The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted And the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, And Long-term Health by Thomas Campbell (EPUB)

Description

Even today, as trendy diets and a weight-loss frenzy sweep the nation, two-thirds of adults are still obese and children are being diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, typically an “adult” disease, at an alarming rate. If we’re obsessed with being thin more so than ever before, why are Americans stricken with heart disease as much as we were 30 years ago? In The China Study, Dr. T. Colin Campbell details the connection between nutrition and heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. The report also examines the source of nutritional confusion produced by powerful lobbies, government entities, and opportunistic scientists. The New York Times has recognized the study as the “Grand Prix of epidemiology” and the “most comprehensive large study ever undertaken of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease.” The China Study is not a diet book. Dr. Campbell cuts through the haze of misinformation and delivers an insightful message to anyone living with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and those concerned with the effects of aging. [This book is also available in Spanish, El Estudio de China.]

User’s Reviews

Editorial Reviews: Review “[These] findings from the most comprehensive large study ever undertaken of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease are challenging much of American dietary dogma.”—The New York Times “Reflects the profound changes that industrialization is bringing to diet and disease patterns in China, statistics that have had an impact on reevaluating dietary policy in the United States and worldwide.”—Washington Post “Everyone in the field of nutrition science stands on the shoulders of Dr. Campbell, who is one of the giants in the field. This is one of the most important books about nutrition ever written—reading it may save your life.”—Dean Ornish, MD, Founder & President, Preventative Medicine Research Institute; Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco; Author, Dr. Dean Ornish’s Program for Reversing Heart Disease and Love & Survival “Colin Campbell’s The China Study is an important book, and a highly readable one. With his son, Tom, Colin studies the relationship between diet and disease, and his conclusions are startling. The China Study is a story that needs to be heard.”—Robert C. Richardson, PhD, Nobel Prize Winner; Professor of Physics and Vice Provost of Research, Cornell University “The China Study gives critical, life-saving nutritional information … Dr. Campbell’s exposé of the research and medical establishment makes this book a fascinating read and one that could change the future for all of us.”—Joel Fuhrman, MD, Author, Eat to Live “The China Study is a life changer . . . After reading it I felt compelled to recommend this book to as many people as possible.”—Bob Napoli, Senior Vice President, Operations, Hudson Group About the Author For more than 40 years, T. Colin Campbell, PhD, has been at the forefront of nutrition research. His legacy, the China Study, is the most comprehensive study of health and nutrition ever conducted. Dr. Campbell is the Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. He has received more than 70 grant years of peer-reviewed research funding and authored more than 300 research papers. The China Study was the culmination of a 20-year partnership of Cornell University, Oxford University and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine. A 1999 graduate of Cornell University and recipient of a medical degree in 2010, Thomas M. Campbell II, MD, is a writer, actor and five-time marathon runner.

