The China Study

I'm not a vegetarian (yet) but I thought I'd post the link about the book I'm reading that is the most compelling scientific argument I've ever seen advocating a whole-food, plant-based diet.

Check this book out from the library: The China Study

It'll give you piece (edit: er, that should be peace) of mind, if nothing else, that the western culture's focus on animal protein might be exactly the wrong approach to diet and nutrition.  I know some meat-eaters can be sort of like, "why do you think we have molars if we aren't supposed to eat meat?" and may give you grief for being a veg.  After you read this book (it's very science-oriented, lots of detail and some jargon, so you'll use some brain cells to absorb what it's saying) it won't bother you at all because you'll know how to choose the healthiest whole food, plant-based diet that will keep your body young for years to come, while the meat-eaters, sadly, succomb to heart disease, cancer and a host of other nutrition-related illnesses. 

But it's never too late to make a change for the better!

nomoreexcuses, I am with you. I have always been vegetarian and recently decided to become Vegan. In the last 9 months since I gave up dairy my skin is a lot better and I have more energy than I have ever had in my life. I didn't read the study yet but I wonder if it has anything about dairy. I think dairy is the devil and so many people have been mislead by the commercials to think that it helps you lose weight.

I call fad diet. Sorry. You have to buy the book to learn the secrets? Fad diet. Look at the weighted, emotional language on the website:

"What do 50,000 readers know that you don't? Learn more about this best selling, ground-breaking book, embraced by thousands who want to improve their health and their lives."

This is pure reel-em-in pitch. 1. Make the reader feel left out of a new, exciting phenomenon. 2. Give them a way to get themselves in. 3. Dangle the promise of a better life in front of them.

The last paragraph is the worst:

"The China Study is not a diet book. Consumers are bombarded with conflicting messages regarding health and nutrition; the market is flooded with popular titles like The Atkins Diet and The South Beach Diet. Dr. Campbell cuts through the haze of misinformation and delivers an insightful message to anyone living with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and those concerned with the effects of aging. Additionally, he challenges the validity of these low-carb fad diets and issues a startling warning to their followers."

1. Every other book is wrong. 2. Only THIS book can tell you the truth. 3. Note those mentions of diseases to scare people into buying the book, and the "startling warning" that's applicable to a HUGE chunk of the North American population, since the low-carb diets are so popular?

I hate these books.

I'm a vegetarian for two reasons: 1) I'm trying to reduce my ecological footprint and 2) I don't miss meat all that much (except for tacos--oh, do I love tacos!) and am doing fine now that I don't eat it.

HOWEVER, there is compelling scientific evidence that says that a meat-eating diet is as healthy or possibly even healthier than a vegetarian one. For one thing, a nutritionist told me that it's almost impossible for vegetarians and vegans to get enough B vitamins without supplementation, which can lead to anemia later in life.

The idea that humans weren't designed to be omnivorous is pretty much anthropoligically unsupported, even though the Hare Krishnas have been trying to convince us for years. The very first humans were hunter-gatherers. We have hunting instincts. We have sharp canine teeth. Granted, we don't have the same kind of long intestine that carnivores do, but aren't carnivores! We CAN digest meat with relative ease, unless we fall out of the habit of doing so.

Studies that show that vegetarians and vegans are generally thinner and healthier than omnivores are widespread, and I believe them. I think it's probably because many omnivores aren't as conscious of their diets, since they don't restrict anything, and so don't pay attention to the fat content of their meat! However, I know a lot of "junk-food vegans" who could stand to lose a few pounds because they're not carefully considering what they put into their mouths, either.

There is SO MUCH misinformation about vegetarianism. SEVERAL of my vegetarian friends told me, just after I made the decision to phase out meat, that I would be healthier eating legumes, because chickpeas have six times the protein of chicken. I've heard that all over, from all kinds of different people. Well, most meats, including chicken, are about 30% protein (30g of protein per 100g). For chickpeas to have six times that, they would have to have 180g of protein for each 100g of chickpeas. Obviously, that's impossible. Yet many vegetarians I've run into--people who don't even know each other--believe it!

