What do you think?
Rate this book
The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, and Long-term Health
Even today, as trendy diets and a weight-loss frenzy sweep the nation, two-thirds of adults are still obese and children are being diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, typically an “adult” disease, at an alarming rate. If we’re obsessed with being thin more so than ever before, why are Americans stricken with heart disease as much as we were 30 years ago?
In The China Study, Dr. T. Colin Campbell details the connection between nutrition and heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. The report also examines the source of nutritional confusion produced by powerful lobbies, government entities, and opportunistic scientists. The New York Times has recognized the study as the “Grand Prix of epidemiology” and the “most comprehensive large study ever undertaken of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease.”
The China Study is not a diet book. Dr. Campbell cuts through the haze of misinformation and delivers an insightful message to anyone living with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and those concerned with the effects of aging.
In The China Study, Dr. T. Colin Campbell details the connection between nutrition and heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. The report also examines the source of nutritional confusion produced by powerful lobbies, government entities, and opportunistic scientists. The New York Times has recognized the study as the “Grand Prix of epidemiology” and the “most comprehensive large study ever undertaken of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease.”
The China Study is not a diet book. Dr. Campbell cuts through the haze of misinformation and delivers an insightful message to anyone living with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and those concerned with the effects of aging.
419 pages, Paperback
First published December 11, 2004
About the author
T. Colin Campbell
45 books545 followersBiochemist who specializes in the effects of nutrition on long-term health. He is the Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University, and the author of over 300 research papers. He was one of the lead scientists in the 1980s of the China-Oxford Cornell study on diet and disease (known as the China Project), set up in 1983 by Cornell University, the University of Oxford, and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine to explore the relationship between nutrition and cancer, heart and metabolic diseases. The study was described by The New York Times as "the Grand Prix of epidemiology."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 3,008 reviews
December 2, 2015
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 author of a fanatical PRO-CHOLESTEROL site! So that guy is biased, also! His web site says that low cholesterol diets are bland and boring! As if????
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/
Despite Masterjohn's obvious bias on his web site, his review of The China Study seems 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.
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!
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 author of a fanatical PRO-CHOLESTEROL site! So that guy is biased, also! His web site says that low cholesterol diets are bland and boring! As if????
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/
Despite Masterjohn's obvious bias on his web site, his review of The China Study seems 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.
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!
April 21, 2020
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 most likely 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.
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.
August 20, 2008
I haven’t read the whole thing yet. I have skipped around a bit and I probably won’t finish it. I am reading it because my sister in law read it and wanted my opinion. At first I had an open mind about what he had to say, but the further I got in to it the less I liked it. The first thing was the evangelical tone of the writing. You can almost hear Amazing Grace being sung in the background… I once was lost, but now am found… Then he completely disses anyone who believes that fiber can contribute to anemia by calling them “experts” in quotes. There are a lot of real experts who have done some very good research that shows that plant components can impair mineral absorption. He demonizes animal foods, backing up his claims with epidemiological data and rat studies. I find the rat studies rather believable, but I’m not sure he is interpreting the epidemiological data entirely correctly. There are so many factors involved I have a hard time with is attribution of all diseases of affluence to animal foods. There are MANY factors (dietary, lifestyle, and environmental) correlated to animal protein intake that could just as easily be the problem. Most likely it is some combination of factors. China is so different from the US and Europe that I don’t think that you can make a straight comparison. I don’t think that the answer is to start eating like a rural Chinese peasant. The thing that bothers me the most is that he almost completely ignores the possibility and probability of malnutrition among the millions of Chinese people who are consuming these very spare vegetarian diets by attributing it to parasites and saying that it could be prevented by public health projects to provide clean water. He talks about how great it is that the girls in the villages reach menarche in their late teens and that it isn’t so important to be tall. He misses the point that it isn’t tall per se, but the other impairments that go along with not reaching your genetic potential for height.
He does make some good points about the typical American diet. We eat too much overall. We eat too much meat and fat and not enough fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. Anyone taking Nutr 101 should be able to tell you that. It is no secret. In the rat studies it looks like the benefits of a low animal protein diet taper off at/below 10% of calories from animal protein. That is still a fair amount, not low protein, but less than what most Americans eat. I think that there is a diminishing return to the reduction in animal protein he talks about.
He spends the last section of the book making it sound like there is some national conspiracy among scientists, industry, and policy makers to keep Americans sick in order to make money. I don’t think so.
Over all I am unconvinced. I think that he has over reacted and I still think that you can get the benefits of a vegetarian diet by eating lots of fruit and veggies (including soy) and whole grains while incorporating smaller amounts of lean meat and dairy.
He does make some good points about the typical American diet. We eat too much overall. We eat too much meat and fat and not enough fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. Anyone taking Nutr 101 should be able to tell you that. It is no secret. In the rat studies it looks like the benefits of a low animal protein diet taper off at/below 10% of calories from animal protein. That is still a fair amount, not low protein, but less than what most Americans eat. I think that there is a diminishing return to the reduction in animal protein he talks about.
He spends the last section of the book making it sound like there is some national conspiracy among scientists, industry, and policy makers to keep Americans sick in order to make money. I don’t think so.
Over all I am unconvinced. I think that he has over reacted and I still think that you can get the benefits of a vegetarian diet by eating lots of fruit and veggies (including soy) and whole grains while incorporating smaller amounts of lean meat and dairy.
July 26, 2007
Wow! Time to start cutting down on animal protein! This is a well supported (with real scientific evidence) on the dangers of eating animal protein...from cancers, to arthritis to osteoporosis. It also provides good insight into how some in the scientific community, government and industry work together to keep valuable nutritional information from the public. The most interesting and surprising point for me was the dangers of milk and how increased milk consumption can actually cause osteoporosis. This book is written in a style appropriate for both doctors/scientists as well as the average public.
September 20, 2020
I really wish Campbell would have included the most compelling data from this study. But for some reason he left if out his book.
Below is a study co-authored by Colin Campbell and is derived from the Cornell China Study.
Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A 136 (2003) 127-140
Fish consumption, blood docosahexaenoic acid and chronic diseases
in Chinese rural populations
Yiqun Wanga, Michael A. Crawforda,*, Junshi Chenb, Junyao Lib, Kebreab Ghebremeskela,
T. Colin Campbell, Wenxun Fanb, Robert Parkerc, Julius Leytond
The conclusion of this study (same Cornell China Study) was that consuming fish was one of the strongest indicators of overall good health. Fish had the strongest correlations with decreasing chronic disease, Cardiovascular disease, and cancer.
I’m giving this book 2 stars due to Campbell excluding this data and therefore misrepresenting the study in the book.
Update 9/2020: Since I posted this review, the Mediterrean diet (includes fish 3x a week) has continued to show the most positive Cardiovascular health data of any diet along with intermittent fasting. Multiple studies have been published in the most respected medical journals concluding time again the benefits of this diet which includes fish and does allow for chicken and red meat on occasion.
Below is a study co-authored by Colin Campbell and is derived from the Cornell China Study.
Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A 136 (2003) 127-140
Fish consumption, blood docosahexaenoic acid and chronic diseases
in Chinese rural populations
Yiqun Wanga, Michael A. Crawforda,*, Junshi Chenb, Junyao Lib, Kebreab Ghebremeskela,
T. Colin Campbell, Wenxun Fanb, Robert Parkerc, Julius Leytond
The conclusion of this study (same Cornell China Study) was that consuming fish was one of the strongest indicators of overall good health. Fish had the strongest correlations with decreasing chronic disease, Cardiovascular disease, and cancer.
I’m giving this book 2 stars due to Campbell excluding this data and therefore misrepresenting the study in the book.
Update 9/2020: Since I posted this review, the Mediterrean diet (includes fish 3x a week) has continued to show the most positive Cardiovascular health data of any diet along with intermittent fasting. Multiple studies have been published in the most respected medical journals concluding time again the benefits of this diet which includes fish and does allow for chicken and red meat on occasion.
September 10, 2007
Wow. What an impressive book! This book looks at what ails us and what is truly the cause. Based on well over 750 studies done over a 35 year period by various researchers, doctors, etc. it highlights the true cause of many of our cancers, diabetes, aches and pains: animal protein. This isn't a "vegan rules; meat eaters drool" kind of book. This is empirical data that proves that our diet overall and animal proteins specifically are the root cause for most of the diseases/ailments of affluence.
