1,480 of 1,586 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Why, oh why didn't I take the blue pill?
I love juicy steaks, delicious cheese, and big bowls of ice cream. I love to eat out at nice restaurants. And I really like eating without thinking about the operations and consequences of our dietary industrial complex. But I don't get to enjoy these things any more because I read the China Study. Like Neo in the movie the Matrix, you have a choice, take the blue pill...
Published on December 24, 2006 by R. Pinkerton
1,339 of 1,552 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Best FICTION Book of The Year
If Dr Campbell promotes moral or environmental reasons for going vegan, I'd congratulate him. But he is promoting it as the ultimate diet for humans.
Unfortunately, his advice that we should go vegan is not backed by his own study.
After reading this book, I went to find the actual study (the monograph "Diet, Life-style and Mortality in China") and...
Published on November 23, 2010 by Zoe
Most Helpful First | Newest First
1,480 of 1,586 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Why, oh why didn't I take the blue pill?,
This review is from: The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted And the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, And Long-term Health (Paperback)I love juicy steaks, delicious cheese, and big bowls of ice cream. I love to eat out at nice restaurants. And I really like eating without thinking about the operations and consequences of our dietary industrial complex. But I don't get to enjoy these things any more because I read the China Study. Like Neo in the movie the Matrix, you have a choice, take the blue pill and believe what you want to believe, take the red pill and you will be exposed to the reality of the world we live in. The China Study is the red pill.
This is a fascinating book on the capitalism, politics, and human behavior that drives the food industry. It is also frighteningly insightful into the health consequences of an affluent societies' diet. I am not a scientist so I don't know if this is good science. But I did work ten years ago as a government attorney on the USDA dietary guidelines and was surprised by the political influence and acceptance of what the author would call scientific reductionism. I also worked for a man who lived and worked until he was 100 years old, and he had a dietary regime very similar to that recommended by the China Study: not vegan nor vegetarian, but largely based on plants and whole foods rather than animal based foods. So I found this book very persuasive - in fact, too persuasive. It scared me straight so I eat healthy now and that's good for the long term...but I don't enjoy it like I used to.
2,706 of 2,910 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Every doctor, teacher and parent needs to read this book!,
This review is from: The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health (Hardcover)T. Colin Campbell has made a career of challenging the conventional wisdom around nutrition, and this book is the culmination of his work. His integrity, brilliance, and unflinching courage shine through every page.
The main point of this book is that most nutritional studies that we hear about in the media are poorly constructed because of what the author terms "scientific reductionism." That is, they attempt to pin down the effects of a single nutrient in isolation from all other aspects of diet and lifestyle.
While this is the "gold standard" for clinical trials in the pharmaceutical world, it just doesn't work when it comes to nutrition. Given that the Western diet is extremely high fat and high protein compared to most of the rest of the world, studies that examine slight variations in this diet (i.e., adding a few grams of fiber or substituting skim milk for full fat milk) are like comparing the mortality rates of people who smoke five packs of cigarettes a day vs. people who smoke only 97 cigarettes a day.
Campbell's research, which he describes in a very accessible and engaging fashion, has two tremendous advantages over the typical nutritional study. First, there is the China Study itself - a massive series of snapshots of the relationship between diet and disease in over 100 villages all over China. The rates of disease differ greatly from region to region, and Campbell and his research partners (including some of the most distinguished scholars and epidemiologists in the world) carefully correlated these differences with the varying diets of the communities.
It's not lazy "survey research" either - the researchers don't rely on their subjects' memory to determine what they ate and drank. The researchers also observed shopping patterns and took blood samples to cross-validate all the data.
The second amazing part of Campbell's research method is his refusal to accept any finding without taking it back to his lab and finding out how exactly it works. In other words, we discover in The China Study not only in what way, but precisely how, the foods we eat can either promote or compromise our health.
The book is part intellectual biography / hero's journey (although Campbell is always wonderfully humble - there's no trace of self-congratulation, just a deep gratitude for what he has experienced), part nutrition guide (the most honest and unflinching one you'll ever read), and part expose. The final section leaves no sacred cow standing, and names names! From the food industry, to the government, to academia, Campbell calmly reports on a coverup of nutritional truth so widespread and insidious that all citizens should be enraged.
I have a PhD in health education and a Masters in Public Health - and I can honestly say that no book has shaken my worldview like this one. Anyone interested in health - their own, or that of their family, friends, or community - must read this book and share it. Campbell has started a revolution. Skip this work at your own peril.