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐The China Study was the largest, most comprehensive human nutrition study in history. The China Study was the culmination of a 20 year partnership between Cornell University, Oxford University and the Chinese Academy Of Preventative Medicine. It is the legacy of Dr. T. Colin Campbell.Dr. T Colin Campbell ( 1934 – ) grew up on a dairy farm in Northern Virginia. For about 50 years Dr. Campbell has been at the forefront of nutrition research. Dr. Campbell is a Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. Dr. Campbell has received more than 70 grant years of peer reviewed research funding. He has authored more than 300 research papers and received the Research Achievement Award in 1998 from the American Institute of Cancer Research.Dr. Campbell opens, his book, “The China Study” by telling us that the top killers of Americans are ( in descending order, page 16 ):1. Cardiovascular disease2. Cancer3. Medical Care4. Cerebrovascular Diseases (strokes)5. Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases6. Accidents7. Diabetes Mellitus8. Influenza and Pneumonia9. Alzheimer’s DiseaseThe population of the United States is about 300 million people. Out of those 300 million Americans 82% have at least 1 risk factor for heart disease. Over 280,000 Americans died from strokes, diabetes or Altzeimer’s Disease in the year 2000. During any given week 50% – 80% of Americans take at least one medication or one prescription drug. 65% of Americans are overweight and 31% of Americans are obese ( page 346 ).People can’t be kept in a cages, so nutrition studies on human beings are both rare and valuable. They are incredibly valuable because animals are not people. What works/doesn’t work for common lab animals ( rats, rabbits, mice, etc..) often doesn’t/does work for human beings.The China Study had the huge advantage of being done in China, where for the most part, even in the present day, people don’t move around much. They will live in the same area and eat the same diet for most of their lives. Composed of distinct cultures with different economic advantages, regional diets in China will vary greatly.Dr. Campbell found that Chinese people who live in regions that eat diets similar to Americans die in much the same ways and numbers that Americans do.Dr. Campbell also found that Chinese people who lived in regions where animal products are scarce ( i.e. 4 ounces of meat a day, 3 – 4 thin slices of cold cuts ) did not experience the terminal diseases that Americans do in anywhere near the same numbers. Even when attempting to adjust for physical activity.The message of Dr. Campbell’s book, “The China Study”, is that if you want to avoid dying and more importantly suffering from, the list of diseases above eat a plant based diet of whole plant foods.I like to read about nutrition, so the nuts and bolts of the book that other people might find interesting I did not and vice-versa.The first thing I found interesting in this book, is the list of the top killers of Americans. I have seen that list many times over many years. Never with item number 3 on it. According to Dr. Campbell physician error, medication error, hospital borne infections and adverse events from drugs or surgery kill 225,400 Americans a year( page 15 ). Reads like a good argument for getting serious about preventative self health care doesn’t it? Exactly Dr. Campbell’s pointThe other points I found interesting were in regards low carbohydrate diets. Many of the proponents of low carbohydrate diets have the near-conspiracy theory idea that low fat diets recommended by the scientific establishment only served to make American’s fatter. In Dr. Campbell’s own words ( page 95 ):========================”One of the fundamental arguments at the beginning of most low carbohydrate, high-protein diet books is that America has been wallowing in low-fat mania at the advice of experts for the past twenty years, but there is one inconvenient fact that is consistently ignored: according to a report summarizing government food statistics, “Americans consumed thirteen pounds more fats and oils per person in 1997 than in 1970, up from 52.6 to 65.6 pounds.” It is true that we have had a trend toward consuming fewer of our total calories as fat, when considered as a percentage, but that’s only because we have outpaced our gorging on fat by gorging on sugary junk food. Simply by looking at the numbers, anybody can see that America has not adopted the “low-fat” experiment– not by an stretch of the imagination.”=========================In other words, Americans as a whole, were never on a low fat diet. Americans are fatter now because Americans have been eating more calories overall. Again, nothing new. You can read the same information in more detail in the August 2004 edition of The National Geographic (pages 46 – 61), “Why are Americans so fat” by Cathy Newman ( not quoted in this book ).My primary complaint with this book is the title. A more accurate title would have been “What I have learned during my 50 year career of nutrition research”. The actual “China Study” takes up a chunk of the book, but only a chunk.I would have enjoyed reading more about the actual “China Study”.The bulk of the book is taken up by Dr. Campbell trying to demonstrate that the idea that animal products bring disease and that whole food plant based diets bring health is not a new scientific discovery. In fact, he claims it goes back at least 30 – 40 years.Why haven’t you heard of this before? Well, that is the title of Part IV of his book, the last 92 pages or so.Do not expect a typical hippie health food conspiracy theory rant about payoffs and evil plots. Dr. Campbell has been one of the top researchers in the U.S. for about half a century. Many of the scientists and officials he has criticism for he knows on a first name basis. Dr. Campbell gives the reader, instead, a very sophisticated account of how health information does not make it out to the average person and more importantly, how seemingly conflicting medical information ends up in the popular media. Reading this section of the book will give you a valuable perspective on how to view reports on any given study you might find in the news.Since I waited so long to read this book, I have read many popular criticisms of it.As a popular reader, I haven’t come across any critics with Dr. Campbell’s credentials, who have addressed a fraction of the over 730 references of this book, who have read all of his research or who are involved in the same research as he was. I’m not saying that such scholarly papers aren’t there, but that is not where I have seen the bulk of criticism coming from.Some of the popular criticisms of this book are flat out ridiculous. For example, that Dr. Campbell wrote this book because he is a vegetarian and in league with animal rights activists. These “critics” have never read this book or they would have seen this quote (page 107 )=====================”The results of this study, in addition to a mountain of supporting research, some of it my own and some of it from other scientists, convinced me to turn my dietary lifestyle around.I stopped eating meat fifteen years ago, and I stopped eating almost all animal-based foods, including dairy, within the past six to eight years, except on very rare occasions. My cholesterol has dropped, even as I’ve aged; I am more physically fit now than when I was twenty-five; and I am forty-five pounds lighter now than I was when I was thirty years old. I am now at a ideal weight for my height.”=============================Furthermore, Dr. Campbell describes animal experiments he conducted and defends those experiments. That is something of an anathema to almost every kind of animal rights ideology.None of what Dr. Campbell has to say is all that new. A number of well credentialed experts over the years have been saying pretty much similar things. The entire book could be successfully condemned by the critics ( far from happening ) but the main message would still stand.Eating a plant based diet of whole plant foods promotes health, eating a diet high in animal products brings disease.I do think the book takes on too much and doesn’t walk the reader through enough tight conclusions. I think some parts of it could have been shorter without losing any information. I also think some parts were much too dense.I do think from the perspective of the full content of this book, that this book is one of the most valuable books any American can read.Putting the message into practice in your life can save your life and make you a happier person while you are living it.This book is old enough to be in many library systems, as well as used book venues. The only thing to lose, besides early diminishing health, is a few afternoons of your time to read this book.It is worth it.