Additionally, this book looks at the effect and results of the various industries that depend on the continued promotion of animal proteins (e.g., dairy, meat, fish, politicians, drug industry, medical practises -- specifically surgery). It also highlights the misinterpretation of many researchers of the results of studies and using a reductionist view (i.e., pulling a single fact or point out of a study rather than looking at the whole; consider that many of our health headlines identify single causes/cures -- Vitamin C, alcohol, etc.)
At the least, read it to be informed. That's the biggest problem right now. It's not that hard to live healthy on a whole food, plant-based diet/lifestyle.
Additionally, this book looks at the effect and results of the various industries that depend on the continued promotion of animal proteins (e.g., dairy, meat, fish, politicians, drug industry, medical practises -- specifically surgery). It also highlights the misinterpretation of many researchers of the results of studies and using a reductionist view (i.e., pulling a single fact or point out of a study rather than looking at the whole; consider that many of our health headlines identify single causes/cures -- Vitamin C, alcohol, etc.)
At the least, read it to be informed. That's the biggest problem right now. It's not that hard to live healthy on a whole food, plant-based diet/lifestyle.
September 3, 2008
To go from a dairy farmer who went to college to learn how to make animals produce more milk and meat, to a human nutrition expert promoting a whole foods, plant-based diet as the key to human health and disease prevention represents a remarkable shift in beliefs, career path, and personal behavior. This book tells the story of that shift - the story of Dr. Campbell's life and career as a scientist who was persuaded by what the growing body of nutrition research (including the groundbreaking epidemiological study he led) demonstrated. As he tells his story, he explains the science in a way that is explained for the layperson while still presenting a detailed analysis.
What I liked about this book, more than other books with a similar message, is that Dr. Campbell doesn't come across as a zealot determined to make.you.understand.dammit the glorious truth he has to share with you, the poor unenlightened dupe. He doesn't try to shame the typical Westerner for his/her diet - first of all, he begins the book explaining that he started out as exactly that: the typical (mid-)Westerner who believed that cow's milk was nature's most perfect food. Second of all, he presents a concise yet thorough case for just why the typical Westerner probably hasn't heard about all of the peer-reviewed, objective research presented in The China Study and why most people can't shake the opinion that animal protein is a necessary component of the human diet, even after they're confronted with evidence that it does more harm than good. (For a less concise and more thorough case, I recommend Food Politics by Marion Nestle).
Rather than zealotry, Campbell's tone is science-based and fact-oriented. He does have an opinion, and he is building a strong argument for a whole foods, plant-based diet, but that argument is the result of the story he's telling, rather than the starting point for an effort to prove a pre-conceived opinion.
When I read this book, I was already vegan, and I had already read a number of other books, articles, and web resources with the same essential message, so the book didn't need to persuade me of anything I hadn't already heard. But what I am grateful for, and what I got from this book that I hadn't before found so completely anywhere else, is a careful, thoughtful, detailed and organized look at the science behind all the claims and pronouncements. Other books and sources say "numerous scientific studies show..." and my instinctively cynical mind (I am the daughter of a scientist, after all!) doesn't completely trust that the science is being faithfully represented by the claims. The China Study takes the time and the care to go through those studies and to explain how those studies show what they do. So what I liked about this book, I guess, is that I found it to be a trustworthy source of objective research that, ultimately, reassures me that I have chosen a genuinely healthy diet and lifestyle.
I would love to hear what my omni friends think! I can't wait for your reviews!
What I liked about this book, more than other books with a similar message, is that Dr. Campbell doesn't come across as a zealot determined to make.you.understand.dammit the glorious truth he has to share with you, the poor unenlightened dupe. He doesn't try to shame the typical Westerner for his/her diet - first of all, he begins the book explaining that he started out as exactly that: the typical (mid-)Westerner who believed that cow's milk was nature's most perfect food. Second of all, he presents a concise yet thorough case for just why the typical Westerner probably hasn't heard about all of the peer-reviewed, objective research presented in The China Study and why most people can't shake the opinion that animal protein is a necessary component of the human diet, even after they're confronted with evidence that it does more harm than good. (For a less concise and more thorough case, I recommend Food Politics by Marion Nestle).
Rather than zealotry, Campbell's tone is science-based and fact-oriented. He does have an opinion, and he is building a strong argument for a whole foods, plant-based diet, but that argument is the result of the story he's telling, rather than the starting point for an effort to prove a pre-conceived opinion.
When I read this book, I was already vegan, and I had already read a number of other books, articles, and web resources with the same essential message, so the book didn't need to persuade me of anything I hadn't already heard. But what I am grateful for, and what I got from this book that I hadn't before found so completely anywhere else, is a careful, thoughtful, detailed and organized look at the science behind all the claims and pronouncements. Other books and sources say "numerous scientific studies show..." and my instinctively cynical mind (I am the daughter of a scientist, after all!) doesn't completely trust that the science is being faithfully represented by the claims. The China Study takes the time and the care to go through those studies and to explain how those studies show what they do. So what I liked about this book, I guess, is that I found it to be a trustworthy source of objective research that, ultimately, reassures me that I have chosen a genuinely healthy diet and lifestyle.
I would love to hear what my omni friends think! I can't wait for your reviews!
April 19, 2019
پژوهش چین کتابی بسیار ارزشمند و کاربردی ست و با هر ایده ی ذهنی لازم برای خواندن. من پشتیبانِ گیاهخواری نیستم چون به گمانم آدمیزاد کلن ناقص خلق شده. هرچی که بخوره بلای جون و تندرستیش می شه، با این تفسیر ولی یک ایده ای هم دارم؛ یه جوری خوراک بخورم که حسِ خوبی داشته باشم دستِ کم. یا بهتره بگم کمتر نگران باشم. این به شناخت شخصی هر آدمی از خودش برمی گرده و به گمانم این کتاب آدم رو به اون شناخت شخصی بسیار نزدیک می کنه
کتاب درباره ی یک تحقیق بزرگ درباره ی تغذیه و مقایسه اون بین جامعه ی آمریکای جهانخوار و یک جامعه ی آماری در بخش هایی از کشور چینِ دوست و برادر هست و نتایج این تحقیق اساس نوشتنِ این کتاب؛ چگونگی تغذیه. تغذیه هم که چین و آمریکا و مسلمون و مسیحی نداره. در کتاب(بنا بر تحقیق های 25 ساله در روستاهای چین) به حقایق ساده اما باورنکردنی یی برخورد می کنه خواننده که اگر پذیرای اونها باشه و واقع بینی داشته باشه جدن در سبک زندگیش تغییرات مهمی رخ میده. ارزش این تحقیقات هم در اونه که کاملن نتایجی خلافِ اون چیزی داره که حکومت ها و جامعه ی بزرگِ پزشکها و داروسازها و اساسن صنایع ازش دفاع می کنن
درباره پژوهش چین می شه برگهای زیادی مطلب نوشت و گزارش داد ولی حاصلی نداره چکیده گفتن از اون. باید این کتاب رو خوند و آموخت و به کار بست. خلاصه اینکه بخونید این کتاب رو تا دگرگونی پاکیزه ای در سیستم تغذیه تون نرخ بده - بخونید این کتاب رو رفقا
*
توضیح: ترجمه ی آرش حسینیان بسیار پاکیزه و خواندنیه. کتاب رو ناشر در دو بخش چاپ کرده که بسیار خوبه. دو جلد جداگانه
1397/06/19
کتاب درباره ی یک تحقیق بزرگ درباره ی تغذیه و مقایسه اون بین جامعه ی آمریکای جهانخوار و یک جامعه ی آماری در بخش هایی از کشور چینِ دوست و برادر هست و نتایج این تحقیق اساس نوشتنِ این کتاب؛ چگونگی تغذیه. تغذیه هم که چین و آمریکا و مسلمون و مسیحی نداره. در کتاب(بنا بر تحقیق های 25 ساله در روستاهای چین) به حقایق ساده اما باورنکردنی یی برخورد می کنه خواننده که اگر پذیرای اونها باشه و واقع بینی داشته باشه جدن در سبک زندگیش تغییرات مهمی رخ میده. ارزش این تحقیقات هم در اونه که کاملن نتایجی خلافِ اون چیزی داره که حکومت ها و جامعه ی بزرگِ پزشکها و داروسازها و اساسن صنایع ازش دفاع می کنن
درباره پژوهش چین می شه برگهای زیادی مطلب نوشت و گزارش داد ولی حاصلی نداره چکیده گفتن از اون. باید این کتاب رو خوند و آموخت و به کار بست. خلاصه اینکه بخونید این کتاب رو تا دگرگونی پاکیزه ای در سیستم تغذیه تون نرخ بده - بخونید این کتاب رو رفقا
*
توضیح: ترجمه ی آرش حسینیان بسیار پاکیزه و خواندنیه. کتاب رو ناشر در دو بخش چاپ کرده که بسیار خوبه. دو جلد جداگانه
1397/06/19
January 29, 2009
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!
