Read The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study Of Nutrition Ever Conducted And The Startling Implications For Diet, Weight Loss, And Long-term Health (2006)
The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study Of Nutrition Ever Conducted And The Startling Implications For Diet, Weight Loss, And Long-term Health (2006) - Plot & Excerpts
UGH! I totally loved this book as of page 150 or so! At the beginning you find out about this really interesting research that showed that feeding milk protein (casein) to rats encouraged them to develop cancerous growths after the rats had been exposed to a carcinogen called aflatoxin, and the cancer barely grew at all in rats that were fed low amounts (5% of calories) of casein. The cancer also barely grew at all in rats that were fed low to medium to high amounts of PLANT protein (wheat protein and soy protein were tested). I thought they were going to do a lot more tests to find out the effects of OTHER animal proteins besides casein (what about whey protein, fish protein, beef protein, chicken protein, etc), and I thought they would do tests with other carcinogens besides aflatoxin. Since the results were so dramatic, you'd think all these other studies would have been the natural offshoot. But Campbell doesn't ever mention these follow-up studies which surely must have happened. Or if they didn't happen, then why not? It doesn't make any sense that scientists would not pursue these very provocative and promising research questions. I am perplexed by this. Either Campbell left the information about the follow-up studies out of his book, or they simply didn't happen. If it was the science-medicine-government-industry complex that BLOCKED any further research, then Campbell had every opportunity to explain that, but he didn't. Also, it makes no sense because there are plenty of organizations like Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and PETA that would have the money to sponsor the research. OK, maybe not PETA, as they wouldn't approve of doing experiments on rats, but these research conclusions are just way too groundbreaking. You know, "Diets Rich in Dairy Products Accelerate Cancer Growth." and "Plant-Based Diets Prohibit Cancer Growth." There are so many scientists who have already made their money and don't need to be slaves to the power establishment and who would LOVE to be responsible for conclusive research like this; they could win the Nobel Prize, for sure! So either the follow-up research was done, and it wasn't conclusive, which would explain why Campbell left those details out, or ... well, it just makes no sense why no one would have investigated it further. UGH!The book is okay in general, especially for people who want reassurance that a vegan diet is healthy. Also, reading this book helped encourage me to eat healthier, more whole foods, not so much refined sugar and added oils. I'm very thankful for that. I also found out that my cholesterol at 167 is not that great and I need to get it below 150. But ... I got rather annoyed with the author because he keeps saying that a whole-foods, plant-based diet (vegan) is the HEALTHIEST diet, and he didn't give any scientific evidence for that. I'm vegan and I definitely wanted to see that scientific evidence, but it wasn't there. And note that unlike other people who got bored and skimmed through parts of it, I actually read every word of every page, all the way through from beginning to end, including the appendices. If I had only flipped around in the book and saw him claiming that he has already proven (in other chapters) that the vegan diet is best, I might think, "OH, that's probably true, I haven't read the whole thing 100%." Well, I DID read the whole thing 100% and he did not prove that a vegan diet is best. What he showed is some correlations between cancer rates and heart disease rates in various countries; the more animal protein and animal fat you eat, the more cancer and heart disease you get. OKAY, point taken, but it doesn't show that eating a vegan (whole foods) diet is any better than, say, a 95% plant-based, 5% animal-based diet. In fact, even in the studies with rats, they had almost no cancer growth when they had only 5% of their calories from milk protein (casein). They only got the high amounts of cancer growth when it went up to 10% and 20%. So it looks like low amounts of dairy products are actually OKAY, according to the rat studies. I just hate that Campbell goes from showing us these really interesting studies and then takes a leap to say that 100% plant-based diet is the best.He also provides as "evidence" some studies by Esseltyn and others who REVERSED heart disease by putting people on restricted diets. This is good news and throws egg in the faces of all the stick-in-the-mud doctors who think drugs and surgery are the only ways to treat disease. OK, cool. But I noted that most of the restricted diets weren't totally vegan, the people were allowed small amounts of meat and dairy every day. In cases like this, Campbell always said something like, "Well, if the results were that good, imagine how good the results would be if the diet was 100% vegan." Well, that's just imagining. Where is the evidence that the 100% vegan diet is better than a mostly plant-based diet? I don't think there is any, otherwise he would have shown it to us. So what gives him the right to go around saying that a 100% vegan