⭐Review of the Campbells’ The China study by Paul F. Ross Despite several shortcomings, easily side stepped with proper understanding, every reader should read this book. You will learn what you don’t know about nutrition, perhaps extending your life, its pleasures and its contributions. Terribly important to our futures, you will learn what you have not learned about the politics affecting the sciences so, responding to your attention, those operations can be corrected and the sciences’ contributions to humanity can be massively increased. Colin Campbell and Thomas Campbell, father and son, review epidemiological medical studies and experimental animal studies relating diet and disease, the epidemiology drawing data from populations around the world – particularly the United States, Europe, China, and the Far East. Large differences in diet and lifestyles disclose their effects on lifespan and life-terminating diseases. Colin Campbell was professor of nutritional biochemistry at Cornell University until retirement, completed his PhD in nutritional biochemistry at Cornell University in 1961, and worked at MIT and Virginia Tech before returning to Cornell in 1975 where he worked until his retirement. This book of important findings and events emerges from the senior Campbell’s career. It offers a remarkable view into the politics of the sciences. The sciences and readers are indebted to the Campbells for this report. The China study, published in 2005, was read by this reviewer in its paperback version published in 2006. I assume the 2006 version replicates the 2005 version. This paperback printing of The China study first describes that study and its findings (110 pages) – a joint effort of China’s Academy of Medical Sciences, Cornell University and Oxford University – , then reviews the medical literature with respect to “diseases of affluence” (heart, obesity, diabetes, common cancers, autoimmune diseases, and various diseases of bone, kidney, eye, and brain) (104 pages), briefly describes nutrition based on “whole plant foods” (26 pages), then examines the most recent sixty years of journalistic, scientific, professional,_____________________________________________________________________________________Campbell, T. Colin, and Campbell II, Thomas M. The China study: Startling implications for diet, weight-loss, and long-term health 2006, Benbella Books, Dallas TX, xvii + 419 pages_____________________________________________________________________________________industrial, and government discussions as they have ‘collaborated’ to educate the US public about the effects of nutrition on health (100 pages). Remarkably, the authors describe the ‘politics of science and medicine’ as it has affected education of the public with respect to nutrition. I choose to re-label this book-length report as an example of the sociology of science, the nutrition and medical sciences for the last five decades providing the ‘laboratory’ example. Important agriculture and agri-business enterprises exist because they supply the world’s food and drink. Instructing publics about how food affects health and how changes in diets could massively affect health, the practice of medicine, longevity, and existing business/industry structure represents a significant threat to ‘things as they are.’ How science, industry, professional organizations, government, and journalism interact influences what the public learns. The Campbells describe important issues related to the transparency and integrity of these societal and cultural processes.The Campbells write so that any college-ready high school graduate can understand their meaning, avoiding the off-putting specialized vocabularies and concepts beloved in all sciences. The Campbells cite the peer reviewed literature of science on issues of nutrition covering essentially a five-decade time period, a remarkable in-depth review. Under competitive and editorial pressures to produce short articles, it is the fashion in literature reviews in the sciences to cite only work published in the last few years, perhaps the last decade at most. This report is strikingly different. The Campbells give us 36 pages of footnotes in small print with 758 citations.In a chapter on “scientific reductionism,” Colin Campbell criticizes at length the Nurses’ Health Study by the Harvard School of Public Health (started in the late 1990s and published beginning in the early 2000s, see p 271-283). The study, according to the Harvard researchers, found no significant relationship between fat intake and breast cancer risk (p 279-280). Ken Carroll’s study (University of Western Ontario, 1986; see p 84) of breast cancer showed females with less than 60 grams per day of “dietary fat intake” in Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, and El Salvador experience fewer than five deaths per 100,000 population per year while females with more than 140 grams per day of “dietary fat intake” in the US, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Netherlands, and Denmark experience more than twenty deaths per 100,000 population per year … animal fat providing the main source of dietary fat appearing to increase the risk of death from breast cancer by a factor of four. These outcomes are the consequences of diet and lifestyle, almost certainly not the consequences of genetic heritage. Campbell notes relevantly that the Harvard study of nurses, in choosing US women to study, chose participants who ate dietary fat derived primarily from animal sources whereas the women with low breast cancer rates in the Far East and El Salvador got their dietary fat almost entirely from plant-based whole foods. Further, fat-intake reduction by the US nurses adopted in an effort to reduce breast cancer risks was small compared to the difference between the < 5 g and the > 140 g intakes described in Carroll’s study. When the life-aspect under study (dietary fat intake) varies as little as it did from low fat-consumption to high fat-consumption among US nurses, there is no surprise that the Harvard study found little or no association between fat consumption and breast cancer risk. Statisticians know that “if the range of variation is restricted for a variable, that variable can have little effect on an outcome.” If one reduces the variation to zero, the non-influence becomes obvious. Campbell seems to have overlooked the primary culprit in the Harvard study (restriction of range of variation) by urging that studying just one variable (dietary fat intake) instead of studying many variables produced the Harvard study’s erroneous conclusions. By calling the problem “scientific reductionism,” studying details instead of studying “the whole,” Campbell raises useful issues but misses a major contributor to the non-findings from the Harvard study of nurses. A story from my career will help illustrate the statisticians’ insight.Two years after earning a Ph.D. in the behavioral and management sciences in 1955, I joined colleagues