China Study

[Alissa]

Has anyone read the China Study? ItÂ’s a fairly new book and if your still thinking that eating flesh foods, (those of you who go off raw and decide you need eggs and cheese) and that you need more protein or are concerned about the protein your getting you really may want to read this book. ItÂ’s a hard book to skim through because if you donÂ’t read the studies you donÂ’t get the full effect, but its not a difficult book to read. Although this is stuff that most of us know, the man who wrote it is one of the leading health researchers and was the scientist who discovered aflatoxin (the toxin found in peanuts). If your new to all this and still wondering about protein or for those of you who already know this, its just really one of the best books ive read since John Robbins Diet for a New America, it just puts it into perspective and gives you the facts and information to back up what you may already know. You can find it anywhere, its pretty popular right now.
Best,
Alissa

[levamssg]

Alissa, I've read the book and recommend it to everyone. I host a monthly raw food meetup and bring the book for folks to look at. Definitely a good read.

[Arky]

I've read it too - and bought 2 copies to give to friends. I'm not vegan but the book does make for compelling reading. If memory serves me correctly, Campbell claims to have altered his eating habits to be virtually vegan, on the basis of the research he describes in the book. However, although many in the vegan movement will undoubtedly seize the opportunity to use this book as a means of justifying thir claims of the 'superiority' of veganism, the conclusion I drew after reading the book is not that it necessarily points to the possible superiority of the vegan diet (purely from a disease-avoidance / health-promotion standpoint - i.e. without formal consideration of supposed morality), but rather that it all comes down to percentages.

In Campbells studies with rats, he found that potential proliferation of cancer cells was influenced by percentage of casein (milk protein) consumed - by consuming only a very minimal percentage of casein, it was possible to reduce cancer potential by a huge margin over other experiemental groups being fed diets with a larger percentage of casein in the diet. I feel this is an absolutely critical point - Campbell's research with rats on a casein-inclusive diet demonstrated that it was not necessary to completely eliminate casein from the diet in order to avoid the dangers associated with higher consumption of casein. Throughout the book, one common theme (of many) that emerges is that excessive protein consumption can lead to a host of complications. Nevertheless, if one were to remove all protein from their diet their health would degenerate extremely rapidly, irrespective of whether they were otherwise vegan or not. As Campbell himself is at pains to point out at the beginning of his book, the scientific research presented within its pages, and the conclusions drawn from it, is all subject to statistical analyses as a way of highlighting degrees of probable significance. A little sensible thinking is required if one is not to slip into believing that Campbell's book is the new vegan manifesto, because it really isn't any such thing.

Don't get me wrong - I fully acknowledge that the above research represents only a fraction of the research in the book, but the point still stands (and, of course, one can get large quantities of protein from simply eating broccoli, for instance). It is all too easy to make black-and-white judgements on the basis of such research if one chooses to, but look a little more carefully and the black and the white come into focus as being somewhat greyer.

I applaud vegans who choose their dietary path on 'moral' grounds. However, despite the huge weight of evidence in this absolutely remarkable book, pointing in the general direction of a vegan diet, on health grounds, I do not feel that it truly offers concrete evidence for the supposed superiority of a strict vegan diet - 90% vegan, perhaps, but not necessarily 100%. Readers of this book would do well to read it in tandem with Weston Price's Nutrition & Physical Degeneration because the truth is that we are only fooling ourselves if we allow ourselves to interpret the world in black-and-white terms, and Price's book is a superb 'balancing' text when read alongside Campbell's.

Moral issues are a seperate discussion entirely. The above is, as I said, purely from a health perspective. It is possible to live healthily on a vegan diet, but it is also possible to live healthily on a non-vegan diet.

