Anyone working toward going vegetarian?

Just wanted to add... since I see a lot of debate about the health benefits and/or deficiencies of being vegetarian/vegan being mentioned.. check out the book 'The China Study'. It's a great read regarding a comprehensive study of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease. :-)

That is looking at an epidemiology.

Campbell is sadly misinformed when it comes to the topic of protein, something especially regrettable for someone whose "entire professional career in biomedical research has centered on protein". Within minutes of beginning his book, even the dullest reader will quickly realize that Campbell is on a zealous mission against animal protein, which he believes to be public healthy enemy number one.
.
.
.
.
So what about the China Study itself?

Despite it's title, only a small portion of The China Study is actually devoted to discussing the giant epidemiological study of the same name; the rest of the book simply reads like an extended sales brochure for veganism.

Beginning in the early eighties, Campbell was part of a group of Chinese, British and US researchers that presided over the massive epidemiological study known as the China Project, or China Study. The New York Times dubbed it "the Grand Prix of epidemiology", and it gathered data on 367 variables across sixty-five counties and 6,500 adults. After the study data was compiled, the researchers had calculated "more than 8,000 statistically significant associations between lifestyle, diet and disease variables."

According to Campbell, the China Study data showed that: "People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease.... People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease."[p. 7]

In reality, the China Study showed nothing of the sort.

What Campbell won't tell you about the China Study

The China Study does not contain the actual data gathered from its namesake study. So when Campbell claims that the China Study found a consistent relationship between animal foods and various diseases, readers have no way of verifying this information for themselves.

Unless of course, they get up off their butts and go retrieve the actual China Study data for themselves. To do this, they will need to check their local libraries (university libraries are the best bet) for a book titled Diet, life-style, and mortality in China: A study of the characteristics of 65 Chinese counties[Chen J]. Once readers have this book in their possession, they will quickly discover that there is a galaxy-sized gap between the actual findings of the China Study and the claims made by Campbell in his popular book version.

Overall mortality

Let's start with overall mortality, unarguably the most important mortality statistic of all. Animal protein, fish protein, meat intake, saturated fat, and fat calories were all negatively associated with all-cause mortality in infants, children, teenagers and adults, although none of the associations reached statistical significance (for those unfamiliar with research-speak, a negative correlation means that as intake of these foods increased, mortality risk decreased; failure to reach statistical significance means that researchers can't be sure these findings were not due to chance).
Among those aged 0-64, total protein returned a 29% negative association with overall mortality. This finding was statistically significant (p=0.05).
In all age groups, egg consumption was negatively associated with all-cause mortality, with a statistically significant 43% decrease (p=0.01) in overall mortality among those aged 0-64.
No statistically significant relationships, protective or otherwise, were found for milk intake, fiber, cereal grains, legumes, and vegetables among those aged 0-64.
The only other dietary factor that was significantly associated with overall mortality among those aged 0-64 was soy sauce (not soy products), which showed a 43% decrease in mortality risk (p=0.001)

Cancer

Neither total protein (+12%), animal protein (+3%), fish protein (+7%), plant protein (+12%), meat intake (-20%), saturated fat (+2%), fat calories (-17%), eggs (+19%), nor milk (+6%) demonstrated any statistically significant association with mortality from all cancers. Rice (-26%, p=0.05) and green vegetables (-28%, p=0.05) were statistically associated with reduced cancer mortality, as were the use of alcohol (-27%, p=0.05), home-made cigarettes (-32%, p=0.01), and total tobacco use (-25%, p=0.05).
(Readers can now see why I have such a generally low opinion of epidemiological research--if we were to treat the findings of the China Study proactively, then we would all go out and start drinking and smoking cigarettes in order to improve our odds against cancer! Despite his obvious enthrallment with the results of the China Study, Campbell for some reason doesn't recommend this...)
With regards to specific types of cancer, no statistically significant associations were observed for total protein, animal protein, fish protein, meat intake, milk intake, saturated fat, total fat, fiber, cereal grains, legumes, vegetables and mortality from colorectal or breast cancers.

Heart Disease

No statistically significant associations were observed for total protein, animal protein, fish protein, meat intake, milk intake, saturated fat, total fat, fiber, legumes, and mortality from coronary heart disease.
Rice was associated with a statistically significant decrease (-58%, p=0.001) in CHD risk, while wheat flour was associated with a statistically significant increase in CHD risk (+67%, p=0.001). A similar phenomenon was noted for stroke mortality, with a statistically significant risk decrease noted for rice (-44%, p=0.01), and a statistically significant increase in risk observed for wheat flour (+55%, p=0.001) (again, despite his apparent rapture with the China Study results, nowhere does Campbell recommend the avoidance of wheat or wheat flour; in fact, he encourages the consumption of whole grain cereals).

So there you have it...the "Grand Prix" study that supposedly showed "People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease.... People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease", actually showed that animal-based foods imparted no increased risk of all-cause mortality, cancer deaths, or cardiovascular mortality.

Conclusion

Campbell's lopsided presentation of the facts is most regrettable. If you visit the The China Study page at Amazon.com you will see that the book is selling well and has received glowing reviews from unwitting readers who clearly have not taken the time to validate Campbell's claims for themselves. Like so many people in today's society, these folks are too lazy to think and research for themselves, and are therefore ready prey for misguided "gurus" peddling scientifically unsound nonsense

This was from lyle mcdonald.

Those statistics are what was found by the study. Disease prevention has nothing to do with true veganism.

You cannot read a book and talk about the study and how it was so wonderful if you dont look at the statistics it was based off of.

Most of the studies have dumb conclusions or some moron making it.
for example. Red meat can cause GI cancer. Well red meat is broken into many forms such as hot dogs, low quality meat, mcdonalds, the actual steak.
therefore red meat causes cancer.

but wait...

Considering most of red meat people consume contain nitrates it actual cuts of beef should not be associated with the other forms.

At the same time since meat has creatine and b12 those both have been shown to have neurological protective benefits as you age. B12 can be obtained easily via meat and does have the optimal type of amino acids for skeletal muscle repair.

So no. It is a study with a book that has no true basis on the results he found but rather his opinion.
There was no peer review for this book because it is garbage

It's kind of sad that 'lyle mcdonald' takes the stance that people who read these types of books are doing so because "these folks are too lazy to think and research for themselves, and are therefore ready prey for misguided gurus peddling scientifically unsound nonsense"

I read the book out of curiosity and belief that the majority of findings were factual- not because I'm too lazy to think and research.. Considering reading a book in itself can be considered researching... Sounds like 'lyle' is more into name calling and belittling than anything else, near the end of his post.

Anyways, I'm interested in what you've brought to light.. and with some quick googling, found this page which covers a pretty interesting critique & analysis of The China Study [ http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ ] ..for anyone else interested.

I'm vegetarian, and due to seemingly worsening allergies to milk and egg products, becoming vegan. I do this because of both the health benefits I find through cutting out animal products, and for the personal belief that raising animals purely for food is both unnecessary and cruel. I've lived my whole life without the consumption of meat and don't plan on changing that, regardless of whether it's better or not for disease prevention.

To be clear, this is a choice I make for myself- not anyone else. To each their own.