As a vegan, I am not unbiased. I hold a strong belief that veganism is the only way to go, both for ethical and nutritional reasons. However, I do find it important to discuss the argument against Veganism because to understand the opponent is to overcome the opposition.
Continuing on with the series, Cordain’s argument against veganism is that there are no evolutionary reasons as to why humans should require a low, and not a high protein diet. Humans have been hunting as well as gathering for multiple centuries, so why would eating meat be bad?
Also, Cordain argues that Campbell’s statement that a diet of around ten percent protein intake is proper, as opposed to the fifteen to seventeen percent that Cordain supports, is based only on nitrogen management in the body, and not the protein that is required for the body to function properly in other ways.
A huge point that Campbell pursues in both The China Study and “The Protein Debate” is that consuming animal protein provides an ideal environment for tumor growth and mutation. He consistently demonstrates this correlation in both studies based on animal reactions as well as the cross examination of the American meat based diet to the rural Chinese plant based diet. The argument Cordain makes against this is that correlation does not necessarily equal causation. This is a potentially valid point.
Finally, Cordain exerts that the study Campbell completed with rats showing the effect casein (milk protein) has on tumor growth is not valid in this argument because Campbell did not specifically test meat based proteins such as actin and myosin.
What do you think? How will Campbell drive home is point that veganism is better in his rebuttal against Cordain?
Stay tuned. Bean out.