Vegetarianism is what's right FOR ME, it's how I prefer to live, and I'm not about to force it down anyone's throat or claim that it's the "best" thing to do any more than I'd let anyone shove a Porterhouse with a side of bacon down mine.

Sorry for the rant, guys, but this kind of thing drives me CRAZY. You may now argue with me and shoot me down if you so desire.

as far as nutrition books that touch up on veganism i must recommend "diet for a new america" this is a brilliant book that i think everyone should read.  

elmfraser-while i cannot argue about junk food vegans and people who know nothing about nutrition and protien and how to get it (because i too have encountered many vegans who do not know what they're talking about) i will have to disagree with you on the meat eater/plant eater thing. this can be agrued forever because there is supported evidence on each side. for fun here's my opinion.

one major fact is teeth. meat eaters do not have flat molars (which are for grinding up food), but elongated canine's (to tear through...which we do not have.) yes we have a set of canine's but our mouth is mostly full of flat teeth.  the jaw and tooth scructures are completely diffrent if you were to compare us to a cougar or something.  

we also have flat nails, not claws.

meat eaters sweat through their tongues while plant eaters have pores. this has something to do with the hunting of meat eaters (which is generally at night) and how they dont need sweat glands to keep cool.  plant eaters generally find their foods during the day (not hunting in the night) and need the pores to stay cool.

i agree, our body adapts and can learn to digest meat...but i have to disagree with the whole meat eater vs plant eater thing... we dont even have that instinct of hunting in us. we do not salivate when we see turkey's and chickens running around a farm the way an actual meat eating animal would...i can defintely say we salivate over foods like strawberries or watermelon.

these are just some things to throw out there. not meant to shoot ya down in anyway.

as for dairy..i will bring up this point. isnt it wierd that we are the only species that takes milk beyond infancy.  isnt it also wierd that we are the only species on this earth that drinks the milk of another species....

xpreciousroyx- I have added you to my friends, I hope this is okay.  I am just so excited to see the wisdom you have and knowledge in everything you say.  Its so often that people just ramble about things they know little about.  Yet it seems you do lots of research and can back up the things you say with facts.
Other than that, I need encouragement... since I just became vegetarian and am working really hard at it.  I really really want to become vegan, but I'll need some help and work.  Thanks for listening, I look forward to all you have to say.

Oh I love a great discussion!  Thank you sarah_sue and elmfraser.  Actually to play the devil's advocate here, I am going to agree with both of you but throw in the monkey wrench. 

I was ovo lacto vegetarian for years and am now.  And scrutinized my diet carefully when pregnant and nursing. and added B vitamin supplements.   Meat is loaded with B vitamins; which was not in my diet.  However, I did find myself craving protein and meat when pregnant and for the past five years. To my spiritual disgust... I found myself eating it.  I was diagnosed with lyme disease 6 months ago and apparently had it for years and just plowed on but my body needed more protein to heal.  My point being that our body always tells us what we need...more protein, more calcium etc. but we may not necessarily eat the correct form especially if we are stressed, ill, out of balance, pregnant etc. 

I am kpearson's mom and a holistic healer, RN, Reiki Master and Hypnotherapist and am a firm believer in being one with ourselves and with the universe.   I am also an avid reader.  There are some great books out by a father/son team....Doctors of Naturapathy...the D'Adamos ...Eat Right for Your Blood Type, Live Right for Your Blood Type.  Essentially the books trace blood type anthropologically...and the authors find that there are different diets appropriate for different blood types. Although O is the most common in the US it is not the most common in other countries.   Also blood types mutate and evolve over time in response to the changes in  environment.  O being the oldest and the blood type requiring the highest protein requirements etc. etc.  Essentially each blood type is outlined with foods to avoid and foods recommended.  Dairy is only good for Bs and ABs who tend to be of Scandavian and northern Euro descent.  The studies they did were based on case studies and testing foods for aglutination. Their point being that blood type gives us  our essential code and to assume that everyone should eat the heart diet, the vegan diet, the Atkins diet, the all grain diet is absurd.  Their case studies are startling.  Unfortunately, modern medicine wants all of us to fit in their neat efficient insurance reimbursable cubbies....so if you have high cholesterol you get the heart diet which is good for As and Bs but horrid for Os.