at Exxon’s world headquarters in New York City who had started a search for skills or life-elements that lead to success as an executive. They had named the study the Early Identification of Management Potential. I outlined an approach to analysis of the data they had been collecting, identifying in particular several indicators of career success. My plan was adopted and I guided programming of computer software by which important detailed work would be accomplished. In 1960, analysis complete, I was chosen from our small group for the privilege of first reporting our findings at a regional psychological meeting in Chicago. I reported that “We examined a long list of possible contributors to career success and found that successful leadership instances in early life from teenage to mid twenties were primary precursors to success as an executive, the (cross validated) correlation between the accumulated effect of these biographical events and career success (as compared with one’s age-mates) being r = 0.65.” A correlation of that size was unexpectedly high and, even now, half a century later, is still unexpectedly high and, as yet, unmatched. “What was the correlation between intelligence and career success?” was a question from my audience. “A high-level verbal intelligence test produced scores correlating r = 0.10 with career success,” I reported. That was unexpectedly low, really low! Were the data saying that intelligence does not contribute to success as an executive? I continued by saying that “All the managers and executives in our study sample of 440 executives were college graduates, certainly drawn from the upper half of the range of human intelligence and probably drawn mostly from the upper ten percent of college graduates. All of them being bright, the variation in intelligence in this sample of industry leaders was too small for intelligence to anticipate the difference in job performance of one executive from that of another.” The correlation of intelligence with success as an executive, in this sample, was low because all the executives had high scores. They varied little in intelligence. The low correlation followed from the restriction in range of variation of intelligence in this executive population. And so it was with the variation in dietary fat intake for the nurses in the Harvard study, as well as the variation in type of dietary fat (animal vs plant), when comparing the nurses studied in the Harvard study about breast cancer risk with the findings from the cancer atlas from China (Li et al, 1981) and Carroll’s work (1986) showing the relationship between dietary fat intake and breast cancer. Campbell’s stout criticism of the Harvard study is justified but his understanding of and explanation of the reasons for the difference between his own findings and the Harvard findings need improvement. Campbell’s criticism of “scientific reductionism” also is in order. Often the scientific experiment in which one variable is studied, the “experimental group” being treated and the “control group” getting no treatment (a placebo), cases being assigned to these two groups by a random process, is presented to publics and scientists as the “gold standard” for the way in which science should be done. Actually, in every science, many circumstances converge to influence almost any outcome one wishes to study. Thus, in my view, research becomes more cost effective, delivering a greater number of useful insights, when a study is designed to observe and study many variables simultaneously, the effect of each variable on the outcome(s) being deciphered by the use of statistical methods, particularly factor analysis. Campbell’s criticism of “scientific reductionism” has some of the flavor of my criticism … Campbell saying that studying only one variable, and not studying it in its worldwide context, is inadequate scientific effort. I agree … wishing, of course, to move on to multivariate studies (which are not mentioned by Campbell). The Campbells present a dozen or more scatter plots in their book to show the data from which they are drawing conclusions as they do when showing the association of urinary calcium excretion (taking that calcium from the host individual’s bones) with dietary protein intake (p 206). In this scatter plot, as in few others, they report the correlation as r = 0.85. That is a high correlation in any science (although some sciences see much higher correlations as with the correlations between the motions of the Earth and Moon around the Sun). Too often the Campbells present a scatter plot but do not report the correlation, an important shortcoming. In place of a correlation coefficient, the authors write “The correlation between fat intake and protein intake is more than 90% (p 83).” No knowledgeable statistician or editor would allow the authors to make such a statement. A correlation of r = 0.90 indicates the variables being correlated share 81 percent of their variance. The knowledgeable author says either “the variables correlated r = 0.90” or “the variables shared 81 percent of their variance.” On the few occasions when the Campbells report a correlation coefficient, I suspect it comes from the source paper and, barring an error of transcription, is correct. Well informed and conscientious scientists will complain (and should complain) about the Campbells’ reporting of the meaning of correlation between and among variables. However the Campbells are simply two in a very large majority of scientists in all sciences who know next to nothing about correlation statistics and their meaning. Happily, the Campbells know an important relationship when they see it described in a scatter plot. One wonders how the Campbells were able to find a publisher. An alert and inquiring friend of mine, noticing my excitement in reading The China study, explored the internet for opinions about this work and reported to me that the work is very controversial. “There are many negative opinions being voiced from all sorts of places” was the report. I was not surprised. The Campbells describe longstanding reluctance to accept findings about the impact of diet on the risk of cancer, earlier controversies needing resolution at the level of the US National Academy of Sciences as its 1982 report on Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer (p 83) tried to resolve conflict left in the trail of a 1977 U.S. Senate report describing goals with respect to dietary fat for the U.S. The Campbells see both conventional thought – by medics and the general population (“treatment is by drugs or by surgery”) – and agri-businesses (as illustrated by the Campbells’ stories of opposition to work of the American Institute of Cancer Research, p 261-267) as major obstacles to acceptance of the research findings about nutrition and its influence in averting, even stopping the development of, important diseases (cancer, heart disease, and others). I would expect publishers like the Harvard University