I very much enjoyed Campbell's book and I completely agree with Alissa and levamssg that it is well worth reading (actually, it should be considered essential reading, no matter which side of the dietary tracks one comes from). I just hope that anyone who reads the book makes the effort to acknowledge that this book, despite the awesome calibre of the research upon which it is based, and of the author who wrote it, does not absolutely prove that 100% veganism is the healthiest way to be. Personally, I eat very few animal-derived foods these days (and I appreciate the moral arguments for vegetarianism) but I have yet to see (nor will I ever see) conclusive proof that a 100% vegan diet is the healthiest possible way to live, despite the biased claims of many in the vegan community who, it seems to me, often (willfully) confuse moral beliefs as 'evidence' of veganism's superiority for human health.

Of course, one does not need to be 100% vegan in order to be 100% raw, but that's a whole seperate debate in itself! :D

Incidentally, the latest newsletter from Creative Health Institute offers a few excerpts from the book, for those of you who'd like a brief taster before doing the sensible thing and buying it ;)


J.

[Alissa]

Hi Arky, hmm, well, I don’t know how you drew that conclusion because from what I read it did point to the conclusion that a vegan diet is superior. He himself after writing this book is now a vegan –no dairy….


In Campbells studies with rats, he found that potential proliferation of cancer cells was influenced by percentage of casein (milk protein) consumed - by consuming only a very minimal percentage of casein, it was possible to reduce cancer potential by a huge margin over other experiemental groups being fed diets with a larger percentage of casein in the diet. I feel this is an absolutely critical point - Campbell's research with rats on a casein-inclusive diet demonstrated that it was not necessary to completely eliminate casein from the diet in order to avoid the dangers associated with higher consumption of casein. Throughout the book, a common theme emerges that excessive protein consumption can lead to a host of complications, but if one were to remove all protein from their diet their health would degenerate extremely rapidly

I did not get this at all from him. Actually he stated many times throughout the book that a very small amount of casein caused cancer cells to proliferate. He spoke about the minute amounts and the small inclusion of animal protein (casein ) being the main source of disease. That is what this book is mainly about. He very clearly states that dairy is the cause of numerous cancers and other diseases And never did I read anywhere in this book that if we remove all protein from our diets our health would degenerate rapidly. Of course we need protein but as he stated, not from animal sources. Not even small amounts. This is not what he advocated in this book. He spoke about fruits and veggies being the main source of protein and he himself is a vegan - (no dairy!)
Maybe you didnÂ’t read the entire book?. Things can be taken out of context easily especially with books like his.

Although I donÂ’t know how you can say that he doesnÂ’t absolutely prove that veganism is a better bet for ya??? I mean, the whole book is about cancer linked to animal protein, especially milk products! Throughout the book there is study after study of this, what more proof is needed?

[Arky]

You make a fair point, Alissa. To address some of your remarks:

I did not mean to imply that Campbell stated that if we remove all protein from our diets our health would degenerate rapidly. That remark was mine.

BTW, I hope you did not interpret my post as being in some way a 'retort' to your initial post. I see now that it might come across that way, but my post was not 'aimed' at anyone, I simply meant to urge people to think carefully about the findings presented in the book. They can be interpreted in more than one way (as evidenced by you & I! ;)). If anyone who reads this book chooses to follow a 100% vegan diet then that's great, but if anyone who reads this book does not choose to follow a 100% vegan diet, then that's also great, and more power to both of them, provided they eat wisely within the boundaries of their chosen diet.

Proof of veganism? Well, as I said, he makes a very compelling argument for biasing one's diet in the direction of veganism, but again, he does not absolutely prove that 100% vegan is the healthiest way to live.

Extremely compelling percentages, statistics and probability - YES

Absolute concrete proof? - NO

I'm not anti-vegan, I'm simply very wary of anyone using probability drawn from statistical analyses to claim absolute proof for something (although he has chosen to follow a vegan diet for himself, I didn't feel that Campbell himself was claiming proof for 100% veganism).

Yes, Campbell's finding are extremely compelling.