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!
December 30, 2008
This book is based on years of research, both in the real world and in labs. It is basically about the remarkable relationship between the foods we eat and cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and other illnesses. It is information that food companies, doctors, drug companies, etc. don't want you to know about.
On a related note, if you have not seen the documentary "Super Size Me" yet, I highly recommend you go rent it. The DVD also has bonus features. Go to the extra interviews and watch the interview with Eric Schlosser (author of "Fast Food Nation"). It is a little long but important.
On a related note, if you have not seen the documentary "Super Size Me" yet, I highly recommend you go rent it. The DVD also has bonus features. Go to the extra interviews and watch the interview with Eric Schlosser (author of "Fast Food Nation"). It is a little long but important.
July 24, 2021
The authors could be right about the benefits of a vegan diet, but "The China Study" is not strong evidence for their argument. Basically they state that poor, rural Chinese people have low levels of cancer and heart disease [no surprise there for a pre-industrialization population], then make this huge logic leap that the explanation is low animal protein intake.
How do they know it's not one of many other possible explanations? For instance, how do they know animal protein intake isn't just a marker for overall "Westernization"? They don't even try to sort this out. If you just read the Wikipedia page about epidemiology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemio...), you could design better research than "the China Study." In addition to the glaringly obvious failure to control for smoking, for example, there are many other problems with their methods.
-It's hard to believe, but from what I could understand, they pooled all the blood together from 50 people at a time (not the results-the actual blood!!!). From a medical lab testing standpoint, this is not kosher. It's not comparable with other research. Who does that? Would you do that? Please tell me if I'm wrong about this because it's painful to think about.
-The pooling of blood means their sample size is not 6,500 as advertised, but really 150 (6,500 divided by 50).
-They look at a very very big number of variables (367) relative to their sample size. This is a red flag for "data torture."
-They did not get detailed diet histories on all the people because they thought diet histories were not reliable. Uh, this is a diet study!
-They use (the bizarrely obtained) blood tests as surrogates for dietary intake, assuming that they can tell from a blood sample what a village's intake of various nutrients was. Again, who does this? If you're going to invent an unorthodox new way to measure something, you need first to show that it is as accurate as standard measures.
-They assume that diet has not changed in the villages in the 60 years since the childhood of the people being tested.
-They are not in fact comparing Chinese with American people, since they have no American people in the study.
-Within the Chinese people, according to their assumptions, few have a high-animal-protein diet, so it's hard for them to compare high/low levels of their main variable, yet that would be necessary for saying something about their hypothesis.
-I could go on...
The following book summarizes various nutrition studies that are more rigorous and informative.
Good Calories, Bad Calories: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control, and Disease
These books cover some basics of health research design.
How to Lie with Statistics Designing Clinical Research Clinical Epidemiology: The Essentials
How do they know it's not one of many other possible explanations? For instance, how do they know animal protein intake isn't just a marker for overall "Westernization"? They don't even try to sort this out. If you just read the Wikipedia page about epidemiology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemio...), you could design better research than "the China Study." In addition to the glaringly obvious failure to control for smoking, for example, there are many other problems with their methods.
-It's hard to believe, but from what I could understand, they pooled all the blood together from 50 people at a time (not the results-the actual blood!!!). From a medical lab testing standpoint, this is not kosher. It's not comparable with other research. Who does that? Would you do that? Please tell me if I'm wrong about this because it's painful to think about.
-The pooling of blood means their sample size is not 6,500 as advertised, but really 150 (6,500 divided by 50).
-They look at a very very big number of variables (367) relative to their sample size. This is a red flag for "data torture."
-They did not get detailed diet histories on all the people because they thought diet histories were not reliable. Uh, this is a diet study!
-They use (the bizarrely obtained) blood tests as surrogates for dietary intake, assuming that they can tell from a blood sample what a village's intake of various nutrients was. Again, who does this? If you're going to invent an unorthodox new way to measure something, you need first to show that it is as accurate as standard measures.
-They assume that diet has not changed in the villages in the 60 years since the childhood of the people being tested.
-They are not in fact comparing Chinese with American people, since they have no American people in the study.
-Within the Chinese people, according to their assumptions, few have a high-animal-protein diet, so it's hard for them to compare high/low levels of their main variable, yet that would be necessary for saying something about their hypothesis.
-I could go on...
The following book summarizes various nutrition studies that are more rigorous and informative.
Good Calories, Bad Calories: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control, and DiseaseThese books cover some basics of health research design.
How to Lie with Statistics Designing Clinical Research Clinical Epidemiology: The Essentials
July 21, 2008
Wow. I mean...wow. This book should be required reading for anyone who...well... eats (especially the average American). I just finished listening to the audio version, and I'm ready to go back to track 1 and give it second go. I'll probably get the print version at some point, for reference, but I'm SO thankful an audio recording exists, because – to be honest – I'd probably just skim through the printed book and not really get the full impact of what Dr. Campbell has to say. The basic premise is: eat a plant-based, whole foods diet (basically vegan) and enjoy a long, healthy, disease-free life. But that's not doing the book justice. Many of the studies cited are just mind-boggling. I found my mouth hanging agape on more than one occasion during the listen.
Throughout, I couldn’t help thinking of my family. My father, an organic farmer who also happens to be a very Midwestern meat ‘n potatoes guy, who survived a major heart attack in his 50s and regularly takes cholesterol-lowering medication. And my mother, a former RN who has been on disability for years due to crippling rheumatoid arthritis. My brother, a trained chef who eats organic and avoids artificial sweeteners, but can’t give up his meat. And his son, my little nephew, who at ten months of age has been transitioned to raw goat’s milk, because his mother (wisely) doesn’t trust anything made with cows milk for babies (though I’m not sure if goat’s milk is that much better). I kept imagining their reactions to this book, if I could get them to really take it in. Would it change them? Sad to say, I doubt it...at least in my parents’ case...their habits are too ingrained at this point, too much a part of their identities. That will likely be the case for most meat-eaters, if they could even be persuaded to give this book a shot. But I applaud T. Colin Campbell for putting this information out there, for those of us who will read it and take it to heart. Even as a long-time vegetarian, my diet is certainly going to take some adjusting, and I look forward to one day being happier and healthier as a result.
For a free excerpt and more information, visit www.thechinastudy.com.
Throughout, I couldn’t help thinking of my family. My father, an organic farmer who also happens to be a very Midwestern meat ‘n potatoes guy, who survived a major heart attack in his 50s and regularly takes cholesterol-lowering medication. And my mother, a former RN who has been on disability for years due to crippling rheumatoid arthritis. My brother, a trained chef who eats organic and avoids artificial sweeteners, but can’t give up his meat. And his son, my little nephew, who at ten months of age has been transitioned to raw goat’s milk, because his mother (wisely) doesn’t trust anything made with cows milk for babies (though I’m not sure if goat’s milk is that much better). I kept imagining their reactions to this book, if I could get them to really take it in. Would it change them? Sad to say, I doubt it...at least in my parents’ case...their habits are too ingrained at this point, too much a part of their identities. That will likely be the case for most meat-eaters, if they could even be persuaded to give this book a shot. But I applaud T. Colin Campbell for putting this information out there, for those of us who will read it and take it to heart. Even as a long-time vegetarian, my diet is certainly going to take some adjusting, and I look forward to one day being happier and healthier as a result.
For a free excerpt and more information, visit www.thechinastudy.com.
October 5, 2009
I have to say that I was not in the mood to read this book. In fact, I’d decided I wasn’t interested in reading it at all. When it first was published I’d heard good things about it so I bought it, but then heard some negative things and put it aside. However, my real world book club decided to read it as our October selection so I read it, but I was not enthusiastic.
I was a bit irritable reading this as I felt as though I should be taking notes and memorizing material as I would while reading a textbook for a class, and I longed to be reading fiction instead. However, the book was better overall than I’d anticipated.
