Eat to Live?

[oz25]

After reading a number of people mention the book Eat to Live, I went out and bought it this evening. I'm wondering how many people have read this book? What your reactions are? And do you make any modifications for the rigors of consistent cycling?

[alison_in_oh]

Yes, as a cyclist (who has never struggled with weight, and who trains quite intensely at times) in order to meet my caloric needs I have to take more of the calorie-dense foods that Fuhrmann warns against. Even when I am eating really well, I don't hesitate to have a portion of whole grain or of meat. However, since reading that book I try to minimize my grain portions and maximize my beans and greens. I feel great and healthy, and I am glad to know that I am taking in optimal amounts of cancer-protective phytonutrients and other antioxidants.

A cyclist struggling with weight or working mostly at a recreational intensity might find that they can best modulate their appetite by sticking to Fuhrmann's suggestions, and meeting their caloric needs with large volumes of nutritious but low-cal food.

[Asmokindeal]

I have only been doing the eat to live diet for 2 day's and I am already growing tired of it. I have been eating salads with vinagarette dressing for my meals and fruit.

I am constantly hungry. I never feel satisfied, I am tired and bored to death.

I once did a similar diet a few years ago for 3 full months and it was horrible. I had to take a nap every day at lunch in my car. I was very moody the whole time.

I am already tired of eating this much vegetables, it's starting to discust me and I have always loved vegetables. How long would it take you to eat a whole pound of greens in a day anyway? Hours. I am frustrated. Why does it have to be such a drag to eat "Healthy".

If this is so healthy, why does it suck so much? I am starting to doubt that this is really necessary. I havn't gotten anything done at work for the last few days because I have no energy or interest.

What is going on with this?

[Nykon]

I read the book "Eating for Life"
Never read the book you are reading but I love mine. You can eat just about anything once you get the hang of balancing your carbs and protiens and eating them in portions.

[juf2m]

I read Eat to Live, and found it very interesting, but I doubt I could do that diet exclusively forever. It's too difficult when going to people's houses for dinner, when going out with friends etc. However, I have drastically increased the beans and veggies and decreased the animal products and fats. My grain eating is about the same.

I took from it what I thought would be useful. For example, he says that a little meat and a ton of veggies is better than a vegetarian diet of pastries (for example). He suggests having 10% of a non vegan's diet being animal products. So what we do is say we have a 2,000 cal diet per day, we take 200 cals and save them up for one or two good feeds of animal foods, like a big steak or ice cream or whatever. This keeps us sane. And of course for riding, we eat the usual gu, bars, bananas, cereals before leaving the house, etc.

We actually lost some weight on this modified version, I went from 145 to 128 and my husband went from the low 200s to the mid 180s.

Hope this helps!

[Garfield Cat]

Never read the book but is it close to a diet recommended to those who are diabetic? Diabetics don't each much grain because too much of it turns into sugar, like white rice. Even brown rice is ditto. Diabetics cannot have too much fruits because of the sugar. And since diabetics also must be careful with their heart, they tend not to each much beef, pork, red meats.

[Redrom]

I read the book, and have been applying the principles behind it for a few months, and it's really been great. I've lost 45 lbs this year. I feel great and energized, and recommend the book to all my friends and family. I have a different impression than several of the other responses, so maybe I can impart a slightly different perspective on a couple of things.

The book discusses two (not necessairly different) paths to follow. One is that of a lifestyle change where, by understanding the logic of why and how to eat healthy, we gradually modify what we eat. For those who need more direction there are also "diet" plans and recipies that can help, depending on just how urgent your medical reasons are for needing to reduce your weight. Luckily for us, we had no sense of urgency, which allowed us to take the former, more leisurely path. Also luckily (for me), my wife is an artist in the kitchen, and I love to help prepare the food with her. I noticed that it took a couple of weeks for my palate to adjust to the new flavors I was giving it, but by adding the new flavors slowly we've arrived at a place where the foods taste better than the junk we were giving ourselves previously. I think it would take longer than 2 days to adjust, but I do feel like I can do it for a lifetime.

