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

Which weight loss plan works best? What are the best books on health and nutrition - What is the best free weight loss app? Discover the best Health, Fitness & Dieting books and ebooks. Check our what others have to say about Thomas Campbell,T. Colin Campbell books. Read over #reviewcount# reviews on The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted And the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, And Long-term Health before downloading. Read&Download The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted And the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, And Long-term Health by Thomas Campbell,T. Colin Campbell Online


Even today, as trendy diets and a weight-loss frenzy sweep
the nation, two-thirds of adults are still obese and children are being
diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, typically an “adult”
disease, at an alarming rate. If we’re obsessed with being thin
more so than ever before, why are Americans stricken with heart disease
as much as we were 30 years ago?

In The China Study, Dr.
T. Colin Campbell details the connection between nutrition and heart
disease, diabetes, and cancer. The report also examines the source of
nutritional confusion produced by powerful lobbies, government entities,
and opportunistic scientists. The New York Times has recognized
the study as the “Grand Prix of epidemiology” and the
“most comprehensive large study ever undertaken of the
relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease.”


The China Study is not a diet book. Dr. Campbell cuts
through the haze of misinformation and delivers an insightful message to
anyone living with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and those
concerned with the effects of aging.

[This book is also
available in Spanish, El Estudio de China.]

Average Ratings and Reviews
review-bg

4.31

27363 Ratings

5

4

3

2

1


Ratings and Reviews From Market


client-img 4.7
3000
321
107
36
71
client-img 4
79
90
58
3
1
client-img 4.23
10356
9888
2770
2
0

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

2

May 14, 2007

UGH! I totally loved this book as of page 150 or so! At the beginning you find out about this really interesting research that showed that feeding milk protein (casein) to rats encouraged them to develop cancerous growths after the rats had been exposed to a carcinogen called aflatoxin, and the cancer barely grew at all in rats that were fed low amounts (5% of calories) of casein. The cancer also barely grew at all in rats that were fed low to medium to high amounts of PLANT protein (wheat UGH! I totally loved this book as of page 150 or so! At the beginning you find out about this really interesting research that showed that feeding milk protein (casein) to rats encouraged them to develop cancerous growths after the rats had been exposed to a carcinogen called aflatoxin, and the cancer barely grew at all in rats that were fed low amounts (5% of calories) of casein. The cancer also barely grew at all in rats that were fed low to medium to high amounts of PLANT protein (wheat protein and soy protein were tested). I thought they were going to do a lot more tests to find out the effects of OTHER animal proteins besides casein (what about whey protein, fish protein, beef protein, chicken protein, etc), and I thought they would do tests with other carcinogens besides aflatoxin. Since the results were so dramatic, you'd think all these other studies would have been the natural offshoot. But Campbell doesn't ever mention these follow-up studies which surely must have happened.

Or if they didn't happen, then why not? It doesn't make any sense that scientists would not pursue these very provocative and promising research questions. I am perplexed by this. Either Campbell left the information about the follow-up studies out of his book, or they simply didn't happen. If it was the science-medicine-government-industry complex that BLOCKED any further research, then Campbell had every opportunity to explain that, but he didn't. Also, it makes no sense because there are plenty of organizations like Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and PETA that would have the money to sponsor the research. OK, maybe not PETA, as they wouldn't approve of doing experiments on rats, but these research conclusions are just way too groundbreaking. You know, "Diets Rich in Dairy Products Accelerate Cancer Growth." and "Plant-Based Diets Prohibit Cancer Growth." There are so many scientists who have already made their money and don't need to be slaves to the power establishment and who would LOVE to be responsible for conclusive research like this; they could win the Nobel Prize, for sure! So either the follow-up research was done, and it wasn't conclusive, which would explain why Campbell left those details out, or ... well, it just makes no sense why no one would have investigated it further.

UGH!

The book is okay in general, especially for people who want reassurance that a vegan diet is healthy. Also, reading this book helped encourage me to eat healthier, more whole foods, not so much refined sugar and added oils. I'm very thankful for that. I also found out that my cholesterol at 167 is not that great and I need to get it below 150.

But ... I got rather annoyed with the author because he keeps saying that a whole-foods, plant-based diet (vegan) is the HEALTHIEST diet, and he didn't give any scientific evidence for that. I'm vegan and I definitely wanted to see that scientific evidence, but it wasn't there. And note that unlike other people who got bored and skimmed through parts of it, I actually read every word of every page, all the way through from beginning to end, including the appendices. If I had only flipped around in the book and saw him claiming that he has already proven (in other chapters) that the vegan diet is best, I might think, "OH, that's probably true, I haven't read the whole thing 100%." Well, I DID read the whole thing 100% and he did not prove that a vegan diet is best. What he showed is some correlations between cancer rates and heart disease rates in various countries; the more animal protein and animal fat you eat, the more cancer and heart disease you get. OKAY, point taken, but it doesn't show that eating a vegan (whole foods) diet is any better than, say, a 95% plant-based, 5% animal-based diet. In fact, even in the studies with rats, they had almost no cancer growth when they had only 5% of their calories from milk protein (casein). They only got the high amounts of cancer growth when it went up to 10% and 20%. So it looks like low amounts of dairy products are actually OKAY, according to the rat studies. I just hate that Campbell goes from showing us these really interesting studies and then takes a leap to say that 100% plant-based diet is the best.

He also provides as "evidence" some studies by Esseltyn and others who REVERSED heart disease by putting people on restricted diets. This is good news and throws egg in the faces of all the stick-in-the-mud doctors who think drugs and surgery are the only ways to treat disease. OK, cool. But I noted that most of the restricted diets weren't totally vegan, the people were allowed small amounts of meat and dairy every day. In cases like this, Campbell always said something like, "Well, if the results were that good, imagine how good the results would be if the diet was 100% vegan." Well, that's just imagining. Where is the evidence that the 100% vegan diet is better than a mostly plant-based diet? I don't think there is any, otherwise he would have shown it to us. So what gives him the right to go around saying that a 100% vegan diet is the best? And acting like he has the research to back it up? And probably fooling some people in the process? Ooooh! It makes me angry.