First the bad:
I was warned that this was not a “vegan” book but the authors completely lost me when on page 242 fish is in the category to minimize consumption, not eliminate it, after spending the rest of the book advocating eating 100% plant products. Well, fish are animals, not plants. the authors claim that for losing weight or maintaining an ideal weight calories don’t count so much if one is eating a whole foods plants only diet, and I know this to not be true.
Also, reading this made me anxious. I haven’t taken that great care of myself for the last 5 ½ years, ever since I suffered knee injuries from running too much. Perhaps had I read this 5 ½ years ago, I’d have felt empowered rather than frightened. This is not the book’s fault of course, but it did diminish my ability to enjoy the reading experience.
Now the good:
I liked how he talked about his life and work; it kept the book from being too dry.
There’s a lot of excellent nutritional information included, including the dangers of consuming animal protein (worth at least a star all by itself) and other lesser known nutritional knowledge. Also, there’s important information about the lack of nutritional education for medical professionals, the power of the food industry to keep Americans eating unhealthy foods, and other cogent arguments for recommending a 100% plant based diet. A lot of diseases and conditions are covered, with nutritional reasons for their occurrence and nutritional solutions for their improvement or cure.
Not much of the information was new to me. The two areas that gave me something to think about were what was said about the role of genetics (less than I’ve always assumed) and information about supplements (I have to rethink what supplements I take, which will involve some more research on my part.)
The research he’s conducted and evaluated was more sound than I expected, for which I was grateful.
What a shame that immigrants to America so often give up their healthier national diet for America’s often inferior fare, which is something I’ve often thought.
Most importantly, this book has gotten some people to become vegan or adopt a diet with many more plant products and fewer animal products, so I can’t really criticize it too strongly. So, I do hope that many people read this book. If everyone self educates with the information this book provides, at least they can make a truly informed consent about how they choose to eat.
Oh, and I usually read books cover to cover but I did not read the References on pages 369-404.
I was a bit irritable reading this as I felt as though I should be taking notes and memorizing material as I would while reading a textbook for a class, and I longed to be reading fiction instead. However, the book was better overall than I’d anticipated.
First the bad:
I was warned that this was not a “vegan” book but the authors completely lost me when on page 242 fish is in the category to minimize consumption, not eliminate it, after spending the rest of the book advocating eating 100% plant products. Well, fish are animals, not plants. the authors claim that for losing weight or maintaining an ideal weight calories don’t count so much if one is eating a whole foods plants only diet, and I know this to not be true.
Also, reading this made me anxious. I haven’t taken that great care of myself for the last 5 ½ years, ever since I suffered knee injuries from running too much. Perhaps had I read this 5 ½ years ago, I’d have felt empowered rather than frightened. This is not the book’s fault of course, but it did diminish my ability to enjoy the reading experience.
Now the good:
I liked how he talked about his life and work; it kept the book from being too dry.
There’s a lot of excellent nutritional information included, including the dangers of consuming animal protein (worth at least a star all by itself) and other lesser known nutritional knowledge. Also, there’s important information about the lack of nutritional education for medical professionals, the power of the food industry to keep Americans eating unhealthy foods, and other cogent arguments for recommending a 100% plant based diet. A lot of diseases and conditions are covered, with nutritional reasons for their occurrence and nutritional solutions for their improvement or cure.
Not much of the information was new to me. The two areas that gave me something to think about were what was said about the role of genetics (less than I’ve always assumed) and information about supplements (I have to rethink what supplements I take, which will involve some more research on my part.)
The research he’s conducted and evaluated was more sound than I expected, for which I was grateful.
What a shame that immigrants to America so often give up their healthier national diet for America’s often inferior fare, which is something I’ve often thought.
Most importantly, this book has gotten some people to become vegan or adopt a diet with many more plant products and fewer animal products, so I can’t really criticize it too strongly. So, I do hope that many people read this book. If everyone self educates with the information this book provides, at least they can make a truly informed consent about how they choose to eat.
Oh, and I usually read books cover to cover but I did not read the References on pages 369-404.
Read
September 30, 2012see bottom for update
For openers, I'm biased because I already believe that for me to be a vegetarian is better for the animal, better for you, and better for me. So I find myself wanting to believe this book. I also found a possible conflict of interest: the author is on the advisory board of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group that reportedly gets funding from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. And the book advocates a diet that avoids animal products.
Having said that, I think Campbell's main message is probably right, which is that a plant-based, whole foods diet is the most healthful and that animal foods are harmful. Some results that he cites are remarkable -- like patients with type 2 diabetes going on a more plant-based diet and then no longer needing insulin treatments. He also makes the case that animal protein is simply bad for long-term health, which is why he discourages consuming dairy products. The end chapters about the behind-the-scenes workings of the health and food industries are interesting, too. I recommend the book, but even more strongly recommend trying vegetarianism or veganism to just see for yourself. You can always go back to eating meat.
Update (September 2012) A well-cited critique of this book, excerpt below, can be found here: http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/...
The China Study contains many excellent points in its criticism of the health care system, the overemphasis on reductionism in nutritional research, the influence of industry on research, and the necessity of obtaining nutrients from foods. But its bias against animal products and in favor of veganism is a preexisting bias that results in a mainstream book intended—first and foremost—to convert. It displays hallmarks of bad science used in the same fashion by the very industries it criticizes.
For openers, I'm biased because I already believe that for me to be a vegetarian is better for the animal, better for you, and better for me. So I find myself wanting to believe this book. I also found a possible conflict of interest: the author is on the advisory board of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group that reportedly gets funding from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. And the book advocates a diet that avoids animal products.
Having said that, I think Campbell's main message is probably right, which is that a plant-based, whole foods diet is the most healthful and that animal foods are harmful. Some results that he cites are remarkable -- like patients with type 2 diabetes going on a more plant-based diet and then no longer needing insulin treatments. He also makes the case that animal protein is simply bad for long-term health, which is why he discourages consuming dairy products. The end chapters about the behind-the-scenes workings of the health and food industries are interesting, too. I recommend the book, but even more strongly recommend trying vegetarianism or veganism to just see for yourself. You can always go back to eating meat.
Update (September 2012) A well-cited critique of this book, excerpt below, can be found here: http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/...
The China Study contains many excellent points in its criticism of the health care system, the overemphasis on reductionism in nutritional research, the influence of industry on research, and the necessity of obtaining nutrients from foods. But its bias against animal products and in favor of veganism is a preexisting bias that results in a mainstream book intended—first and foremost—to convert. It displays hallmarks of bad science used in the same fashion by the very industries it criticizes.
July 28, 2008
An interesting read. Comparing how what we eat affects our health. Brad and I mostly skimmed it. I think the author makes alot of assumptions. He is trying to convince us to be vegans, but cannot prove that NO animal products is the better that 10% animal products. What it did was make us go back to the word of wisdom and compare. I hadn't realized how little meat we should eat..."Flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air...to be used sparingly; And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine." (sec. 89 vs. 12-13) So after reading the Word of wisdom again Brad and I have decided to cut our meat consumption down to once a week and eat more whole grain and vegetables and fruits. The kids aren't very excited but they will get used to it!
I give it 3 stars for helping us realize what we should be doing! Save yourself the time and just read section 89. unless you would like to read about his studies and how the government nutrition boards are in the pocket of the meat industry.
I give it 3 stars for helping us realize what we should be doing! Save yourself the time and just read section 89. unless you would like to read about his studies and how the government nutrition boards are in the pocket of the meat industry.
July 28, 2018
Very interesting study. We all know at this point already that
Eating fresh and organic veggies and fruits, and unprocessed food,
Staying away from sugar and
Minimizing animal products
are the best you can do for your diet.
Eating fresh and organic veggies and fruits, and unprocessed food,
Staying away from sugar and
Minimizing animal products
are the best you can do for your diet.
March 1, 2020
Disclaimer: This high rating reflects my naive impressions back in 2016. I would probably give it 1-2 stars on a second reading.
Rachel's review
..................................................
I have very mixed feelings about this one!
Is animal protrein the culprit behind the scenes? Does it cause cancer, heart disease, hypertention, diabetes and autoimmune diseases? It sounds like a very far fetched idea, but the correlations are overwhelming!!