331 of 363 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The China Study,
This review is from: The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted And the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, And Long-term Health (Paperback)I first became acquainted with this book by watching a segment this spring (2011) on the Dr. Oz show. I rented the book from the library and read it thoroughly (renewed it a maximum number for times and then decided I needed to own it). My husband and I decided to change our diet and try a vegan life style. We are in our 60's and want to maintain healthy weights (we've lost 35 and 20+ lbs)over the past four months and plan to enter our older years with few health problems. It was amazing to read about all the health situations which can be prevented by eating correctly--even how cancer cells can be turned on and off.
This book provided an excellent understanding of how important it is to eat correctly and the results we will see. My biggest disappointment is that when we share our reasons for our new eating plan with friends and family they aren't more interested in exploring this book and learning about how they can become healthier. Our feeling was, after reading this book, that we couldn't afford to not do this. I think people basically don't want to make changes, even if they will be healthier.
697 of 789 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Fantastic!,
This review is from: The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health (Hardcover)This is a fantastic book that's loaded with so much eye opening information, it's the kind of book that I'll read again. I feel if you don't convert to a whole food plant based diet after reading this book, I don't think anything in the world will convince you....the evidence is just overwhelming.
As for my story, I was on statins for high cholesterol for over 6 years....and a moderate to high dose at that. Over the years, my cholesterol kept rising gradually and my total cholesterol was just over 300 and a triglyceride level in the mid 200's without statins. The moderate/high dose statin brought my cholesterol down to the range of high 190's to low 200's. Over the years, I tried to get off the medication and I was told to try to eat a low fat diet, don't eat shrimp, lobster, etc. I went off the statins, tried this diet for several months and none of this helped....actually my cholesterol went higher....I was told it's hereditary, there's nothing you can do, and I should take the statin and that I would be on them indefinitely. Well, after reading the book "The China Study", there's a few paragraphs tucked in this great book mentioning that the major factor causing high cholesterol is eating any animal protein. The only meat I ate at the time was fish and chicken and small portions of it....and maybe beef a few times a year, if that. I have to say I was skeptical and figured what do I have to lose, so I went on a whole food plant based diet (vegan diet)as Dr. Campbell in the book suggests. I started that last November (same time I stopped taking the statins), and I had my cholesterol checked this past summer and was stunned at the result....my total cholesterol went from over 300 without statins, high 190's/low 200's on moderate/high does statin, to 175 without statins on Vegan diet, with good LDL and HDL. I'm guessing next time it's checked it will be even lower. Also, my triglycerides went from the mid 200's to 64! All as a result of just giving up animal products....amazing. Now I wonder....why wasn't I ever given this option by the doctor's I've seen over the years? Even if a person doesn't want to give up animal products completely as I have, why isn't this advice offered as at least an option to a patient.....and let the patient decide? What a concept!
Of course, I feel my cholesterol and triglycerides levels are just the tip of the iceberg on how my health has improved on a plant based diet....the only regret?....I wish I started the vegan diet earlier....I never have had so much energy and just downright have never felt so good....seriously...this is not an overstatement.
As to all the doubters out there with harsh reviews, I say to each is own but ignore the evidence at your own risk. I've seen many of my friends and family sick by what I feel this book has proven by many studies to be nothing more than a bad diet for the most part and most of them are looking for a magic pill to save them....and the old standby argument that it's all genetic doesn't appear to hold much water either....again, proven by studies in the book.
My friend, family, and co-workers know how I eat now and wonder why I want to live forever....that's not the issue....quality of life over quantity of life...isn't this what we should all be after?
130 of 146 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Ideological Heart of the Bill Clinton Diet,
This review is from: The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted And the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, And Long-term Health (Paperback)Due to recent publicity from Bill Clinton's post-surgery dietary changes, and the recent release of the film, Forks Over Knives, this 2006 book is benefitting from a resurgence of attention. After reading this book, I could only think- I wish I had found this book sooner.
I have read a lot of books on food, diet, and nutrition- and almost always they have left me disappointed. I find nutrition books are either focused only on one food type or nutrient, or push some gimmicky diet (a la the Atkins Diet), or are too esoteric and free from any grounding in sound science, or are mind-numbingly boring and poorly written.