However, kate and I are vegan and ovo/lacto veg respectively and have followed the O Blood type diet for everything but the protein.  We found that just eliminating wheat from our diets had a profound effect on our health.  Wheat is horrid for O Blood Type. 

So the China Study could be right for those in China but I would want to know their blood types.  And anthropologically, they should be similar in Blood Type but it does not mean that we can extrapolate that to everyone else.  Another Book to buy!!!

Have a blessed day..........molly

does it really matter what we're 'naturally' built for? i mean, i might be naturally built to garden and gather, but i'll be damned if i'll give up my academic life of holing myself away in a big pile of books because of this. and i might not be naturally built to drink alcohol, or run marathons, or be an insomniac, or nocturnal, but i don't see how that's any kind of reason why i should be concerned that I do these things anyway.

so long as veggies compensate for any nutritional deficiencies that might result from not eating meat--i.e., protein, etc.--and as long as meat-eaters are careful to not live on meat alone--i.e., to get enough of the vitamins and minerals veggies and fruits provide, then i don't really see why appealing to what we're naturally disposed to eat provides any sort of argument for why one should or should not be a vegetarian.

xpreciousroyx--I respect what you're saying, but this is the same kind of rhetoric I've heard before. Let me just preface my response with a disclaimer:

I am NOT trying to tell anyone else how they should live. The following is my own opinion, based on my own research and my own common-sense (as in, not backed by any kind of degree!) thinking.

That being said, here we go:

Let me preface this part with a blanket statement: humans are weird animals. Yes, we ARE animals just like all the rest of the creatures here on Spaceship Earth, but we are definitely way outside the "animal norm." Therefore, I feel that comparisons between humans and other animals can only go so far, even though there are some similarities. After all, you wouldn't try to feed a giraffe what a moose eats, would you, even though they're both herbivores? It would be even stranger to try to approximate human diet to the diet of an animal that lives in a way so far from a human lifestyle--and there's no other creature on this planet that has ever lived like humanity at just about any stage of our evolution.

1.Digestive morphology vs. diet. The majority of the comparisons made between "meat-eating" and "plant-eating" animals that supposedly show that humans are not designed to eat meat are comparisons between exclusively, or almost exclusively, carnivorous. No, we don't have claws or a super-long large intestine or fangs, but then, we're not carnivores, either, are we? We have different teeth from both carnivores and herbivores, because (in my opinion) humans were designed to be OMNIVORES, and therefore we have characteristics of both. Same goes for internal organs--we have a shorter large intestine than most carnivores, but one that can, unlike herboviores' digest meat. We don't have claws, but unlike other herbivores' nails, ours are oriented so that we can indeed use them for cutting and tearing. There are very few entirely omnivorous animals--most lean toward one source of nutrition or the other--so there's little scope for morphological comparison. One good comparison, however, is chimpanzees. Chimpanzees have a mainly plant-based diet, but are predators in certain environments. Therefore, although they have flat molars they also have sharp "tearing" teeth that closely resemble human canines. Early fossil records of both chimpanzee and early hominid bones suggest that human canines were at one time substantially larger, but that once we evolved to use tools for hunting instead of our teeth and finally developed farming, they shrank when our jaws did. We also used to have more accessible grinding teeth (what we now call wisdom teeth), but as the plants we cultivated grew less and less tough thanks to agricultural selection, they also got "phased out," which is why we have no room in our jaws for them and have to have them removed, for the most part. So it seems likely that a combination of a completely omnivorous diet and evolutionary adaptations thanks to tool-using may be responsible for our present dental structure.

2. Sweating. You said yourself that sweating through pores vs. through the tongue "has something to do with the hunting of meat eaters (which is generally at night) and how they dont need sweat glands to keep cool.  plant eaters generally find their foods during the day (not hunting in the night) and need the pores to stay cool." That indicates that sweating doens't have anything to do with what you eat, but rather is an adaptation based on when you find your food. Humans have been diurnal animals for a long, long time, which would explain or need for deodorant! :) Again, chimpanzees, which eat meat, do indeed sweat from subcutaneous glands, and dogs (primarily carnivorous) apparently also have sweat glands in the pads of their feet. (I haven't confirmed the dog thing completely, though, so that might be wrong, but I do know that primates, including chimpanzees, sweat just like us.)

