Debate with Dr. Colin Campbell in The Wall Street Journal

Dr. T. Colin Campbell

A recent article in The Wall Street Journal, titled Would We Be Healthier With a Vegan Diet?, featured Dr. Colin Campbell explaining the health benefits of a plant-based diet and the supporting science, with an opposing view given by Dr. Nanacy Rodriguez, a researcher who's profile shows an extensive list of grants from the livestock industry.1

Dr. Rodriguez’s opposing view raises considerable concerns as her statements are compromised by a number of serious methodological issues and relies largely on inaccurate stereotypes, stereotypes scripted and promoted by lobbying efforts of the livestock industry that promote fear of removing animal products from the diet.

Laboratory Experiments and the Promotion of Cancer

Dr. Nancy Rodriguez

Dr. Rodriguez questioned whether the cancer promoting effects of casein observed in Dr. Campbell’s laboratory can be extrapolated to other animal proteins, but provided scant evidence to the contrary. This resembles the misleading claims of the cholesterol sketpics, including Denise Minger that have been discussed in detail here.

It is well documented that dietary restriction of methionine significantly increases both the mean and maximum lifespan in the rodent model.2 3 Dietary restriction of methionine has also been shown to inhibit and even reverse human tumor growth in animal models and in culture demonstrating that tumors are methionine dependent, yet is relatively well tolerated by normal tissue.4

Compared to whole plant foods, both methionine content and bioavailability is significantly higher in most protein rich animal based foods, with little overlap.3 In addition plant foods contain thousands of phytonutrients which work together to protect against cancer. For example, studies have found that casein is still far more cancer promoting compared to soy protein even when both the diets were formulated to contain equivalent amounts methionine (Fig. 1). This was attributed largely to the difference in content of a number of protective phytonutrients.5

Figure 1. Total number (A) and total weight (B) of mammory tumors in rats, 25 weeks after N-nitrosomethylurea injection. Diet Groups: Casein, 20% casein; SPI, 19% soy protein isolate; SPI +Met., 19% soy protein isolate formulated to contain the equivalent amount of methionine as the casein group.

Due to the high content and bioavailability of methionine and lack of phytonutrients in other animal proteins, the observed cancer promoting effects of casein will therefore largely apply to other animal proteins. Furthermore, Dr. Rodriguez’s statement 'Casein is one of many proteins found in milk' made in an apparent attempt to disassociate milk protein from casein can be considered misleading when taking into account that casein makes up approximately 80% of the protein in bovine milk.6

Findings from Clinical Trials

The consensus that a number of dangerous substances including cigarette smoke promote cancer is purely based off epidemiologic, metabolic and laboratory studies. Therefore there is little justification for Dr. Rodriguez to claim as she did that a number of risk factors that have not been tested in clinical trials such as smoking play a significant role in the cause of cancer, but at the same time neglect evidence regarding replacing meat and dairy with whole plant foods and a decreased risk of cancer purely because of a lack of clinical trials.

A number of randomized controlled trials have actually demonstrated the damaging effects of animal protein in human cancers. For example, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial found that among men at high risk, those supplementing with milk protein were more than six times likely to develop prostate cancer compared to men supplementing with soy protein.7

A number of tightly controlled feeding trials with human participants have established that heme iron from the protein portion of meat increases the production of NOCs (N-nitroso compounds) in the digestive tract to concentrations similar to that found in cigarette smoke, of which most are cancerous.8 Furthermore, a controlled feeding trial found that NOCs arising from heme iron in meat forms DNA adducts in the human digestive tract, and DNA adducts are a well-established marker of cancer.9 These findings are consistent with recent meta-analyses of prospective studies that found that intake of both fresh red meat and heme from meat is associated with a significant increased risk of colorectal cancer.8 10

Based partly on these lines of evidence, in 2011 the expert panel from the World Cancer Research Fund reviewed over 1,000 publications on colorectal cancer and concluded that there is convincing evidence that both fresh and processed red meats are a cause of colorectal cancer.11 Furthermore, a more recent prospective study with over 2.24 million men and women found that compared to participants who consumed less than 1 serving per week, consuming 2 or more servings of meat significantly increased the risk of colorectal cancer.12

There is much controversy regarding the 'Dozens of randomized, controlled, clinical trials' that Dr. Roriguez’s appears to be referring to claiming that 'demonstrated that calcium and dairy products contribute to stronger bones'. For example the Harvard School of Public Health have asserted that:13

...the maximum-calcium-retention studies are short term and therefore have important limitations. To detect how the body adapts to different calcium intakes over a long period of time—and to get the big picture of overall bone strength—requires studies of longer duration.