Now for my "most obvious" gripe. I thought the book was going to be mainly about all these exciting results of the China Study, since it says THE CHINA STUDY in big letters on the front. One would think! As I read the first 140 pages (which are NOT about the China study), I simply thought I was being given the background info, as surely we were being led up to a big discussion about THE CHINA STUDY. So I was shocked by the time I get to the 200's pages, and we were moving on to other topics. It was then that I checked the Table of Contents, and came to a shocking realization ... the 15 pages where the author talks a little bit about the China Study (in the mid-100's pages somewhere, I don't have the book with me) is ALL YOU'RE GONNA GET. What the heck!??? Even in those 15 pages, he actually doesn't even stay focused on the topic of THE CHINA STUDY. He spends quite a few paragraphs within those 15 pages, discussing Esseltyn and Atkins diet and other stuff. I couldn't believe it.

Also, when I read about the procedure of the China Study, it just doesn't sound very good. They pooled together all the blood from people in 2 cities in each county and based their statistics off of that. So even though they took blood samples from 100's of people, they only ended up with about 65 data points to compare. This is because they couldn't get enough blood from individuals to test all the factors that they wanted. So if they took all the vials of blood and mixed them, they got a combined sample of several pints of blood from people from that county. And that was enough blood to do 100s of tests. But if there were some people in the county who ate a lot of animal products, and others who ate mostly plants, and you got survey data from all those people .. well, now you have to average their eating habits and make a composite "average" diet for someone in that county. You can't compare the disease rates of people who ate well in the county vs. people who ate poorly. All you can do is compare one county's pooled blood sample to another county's.

So .... maybe the reason why T. Colin Campbell doesn't talk much about the China study, in his book entitled THE CHINA STUDY, is that the results there are not very conclusive or persuasive. I was thinking I should read Junshi's original research published in 1990, but I googled it and found a summary of its shortcomings here:

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/c...

The above web site seems to be all about busting the myths and "fanaticism" of vegan and raw food diets, etc, so be aware of that. Nonetheless, the points it brings up are the same ones I was thinking of as I read about the techniques employed for the China study research.

Oh, I found another review that sums up many of the criticisms I have.

http://www.westonaprice.org/bookrevie...

This review actually brings up another important point ... Campbell makes a big deal about how dairy is linked to autoimmune diseases, but what about the links to wheat and gluten? Unfortunately, Campbell generalizes that if milk protein is bad, then all animal protein is bad, whereas he generally assumes that plant protein is good.

Oh, the guy who wrote that review above is Chris Masterjohn, he's the author of a fanatical PRO-CHOLESTEROL site! So that guy is biased, also! His web site says that low cholesterol diets are bland and boring! As if????

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/

Despite Masterjohn's obvious bias on his web site, his review of The China Study seems fair and even-handed. He gives 48 references in his review, although I haven't checked them. (Hey, I'm just trying to do a quick write-up!) The gist of his review agrees with my feeling as I read the China Study, so despite my skepticism regarding Masterjohn's underlying agenda of promoting cholesterol consumption, I think the information he provided is probably correct. Taken with a grain of salt, of course.

Anyway ... back to T. Colin Campbell's book ...
It turned me off that Campbell seemed so biased toward a 100% vegan diet; he SAID his beliefs were based on science, without providing the scientific evidence. He STARTED to provide compelling research, and then he stopped. It's a total bummer.

And I'm disappointed that the book says it's all about the China Study, when it is not. And maybe it's because the China Study wasn't really worth writing a book about.

However, I give it 3 stars instead of 2 because that stuff at the beginning is really interesting. And it did get me motivated to eat healthier. I am on a quest to lose 10 pounds in 10 weeks and get my cholesterol to under 150! And it's due in large part to the motivational and compelling parts in the first half of this book.

Still, I might put it down to two stars. It was a pretty big disappointment.

And for the Vegan Book Club ... I know you said you wanted to do this for a future book selection ... I've got no opinion either way, since I've already read it now ... I suggest checking the links above and deciding for yourselves if you want this or a different book. While I do have my criticisms, it certainly would make for a good discussion! ...more
1

Aug 03, 2012

Whew, where to start with this one! I do feel compelled to explain why I see this book as a one star. it is frankly bad science. I think most people would read this book and seriously feel scared, he certainly wrote it with that purpose in mind. Many of my thoughts stem from years of math and statistics classes, years of working with statistics in environmental engineering, some come from the dozens of research studies that I’ve read over the years, some come simply from being a die-hard Whew, where to start with this one! I do feel compelled to explain why I see this book as a one star. it is frankly bad science. I think most people would read this book and seriously feel scared, he certainly wrote it with that purpose in mind. Many of my thoughts stem from years of math and statistics classes, years of working with statistics in environmental engineering, some come from the dozens of research studies that I’ve read over the years, some come simply from being a die-hard critical thinker. I truly question everything I read (and as a result can drive my ownself nuts). I don't want you to think for one minute that I think I have all the answers to what we “should” be eating. I eat based on what I personally feel is the best odds for health. This changes and evolves, and I definitely struggle with a sweet tooth (I think refined sugar may be the worst evil of all the foods, yet I love it, go figure),. If I speak my truth, based on everything I’ve read, researchers and health professionals that I respect and trust, I do strongly belief that quality meat rich in omega 3’s is the healthiest source of protein for our bodies. I would eat more fish if I didn’t feel so much concern over toxins in our oceans and thus our fish. Grass-fed beef has a better omega 3 fat profile than grain fed beef,but without the toxins of the wild fish. This is what I eat predominantly for meat.
Who knows, maybe further research will come out to show that a no-meat diet is best, but I really do not believe that any science so-far proves that to be the truth (from a health standpoint).

So if you really want to know why I think this book is bad science, here is a start (tip of the ice berge to be honest). Epidemiology is a good tool for predicting future outcomes for large communities, but is terrible for predicting individual causations. He even admits himself (very quietly and sort of as a side note) that there are incredible amounts of variables that confound the results.
Correlations does not equal causation (this is basic statistics, yet almost all of his data is based on correlations. (Rich people eat more meat than poor and rich people have more cancer than poor therefore eating meat causes cancer……don’t even get me started on how this poves nothing)

The author definitely says many things that I agree with and are scientifically backed up by lots of other studies. That’s a big thing for me, I don’t trust anything until it has been shown repeatedly in unrelated studies. The Standard America Diet (SAD as they call it) is certainly dismal. Processed and refined foods are terrible for us and he talks a lot about that in the beginning of the book. This is all very, very true. I’m not vegan (obviously) but I would consider a vegan diet and a whole-foods diet more closely related than most. Both attempt to eat whole fruits and veggies, lots of omega 3’s, fibre, and adequate protein. But there are also many technically incorrect statements this books makes, as well as leaps of logic that are truly unscientific. I could actually be more forgiving of minor technical errors, but the data has been presented in a way that I believe is irresponsible.

