Reddit Reddit reviews The China Study: Revised and Expanded Edition: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, and Long-Term Health

We found 9 Reddit comments about The China Study: Revised and Expanded Edition: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, and Long-Term Health. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Health, Fitness & Dieting
Diets & Weight Loss
Other Diet Books
The China Study: Revised and Expanded Edition: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, and Long-Term Health
Benbella Books
Check price on Amazon

9 Reddit comments about The China Study: Revised and Expanded Edition: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, and Long-Term Health:

u/soundofjw · 3 pointsr/funny

400% chance of cancer increase if you consume meat and dairy.
It's science:

Also, the Animal Agriculture industry is the #1 Contributor to Change in Climate. – Stanford Law School -->

Y'all should be Vegans. Maybe you'd live longer.

u/TheSadDad · 2 pointsr/vegan

Also, how do you know you won't be healthier on a whole food plant-based diet without trying it for a few months? What if your stubbornness is limiting you from feeling even healthier than you do now?

u/paulvonslagle · 2 pointsr/FunnyandSad

Animal products have more negative impacts to your health than positive. Not only do animal product cause inflammation but also cause cancer. Dr. T. Colin Campbell's book, The China Study concluded that animal protein, casein in this case proliferated cancer growth in all stages. Only plant proteins were found to decrease cancer cell growth. Of course doctors have been making correlation between animal products and coronary heart disease for years. This is due to the free fats from the saturated fats in animal products, which only exist in animal products. Animal products also contain no fiber, which is essential to digestive health. So no, there aren't many positive health impacts for animal products.

For many people, researching independent farmers is just not an economical or feasible choice. Most people are going to get conventionally raised animal products and vegetables. Unless you're heavily invested in the farming community, I doubt every farmer will fit into your checklist. What happens on farms, and what they say happens are not the same in many cases. Sure your checklist would be great in a perfect world, but it's really a drop in the bucket in terms of overall impact on the world. It takes about 1/6th of an acre to feed one vegan per year, ½ an acre to feed a vegetarian and 3 acres to feed a meat eater.

>Give their animals a better, statistically longer life and quicker, more painless death than anything they could hope for in the wild.

Only this part is needless. You can obtain every nutrient, mineral, and amino acid you need from a plant based diet. You can't humanely kill a being that doesn't want to die in the first place.

I started our debate with a question that you never answered. What is more important: your tastebuds, or an animal's life?

u/errinstevens · 1 pointr/suggestmeabook

Ooo - has she read The China Study? I literally keep a pot of the vegetable soup going all winter at my house and pretty much eat it every day.

u/Odd_nonposter · 1 pointr/NoStupidQuestions

Yep. Major public health organizations' opinion hasn't changed, but the food industries are paying to shout otherwise. And the bad thing is, some people are believing them.

Their source mentions Chowdhury, which I alluded to and which has been blasted by the medical community. I've linked to a criticism of that study already, but in case that commenter's credentials aren't enough, here's Walter Willet, chair of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health and his criticism of the study.

His opinion aligns with the Cochrane group study which the poster's source mentions. However, I believe the poster's source is greatly misusing the conclusions published.

Cochrane 2011 does not exonerate saturated fat; the evidence they show is that replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fats confers a benefit. That's clearly a form of cutting down on saturated fat! Cochrane failed to find just plain reduction to be beneficial, but the question becomes, what are people replacing saturated fat with? Refined starches and sugars, animal protein, or whole plant foods? If that's not controlled, you're going to have too much noise to find a meaningful conclusion. They found a subset of substitutions (unsaturated for saturated) that worked, but not just substituting anything and everything for saturated fat or fat as a whole. Because of course, there are other things that are harmful.

If you want my opinion on what to eat, follow the advice of Physician's Comittee for Responsible Medicine, Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn's programs proven to reverse heart disease, Dean Ornish's diet and lifestyle medicine,'s and the book "How Not to Die", and other low fat plant-heavy programs like Dr. John McDougal, Dr. Michael Klaper, Dr. Garth Davis, etc.

Cornell nutritional biochemistry professor T. Colin Campbell has done a lot of work in this area, and I recommend his book "The China Study", which covered his work on the China-Oxford-Cornell project, his work in nutritional biochemistry, and the works of similar authors. The updated version addresses these new studies coming to light that are allegedly turning over medicine's opinion on saturated fat and cholesterol.

His big point is that doing reductive science by monkeying around with individual nutrients like saturated fat, cholesterol, fiber, or vitamin and mineral isolates is a misleading waste of time, and that a holistic approach that considers the sources of nutrition is more important. Saturated fat and cholesterol and fiber intake are merely indicators of the types of food people eat: animal-origin vs. plant-origin. Animal foods are full of saturated fat and are the only source of cholesterol, and likewise, whole plants are the exclusive source of fiber.

So, when a study observes a link between saturated fat intake and heart disease, they're actually finding a messy, indirect link between animal foods and heart disease. As another example, people with more fiber in the diet tend to have lower heart disease risk, but when you supplement people with fiber isolates, heart disease risk doesn't seem to go down. Well, the answer to that conundrum is that people who were observed to eat more fiber were eating more whole plants!

Modern observational nutritional studies can be even more misleading than older studies because we're able to engineer our food to have more or less of these things that were just functioning as indicators of the origin of the foods we're eating. Campbell criticizes the Harvard Nurse's health study as suffering from this problem. Their study population is universally heavily carnivorous, but some individuals choose to eat low-fat chicken and pork, low-fat milk, fiber supplements, etc. They never sample people who eat no animal products versus the meat-heavy standard american diet. So, they're unable to find links between saturated fat and CVD because the saturated fat isn't the problem: it's the meat! Compare that to China-Oxford-Cornell, which was able to show a difference because its sample was actually heterogeneous for the cause of the disease: it sampled dirt-poor people eating the cheapest things available, plants, and wealthier people increasing their animal food intake. There, the correlations are clear.

u/jemjs · 1 pointr/nutrition

if you really investing in your health & diet, read 'the china study' to learn what dairy (specifically protein casein) does to you
also, might want to try any number of veg 'milk' like almond, coconut. find the one you like and go for it!

u/jakeydus · 0 pointsr/insaneparents

While I appreciate the article, this one actually specifically says to avoid red meat, cold cuts, and to try to get most protein from plants (citing environmental and health concerns). It also says that most animal-sourced protein does contribute a lot of unhealthy fat to a diet.

"If you enjoy red meat, consider eating it in small amounts or only on special occasions. Processed meats, such as bacon, hot dogs, sausages, and cold cuts should be avoided."

Not trying to diss on your article, but it isn't a very good argument against vegan- or vegetarianism.

I can provide some peer-reviewed studies as to why a vegan diet is better, but analyzing environmental impacts of a carnivorous (especially red meat centered) diet is a good starting point. I'd try reading The China Study as well.

u/[deleted] · -1 pointsr/China

I agree with you halfway. Until the very last that Chinese can’t afford the necessary calories from even the cheapest meats.

Traditional Chinese diet are among the healthiest in the world. One reason is their sparse use of meat. I literally cannot eat American food anymore. Too processed, too nasty.