The first part of the book is more about animal experimentation and how even after administring aflatoxin "a carcinogen found in rotten nuts" lowering animal protein intake from 20% to 5% effectively decreased the promotion of cancer in these animals. It places emphasis on the fact that it's protein, not saturated fat nor cholesterol as isolated elements.
Then it moves on to the China Study and how it was conducted. Frankly, this part was a great disappointment. I was all psyched up to read the details about this amazing, extremely comprehensive study "as the title obviously says", instead I got very little information; correlations showing that the inhabitants of rural China who consumed less animal protein and more plant based foods had lower rates of cancer and other diseases of "affluence" that plague the west. Correlations are undoubtedly important, however, I wanted to come across something I didn't already know. It was stated earlier that animal protein can stimulate cancer promotion, but why? What happens on the cellular level? What are the mechanisms? Perhaps they're still unclear, however, correlation -no matter how strong they might be- do not equal causation!
Bearing in mind that cancer is a multi-factorial disease, it is very hard to conclude that diet can reverse -or even inhibit- such a complicated process, unless we know exactly how it happens. Same thing could be said for autoimmune diseases.
Nonetheless, this book contained some valuable information, such as:
Consuming diets high in protein and fat transfers calories away from their conversion into body heat to their storage form -as body fat (unless severe calorie restriction is causing weight loss). In contrast, diets low in protein and fat cause calories to be "lost" as body heat. In research, we say that storing more calories as fat and losing less as heat means being more efficient. I bet that you would rather be a little more inefficient and convert it into body heat rather than body fat, right?
Well, simply consuming a diet lower in fat and protein can do this.
--------
Plant-based foods are linked to lower blood cholesterol; animal-based foods are linked to higher blood cholesterol. Animal-based foods are linked to higher breast cancer rates; plant-based foods are linked to lower rates. Fiber and antioxidants from plants are linked to a lower risk of cancers of the digestive tract. Plant-based diets and active lifestyles result in a healthy weight, yet permit people to become big and strong.
-----------
Now we can combine some really interesting observations on body weight. A plant-based diet operates on calorie balance to keep body weight under control in two ways. First, it discharges calories as body heat instead of storing them as body fat, and it doesn't take many calories to make a big difference over the course of a year. Second, a plant-based diet encourages more physical activity. And, as body weight goes
down, it becomes easier to be physically active. Diet and exercise work together to decrease body weight and improve overall health.
-----------------
Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-l), is turning out to be a predictor of cancer just as cholesterol is a predictor for heart disease.
Under normal conditions, this hormone efficiently manages the rates at which cells "grow"-that is, how they reproduce themselves and how they discard old cells, all in the name of good health.
Under unhealthy conditions, however, IGF-l becomes more active, increasing the birth and growth of new cells while simultaneously inhibiting the removal of old cells, both of which favor the development of cancer. So what does this have to do with the food we eat? It turns out that consuming animal-based foods increases the blood levels of this growth hormone.
There's more: when men also have low blood levels of a protein that binds and inactivates IGF-I, they will have 9.5 times the risk of advanced-stage prostate cancer, let's put a few stars by these numbers. They are big and impressive-and fundamental to this finding is the fact that we make more IGF-I when we consume animal based foods like meat and dairy.
The second mechanism relates to vitamin D metabolism. This "vitamin" is not a nutrient that we need to consume. Our body can make all that we need simply by being in sunlight fifteen to thirty minutes every couple of days. In addition to the production of vitamin D being afffected by sunlight, it is also affected by the food that we eat. The formation of the most active form of vitamin D is a process that is closely monitored and controlled by our bodies.
This active or "supercharged" D produces many benefits throughout the body, including the prevention of cancer, autoimmune diseases and diseases like osteoporosis.
Animal protein that we consume has the tendency to block the production of supercharged D, leaving the body with low levels of this vitamin D in the blood. If these low levels persist, prostate cancer can result. Also, persistently high intakes of calcium create an environment where supercharged D declines, thus adding to the problem.
-----------
In the last third or so it moves to the relationship between science, industry and government. I was shocked at the fact that personal profit plays a huge role in withholding scientific information from the public. Dairy, meat and fast food industries don't want people to switch to a plant-based diet since that will damage their business. So they will do whatever they can to discredit, prevent or refute any scientific research advocating such a diet. Drug companies will use reductionism, that is, isolating certain nutrients as beneficial for health, and start promoting supplements to gain money. Doctors care more about their ego and old maps of thinking instead of trying to accept valid discoveries about nutrition and disease, they will go to great lengths to avoid prescribing such an economically efficient, health-friendly diet to their patients, and to even greater lengths to prove that drugs and surgery are the answer to health problems, despite the accumulating evidence that this is not the case.
It turns out that the link between diet and disease has been established a very long time ago. In a conversation between Socrates and Glaucon written by Plato, Plato clearly states that "we shall eat animals only at our own peril. Though it is indeed remarkable that one of the greatest intellectuals in the history of the Western world condemned meat eating almost 2,500 years ago, I find it even more remarkable that few know about this history. Hardly anybody knows, for example, that the father of Western medicine, Hippocrates, advocated diet as the chief way to prevent and treat disease or that George Macilwain knew that diet was the way to prevent and treat disease or that the man instrumental in founding the American Cancer Society, Frederick L. Hoffman, knew that diet was the way to prevent and treat disease.
How did Plato predict the future so accurately? He knew that consuming animal foods would not lead to true health and prosperity. Instead, the false sense of rich luxury granted by being able to eat animals would only lead to a culture of sickness, disease, land disputes, lawyers
and doctors. This is a pretty good description of some of the challenges faced by modern America"
All in all, although this book wasn't really about the China Study, it provided good insights on the effect of animal protein on various diseases. It also proved that not all medical/industrial figures operate with our best interests at heart, so one should be wary of statements in favour of dairy and meat. Until conclusive evidence is found on the merits of animal protein -which I doubt will happen- I'm going to remain a vegetarian consuming mostly raw plants, and hope for the best.
A final quote from The China Study:
"I believe the world is finally ready to change. We have reached a point in our history where our bad habits can no longer be tolerated. We, as a society, are on the edge of a great precipice: we can fall to sickness, poverty and degradation, or we
can embrace health, longevity and bounty. And all it takes is the courage to change. How will our grandchildren find themselves in 100 years?
Only time will tell, but I hope that the history we are witnessing and the future that lies ahead will be to the benefit of us all."
Rachel's review
..................................................
I have very mixed feelings about this one!
Is animal protrein the culprit behind the scenes? Does it cause cancer, heart disease, hypertention, diabetes and autoimmune diseases? It sounds like a very far fetched idea, but the correlations are overwhelming!!
The first part of the book is more about animal experimentation and how even after administring aflatoxin "a carcinogen found in rotten nuts" lowering animal protein intake from 20% to 5% effectively decreased the promotion of cancer in these animals. It places emphasis on the fact that it's protein, not saturated fat nor cholesterol as isolated elements.
Then it moves on to the China Study and how it was conducted. Frankly, this part was a great disappointment. I was all psyched up to read the details about this amazing, extremely comprehensive study "as the title obviously says", instead I got very little information; correlations showing that the inhabitants of rural China who consumed less animal protein and more plant based foods had lower rates of cancer and other diseases of "affluence" that plague the west. Correlations are undoubtedly important, however, I wanted to come across something I didn't already know. It was stated earlier that animal protein can stimulate cancer promotion, but why? What happens on the cellular level? What are the mechanisms? Perhaps they're still unclear, however, correlation -no matter how strong they might be- do not equal causation!
Bearing in mind that cancer is a multi-factorial disease, it is very hard to conclude that diet can reverse -or even inhibit- such a complicated process, unless we know exactly how it happens. Same thing could be said for autoimmune diseases.
Nonetheless, this book contained some valuable information, such as:
Consuming diets high in protein and fat transfers calories away from their conversion into body heat to their storage form -as body fat (unless severe calorie restriction is causing weight loss). In contrast, diets low in protein and fat cause calories to be "lost" as body heat. In research, we say that storing more calories as fat and losing less as heat means being more efficient. I bet that you would rather be a little more inefficient and convert it into body heat rather than body fat, right?
Well, simply consuming a diet lower in fat and protein can do this.
--------
Plant-based foods are linked to lower blood cholesterol; animal-based foods are linked to higher blood cholesterol. Animal-based foods are linked to higher breast cancer rates; plant-based foods are linked to lower rates. Fiber and antioxidants from plants are linked to a lower risk of cancers of the digestive tract. Plant-based diets and active lifestyles result in a healthy weight, yet permit people to become big and strong.
