Review: The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, and Long-term Health

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
My rating: 3 of 5 stars



I'm in no position to question his findings, nor his methods. He does call out several other diets and nutritionists by name (South beach, Atkins, Perlmutter, Paleo, etc.). I find it interesting to note the points in common between all these diets and books: More veggies, fruits, nuts, beans, berries, etc. The difference seems to lie in meat, grains, animal products.

He's very much against isolating chemicals and finding benefits/disadvantages to each, since he says the way they all interact together is what matters (eating food vs. taking pills with isolated compounds).

If I were to play devil's advocate, I'd say that many of the studies mentioned (not all) seem to have a low number of participants (below 100), in contrast he seems to go into great detail to debunk studies that oppose his WFPB diet.

Toward the end the tone shifts (actually more or less the whole second half). He starts discussing how and why other scientists and lawmakers disagree with his findings. I won't opine on this, although for the most part it seems pretty credible.

Also,if you're calling the book "The China Study", I appreciate including other studies and information, but there should be much more about the China study. It is almost added as an afterthought at the end (it is mentioned throughout, but the study itself is only explained in more detail at the end). Even then, it has lots of ambiguity ("several suspect results were thrown out" sounds suspect in itself. How many is several? What criteria were there for judging them 'suspect'?)



Some of my notes:
US spends more on healthcare than any other country
US healthcare system is the 3rd (after heart disease and cancer) leading cause of death in the US.
Doesn't just cover China study
Premise: Too much protein (animal protein, Casein) is bad for us. --> Opposite of most diets (low on carbs, high on protein)

Study on Sodium nitrite:
1970: Journal Nature said Nitrite in our hotdogs may create nitrosamines (carcinogens)
Why: Animal experiments
Study: 2 groups of rats exposed to different levels of NASR (type of nitrosamine). Low dose received 1/2 amount of high dose.
Low dose: 35% died of cancer.
High does: 100% died of cancer.
BUT-->
The low dose, translated into human terms: 270,000 bologna sandwiches with 1 pound of bologna each, per day, for 30 years. This is how much rats in Low dose group had per bodyweight.
But studies with casein protein brought about cancer in 100% of test animals, and without the protein: 0% of animals.

Says he had nothing to gain in discovering this, and everything to lose, but then says those who pay his grants were reviewing his studies--> so it had to work out.

Cholesterol below 150 mg per deciliter means no heart disease according to most doctors.
He calls out Perlmutter by name.

"Hardly any study has done more damage to the nutritional landscape than the Nurses' Health Study, and it should serve as a warning for the rest of science for what not to do."

Interestingly, it mentions the Mcdougall plan, which I then looked up:
(From Wikipedia): The McDougall Plan—is a fad diet that carries some possible disadvantages, such as a boring food choice and the risk of feeling hungry."
Is it a fad diet if those are the only "possible" disadvantages? No mention of possible advantages.
So maybe he's onto something when he says the industry has a smear campaign going against nutrition-centered care. Then again, maybe he just knows people will oppose his findings so he's preemptively going after them.



View all my reviews