Scan barcode
jraley_writes's review against another edition
2.0
Another "meh" read. I feel like the whole time he was just bashing everyone, often defending his side of the story/research/experience (when the defense wasn't needed), and went through entirely too long of a story discussing something that I feel like could have been summed up in an Op-ed piece. Was the information listed interesting? Absolutely. Do I think a swinging change in diet would be more impactful than overuse of medicine and pharmas? Of course. But I would have liked to learn more about the practice of WFPB diet and its positive impacts--not just hear about the awfulness of the Pharm and Medical communities as pitted against the WFPB diet. Don't we know that already? However, I will say that maybe Campbell's prior (and current work) and his bashing of these communities IS why I know those communities are garbage and that nutrition is the most sound way for a person to help him/her self stay in good health (for the most part)...
yyc_heather's review
5.0
I found this book really interesting as a medical librarian. The author, a nutritional biochemist (retired) from Cornell University, has spent his life studying nutrients. He's sat on panels for the National Institutes of Health and the American Cancer Society, and is the author of The China Study, the largest ever study to look at a more traditional, largely plant-based, whole-food diet, and how it protects against many chronic diseases. His previous book on the China Study lays out the case for this diet (I haven't read it), but this book really interested me for its critique of how health research in general, and nutritional research in particular, is currently practised.
Campbell argues that Western models of medical research privilege "reductionist" research that studies single cause-effect relationships. This is fine for addressing simple questions, such as whether a new drug is effective against a disease; but woefully inadequate for nutrition and public health, where people lead complicated lives and health conditions are caused by the interaction of many more factors than could ever be traced in a simple randomized control trial. He offers many examples of nutrients that are found to be very beneficial to health when consumed in whole foods, but actually proved detrimental when isolated in supplements (i.e. beta-carotene and vitamin E). He argues that a more effective use of research dollars would be in the funding and health promotion of plant-based whole foods as the route to optimal health, and the funding of more observational studies to find out which diets correlate with better health. He argues that while these studies can't furnish "gold-standard" evidence in the traditional sense, they do a better job of identifying effective avenues for good health policy - he refers to such systems-oriented research as "wholistic" rather than the "reductionist" studies that are important as a starting point, but often not relevant to real patients in the real world.
Campbell looks at how universities, granting agencies, the NIH, and societies such as the American Cancer Society generally ignore or belittle such research, for two big reasons: first, because the existing scientific paradigm favours the reductionist investigation of single-factor relationships (as seen by the fact that RCTs and systematic reviews occupy the top of the evidence pyramid, with observational studies being viewed as lower-quality evidence); and secondly, because all these agencies are beholden to corporate sponsors in the very food industries whose products cause so many of our chronic diseases, or to sponsors in the pharmaceutical industries who want to promote drug therapies over nutritional interventions. He offers many compelling examples from his own personal experience of attempts by these interests to suppress or deny funding to research on the effects of poor nutrition on developing cancer and heart disease; and the effects of good nutrition on preventing/reversing these diseases, and makes a compelling case that nutrition is the single biggest factor behind our ills in the Western world.
As a health librarian who had largely bought into existing paradigms about which research methods provide the "best" evidence, I found this book really eye-opening, and it articulated a lot of the rather vague dissatisfactions I've often felt with the heavy focus on RCTs and systematic reviews to answer questions that aren't necessarily best addressed through these methods, and the use of the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) framework to frame research questions that are probably far too complicated to be framed in such a simple way. After reading this book, I will certainly be looking at a lot of the "evidence" around cancer and chronic diseases with a much more skeptical eye, and trying to cut back meat and dairy consumption and add more whole plant foods to my own and my family's diets.
Campbell argues that Western models of medical research privilege "reductionist" research that studies single cause-effect relationships. This is fine for addressing simple questions, such as whether a new drug is effective against a disease; but woefully inadequate for nutrition and public health, where people lead complicated lives and health conditions are caused by the interaction of many more factors than could ever be traced in a simple randomized control trial. He offers many examples of nutrients that are found to be very beneficial to health when consumed in whole foods, but actually proved detrimental when isolated in supplements (i.e. beta-carotene and vitamin E). He argues that a more effective use of research dollars would be in the funding and health promotion of plant-based whole foods as the route to optimal health, and the funding of more observational studies to find out which diets correlate with better health. He argues that while these studies can't furnish "gold-standard" evidence in the traditional sense, they do a better job of identifying effective avenues for good health policy - he refers to such systems-oriented research as "wholistic" rather than the "reductionist" studies that are important as a starting point, but often not relevant to real patients in the real world.