The hardest part about eating this way is that it costs more to buy whole unprocessed produce, than it did to buy all the processed foods that were our previous staples, and that it takes a lot more time to prepare the foods we eat. It's really fast to cut up some carrots and celery, but that would get old quick. Preparing soups and salads based on what is fresh, appetizing, and available that week has added a vigor to our lives that is hard to describe; we think about food all the time, dreaming up new and exciting dishes and menu's. I would say that the cost of our monthly bill is 30% more than it was last year, and that we probably spend 20 hours a week between the two of us in preparing food, where we used to spend maybe 5 hours a week (we have two young boys to feed as well). The salads/meals you prepare don't have to be booring. Our favorite dishes have been a Potato Leek soup with Kale, Mustard Greens and Turkey Kielbasa; Stuffed Poblano Peppers; Taco Salad with Guacamole and Salsa as the dressing; Sweet Potato Walnut Waffles with fresh sauted fruit on top.

To respond to a few other posts. I believe that the "10% of your diet could be meat" statement may not have been how the author intended his words to be interpreted. He addresses that the reality of life is that sometimes we will eat out, at friend's homes, business dinners, etc. and that a good guage for health purposes (not necessairly weight loss) would be to try to eat as described in the book at least 90% of the time; don't beat yourself up over eating out, just do what you can to keep the wrong foods out of the house (it's a mental thing). Regarding meat, he says that studies show an incremental detriment to your health, when quantites of meat consumed are above 12 oz. a week. He doesn't present this as an all or nothing plan either; the more you can follow it the healthier and more towards your ideal weight you will become.

While he suggests eating a pound of greens a day, he alludes towards taking that suggestion lightly; I interpret that to mean, eat as much leafy greens as you can. I also wouldn't say that he is against eating grains, only that they are less nutrient dense than vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts... he actually has a scale that places foods by their nutrient score, which is figured by the formula health=nutrients/calories. This means greater health will be achieved the more nutrients a food has per calorie. What I like best (besides all the new flavors I'm experiencing) is that I'm never hungry. I eat until I'm full, and don't hesitate to eat more when I get hungry again.

Regarding the riding, I find that I ride best with a big bowl of Oatmeal before my ride. Now that it's summer, I don't even cook the oats, I throw in strawberries, blueberries, and a bannana along with walnuts, ground flax seed, soy milk and a bunch of cinnamon. I don't ride at competition levels or at recreation levels but somewhere inbetween. If I were racing, I would probably increase the percentage of grains, nuts and fatty fruits and vegetables (avacado, papaya, etc). Lara bars are great in place of PowerBars, since only fruits and nuts are used to make them. The proof's in the pudding, I lost another 4 lbs last week, and am now within the range of my ideal weight!

[Al.canoe]

To respond to a few other posts. I believe that the "10% of your diet could be meat" statement may not have been how the author intended his words to be interpreted.

While he suggests eating a pound of greens a day, he alludes towards taking that suggestion lightly; I interpret that to mean, eat as much leafy greens as you can. I also wouldn't say that he is against eating grains, only that they are less nutrient dense than vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts... he actually has a scale that places foods by their nutrient score, which is figured by the formula health=nutrients/calories.

!

Ten percent meat protein (not just meat) on a calorie basis is the threshold value for promoting cell growth and where carcinogens can cause cancer. It's also related to the bodies propensity for heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, mental degeneration with age and a host of other illnesses. Thus five percent or less animal protein, including milk protein, is a much safer value.

Having had prostate cancer twice and exhausting both available cures, I've switched to an ultra-low animal protein diet. Statistically, that provides a factor of 10 greater chance of any remaining cancer cells for that particular cancer staying dormant than a diet of 10% or more animal based protein.

Whole grains are way too valuable nutritionally to minimize. Also, the new USDA guidelines, published in 2005 and available as a free download, recommends no less than 8 or 9 servings of fruit and vegetable a day. You eat that much and you'll be hard pressed to eat much meat. Also, a high plant protein based diet raises ones energy level and basal metabolism rate. You burn more calories and lose weight.

The key to health is to eat a wide variety of all plant based food, not just leafy green vegetables. A diet low in meat/dairy requires supplementation with B12. The farmlands are apparently depleted of the chemicals that would normally make plants a good supplier of this vitamin.

My reference for the above, except the USDA stuff, is The China Study, by T Colin Campbell PhD, pub 2005.

Concerning cost, according to Campbell, it will cost less to go plant based after you've experimented and learned how to eat to ones taste. We are still in the experimentation stage having been at it for "only" two months. Since I had already reduced my meat intake over the years because of the higher-energy thing, giving that up (including fish) was not a big deal. The yogurt though, I miss.