However, so are Price's. As you know, Price studied many primitive cultures and found truly exemplary health amongst all of them (even the swiss valley dwellers, who
were avid consumers of raw dairy products, from pasture-fed animals. He did not find a valley full of cancer victims. Of the other dozen or so cultures he studied, he was unable to find a single one that did not consume some form of animal produce, yet they all had superb health (not 100% perfect, but certainly as healthy as anyone living in a westernised society, whether they are vegan or not. If 100% veganism (even raw) is the panacea some claim it to be then I question why we do not live in a world where vegans routinely become centenarians and outnumber non-vegans by a considerable margin at that milestone).

The rational conclusion, again, must surely be that human health, from a dietary perspective, must surely come down to quality of food, lack of refinement, lack of denaturing influences and the percentages in which each foodstuff is consumed. There are evidently many possible dietary paths that may be sucessfully followed by a human being, provided they eat no one food group excessively. Am I alone in my concern that it is all too easy, in the field of nutrition, for certain parties to conveniently gloss over the critical importance of acknowledging that probabilty is not the same thing as proof, simply because such acknowledgment does not suit the furtherment of their beliefs?

Incidentally, I do not consume milk, but I still see no proof that I should become 100% vegan. I simply try to eat a very predominantly vegetarian diet, consuming as much fruit and veg as I can, and as much of it raw as I can. I would very much like, from a moral standpoint, to have someone provide me with 100% proof that vegan idealism and scientific fact perfectly marry, but, sadly, I do not expect that to ever happen. Price's findings cannot rationally be ignored :(.


J.

[Alissa]

Ok well, first of all i didnÂ’t interpret you post as being in some way a 'retort' to my initial post. I appreciate your opinion and where youÂ’re at but first let me say that i must disagree that he does not prove that a vegan diet is better.
Second and this is a biggie for this board is that i do not advocate price as I do not agree that eating butter, lamb and the like is healthy. Great, he studies primitive culture, who eats that way now days? No one I have ever seen or met. AndÂ… there have since been many studies such as Campbell's that are now concluding that dairy and meat are not as healthy as a vegan diet.

To be totally honest with you I don’t care to debate this. This is a raw food board and I posted this to bring light to this book that I thought could help people. Please read the mission statement arky. I appreciate your intellect in posts but from what I have seen you seem to be playing the devils advocate in many threads and that is really not what this board is for. These people are not here to debate or think about ‘is this right for me’ they have already decided its what they want to do and they are here to get support and help within that realm. I have already erased many posts from you when you added a link to tom billings and such. If they want to find this info they can easily do so but this board is for people who ‘want to be raw’ plain and simple unlike some of the other boards debating weather this is good for bad.

Please accept my apology if this is taken the wrong way as im not trying to offend you and you seem to offer some very intelligent information on this board, but if you have no desire to be raw vegan then why are you here? It just makes me a little suspicious. Of course there are different paths for nutrition but this board is here to only promote one. Raw veganism.

Thanks for your understanding arky.
Best,
Alissa

[Arky]

Alissa, I'm sorry you seem to have formed the impression that I am "playing devil's advocate", as you put it. That's not where I'm coming from at all, I assure you. It's simply that, as anyone who embarks seriously on a journey of discovery by reading up on nutrition will find, there are so many different facets to so many issues in nutrition, that in order to honestly discuss them, and not intentionally gloss over certain facets that don't easily reconcile with one might like to idealistically believe, it is often reasonable to mention them in order that others, who may be seeking information on a topic may draw their own conclusions rather than simply being told "this is how it is, no ifs, ands, or buts". I am still learning every day, but I wish I'd had known many of the conflicting facets from the outset, rather than having to reel, book-by-book, from one revelation to the next (which, at each turn, has invariably led to me having to repeatedly readjust my outlook). Indeed, I struggle to think of any other subject area (save, perhaps for philosophy or religion) which is so unbelievably complex and contentious - I certainly never anticipated this fact when I began to read about nutrition, but, despite not necessarily agreeing 100% with your standpoint on nutrition, my reading has led me to the positive conclusion that eating a very high proportion of raw food is a highly-beneficial (and natural) approach to nutrition. I am here on this board because I do believe in Raw, and I do believe in a predominantly plant-based diet.

