rose significantly in individuals following a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet, while no change in carnitine levels were observed in individuals on a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet[84].

Meat, together with fish, is by far the best source of creatine, an amino acid used by the body to form adenosine tri-phosphate (ATP), the chemical source of energy that powers our cells. Over the last decade, creatine supplements have become extremely popular with strength athletes[85], but research has also shown creatine to improve exercise tolerance in patients suffering from congestive heart failure[86,87].

When healthy young men who normally consumed an omnivorous diet were switched to a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet for twenty-six days, significant decreases in muscle creatine content were observed[88].

Another study showed that whilst higher peak blood levels of creatine could be achieved through supplementation, the same amount obtained via red meat consumption caused more prolonged and consistent blood levels[89].

Meat, along with certain species of fish and seafood, is a rich source of taurine, an important amino acid whose concentration in eggs, milk, and plant foods ranges from negligible to none[90,91]. Taurine is found in high concentrations in the heart, brain and central nervous system, where it helps stabilize the cellular response to nervous stimulation.

Taurine possesses antioxidant capabilities, and has been shown in double-blind clinical trials to improve cardiac function in patients with congestive heart failure[92-94]. While taurine cannot be found in plant foods, herbivorous animals are able to synthesize it from other dietary amino acids. Humans are also able to manufacture their own taurine, but with far less efficiency than herbivorous animals, as evidenced by significantly lower blood taurine levels in vegans and among rural Mexican women reporting low meat intakes[95,96].

Clearly, optimal human intake of numerous key nutrients cannot occur unless meat is regularly consumed. This very fact underscores the pivotal role played by meat during the evolution of our species. Meat is the food we are designed to eat, the food from which we are able to extract the most sustenance. Excluding it from your diet is not enlightened – it is downright foolish.

Fonte: The Fat Loss Bible, Anthony Colpo.

Resta algo mais por dizer?

Amigos vegetarianos/veganos, uma coisa é a vertente ética da protecção dos animais e outra coisa é negarmos o nosso perfil biológico e genético, alegando que não necessitamos de proteínas de origem animal para uma boa saúde. A meu ver, o vegetarianismo, no qual aliás a maior parte dos idealistas não se consegue manter por muito tempo, é um primeiro passo para a degradação da saúde…

Ligações relacionadas:

The Truth About the China Study (WAPF), Chris Masterjohn

The China Study book review (WAPF), Chris Masterjohn

Response to questions raised about the book "The China Study", Colin Campbell

Response to T. Colin Campbell, Chris Masterjohn

The China Study: more vegan nonsense!, Anthony Colpo

The Fat Loss Bible, Anthony Colpo

The China Study, Wikipedia