Al

[Redrom]

In quoting my post I'm not sure if you're supporting or disputing what I'm saying... I'd agree with you that this author suggests eating even less than 10% of your diet as meat (12 oz. could only be 10% of your diet if you only ate 120 oz. of food a week!). I also wouldn't say that grains are minimized, only that the author of the book we're discussing here ranks different foods by how many nutrients per calorie they have. Grains have less nutrients per calorie than vegetables and fruits and beans (I'm not a scientist, but would assume that's a fact that could be verified), but I agree with you that all are an important part of a well balanced diet.

It's hard to put too much stock in the USDA food pyramid, since they cite dairy as a necessary part of your diet. Eliminating dairy was one of the hardest parts for me personally of switching over, but the logic as presented made sense and the results (for me) are hard to dispute. The USDA pyramid historically has been more swayed by the meat and dairy industries for political reasons, and less concerned with health (as I understand things). After all, they're the ones that allow the milk industry to categorize their fat content by weight instead of by volume. If you figure the fat by volume instead of by weight, then 1% milk is actually 20% fat, and whole milk over 60% fat content. Non-fat (skim) milk has no fat in it, but it still has the hormones that a mother cow gives it's baby cow that turn it into a 1200 lb. meat machine; I decided I didn't need those hormones working against my weight loss efforts. Most soy milks have Vitamins D & B12 added to help compensate for this. I found a soy yougurt that I really like, I'll probably have it more often once I get down to my goal weight (it's not fat free).

I feel like the added cost may already be taking a decline from where it reached over the past few months. Our portions have naturally reduced as our bodies (& stomachs) have shrunk. This doesn't even take into account the cost savings of having great health over a lifetime; it's just something to brace yourself for if looking into a change, rather than a criticism of eating this way.

[Al.canoe]

I'm really not disputing or agreeing as I have not read the subject book. I thought I would add some scientifically founded information fromm The China Study. For example, the issue of how much fat one consumes is now really OBE based on the preponderance of the evidence which is based on lab (animal studies), population studies and human trials which all provide the same reults : it's the animal protein that's the issue.

After all, the debate on fats, carbs, veggies, pyramids and so on has been going on for decades, yet the US population get's fatter and sicker. Something's not working here and it's time to get real with the current science which is thoroughly reported (and readable) in The China Study. It also covers why there is so much conflicting and more often than not meaningless chatter on health in the media that confuses the general population.

Al

[Redrom]

Sounds like the book is right up your alley. It draws from innumreable studies, and puts things together in a cohesive package, and supports much (if not all) of what you're saying. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say once you've read it!

[Al.canoe]

I checked it out on the WEB and it appears to be a weight loss book. I'm interested in maximizing my energy and health and not losing weight. Weight loss to me is a self-evident process once you're eating for health. Also, I figure since there there are probably a thousand plus weight loss books out there, new ones every 6-months and yet the population keeps getting fatter, weight loss books are proven ineffective. So I ignore them.

The China Study covers the subject. Maintaining the proper weight with out effort and hunger is a side benefit of a plant based diet; given of course that you avoid processed foods, high sugar foods (unless cycling hard in excess of an hour) and soft drinks whether the diet kind or not.

What I'm interested in reading now is stuff that builds on The China Study or attempts to disprove the results. I don't expect any of the latter, but you never know.

Al

[Redrom]

Al, that's just what I'm saying; from what you've said about the China study I think the book bulids on it's findings. Try not to judge a book by it's cover, it's a plan for proper nutrition and by following the guidelines it will bring you first to health and second to your ideal weight (whether that means loosing or gaining weight). Or, if you can't get past the cover, start with "Disease Proof your Children", another title by the same author that covers many of the same principles.

It's not a "diet", it's a way of life. Go out on a limb and take a suggestion from a stranger, or even better go to the library or bookstore and just read the introduction. There's a lot more to it than we can hash out in a few posts; that's why someone started a thread for people who've read it.

[Al.canoe]

First, I don't have a weight problem. I'm also very fit and have been for close to 40 years. Second, I can tell from this thread that the book is OBE compared to the China Study. Once you are 98% plant based (and non-processed), what's to discuss or fine-tune?

The issue is why go plant based in the first place. That is "proven" to probably something like around a 90 to 95% confidence level by the work reported in the book. If you add the 50 yr old research that led to the Crete life style, and what's happened to these poor souls now that they have gone "western", which became known as the Mediterranean Diet and population studies that show that folks who maintain the proper weight world-wide are carb (plant) eaters, it's close enough to "really proven" for me.