Press, Princeton University Press, University of Chicago Press, Wiley, McGraw-Hill, Norton, Harcourt-Brace, and others to cherish the opportunity to publish a major scientific work (note the publishers for the following economics, behavioral science, and public policy works :: Achen and Bartels, 2016; Bernanke, 2015; Milanovic, 2016; Piketty, 2014; Pinker, 2011). The Campbells found Benbella Books in Dallas TX as publishers, not a major publishing house. Benbella was willing to publish a controversial report. I suspect Benbella as well as the authors have found that the venture was a wise business venture. Thank goodness for the courage of Benbella Books as publisher for the message that the Campbells have to deliver. It is a message that needs to be widely seen. The typical reception for paradigm-breaking scientific ideas is that conventional thought and business interests block their implementation, even their publication. I have been working at the task of job performance measurement for a career, attending to data in particular for the last three decades about what scientists call “peer review” of scientific manuscripts to determine what gets published or “peer review” of research proposals to determine what gets funded. Research shows that peers who read manuscripts offered for publication, these reports describing finished research, share less than nine percent of the variance in their judgments about whether to publish or reject! These outcomes have been observed in medicine, psychology, chemistry, sociology, economics, and so on. That means that over ninety percent of the variance in qualified peers’ judgments is not shared! Peers accomplish even less consensus when judging research proposals seeking funding. Under the competitive pressures of publishing completed research (about ten percent of all manuscripts submitted to top-tier scientific journals get published), statistical simulation tells us that these universal peer review practices in all sciences publish fewer than 2 manuscripts out of the 15 most valuable manuscripts in a stack of 100 manuscripts received by an editor. Rolling dice to decide what to publish would do as well.During the winter of 2007-2008, a small group of my colleagues and I were reading published reports so that we could “keep up with our sciences” by meeting and discussing the work just read. Given my prior work on job performance measurement, I invited my colleagues to spend ten minutes marking 45 statements either true or false with respect to each scientific work we read. I collected their marked questionnaires before we began discussion. Analysis showed that detectable consensus among these peer reviewers had been elevated from less than nine percent shared variance in judgments using the methods in place since scientific journals came into existence over 300 years ago to over eighty percent shared variance when recording our judgments as we were recording them in this trial use of my questionnaire, a tenfold increase in detected consensus. Statistical simulation tells us that using a similar process to evaluate each manuscript offered for publication in scientific journals, if the advice then is followed by the editor, will result in publishing at least 7, not just 2, of the 15 best scientific manuscripts among 100 received. Using this method, already demonstrated, in deciding what to publish, the hit rate for publishing papers drawn from the most valuable 15 among 100 manuscripts can be quadrupled or more as indicated by citation count of the published works in the decade following publication, and this at no increase in the cost of doing science.I’ve offered a report of this work to at least a dozen peer reviewed scientific journals and all have rejected my report. One journal accepted, then withdrew acceptance, of my report. Why this universal no-saying? My report challenges how science is being done. Editors and peers doing the reviewing see themselves as very able scientists (and many are), understand they won recognition as current processes for peer review were being used, and see no reason to change those processes. The rejection notices to me do not say “The evidence you present is insufficient to support your conclusions” or “The issues you address are not important to science and society.” They say “This work does not fit the mission of our journal.” If scientists and their peer-reviewed journals are not responsible for the self management of the sciences, improving that process based on evidence repeatedly gathered in the scientific manner, just who is responsible and by what means are processes judged to be valid !!!The Campbells describe the resistance to their findings from fellow scientists, medical people, journalists, government people, and even the public because the findings do not fit what is widely accepted to be “true” and “good.” While stories are not acceptable as scientific evidence, this reader is convinced that the Campbells describe accurately the social resistance to their findings and the organizational push-back against the proposition advanced by the data they summarize saying that education about nutrition and nutritional practices need important change. One dear friend of mine completed a Ph.D. at Harvard University in cell biology some thirty years ago, has been a vegetarian (and for a while a vegan) for at least twenty years, is an active author and veteran hiker, and has spent life in constant association with university communities. I could imagine The China Study being a “Bible” in the community of vegetarians. I looked to this friend for an expert’s, a vegetarian’s, a biological scientist’s evaluation of the Campbells’ report. The Campbells’ The China Study (2006) is not known to my friend! Despite its shortcomings, The China Study merits wide readership.Bellevue, Washington24 December 2016Copyright © 2016 by Paul F. Ross All rights reserved.ReferencesAchen, Christopher H., and Bartels, Larry M. Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government 2016, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJBernanke, Ben S. The courage to act: A memoir of a crisis and its aftermath 2015, W. W. Norton & Company, New York NYCampbell, T. Colin, and Campbell II, Thomas M. The China study: Startling implications for diet, weight-loss, and long-term health 2006, Benbella Books, Dallas TXCarroll, K. K, Braden, L. M., Bell, J. A., et al. “Fat and cancer,” Cancer, 1986, 1818-1825Li J-Y, Liu B-Q, Li G-Y, et al. “Atlas of cancer mortality in the People’s Republic of China. An aid for cancer control and research,” International Journal of Epidemiology, 1981, 10, 127-133Milanovic, Branko Global inequality: A new approach for the age of globalization 2016, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MAPiketty, Thomas Capital in the twenty-first century 2014, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge MAPinker, Steven The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined 2011, Viking, New York NY