3. Salivation. When was the last time anyone actually ate a whole turkey that looked like it had just been running around? Salivation is psychologically triggered (Pavlov's dogs, anyone?) a response to any stimulus that tells us it's feeding time. I don't salivate when I look at dried lentils, do you? That's because, although I LOVE lentils, my body knows that I can't just crunch down on them right there, so I don't salivate. I DO salivate looking at a lovely piece of tuna tartare, as well as for fruits and veggies, because I know that I could chow down right away. I also drool like crazy over chocolate--does that mean I'm 'designed' to eat it? Definitely not!

4. Hunting instinct. Have you never been to a 50% off sale at a department store? I rest my case! :)

5. Finally, dairy. Yes, it is weird that we're the only species that drinks milk beyond infancy, or consumes the milk of another species. It's also weird that we're the only species on the planet that has brick houses, computers, washing machines, formal marriage and divorce, quilts, organized warfare, abstract mathetmatics, the concept of the middle class, and a whole bunch of other stuff that only humans do. We're the only species that can plan ahead far enough to harvest milk. That's why we drink it--that, and we couldn't have CHOCOLATE milk without it.

Finally, the human race is infinitely adaptible. The idea that there is one way we are "supposed" to be and that if we deviate from that, we're completely screwed, is, frankly, silly. We are changing all the time, and have been since we took our first steps as a species. We will continue to evolve, to adapt, and to change, or we will become extinct. That's about it. Edited to add: By the time I got done writing that whole long thing, there were two other posts up there! Molly--I agree with you 100%. We all need to find what's best for us in particular. You seem like you're very relaxed and wise. Woohoo! In the same vein, I also agree with phimegaphi--I tend to try to take a much more individualized approach to things. If it ain't broke...don't fix it!

No, the point she is trying to make isn't justifying not being
something its justifying the fact that everyone's body is different and
so one system doesn't work for ever person. I feel happy and healthy
being a vegan and my "blood type" tells me I should eat meat every meal
but I'm not going to and neither is my mother. However, cutting out
dairy and wheat has made me feel incredible (part of what is not good
for O's) i feel the book holds validity but I am much happier choosing
what I am going to eat based on how my body feels. And vegan Katy is a
much better Katy.

Well, I'm glad to have provided food for thought in this area.

Obviously, elmfraser and everyone, you can carry on thinking what you like about this and everything else under the sun.  I was simply suggesting that you check this book out from your library - not buy it.  And since so far, I'm the only person on this thread who HAS actually read it (I'm about 3/4 of the way through it) I would like to say this in response:

1.  It is not a diet book.  There are no menu plans.  It's about the science.

2. Most of the book details the thousands of scientifically valid, peer-reviewed nutrition studies, conducted by the author, by the author's students, and by many others in countries around the globe, that demonstrate the correlation between disease & two dietary elements: cow's milk and animal protein.

3. I agree that it's unfortunate that the book is being marketed in much the same way that diet books are marketed.  I feel certain that's because the publisher wants to make every buck they can.

4. If you read the book, you will see that he is not saying that he's the only person who knows the 'key to health' -- but what he's actually saying is that there are a lot of scientists like him who have seen the data and who are bewildered by the perpetually confusing manner in which consumers are provided with health information - both in the form of fad diet books and from journalists who don't understand scientific findings but report on them as if they do understand.  For example, if 10 studies are done and 5 of them show a statistically significant increase of breast cancer with greater consumption of cow's milk and the other 5 do not show any statistical significance, a reporter will say, 'the jury is still out'. But really, that's not right.  It takes more than just an absence of statistical significance to invalidate a statistical significance.  Especially when all 10 studies are conducted separately and differently, which they usually are.  Journalists don't analyze the 5 inconclusive studies to see what reasons might account for the lack of findings in those studies. And so good information becomes more and more muddled.