Another clincher is the close agreement between lab (animal) studies, population studies and human trials done by different researchers; especially those trials where they were able to reverse some cancers, cardio problems and type 1 and type 2 Diabetes. We actually know some folks who reversed their disease with a plant based eating, but these were not part of science-based studies.

The major thrust of the China study is the avoidance of the diseases and disorders that afflict affluent societies like the US (which is the sickest) by showing that the poor rural societies found in places like China, Formosa, the Philippians, etc. just don't have what ails us and specifically why, at the cell level even, that is the case.

Al

[Redrom]

1) You don't have to have a weight problem to be interested in good health. To me, this is the books primary focus.
2) Eat to live does promote a plant based diet, which is why I think you will like reading it, if you can get past your stigma about it.
3) If you're so opposed to the concepts of the book without reading it, and aren't even willing to consider reading it, then why are you here on this thread? Go start your own thread called "China Study" or something...

[Al.canoe]

There is already a thread on The China Study. Why would I read a book that's redundant at best and OBE at worst just because it's on plant based eating? Sounds like a waste of time since I'm already doing it and I have other things to do. Not wanting to waste my time on your book is a judgment call based on what I read here and on the web and doesn't at all imply narrow-mindedness or some kind of mental defect that you seem to need to imply. Exactly what part of "NO" don't you understand?

My previous post here, other than the ones trying to explain to you why I don't want to read your book which seems to offend you to no end, was contributing some info to indicate that the information from your book (fat, grain and leafy vegetables issues if I remember correctly) which you posted sounded very sophomoric based on the current state of understanding. That's because the REAL issue was to maintain ones animal protein intake at a level less than that which promotes cell growth (10%) and preferably 5% (even zero) on a calorie basis. If one does that, the risk of disease/overweight is minimized or about an order of magnitude less depending on the disease compared to eating animal protein. I don't have to have read your book to contribute that fact or even have to start another thread.

By the way ---- you really need to read The China Study (or something....)!

Al

[mrfreddy]

Ten percent meat protein (not just meat) on a calorie basis is the threshold value for promoting cell growth and where carcinogens can cause cancer. It's also related to the bodies propensity for heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, mental degeneration with age and a host of other illnesses. Thus five percent or less animal protein, including milk protein, is a much safer value.

Having had prostate cancer twice and exhausting both available cures, I've switched to an ultra-low animal protein diet. Statistically, that provides a factor of 10 greater chance of any remaining cancer cells for that particular cancer staying dormant than a diet of 10% or more animal based protein.

Whole grains are way too valuable nutritionally to minimize. Also, the new USDA guidelines, published in 2005 and available as a free download, recommends no less than 8 or 9 servings of fruit and vegetable a day. You eat that much and you'll be hard pressed to eat much meat. Also, a high plant protein based diet raises ones energy level and basal metabolism rate. You burn more calories and lose weight.

The key to health is to eat a wide variety of all plant based food, not just leafy green vegetables. A diet low in meat/dairy requires supplementation with B12. The farmlands are apparently depleted of the chemicals that would normally make plants a good supplier of this vitamin.

My reference for the above, except the USDA stuff, is The China Study, by T Colin Campbell PhD, pub 2005.

Concerning cost, according to Campbell, it will cost less to go plant based after you've experimented and learned how to eat to ones taste. We are still in the experimentation stage having been at it for "only" two months. Since I had already reduced my meat intake over the years because of the higher-energy thing, giving that up (including fish) was not a big deal. The yogurt though, I miss.

Al


show me one study that proves that animal protein causes cancer.

[Al.canoe]

show me one study that proves that animal protein causes cancer.

Animal Protein does not cause cancer. It sets-up the cell structure to facilitate a carcinogen to cause the cancer. In other words, if you don't eat animal protein or at least very little, the carcinogen does not cause the cells to go into rampant growth. As the amount of animal protein increases beyond the 10% level, the higher the probability that the carcinogen will in fact cause a cancer.

If you want to see the studies, buy the book. It's all of $11.00 paperback plus shipping. All I could do here is list the study (there are many), the page number and the reference title and researcher. Even if I was so motivated, that wouldn't be all that illuminating, now would it.

Al

[nedgoudy]

I am putting all my eggs
in the Low Carb - High Protein,
Low 'healthy' (Fish Oil) Fat diet
basket.

