The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health Reviews

• Every doctor, teacher and parent needs to read this book!

  
  By A2DS0YV8R2GDV5 on 2005-01-26
  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.
  
  

• China Study Review

  
  By A33YFB2NFTB7TJ on 2007-09-23
  When I began reading this book, I couldn't put it down. In the first section, when Dr. Campbell described his own experiments on the effect of milk protein on liver cancer in rats, I just poured through page after page, thinking, "What great science"!
  
  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.
  
  
  

• Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics!

  
  By A14F9UBZRP874F on 2005-06-29
  Back in the 1980s, T. Colin Campbell and a team of researchers traveled to China to survey the dietary habits of 6,500 adults in 130 rural villages. Although they gathered data on a whopping 367 food variables,they somehow neglected to note how much soy people were eating. Yet soy is widely reputed to be a "miracle food" and the reason that the Chinese have lower rates of some cancers and other chronic diseases. So it's "startling" indeed to find that ALL legume consumption came to a grand total of only 12 grams per day, which is NOT very much. However, what's truly "startling" about this book is not the researchers' failure to be "comprehensive" -- they gathered plenty of good data though readers will have to go to earlier publications to get it -- but the many ways Campbell massages, misuses and misreports that data. Although he clearly thinks that it's all for a good cause, this is a textbook case of "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics." I recommend that the publisher follow up with a sequel -- a companion volume in which researchers without any dietary agenda take the same data and reach statistically justified conclusions. Now that would give readers food for thought!
  
  

• Not all relevant data included

  
  By A2G4Q38V2U5XKI on 2005-07-13
  I was very interested to read this book, but I was disappointed because there were omissions. There was selective reporting of the survey results to advocate a whole foods vegan diet.
  
  We are not told what chinese people actually eat vs their cancer rate by province. The author advocates a vegan diet and uses the china study to justify this, but the chinese are not vegans. They may be ALMOST wholefoods vegan, but this is not the same as totally vegan. I would like to have seen included a percentage of animal products in the diet of the rural chinese, broken up by meat(non fish), fish, dairy, egg. I have assumed that dairy is zero due to lactose intolerance but this is just a guess.
  The author believes supplements are not necessary (I agree), but then states that a B12 supplement is necessary. Of course on a vegan diet it is necessary. Doesn't this indicate humans need enough animal products in their diet to avoid a B12 deficiency (there would not be much animal product required), I believe we only need 2 mcg of B12 per day. He claims that organically grown plants would have b12 naturally, but offers no evidence of this. I do not believe this to be true, I want proof.
  
  In summary, I do not like the incomplete reporting of data to suit someones philosophy, but I do believe that the best diet is wholefoods about 80% derived from plants, with enough meat/fish to be healthy and stave off a b12 deficiency. I ageee that dairy is not suitable for humans. In fact, our closest relatives the chimpanzee eat mostly leaves, fruits and other parts of plants, insects and meat when it is available, they don't get much meat but they will hunt smaller animals if given the opportunity.
  
  I wish the original text of the published study had been included as part of the book, now I have to locate a copy,aarg!!!
  
  Some Time Later ... Now I have actually read the actual Study that this book is talking about.
  
  
  (...)
  
  Cancer Mortality is not correlated to meat eating or total protein or the intake of animal fat.!!!
  
  So the actual study doesn't support the vegan diet at all, in fact non of the people studied were vegan. In fact the longest lived people on earth (okinawans and japanese) are not vegans, but they eat heaps of vegetables and a wide variety, legumes, rice, fish, small amounts of meat, and no dairy.
  
  One thing I noticed from the REAL China Study was that the rural chinese are more likely to die from infectious disease such as TB and Pneumonia than westerners. They do not have a life expectancy greater than ours! I think we should be looking at the japanese/okinawa diet.
  
  A good book on this is by Bradley Wilcox
  
  
  
  

• Well intentioned but terribly misguided

  
  By A1T0RTG2E22X62 on 2005-12-02
  Veganism is a wonderful diet, for some people. I was a strict follower of vegetarianism for 10 years and vegan for an extra two years. It was the sickest period of my life. I suffered from physical weakness, acute depression and would suffer colds about 5 times a year. I started a lot of world travelling and found myself needing to eat meat on occasion. I gradually started to introduce meat back into my diet. Suprisingly my health skyrocketed. I rarely feel sad, I have not had a cold in 3 years, and I am stronger and more energetic now at 36 than I was at 26. I know that this comes from eating meat again.
  I have learned first hand that one persons perfect diet is another persons recipe for misery. Mr. Campbell should go to Thailand and try to explain why an entire population which consumes a large amount of meat with fresh vegetables remains thin. When I am there I see maybe one out of a thousand people who are overweight. In America it is more like 1 out of 3. The big mistake that these diet books make regardless if it is a vegan book or a meat eaters diet book is that there is no single healthy diet that you can recommend for everybody at all! Different people require different individualized diets. Which would mean that everybody needs their own unique diet book. That is the ultimate truth.
  
  
• Not really the China Study
  By A3EXSCLT02RXR0 on 2005-09-23
  The book, while not entirely without value, is not about the China Study, nor is it a comprehensive look at the current state of health research. It would be more aptly titled, A Comprehensive Case for the Vegan Diet, and the reader should be cautioned that the evidence is selected, presented, and interpreted with the goal of making that case in mind.
  
  
  
• More vegan myth
  By A1EPO3JUWBSXV6 on 2005-06-26
  Just more vegan propaganda wrapped up to look like a legitimate study. Have you noticed how many of the usual culprits that are highly recommending this book have an vegetarian agenda? i.e. McDougall, Barnard, Ornish et al. What this book *can* teach you is that statistics can be presented in such a way as to prove most anything you want.
  
  
• He had a point to prove
  By A1XGEDXCHN4KOW on 2005-10-13
  I was very disappointed in this book. There are quite a few chapters before he even gets to China where it becomes clear that he is anti protein. He did 10 years of studies on how one protein, casein, affects the growth of one kind of tumor, liver cancer from aflatoxin and uses that to make all kinds of judgements about what people should or should not eat.
  
  As the Weston A. Price Foundation points out, some forms of casein, because of how they are dried, are carcinogenic. They also pointed out a fact that Campbell ignored, that those who ate the most saturated fat were protected from cancers and diseases of degeneration.
  
  It's a good read if you want to justify being a vegan, but if you really want answers, it's a waste of money.
  
