Has anyone else read "The China Study"

cmurphy04722

I am 1/5 of the way through it and keep checking on the references and investigating the data presented...I've already been vegetarian for nearly 4 years (pescatarian as of late) because it helped with migraine symptoms and know that when I was vegan for 3 months, I felt absolutely amazing. It's just hard. I give in to the cheese temptation, but this book has me sitting straight up, paying attention to the science. How long can I continue ignoring the data?

Note: I'm not trying to "convert" anyone to being veg of any sort, just interested in hearing others' reactions to The China Study or input from those who are familiar with it.

froggy905

There is "solid science" to support both veg and non-veg diets. As with many things, I don't know who to believe anymore... I have do veg diet for short periods of time during cleanses, etc... and I know what I am just dead and have no energy. I think that for my blood time they recommend a lot of red meat for that reason.

Have any of you read that book? Maybe we can have a separate thread, I don't want to pirate cmurphy04722's China Study thread.

sparkles321

I haven't read it, but I did just go check it out on amazon to see what it's all about. It does sound interesting, though I am skeptical of most nutritional "findings" these days. I agree that eating whole foods is better than eating processed foods. Whole foods are completely natural, processed foods are corrupted with junk. However, I also strongly believe we are omnivores. Nature would not have given us incisors if meat would be bad for the body nature gave us. This does not mean we should not eat veggies (we do have molars too), it does not mean we have to eat meat (if you choose not to, so be it), nor does it mean we need to eat large amounts of meat (who knows how much meat nature intended us to eat). For me, the bottom line is that nature supplied the tools to eat both meat and veggies, and since I do enjoy meat, I eat both.

Maybe one day, when they finally decide if eggs are good or bad (and don't change their mind, again, the next year), I might pay more attention to nutritional articles. Until then, I try to just eat a balance of everything and I'm focusing on making those choices as whole as possible.

cmurphy04722

I have do veg diet for short periods of time during cleanses, etc... and I know what I am just dead and have no energy.

I agree that we vary as individuals in our nutrition requirements. For me, my migraine symptoms (the stomach issues) significantly decreased when I gave up animal products 4 years ago. I stayed vegan for 3 months (gave up various foods, drinks, etc. over the years and always for 3 months or so at a time to see if they helped the migraines) and stayed vegetarian afterward. I felt incredible during those 3 months. But I was eating very well, a lot of vegans still eat a lot of junk food. I think there are ways to eat healthy no matter what you exclude from your diet in general.

I definitely will not eat chicken, cow, pig, etc. but I have eaten a few fish in the last 6 months or so. I'm curious if others were intrigued by the low protein diet discussed in The China Study. I have been using whey protein to supplement after long workouts, and eat eggs regularly.

I suppose I'll have to see for myself if it helps my health, but would love some feedback :-)

metalpalace

It's been a while... But if I remember correctly the china study didnt make a discernment between cow and pig and fish and poultry. They lumped all meat into one category so I stopped reading it because they were only gathering evidence to support a preconceived biased conclusion. I remember thinking it was as bad as when our government use to lump all sugars together into the same category without making a discernment between complex and simple sugars or recognizing different glycemic loads etc. I'm not a fan of the China Study it's "fuzzy science" at best.

Motleybird

Bumping this because I just read that book. In fact it's one of the reasons (other than the scale starting to creep back up) that I came back here after three months away.

Actually the author started off as a solid eggs and bacon farm boy before he got involved in the research, and originally was on the band wagon to increase good solid animal protein for children in developing countries, until he started looking at the numbers he was getting.

I don't plan on going full vegetarian or vegan yet, but I'm definitely cutting down on the animal products. It would be nice if he could do some more studies comparing more than just two types of protein (milk and wheat) in rats, though studies always cost money, and you'd need someone who was interested in paying for them. For instance, would you get the same results from peanut butter? Or fish?

Still, I have yet to hear anyone tell me that more vegetables and unprocessed foods are bad for me. So it seems like a good direction to go.

david1956

My understanding of it is that other researchers who later did exhaustive analysis on the data found major flaws in the research methodologies that had been used. For example the "western" diets that were high in animal foods had other consistent features which, when the data was fully analysed, seemed to contribute far more significantly to health problems (e.g. high amounts of processed flour products). But these other contributing factors had been entirely ignored.

I'm not dismissing it all, and to me it is part of a jig-saw that one uncovers as you begin researching. There is a minefield of conflicting studies that often are heavily biased by people with a particular philosophical stance or whatever. I think one has to really look at a wide-cross section of studies and conclusions to feel out what is accurate and what is not.

One viewpoint for example, without sounding like a conspiracy theorist, is that much of the FDA-promoted food pyramid evolved from people with very very significant economic interests in the types of food they were promoting. No one was going to make money out of coconut oils, but someone was going to make a killing out of bottles of cooking oil. I've seen very interesting studies done of large numbers of populations over decades that cast real question marks over the "fat is bad" message that is peddled. One (I think it was Finnish farmers being studied, though I could be wrong) seemed to suggest that in the context of an otherwise healthy diet (lots of fruit and veges etc) full-fat products are much healthier than low fat ones. By healthier I mean in terms of chronic heart disease etc.

I've drifted off topic, but I'm simply saying... I think it takes a really open mind and sorting through a lot of data to clarify in ones own mind what is accurate. I tend to look at data as "interesting and worth consideration", but I'm yet to see one "theory" that convinces in itself, in that everyone seems to have motives for peddling their ideas. In general, I'm simply gravitating to "processed is generally junk", not just from research but what my body is telling me.

But these studies are all very interesting.