Campbell looks at how universities, granting agencies, the NIH, and societies such as the American Cancer Society generally ignore or belittle such research, for two big reasons: first, because the existing scientific paradigm favours the reductionist investigation of single-factor relationships (as seen by the fact that RCTs and systematic reviews occupy the top of the evidence pyramid, with observational studies being viewed as lower-quality evidence); and secondly, because all these agencies are beholden to corporate sponsors in the very food industries whose products cause so many of our chronic diseases, or to sponsors in the pharmaceutical industries who want to promote drug therapies over nutritional interventions. He offers many compelling examples from his own personal experience of attempts by these interests to suppress or deny funding to research on the effects of poor nutrition on developing cancer and heart disease; and the effects of good nutrition on preventing/reversing these diseases, and makes a compelling case that nutrition is the single biggest factor behind our ills in the Western world.
As a health librarian who had largely bought into existing paradigms about which research methods provide the "best" evidence, I found this book really eye-opening, and it articulated a lot of the rather vague dissatisfactions I've often felt with the heavy focus on RCTs and systematic reviews to answer questions that aren't necessarily best addressed through these methods, and the use of the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) framework to frame research questions that are probably far too complicated to be framed in such a simple way. After reading this book, I will certainly be looking at a lot of the "evidence" around cancer and chronic diseases with a much more skeptical eye, and trying to cut back meat and dairy consumption and add more whole plant foods to my own and my family's diets.
nickmiller's review
4.0
I enjoyed this book, not quite as much as The China Study though. It was long on reasons why top-down change to these systemic problems won't work, but short on what we can do (other than eat a plant-based diet as individuals). Great information overall.
charley0796's review against another edition
reflective
slow-paced
3.75
This book has sat on my reading list for years and I finally made it to it!
I read this directly after reading The China Study and that was probably a mistake as it was very repetitive. I also found this book much more ‘I’m right, everyone but this other chap I like is wrong’ - a bit too black and white. I also hoped this book would be more about how to eat the WFPB diet he recommends, especially in an age of substitutes and the reality that B12 and iron is hard to get (I find it hard to meet daily recommendations on my chronometer app). Unfortunately, it was more of a ‘so the science still agrees with me about WFPB but it’s being silenced and here’s how’.
The how around reductionism and critically evaluating the American health care system was really interesting and I completely agree with his arguments. However, as someone living in the UK with publicly funded health care (albeit being privatised), where everything is about how can the nhs save money, I found it hard to relate all of his claims to us. For all his talk of reductionism, it seems he has reduced global health care systems to being synonymous with America. I would have liked a little more exploration of other countries and their diet recommendations based on this.
In sum this is all the dietary advice the book gives, the rest is talking a little about his research and the healthcare scandal. So it definitely ne
The ideal human diet looks like this: Consume plant-based foods in forms as close to their natural state as possible ("whole" foods). Eat a variety of fruits, raw nuts and seeds, beans and legumes, and whole grains. Avoid heavily processed foods and animal products. Stay away from added salt, oil, and sugar. Aim to get 80% of your calories from carbs, 10% from fat, and 10% from protein. That's it, in 66 words. In this book I call it the whole food, plant based diet or WFPB).
So, I’m disappointed that the book overlooked talking about why fat is bad, why salt and sugar is bad, even when it’s consumed in a WFPB way. I’m also weary of demonising foods without having support from a text in how to implement it.
Overall, an interesting book but definitely needed to spend more time talking about the how of his aim: to get more people eating WFPB.
I read this directly after reading The China Study and that was probably a mistake as it was very repetitive. I also found this book much more ‘I’m right, everyone but this other chap I like is wrong’ - a bit too black and white. I also hoped this book would be more about how to eat the WFPB diet he recommends, especially in an age of substitutes and the reality that B12 and iron is hard to get (I find it hard to meet daily recommendations on my chronometer app). Unfortunately, it was more of a ‘so the science still agrees with me about WFPB but it’s being silenced and here’s how’.
The how around reductionism and critically evaluating the American health care system was really interesting and I completely agree with his arguments. However, as someone living in the UK with publicly funded health care (albeit being privatised), where everything is about how can the nhs save money, I found it hard to relate all of his claims to us. For all his talk of reductionism, it seems he has reduced global health care systems to being synonymous with America. I would have liked a little more exploration of other countries and their diet recommendations based on this.
