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!

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

[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. :)