⭐I’ve been looking for quite a while for something authoritative and comprehensive in the line of dietary and nutritional information. The world is inundated with fad diets and misinformation. A great deal of what we hear about various aspects of diet is contradictory. One week something is demonised as being unhealthy, the following week that information is refuted, in the strongest terms, by seemingly equally authoritative sources. This confusion is clearly explained in the China study and, for once, absolute clarity reigns instead of confusion. Vested interests present themselves as independent authorities, with deceptive titles, and so confusion reigned supreme, until I read this book. The level of corruption that pertains in the food industry is scandalous and the greatest danger to our health that has ever been. For about a month, prior to Christmas, I had been eating more or less in accordance with the guidelines given in The China Study. I found a gradual, but perceptible, increase in my energy levels. As it is now the season of gluttony, Christmastime, I have been cooking and eating a lot of meats, spiced beef, turkey, ham, etc. I felt the slubbishness returning and my energy levels dropping off. While this is not sufficient information to base a major lifestyle change on, it is sufficiently encouraging for me to continue the experiment. Incidentally, during this period, prior to my return to high levels of meat consumption, I had a health check. My blood pressure, which has tended to be on the high side for the last ten to fifteen years, had dropped to the level that I had in my twenties, 120/70. Monday next, the 2nd day of 2017, I will return to a more-or-less vegetarian lifestyle. By the way, during the month that I had adhered to a reduced meat consumption diet, I discovered that there is a great amount of vegetarian food out there that is every bit as tempting as the addictive meat-eating diet, and it left me feeling lighter, more energised and more focussed, mentally, than I have felt for a long time. This book is divided into easily accessible and understandable sections and I use it to ‘dip into’ as necessary. It has joined a few books that I deem important in my ‘vase mecum’ my knapsack of essentials that I carry with me every day. Read it, adopt its advice, adapt it to your own requirements. You will reap the benefits. I have done so in the short term, I will now do so in the long term. I hope that you do so also. You have nothing worthwhile to lose and your health and wellbeing to gain.