  
• A Shake-up
  By A2GN3SRMEKQSPK on 2006-10-12
  
  This is a very good book full of very useful, well researched information. A big volume dealing with extensive study of the way nutrition influences our health and longevity. It should be read by anyone who desires to be healthy, especially by all the followers of the many fad diets ...
  
  The China Study is the account of an enormous and the most comprehensive study of nutrition ever conducted. The study results in answering some of the most important questions of today societies:
  - what is the main culprit of cancer?
  - How to deal with obesity epidemic
  - How long can we live?
  
  China Study also unveils behind-the-scene manipulation of big food business with no regard for consumer health. The authors make a big step forward in honest consumer education, as their integrity and scientific approach is beyond any doubt. Another no-hype volume with down-to-earth, commonsense approach to health and longevity is "Can We Live 150 Year?" It is a perfect addition to this great volume.
  
  
  
• The Data Doesn't Compute
  By AUP809TJFXCEV on 2005-06-21
  The most comprehensive aspect of this book is the extent to which T Colin Campbell misuses data to prop up the inflated health claims he makes for vegetarian, low-fat diets. The implications are "startling" all right. Fortunately, enough data is included so that those with a thorough grounding in statistics can figure this out. Unfortunately, readers without the training or the motivation to do so and so will make dietary choices based on the author's dubious conclusions.
  
  
• What China study?
  By A1UHV5VI25KNKC on 2006-03-24
  First I will say that some of the results in the author's lab pertaining to milk protein and cancer are interesting, if the book were the milk study and didn't go into meaningless details and rambling, I would have no problem with the book. Some details are important and some are just used to unnecessarily stretch a book.
  
  I have been wishing for years that a study like this book described in it's write up was available. Nutrition patterns and health fascinate me, especially in a country like China with different eating patterns. So naturally I couldn't wait to get this book. I got it and kept reading and reading, I was up to page 70 and was starting to get mad at what I perceived as the stretching of the book. It really irks me when writers take 2 pages to say something that I could have said in a sentence or two. Instead of 400 pages this book could have been written in 100 easy. But I trudged on trying to get to the fascinating study, but I never found what I expected. There was a map of China showing the different regions with heavy disease areas. But I never found a key that said what the diet of those different areas were. In fact "very" little if any thing was said about eating patterns in China, all of the graphs that I remember were comparing the America to other countries around the world. I am shocked at all the 5 star ratings, I can't figure how we see it so differently. It would have been fascinating if it had broke down the provinces and told what their protein source was, % of diet it was, % fat, etc. That is what this book should have been about.
  
  
  
• Interesting but flawed
  By A3FEX2RN3Q5XT4 on 2006-02-13
  The style of this book is great for the average person wanting to learn more about health and nutrition. Campbell utilizes simple analogies to explain disease processes which are very easy to comprehend even for a layperson with no science background. I think the book is worth it for this alone--if you really want to understand how cancer and heart disease actually work, at the cellular level, this is a great source.
  
  I found Campbell's research intriguing, but no matter how much he protests that he doesn't have an agenda, he does. The purpose of this book is to promote a whole-foods vegan diet. He says he does this because he's concerned about public health, and I believe that he is. However, I don't agree that a 100% animal free diet is the healthiest way to go for everyone, and I don't agree that his China study actually proved that it was. The Chinese he studied do in fact eat vastly less animal products than Americans, and they are healthier, but they aren't vegan. He concludes that since people who eat low amounts of animal products are healthier than people who eat high amounts, then eating none would be healthiest. I don't necessarily agree with this logic.
  
  He also contradicts himself, saying we should always get vitamins from whole foods and not pills. Then he acknowledges that vitamin B12 is currently only found in animal products, but quickly dismisses this by recommending a vitamin supplement. ???
  
  The famous study that got this all started was one in which rats were fed known carcinogens and then given a diet that was either 5% milk protein or 20% milk protein. The 20% milk protein rats always got cancer, the 5% never did. Then he tried it with wheat and soy protein, but the cancer rates were low across the board. Thus he concludes that animal protein promotes cancer growth whereas plant protein does not. However, I was wondering where the logical next step was--trying it with several different kinds of animal protein to determine if this effect was unique to milk or universal to all animal proteins.
  
  The end of the book was perhaps the most interesting--a detailed explaination on how industry, government, science, and medicine interact to end up obscuring the truth about nutrition and confusing the public. The dairy and meat industries have their tentacles buried deep in science and government, so we think these foods are healthier than they actually are. To this day, the role of nutrition in disease prevention is vastly under-emphasized because the drug and surgery based medical industries have a vested interest in keeping Americans sick, and the FDA is still influenced by dairy and meat money into recommending an absurd amount of these products per day.
  
  I think the overall premise of this book has merit--eat more fruits and vegetables, legumes and whole grains, and cut down on fatty animal crap. You do NOT need to eat meat at every meal, or even every day. I just don't agree with Campbell's all or nothing conclusions, as I think such a philosophy will scare people away from even trying.
  
  
• If only I could give it negative stars
  By AEIB6L37A5W6 on 2006-05-28
  Is Campbell deliberately lying to us? Or is he merely suffering from an inability to cast aside his own personal prejudices and present a full and objective presentation of the facts, because the facts conflict with what he wants to believe?
  
  The facts, as anyone who actually peruses the data produced by the study Campbell claims to have drawn his conclusions from (which can be found in Chen J, et al. Diet, life-style, and mortality in China: A study of the characteristics of 65 Chinese counties. Oxford, UK; Ithaca, N.Y. Oxford University Press; Cornell University Press, 1990.), show that consumption of animal protein - especially meat - was associated with a 29% REDUCED risk of mortality, not an increased risk, as Campbell claims. For that matter, the study also shows a reduced risk of cancer in those who consume alcohol and tobacco use.
  
  So where did Campbell get his claims? Who knows. Wherever he got them, it's definitely not from the study he named his book after.
  
  
• This book demands attention!
  By AWPEHF9IN5550 on 2005-02-14
  The China Study is a courageous survey of the best science has to offer about your health and what you eat. In addition, the China Study reveals a system of nutrition misinformation that has created public confusion equal to that which surrounded the health implications of smoking. Remember the days when "no one knew" that smoking was bad for you? That all ended when a few morally courageous individuals spoke out and demanded examination of the topic. We now know that the tobacco industry not only knew the health risks, they added ingredients to make their products more addictive. The current state of nutrition information is just as convoluted - and the food industry is just as interested in keeping you confused and addicted to its products. Dr. Campbell (writing with his son, Thomas) is the morally courageous voice in this field and he speaks the truth about what he has found, above the clamor of the objecting voices in "the establishment".
  