This book from Dr. Colin Campbell is none of those things. "The China Study" takes a macro, bird's eye view of what we eat. For example, Campbell writes, "As you shall see, considering how networks of chemicals behave instead of isolated single chemicals is far more meaningful." This book is an attempt to look at the whole picture. As Campbell writes, "This is the story of how food can change our lives." Indeed it is.
Dr. Campbell, in this book, espouses a whole food, plant-based diet. He very intentionally does not refer to the diet he encourages as "vegan", due to the politically charged nature of that word, and because he is not strictly-speaking a vegan. This book is entirely apolitical. Its author makes it clear that his motivation for his dietary behaviors is purely health, not to protect animals or be a steward of the environment (although the latter he does mention as a bonus implication of his choices).
Dr. Campbell begins his book, in the chapter "House of Proteins" laying out a convincing argument of why animal-based proteins (particularly casein, the protein found in cow's milk) are harmful to the body. To support his thesis, Dr. Campbell falls back on his life of research (most notable of which is "The China Study", which Chou EnLai, the Premier of China in the early 1970s funded when he was dying of cancer. It is the largest and most comprehensive demographic study ever conducted that looks at what people eat and their levels of general health. Dr. Campbell was one of the team of researchers appointed to conduct this study.)
Dr. Campbell never stretches the findings of his studies too far, and is quick to make clear that the correlations found in his studies does not necessarily mean causation- that is, just because populations that consume more animal fats and animal-based proteins have high incidences of "diseases of affluence" (cancer, heart disease, stroke) does not mean that these proteins cause such diseases. But the combination of the correlations, with the clear and powerful way that Dr. Campbell outlines his observations of how animal-based proteins can disrupt some of the body's most essential organic processes, allows one to comfortably make a strong probabilistic guess that these type of foods are best eliminated from one's diet.
After Dr. Campbell outlines the various diseases, their possible relationships with animal-based proteins, he arrives at suggestions in the chapters "Eating Right: Eight Principles of Food and Health" and "How to Eat."
From there Dr. Campbell answers the question that surely so many readers will have through the first half of the book, which is, "If you're right, Dr. Campbell, why am I just hearing about this stuff now?" In the chapter "Science: the Dark Side", Dr. Campbell outlines how the food industry (of which his parents, ironically, were a part- they were dairy farmers) and government agencies (some of which he used to sit on- and with which he has firsthand experience interacting) are compromised, and are not sources of sound nutritional advice. Dr. Campbell outlines the way in which powerful corporations with clear monetary interests fund these boards. It is a blatant conflict of interest that has profound implications on how and what our country eats.
The other convincing case that Dr. Campbell makes for why you do not hear his argument in the mainstream dialogue is the fact that hospital networks, who can derive up to 65% of their income from heart-related surgeries and medicines, and who employ surgeons who are faced with mountains of debt from years of study and who stand to make gobs of money from conducting surgeries, are not ready or willing to adopt preventive approaches to heart disease.
Dr. Campbell cites the case of surgeon Dr. Esselstyn, who proposed to the Cleveland Clinic a preventive "arrest and reversal" nutrition program for heart disease patients as a first step before surgery. The hospital said they had no interest in such a program according to Dr. Campbell; and yet, some of the trustees and surgeons of the very same hospital would send their own wives and children to Dr. Esselstyn for his nutritional advice. Clearly, these were people who believed in the preventative power of Dr. Esselstyn's advice, but who also had interests so entrenched that it was easier for them to maintain the status quo than adopt Dr. Esselstyn's more preventative approach.
Dr. Campbell in the chapter "Scientific Reductionism" attacks the micro focus of research that simply looks at individual nutrients and vitamins. He demonstrates how the recommendations of groups like "National Academy of Sciences Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer Committee" only "apply to foods as sources of nutrients- not to dietary supplements of individual nutrients." Dr. Campbell vehemently opposes the notion that "`specific components of the diet can be modified' to the benefit of one's health." He argues that foods like lean pork meat or fat free milk are an absurd notion that ignores the macro implications of available research: that the mere presence of animal-based proteins in your diet has the potential to disrupt important biological processes in the body, and that these harmful consequences cannot be avoided through the modification of animal proteins, but only through the elimination of them entirely from the diet.
As I noted in a review of the film, Forks Over Knives, the central thesis of this book is communicated in that work too, and something is even gained through the medium of film. Although, one should not, I believe, watch the film in light of reading the book, but rather should watch it in addition to reading this book. There is much to be gained from reading this book, from absorbing Dr. Campbell's thesis as he clearly and powerfully lays it out step-by-step.