I would imagine anyone who would take the time to read this book as it stands would certainly be afraid of dairy. I am not. When you start looking into the real data and how it was interpreted that the problems start to surface and I lost faith in the rest of his possibly accurate data.

Anyway, most people don't take enough interest in their diet to even read one book or they are not open minded enough to consider whether meat, or wheat or big macs are good for their health. I'm not emotionally tied to my “diet” and I read a lot, so I am happy to read and consider what is best for my personal health. I want to believe I am open to change. Sorry for the rambling review.
...more
2

Aug 13, 2008

I haven’t read the whole thing yet. I have skipped around a bit and I probably won’t finish it. I am reading it because my sister in law read it and wanted my opinion. At first I had an open mind about what he had to say, but the further I got in to it the less I liked it. The first thing was the evangelical tone of the writing. You can almost hear Amazing Grace being sung in the background… I once was lost, but now am found… Then he completely disses anyone who believes that fiber can I haven’t read the whole thing yet. I have skipped around a bit and I probably won’t finish it. I am reading it because my sister in law read it and wanted my opinion. At first I had an open mind about what he had to say, but the further I got in to it the less I liked it. The first thing was the evangelical tone of the writing. You can almost hear Amazing Grace being sung in the background… I once was lost, but now am found… Then he completely disses anyone who believes that fiber can contribute to anemia by calling them “experts” in quotes. There are a lot of real experts who have done some very good research that shows that plant components can impair mineral absorption. He demonizes animal foods, backing up his claims with epidemiological data and rat studies. I find the rat studies rather believable, but I’m not sure he is interpreting the epidemiological data entirely correctly. There are so many factors involved I have a hard time with is attribution of all diseases of affluence to animal foods. There are MANY factors (dietary, lifestyle, and environmental) correlated to animal protein intake that could just as easily be the problem. Most likely it is some combination of factors. China is so different from the US and Europe that I don’t think that you can make a straight comparison. I don’t think that the answer is to start eating like a rural Chinese peasant. The thing that bothers me the most is that he almost completely ignores the possibility and probability of malnutrition among the millions of Chinese people who are consuming these very spare vegetarian diets by attributing it to parasites and saying that it could be prevented by public health projects to provide clean water. He talks about how great it is that the girls in the villages reach menarche in their late teens and that it isn’t so important to be tall. He misses the point that it isn’t tall per se, but the other impairments that go along with not reaching your genetic potential for height.

He does make some good points about the typical American diet. We eat too much overall. We eat too much meat and fat and not enough fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. Anyone taking Nutr 101 should be able to tell you that. It is no secret. In the rat studies it looks like the benefits of a low animal protein diet taper off at/below 10% of calories from animal protein. That is still a fair amount, not low protein, but less than what most Americans eat. I think that there is a diminishing return to the reduction in animal protein he talks about.

He spends the last section of the book making it sound like there is some national conspiracy among scientists, industry, and policy makers to keep Americans sick in order to make money. I don’t think so.

Over all I am unconvinced. I think that he has over reacted and I still think that you can get the benefits of a vegetarian diet by eating lots of fruit and veggies (including soy) and whole grains while incorporating smaller amounts of lean meat and dairy.
...more
5

Jul 26, 2007

Wow! Time to start cutting down on animal protein! This is a well supported (with real scientific evidence) on the dangers of eating animal protein...from cancers, to arthritis to osteoporosis. It also provides good insight into how some in the scientific community, government and industry work together to keep valuable nutritional information from the public. The most interesting and surprising point for me was the dangers of milk and how increased milk consumption can actually cause Wow! Time to start cutting down on animal protein! This is a well supported (with real scientific evidence) on the dangers of eating animal protein...from cancers, to arthritis to osteoporosis. It also provides good insight into how some in the scientific community, government and industry work together to keep valuable nutritional information from the public. The most interesting and surprising point for me was the dangers of milk and how increased milk consumption can actually cause osteoporosis. This book is written in a style appropriate for both doctors/scientists as well as the average public. ...more
2

Sep 24, 2010

I really wish Campbell would have included the most compelling data from this study. But for some reason he left if out his book.

Below is a study co-authored by Colin Campbell and is derived from the Cornell China Study.

Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A 136 (2003) 127-140

Fish consumption, blood docosahexaenoic acid and chronic diseases
in Chinese rural populations
Yiqun Wanga, Michael A. Crawforda,*, Junshi Chenb, Junyao Lib, Kebreab Ghebremeskela,
T. Colin Campbell, Wenxun Fanb, I really wish Campbell would have included the most compelling data from this study. But for some reason he left if out his book.

Below is a study co-authored by Colin Campbell and is derived from the Cornell China Study.

Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A 136 (2003) 127-140

Fish consumption, blood docosahexaenoic acid and chronic diseases
in Chinese rural populations
Yiqun Wanga, Michael A. Crawforda,*, Junshi Chenb, Junyao Lib, Kebreab Ghebremeskela,
T. Colin Campbell, Wenxun Fanb, Robert Parkerc, Julius Leytond

The conclusion of this study (same Cornell China Study) was that consuming fish was one of the strongest indicators of overall good health. Fish had the strongest correlations with decreasing chrnonic disease, Cardiovascular disease, and cancer.

I’m giving this book 2 stars due to Campbell excluding this data and therefore misrepresenting the study in the book.

...more
5

Aug 26, 2007

Wow. What an impressive book! This book looks at what ails us and what is truly the cause. Based on well over 750 studies done over a 35 year period by various researchers, doctors, etc. it highlights the true cause of many of our cancers, diabetes, aches and pains: animal protein. This isn't a "vegan rules; meat eaters drool" kind of book. This is empirical data that proves that our diet overall and animal proteins specifically are the root cause for most of the diseases/ailments of affluence. Wow. What an impressive book! This book looks at what ails us and what is truly the cause. Based on well over 750 studies done over a 35 year period by various researchers, doctors, etc. it highlights the true cause of many of our cancers, diabetes, aches and pains: animal protein. This isn't a "vegan rules; meat eaters drool" kind of book. This is empirical data that proves that our diet overall and animal proteins specifically are the root cause for most of the diseases/ailments of affluence.