  The book is organized into four parts. The first part follows the compelling life story / research career of Dr. Campbell. Campbell grew up on a dairy farm in Virginia and began his professional life trying to discover more efficient ways of raising cattle to deliver protein to our diets. Through an accidental series of discoveries, he became interested in the relationship between high levels of protein consumption and cancer development. He ended up with astonishing research that showed high levels of protein consumption to be a more potent promoter of cancer than high level exposures to Aflotoxin. This startling evidence led him to organize "The China Study" (namesake for the book) - a uniquely comprehensive study of the relationship between diet and disease in 65 counties of rural China. The study examined approximately 6,500 adults and looked at blood samples, urine samples, and food intake records (researchers went into homes to observe and collect this data), to document over 367 variables related to health status and diet. This data was systematically compared with disease rates for 48 different diseases.
  
  The second part of the book is a survey of professional scientific research from around the world, regarding the relationship between diet and a whole host of diseases. Campbell focuses on a class of diseases - referred to as "diseases of affluence" - that are experienced at higher rates in developed countries than in developing countries. This part of the book meticulously documents the relationship between various diets and the following diseases: heart disease, obesity, diabetes, common cancers (breast, prostate, large bowel), auto-immune diseases (including type I diabetes, MS), osteoporosis, kidney stones, macular degeneration, dementia and Alzheimer's. This survey reveals that across this broad range of diseases, there is one diet that consistently prevents these diseases, and one diet that consistently promotes these diseases.
  
  The third part of the book is a brief nutritional guide. It discusses eight principles of food and health, and gives advice on how to eat. In essence, these eight principles present Campbell's theory of nutrition - what is important to health and what is not. Principle six, for example, says "the same nutrition that prevents disease in its early stages (before diagnosis) can also halt or reverse disease in its later stages (after diagnosis)." The principles create a well-founded summary derived from the evidence presented earlier in the book.
  
  The fourth and final part of the book answers the question "so why haven't I heard all this before?" Campbell sits in a unique position to answer this question. He has been involved in the relationship between nutritional scientific research and public health information at all levels. As a university researcher, he built a career on publicly funded grant research, he sat on the approval boards for similar grant programs, and he experienced the politics involved. As a well-respected expert in his field, he was called to testify before Congress on food safety, he sat on the panel that developed nutrition information labeling for packaged foods, and he has been on the National Academy of Science's expert panel on Diet, Nutrition and Cancer. As a dedicated scientist, he helped found the American Institute for Cancer Research, and he is familiar with the policy and funding priorities of this and other cancer research groups. From this unique position, Campbell reveals a public health information system that is biased. Although he is deliberate to state that he does not see a back room conspiracy here, he is conclusive in arguing that our system is corrupted and unreliable.
  
  The fourth section, combined with the strength of the scientific evidence presented in this book, strongly establishes that this book should have an appeal that is MUCH broader than the alternative crowd, the "vegan" crowd, or the "health nut" crowd. This is more than a diet book, more than a book for people who are already suffering from disease and looking for help, and more than a fringe perspective. This is a book that demands attention, demands answers and should be given not only deep thought but also wide publicity. Who will answer for this system of corruption, and how will we get them to do it? Ignoring the information in this book would be as grave as ignoring the first courageous individuals that presented reliable evidence against the tobacco industry. Read this book, share it with someone you love, and call your Congressman to demand action. This book should change lives. Though it sounds an alarm, it also pronounces that we have strong hope - a simple, proven and economically efficient means to prevent and treat a host of diseases and to create long, vibrantly healthy lives.
  
  
• Cooked Statistics for a Vegan Cause
  By A3PZPTXB6OOBSJ on 2005-08-13
  This is a sad case of a prominent vegan author who "cooked" statistics to serve his cause. You absolutely must read the reviews that have been buried way below, notably the ones by Kaayla T. Daniel, author of THE WHOLE SOY STORY with the title "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics" and by "Chris" entitled "Sacrificing science for ideology." They are right on and I couldn't possibly say it better.
  
  
• Fantastic!
  By AEX75DAH76VTW on 2005-12-26
  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?
  
  
• This book could save your life
  By A20HHENAZY90YZ on 2005-07-16
  Seldom does a book so completely trounce its naysayers. The China Study conclusively demonstrates the link between nutrition and heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. The undeniable truth is that the aptly named "diseases of affluence", the chronic and degenerative diseases common in Western cultures, are simply not found in populations whose diet comprises mostly whole, plant-based foods. In addition, when individuals abandon their traditional plant-based diets and embrace a Westernized diet instead ... they suffer these chronic diseases at the same rate as those of us living in first world countries do.
  
  The claim that data was left out of the book, and selective conclusions were drawn is ludicrous. If the entire text of the scientific papers, all the raw data, and every reference were included in this book ... it would be the size of a house. "The China Study" was written in an engaging, understandable style for the lay public, not for fellow scientists/researchers/nutritionists/PhDs (although they would do well to pay attention) who have access to the complete references. "The China Study" is an overview, with the most important findings highlighted. For example, it shows that Professor Campbell and his researchers were able to turn the growth of cancerous tumors on and off simply by altering the nutrients fed to the test animals. In the laboratory setting and in human observation trials ... "The China Study" has conclusively shown that animal protein is in effect ... cancer "fertilizer".
  
  Those giving negative reviews would have you believe that Professor Campbell's research is flawed or biased. Nothing could be further from the truth. T. Colin Campbell, PhD. is a highly respected researcher whose decades of sterling, meticulously peer-reviewed work have been published in respected scientific journals worldwide. He is Professor Emeritus of the Division of Nutritional Sciences at the world-renowned Cornell University. For the record, he has offered to debate his critics and to date he has no takers. This is most likely because these impeccable credentials can certainly NOT be claimed for the myriad fad diet books, junk science websites, and dubious "foundations" out there. These would have you believe that you can continue chowing down on westernized junk and still be slim and healthy. Not true, people! Look around you!
  
  By contrast to some self-professed diet experts ... Professor Campbell ... at age 70 ... is healthy, slim, and fit. He practices what he preaches. He eats a mostly vegan diet and runs 6-8 miles a day.
  
  Professor Campbell does not claim that you must be 100% vegan ... instead he shows conclusively that the closer you trend toward that ideal ... the better your health will be. He lists basic dietary guidelines that are simplicity itself to follow.
  