5. It's funny because the author makes exactly the same point about junk food vegetarians as a way of explaining why American vegetarians still aren't as healthy as the Chinese.  The key isn't just vegetarian - it's about whole-food, plant-based nutrition. 

6.  I repeat, I am not a vegetarian.  I ate a chicken breast for dinner last night.  But this book is the ONLY convincing one I've ever seen regarding the subject - it is so thorough in its presentation of the science - and it provides the reader with over 750 references to the original studies.  I'm going to finish reading the book and then decide whether going to a whole-food, plant-based diet is something I can do.

I do agree that it's unlikely one diet is going to be right for all 5 billion+ people on the planet. 

You can argue against this book all you want, but as far as I'm concerned, until you read it and can refute what it actually says, I will stick with the dairy-farmer-turned-PhD-nutrition-researcher who at 70 years old is more fit than most 30 year olds I know.  I think this man knows what he's talking about and he's got a lot of courage to write this book when there are going to be strong knee-jerk reactions against his conclusions, as illustrated by this thread.

nomorexcuses....It seems you feel attacked in some way by the discussion thread. I find that regretable.   I thought we were having a discussion.  Your presentation of the content of the book was interesting enough for me to want to buy it .....which I still plan to do.  I still have questions and will probably have more after I read it.

Have a blessed evening.........molly   

I'll just chime in with Molly here and say that it was never my intention to make you feel attacked, and I'm sorry if I ended up doing so. I'm just naturally suspicious of any book, diet book or not, that claims that something as broad as diseases such as cancer can be traced to a single source...call it cynicism, I guess. I tend to react strongly if I perceive that claims like that are being made. Again, I'm sorry if you thought I was attacking you--I really didn't mean to. Like you said, I haven't read the book, and I was just reacting to the way it's been presented. I'll probably take it out of the library when I get the chance and take a closer look, and then see what I think then.

Again, sorry if you felt like you were being put on the defensive.

OK - I did sort of feel attacked, mostly by elmfraser. But nbd - no harm, no foul.

I'm glad you're going to read the book - from your library.  : )

Toward the end of the book there are a short couple chapters called "Eight principles of food and health" and "How to eat" - this is where he gives some advice about what a consumer might do. The principles are:

1. Nutrition represents the combined activities of countless food substances. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
2. Vitamin supplements are not a panacea for good health.
3. There are virtually no nutrients in animal-based food that are not better provided by plants* (See below for his discussion of B12)
4. Genes do not determine disease on their own. Genes function only by being activated, or expressed, and nutrition plays a critical role in determining which genes, good and bad, are expressed.
5. Nutrition can substantially control the adverse effects of noxious chemicals.
6. The same nutrition that prevents disease in its early stages (before diagnosis) can also halt or reverse disease in its later stages (after diagnosis).
7. Nutrition that is truly beneficial for one chronic disease will support health across the board.
8. Good nutrition creates health in all areas of our existence. All parts are interconnected.

From p. 231:

"There are four nutrients which animal-based foods have that plant-based foods, for the most part, do not: cholesterol and Vitamins A, D, and B12. Three of these are nonessential nutrients. As discussed above, cholesterol is made by our bodies naturally. Vitamin A can be readily made by our bodies from beta-carotene, and Vitamin D can be readily made by our bodies simply by exposing our skin to about fifteen minutes of sunshine every couple of days. Both of these vitamins are toxic if they are consumed in high amounts. This is one more indication that it is better to rely on the vitamin precursors, beta-carotene and sunshine, so that our bodies can readily control the timing and quantities of Vitamins A and D that are needed.  Vitamin B12 is more problematic. B12 is made by microorganisms found in the soil and by microorganisms in the intestines of animals, including our own. The amount made in our intestines is not adequately absorbed, so it is recommended that we consume B12 in food. Research has convincingly shown that plants grown in healthy soil that has a good concentration of vitamin B12 will readily absorb this nutrient. However, plants grown in "lifeless" soil (non-organic soil) may be deficient in B12. In the U.S. most of our agriculture takes place on relatively lifeless soil, decimated from years of unnatural pesticide, herbicide and fertilizer use. So the plants grown in this soil and soild in our supermarkets lack B12. ...  Though our society's obsession with nutrient supplementation seriously detracts from other, far more important nutrition iniformation, this is not to say that supplements should always be avoided. It is estimated that we hold a three-year store of vitamin B12 in our bodies. If you do not eat any animal products for three years or more, or are pregnant, or breastfeeding, you should consider taking a small B12 supplement on occasion, or going to the doctor annually to check your blood levels of B vitamins and homocysteine. ....  I call these supplements "separation from nature pills" because a healthy diet of fresh, organic plant-based foods grown in rich soil and a lifestyle that regularly takes you outdoors is the best answer to these issues."

