Denise Minger

"Not really. The real problem is that many claimed environmental/diet factors turn out to be statistical noise or complete bullshit when examined further."

No doubt this is true, especially in the case of meat and saturated fat. Usually this is the result of bad science, typically drawing cause and effect conclusions from epidemiological evidence (See Denise Minger's critique of The China Study here: http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/).

The problem with "interrupting the process" is that we still don't know much about the functioning of many (perhaps most) physiological processes. Disrupting the body's natural processes in one area can cause problems of equal or greater significance in other areas.

Also, studies proving the safety and effectiveness of drugs are, more often than not, highly flawed. Studies frequently exaggerate the improvements seen, fail to show that improvements are due to drugs, or are repeated until the results they are looking for are achieved.

For an excellent review of the flaws of medical research see Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/?single_page=true) Here are but a few highlights:

"...much of what biomedical researchers conclude in published studies—conclusions that doctors keep in mind when they prescribe antibiotics or blood-pressure medication, or when they advise us to consume more fiber or less meat,…

This was some years ago now, but I saw the PI of the Nurses's Health Study [0] (I don't remember if it was Speizer or Willett; probably Willet) give a talk at Harvard. This was just after I read The China Study [1] -- a book recommended by Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease, which was given to participants of this study. The recommendations of the NHS [2] seem to disagree with the more extreme diets of TCS and this study. I asked about this in the Q&A. The speaker dismissed TCS, saying that the their data did not in fact support their conclusions. It seems Willett and Campbell have had an ongoing exchange [3] in the literature.

edit: Here are two critiques of The China Study:
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/

I'd be quite interested if and how these criticisms of The China Study apply to this study.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurses%27_Health_Study

[1] http://www.amazon.com/The-China-Study-Comprehensive-Implications/dp/1932100660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404273769&sr=8-1

[2] "A Mediterranean-type diet reduces risk of incident CHD and stroke. Fish intake reduces risk of stroke. Nut and wholegrain consumption reduces risk of CHD. Refined carbohydrates and trans fats increase risk.", see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurses%27_Health_Study

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study#Reception

This looks like a pretty good article on that subject: http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/

A quick browsing indicates that while our modern fruits are all domesticated, there are plenty of wild, sweet, and large African fruits. Apparently some modern wild berries also have similar sweetness profiles as their domesticated counterparts.

The article points out that one prominent difference that does seem to exist is that wild fruits are harder to eat, due to big seeds, thick and tough exteriors, and lower water content. So you might have to do a lot more work to get the good stuff with wild fruits.

I've eaten wild Muscadine grapes in Georgia that someone found in the woods (I'm not sure if this counts as a wild fruit or not due to potential Native American cultivation, but close enough imo), and they were fairly sweet. They had thick skins and giant seeds in them, so they weren't great actually, but they were sweet.

I'm now reading "The Big Fat Surprise" (http://www.thebigfatsurprise.com/ and http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Fat-Surprise-Healthy/dp/1451624425). I have not read the whole book yet but if what is written in it is truth then there is no science I am expecting in lipid hypothesis and that's is very disappointing. I will double check some facts myself after reading this book but it is interesting. 1-star comments in amazon look valuable as well.

Just spent 20 minutes by following comments, blogs and found this:

http://www.foodpolitics.com/2014/03/is-saturated-fat-a-problem-food-for-debate/

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

Very interesting study unfortunately the conclusions from the book has been debunked[0] a few times. It's a great example of how hard nutritional research is, even with an incredible big dataset and a bunch of very intelligent PHDs it's still very easy to come to the wrong conclusion.

I can highly recommend "Death by Food Pyramid" though, it's a very honest look into food science and the author is very honest about what we know (not a whole lot for sure but we have some strong indications that some diets seem to produce better results) and what we don't know.

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

While I'm not going to get into good or bad about vegan/meat eaters, you do know that the China Study has been heavily criticised for selective data picking right? Thus, just because he was part of it doesn't mean he is a reliable source.

I've included the link below as a starting point for the criticism of the China Study. There is a good bit of scientific literature on it as well (am at work, don't have the links handy)

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