I just got my paperback copy and didn't know I had ordered it a while back ja ja

[www.amazon.com]

book review:

[www.youtube.com]

I started reading this book and was enjoying it but got sidetracked and need to get back to it. One of the things that wasn't clear to me, and maybe I missed it or haven't gotten to it yet, but in the case of veganism vs. meat eating, he seems to make a leap of faith towards veganism.

I'm not trying to play the devil's advocate here, just trying to understand his research. If memory serves, he was talking about studies with rats, which showed that cancer was caused in those who were fed 20 percent meat, whereas no cancer was shown for those fed 5% meat, or something like that. So if I was looking at his research, I'd come to the conclusion that a diet low in meat was fine. Problems don't develop unless a lot of meat is consumed, but he's making a case for veganism. I'm just wondering if he ever gets around to explaining that leap from low to none, or did I miss something.

Thanks

jimtoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I started reading this book and was enjoying it
> but got sidetracked and need to get back to it.
> One of the things that wasn't clear to me, and
> maybe I missed it or haven't gotten to it yet, but
> in the case of veganism vs. meat eating, he seems
> to make a leap of faith towards veganism.

> Thanks

H's been working on this for decades. This is not a quick book but a lifes learning. If you have not read his first book "The China Study," then you've missed a whole lot.

I've not read the China Study. I'll get to it eventually but would be really interested if there was anyway you could quickly summarize how he makes that leap, if that's possible. I just started Whole again, where I left off, and it's a fascinating read. Kind of kicking myself for getting sidetracked, as now I'm feeling like I need to start at the beginning again.

I am not interesting in convincing anybody. But I would warn about the dangers of reading others peoples interpretations because everybody defends their current habits with teeth and nails. Someone that writes/speaks well does not mean that is speaking the truth. Neither those self portrait experts that find in others faulty logical reasons.

all I can say is that The China Study is a good read.

Well, you've totally misinterpreted my interest. I wasn't asking to be convinced, just curious how he makes that leap. Unlike every other person on the internet, I have no interest in heated dietary debates. I avoid them. I have only one interest - interesting, thoughtful, unbiased discussion. Weird, I know, and apparently, impossible to find.

I'll get around to reading the china study eventually.

I found this interview with Dr. Campbell to be very helpful. He answers my question near the end. Basically he says there is no science to show that 100% vegan is better than 95% vegan, but given the addiction most people have for fat and sugar it's easier to go 100%, allowing taste preferences to change and thus end the addiction. My interest stemmed from the standpoint of being a biologist. If I'm studying the diet of an animal, even if something makes up only one percent of their diet, I want to know what the value of that one percent is. How important is it? So when looking at the human diet, I've wondered if a small amount of animal consumption was ultimately necessary. Even if we were living in the wild feeding on plants, probably one percent of our diet would be insects, at least inadvertently, but I have to agree with him on the addiction/taste issue. I've often struggled with being 100%, but I think he has me convinced - might just add a few supplements.

[www.youtube.com]