Whey Protein and skim milk baby,
and whatever I wanna eat in the
way of veggies and meat for dinner.

My doctor is wow'd and amazed at
my health improvement and may
start doing Whey Protein powder
himself.

See: http://www.wheyoflife.org
for details on how great whey is
for the health of human beings.

[Redrom]

Why would I read a book that's redundant at best and OBE at worst just because it's on plant based eating?

What I'm interested in reading now is stuff that builds on The China Study

I think you answered your own question. Congratulations on having all the answers, it must feel great to no longer need to search.

Goodbye.

[Al.canoe]

Redrom, you are dishonest or very sloppy otherwise you would have included my complete statement which is "What I'm interested in reading now is stuff that builds on The China Study or attempts to disprove the results. I don't expect any of the latter, but you never know". Kind of puts me in a different light don't you agree?

You apparently can't accept an honest difference of opinion as you resort to distorting my statement. Not too sharp since it's still listed here and easy to verify. You apparently have issues that go beyond nutrition.

Al

[mrfreddy]

Animal Protein does not cause cancer. It sets-up the cell structure to facilitate a carcinogen to cause the cancer. In other words, if you don't eat animal protein or at least very little, the carcinogen does not cause the cells to go into rampant growth. As the amount of animal protein increases beyond the 10% level, the higher the probability that the carcinogen will in fact cause a cancer.

If you want to see the studies, buy the book. It's all of $11.00 paperback plus shipping. All I could do here is list the study (there are many), the page number and the reference title and researcher. Even if I was so motivated, that wouldn't be all that illuminating, now would it.

Al


what book are you refering to? If you mean the china study, you should know that there are a lot of well informed critics of that book. their arguments are that the actual evidence does not support the conclusions drawn, and that the book is just a case of someone with a vegetarian agenda interpreting the data to fit a point of view.

take a look at the negative comments on amazon.com, you'll get a taste of what I mean.

[Redrom]

Editing for clarity is neither dishonest nor sloppy; the next word from your quote was "or" so what I included was still one of your stated interests. I'll stand by what I've written in this thread, and somehow make it through my issue-laden existance without your seal of approval.

I'm fine with an honest difference of opinion though I can't imagine how you could have one since you haven't read the book. Really Al, no anger here, but we're holding up the game while you complain; if you don't want to learn the rules of the game, just go home and take your ball with you. And while you're looking at the Amazon feedback on the China Study, take a glance at the feedback for "Eat to Live" as well.

[mrfreddy]

here's an interesting take on your china study:

To reiterate: the China Study was crummy, population-comparison ecological crap, not proper prospective epidemiology. In a real prostpective epidemiological study, you take a group of individuals and ask each of them INDIVIDUALLY about hir dietary and other exposures at time X, and then follow them all up for several years and see their health outcomes; then, you correlate specific exposures to specific outcomes. If you see such correelations (eg, people who consumed more cooked tomato products were less likely to develop aggressive prostate cancer), then because you have a range of other information about EACH of these people as INDIVIDUALS, you can double-check for false positives
on an individual-by-individual basis: eg, you can say, "were cooked tomato product users mostly of Italian descent (possible genetic influence)? Were they less likely to smoke, or eat a lot of saturated fat? Did they tend to have their cooked tomato products with salads, or eat more vegetables generally?" Etc. The combination of a prospective design and the existence of a range of info about EACH PERSON'S lifestyle gives such studies great power to test for real causal connections -- not definitive proof, but strong evidence.

The China study was not prospective epidemiology, but an "ecological"
study, which aggregates entire populations. That is, they looked at how much meat was consumed in an ENTIRE PROVINCE, and the rates of heart disease in the province AS A WHOLE, and then compared the two variables in another province; if provinces with more meat consumption also have more heart disease, they inferred that meat causes heart disease. As I've often harped in the past, these kinds of studies are MEANINGLESS.
The Japanese smoke more than the Americans; they also die less of lung cancer. That doesn't mean that smoking is protective against lung cancer
-- and you can prove this with proper, prospective epidemiology, because WITHIN *either one* of those populations, INDIVIDUALS who smoke at time X are more likely to die of lung cancer several years down the road.

[Al.canoe]

what book are you refering to? If you mean the china study, you should know that there are a lot of well informed critics of that book. their arguments are that the actual evidence does not support the conclusions drawn, and that the book is just a case of someone with a vegetarian agenda interpreting the data to fit a point of view.

take a look at the negative comments on amazon.com, you'll get a taste of what I mean.