Additionally, this book looks at the effect and results of the various industries that depend on the continued promotion of animal proteins (e.g., dairy, meat, fish, politicians, drug industry, medical practises -- specifically surgery). It also highlights the misinterpretation of many researchers of the results of studies and using a reductionist view (i.e., pulling a single fact or point out of a study rather than looking at the whole; consider that many of our health headlines identify single causes/cures -- Vitamin C, alcohol, etc.)

At the least, read it to be informed. That's the biggest problem right now. It's not that hard to live healthy on a whole food, plant-based diet/lifestyle. ...more
5

Apr 23, 2008

To go from a dairy farmer who went to college to learn how to make animals produce more milk and meat, to a human nutrition expert promoting a whole foods, plant-based diet as the key to human health and disease prevention represents a remarkable shift in beliefs, career path, and personal behavior. This book tells the story of that shift - the story of Dr. Campbell's life and career as a scientist who was persuaded by what the growing body of nutrition research (including the groundbreaking To go from a dairy farmer who went to college to learn how to make animals produce more milk and meat, to a human nutrition expert promoting a whole foods, plant-based diet as the key to human health and disease prevention represents a remarkable shift in beliefs, career path, and personal behavior. This book tells the story of that shift - the story of Dr. Campbell's life and career as a scientist who was persuaded by what the growing body of nutrition research (including the groundbreaking epidemiological study he led) demonstrated. As he tells his story, he explains the science in a way that is explained for the layperson while still presenting a detailed analysis.
What I liked about this book, more than other books with a similar message, is that Dr. Campbell doesn't come across as a zealot determined to make.you.understand.dammit the glorious truth he has to share with you, the poor unenlightened dupe. He doesn't try to shame the typical Westerner for his/her diet - first of all, he begins the book explaining that he started out as exactly that: the typical (mid-)Westerner who believed that cow's milk was nature's most perfect food. Second of all, he presents a concise yet thorough case for just why the typical Westerner probably hasn't heard about all of the peer-reviewed, objective research presented in The China Study and why most people can't shake the opinion that animal protein is a necessary component of the human diet, even after they're confronted with evidence that it does more harm than good. (For a less concise and more thorough case, I recommend Food Politics by Marion Nestle).
Rather than zealotry, Campbell's tone is science-based and fact-oriented. He does have an opinion, and he is building a strong argument for a whole foods, plant-based diet, but that argument is the result of the story he's telling, rather than the starting point for an effort to prove a pre-conceived opinion.
When I read this book, I was already vegan, and I had already read a number of other books, articles, and web resources with the same essential message, so the book didn't need to persuade me of anything I hadn't already heard. But what I am grateful for, and what I got from this book that I hadn't before found so completely anywhere else, is a careful, thoughtful, detailed and organized look at the science behind all the claims and pronouncements. Other books and sources say "numerous scientific studies show..." and my instinctively cynical mind (I am the daughter of a scientist, after all!) doesn't completely trust that the science is being faithfully represented by the claims. The China Study takes the time and the care to go through those studies and to explain how those studies show what they do. So what I liked about this book, I guess, is that I found it to be a trustworthy source of objective research that, ultimately, reassures me that I have chosen a genuinely healthy diet and lifestyle.
I would love to hear what my omni friends think! I can't wait for your reviews! ...more
5

Jan 29, 2009

The most important book I've read in a long time. Changed the way I eat. Strongly recommended, if you're interested in the latest research on nutrition and health, disease, cancer, energy, and longevity.

I came to this with an eager and open mind, since it was highly recommended by someone I respect greatly, Art Eggertsen, founder of ProBar. I have long been seeking out the best approach to nutrition for two reasons: 1) maximize athletic performance. I am an avid cyclist, formerly a fanatical The most important book I've read in a long time. Changed the way I eat. Strongly recommended, if you're interested in the latest research on nutrition and health, disease, cancer, energy, and longevity.

I came to this with an eager and open mind, since it was highly recommended by someone I respect greatly, Art Eggertsen, founder of ProBar. I have long been seeking out the best approach to nutrition for two reasons: 1) maximize athletic performance. I am an avid cyclist, formerly a fanatical triathlete, and always love to feel healthy and fit. 2) I have a history of cancer in my family, having lost both my parents 6 weeks apart to cancer in 2004. Insights into decreasing the risk of cancer for myself, family, and friends, is paramount.

The book has some unpopular themes - unpopular with big established industries like meat and dairy, and the media, politics, and world of business they influence.

However, as our recent presidential inauguration demonstrates, a time of change is upon us. Hallelujah! ...more
0

Sep 10, 2008

see bottom for update
For openers, I'm biased because I already believe that for me to be a vegetarian is better for the animal, better for you, and better for me. So I find myself wanting to believe this book. I also found a possible conflict of interest: the author is on the advisory board of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group that reportedly gets funding from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. And the book advocates a diet that avoids animal products.

Having see bottom for update
For openers, I'm biased because I already believe that for me to be a vegetarian is better for the animal, better for you, and better for me. So I find myself wanting to believe this book. I also found a possible conflict of interest: the author is on the advisory board of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group that reportedly gets funding from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. And the book advocates a diet that avoids animal products.

Having said that, I think Campbell's main message is probably right, which is that a plant-based, whole foods diet is the most healthful and that animal foods are harmful. Some results that he cites are remarkable -- like patients with type 2 diabetes going on a more plant-based diet and then no longer needing insulin treatments. He also makes the case that animal protein is simply bad for long-term health, which is why he discourages consuming dairy products. The end chapters about the behind-the-scenes workings of the health and food industries are interesting, too. I recommend the book, but even more strongly recommend trying vegetarianism or veganism to just see for yourself. You can always go back to eating meat.

Update (September 2012) A well-cited critique of this book, excerpt below, can be found here: http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/...