With regard to the Billings links, I note that I was far from the only person to do so. I hadn't been here long when I posted them (and I don't believe I posted those "many" times at all, and when I did, it was only in light of my above reasoning, not in any way meaning to undermine or divert anyone's enthusiasm for eating raw. You will note that I have not posted any such links since, in respect for the sticky that you posted on the subject). If I didn't largely believe in the message here, I wouldn't choose to contribute to this community in the first place, and I have far better things to do in life than seek to deliberately pervert the course of any board, whatever its message.

My intentions, therefore, in discussing many different facets (some of which, may not be totally congruent with the 100% raw vegan message), is neither to play devil's advocate or, in any way, to seek to undermine you, your board, or the community here, which I consider to be amongst the friendliest, most sincere, and supportive I have come across. I have a great deal of respect for everyone here and, despite presently devoting a great deal of inner thought to reconciling Pottenger & Price's findings with Campbell's, very much support the ideals of pursuing a raw plant-based diet. As I said earlier, I admire vegan ideals. I honestly don't believe anyone has anything to fear by acknowledging other facets of an issue, which they have absolute free will to interpret, and act upon, in any way they see fit. There is no denying that a plant-based diet is an extremely wise path to take, particularly if it is raw.

I haven't taken offence at your apparent belief that I might have some alterior motive for being here. I believe that you are sincere.

Similarly, though, I hope that you can believe me when I reassure you that I am sincere, too, and any apparent 'deviation' from your preferred 'message' with this board, has no sinister foundations - I'm simply seeking the truth just as anyone else is and, if we're honest with each other, you and I both know that nothing in this life is truly as simple as we might wish it to be. I will be mindful of your wishes on this board since I appreciate that I am a only a guest here. I don't know who is credited with originally coining the phrase, but I often have to smile, in life, when I recall "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions!" ;)


Regards,

J.

[Revvell]

I find it interesting when one reads a lot ~ looking for this and that. EVEYone can find disagreement w/ something if they look for it. For me, if it sounds like something that will make a difference ~ I don't go on belief. I do it and find out. I AM the experiment. For everyone who has read the above, I would suggest you do the same. Go raw ~ 100% ~ for 30 days. Write down what you would like to see change ( you WILL forget ); keep a journal of what you eat and how you feel. At the end of 30 days, look at the list you wrote at the beginning of this journey. Let THAT tell the tale of if this food program works or not.

Yanno? I use to read about meditation. Read, and read and read. You know when I experienced a difference? When I actually meditated. This is the same. You can read as much as you want; you can believe anything you want. None of it will make a difference ~ until you do it.

:cool:

[Alissa]

Hi arky,

Thank you for understanding what I was saying and for taking it the way I meant it. I do think youÂ’re sincere as well. It is difficult not to bring in other paths of nutrition and diet and to debate and give thought to them, while discussing issues about raw diet and nutrition. But I have to somewhere draw the line as things get so out of control so fast on a forum board. So I have decided to draw a hard line about keeping this board only for discussions of help and moving forward and keeping people motivated about this raw vegan diet.

Yes, I understand very well that there are so many conflicting thoughts about diet and nutrition. I wondered for years, about 25 years ago when I become vegetarian, why every book I read said something different about the same item of food. I drove myself crazy reading and searching and experimenting on myself to find the right path. I don’t think there will ever be a common mindset about it, just like, as you stated, religion or philosophy. Its just that if everyone on this board were doubting and posting the negatives that are out there it wouldn’t be much of a place of support. Of course I encourage people to do their research and to read and search and make sure they are not burying their heads in the sand and just taking one persons opinion as their truth. Do a search on line, read more, talk to people, etc… but when you feel this is the place your in and this really feels right to you and you want to explore the beauty of it more and talk about what is right and great and amazing and life changing about this diet, then come on in and join us! Again I had to draw the line at some point about what this board is really for. Anyway, I appreciate your honestly and I hope you will continue to enjoy the board and offer your ‘raw’ ;) advise.
Best,
Alissa

