|  |
| Customer Reviews: | | Average Customer Review: ( 1115 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
2155 of 2317 found the following review helpful:
 Every doctor, teacher and parent needs to read this book! Jan 26, 2005
By Howie Jacobson, PhD
"Online Marketing Evolutionary"
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.
967 of 1052 found the following review helpful:
Why, oh why didn't I take the blue pill? Dec 24, 2006
By R. Pinkerton
"RP"
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.
600 of 677 found the following review helpful:
Fantastic! Dec 26, 2005
By Doxie
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?
1604 of 1912 found the following review helpful:
 China Study Review Sep 23, 2007
By Joseph DeMarinis
"Truth in science"
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.
55 of 63 found the following review helpful:
My view on the most critic review about this book Dec 13, 2009
By Ju Ming
The most critic review about this book has misled the readers in one aspect due to his misunderstanding of Chinese life style. This reader criticize the book using his own experiences of his journal to China. He see how Chinese live with his own eyes. The credibility is certainly high, as many Americans who's been to China experience the same. However, what he didn't know is a mistake of anachronism.
As Chinese, I have to point out this mistake. This reader said that Chinese eat a lot of meat or even snakes in the diet. However, this is the phenomenon beginning primarily after 1990s. Snakes eating are the "las Vagas" of the United states, uncommon only in southern part of China (Canton Province). When I was a small child in the 1980s, cancer was rarely heard of. My mother said, when she was a child, she never heard about cancer. We are also wondering why the cases of cancer have ever increased since the 1980s.
Dr. Campell's study is primarily built on the data collected earlier than 2000, when the environmental issues (pollution) were not serious in China.
Therefore, I believe that Dr. Campell's study has strong validity in describing the real situation more than a decade ago.
Please notice that China has changed a LOT in the past three decades. The data would be different today.
See all 1115 customer reviews on Amazon.com
|
| | |