The China Study contains many excellent points in its criticism of the health care system, the overemphasis on reductionism in nutritional research, the influence of industry on research, and the necessity of obtaining nutrients from foods. But its bias against animal products and in favor of veganism is a preexisting bias that results in a mainstream book intended—first and foremost—to convert. It displays hallmarks of bad science used in the same fashion by the very industries it criticizes. ...more
5

Oct 27, 2008

This book is based on years of research, both in the real world and in labs. It is basically about the remarkable relationship between the foods we eat and cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and other illnesses. It is information that food companies, doctors, drug companies, etc. don't want you to know about.

On a related note, if you have not seen the documentary "Super Size Me" yet, I highly recommend you go rent it. The DVD also has bonus features. Go to the extra interviews and watch the This book is based on years of research, both in the real world and in labs. It is basically about the remarkable relationship between the foods we eat and cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and other illnesses. It is information that food companies, doctors, drug companies, etc. don't want you to know about.

On a related note, if you have not seen the documentary "Super Size Me" yet, I highly recommend you go rent it. The DVD also has bonus features. Go to the extra interviews and watch the interview with Eric Schlosser (author of "Fast Food Nation"). It is a little long but important. ...more
1

May 02, 2010

Before I go any further, you should know that his conclusions are very similar to the diet from my favorite Nutrition book, "Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy." Dr. Willett uses more reliable scientific data to advocate his diet, which is mostly whole plant foods, with healthy vegetable oils (like olive and canola oil) and a small amount of fish added. Like Dr. Campbell, Dr. Willet found that dairy products and meats - especially those high in saturated fat - should be avoided, as well as products with Before I go any further, you should know that his conclusions are very similar to the diet from my favorite Nutrition book, "Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy." Dr. Willett uses more reliable scientific data to advocate his diet, which is mostly whole plant foods, with healthy vegetable oils (like olive and canola oil) and a small amount of fish added. Like Dr. Campbell, Dr. Willet found that dairy products and meats - especially those high in saturated fat - should be avoided, as well as products with refined flour. So really, they are not all that different. However, Dr. Campbell's "The China Study" is so flimsy in his scientific logic, that I wanted to point out a few things to you, so you don't embrace his book as fact.

Dr. Campbell seems to find his proof in two things - his study about protein-eating rats, and The China Study. First, with his rat study, he compared rats on a diet of 20% casein protein, and other rats on a diet of 5% casein protein. Those rats on the 20% casein diet got cancer, and those on the 5% diet did not. Well, his experiment was done correctly, but his conclusions are pretty far-fetched. First of all, as humans we don't consume anywhere near that much casein - we would have to be on an all-dairy diet to even begin to approach 20% casein protein in our diet. And his own experiment showed that consuming less than 5% casein is perfectly safe and does not cause cancer. Since our protein consumption comes from a variety of sources, I think casein protein consumption for most people is well below the amount that would cause cancer.

Another thing about this study is that Campbell jumps from his casein protein study to conclude that all animal proteins must be bad. Yet, he only studied ONE type of protein - the kind found in milk. He did not study the proteins in chicken, fish, beef, etc., all of which would be vastly different in molecular structure. Comparing beef protein to casein protein is ludicrous - even if one caused cancer, why would he conclude that the other did, too, just because they both come from animals? If he thinks that his study on casein protein proves that we shouldn't eat meat, then we better stop breastfeeding our children, too, because I'm sure the proteins in breastmilk are much more similar to dairy proteins that meat proteins are!

Okay, moving on to the China Study. Campbell says in his book that through this study we can look at correlation, but not causation, and he is right. There are way too many variables in this study to come even close to proving anything - especially not a diet as specific as Campbell is suggesting. The diets of the people in China are so dissimilar to ours that it is like comparing apples and oranges. There is no way to prove that the Chinese are healthier because they eat less animal products - it could be because they eat more fish, or because they consume less gluten, or because they don't consume as many sugary foods, or even because they eat more seaweed. There is just no way to know, absolutely. We can say that the Eastern Diet is, on a whole, more nutritious, but we cannot pinpoint which aspects of their diet are the most beneficial. The only thing Campbell can do with this data is encourage us to eat exactly what the Chinese do (and I don't want to eat fish heads and dog).

On a similar note, Campbell includes lots of graphs showing how various diseases are increased in countries that eat more animal products. But these countries also eat more refined products, sugary desserts, are more sedentary, etc. - we just don't know what combination of these factors are causing the diseases. Meat may play a factor, but it also may not. There are way, way, way too many variables in this study to make any conclusions about the health of animal products.

My final qualm is the fact that Campbell is advocating a vegan diet based on the China Study, yet the vast majority of Chinese are NOT vegan. So, he can use the China Study to encourage us to eat more whole grain and vegetables (and cut out the refined junk), but he absolutely can NOT use the China Study to encourage us to cut meat out of our diet. So, the only "evidence" left is his rat studies, which I have already shown you are faulty.

(Whew, I wrote a lot!)
...more
3

Jun 12, 2008

An interesting read. Comparing how what we eat affects our health. Brad and I mostly skimmed it. I think the author makes alot of assumptions. He is trying to convince us to be vegans, but cannot prove that NO animal products is the better that 10% animal products. What it did was make us go back to the word of wisdom and compare. I hadn't realized how little meat we should eat..."Flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air...to be used sparingly; And it is pleasing unto me that they should An interesting read. Comparing how what we eat affects our health. Brad and I mostly skimmed it. I think the author makes alot of assumptions. He is trying to convince us to be vegans, but cannot prove that NO animal products is the better that 10% animal products. What it did was make us go back to the word of wisdom and compare. I hadn't realized how little meat we should eat..."Flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air...to be used sparingly; And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine." (sec. 89 vs. 12-13) So after reading the Word of wisdom again Brad and I have decided to cut our meat consumption down to once a week and eat more whole grain and vegetables and fruits. The kids aren't very excited but they will get used to it!
I give it 3 stars for helping us realize what we should be doing! Save yourself the time and just read section 89. unless you would like to read about his studies and how the government nutrition boards are in the pocket of the meat industry. ...more
5

Jul 17, 2008

Wow. I mean...wow. This book should be required reading for anyone who...well... eats (especially the average American). I just finished listening to the audio version, and I'm ready to go back to track 1 and give it second go. I'll probably get the print version at some point, for reference, but I'm SO thankful an audio recording exists, because – to be honest – I'd probably just skim through the printed book and not really get the full impact of what Dr. Campbell has to say. The basic premise Wow. I mean...wow. This book should be required reading for anyone who...well... eats (especially the average American). I just finished listening to the audio version, and I'm ready to go back to track 1 and give it second go. I'll probably get the print version at some point, for reference, but I'm SO thankful an audio recording exists, because – to be honest – I'd probably just skim through the printed book and not really get the full impact of what Dr. Campbell has to say. The basic premise is: eat a plant-based, whole foods diet (basically vegan) and enjoy a long, healthy, disease-free life. But that's not doing the book justice. Many of the studies cited are just mind-boggling. I found my mouth hanging agape on more than one occasion during the listen.