In sum this is all the dietary advice the book gives, the rest is talking a little about his research and the healthcare scandal. So it definitely ne
The ideal human diet looks like this: Consume plant-based foods in forms as close to their natural state as possible ("whole" foods). Eat a variety of fruits, raw nuts and seeds, beans and legumes, and whole grains. Avoid heavily processed foods and animal products. Stay away from added salt, oil, and sugar. Aim to get 80% of your calories from carbs, 10% from fat, and 10% from protein. That's it, in 66 words. In this book I call it the whole food, plant based diet or WFPB).
So, I’m disappointed that the book overlooked talking about why fat is bad, why salt and sugar is bad, even when it’s consumed in a WFPB way. I’m also weary of demonising foods without having support from a text in how to implement it.
Overall, an interesting book but definitely needed to spend more time talking about the how of his aim: to get more people eating WFPB.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Cancer, Chronic illness, and Terminal illness
maplesyrupcoffee's review
3.0
I would definitely recommend this book for the interesting insights it provides about health paradigms, supplements, profit-making medecine/health systems, research approaches etc etc - I do not regret picking it up!
I would have given it a higher rating, but I found that elaboration about the whole-foods-plant-based (WFPB) diet/lifestyle was lacking. Also, I skipped certain sections that were very biology- or America-related and not as interesting to me.
I would have given it a higher rating, but I found that elaboration about the whole-foods-plant-based (WFPB) diet/lifestyle was lacking. Also, I skipped certain sections that were very biology- or America-related and not as interesting to me.
leighnonymous's review
3.0
I think this book was maybe a little too technical for me. I enjoyed the overall message and the points it made were dead-on: clearly, nutrition science has become too reductionist, vitamins and supplements cannot compensate for eating "real" foods, and large medical organizations focus too much on pills and synthetic treatment rather than nutrition as a preventative and/or treatment.
My problem was that the science behind it (never let it be said that Campbell doesn't back up his words with proof) bored me a little. I especially liked the chapter nailing the AMA and the ACS (yes, the American Cancer Society). His point about intentions and well-intentioned people simply putting their energies into misdirected causes wowed me - he's brave to take that on. But considering his histories with those organizations I can see why he feels that way. They scoff at nutrition, don't take it seriously, and don't give adequate nutrition training in medical school.
I think modern medicine is astounding, don't get me wrong; but I also think it wouldn't hurt to take a step back from the microscope every once in a while and say, "Hmmm…vitamin A looks tastier in carrot form than it does in synthetic form." I'm not convinced that nutrition is the cure to all ailments (reminder: none of us are getting out of here alive) but I do think it's ignorant to say it's not important and that whole foods can be replaced with pills and supplements. Better living through chemicals? Yep! As long as they're the chemicals contained in pure, whole foods.
My problem was that the science behind it (never let it be said that Campbell doesn't back up his words with proof) bored me a little. I especially liked the chapter nailing the AMA and the ACS (yes, the American Cancer Society). His point about intentions and well-intentioned people simply putting their energies into misdirected causes wowed me - he's brave to take that on. But considering his histories with those organizations I can see why he feels that way. They scoff at nutrition, don't take it seriously, and don't give adequate nutrition training in medical school.
I think modern medicine is astounding, don't get me wrong; but I also think it wouldn't hurt to take a step back from the microscope every once in a while and say, "Hmmm…vitamin A looks tastier in carrot form than it does in synthetic form." I'm not convinced that nutrition is the cure to all ailments (reminder: none of us are getting out of here alive) but I do think it's ignorant to say it's not important and that whole foods can be replaced with pills and supplements. Better living through chemicals? Yep! As long as they're the chemicals contained in pure, whole foods.
c_e_r_98's review against another edition
challenging
informative
slow-paced
3.0
This book was just fine - I enjoyed Campbell’s overarching messages and critiques of the media and medical establishment, but found his persecution complex and holier-than-thou attitude grating. I have not read The China Study, but any staunch one-size-fits-all nutritional approach sets my alarm bells ringing. I’ll have to dig deeper into his research to determine its validity, but this book was kind of boring and repetitive. It’s also ten years old at this point, which in research terms may as well be a lifetime.
mattpr_co's review
5.0
Very compelling case for a different way to look at health and wellness. It raises a lot of questions about the status quo of promoting a single nutrient or vitamin to effect a specific outcome, when they are naturally part of a larger system as are our bodies and world.
veganvirgo's review
5.0
This is an important book that will be read by far too few people. It challenges just about everything we've been "taught" about what we need to do to maintain health and then tells us how we got into this predicament in the first place. Dr. Campbell is very brave to so thoroughly challenge the status quo.