[Alissa]

Revvell, we must have been posting at the same time. i agree. Its always, for me anyway, the experience in life that is more powerful then anything. There will always be a way to justify facts and statistics to the reality you want to see but the experience, for me at least, is what is the truth. and... Seeing that same truth in thousands of people throughout the years itÂ’s hard to deny. When the results of my clients prove to me, EVERY time, the mind blowing results that are even beyond my wildest expectations thatÂ’s when i think... 'hmmmm, yep, you know, thereÂ’s somethin' to this stuff ' ;)

[Gosia]

going 100% cigarettes free is any better in reducing cancer risk than going 99.99% cigarettes free. ;)

To me, the best proof is how I feel afterwards. If it's a cigarette, I stink (pardon me, but it is the naked truth), and possibly have a headache. It it's cheese, I stink and get pimples. What is relevance of a lack of proof that 0% diary is the best, when I see the pimples on my face? None!!!

Gosia.

[pizda]

Gosia,
You made an interesting point in the somewhat “crude” way ,-)). We all are mini-laboratories. We all experiment with ourself.
Alissa, What Arky was eluding that 100% raw is indeed a great thing. But even 90% is still good (as long as other 10% NOT garbage). Just like you, I have read ton of books on diet and healing. Everybody stating that his way is a best. More fanatically they are, more suspicious I get. Tom Billings is indeed has a fanatical way of trying discourage vegan way. Did not work on me ,-)))). A while back on the NFL board the guy by name “mynameischase” practically terrorized board with anti-vegan raw-meat-eating postings miles long. The guy was and is a nut.
This is indeed the vegan board and that a way people want to be.
Arky, the discussion you have started was here and everywhere before. It is pointless.
This is a virtual board. We all are virtual personalities.
Nevertheless, I can appreciate your sincere effort to “educate” this board. But may be people do not want to be educated certain way?! So let it be and enjoy forum.
That is my humble opinion.

[Arky]

Guys, this thread has evidently run its course now, with everyone making valid points. However, lest I be misunderstood (despite my sincere attempts to the contrary! :)) please let me reiterate: I am not anti-vegan. I simply made an honest observation that it is a complex issue and that there is nothing wrong, or in any way 'threatening', in acknowledging that - there is nothing 'adversarial' about this (though, as Pizda noted, some in either camp choose, for some unknown and futile reason, to negatively 'go to war for their cause', elsewhere on the net). I am not, I assure you, one of those individuals. I have no axe to grind, I simply seek the truth. We're all trying to make our respective ways through life, in the best possible health, and diet is nothing more than a contributory means to that end, not an end in itself. I admire the vegan ethos, and find myself drawing ever closer to that dietary path, but the aforementioned complexities mean that that path is (from a purely health-orientated, not moral perspective) not necessarily as smooth or short as some would idealistically like to assert. Morally, veganism is, I believe, unassailable. I take on board everyone's points and I understand and respect where you are coming from. Point taken. I also take on board Alissa's explicit wishes, stated above, so I will bear these very much in mind in future.

Let me just finally say that I believe, despite all the complexities in resolving conflicts in the research and literature, that no one is closer to the ideal diet (if, indeed, there is such a thing) than those on the predominantly raw, predominantly vegan path. That is why I am here, and I have, in the short time I have been here, gained an enormous amount of respect for some of the contributors here, who are knowledgable, compassionate and incredibly sincere. Rawpriestess would be one such example, but there are many.

Peace to you all! :)


J.

[misslinda]

Alissa (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Merci Bonkers :p for mentioning this book----although I have NO intentions of ever eating animal products, my family doesn't seem to understand the reasoning behind it.

