|
The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health | 
 enlarge | Authors: T. Colin Campbell, Thomas M. Campbell Ii
Creators: John Robbins, Howard Lyman
Publisher: Benbella Books
Category: Book
List Price: $16.95
Buy Used: $8.74
You Save: $8.21 (48%)
New (50) Used (21) from $8.74
Rating:  471 reviews
Sales Rank: 585
Media: Paperback
Edition: 1st BenBella Books Ed
Pages: 417
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.3
Dimensions (in): 9 x 6 x 0.9
ISBN: 1932100660
Dewey Decimal Number: 613.2
EAN: 9781932100662
ASIN: 1932100660
Publication Date: June 1, 2006
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Some minor wear to the cover. Internal pages are clean. Binding is secure.
| |
| Also Available In:
|
| Accessories:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Referred to as the "Grand Prix of epidemiology" by The New York Times, this study examines more than 350 variables of health and nutrition with surveys from 6,500 adults in more than 2,500 counties across China and Taiwan, and conclusively demonstrates the link between nutrition and heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. While revealing that proper nutrition can have a dramatic effect on reducing and reversing these ailments as well as curbing obesity, this text calls into question the practices of many of the current dietary programs, such as the Atkins diet, that are widely popular in the West. The politics of nutrition and the impact of special interest groups in the creation and dissemination of public information are also discussed.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 466 more reviews...
 Every doctor, teacher and parent needs to read this book! January 26, 2005
Howie Jacobson, PhD (Durham NC USA)
1031 out of 1100 found this review helpful
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 September 23, 2007
Joseph DeMarinis (Winchester, MA)
335 out of 423 found this review helpful
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! June 29, 2005
Kaayla T. Daniel (Albuquerque, NM United States)
114 out of 215 found this review helpful
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 July 13, 2005
CM (Australia)
103 out of 139 found this review helpful
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 December 2, 2005
Christian Bennett (Seattle, WA USA)
89 out of 159 found this review helpful
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.
|
|
|
|
| |