  Because the, albeit extremely rare, consequences of vitamin B-12 deficiency are so devastating and so simple to prevent using supplements ... he errs on the side of caution and wisely suggests that those concerned should take a supplement.
  
  There is a lot of confusion about vitamin B-12; many use it as justification for a meat/dairy-based diet, so I would like to comment on this. Cobalamin (B-12's scientific name) is created by one-celled organisms: bacteria and fungi. These microscopic organisms are all over the place - in earth, wind, rainwater, and oceans. B-12 is stored in the body parts of animals that eat these bacteria; when an animal consumes particles of soil or manure along with grass or feed, B-12 producing bacteria are consumed
  and the vitamin ends up in the flesh or milk from these animals. It is no more naturally inherent in their flesh and fluids than it is in our own. Our modern human world is sterilized because of an irrational fear of germs, whereas once people consumed trillions of helpful B-12 producing-organisms daily. Today everything is sanitized by hand-washing with antimicrobial soaps, antiseptics, antibiotics, antiseptic mouth washes, and harsh chemical cleaning agents. To compensate, we must add back B-12. However it is not imperative that we consume animal products in order to do so.
  
  For more information on this subject, I recommend "Becoming Vegan: The Complete Guide to Adopting A Healthy Plant-Based Diet" by Brenda Davis, R.D. & Vesanto Melina, M.S., R.D., or this excellent online article by Jo Stepaniak http://www.vegsource.com/jo/qa/qavitb.htm
  
  Read "The China Study", check the facts and judge for yourself! Your body will thank you!
  
  
  
• Nutrional Garbage and Personal Bias and Political Agendas
  By A13HOGQ4JS1L2C on 2007-09-02
  Why not have a "Zero Star" review? Or better yet, a "Negative Star" review. Because this book would definitely qualify for a "Negative Star" rating!
  
  This publication is not only hogwash that leaves out most of the actual "China Study" data, but interestingly leaves out a lot of other data that is clearly pertinent to who the author is, what agenda and biased attitude he brings to this publication and what political purposes are actually being served by what is masquerading as a "health book"
  
  This doesn't even appear to be the real data of "The China Study". The fact of the matter is that Campbell takes data and:
  
  1. Slants the data so that it is misleading.
  
  2. Completely misinterprets the data - in some cases making concluding statements in regards to specific data when the data clearly (even to a layman) showed just the opposite!
  
  3. Misrepresents of what the data actually said!
  
  In his "so-called" rebuttal, Campbell NEVER does really address any of the valid points that critics have specified in this work. Those points of criticism being:
  
  
  1. Why did Campbell repeatedly claim in his book that "The China Study" demonstrates the value of a low-protein, low animal fat diet when the actual data from the study show absolutely no such thing?
  
  2. Why does Campbell dump on protein incessantly but fail to mention the research demonstrating the great potential value of animal proteins in general and even medical properties of whey protein? If he is the protein expert he repeatedly portrays himself to be, he should be well aware of this research.
  
  3. Why did Campbell claim that Dr. Lester Morrison's successful heart disease trials showed the value of a low-protein diet, when the participants did NOT eat a low-protein diet? Dr. Morrision himself described it as a high-protein diet! Get that??? A high protein diet... and yet Campbell claims the trial somehow demonstrates the value of a LOW protein diet!!!
  
  4. Why did Campbell claim that there are virtually no nutrients in animal-based foods that are not better provided by plants? (This claim is not only absolutely untrue, but so absurd as to be laughable - if it wasn't so sad!)
  
  A historical author who spoke of the physical fitness and health differences between the Chinese soldiers and Mongol warriors who had invaded north China at that time (early 13th century) commented that the Jurched (Chinese) leaders noted with surprise and disgust the ability of the Mongol warriors to survive on little food and water for long periods... the entire (Mongol) army could camp without a single puff of smoke since they needed no fires to cook. Compared to the Jurched soldiers, the Mongols were much healthier and stronger. The Mongols consumed a steady diet of meat, milk, yogurt, and other diary products, and they fought men who lived on gruel made from various grains (cereals). The grain diet of the peasant warriors stunted their bones, rotted their teeth, and left them weak and prone to disease. In contrast, the poorest Mongol soldier ate mostly protein, thereby giving him strong teeth and bones. Unlike the Jurched (northern Chinese) soldiers, who were dependent on a heavy carbohydrate diet (grains, root vegetables, etc.), that the Mongols could more easily go a day or two without food and maintain strength and stamina.
  
  I've always had this hunch that "nutrionalists" could have readily discovered much more nutritional wisdom from the actual and legitimate study of anthropological data - and detailed studies of the work of Dr. Weston Price - than from the giant mass of current - but slanted and biased - so-called "scientific studies".
  
  This book is in my opinion nothing more than "nutritional advice garbage" wrapped up in fancy - but completely misleading - information that comes to FALSE conclusions... and possibly all for nothing more than political agendas?
  
  
  
• Why, oh why didn't I take the blue pill?
  By A3RNQ1PPX7WDNR on 2006-12-24
  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.
  
  
• Interesting Scientific Evidence but it doesn't necessarily support his recommendation
  By A36DSCVRYRPZA1 on 2006-11-20
  This is a very powerful book supported by solid scientific evidence, that states high protein diets may be detrimental to your health. Dr. Campbell's recommendation is that the reader should become vegan. I am not disputing the fact that there are numerous reasons to not eat meat; Hoof and mouth, mad cow, trichnosis, animal rights and welfare, it just doesn't taste good, etc. I just question whether veganism is really needed
  
  The issues I have with his conculsions are as follows;
  
  1) Dr. Campbell suggests through out the book that the problem with western diets is that there's too much protein without enough fruits, vegetables, and complex carbs. So, why wouldn't I just increase my servings of fruits, veggies, complex carbs, and cut down on the meat, why do I have to cut it out altogether?
  
  2) The healthiest populations in the world still include animal products but in very small amounts i.e. the Okinawans (Largest centegenarian population), the Andorrans (The longest estimated life span in the world), and the Mediterranean populations in general.
  
  3) The general information coming from the study has been the exact same information coming from the health experts for decades: increase the fruits, vegetables, and Complex carbs, cut down on the animal products and refined sugar.
  
  4)Now this has nothing to do with Campbell's scientific findings, but the last part of the book degenerates into a "me versus Big Medicine" and "Big Medicine" has been trying to shut me up for decades. He sounds a little like Kevin Trudeau.
  