-The China Study: the Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-Term Health by T. Colin Campbell, PhD with Thomas M. Campbell II, Benbella Books, Dallas, TX, 2005, $24.95.

Under the section How to Eat, his recommendations:

• Eat all you want while getting lots of variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts, mushrooms, and whole grains. 
• Minimize refined carbohydrates, added vegetable oils, and fish.
•  Avoid meat, poultry, dairy and eggs.

I'm about to start the chapter about why this diet does not receive more widespread support from the government, the medical community, and the press.

Oh, and he's not claiming that the cause of cancer is a single source or nutrient.  The studies he explains show that carcinogens are the instigator of cancers. But that milk protein and animal protein promote the growth of those cancers and allow them to flourish and take over.

So far, the one criticism I have is that he doesn't address celiac disease at all.  Wheat is a whole grain, plant-based food, but not everyone can tolerate it.  I'm not sure what percentage of people are affected by this problem, perhaps it's a very small percent.  And I understand that his main area of research were heart disease and cancer.

I hope this info is more helpful in terms of explaining where this book is coming from.  I'm sorry I sounded so defensive.  I wasn't upset, but didn't want the book to be misrepresented as a fad diet book.  I am considering giving up beef, poultry and dairy as a result of reading it.  And I adore cheese....  so... it's very compelling.

i def see your points elmfraser. im not all "oh my god we are supposed to be plant eaters! everyone wake up and go vegan now!!!" i def think between you and i, some interesting points have been rasied and that was the purpose of my intitial post, not to ram "rhetoric" down peoples throats. i'm not sitting here saying "well we're 'designed' to be a certain way people!", because if i were to say that and turn it into a go vegan rant, then my post would've really been "rhetoric".  i didnt create the human species, so how can i say what we were desigined to do? i was just stating facts for the sake of a fun agrument/post.

there are many similarties between us and the typical "plant-eater" as well as the typical "meat eater".  although i still dont think we look like cougars we certainly dont look like giraffes either and so i see what you're saying too.  my dairy comments are just a simple observation as far as our diets go....refrencing the points i brought up in my last post, (drinking the milk of another species etc) to me - really is the only thing that sticks out. (because in our culture its very normal to drink milk..it does a body good right?) yes, isnt it wierd we are the only species with technology too? of course... but im talking about diet not our intelligence advances and behavior.

i agree, we are a changing species, and as i stated before, we are very adaptable.  as for what i really believe? i know being vegan is the right choice for ME as you believe the way you eat is right for your body. we're all different. some of us can't digest ice cream, while others can eat a whole gallon of it and be completly unaffected.  i honestly believe we do better as vegetarians and vegans and its proven that you live a healthier and longer life this way.  so mixing this with the common sense of my earlier post reinforces my own beliefs. i was just curious as to what everyone else thought, not brainwashing anyone.

new veggie - thanks ! i look forward to your posts and opinons as well.  i have added you back!

elmfraser~Have you tried Chocolate Silk? It is chocolate milk without the milk and it tastes delicious.  If you haven't tried it yet, you should give it a shot. I'm not sure of the calorie count for it but I'm guessing it's probably similar to the calories in regular chocolate milk.