-----------
Now we can combine some really interesting observations on body weight. A plant-based diet operates on calorie balance to keep body weight under control in two ways. First, it discharges calories as body heat instead of storing them as body fat, and it doesn't take many calories to make a big difference over the course of a year. Second, a plant-based diet encourages more physical activity. And, as body weight goes
down, it becomes easier to be physically active. Diet and exercise work together to decrease body weight and improve overall health.
-----------------
Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-l), is turning out to be a predictor of cancer just as cholesterol is a predictor for heart disease.
Under normal conditions, this hormone efficiently manages the rates at which cells "grow"-that is, how they reproduce themselves and how they discard old cells, all in the name of good health.
Under unhealthy conditions, however, IGF-l becomes more active, increasing the birth and growth of new cells while simultaneously inhibiting the removal of old cells, both of which favor the development of cancer. So what does this have to do with the food we eat? It turns out that consuming animal-based foods increases the blood levels of this growth hormone.
There's more: when men also have low blood levels of a protein that binds and inactivates IGF-I, they will have 9.5 times the risk of advanced-stage prostate cancer, let's put a few stars by these numbers. They are big and impressive-and fundamental to this finding is the fact that we make more IGF-I when we consume animal based foods like meat and dairy.
The second mechanism relates to vitamin D metabolism. This "vitamin" is not a nutrient that we need to consume. Our body can make all that we need simply by being in sunlight fifteen to thirty minutes every couple of days. In addition to the production of vitamin D being afffected by sunlight, it is also affected by the food that we eat. The formation of the most active form of vitamin D is a process that is closely monitored and controlled by our bodies.
This active or "supercharged" D produces many benefits throughout the body, including the prevention of cancer, autoimmune diseases and diseases like osteoporosis.
Animal protein that we consume has the tendency to block the production of supercharged D, leaving the body with low levels of this vitamin D in the blood. If these low levels persist, prostate cancer can result. Also, persistently high intakes of calcium create an environment where supercharged D declines, thus adding to the problem.
-----------
In the last third or so it moves to the relationship between science, industry and government. I was shocked at the fact that personal profit plays a huge role in withholding scientific information from the public. Dairy, meat and fast food industries don't want people to switch to a plant-based diet since that will damage their business. So they will do whatever they can to discredit, prevent or refute any scientific research advocating such a diet. Drug companies will use reductionism, that is, isolating certain nutrients as beneficial for health, and start promoting supplements to gain money. Doctors care more about their ego and old maps of thinking instead of trying to accept valid discoveries about nutrition and disease, they will go to great lengths to avoid prescribing such an economically efficient, health-friendly diet to their patients, and to even greater lengths to prove that drugs and surgery are the answer to health problems, despite the accumulating evidence that this is not the case.
It turns out that the link between diet and disease has been established a very long time ago. In a conversation between Socrates and Glaucon written by Plato, Plato clearly states that "we shall eat animals only at our own peril. Though it is indeed remarkable that one of the greatest intellectuals in the history of the Western world condemned meat eating almost 2,500 years ago, I find it even more remarkable that few know about this history. Hardly anybody knows, for example, that the father of Western medicine, Hippocrates, advocated diet as the chief way to prevent and treat disease or that George Macilwain knew that diet was the way to prevent and treat disease or that the man instrumental in founding the American Cancer Society, Frederick L. Hoffman, knew that diet was the way to prevent and treat disease.
How did Plato predict the future so accurately? He knew that consuming animal foods would not lead to true health and prosperity. Instead, the false sense of rich luxury granted by being able to eat animals would only lead to a culture of sickness, disease, land disputes, lawyers
and doctors. This is a pretty good description of some of the challenges faced by modern America"
All in all, although this book wasn't really about the China Study, it provided good insights on the effect of animal protein on various diseases. It also proved that not all medical/industrial figures operate with our best interests at heart, so one should be wary of statements in favour of dairy and meat. Until conclusive evidence is found on the merits of animal protein -which I doubt will happen- I'm going to remain a vegetarian consuming mostly raw plants, and hope for the best.
A final quote from The China Study:
"I believe the world is finally ready to change. We have reached a point in our history where our bad habits can no longer be tolerated. We, as a society, are on the edge of a great precipice: we can fall to sickness, poverty and degradation, or we
can embrace health, longevity and bounty. And all it takes is the courage to change. How will our grandchildren find themselves in 100 years?
Only time will tell, but I hope that the history we are witnessing and the future that lies ahead will be to the benefit of us all."
Read
April 6, 2010I 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.
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.
July 27, 2017
The China Study is maybe one of the most important science books of the twenty-first century. Challenging the current scientific paradigm, biochemist T. Colin Campbell, through his decades of nutritional study, presents the reader with a plethora of information that can prevent and reverse the chronic diseases that plague the West. It's all down to what you eat.
March 18, 2012
Several prior reviews give excellent and extensive critiques of the methods and assumptions made in this book. I won't reiterate them, I'll just add my own thoughts.
Dr. Campbell doesn't recommend fanatical adherence to a vegan lifestyle. While he does suggest that it's easier to eat 0% animal protein than it is to eat 5%, he also suggests relaxing about incidental animal products that may be found hiding in food (meat soup stocks and egg in baked goods, e.g.). This is not in keeping with PETA's rigid stance. He also (very briefly) defends the animal experimentation that led him to pursue a lifetime of dietary inquiry; also not PETA party line. His recommendation is to relax, but not to plan for meaty meals.
Others have mentioned that he makes the leap from very low animal protein to zero, and I agree this is a valid criticism. Campbell does address this, and admits there is no zero-animal data for his claim. However, even forward-thinking doctors do not usually believe that their patients will follow a meatless diet, and so may not prescribe one. A low-meat diet may be considered as radical as is practical. I'd love to see a prospective study of vegans; what a coup that would be.
He does not discuss fish, yea or nay. A personal story he includes from a friend involves the incidental consumption of fish paste in some foods he enjoyed while improving his health. I would have preferred more discussion of fish. His studies mainly implicate dairy.
All in all, the book is powerful enough to have sent me back to a nearly-vegan lifestyle. I'm not giving up the fish oil yet. In the past, I found eating fish to be a slippery slope, food-with-a-face-wise, but I feel like fish oil's place in my diet is important. I'll stay open.
Dr. Campbell doesn't recommend fanatical adherence to a vegan lifestyle. While he does suggest that it's easier to eat 0% animal protein than it is to eat 5%, he also suggests relaxing about incidental animal products that may be found hiding in food (meat soup stocks and egg in baked goods, e.g.). This is not in keeping with PETA's rigid stance. He also (very briefly) defends the animal experimentation that led him to pursue a lifetime of dietary inquiry; also not PETA party line. His recommendation is to relax, but not to plan for meaty meals.
Others have mentioned that he makes the leap from very low animal protein to zero, and I agree this is a valid criticism. Campbell does address this, and admits there is no zero-animal data for his claim. However, even forward-thinking doctors do not usually believe that their patients will follow a meatless diet, and so may not prescribe one. A low-meat diet may be considered as radical as is practical. I'd love to see a prospective study of vegans; what a coup that would be.
He does not discuss fish, yea or nay. A personal story he includes from a friend involves the incidental consumption of fish paste in some foods he enjoyed while improving his health. I would have preferred more discussion of fish. His studies mainly implicate dairy.
All in all, the book is powerful enough to have sent me back to a nearly-vegan lifestyle. I'm not giving up the fish oil yet. In the past, I found eating fish to be a slippery slope, food-with-a-face-wise, but I feel like fish oil's place in my diet is important. I'll stay open.
August 24, 2019
This is the science supporting a Whole Foods Plant-Based Diet. It is compelling and filled with study after study on how diet dramatically affects one’s likelihood of getting cancer, suffering heart disease, developing diabetes and contracting many more chronic illnesses associated with a Western diet.
Of note, the Campbells are not fans of vitamin supplements as they are “never the same as eating the whole food, which provides the natural network of health-supporting nutrients”. Further, they recommend eating a panoply of fruits and vegetables—the greater the variety, the better.
Dr. Campbell is not afraid of challenging agribusiness with its powerful clout in Government and business. In fact, he is a bit of a curmudgeon concerning the marketing of meat and dairy, and the tendency of the media to promote a specific ingredient or food component (eg., Lycopene, olive oil) as being the means to combat disease. These rants comprise the last third of the book.