Throughout, I couldn’t help thinking of my family. My father, an organic farmer who also happens to be a very Midwestern meat ‘n potatoes guy, who survived a major heart attack in his 50s and regularly takes cholesterol-lowering medication. And my mother, a former RN who has been on disability for years due to crippling rheumatoid arthritis. My brother, a trained chef who eats organic and avoids artificial sweeteners, but can’t give up his meat. And his son, my little nephew, who at ten months of age has been transitioned to raw goat’s milk, because his mother (wisely) doesn’t trust anything made with cows milk for babies (though I’m not sure if goat’s milk is that much better). I kept imagining their reactions to this book, if I could get them to really take it in. Would it change them? Sad to say, I doubt it...at least in my parents’ case...their habits are too ingrained at this point, too much a part of their identities. That will likely be the case for most meat-eaters, if they could even be persuaded to give this book a shot. But I applaud T. Colin Campbell for putting this information out there, for those of us who will read it and take it to heart. Even as a long-time vegetarian, my diet is certainly going to take some adjusting, and I look forward to one day being happier and healthier as a result.

For a free excerpt and more information, visit www.thechinastudy.com. ...more
3

Jun 29, 2007

I have to say that I was not in the mood to read this book. In fact, I’d decided I wasn’t interested in reading it at all. When it first was published I’d heard good things about it so I bought it, but then heard some negative things and put it aside. However, my real world book club decided to read it as our October selection so I read it, but I was not enthusiastic.

I was a bit irritable reading this as I felt as though I should be taking notes and memorizing material as I would while reading a I have to say that I was not in the mood to read this book. In fact, I’d decided I wasn’t interested in reading it at all. When it first was published I’d heard good things about it so I bought it, but then heard some negative things and put it aside. However, my real world book club decided to read it as our October selection so I read it, but I was not enthusiastic.

I was a bit irritable reading this as I felt as though I should be taking notes and memorizing material as I would while reading a textbook for a class, and I longed to be reading fiction instead. However, the book was better overall than I’d anticipated.

First the bad:

I was warned that this was not a “vegan” book but the authors completely lost me when on page 242 fish is in the category to minimize consumption, not eliminate it, after spending the rest of the book advocating eating 100% plant products. Well, fish are animals, not plants. the authors claim that for losing weight or maintaining an ideal weight calories don’t count so much if one is eating a whole foods plants only diet, and I know this to not be true.

Also, reading this made me anxious. I haven’t taken that great care of myself for the last 5 ½ years, ever since I suffered knee injuries from running too much. Perhaps had I read this 5 ½ years ago, I’d have felt empowered rather than frightened. This is not the book’s fault of course, but it did diminish my ability to enjoy the reading experience.

Now the good:

I liked how he talked about his life and work; it kept the book from being too dry.

There’s a lot of excellent nutritional information included, including the dangers of consuming animal protein (worth at least a star all by itself) and other lesser known nutritional knowledge. Also, there’s important information about the lack of nutritional education for medical professionals, the power of the food industry to keep Americans eating unhealthy foods, and other cogent arguments for recommending a 100% plant based diet. A lot of diseases and conditions are covered, with nutritional reasons for their occurrence and nutritional solutions for their improvement or cure.

Not much of the information was new to me. The two areas that gave me something to think about were what was said about the role of genetics (less than I’ve always assumed) and information about supplements (I have to rethink what supplements I take, which will involve some more research on my part.)

The research he’s conducted and evaluated was more sound than I expected, for which I was grateful.

What a shame that immigrants to America so often give up their healthier national diet for America’s often inferior fare, which is something I’ve often thought.

Most importantly, this book has gotten some people to become vegan or adopt a diet with many more plant products and fewer animal products, so I can’t really criticize it too strongly. So, I do hope that many people read this book. If everyone self educates with the information this book provides, at least they can make a truly informed consent about how they choose to eat.

Oh, and I usually read books cover to cover but I did not read the References on pages 369-404. ...more
4

Jul 22, 2018

Very interesting study. We all know at this point already that
Eating fresh and organic veggies and fruits, and unprocessed food,
Staying away from sugar and
Minimizing animal products
are the best you can do for your diet.
5

Oct 31, 2016

The China Study is maybe one of the most important science books of the twenty-first century. Challenging the current scientific paradigm, biochemist T. Colin Campbell, through his decades of nutritional study, presents the reader with a plethora of information that can prevent and reverse the chronic diseases that plague the West. It's all down to what you eat.
4

Aug 24, 2019

This is the science supporting a Whole Foods Plant-Based Diet. It is compelling and filled with study after study on how diet dramatically affects one’s likelihood of getting cancer, suffering heart disease, developing diabetes and contracting many more chronic illnesses associated with a Western diet.

Of note, the Campbells are not fans of vitamin supplements as they are “never the same as eating the whole food, which provides the natural network of health-supporting nutrients”. Further, they This is the science supporting a Whole Foods Plant-Based Diet. It is compelling and filled with study after study on how diet dramatically affects one’s likelihood of getting cancer, suffering heart disease, developing diabetes and contracting many more chronic illnesses associated with a Western diet.

Of note, the Campbells are not fans of vitamin supplements as they are “never the same as eating the whole food, which provides the natural network of health-supporting nutrients”. Further, they recommend eating a panoply of fruits and vegetables—the greater the variety, the better.

Dr. Campbell is not afraid of challenging agribusiness with its powerful clout in Government and business. In fact, he is a bit of a curmudgeon concerning the marketing of meat and dairy, and the tendency of the media to promote a specific ingredient or food component (eg., Lycopene, olive oil) as being the means to combat disease. These rants comprise the last third of the book.

