So here are the greens from the beets that I made on Wednesday night, making an appearance alongside Thursday night’s totally awesome, locally/pasture-raised cut of smoked pork. Damn fine eats, I gotta say. The greens were sautéed with onions in a liberal amount of coconut oil, then splashed with a bit of coconut vinegar, salt and pepper. I made two same-size chops (the other is going with me to work this morning). Actually, all I had to do with these was heat them up in a coconut-oiled pan, as they’d been smoked previously by my supplier. How cool is that?
Thursday night iron games –
I reeled-off a good bit of hard riding before I hit the gym which skewed my deadlift numbers substantially. I’m shifting to a sumo stance for a while, for no other reason than to do something that I suck at. I never have felt comfortable, or been able to pull well from a sumo stance. That doesn’t mean that it’s not a super exercise, though – the weakness is all mine. We’ll see about fixing that over the next few weeks.
Sumo deadlift (clean grip): 245 x 5; 275 x 5; 300 x 7
btn jerk : 115 x 3; 135 x 3; 165 x 3; 185 x 1; 195 x 1, 1, 1
then a superset of,
feet-elevated push-ups (24” box): bw x 50, 40, 31
parallel-grip pull-ups: be x 15, 16, 13
Just a quick thought on what I’m sure by now everyone has had a chance to look at. If anyone can take T. Colin Campbell’s The China Study as anything even remotely resembling serious, quality, ethically-performed science after considering Denise Minger’s complete dismantling of the work…well, there’s just not much hope for them. And I use the term “work” loosely, here. Agenda-influenced farce is more like it. But, hey, some folks still believe that the earth is 6,000 years-old, too. So it goes. Anyway, be sure to check out Denise’s exhaustive work. All I can say is, wow , well friggin done, Denise. And thanks to Richard, of Free the Animal, for giving Denise’s work the exposure it deserves.
The following paragraph, taken from Denise’s conclusion, really struck a cord with me (emphasis mine):
In rebuttals to previous criticism on “The China Study,” Campbell seems to use his curriculum vitae as reason his word should be trusted above that of his critics. His education and experience is no doubt impressive, but the “Trust me, I’m a scientist” argument is a profoundly weak one. It doesn’t require a PhD to be a critical thinker, nor does a laundry list of credentials prevent a person from falling victim to biased thinking. Ultimately, I believe Campbell was influenced by his own expectations about animal protein and disease, leading him to seek out specific correlations in the China Study data (and elsewhere) to confirm his predictions.
Question authority (or supposed authority, as the case may be). That single attitude will serve you well. “Show me the properly performed science!!” doesn’t exactly have the same ring, but our enthusiasm in requiring it should be no less emphatic.
Have a great weekend, folks.
Interesting article about how science is often driven by ‘feelings’ and emotions just like the rest of us.
The phrase – lies, damned lies and statistics comes to mind!
You have quite a workout schedule there, and a nice idea for a meal – glad to see other people are pro coconut oil too.
Keith, just curious: When you do the BTN jerks, do you return the bar to the rack after each rep, or carefully lower it back down to starting position?
I use two different methods: (1) I’ll get a slow-as-possible negative, or (2) I’ll let the weight free-fall (controlled, of course) and time the “catch” in a quarter squat w/an immediate follow-up spring-back to the full, upright position.
Don’t be fooled people, Denise has misinterpreted raw data, just as many inexperienced “researchers” do. Denise is not qualified to read such data correctly.
Please refer to the use and misuse on pp. 54-82 of the China Project monograph.
The following is Dr Campbell’s rebuttal. The rest can be found http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.htm
” China Project results are no exception to these limitations of single experiments. It was very large, unique and comprehensive but it was observational (i.e., not interventional), simply observing things as they were at a single point in time. It provided an exceptionally large number of hypothetical associations (shown as statistically assessed correlations) that may indicate but does not prove cause and effect relationships. These unanalyzed correlations are considered raw or crude. It is highly unusual to find such ‘raw’ data in a scientific report because, in part, untrained observers may misunderstand such raw data.
For the monograph, we were somewhat uncertain whether to publish such raw data but decided to do so for two principle reasons. First, we wanted to make these data available to other researchers, while hoping that data misuse would not be a significant problem. Second, because these data were collected in rural China at a time when data reliability might have been questioned, we chose to be as transparent as possible. We discussed data use and misuse on pp. 54-82 of the China Project monograph that curiously was overlooked by Masterjohn and Jay’Y’.
…Denise is not qualified to read such data correctly…
What exactly does qualify one to read such data?
I think you must be a member of the staff at Hogwarts, and a vegan.
I ended up throwing one of those pads on the bar to prevent neck scraping. Your latter method sounds, uhm, hard! I’m not a glutton for punishment 🙂
That’ll work! Try the latter movement with a very light weight to get the feel. It’s really not as difficult as it sounds 🙂
The vegans are willing to accept shoddy work from Campbell and don’t know good work when it hits them in the face. John is pooping in his pants – could his vegan diet be just a load of bull.
A good read for you folks here…
Compare and contrast:
Click to access proteinDebate.pdf
Why can’t (or won’t) Campbell address these questions in a straightforward manner typical of formal debate? I expect this shuck-and-jive in political debate, but when one purposefully muddies the water, dodges, and otherwise avoids giving direct answers, it’s a sure sign of deliberate obfuscation to cover for a lack of credible evidence. But, hey, we’re all free to choose our path. If vegetarianism is your gig, rock on.
day crew,nice blog.
How come NONE of these pro meat bloggers have any real muscle with all that protein talk? 🙂
Come and see if ANY of you guys can out bench press/dead lift us at
Here is the website for the doubters.
Mike Arnstein ran a 2:28 marathon this year at Boston. He is the FASTEST runner in the raw food movement today. Long time vegan and now powered by sweet fruit. How come there is no competitive athletes eating this ‘paleo fat diet?’ Please shut me up and show me cos Im sick of seeing cardio and muscle deficient paleo crew trying to debunk the china study that us elite athletes are thriving on.
Can you debunk me with a high fat eating paleo athlete?
Didnt think so.. 🙂
Love, peace and banana grease.
Have fun with this one, folks 🙂
Yeah, I remember my first beer too.
Haha. A very “logical” argument from Durianrider. I won’t be surprised if john, freelee and durianrider are the same person. They are spamming every paleo or health blogs that are linked to Denise’s post.
All the spamming in the world cannot outdo properly conducted science, and a solid dose of logic and common sense. More power to them in their quest, though 🙂 it is fun to watch…in the way that a grinder monkey is fun to watch, that is.
In addition to Denise’s AWESOME work, you might also like my latest post on The China Study. It’s a comprehensive review of Campbell’s animal research and reveals some pretty surprising ommissions:
Nice work, Chris; I’m happy to pass along the link –