That President Clinton's adoption of Dr. Campbell's whole food, plant-based diet has given this book a revival that it so deserves, I am forever grateful. That the former President had the choice of the best medical advice money can buy, and that he ultimately decided to follow a path Dr. Campbell sets out in this book, no longer surprises me. For anyone concerned with how what we eat impacts how we feel and how we live our life, for anyone struggling with, or at risk of: cancer, diabetes, heart disease, high cholesterol, obesity- I highly recommend this book. There may be a large portion of this book that you do not agree with, which is fine. Regardless of how much of this book you agree with, there will be at least morsels of sound science, delivered in a distilled, comprehensible style that you will be able to absorb, implement in your life, and benefit from.
1,339 of 1,552 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Best FICTION Book of The Year,
Unfortunately, his advice that we should go vegan is not backed by his own study.
After reading this book, I went to find the actual study (the monograph "Diet, Life-style and Mortality in China") and there were many holes in his hypothesis. There was no correlation between animal protein and disease! I also found conflicting evidence in science journals. He ignored contrary results and left out data that did not support his view.
What I find disturbing is, this book is for the general public and will affect the dietary choices of many people. Most people don't have the time to research these facts for themselves so he takes advantage of that (but if you do, PLEASE go check the information for yourselves before making a decision on removing meat entirely for health reasons). Critical thinking is important.
Anyway, here are the problems with the information in this book:
- This study was an observational study. Problems with studies like these, it doesn't prove causality. Even with that, the results showed no correlation. In fact, it revealed that wheat had a stronger correlation than animal protein intake - which of couse, he left out of the book.
- Casein in milk, he demonstrated, causes cancer. But he also left out feeding SUGAR along with the protein. Sugar has been shown to promote tumor growth. He also didn't mention that casein is not consumed isolated in nature (human breast milk has casein too, should we ban that too?)
- He cited an Indian study that showed rats taking 20% casein with the toxin aflatoxin will develop cancer whereas rats taking 5% casein did not. He just forgot to mention that the rats on the low casein diet died after 6 months. While the 20% casein rats lived for 2 years.
- Protein from plants can also be "complete proteins" if you eat a wide variety of plant foods, based on Campbell's conclusions that complete protein like animal proteins can cause cancer, that must apply to plant proteins as well.
- He says "..there is a mountain of scientific evidence to show that the healthiest diet you can possibly consume is a high-carbohydrate diet". Actually, clinical studies show the opposite - that high carb diets (particularly refined carbs) are bad for diabetics, those who are obese, those with metabolic syndrome and some even show that it's bad for people with heart disease.
- He links total cholesterol with cancer mortality rates. Researchers still have trouble proving high cholesterol is associated with heart disease let alone cancer! (high triglycerides, with high VLDL and low HDL are better indicators than cholesterol. In fact, 50% of people who develop heart disease have mid to LOW cholesterol levels).
- He says overall, the more meat the Chinese consume, the higher the cancer rates. But unfortunately, he left out the county of Tuoli (as demonstrated by Denise Minger) a county with high consumption of meat AND dairy enjoyed ironically low incidences of cancer. The Masai, the Eskimos and even the French with their diets of high fat or dairy and animal protein have good health (low rates of heart disease, low cancer rates, low obesity).
- He believes that the lower rates of cancer among the Chinese compared to Americans must be due to their diet of low animal protein. It is well known that calorie restriction in animals and even in humans can improve health and longevity. This was shown during the world wars when food was rationed, rates of cancer and other diesases fell! The China study was done in the mid 1970's to 1980s - the tailend of the mass starvation of the Chinese before the Mao government loosened its grip on capitalism in the late 80s. For decades prior to the China Study, many counties had little food to eat. Ask any Chinese baby boomer from China and they can tell you how poor they were as children. I've heard stories of people eating roots and bark from trees out of desperation. Meat was highly valued and hard to come by. So the whole notion that the Chinese CHOSE to be vegans is insulting.
- Campbell makes it out as though we should all eat like the Chinese, for disease-free long life. Go find the statistics for longevity of the Chinese and you'll find the average life expectancy of the Chinese is lower than Americans. Yes, you heard right. You can check this yourself online. In fact, the countries with the highest life expectancy are the ones who consume the highest intake of fat and meat. It is a myth that the Japanese centenarians in Okinawa eat a low fat diet. They eat plenty of fish and seafood and their dishes are greasy.