Regardless, this is an inspiring book to move to a low-fat Whole Food Plant-Based diet. Recommend.
...more
1

Aug 13, 2012

The authors could be right about the benefits of a vegan diet, but "The China Study" is not strong evidence for their argument. Basically they state that poor, rural Chinese people have low levels of cancer and heart disease [no surprise there for a pre-industrialization population], then make this huge logic leap that the explanation is low animal protein intake.

How do they know it's not one of many other possible explanations? For instance, how do they know animal protein intake isn't just a The authors could be right about the benefits of a vegan diet, but "The China Study" is not strong evidence for their argument. Basically they state that poor, rural Chinese people have low levels of cancer and heart disease [no surprise there for a pre-industrialization population], then make this huge logic leap that the explanation is low animal protein intake.

How do they know it's not one of many other possible explanations? For instance, how do they know animal protein intake isn't just a marker for overall "Westernization"? They don't even try to sort this out. If you just read the Wikipedia page about epidemiology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemio...), you could design better research than "the China Study." In addition to the glaringly obvious failure to control for smoking, for example, there are many other problems with their methods.

-It's hard to believe, but from what I could understand, they pooled all the blood together from 50 people at a time (not the results-the actual blood!!!). From a medical lab testing standpoint, this is not kosher. It's not comparable with other research. Who does that? Would you do that? Please tell me if I'm wrong about this because it's painful to think about.
-The pooling of blood means their sample size is not 6,500 as advertised, but really 150 (6,500 divided by 50).
-They look at a very very big number of variables (367) relative to their sample size. This is a red flag for "data torture."
-They did not get detailed diet histories on all the people because they thought diet histories were not reliable. Uh, this is a diet study!
-They use (the bizarrely obtained) blood tests as surrogates for dietary intake, assuming that they can tell from a blood sample what a village's intake of various nutrients was. Again, who does this? If you're going to invent an unorthodox new way to measure something, you need first to show that it is as accurate as standard measures.
-They assume that diet has not changed in the villages in the 60 years since the childhood of the people being tested.
-They are not in fact comparing Chinese with American people, since they have no American people in the study.
-Within the Chinese people, according to their assumptions, few have a high-animal-protein diet, so it's hard for them to compare high/low levels of their main variable, yet that would be necessary for saying something about their hypothesis.
-I could go on...

The following book summarizes various nutrition studies that are more rigorous and informative.


These books cover some basics of health research design.
...more
0

Apr 05, 2010

I just can't do it. I value my non-enraged time too much.

I got a few chapters in and decided that there wasn't any point in continuing. We start off with the usual Pollan-esque call to disregard looking at individual nutrients and just eat whole foods. Wait, scratch that, protein is bad! Oh sorry, I mean, animal protein is bad! Oh whoops, my mistake, I only did my experiments using casein and rats and from there extrapolated that all the animal protein ever will give you the super-cancer. It is I just can't do it. I value my non-enraged time too much.

I got a few chapters in and decided that there wasn't any point in continuing. We start off with the usual Pollan-esque call to disregard looking at individual nutrients and just eat whole foods. Wait, scratch that, protein is bad! Oh sorry, I mean, animal protein is bad! Oh whoops, my mistake, I only did my experiments using casein and rats and from there extrapolated that all the animal protein ever will give you the super-cancer. It is at this point that I stopped reading. I didn't even get to the China Project itself.

I like to think I'm open to new ideas, but those ideas really need to be backed up with something a bit more substantial. I totally buy that a whole foods diet, especially one rich in vegetables, is best. In fact, I don't know anyone who disagrees with that one. The other parts are all quibble-worthy, and I'm constantly learning new things and changing perceptions of things I had taken for granted.

All in all, I spent more time reading what other people had to say about this book than actually reading the book. If you're looking for a good takedown, look for Anthony Colpo's. ...more
5

Apr 29, 2012

This is a must-read for every American. You will love and hate reading this book at the same time, because once you are presented with the facts about how our Western diet is killing us, you will never be the same. This book provoked me to read more and more about it, and after all the reading I've done on the benefits of a plant based diet, my shopping list to the grocery store is forever changed.

I've always tried to eat from a spiritual point of view, I figure we are only supposed to eat the This is a must-read for every American. You will love and hate reading this book at the same time, because once you are presented with the facts about how our Western diet is killing us, you will never be the same. This book provoked me to read more and more about it, and after all the reading I've done on the benefits of a plant based diet, my shopping list to the grocery store is forever changed.

I've always tried to eat from a spiritual point of view, I figure we are only supposed to eat the things that the Earth provides for us, and I included animals in the picture, but only sparingly. I was under the assumption, like most Americans, that you need animals for protein. I've had my eyes opened though, and now know that we don't need animal protein at all, and the high quantities of it in our diet is actually what is making us fat and killing us! The fact that we all buy into the belief that we get protein from meat is all a result of a brilliant marketing plan by the meat industry, very well done on their part. I personally had no idea that you get much more, and much better protein from plants.

I am so grateful for this book, although as I was reading it, I knew my life was changing. Before reading this book, I had toyed with the idea of trying a vegan/vegetarian diet, and now this book was the tipping point for me. I really have enjoyed searching out new recipes featuring veggies as the spotlight instead of the afterthought on the plate. Who knew they were so good!! Another book I'd recommend is "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan. ...more
5

Oct 17, 2010

Hands down my favorite non-fiction book. This book will change your life, if you let it. Please, please consider reading it!
5

Mar 18, 2012

Several prior reviews give excellent and extensive critiques of the methods and assumptions made in this book. I won't reiterate them, I'll just add my own thoughts.

Dr. Campbell doesn't recommend fanatical adherence to a vegan lifestyle. While he does suggest that it's easier to eat 0% animal protein than it is to eat 5%, he also suggests relaxing about incidental animal products that may be found hiding in food (meat soup stocks and egg in baked goods, e.g.). This is not in keeping with PETA's Several prior reviews give excellent and extensive critiques of the methods and assumptions made in this book. I won't reiterate them, I'll just add my own thoughts.

