[ctviggen]

What he said. Whole grains are good for you, wheat included.

Recommended reading: The China Study (very serious research presented very accessibly). http://www.amazon.com/China-Study-Comprehensive-Nutrition-Implications/dp/1932100660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1286241005&sr=8-1

Synopsis: animal proteins (including those from meat and milk) and animal fats correlate directly with heart disease, cancer, and diabetes in multiple population studies, and the causal mechanisms by which animal proteins and fat cause problems are well understood for many diseases. It's not simply a correlation; it's explainable at the level of molecular biology.

The China Study is about solid research: it's not selling a diet program or political agenda. Definitely check it out.

The China Study is an epidemiological study, meaning that it proves correlation but not causation.   Here's one critical review of it:

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/

Another:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-vs-the-china-study/

Another:

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

Because the study is epidemiological, it proves nothing.  In that sense, it's completely useless.

As for another horrible plant, there's soy.  It's nasty. 

[newzooreview]

The China Study is an epidemiological study, meaning that it proves correlation but not causation.

The China Study is also a book by the principle investigator on the China Study, T. Colin Campbell. In the first few pages of the book, Dr. Campbell notes that correlation does not equal causation, and he goes on to summarize the various experiments in molecular biology that show causal mechanisms for correlations in the China Study data. The China Study contains an extensive list of references cited--one or two hundred peer-reviewed articles supporting the various conclusions drawn in the book.

The book is measured in distinguishing between the hypotheses of the author and the degree of certainty that can be ascribed to the conclusions of the various studies cited. The critiques of the book and of the China Study that I've seen around the internet have not been nearly as metered or authoritatively compiled. However, there are numerous areas that need further research, and Campbell himself points out how he has changed his own opinion and understanding over time as new evidence comes in. A lot of his attackers, by contrast, seem to have a particular point that they want to advocate, the classic pitfall of conclusions in search of a justification.

With that said, I haven't read all of the links you provide, but I'll check them out later when I have more time. Thanks.

[TheChairGuy]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20017279-10391704.html

The way I've eaten for many years now...but, not necessarily for everyone.

John

[Tyson]

The China Study is also a book by the principle investigator on the China Study, T. Colin Campbell. In the first few pages of the book, Dr. Campbell notes that correlation does not equal causation, and he goes on to summarize the various experiments in molecular biology that show causal mechanisms for correlations in the China Study data. The China Study contains an extensive list of references cited--one or two hundred peer-reviewed articles supporting the various conclusions drawn in the book.

The book is measured in distinguishing between the hypotheses of the author and the degree of certainty that can be ascribed to the conclusions of the various studies cited. The critiques of the book and of the China Study that I've seen around the internet have not been nearly as metered or authoritatively compiled. However, there are numerous areas that need further research, and Campbell himself points out how he has changed his own opinion and understanding over time as new evidence comes in. A lot of his attackers, by contrast, seem to have a particular point that they want to advocate, the classic pitfall of conclusions in search of a justification.

With that said, I haven't read all of the links you provide, but I'll check them out later when I have more time. Thanks.

The irony is that when the data is looked at directly, the exact criticism is leveled at Campbell.  Basically he always emphasizes (often weak) data correlations that support his "plant food good, animal food bad" hypothesis, when it seems as though both are actually pretty good for you, and it's rather processed food (represented by wheat consumption) that is the true dagger in the heart.

[Tyson]

Ah, and to broaden a bit, this viewpoint also allows you to make sense of the fact that the Kitvans, the Okinowans, and the Inuit all have excellent immunity to the "diseases of civilization" such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, etc.  And they share almost nothing in common from a diet or lifestyle standpoint.  What they DO have in common is what they DON'T do, and that's consume processed food (particularly wheat).  I don't want to point out wheat as the only bad guy here, as vegetable oils also seem to be pretty bad for you, but there's much more evidence around wheat being bad.  Campbell himself has started to modify his views lately on these points, see his article about when being a vegan is not really being a vegan.  It's an endorsement of whole, natural foods, and a critique of processed, wheat based foods.