diet is the best? And acting like he has the research to back it up? And probably fooling some people in the process? Ooooh! It makes me angry.Now for my "most obvious" gripe. I thought the book was going to be mainly about all these exciting results of the China Study, since it says THE CHINA STUDY in big letters on the front. One would think! As I read the first 140 pages (which are NOT about the China study), I simply thought I was being given the background info, as surely we were being led up to a big discussion about THE CHINA STUDY. So I was shocked by the time I get to the 200's pages, and we were moving on to other topics. It was then that I checked the Table of Contents, and came to a shocking realization ... the 15 pages where the author talks a little bit about the China Study (in the mid-100's pages somewhere, I don't have the book with me) is ALL YOU'RE GONNA GET. What the heck!??? Even in those 15 pages, he actually doesn't even stay focused on the topic of THE CHINA STUDY. He spends quite a few paragraphs within those 15 pages, discussing Esseltyn and Atkins diet and other stuff. I couldn't believe it. Also, when I read about the procedure of the China Study, it just doesn't sound very good. They pooled together all the blood from people in 2 cities in each county and based their statistics off of that. So even though they took blood samples from 100's of people, they only ended up with about 65 data points to compare. This is because they couldn't get enough blood from individuals to test all the factors that they wanted. So if they took all the vials of blood and mixed them, they got a combined sample of several pints of blood from people from that county. And that was enough blood to do 100s of tests. But if there were some people in the county who ate a lot of animal products, and others who ate mostly plants, and you got survey data from all those people .. well, now you have to average their eating habits and make a composite "average" diet for someone in that county. You can't compare the disease rates of people who ate well in the county vs. people who ate poorly. All you can do is compare one county's pooled blood sample to another county's. So .... maybe the reason why T. Colin Campbell doesn't talk much about the China study, in his book entitled THE CHINA STUDY, is that the results there are not very conclusive or persuasive. I was thinking I should read Junshi's original research published in 1990, but I googled it and found a summary of its shortcomings here:http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/c...The above web site seems to be all about busting the myths and "fanaticism" of vegan and raw food diets, etc, so be aware of that. Nonetheless, the points it brings up are the same ones I was thinking of as I read about the techniques employed for the China study research. Oh, I found another review that sums up many of the criticisms I have.http://www.westonaprice.org/bookrevie...This review actually brings up another important point ... Campbell makes a big deal about how dairy is linked to autoimmune diseases, but what about the links to wheat and gluten? Unfortunately, Campbell generalizes that if milk protein is bad, then all animal protein is bad, whereas he generally assumes that plant protein is good.Oh, the guy who wrote that review above is Chris Masterjohn, he's the maintainer of this total PRO-CHOLESTEROL site! So that guy must be pretty biased, also! His web site says that low cholesterol diets are bland and boring! What an ignorant statement.http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Despite Masterjohn's obvious bias on his web site, the review itself seems very fair and even-handed. He gives 48 references in his review, although I haven't checked them. (Hey, I'm just trying to do a quick write-up!) The gist of his review agrees with my feeling as I read the China Study, so despite my skepticism regarding Masterjohn's underlying agenda of promoting cholesterol consumption, I think the information he provided is probably correct. Taken with a grain of salt, of course.Anyway ... back to T. Colin Campbell's book ...It turned me off that Campbell seemed so biased toward a 100% vegan diet; he SAID his beliefs were based on science, without providing the scientific evidence. He STARTED to provide compelling research, and then he stopped. It's a total bummer.And I'm disappointed that the book says it's all about the China Study, when it is not. And maybe it's because the China Study wasn't really worth writing a book about.However, I give it 3 stars instead of 2 because that stuff at the beginning is really interesting. And it did get me motivated to eat healthier. I am on a quest to lose 10 pounds in 10 weeks and get my cholesterol to under 150! And it's due in large part to the motivational and compelling parts in the first half of this book.Still, I might put it down to two stars. It was a pretty big disappointment. On the other hand, I'm glad I read it. At least now I know FOR SURE what all the fuss was about. Hmmm, 2 or 3 stars. Still deciding.And for the Vegan Book Club ... I know you said you wanted to do this for a future book selection ... I've got no opinion either way, since I've already read it now ... I suggest checking the links above and deciding for yourselves if you want this or a different book. While I do have my criticisms, it certainly would make for a good discussion!