  All in all, this book provides the everyday person hard scientific proof that we need to radically change our diets for our own sakes. If people walked away from this book with any information, it would be that our health is in our own hands. That we can do more to protect ourselves by watching what we eat, then by going to the doctor. But we also don't have to take 30 nutritional supplements a day to do it. A good, balanced diet is the true miracle pill.
  
  
• Invaluable Information about nutrition, food & drug industries and medical profession
  By A24Z8422AU7KQ8 on 2006-12-11
  It's about nutrition and chronicle diseases (heart, cancer, diabetes, etc.). A highly readable book, from the medical angle as well as from societal angle.
  
  Here is shock #1: Protein in milk promotes cancer. Unbelievable? It's proven in animal trials and observed in human population study. The book presents findings of many researchers, including a large scale study on nutrition and chronicle disease done in China by Dr. Campbell (hence the title China study).
  
  The author grew up on a farm (milking cows when he was a boy), became a well-trained, well respected and well funded research scientist at Cornell and participated in national-level nutrition policy making. He found convincing evidence through decades of research (funded by NIH, etc.) that switching to a plant-based food can reduce risk of top killers in the U.S. (heart diseases, cancer, etc.) and even stop and reverse them!. Ha!
  
  So basically he calls for veggie diet (the whole-foods type, not the pasta, sugar and cookie type).
  
  This is not a big news to many people. But I was really surprised by how readable his book is and how reasonable he is, addressing all possible suspicious aroused by his stunning conclusions. He was suspicious himself in the beginning and cautious in conducting his research. He asked "Am I crazy?" after he discovered the protein intake positively correlated with liver cancer in children in the Philippines, where he went to promote "good nutrition" by adding more protein in their diet. He then explained the solid follow-up research he conducted (all peer reviewed and funded by NIH and other reputable organizations).
  
  He also spends maybe 50% of the text on powerful influences from industry as well as the medical profession itself that prevent research results like this to reach the public. For example, in Cleveland Clinic, the renowned heart-disease treatment center, some senior staff doctors and trustees, having heart problems themselves, go to see Dr. Esselstyn. Dr. Esselstyn was a top-ranked surgeon in the world. However these patients went to see Dr. Esselstyn not for his surgical skills, but for his plant-based nutrition treatment. Dr. Esselstyn, despite all awards he got during his successful career (in fact top earner in department of general surgery for over ten years!), he came to realize that without a change in diet, all the surgery and drugs didn't prolong patients lives, didn't reduce their chances of heart problem after these treatments. So he conducted a study of 18 patients following a low-fat, plant-based diet. Their heart diseases were reversed! Yet he couldn't get the Clinic to use his program to treat heart patients. So he had to set up his own practice. Then words get out and apparently the senior staff doctor and trustees KNEW this is a better option than surgery - many of them seeked help from Dr. Esselstyn. YET THEY STILL DON'T ALLOW DR. Esselstyn''s program to enter the Cleveland Clinic!!!
  
  Wow! That's something, huh?
  
  But think about it, it makes sense. Doctors are people, they need to make money to pay for houses, children's education, etc. If you tell them just by eating a true whole-foods veggie diet, people can avoid and indeed reverse heart diseases and various cancers, which the medical man cannot do yet, then their skills, and therefore their earning power, are rendered worthless. I wouldn't be happy if I were a heart surgery or cancer specialist.
  
  
• Moderation in Persuit of Health Is No Virtue
  By A3NY5I5F0V24AU on 2005-11-16
  This review is modified from my comments on "Carbophobia," as a response to a Hostile Reviewer. I'm afraid I might have been just a teeny little bit sarcastic, there, but I've revised it and added it here because it has a high degree of relevance. In defending "Carbophobia," I wax eloquent about my own masculine beauty:
  
  I've been effectively vegan since the Carter era (ah, youth!), with maybe some butter once in a while. Nothing dead since Iran was our friend (thanks, Carter). I'm not hoary with years, but no longer a mere slip of a boy, and my biometrics put me in my mid-twenties. When I'm trained (last year) my resting heartrate is 43 bpm, and I run a 5 minute mile and a 3:20 marathon; I can squat 600 pounds, dip twice my body weight (180) ten times (that's, um, like, uh, 360 pounds or something!), and I've nearly got my one-armed chinup. My body fat is somewhere under 10%, and I have that delightful and intriguing masculine shape, complete with abs, pecs, lats, and even [pause for dramatic effect] delts. Gee, I'm terrific! So am I saying this (if it's true) because I want vicarious admiration? Yes, I want vicarious admiration. But also because I think I pretty much demonstrate the fact that meat is in every sense optional.
  
  The Hostile Reviewer asserts that meat is not "unhealthy" -- I'm sure he meant "unhealthful" -- adducing carnivores as evidence. It's been years, decades, really, since I went through all this, but I still recall that the intestinal tract of carnivores is many times shorter than that of herbivores; since we are neither c. nor h., our i.t. is intermediate -- something like five times longer than comparable meat-eaters; the point being that meat doesn't sit and ferment...rot...in a cat's colon, the way it did in John Wayne's [yes, I know it's an urban legend]. Anyone can find this sort of info on the hippy-dippy veggie sites...they're not wrong, just...um...artistic. It may or may not be true that "Humans have been eating meat since time immemorial" [Anno Domini 1199?], but given the differences in GI structure between carnivores and humans, the plaintive query "If meat was so unhealthy how could carnivores ever exist?" answers itself. In any case, horses outlive lions, 28 years to 16 -- that's like, uh, twice as long or something. Upshot is, Are we carnivores? No duh. Are we dedicated herbivores? Get along with you. We *can* eat just about anything -- but what is most healthful?
  
  As for the inadaquacy of a vegetarian diet, we need only consider the beasts of the field -- say, the bovine staple of the Troglodyte Diet -- which eat, um, grass. Maybe some grasshoppers and lady bugs that don't elude the heft of a slobbery tongue, but mostly grass, right? I don't know what the incidence of osteoporosis in wild buffalo is, but I don't think it's endemic. As for protein: "nutrients from animal-based foods increase tumor development while nutrients from plant-based foods decrease tumor development." The consistancy of lab findings "was stunningly impressive..." [The China Study, p. 66.]
  