⭐It is an excellent book. Easy to understand yet with a lot of scientific information. It is recommending a vegan way of eating and has convinced me that it is the best diet for a healthy longlife. I will certainly try it.

⭐Buy the book, take your time and read it a couple of times. It’s not an all action page turner and will require some work on your part. If you find yourself giving up after a couple of chapters you might want to ask yourself ‘ What is it in me that is stopping me reading this book?’

⭐This is one of the most important books written regarding the impact that diet has on the overall health of individuals, communities and nations. Using a wealth of painstakingly gathered statistics and data Campbell demonstrates that a plant based diet can overcome the illnesses associated with the rich diet we are encouraged to eat in the West and also reverse their progress.. As a person with a long cardiac history this book and others like it have provided me with a way to combat and possibly overcome a formerly unbeatable enemy. Where before there was nothing to look forward too other than a premature death I now have a hope based on some solid evidence rather than just popular opinion.

⭐An authoritative, comprehensive and compelling book on the benefits of adopting a whole food, plant based diet. A must read for anyone and everyone looking to improve their health and well-being through diet as opposed to medication or surgery. As Dr Dean Ornish says, reading this book may save your life.

Keywords

Free Download The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted And the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, And Long-term Health in EPUB format
The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted And the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, And Long-term Health EPUB Free Download
Download The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted And the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, And Long-term Health 2006 EPUB Free
The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted And the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, And Long-term Health 2006 EPUB Free Download
Download The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted And the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, And Long-term Health EPUB
Free Download Ebook The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted And the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, And Long-term Health