I did read some of the Amazon reviews, but never got down to any negative ones. I'll have to check again. Also, if you know of any books/articles that take issue with The China Study, please post them. I'll do a google search.

I doubt there's an agenda there. After all, the author grew up on a dairy farm and spent a good part of his earlier career attempting to show how milk products were good for you and he was funded to help the worlds poor by increasing their animal protein intake. It was on one of these funded studies that he (as others had done) discovered that all was not right with animal protein

This thing appears so scientifically sound, I'm very skeptical that it's not on the level. I'm educated as both an engineer and a scientist and my career spanned both disciplines, so I should be able to tell. On the other hand, I could be suffering from delusions of adequacy.

Then too, I figured that the Food/dairy industry who fund all those bogus studies have to attack this book. It's possible that some of these informed critics are in that camp. I'll see.

After all, the cigarette industry used to come up with studies (from independent researchers yet) that showed cigarettes were safe. Ther CEOe lied to congress in sworn testimony and got away with it.

Al

[Al.canoe]

here's an interesting take on your china study:


Sorry, that doesn't cut it. If the critic had read the book, he might have stumbled across the study design. For example, they actually drew blood to verify the food consumed. Also, how the data was correlated and the confidence limits are explained with rigor and are credible.

I think I'll just skip those Amazon reviews if they are of this ilk.

Al

[sunofsand]

I eat to live every day and have been doing so for 25 years
Works wonderfully.
I love my diet.

[bbattle]

I have only been doing the eat to live diet for 2 day's and I am already growing tired of it. I have been eating salads with vinagarette dressing for my meals and fruit.

I am constantly hungry. I never feel satisfied, I am tired and bored to death.

I once did a similar diet a few years ago for 3 full months and it was horrible. I had to take a nap every day at lunch in my car. I was very moody the whole time.

I am already tired of eating this much vegetables, it's starting to discust me and I have always loved vegetables. How long would it take you to eat a whole pound of greens in a day anyway? Hours. I am frustrated. Why does it have to be such a drag to eat "Healthy".

If this is so healthy, why does it suck so much? I am starting to doubt that this is really necessary. I havn't gotten anything done at work for the last few days because I have no energy or interest.

What is going on with this?


Anytime you make a dramatic diet switch your body fights against it and screams for some french fries and a Coke. Make gradual changes that you can live with. Many of these diet books seem to go too far in one direction or another, maybe to have that difference so they can sell more books.

Besides, a diet isn't something you do for three months and then quit. It's got to be something that you can live with for the rest of your life.

[mrfreddy]

here's the best of the amazon.com reviews, since I know you are vitally interested in the other side of this story!

This book is certainly worth the read, due to its relevance and popularity, and the massive epidemiological study after which it was named is certainly deserving of attention, due to the magnitude of its its scope. But both must be done with a critical eye, because Dr. Campbell presents his evidence very selectively, jumps to unwarranted conclusions, and appears to distort his presentation of the China Study's data to make the case for a vegan diet.

I reviewed this book in greater detail (including 48 footnotes)in the quarterly journal of the Weston A Price Foundation, which can be found online by doing an internet search, in which I was able to make points beyond the space available here. In summary, those points are:

-- Dr. Campbell's laboratory research indicted an isolate of the milk protein casein as contributing to cancer promotion, but Dr. Campbell generalizes this to all animal protein and even all "animal nutrients." But casein is a unique protein and is problematic for many people for unique reasons, so generalizations cannot be made from it to all animal proteins or nutrients.

-- Dr. Campbell asserts that the China Study found a compelling association between animal protein intake and all cancers. But the original monograph of the study show animal protein to have a non-statistically significant 3% correlation with all cancers, which is only one quarter the correlation shown with plant protein. Carbohydrates had the correlation of the greatest magnitude, and fat was the only macronutrient that had a protective effect. The protective effect of fat was also the only correlation between cancer and a macronutrient that was statistically significant (meaning the probability of the correlation being attributable to chance was less than 5%).

-- Dr. Campbell presents the research of others with great selectivity to make his point. He does not address the fact that many non-modernized cultures have been found to thrive with vibrant health on diets rich in animal products-- for one example, the Masai, who have been studied extensively and found to be free of heart disease despite eating a diet based around red meat and fermented, unpasteurized, whole milk. He pays little attention to the harmful effects of refined plant-based products in the modern diet like white flour and white sugar (though he does rightfully caution against their use), and ignores current research illumining the benefits of many animal-based nutrients.