Regardless, this is an inspiring book to move to a low-fat Whole Food Plant-Based diet. Recommend.
Of note, the Campbells are not fans of vitamin supplements as they are “never the same as eating the whole food, which provides the natural network of health-supporting nutrients”. Further, they recommend eating a panoply of fruits and vegetables—the greater the variety, the better.
Dr. Campbell is not afraid of challenging agribusiness with its powerful clout in Government and business. In fact, he is a bit of a curmudgeon concerning the marketing of meat and dairy, and the tendency of the media to promote a specific ingredient or food component (eg., Lycopene, olive oil) as being the means to combat disease. These rants comprise the last third of the book.
Regardless, this is an inspiring book to move to a low-fat Whole Food Plant-Based diet. Recommend.
March 1, 2020
I borrowed this from the library back in 2018ish. Only got to read about 40% of it before I had to return it.
It thought it was very well written. I enjoyed all of the research articles, and could easily understand the conclusions the authors were trying to make. This book does have an agenda, and a certain point of view. What I'm trying to get at is there is a bias, so take it with a grain of salt.
It thought it was very well written. I enjoyed all of the research articles, and could easily understand the conclusions the authors were trying to make. This book does have an agenda, and a certain point of view. What I'm trying to get at is there is a bias, so take it with a grain of salt.
March 27, 2021
3.5 stars.
Let’s say now first (in case you don’t want to read the whole review), that this is in my opinion a good book, but more of a companion-book to read after Dr Greger’s “How Not To Die” – a good book confirming from its own angle what that other book says better. The rest of why I put in the reasons-whys below.
My book is the revised and expanded edition, which brings the study more up-to-date and adds interesting stuff. The argument of the book is that the ‘whole food, plants-based’ (WFPB) diet is the answer to better, healthier life, and that it can prevent, reverse, or make an illness less severe, and keep us energized and moving long into the old age. If you’re just looking for what this diet includes, go to Chapter 12, or get the China Study Solution book for more expanded vision of the diet.
The book is divided into four parts, plus three appendixes. The first part introduces the subject, talks about protein, cancer, and the China Study itself; as with part four, we become familiar also with our authors’ work (especially the older one of these two). The second part talks about the diseases of affluence, and the third part (also the thinnest) talks about the WFPB diet. Finally there is the fourth part that talks about why we rarely (or not at all) hear about the benefits of this diet (or ones very similar); this part shows the most the books US-centeredness, so what the situation is in other countries may not be as severe, or can be different at least a bit.
Reasons why 3.5 not 3
- we get another angle on why choosing to eliminate animal proteins from our life is good, and are shown new (or newish-to-us) studies we might have not known of
- reading about the older author’s experiences in both studying things and his frustrations in battling hiding and opposition is a good idea to include (of course)
- the WFPB diet is easy to make vegan, and there’s freedom to make it look like yours
- it shows that our genes determine our fate only 2-3%: our diet can dictate how active these genes can become
- I learned new things (that dairy can make the beginning of menstruation earlier, and menopause later, how harmful low-carb diets really can be – thank goodness I could never imagine myself giving them up + I found the ‘Grain Brain’ and ‘Wheat Belly’ books rubbish anyway – how early the reasons for heart problems were found (early 20th c.!!), milk triggering Type 1 diabetes and reducing vitamin D activation in the body, and that in China watermelon is a herb!).
Reasons why 3.5 not 4
- the WFPB diet is essentially dairy-and-egg-free *pescatarian* diet that doesn’t mind the accidental (unknowing) or rare use of animal protein, as long as it’s ‘healthy-oil fish’. Yes, vegan and vegetarian diets can be unhealthy (I can admit that in the latter there’s the egg and dairy, so mostly right in that), but so? It’s still ‘can be’. I feel that here is some unconscious leftovers of the old pre-WFPB diet beliefs still swimming in the subconsciousness…
- and the diet guide is too short and leaving-details-to-you-ish (no I’m not getting the Solution book, have no need cos I have others already)
= and this is why I consider Dr Greger’s “How Not To Die” better – it gives no inch to any loose rules (but really this is just my opinion)
- the fourth part of the book is thankfully after the diet introduction part because uhhh… it’s very.long. and quite US-centric, and I don’t feel so much needing to know the details of the hiding and opposition of nutrition things, now that I’m convinced already. I did read this part too, but over a much longer period of time than the pages before it.
So, is this book worth it? Yes, but more as a companion confirming things than just on its own, at least in these days. Worth reading for the China Study part, and most of the book is not a hard work to read (at least until part four, in my case). The revised-and-expanded version is worth buying over the not-so, I would say. Meaning that this is not necessarily necessary, but after some others, including that one I mention about, it is still worth reading for confirmation on things even with the existing flaws.
Let’s say now first (in case you don’t want to read the whole review), that this is in my opinion a good book, but more of a companion-book to read after Dr Greger’s “How Not To Die” – a good book confirming from its own angle what that other book says better. The rest of why I put in the reasons-whys below.
My book is the revised and expanded edition, which brings the study more up-to-date and adds interesting stuff. The argument of the book is that the ‘whole food, plants-based’ (WFPB) diet is the answer to better, healthier life, and that it can prevent, reverse, or make an illness less severe, and keep us energized and moving long into the old age. If you’re just looking for what this diet includes, go to Chapter 12, or get the China Study Solution book for more expanded vision of the diet.
The book is divided into four parts, plus three appendixes. The first part introduces the subject, talks about protein, cancer, and the China Study itself; as with part four, we become familiar also with our authors’ work (especially the older one of these two). The second part talks about the diseases of affluence, and the third part (also the thinnest) talks about the WFPB diet. Finally there is the fourth part that talks about why we rarely (or not at all) hear about the benefits of this diet (or ones very similar); this part shows the most the books US-centeredness, so what the situation is in other countries may not be as severe, or can be different at least a bit.
Reasons why 3.5 not 3
- we get another angle on why choosing to eliminate animal proteins from our life is good, and are shown new (or newish-to-us) studies we might have not known of
- reading about the older author’s experiences in both studying things and his frustrations in battling hiding and opposition is a good idea to include (of course)
- the WFPB diet is easy to make vegan, and there’s freedom to make it look like yours
- it shows that our genes determine our fate only 2-3%: our diet can dictate how active these genes can become
- I learned new things (that dairy can make the beginning of menstruation earlier, and menopause later, how harmful low-carb diets really can be – thank goodness I could never imagine myself giving them up + I found the ‘Grain Brain’ and ‘Wheat Belly’ books rubbish anyway – how early the reasons for heart problems were found (early 20th c.!!), milk triggering Type 1 diabetes and reducing vitamin D activation in the body, and that in China watermelon is a herb!).
Reasons why 3.5 not 4
- the WFPB diet is essentially dairy-and-egg-free *pescatarian* diet that doesn’t mind the accidental (unknowing) or rare use of animal protein, as long as it’s ‘healthy-oil fish’. Yes, vegan and vegetarian diets can be unhealthy (I can admit that in the latter there’s the egg and dairy, so mostly right in that), but so? It’s still ‘can be’. I feel that here is some unconscious leftovers of the old pre-WFPB diet beliefs still swimming in the subconsciousness…
- and the diet guide is too short and leaving-details-to-you-ish (no I’m not getting the Solution book, have no need cos I have others already)
= and this is why I consider Dr Greger’s “How Not To Die” better – it gives no inch to any loose rules (but really this is just my opinion)
- the fourth part of the book is thankfully after the diet introduction part because uhhh… it’s very.long. and quite US-centric, and I don’t feel so much needing to know the details of the hiding and opposition of nutrition things, now that I’m convinced already. I did read this part too, but over a much longer period of time than the pages before it.
So, is this book worth it? Yes, but more as a companion confirming things than just on its own, at least in these days. Worth reading for the China Study part, and most of the book is not a hard work to read (at least until part four, in my case). The revised-and-expanded version is worth buying over the not-so, I would say. Meaning that this is not necessarily necessary, but after some others, including that one I mention about, it is still worth reading for confirmation on things even with the existing flaws.
April 29, 2012
This is a must-read for every American. You will love and hate reading this book at the same time, because once you are presented with the facts about how our Western diet is killing us, you will never be the same. This book provoked me to read more and more about it, and after all the reading I've done on the benefits of a plant based diet, my shopping list to the grocery store is forever changed.