Whew, where to start with this one! I do feel compelled to explain why I see this book as a one star. it is frankly bad science. I think most people would read this book and seriously feel scared, he certainly wrote it with that purpose in mind. Many of my thoughts stem from years of math and statistics classes, years of working with statistics in environmental engineering, some come from the dozens of research studies that I’ve read over the years, some come simply from being a die-hard critical thinker. I truly question everything I read (and as a result can drive my ownself nuts). I don't want you to think for one minute that I think I have all the answers to what we “should” be eating. I eat based on what I personally feel is the best odds for health. This changes and evolves, and I definitely struggle with a sweet tooth (I think refined sugar may be the worst evil of all the foods, yet I love it, go figure),. If I speak my truth, based on everything I’ve read, researchers and health professionals that I respect and trust, I do strongly belief that quality meat rich in omega 3’s is the healthiest source of protein for our bodies. I would eat more fish if I didn’t feel so much concern over toxins in our oceans and thus our fish. Grass-fed beef has a better omega 3 fat profile than grain fed beef,but without the toxins of the wild fish. This is what I eat predominantly for meat.Who knows, maybe further research will come out to show that a no-meat diet is best, but I really do not believe that any science so-far proves that to be the truth (from a health standpoint). So if you really want to know why I think this book is bad science, here is a start (tip of the ice berge to be honest). Epidemiology is a good tool for predicting future outcomes for large communities, but is terrible for predicting individual causations. He even admits himself (very quietly and sort of as a side note) that there are incredible amounts of variables that confound the results.Correlations does not equal causation (this is basic statistics, yet almost all of his data is based on correlations. (Rich people eat more meat than poor and rich people have more cancer than poor therefore eating meat causes cancer……don’t even get me started on how this poves nothing)The author definitely says many things that I agree with and are scientifically backed up by lots of other studies. That’s a big thing for me, I don’t trust anything until it has been shown repeatedly in unrelated studies. The Standard America Diet (SAD as they call it) is certainly dismal. Processed and refined foods are terrible for us and he talks a lot about that in the beginning of the book. This is all very, very true. I’m not vegan (obviously) but I would consider a vegan diet and a whole-foods diet more closely related than most. Both attempt to eat whole fruits and veggies, lots of omega 3’s, fibre, and adequate protein. But there are also many technically incorrect statements this books makes, as well as leaps of logic that are truly unscientific. I could actually be more forgiving of minor technical errors, but the data has been presented in a way that I believe is irresponsible. I would imagine anyone who would take the time to read this book as it stands would certainly be afraid of dairy. I am not. When you start looking into the real data and how it was interpreted that the problems start to surface and I lost faith in the rest of his possibly accurate data.Anyway, most people don't take enough interest in their diet to even read one book or they are not open minded enough to consider whether meat, or wheat or big macs are good for their health. I'm not emotionally tied to my “diet” and I read a lot, so I am happy to read and consider what is best for my personal health. I want to believe I am open to change. Sorry for the rambling review.
What do You think about The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study Of Nutrition Ever Conducted And The Startling Implications For Diet, Weight Loss, And Long-term Health (2006)?
I just can't do it. I value my non-enraged time too much.I got a few chapters in and decided that there wasn't any point in continuing. We start off with the usual Pollan-esque call to disregard looking at individual nutrients and just eat whole foods. Wait, scratch that, protein is bad! Oh sorry, I mean, animal protein is bad! Oh whoops, my mistake, I only did my experiments using casein and rats and from there extrapolated that all the animal protein ever will give you the super-cancer. It is at this point that I stopped reading. I didn't even get to the China Project itself.I like to think I'm open to new ideas, but those ideas really need to be backed up with something a bit more substantial. I totally buy that a whole foods diet, especially one rich in vegetables, is best. In fact, I don't know anyone who disagrees with that one. The other parts are all quibble-worthy, and I'm constantly learning new things and changing perceptions of things I had taken for granted. All in all, I spent more time reading what other people had to say about this book than actually reading the book. If you're looking for a good takedown, look for Anthony Colpo's.
—Rebecca
The most important book I've read in a long time. Changed the way I eat. Strongly recommended, if you're interested in the latest research on nutrition and health, disease, cancer, energy, and longevity. I came to this with an eager and open mind, since it was highly recommended by someone I respect greatly, Art Eggertsen, founder of ProBar. I have long been seeking out the best approach to nutrition for two reasons: 1) maximize athletic performance. I am an avid cyclist, formerly a fanatical triathlete, and always love to feel healthy and fit. 2) I have a history of cancer in my family, having lost both my parents 6 weeks apart to cancer in 2004. Insights into decreasing the risk of cancer for myself, family, and friends, is paramount.The book has some unpopular themes - unpopular with big established industries like meat and dairy, and the media, politics, and world of business they influence. However, as our recent presidential inauguration demonstrates, a time of change is upon us. Hallelujah!
—Jonathan
This book details one study after another that demonstrate the health benefits of eating a plant-based diet and/or the negative effects of animal protein. I have been interested in this subject lately, so the information in the book was good BUT so very boring to read, no practical applications provided, and the author was so annoying (he lets you know about every 3rd page what a distinguished researcher he is and how amazing his work is or give you the stats on his distinguished collegues) I haven't actually finished it and probably never will. If you are interested in actually incorporating more live foods into your diet I would recommend The Original Fast Foods. It is not as scientific, but gives you real life stories and a plan for you own lifestyle change including some really good recipes.
—Eliece