The book's title gives one the impression that the book is a general guide to health and nutrition based on the findings of the study after which it is named. But, in fact, the actual China Study is only discussed for 39 of its 350 pages. The true theme of the book is an argument for vegetarianism, and a critical eye should find that argument less than compelling.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Despite it's title, only a small portion of The China Study is actually devoted to discussing the giant epidemiological study of the same name; the rest of the book simply reads like an extended sales brochure for veganism.

Beginning in the early eighties, Campbell was part of a group of Chinese, British and US researchers that presided over the massive epidemiological study known as the China Project, or China Study. The New York Times dubbed it "the Grand Prix of epidemiology," and it gathered data on 367 variables across sixty-five counties and 6,500 adults. After the study data was compiled, the researchers had calculated "more than 8,000 statistically significant associations between lifestyle, diet and disease variables."

According to Campbell, the China Study data showed that: "People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease. . . . People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease."[p. 7]

In reality, the China Study showed nothing of the sort.

"The China Study" does not contain the actual data gathered from its namesake study. So when Campbell claims that the China Study found a consistent relationship between animal foods and various diseases, readers have no way of verifying this information for themselves.

Unless of course, they get up off their butts and go retrieve the actual China Study data for themselves. To do this, they will need to check their local libraries (university libraries are the best bet) for a book titled Diet, life-style, and mortality in China: A study of the characteristics of 65 Chinese counties[Chen J]. Once readers have this book in their possession they will quickly discover that there is a galaxy-sized gap between the actual findings of the China Study and the claims made by Campbell in his popular book version.

Overall mortality

Let's start with overall mortality, unarguably the most important mortality statistic of all. Animal protein, fish protein, meat intake, saturated fat, and fat calories were all negatively associated with all-cause mortality in infants, children, teenagers and adults, although none of the associations reached statistical significance (for those unfamiliar with research-speak, a negative correlation means that as intake of these foods increased, mortality risk decreased; failure to reach statistical significance means that researchers can't be sure these findings were not due to chance).

Among those aged 0-64, total protein returned a 29% negative association with overall mortality. This finding was statistically significant (p=0.05).

In all age groups, egg consumption was negatively associated with all-cause mortality, with a statistically significant 43% decrease (p=0.01) in overall mortality among those aged 0-64.

No statistically significant relationships, protective or otherwise, were found for milk intake, fiber, cereal grains, legumes, and vegetables among those aged 0-64.

The only other dietary factor that was significantly associated with overall mortality among those aged 0-64 was soy sauce (not soy products), which showed a 43% decrease in mortality risk (p=0.001)

Cancer

Neither total protein (+12%), animal protein (+3%), fish protein (+7%), plant protein (+12%), meat intake (-20%), saturated fat (+2%), fat calories (-17%), eggs (+19%), nor milk (+6%) demonstrated any statistically significant association with mortality from all cancers. Rice (-26%, p=0.05) and green vegetables (-28%, p=0.05) were statistically associated with reduced cancer mortality, as were the use of alcohol (-27%, p=0.05), home-made cigarettes (-32%, p=0.01), and total tobacco use (-25%, p=0.05).

(Readers can now see why clinical research is superior to epidemiological research--if we were to treat the findings of the China Study proactively, then we would all go out and start drinking and smoking cigarettes in order to improve our odds against cancer! Despite his obvious enthrallment with the results of the China Study, Campbell for some reason doesn't recommend this...)

With regards to specific types of cancer, no statistically significant associations were observed for total protein, animal protein, fish protein, meat intake, milk intake, saturated fat, total fat, fiber, cereal grains, legumes, vegetables and mortality from colorectal or breast cancers.

Heart Disease

No statistically significant associations were observed for total protein, animal protein, fish protein, meat intake, milk intake, saturated fat, total fat, fiber, legumes, and mortality from coronary heart disease.

Rice was associated with a statistically significant decrease (-58%, p=0.001) in CHD risk, while wheat flour was associated with a statistically significant increase in CHD risk (+67%, p=0.001). A similar phenomenon was noted for stroke mortality, with a statistically significant risk decrease noted for rice (-44%, p=0.01), and a statistically significant increase in risk observed for wheat flour (+55%, p=0.001) (again, despite his apparent rapture with the China Study results, nowhere does Campbell recommend the avoidance of wheat or wheat flour; in fact, he encourages the consumption of whole grain cereals).