I've always tried to eat from a spiritual point of view, I figure we are only supposed to eat the things that the Earth provides for us, and I included animals in the picture, but only sparingly. I was under the assumption, like most Americans, that you need animals for protein. I've had my eyes opened though, and now know that we don't need animal protein at all, and the high quantities of it in our diet is actually what is making us fat and killing us! The fact that we all buy into the belief that we get protein from meat is all a result of a brilliant marketing plan by the meat industry, very well done on their part. I personally had no idea that you get much more, and much better protein from plants.
I am so grateful for this book, although as I was reading it, I knew my life was changing. Before reading this book, I had toyed with the idea of trying a vegan/vegetarian diet, and now this book was the tipping point for me. I really have enjoyed searching out new recipes featuring veggies as the spotlight instead of the afterthought on the plate. Who knew they were so good!! Another book I'd recommend is "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan.
I've always tried to eat from a spiritual point of view, I figure we are only supposed to eat the things that the Earth provides for us, and I included animals in the picture, but only sparingly. I was under the assumption, like most Americans, that you need animals for protein. I've had my eyes opened though, and now know that we don't need animal protein at all, and the high quantities of it in our diet is actually what is making us fat and killing us! The fact that we all buy into the belief that we get protein from meat is all a result of a brilliant marketing plan by the meat industry, very well done on their part. I personally had no idea that you get much more, and much better protein from plants.
I am so grateful for this book, although as I was reading it, I knew my life was changing. Before reading this book, I had toyed with the idea of trying a vegan/vegetarian diet, and now this book was the tipping point for me. I really have enjoyed searching out new recipes featuring veggies as the spotlight instead of the afterthought on the plate. Who knew they were so good!! Another book I'd recommend is "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan.
January 26, 2008
This book changed my life, literally. The writing is a bit scholarly at times, but worth working your way through for the information.
Previous reviews give enough info, so I won't duplicate.
I strongly suggest Eat to Live by Joel Fuhrman, M.D. as the ideal companion to The China Study. Fuhrman clears up anything that might have been confusing in The China Study, and explains the best way to choose your foods for nutrient density.
Previous reviews give enough info, so I won't duplicate.
I strongly suggest Eat to Live by Joel Fuhrman, M.D. as the ideal companion to The China Study. Fuhrman clears up anything that might have been confusing in The China Study, and explains the best way to choose your foods for nutrient density.
September 26, 2011
Eat to Live (by Joel Fuhrman) mentioned this book/study more than a few times so I checked it out. Wow. We have changed a lot of things in our diet because of this book. Not only do meat and milk have a lot of calories but they are loaded with cholesterol and cancer feeding properties. So glad I read this. I can't say enough about this book. It basically backs up the diet that Daniel in the OT ate and is right in line with the Word of Wisdom--lots of fruits, vegetables, grain and legumes and little (if any) meat. The show "Forks Over Knives" is an abbreviated version of The Cancer Study. We watched it on netflix then had our kids watch it. Our teenage sons quit whining about going to a mostly vegetarian diet once they saw this and I noticed that when we had potatoes one of them chose butter buds over butter to put on his. When I started cutting meat and dairy from my diet four months ago it was to lose weight but I didn't think much about how it would help my heart, circulatory system, mind, eyes, etc. Now (after losing 21 lbs) I feel very differently. I feel better and have more energy and feel very keenly the importance of taking care of my body and not trashing it with the typical American diet. I don't mean to offend anyone who eats the high fat, high meat and dairy diet most Americans eat but there it is. Most Americans are overweight and suffering from one (or more) chronic conditions like heart disease, diabetes or cancer. It does NOT have to be that way!
March 1, 2019
Update 2nd read: I think I liked this one more than the first time I read it. Parts were still annoying, but I enjoyed his dedication to his field.
------------------------
There were things I really appreciated about this book and then there were things that really pushed my buttons. So where to start?
The good:
I liked the passion the author has for this topic. He has dedicated his life to research so that he can better educate people (and all health care professionals) on obtaining and sustaining health through a plant based diet. I liked the research aspect of this, but it was peppered with so many of my pet peeves, the eye rolling was getting out of hand.
The bad:
While I can appreciate his own work in the research field, I had a hard time with all of the finger pointing and nay saying. He put down EVERYONE and their research that differed from his own. This felt like a whistle blowing book, but I have to wonder, if his intended audience (meaning the general public) is really the right target for that kind of thing. I know that I'm not that audience. I just want info and then I can make a choice, if anything here could be implemented on my part. His own personal fight with the medical community at large and his lack of acceptance in that community would have been better suited for an autobiography.
He tried to clarify the conflicting data that exists out in the research-universe.....eat this, then someone says, "No, don't eat that," ......do this, then someone says, "Don't do that." While he brought it up a few times, he never answered the questions he posed.
He also used scare tactics. It reminded me of another book I've read recently on this same thing and they also used scare tactics. But instead of being up in arms about eggs and chicken, this author chose "DAIRY" as his do-not-eat platform. And instead of every one dying of diabetes and Alzheimers, in this book it was cancer and diabetes.
Was this new information? No, even though he made it sound like he is the only one sailing the "nutrition" ship.
I can give this 3 stars for the overall message of eating whole foods. I just didn't appreciate having to wade through the negative stuff. I don't think one has to slam others to elevate their message. It usually has the opposite effect on me. I need to stop here because now I'm thinking 2 stars.
------------------------
There were things I really appreciated about this book and then there were things that really pushed my buttons. So where to start?
The good:
I liked the passion the author has for this topic. He has dedicated his life to research so that he can better educate people (and all health care professionals) on obtaining and sustaining health through a plant based diet. I liked the research aspect of this, but it was peppered with so many of my pet peeves, the eye rolling was getting out of hand.
The bad:
While I can appreciate his own work in the research field, I had a hard time with all of the finger pointing and nay saying. He put down EVERYONE and their research that differed from his own. This felt like a whistle blowing book, but I have to wonder, if his intended audience (meaning the general public) is really the right target for that kind of thing. I know that I'm not that audience. I just want info and then I can make a choice, if anything here could be implemented on my part. His own personal fight with the medical community at large and his lack of acceptance in that community would have been better suited for an autobiography.
He tried to clarify the conflicting data that exists out in the research-universe.....eat this, then someone says, "No, don't eat that," ......do this, then someone says, "Don't do that." While he brought it up a few times, he never answered the questions he posed.
He also used scare tactics. It reminded me of another book I've read recently on this same thing and they also used scare tactics. But instead of being up in arms about eggs and chicken, this author chose "DAIRY" as his do-not-eat platform. And instead of every one dying of diabetes and Alzheimers, in this book it was cancer and diabetes.
Was this new information? No, even though he made it sound like he is the only one sailing the "nutrition" ship.
I can give this 3 stars for the overall message of eating whole foods. I just didn't appreciate having to wade through the negative stuff. I don't think one has to slam others to elevate their message. It usually has the opposite effect on me. I need to stop here because now I'm thinking 2 stars.
February 11, 2009
A gritty scientific approach to the relationship between diet and disease. Scientific citations abound. It combines his work with the work of many others from fields looking at cancer, cardiovascular, etc. diseases and their correlations to various foods. This book is oft-cited by other books of the same genre. It is for the person who wants to see the nitty-gritty details for themselves. Having said that, it is not nearly as dry as a text book, but definitely puts forth more data for the reader versus hiding it in the bibliography. Reading it will change your view on what you eat forever. It fits nicely within an LDS word of wisdom context.
August 16, 2020
Simply amazing. Shortly after my wife was diagnosed with cancer and before I was we discovered Wellness House near us in Hinsdale, IL. In keeping with the neighborhood this appeared to be a very large home. Inside, there were many meeting rooms, including one with a full restaurant sized kitchen for demonstrations, a gym, a library, with free lending , and offices for one on one counseling. Almost all of the programs are no charge to the clients. A few things cost such as the 5K run/3K walk or the occasional fundraising banquet sponsored by such corporate organizations as McDonald’s. This book was promoted there and the doctors Campbell went to a very large meeting room open to the public to discuss it.
It was amazing. They convinced me that food is a vital tool in fighting and preventing cancer.
It was amazing. They convinced me that food is a vital tool in fighting and preventing cancer.
June 11, 2018
This book should be read by nutritionists, doctors and anyone in a health care setting to show them the error of their ways!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 3,008 reviews