Walter Willett, the Chair of the Department of Nutrition, Harvard is well known for criticizing the industries unfounded claims about the health properties of dairy. In regards to the 2010 USDA Dietary Guidelines he stated that:14

The guidelines continue to recommend three daily servings of dairy products, despite a lack of evidence that dairy intake protects against bone fractures and probable or possible links to prostate and ovarian cancers.

Willett nevertheless praised parts of the guidelines, stating that:

The guidelines appropriately emphasize eating more vegetables, beans, fruits, whole grains, and nuts and highlight healthful plant-based eating patterns, including vegetarian and vegan diets.

Dr. Rodriguez suggested that 'The Dietary Guidelines are founded on evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific literature, and take into account the entire body of research, not just a single study', and that therefore her dietary recommendations are justified. However, evidence to the contrary was made clear in the report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010 that stated 'The DGAC did not evaluate the components of processed meats that are associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer and cardiovascular disease.'15 Thus the Dietary Guidelines did not sufficiently 'take into account the entire body of research', one of the reasons the guidelines have been scrutinized by the Harvard School of Public Health.13

Nutrient Density of Plant vs. Animal Foods

In regards to 'calorie efficiency', the most nutrient dense foods are dark green leafy vegetables which are leaps and bounds more nutrient dense than the phytonutrient and dietary deficient animal foods Dr. Rodriguez advocates, while also being dense in protein, calcium, iron and zinc.16 In fact, calcium from a number of dark green leafy vegetables is actually much more easily absorbed than that from bovine milk.17 In regards to protein intake, a meta-analysis of nitrogen balance studies found that the estimated requirements in healthy adults for the median and 97.5th percentile are 0.65 and 0.83 grams of protein per kg of body weight respectively,18 amounts easily obtained from plant-based dietary plans formulated by Dr. Campbell and his colleagues.19 Furthermore, there is little justification for Dr. Rodriguez as she has done to advocate dairy on the basis that it is artificially fortified with Vitamin D while at the same time downplaying the nutrient density of plant-based foods due to a lack of certain nutrients such as Vitamin B12 and Vitamin D that can be easily supplemented in plant-based diets.

In regards to lean animal protein, the 95% lean beef that Dr. Rodriguez promotes actually contains a similar amount of dietary cholesterol as that found in similar cuts of full-fat beef.16 Experiments on non-human primates have demonstrated that intake of even small amounts of dietary cholesterol as low as 43µg/kcal, the equivalent found in only half of a small egg in a human diet of 2,000 kcal induces atherosclerotic lesions. Furthermore, there was no evidence of a threshold for dietary cholesterol with respect to an adverse effect on arteries (Figs. 2, 3).20 21 Furthermore, several major prospective studies on humans found that dietary cholesterol was associated with a significant increased risk of all-cause mortality.22 23 24

Figure 2. Subclavian artery from a Rhesus monkey supplementing 43µg/kcal dietary cholesterol. Sudanophilia (black area) is intense in the area of major intimal thickening.

Figure 3. Fermoral artery from a Rhesus monkey supplementing 43µg/kcal dietary cholesterol. Intimal fibrous thickening and disruption of internal elastic membrane differentiate this artery from control vessels of monkeys supplementing 0 dietary cholesterol.   

Conflicts of Interest

Finally, Dr. Rodriguez’s financial tie to the livestock industry may explain why she appears to have misinterpreted the medical literature in regards to the disease promoting effects of animal foods and the nutrient density of plant-based foods, written in a largely textbook manner used by other livestock industry lobbyists. The tactics of the livestock industry may resemble those used by the tobacco industry that misinterpreted the medical literature in the past in order to dismiss the 'junk' science linking smoking to lung cancer and other associated diseases. Brownell et al. reminds us of how serious and real conflicts of interests can really be:25

A striking event occurred in 1994 when the CEOs of every major tobacco company in America stood before Congress and, under oath, denied believing that smoking caused lung cancer and that nicotine was addictive, despite countless studies (some by their own scientists) showing the opposite.