I have been reading with interest the posts on the China Study book and have to admit I've never read it, but want to put in my two cents worth.  I have been a vegetarian on and off for the past two years.  The time I was off was when I was living in China!  The reason?  I lived in the city of Guangzhou, the third largest city in China, two hours north of Hong Kong for six months.  I can tell you with all honesty that the Chinese I knew ate everything that had four legs, except, perhaps, the table. I mean everything.  I could not find food that did not have meat in it and the Chinese could not understand how I could be a vegetarian!  Everywhere I turned were live animals in cages waiting to be chosen for your dinner (very little refrigeration in China, so the food is fresh, very fresh).  Also, the Chinese have incredible appetites!  I could not even begin to eat the huge amounts they ate, and yet here I am 50 lbs overweight and they are all incredibly skinny.  They eat meat and vegetables on rice for practically every meal.  They do not eat a lot of fat, but they are getting very addicted to sugar and many have rotting teeth.  The few overweight Chinese I saw hung around McDonald's, KFC, and Pizza Hut, which have infiltrated every corner of the city.

I believe the China Study probably refers to the few remaining Buddhists (China is officially atheist), who likely live in the rural areas, particularly Tibet.  It certainly does not reflect the diet of the majority of the 1.2 billion people living in China!

Having said all that, I never want to hear a chicken murdered again, see live frogs or turtles strung together, for sale in a back alley, see cats, rabbits and all sorts of other animals in cages outside restaurants waiting to be "chosen".  I cannot forget seeing countless dead pigs draped across the back of a motorcycle. 

Just to set the record straight.  I wouldn't want anyone to think the Chinese are vegetarians, but they certainly are healthy.  It will be interesting, yet sad, to witness the decline of that Nation's health as they are further influenced by Western diets.

According to Dr. Campbell, he says that the Chinese got about 15% of calories from animal protein -- that's on average, also the study was conducted over a 30 year period, with the data collected between 1973 and 1978.  I'm sure you're right about recent changes.

The study also evaluated the diets of people in every Chinese province, not just the cities (most of China was still rural, but that is changing).  If I recall correctly, he did note that the larger cities showed more evidence of certain Western diseases than did rural areas, which happened to coincide with an increased amount of animal protein in the diet. Though even their highest levels of disease were much lower than our lowest levels of disease.

It wasn't a small study of a few buddhists.  They included over 165,000 people in their data set.  :)  I hope you'll read the book and let us know what you think of it.

The China Study is an excellent read that hints strongly at what diet appears to be best for humans: a whole-food plant-based diet with few concentrated ingriedients such as oils, fats, white flours, sugar and of course meat and dairy.

I have been following the diet fairly closely over the past few months and I do feel better and my clothes are feeling looser.

How can you go wrong with grains, vegetables, legumes and fruits?

What I find most amazing is the amount of food you can eat for 8 or 9 hundred calories.  You can put away up to a kilogram (2.2 pounds) of food and take in under 1000 calories!  I do so regularly and am satisfied, sometimes even stuffed yet still manage to lose weight.

Check out the McDougall and Ornish diets.  they mesh well with what the China study says.

Bruce Elniski

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that it was a small study, only that the number of buddhists still practising is a paltry amount compared to the pre Mao era.

I am very pro natural diet, but don't always practice what I believe, though have been trying harder lately.  It only makes sense that a diet of foods in their natural state would be most healthful.  I think most of our diseases and ailments can be directly linked back to our diets. 

Has anyone read Sugar Blues by William Duffy?

I don't mean to stir up controversy, but I need to point out an inaccuracy  xpreciousroyx.  You said

"meat eaters sweat through their tongues while plant eaters have pores. this has something to do with the hunting of meat eaters (which is generally at night) and how they dont need sweat glands to keep cool.  plant eaters generally find their foods during the day (not hunting in the night) and need the pores to stay cool." 

But cows, sheep and goats to name a few herbivores, do not have pores and do not sweat.  Horses do sweat.  I know this from growing up around farm animals.  There is an article in the New York Times today, talking about how cows are dying by the thousands in the heat wave because they can not sweat.

My opinion (and mine only, no reflection on anyone else's opinion - I respect you all)  Human beings are omnivores as are pigs and many other species.  We are able to live on anything we can eat.  That's why the human race has survived.  Now we live in a time when we can make choices and we should celebrate that.