There are more inconsistencies with the information. But you get the point. Before anyone accuses me of being a Campbell basher, think about this: he is SELLING a book, he has his reputation to defend, I don't sell anything, I'm not associated with the meat industry (I dislike them in fact), I bought this book (verified by Amazon) and giving an honest review without vegan-rose-colored-glasses on. I read it with an open mind and came out disappointed and mildly disgusted. Why? Because his suggestions may cause harm to his readers.
I'm not suggesting we go and eat as much factory farmed meat as we want. But free range, organic grass fed meat is healthy - high in omega3, low in omega6, low e.coli count, higher vitamin A and vitamin D in organs.
My review is not an attack on Dr Campbell as a person. I have not made any personal remarks about him. Nor am I attacking veganism or vegetarianism. I think they're morally valid ways to eat that work for some people. What I am attacking is the information, the content and what adverse affects it could have on people's health.
If you're hell bent on giving veganism a go, please take out sugar, refined wheat and Western tofu products from your diet.
I highly recommend this book - read it, check the facts and judge it for yourself.
1,817 of 2,176 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars China Study Review,
At that point in the book he reported his experiments, their rather dramatic results, was careful to point out the limitations and did not extrapolate. So far, very good.
In the next section he describes the China Study itself. There is also an addendum at the back, which gives more detail about the structure of the study. The foundation for the study was a database collected by the Chinese government during the 1970's. It listed the age and causes of death in each of China's provinces over a certain time period. For the follow-up study ten years later, they chose 67 rural villages and gathered data on details about diet, several markers from blood samples and other factors, on approximately 6000 individuals. He claims to have data on about 350 variables. However, only 57 of the 417 pages in the book are devoted to discussion of The China Study.
The purpose of the study was to try to relate diet and other factors, with the diseases that caused death, especially cancers. His particular interest was about the effect of a purely vegetarian diet. It bothered me that he had undertaken leadership of that follow-up study, with a pre-conceived notion of what he wanted it to show.
At this point in the book, Dr. Campbell began to make very broad statements about the Chinese diet and the benefits of a diet that was devoid of animal protein. This is where I really began to have trouble, because I felt that either the study itself or his description of it fell short of supporting the broad claims he was making.
There's no discussion of things like smoking, environmental pollution and sanitation, all of which plague China.... Even rural China.
Another thing that bothered me was his description of the Chinese diet. It flies in the face of my own observations and experiences during many trips to China and other parts of Asia, over the course of about 35 years.
Meat and seafood are a major staple of the Asian diet. They eat quite a bit of pork, chicken, duck, pigeons, fish, eggs and even snakes, organs and sea creatures that Americans would not eat. They do eat much less animal protein than Americans and always accompany it with lots of rice and vegetables. In that sense, their diet is much better than ours. But it is not vegetarian. Although much of their food is stir-fried in a wok, it is done with vegetable oils. Until very recently, junk food has not been available and it is rare to find beef. So it is a much better-balanced diet than ours.
In years past, during trips to Taiwan, I've been to markets where live chickens & ducks were laid on the ground with their feet tied together. People would either buy them live, or have the merchant slaughter & clean them before their eyes. In one market I saw a vendor selling the blood from snakes he had killed & drained as the people watched. Next day, my hosts took me to a snake-meat restaurant for lunch! (Not much meat & lots of bones.) In back alleys of Taipei, I saw families raising pigeons for food.
Just last year at a Shanghai food market in a very old and traditional neighborhood, the emphasis was on meat and fish. There was a section that sold vegetables & rice, but around the fringes of the central meat market. The displays were open and there was no refrigeration!
As the book proceeded through other chapters, making incessant claims about the preventative and curative effects of an all-vegetable diet, he begins to sound like a 19th century "Snake oil" merchant.
He's a zealot on a soap box. Mind you, HE MAY BE RIGHT. Most of what he says about nutrition has been heard before and is considered by many, to be the Holy Grail of diet. There is certainly a lot of public opinion that red meat, animal fat and highly refined carbs are bad for you. But after the first section, I felt that his science became lost in his rhetoric.
Throughout the early parts of the book, I began to wonder what the meat and dairy industries had to say about all this. He certainly got into that in excruciating detail. Again, to the extreme where unfortunately, he sounded like all the folks at the fringes who claim that "Big business" and "Government" are trying to discredit them. I kept thinking of all the stories of big oil companies buying the patents for a "90 mile per gallon" carburetor, to keep it off the market. (On the other hand, there's Galileo.)
