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.