Perhaps the same can be said for Dr. Rodriguez’s claim that 'It is simply untrue to suggest that animal protein causes cancer', which is clearly in discordance with the preponderance of evidence. It maybe largely explained by socioeconomic factors as to why health authorities are unable to reach similar dietary recommendations as Dr. Campbell and his colleagues. For example, Eric Rimm from the Department of Nutrition, Harvard said to Reuters in regards to a major health report produced by the National Academy of Science, which he was an author of that:

We can’t tell people to stop eating all meat and all dairy produces. Well, we could tell people to become vegetarians... If we were truly basing this on science we would, but it is a bit extreme.

As Dr. Rodiguesz’s herself stated, 'appreciating the science behind nutrition helps us make smart choices about the best way to feed ourselves and the world'. Unfortunately her scare tactics illustrated in The Wall Street Journal demonstrated very little appreciation of the preponderance of scientific evidence.

Please post any comments in the Discussion Thread. 

Reflections on "Guruji: A Portrait" - Interview with Elise Espat - Part IV

Is there a point in the book that you feel is really crucial to understand Guruji, the system, or the practice?

I feel the book makes a few important points. Perhaps nothing new is said, although for many people there will be a lot of new material. The fact that we have 30 statements or interpretations, and that these statements are broadly in agreement, or together put pieces of the jigsaw in place, what we have as a result is a kind of "authoritative" text.

Interviewees were not always in agreement and at times completely contradict each other, however, I think you can trace at least 80% agreement on most of themes throughout the book.

In some respects you could say the interviews were research on my part. For instance, on the origin of the sequences: David Williams and Nancy Gilgoff believed that the sequences we practice (with some modifications) had been passed down directly from the Yoga Korunta, a text, 100s or 1000s of years old. This was the story I received when I first started practicing since my first teacher had learned from a student of David's. I asked Guruji about this several times and was never quite sure what he meant by his answers.

Apart from Nancy and David, everyone else who was interviewed believed that Guruji was involved in creating the system of asanas. Manju goes as far as to say that Krishnamacharya and Guruji sat down and went through various texts (Hatha Yoga Pradipika, Gheranda Samhita, Yoga Korunta, Yoga Rahasya) and made up the sequences based on Chikitsa and Shodhona. Norman Allen alludes to Norman Sjoman's book and its suggestion that this type of practice is a new creation modeled on gym training.

I think, through the interviews and my own conversations with Guruji,  a picture emerges that the Yoga Korunta contained  asanas and vinyasas grouped according to their therapeutic benefits but that the actual sequences we practice were created by Guruji under Krishnamacharya's supervision based on Chikitsa, Shodhona and so on.

It seems that Guruji did much of the work in organizing the sequences as well as in modifying the vinyasas. If you look at Yoga Makaranda - Krishnamacharya's book of 1934 - you can see how he sequences the asanas and structures the vinyasas quite differently. Shammie said he invented, or discovered the surya namaskar - I believe this is true - at least in the form that he taught.

One of the reasons I made the interviews was to establish a coherent picture and to correct some misconceptions about the nature of yoga, as taught by Guruji.

Guruji felt very strongly that yoga is a spiritual practice. It is perhaps ironic that someone who believed this so deeply, is sometimes seen as propagating a purely physical practice. Too many of my fellow practitioners in the early '90s tended to think this way, and maybe this is something which motivated me to initiate this project. For Guruji, the purpose of yoga was to make one fit for realization - that was his main interest - I think this is emphasized in the book.

For many people who never met Guruji, or whose contact with him was minimal, the anecdotes and stories about studying with him and about his character have brought him to life in vivid color. For those who did know him, the interviews reveal other facets of his teaching and has brought back many memories. I have received many emails from readers expressing gratitude for having been able to experience an intimate meeting with Guruji through these interviews.

here is an email from John Scott:

Dear Guy,

Brilliant! Fanatastic! Congratulations!

Thank you Guy, I do think you and Eddie have put together a lovely and very valuable book.

It reminds me how much we learned from each other back in those days (the early 90s).

Guruji passed on so much wisdom to every individual student, and this was because he was always 

on-to-one with each student, and therefore the questions asked of him were all uniquely different. 

What is so nice,  is that Guruji's students love to share and pass on their personal experiences with

everyone else.

The photo on the back cover looks great* and it's just as Guruji was for us back in those days.

Those were the days - the Lakshmipuram days

I have already read a few of the pieces and have learn't so much more already

So again Thank You Thank You for sharing

Love John

Lucy India and Fynn

* This is John's photo

Guruji in paperback

Faith vs Objectivity

It is the nature of this age of Kali Yuga, that even practices designed to move us towards sattva and spiritual awakening are engaged in with a religious fervor or obsessive faith. Ashtanga Yoga is no exception. Any word spoken by Guruji or Sharath may become the object of a religious fanaticism amongst the aspiring Ashtanga practitioners of today.