Dr. Campbell doesn't recommend fanatical adherence to a vegan lifestyle. While he does suggest that it's easier to eat 0% animal protein than it is to eat 5%, he also suggests relaxing about incidental animal products that may be found hiding in food (meat soup stocks and egg in baked goods, e.g.). This is not in keeping with PETA's rigid stance. He also (very briefly) defends the animal experimentation that led him to pursue a lifetime of dietary inquiry; also not PETA party line. His recommendation is to relax, but not to plan for meaty meals.

Others have mentioned that he makes the leap from very low animal protein to zero, and I agree this is a valid criticism. Campbell does address this, and admits there is no zero-animal data for his claim. However, even forward-thinking doctors do not usually believe that their patients will follow a meatless diet, and so may not prescribe one. A low-meat diet may be considered as radical as is practical. I'd love to see a prospective study of vegans; what a coup that would be.

He does not discuss fish, yea or nay. A personal story he includes from a friend involves the incidental consumption of fish paste in some foods he enjoyed while improving his health. I would have preferred more discussion of fish. His studies mainly implicate dairy.

All in all, the book is powerful enough to have sent me back to a nearly-vegan lifestyle. I'm not giving up the fish oil yet. In the past, I found eating fish to be a slippery slope, food-with-a-face-wise, but I feel like fish oil's place in my diet is important. I'll stay open.
...more
3

May 29, 2018

Update 2nd read: I think I liked this one more than the first time I read it. Parts were still annoying, but I enjoyed his dedication to his field.

------------------------

There were things I really appreciated about this book and then there were things that really pushed my buttons. So where to start?

The good:
I liked the passion the author has for this topic. He has dedicated his life to research so that he can better educate people (and all health care professionals) on obtaining and Update 2nd read: I think I liked this one more than the first time I read it. Parts were still annoying, but I enjoyed his dedication to his field.

------------------------

There were things I really appreciated about this book and then there were things that really pushed my buttons. So where to start?

The good:
I liked the passion the author has for this topic. He has dedicated his life to research so that he can better educate people (and all health care professionals) on obtaining and sustaining health through a plant based diet. I liked the research aspect of this, but it was peppered with so many of my pet peeves, the eye rolling was getting out of hand.

The bad:
While I can appreciate his own work in the research field, I had a hard time with all of the finger pointing and nay saying. He put down EVERYONE and their research that differed from his own. This felt like a whistle blowing book, but I have to wonder, if his intended audience (meaning the general public) is really the right target for that kind of thing. I know that I'm not that audience. I just want info and then I can make a choice, if anything here could be implemented on my part. His own personal fight with the medical community at large and his lack of acceptance in that community would have been better suited for an autobiography.

He tried to clarify the conflicting data that exists out in the research-universe.....eat this, then someone says, "No, don't eat that," ......do this, then someone says, "Don't do that." While he brought it up a few times, he never answered the questions he posed.

He also used scare tactics. It reminded me of another book I've read recently on this same thing and they also used scare tactics. But instead of being up in arms about eggs and chicken, this author chose "DAIRY" as his do-not-eat platform. And instead of every one dying of diabetes and Alzheimers, in this book it was cancer and diabetes.

Was this new information? No, even though he made it sound like he is the only one sailing the "nutrition" ship.

I can give this 3 stars for the overall message of eating whole foods. I just didn't appreciate having to wade through the negative stuff. I don't think one has to slam others to elevate their message. It usually has the opposite effect on me. I need to stop here because now I'm thinking 2 stars. ...more
5

Sep 26, 2011

Eat to Live (by Joel Fuhrman) mentioned this book/study more than a few times so I checked it out. Wow. We have changed a lot of things in our diet because of this book. Not only do meat and milk have a lot of calories but they are loaded with cholesterol and cancer feeding properties. So glad I read this. I can't say enough about this book. It basically backs up the diet that Daniel in the OT ate and is right in line with the Word of Wisdom--lots of fruits, vegetables, grain and legumes and Eat to Live (by Joel Fuhrman) mentioned this book/study more than a few times so I checked it out. Wow. We have changed a lot of things in our diet because of this book. Not only do meat and milk have a lot of calories but they are loaded with cholesterol and cancer feeding properties. So glad I read this. I can't say enough about this book. It basically backs up the diet that Daniel in the OT ate and is right in line with the Word of Wisdom--lots of fruits, vegetables, grain and legumes and little (if any) meat. The show "Forks Over Knives" is an abbreviated version of The Cancer Study. We watched it on netflix then had our kids watch it. Our teenage sons quit whining about going to a mostly vegetarian diet once they saw this and I noticed that when we had potatoes one of them chose butter buds over butter to put on his. When I started cutting meat and dairy from my diet four months ago it was to lose weight but I didn't think much about how it would help my heart, circulatory system, mind, eyes, etc. Now (after losing 21 lbs) I feel very differently. I feel better and have more energy and feel very keenly the importance of taking care of my body and not trashing it with the typical American diet. I don't mean to offend anyone who eats the high fat, high meat and dairy diet most Americans eat but there it is. Most Americans are overweight and suffering from one (or more) chronic conditions like heart disease, diabetes or cancer. It does NOT have to be that way! ...more
5

Feb 10, 2009

A gritty scientific approach to the relationship between diet and disease. Scientific citations abound. It combines his work with the work of many others from fields looking at cancer, cardiovascular, etc. diseases and their correlations to various foods. This book is oft-cited by other books of the same genre. It is for the person who wants to see the nitty-gritty details for themselves. Having said that, it is not nearly as dry as a text book, but definitely puts forth more data for the reader A gritty scientific approach to the relationship between diet and disease. Scientific citations abound. It combines his work with the work of many others from fields looking at cancer, cardiovascular, etc. diseases and their correlations to various foods. This book is oft-cited by other books of the same genre. It is for the person who wants to see the nitty-gritty details for themselves. Having said that, it is not nearly as dry as a text book, but definitely puts forth more data for the reader versus hiding it in the bibliography. Reading it will change your view on what you eat forever. It fits nicely within an LDS word of wisdom context. ...more

Best Books from your Favorite Authors & Publishers

compare-icon compare-icon
Thousands of books

Take your time and choose the perfect book.

review-icon review-icon
Read Reviews

Read ratings and reviews to make sure you are on the right path.

vendor-icon vendor-icon
Multiple Stores

Check price from multiple stores for a better shopping experience.

gift-icon

Enjoy Result