  Regarding "unhealthy," as The China Study points out, a study funded by The Atkins Center revealed that subjects on that diet for half a year suffered constipation (68%), bad breath (63%), headaches (51%), hair loss (10%), and a 53% increase in calcium excreted in urine [cf. TCS, p. 96]. An Austrialian review of the data points out low-carb dangers of heart arrhythmias and contractile problems, impairment of physical activity, osteoporosis, lipid abnormalities, kidney damage, increased risk of cancer, and sudden death [TCS, p. 97]. Ouch. Atkins himself died weighing 258 lbs; even if this was fluid retention related to his coma, the 195 lbs claimed for him by a spokesman is concidered overweight, a BMI score of 26.4. His heart disease and high blood pressure may have been from insalubrious diet, or, as claimed, from a viral infection of the heart -- which hardly suggests a healthy immune system. All this cannot conceivably indicate a "health" diet -- at best, it could only be a weight-loss diet, apparently at the cost of being a health-loss diet.
  
  The Hostile Reviewer asserts that "When people lose weight on high carbohydrate diets they always lose muscle and bone at the same time, sometimes as much as 40% ... from lean tissue..." Perhaps he's referring to the *Bonbons Seulement* Diet we've been hearing so much about? The Black Hole of Calcutta Diet? The Bataan Death March Diet? Just a hint: sensible diet and sensible exercise, together. Actually, for a sustainable diet, both animal and plant proteins are associated with greater weight, but "Greater plant protein intake [is] closely linked to greater *height* and body weight." [TCS, p. 103; emphasis added.] Third Worlders tend to be smaller not because plant protein is inferior, but because of insufficient dietary variety, quantity and quality, poor public hygiene, and prevalent childhood disease -- in other words, because of poverty.
  
  I shall refrain from a descent into the minutia of high-carb v high-protein. But honestly, does either extreme sound sensible? How about *adequate*, or *optimal* carbs, amino acids and EFAs? It's not a "boys are better than girls" argument, after all; both are sorta necessary.
  
  If we make the issue one of definitions, we must concider what I call "muffin vegetarians", where the issue isn't about health at all, and those people may be dropping like bloated blow-flies. Pretty much like the meat-and-no-potatoes folks. If it's only about weight (and merciful heavens, I hope it isn't), then amputation is a quick solution. But if it's about health, well didn't your grandmother ever teach you? Finish your vegetables, and don't play with dead things. If you insist on eating meat, doesn't moderation sound like a noble virtue?
  
  In any case, and kidding aside, there's scarcely anything more emotional than food. It's our first comfort, when we come out of the womb. It's the melancholy, nostalgic feasts of childhood. It's courtship and conviviality. Great Scott, it gets a whole sense to itself! But when you concider the steep decadal rise in obesity and diabetes -- diabesity? -- and the failing fight against heart disease and cancer and the like, you know something is wrong. What's different? Is it oil prices? Is it ebola? Is it the Illuminati? Or is it what we're eating. The solution is certainly not fad diets, high-this and low-that. The word "diet" comes eventually from the Latin, meaning "a way of life," or "lifestyle." Hmm. Why, that's another hint! We should eat in a manner that we can sustain, and that can sustain us, for the rest of our lives.
  
  The muffin vegetarians think their ethical purity will protect them. The cavemen think protein should be used as energy more than as building blocks. I suggest that we stop thinking of food in terms of a diet, and instead think of it as nutrition. It's not about how fat your hips or big your belly. It's about how healthy you can be. And like grandma used to say, "Moderation in most things."
  
  
• My Personal Experience
  By A2T4SLJE0ZXY0A on 2006-08-22
  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.
  
  
• Great teacher, great lessons, great book!
  By AODV3MG761934 on 2005-03-09
  I bought this book because of the excellent reviews it was getting and because of how much I enjoyed hearing Dr. Campbell speak about the China Study (the actual study, not the book) about three years ago. I was comfortably certain that I would enjoy the book, but what I didn't realize was how much I would learn from it! After listening to several lectures and reading many books and articles about the benefits of a plant-based diet and the harmful consequences of an animal-based one, as well as experiencing first-hand what a positive difference switching to a vegan diet makes, I didn't think there could be too much left on this topic to learn. I was mistaken! I gleaned new, interesting and important information from every chapter in this book, whether it was about nutrition, the mechanics of disease, or the disturbing details about what goes on behind the scenes as industry, medicine, science, government and business collude to spew out self-serving, deceptive and destructive "nutrition guidelines" for us hoi polloi. "The China Study" has inspired us to fine-tune our diet (already plant-based for nearly 5 years), and has me looking at things like pharmaceutical ads and medical study headlines (such as today's "Diabetics At Higher Liver Cancer Risk") with better informed, wider open eyes. While I already knew *that* a plant-based diet is healthier, this book explains in superb detail why and how that is the case... and despite the frequent complexity of the science, his explanations are clear and understandable - thanks in part to his excellent use of analogies. "The China Study" is well written, interesting and informative, engaging, sincere and forthright, and peppered throughout with a wonderful wry humor.
  
  I applaud Dr. Campbell's courage in speaking out against the status quo because he cares about the well-being of people and the planet, and am grateful to him (and his son) for sharing his hard-earned knowledge, behind-the scenes experience, and impressive expertise through this important book. Sometimes, when I read books like this one that credibly confront what we've been taught and what we think we know, challenging us to open our minds, think anew and hang on for the whoopsy wild ride of a paradigm shift, I am reminded of my high school history teacher's pet saying. When my class would do poorly on a pop quiz, he'd shake his head and mutter, "Buy 'em books and buy 'em books, and all they do is eat the covers." I hope The China Study is widely read and influential, and that all anyone eats after being handed this book is plants. :-)
  
  
  
• Finally!!!
  By A57YZN3RIYBP9 on 2005-04-04
  I purchased this book based on the following review. I'm posting it here because it was helpful to me and I figured it would be helpful to someone else...enjoy!
  
  The China Study
  
  Oprah has a book club, and now, so do I! Each week, I manage
  to read two or three books, and from time to time, I'll
  be sharing my favorites with you. This past week, I
  made the exception to my own rule, and read one book from
  comer to cover--twice! This must-read book is "The China
  Study," by T. Colin Campbell and his son, Thomas. T. Colin
  Campbell (the dad) is a great writer in his own right, but
  this new father and son team have synergized their energies
  to create a classic in the genre of nutritional texts.
  