It is the role of a teacher to inspire faith in and devotion to his method, but an objective and inquiring mind is also a requisite characteristic for anyone treading the spiritual path. We need to be able to judge for ourselves whether we are moving in the right direction. This is certainly very difficult in the beginning when we plunge into a practice which is completely unfamiliar. But questioning the Guru is frowned upon and from a certain point of view it is unproductive and may be undermining of practice.

Many people wanted to take Guruji on as a "guru" - a teacher who could lead us to the ultimate self realization. This was something I myself was looking for and the conflict between faith in his words and my experience or what I observed, was ongoing throughout my time of practice with him.

Manju Jois: "... (learning yoga) in India is just like learning music or something like that: the family knows music and they become teachers. So for us, it is just like that: you do not have to be a guru or go to hide in a cave, it is just one of those professions we learn."

The word guru means teacher. A mathematics teacher is a guru, so is a music teacher - it does not necessarily have any mystical connotation or imply the teacher is realized, or can bring a student to realization. The word Guruji is an affectionate or respectful derivation of the word.

My first teacher gave me the belief that this yoga system was somehow a direct path to transcendence and that practicing the series would make me super-human, completely eliminate all diseases, correct the alignment of my spine and result in self realization. Of course we all hear what we want to hear, but Guruji often said that this yoga would eliminate all diseases and give perfect health.

Ten years ago, after the birth of my daughter, our family was offered a free consultation with a chiropractor. The consultation involved a spinal X-ray and an infra red scan of the back's muscular structure. I had been experiencing an ongoing relationship with chiropractors throughout my yoga practice but this was the first time I had seen an X-ray of my spine, and it was rather shocking. As the years have gone by my discomfort has reduced significantly and is absent most of the time, but from time to time I still experience minor discomfort, however, for the first decade of practice I would always have back pain when sitting in padmasana at the end of practice, though this has completely gone in the last ten years.

The X-ray showed some significant issues with my spinal structure and some of the vertebral discs. I now understand that this is not so unusual, but the chiropractor was of course trying to sell his services and so did not explain this to me. But he was much more surprised to read the infra red scan which indicates the state of the muscular tone - he had never seen anything like it before and was surprised I could function so well without significant pain. In spite of the vertebral issues which had stemmed from congenital problems and childhood accidents, the muscular scan showed perfect balance - this was the result of yoga practice. But yoga practice has worked mainly on the muscles and has not eliminated spinal and disc problems.

After more than twenty years of practice and having interviewed some of the most experienced and long serving practitioners, I have concluded that Guruji's claims for the system are only partially true. Unfortunately we have seen advanced practitioners succumb to severe illness, psychological distress and even premature death in spite of the fact that they have been practicing Ashtanga Yoga for decades. We can also observe that asana practice alone does not make one much more intelligent or sattvic or produce enlightenment unless one engages in other practices as well.

Of course Guruji taught Ashtanga Yoga as a complete system but today there are few teachers who are able to adequately do this, nor is there so much interest in learning the complete yoga system. There is much more interest in learning how to do a handstand or an advanced asana.

So the religious obsession with six days a week practice, no practice on Saturdays or moondays, or "Guruji said this" or "Sharath said this" amongst the devoted - though a sign of the tamasic times - is not necessarily very productive. In fact this kind of obsession is rather counter-productive for many reasons. Personally, I love my Saturday practice and have been recently enjoying moonday practices also. These are days for the teacher to take rest from teaching, and on such days I can fully enjoy my practice without being concerned about conserving my energy or time for teaching. Patanjali defines practice as "without interruption" - that means every day. The benefit of practice is only 24 hrs, in fact it's impact is already reduced by 50% within 12 hrs, so some kind of evening practice, not necessarily asana, is also very beneficial.

I think rather than believing this practice is a panacea for all ills and a direct path to transcendence, we can conclude that given a particular body or bodily constitution or karma, yoga practice can give us the best health within these limitations, and that further progress beyond health requires other avenues of study and development. A severe illness (such as cancer) can strike at any moment and some chronic conditions can only be reduced and not eliminated completely. Yoga practice should help us to accept what comes to us with equanimity but it is not a guarantee of health, wealth or protection from what life will throw at us.