After finishing the book, I went to the Internet to look for critiques. There are plenty! Most are by vegetarians and vegetarian societies, all were having orgasms over the book. Finally I did find a site with some criticisms. Now I'd better mention that this site belongs to an organization that advocates increased consumption of fats and oils. However, the critique of the book was limited to a few specific items and did seem to be based on good science.
I do have some experience with statistical methods of extracting the effect of individual variables from data involving many variables and felt a bit uneasy about the analysis methods while reading Campbell's chapters about the study. This critique pointed out that with 350 variables and just 67 samples, there are not enough samples to establish high (95%) levels of statistical confidence. The best that data structure could accomplish is an "Indication," but not proof.
Actually, Campbell himself does discuss the limitations of statistical methods. His problem is that as the book progresses, he wanders away from "probability" and speaks with "certainty" about too many diverse subjects.
The critic, who had apparently examined the actual 900 page Study report, also claimed that Campbell had ignored data that was counter to his theories and in some cases showed negative results of a vegetarian diet. (That does happen when dealing with probabilities.) He then went on to question the reliability of some of the blood markers that were used. (That part was far beyond any of my knowledge.) Also, the fact that the blood samples of each village were pooled, did enable more markers to be measured, but all data about the variability among individuals was lost.
Another thing that bothered me was that Campbell completely ignored the fact that anthropologists tell us that hominids have been eating meat for about 2.5 million years, apparently with great success. Also, if meat is so harmful, why and how do carnivorous animals thrive?
He tells that cow's milk can cause type-1 diabetes in babies, but that mother's milk is ok. He leaves a gaping hole in his discussion because he doesn't explain the differences between those two types of milk.
So, what is my bottom line on this book?
It is widely accepted that vegetables, especially fresh vegetables, are good for you. No argument there. His early research clearly indicates that there is a threshold, above which animal protein can do some harm. That is intuitively appealing. We Americans do eat much too much meat. But, given the extremely long omnivorous history of mankind, it would seem that a moderate amount of animal protein is an important dietary nutrient.
I feel that Campbell has raised many good points, but his zealotry has taken him too far from sound science. That's too bad. He's hurt his credibility.
76 of 87 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars prescribed reading,
111 of 130 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars My view on the most critic review about this book,
As Chinese, I have to point out this mistake. This reader said that Chinese eat a lot of meat or even snakes in the diet. However, this is the phenomenon beginning primarily after 1990s. Snakes eating are the "las Vagas" of the United states, uncommon only in southern part of China (Canton Province). When I was a small child in the 1980s, cancer was rarely heard of. My mother said, when she was a child, she never heard about cancer. We are also wondering why the cases of cancer have ever increased since the 1980s.
Dr. Campell's study is primarily built on the data collected earlier than 2000, when the environmental issues (pollution) were not serious in China.
Therefore, I believe that Dr. Campell's study has strong validity in describing the real situation more than a decade ago.
Please notice that China has changed a LOT in the past three decades. The data would be different today.
220 of 266 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars My Personal Experience,
This review is from: The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health (Hardcover)On January 21, 2006, the day I started eating according to guidelines given in The China Study, I was 63 years old, 5 feet 10 1/2 inches tall, weighed 213 pounds and with a BMI of 130 was on the first rung of being obese, even though I did not look it. The first week I lost 5 pounds, the 2nd 5 pounds, the 3rd five pounds, the 4th 4 pounds, then 3, 2, 1, until I lost 35 pounds in about 3 months and then stabilized at about 178 pounds. My blood pressure went from an average of 141 over 91 to an average of 120 over 81. My total cholesterol went from over 200 to 127. I no longer feel that I am on a slow decline from 50 years onward, but feel happy and alive now. Much like when I was a kid. Today is August 22, 2006 and I know that this will be the way I eat and live for the duration. For me it's a matter of survival, physically and spiritually. I have given over 20 copies of the book to people I care about, including a waitress at an Outback Steakhouse in Virginia. It was May; she was worrying about her dad and wanted to get him something for Father's Day. By the way steakhouses are a great place to get real yummy vegetables. This is my true story. By the way, thank you Dr. Campbell and Thomas Campbell.
Most Helpful First | Newest First
The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted And the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, And Long-... by Thomas M. Campbell II (Paperback - May 11, 2006)