  Early on in their brilliantly written book (page 21),
  the Campbells tell their readers:
  
  "So, what is the prescription for good health? In short, it
  is about the multiple health benefits of consuming plant-
  based foods, and the largely unappreciated health dangers
  of consuming animal-based foods, including all types of
  meat, dairy, and eggs."
  
  That's a pretty good start, and it gets even better.
  
  T. Colin Campbell's perspectives are simply amazing. On page
  21, he expresses a contrarian philosophy to most modern-day
  health gurus:
  
  "One of the more exciting benefits of good nutrition
  is the prevention of diseases that are thought to be
  due to genetic predisposition."
  
  Campbell has learned throughout his esteemed career that
  disease can easily be reversed and cured by adopting
  a plant-based diet.
  
  By quoting Goethe on page 27, Campbell exposes America's
  great protein myth, as promoted by the all-powerful milk
  and meat industries. He writes:
  
  "We are best at hiding those things which are in plain site."
  
  Campbell's sense of humor is at its best in this upscale
  well-documented book. His chapter on protein consumption
  should be read by every American. Healthy people should
  reinforce good physiology by Campbell's advice, and ill people
  should be inspired to take the cure by eating a plant-based
  diet. On page 30, Campbell asks:
  
  "Can you guess what food we might eat to most efficiently
  provide the building blocks for our replacement proteins?
  The answer is human flesh."
  
  Very funny! Of course, most are not willing to live on Mrs.
  Lovett's human meat pies. Or are we? The trouble is, with
  human and animal flesh, there are many dangerous byproducts
  to consider. The urea, ammonia, and dirty residues of animal
  proteins and saturated fats compromise carnivores.
  
  Campbell is at his best when writing about "Broken Hearts"
  on page 111. You will learn that during the Korean War, 77.3
  percent of healthy hearts autopsied from American casualties
  revealed advanced heart disease. These diseased hearts were
  taken from the bodies of so-called healthy males who had
  eaten the standard American diet. Campbell offers the hows
  and whys of heart disease...and the cure-all.
  
  On page 255, Campbell walks you through the American
  government's relationship with milk and meat producers.
  Conspiracy? Absolutely, and Campbell's detailed evidence
  and research reads like a detective story. One smoking gun
  after another overwhelms the reader into recognizing
  that things could have been different for our children
  had only those men in power possessed ethics. If only they
  had respected real science and not the almighty dollar.
  We have been betrayed, and T. Colin Campbell has survived
  in an academic environment despite those pressures exerted by
  bureaucrats with enormous financial conflicts of interest.
  
  Campbell's commentary on nutritional training, or the lack
  thereof for doctors is magnificent. On page 327, Campbell writes:
  
  "The situation is dangerous. Nutrition training of doctors
  is not merely inadequate; it is practically nonexistent...The
  bulk of these nutrition hours are taught in the first year of
  medical school, as part of other basic science courses...When
  nutrition education is provided in relation to public health
  problems, guess who is supplying the 'educational' material?
  The Dannon Institute, Egg Nutrition Board, National Cattlemen's
  Beef Association, National Dairy Council, Nestle Clinical
  Nutrition, Wyeth-Ayerst Labortories, Briston-Myers Squibb
  Company..."
  
  Campbell then asks:
  
  "Do you think that this all-star team of animal foods and drug
  industries representatives is going to objectively judge and
  promote optimal nutrition, which science has shown to be a
  whole foods, plant-based diet that minimizes the need for drugs?"
  
  The book is a must read for those who know a thing or two, and
  those who have not a clue. I've read no better book on nutrition
  than this one, which will arm you in nutritional arguments
  presented by meat-eating doubting Thomases.
  
  The China Study, by T. Colin Campbell, PhD, with Thomas
  Campbell is available on Amazon.com:
  
  http://tinyurl.com/6ggan
  
  Robert Cohen
  http://www.notmilk.com
  
  
  
  
• An Unfortunate Publication
  By A2A4XSXE268OP4 on 2006-02-01
  Unfortunately, T. Colin Campbell has published a book that makes a mockery of what is (could be?) one of the most important health studies ever done. I agree with Dr. Campbell that the "China Study" is a ground breaking study. It studies and correlates the diet and disease patterns of 65 rural counties in China. The wonderful thing about this is that the people in the Chinese counties have presumably eaten a similar diet their whole lives and their disease patterns are relatively well characterized. Therefore, it gives a unique look at correlations between diet, lifestyle and disease.
  
  And it could have been so interesting. Instead, Dr. Campbell has chosen to publish a book that says that veganism is best DESPITE the evidence. I could go on and on about the problems with this book from a scientific perspective. For now I'll direct you to the article about this study from my blog.
  
  This book is a shame. It held so much promise. If you are REALLY interested in disease and dietary patterns in China, look for the raw data - "Diet, Life-style and Mortality in China", also by T. Colin Campbell, among others.
  
  
• Vegan promoting Vegan diet
  By A33VP9R3JU5K1L on 2007-11-06
  To understand Campbell and his group, GOOGLE "PCRM and PETA." They are the same animal! They are vegans promoting veganism. This is a sham. Campbell would have you believe that all doctors and nutritionists promoting a healthy well-balanced diet including milk, eggs, lean meat, fish, poultry... are only buying into propaganda by the milk and beef lobbys in D.C.
  This book spends little time on the China Study then leaps to conclusions that would have us eliminate milk/meat. It is a scary book, especially for growning children, unless you can get them to eat many, many cups of spinach a day.
  He spends a lot of time defending that he is not a quack. If he acts like one and sounds like one....
  
  
• No Other Book Like It
  By A1TO3KN0EAAY6C on 2005-06-07
  I have read many of the popular diet and nutrition books out there, and none of them have been able to stand up to this one. Although I knew that fruits and vegetables were very healthy, I used to vigorously defend moderation. I liked a hamburger or other beef dish two or three times a week and I tried to eat low-fat meats most other days. Chips and soda were only occasional treats, so I thought I was eating pretty good. But I was overweight, and I started doing the diet book merry go round. At the insistence of a good friend I bought this book and started reading it and had a hard time refuting any of the arguments made by the author. There is such a wide variety of evidence, from so many professional journals, regarding so many different studies, that it was difficult to come up with counter-arguments to defend my old beliefs. It's forced me to change the way I think about food and health.
  
  This is not a compilation of information from secondary sources like newspapers, magazines, and other popular books; this is a compilation of peer-reviewed research findings from the top biomedical journals, complete with hundreds of references. These are research findings not just from the author, but also from researchers at Harvard, Oxford, and dozens of other reputable institutions. This is the most credibility I've ever seen in a health book.
  