So there you have it...the "Grand Prix" study that supposedly showed "People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease. . . . People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease" actually showed that animal-based foods imparted no increased risk of all-cause mortality, cancer deaths, or cardiovascular mortality.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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 <a href="http://bradmarshall.blogspot.com/2005/12/is-wheat-killing-us-introduction-maybe.html">the article about this study from my blog</a>.

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.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


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!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Al.canoe]

Strange that the results from such a flawed population study is in agreement with results from both animal and human trials conducted by other researchers and Md's. Additionally, putting patients on the low animal protein diet actually reversed both type-1 and type 2 diabetes and some cancers. Sounds like a plot to promote vegetarianism all right. Conspiracies are everywhere I guess. We certainly know how powerful the fruit and veggie lobby is compared to the beef and dairy industry.

I love this one:

"The China Study does not contain the actual data gathered from its namesake study. So when Campbell claims that the China Study found a consistent relationship between animal foods and various diseases, readers have no way of verifying this information for themselves."

Now this one is really strange. The book clearly identifies that the original study which encompassed most of the population of China and is decades old, was used to select those areas to conduct the New study, led by Campbell and funded not only by the US, but even more so by the Government of China (Strange that the government of China would promote vegetarianism for the US). How the reader would benefit from a list of food consumed by the chinese in those rural provinces is not clear to me. This second study IS the China Study reported in the book and not the first decades old one.

The areas selected for the new study had ultra low incidences of disease, had mostly an immobile population which had lived there for generations (to insure relevance to the first study), were remote and poor enough to NOT have adopted more western styles of eating as has much of more-modern China. The concept was that you can't do a population study on the affect of animal protein in societies where all members have ultra high consumption levels of animal protein. You need a population of ultra-low consumers for comparison.


These comments about what the book did or did not cover or discuss are not relevant to the copy I read, so I won't bother going to each criticism. I suggest these critics didn't do much in-depth reading of the book, but were sifting through it to find something to attack. I love particularly the soy comment. There is no scientific basis to eat soy. It's another fad food. It actually makes me sick after about 10 days of consumption and I had to go cold turkey on it.

The Campbell book covers far more than just the second population study called the China study. It reports on research and trials conducted by many others. The actual second study however, was done with more scientific rigor than far more expensive and long term studies such as the infamous Nurse's study where even the study director is quoted as bemoaning the fact that they didn't learn much from it and it contributed little to increasing the understanding of nutrition and disease.

Again, how the China Study compares to other studies in design, data analysis, and scientific rigor is covered in depth in the book. Disagreements in how to design such studies and how to analyze the data down to specific critiques on the methods used in the china study are extensively reported in the book. Nothing is hidden, or buried and there's no hand-waving in answering the critics. Much criticism, the scientifically based ones at least and not the personal attacks which question Campbell's motives, often boil down to different points of view on how to conduct nutrition studies and research. This is a fledgling area of science which unfortunately also has a lot of bogus research being conducted by the food and supplement industries to promote their products.

Al

[abergdc]

I haven't read about the China study, but there is so much that is different about "Western" diets besides just animal protein, much of which we know is awful: trans fats, for example. I wonder wether in this ecological study-type approach they could really control for enough of that.

Going off topic, I was struck by the "fact" (that is, I read it but can't find the source) that in the 19th century, the healthiest people on the planet (judged by size, other physical attributes, I don't know about longevity) were the plains indians, who ate lots of meat (grain-fed of course!) and berries/nuts, but little or no grain (and of course no processed foods of any sort). More broadly, my understanding is that the agricultural revolution was associated with a decrease in size (based on bones, teeth) and other indicators of health, relative to the preceeding hunter-gatherer societies.

[Jarery]

The "eat to live" authors blog site does have a lot to say about diets followed by others on this forum, like atkins, mercola, wap, etc

http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/cat-diet-myths.html

I really dont think I could survive on the "eat to live" system. Or at least I wouldnt be happy on it. I dont disagree with anything he says. I would like to eat more vegies and legumes in my diet, just havent been able to make a switch long term. He also mentions his diet regime is geared for those looking to lose weight, and not great for active atheletes .

One thing I dislike about Furhman, is his bashing atkins based on "secret inisde info from a source he cant reveal". Interesting reading anyways.