:) ml

[Punky]

Has anyone read the China Study? ItÂ’s a fairly new book and if your still thinking that eating flesh foods, (those of you who go off raw and decide you need eggs and cheese) and that you need more protein or are concerned about the protein your getting you really may want to read this book. ItÂ’s a hard book to skim through because if you donÂ’t read the studies you donÂ’t get the full effect, but its not a difficult book to read. Although this is stuff that most of us know, the man who wrote it is one of the leading health researchers and was the scientist who discovered aflatoxin (the toxin found in peanuts). If your new to all this and still wondering about protein or for those of you who already know this, its just really one of the best books ive read since John Robbins Diet for a New America, it just puts it into perspective and gives you the facts and information to back up what you may already know. You can find it anywhere, its pretty popular right now.
Best,
Alissa


Thanks for sharing about this book Alissa!
Sounds like a very interesting and educational read; will have to go and get it!
:)

[jenna rose]

Has anyone read the China Study? ItÂ’s a fairly new book and if your still thinking that eating flesh foods, (those of you who go off raw and decide you need eggs and cheese) and that you need more protein or are concerned about the protein your getting you really may want to read this book. ItÂ’s a hard book to skim through because if you donÂ’t read the studies you donÂ’t get the full effect, but its not a difficult book to read. Although this is stuff that most of us know, the man who wrote it is one of the leading health researchers and was the scientist who discovered aflatoxin (the toxin found in peanuts). If your new to all this and still wondering about protein or for those of you who already know this, its just really one of the best books ive read since John Robbins Diet for a New America, it just puts it into perspective and gives you the facts and information to back up what you may already know. You can find it anywhere, its pretty popular right now.
Best,
Alissa


Thanks a bunch for passing this along, Alissa. :) I'm adding it to my wish list. I've been trying to read as much as I can about things like this.

[RawNut]

Bumping (Bumpity Bump Bump...Bump Bump)

Craig

[wisslewj]

To whomever may know this,

As I have not read this book yet...

Does Campbell mention if the Casein fed to the rats was raw? And was it a Casein derivitive or actual milk? I ask this because my studys demonstarte this to be a HUGE factor as to the health of anything. Cook something or isolate something and then load an animal up with it and of course it will be bad for them!

I cant help but point out that baby rats seem to do just fine feeding on their mothers natural milk, which presumably has casein balanced within the milk, and they grow up just fine.

Almost fergot to sign it lol

Jeff

[RawNut]

Cook something or isolate something and then load an animal up with it and of course it will be bad for them!Jeff

He is much against testing anything in isolation. He's against supplements because they cause more harm than good, beta carotene, as an example. He is for whole plant-based foods. The whole is better than the separate sum of the parts.

Please do read it,

Craig

[misslinda]

bumping up.


Great reminder thread. :)

[rawfigure]

I scanned it in the bookstore, based on the reco from Alissa I will read it. Thanks. :D

[alex]

I finished reading the China Study last week.

I think it is a very important and informative book and I very highly recommend that everyone read it carefully!

It is however, just one book and one opinion and I don't think it is incontrovertible proof of anything.

I happen to agree and believe that a raw, organic vegan diet is the only way to go, but I distrust absolutes.

John Robbins states that his research indicates that there has never been a society that was strictly vegan - all ate some animal products.

I am against the killing of any creature - even ants, spiders etc. I choose to be vegan on those grounds, but it is much harder to make an ironclad case on purely nutritional grounds.

Just my opinion


alex

[LightLover]

I finished reading the China Study last week.


I am against the killing of any creature - even ants, spiders etc. I choose to be vegan on those grounds, but it is much harder to make an ironclad case on purely nutritional grounds.

Just my opinion


alex


* The killing is indeed the strongest argument, and not the nutritional argument.

At last love seems always to be the final answer :)

LL

[Ginger]

Just bought the book today at Go Raw Cafe! Thanks Alissa! :D