  All of this information is strengthened by the last part of the book, the inside look at how food and medicine are being bungled in the US.
  
  I also am impressed by the endorsements for this book. I don't know of any other diet and health book that has the credibility of having endorsements from a former Ivy League President, a Nobel Prize winning scientist, the former top food policy maker in Washington, the president of one of the premier cancer organizations, and a former senior World Bank official. Amazing!
  
  Most importantly in the past 2 months since beginning to change my diet, I have lowered my cholesterol by 45 points, lost over 15 pounds, and can now walk up the stairs in my office building without having to pause halfway up. I get fewer headaches and my back and knee pain has gotten better(from losing weight, probably.) I feel great. I can't recommend this book enough.
  
  
• A revolution in the making
  By ABN5K7K1TM1QA on 2006-05-10
  The central message of this extraordinary book is: consume whole foods in the context of a plant-based diet. If you do you will greatly decrease the likelihood that you will die prematurely from the "diseases of affluence" that ravage our society, including cancer, heart failure and diabetes.
  
  This is a diet that makes eminent sense and is in accord with what we may surmise was the natural diet of our ancestors in the prehistory before the rise of agriculture and animal husbandry. Campbell shows through intensive and wide-ranging studies, in particular through evidence from the "China Study: the most comprehensive study of health and nutrition ever conducted," that it is a diet that will prevent and even reverse disease.
  
  Campbell is no pie-in-the-sky visionary or nutritional quack with a bogus agenda, nor is he an animal rights activist trying to find justification for his concerns. He is a bonafide mainstream scientist with forty years of experience who is currently Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. Furthermore, he grew up on a farm, and prior to his learning about the effect diet can have on human health, he ate a more or less traditional American diet heavy on the meat, milk, fat, refined sugars and starches.
  
  I have been reading books on nutrition and diet for decades. I have seen food fads come and go, and I have seen the rise of the supersize in which McDonald's and other large corporations have seduced us into eating not only foods that are bad for us, but lured us into eating (and drinking) them in large quantities. As a result we have become among the fattest people on the planet with something like two-thirds of the population overweight and one-third obese. (p. 135) Part of this is due to lack of exercise, but a significant part is due to eating too much. But Campbell believes that it isn't just how much we are eating, it is what we are eating. He maintains that eating exclusively from a whole foods, plant-based diet and maintaining an otherwise healthy lifestyle, we can eat as much as we like and not only keep trim but avoid the terrible diseases of affluence that haunt our society.
  
  What is different about Campbell's book is first the enormous amount of scientific evidence he presents, and second the idea that eating not just fats and overly processed foods is bad for you, but that eating too much protein, especially animal protein, is correlated with the scourges of diabetes, cancer and heart failure. Animal protein consumption in conjunction with various carcinogens in the environment causes cancer, to put it bluntly, is his message. This surprising finding is supported by Campbell's discovery that the effect of the carcinogen aflatoxin is almost completely negated when a low protein diet is followed. In particular, his research targets casein, protein from cow's milk, as contributing to the formation of cancerous tumors. He believes that consuming diary products on a regular basis is dangerous to your health.
  
  All told, this is without doubt the best book on nutrition, diet, and health that I have ever read, and believe me, I've read a few over the years. The arguments presented, over and above the very persuasive evidence, are compelling. One of the things I like to do when evaluating opposing views on what is good for human beings is to ask myself how was it in the prehistory? What sort of diet did humans become adapted to over the millennia? It was only about 10,000 years ago that animal husbandry began; in other words, it's only been about 10,000 years since any people have depended on milk as a food. Furthermore, although prehistoric humans were hunters and scavengers, it is clear that the bulk of their diet came from gathering plant sources. Even when they did slay an animal, that animal's flesh was lean, not fatty. This is not to say that prehistoric humans did not eat animal flesh. They did. In some cultures (the Inuit for example) animal flesh was the mainstay of the diet. But they are exceptions. Furthermore, the deleterious effects of a diet containing significant amounts of animal products would not have affected prehistoric peoples much since few lived long lives. Today most people (in the Western world at least) will live into their sixties, seventies and eighties. How free from pain and discomfort and how active and healthful they will be for how long will depend to some large measure on what they eat. This is Dr. Campbell's message.
  
  Another, more sinister message is contained in "Part IV: Why Haven't You Heard This Before?" It is here that Campbell chastises the medical profession, the scientific establishment and the government for being in the pocket of the various corporate interests. He shows how we have been indoctrinated by the diary, meat, poultry and drug industries into eating an unhealthy diet and attempting to treat the symptoms of the chronic diseases of affluence caused in part by that diet with ineffective and expensive drugs and invasive and dangerous treatments. He shows how under the Bush administration the recommended daily allowances (RDAs) from the government's Food and Nutrition Board have been revised so that increased amounts of fatty, highly processed, sugared and protein-stuffed foods are now more okay than ever. (See pages 306-314 for the appalling details.)
  
  Why is this happening? Because corporate vested interests have hoodwinked the medical profession and taken control of the government agencies and have bought off the politicians. Campbell writes: "...[W]hen it comes to health, government is not for the people; it is for the food industry and the pharmaceutical industry at the expense of the people." (p. 318) He adds, "The whole system is paid for by the drug industry, from education to research. The drug industry has bought the minds of the medical profession." (p. 332) He concludes (in italics): "The health damage that results from doctors' ignorance of nutrition is astounding." (p. 329)
  
  
• A brilliant book that will save lives
  By A1A33VSE3SZ5L4 on 2005-01-05
  The China Study is a must-read breakthrough book for anyone interested in issues concerning scientific integrity and the fields of health and nutrition. Through this brilliantly written and highly readable book, Professor T. Colin Campbell and son Tom tell both a personal and global story that make it clear what the political forces have been to undermine the fields of nutrition and health and confuse the public. This book is so well researched and compelling, it will have a profound influence on the way many people think about truth in science and nutrition, as well as the way they eat. This book will improve health and save lives.
  
  

• Tanita BC533 Glass Innerscan Body Composition Monitor

• Eat to Live: The Revolutionary Formula for Fast and Sustained Weight Loss
• Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease: The Revolutionary, Scientifically Proven, Nutrition-Based Cure
• The Food Revolution: How Your Diet Can Help Save Your Life and Our World
• The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted
• Vegan with a Vengeance : Over 150 Delicious, Cheap, Animal-Free Recipes That Rock