The overarching argument of the book is animal-based diets lead to more chronicle diseases than plant-based diets. The method of study is statistical. Just as I believe smoking leads to lung cancers and physical exercises are good for health, I agree that vegetarian-style diets are probably healthier.
However, the structure of the book tends to be misleading. The author starts successfully by convincing me with solid statistics that plant-based diets are probably a good choice. Then, the author chooses to argue that there is a commercial conspiracy behind animal-based diets and scientific reductionism should not count in nutrition study. I have reservation for both of his arguments.
First, I agree that commercials can mislead people, but I think rational people are aware of the truth. For myself, I probably will continue my meat-based diets even if I know this may contribute to chronicle diseases, simply because health is not the exclusive consideration when I make a choice of diets. The commercials may be catering to me in terms of diets, but they are not the reasons why I make a choice of meat-based diets.
Also, as I become aware of the problems with animal-based proteins, I'm conscious of the risks of chronicle diseases. Then, I want to digest some supplements for my health, and then comes the commercials. In others words, it's because I have this demand that there is such a market, not that there is a such market that I fall into such habits.
Adding to the above arguments, I want to defend for scientific reductionism. Scientific reductionism means to isolate those individual factors that contribute to certain phenomena, and thus build a causation between cause and effect. Arguably, contemporary literature are not able to provide a clear-cut proof that lack of or over-taking certain nutrients are causes of certain chronicle diseases, as it's currently impossible to do control experiments over such a long period of time. However, this current impossibility is insufficient to argue that scientific redunctionism is redundant in nutrition science. As I argue above, we have a meat-based diets because we want it. If we want to shield against chronicle diseases at the same time, we have to know by add what can we reduce the possibility of having chronicle diseases.
Or in other words, we want to separate diets from health to some degree. How to still be healthy when the delicious is not the healthy? This should be the topic for nutrition scientists, rather than the other way around.
As a summary for my opinion of this book, I'd like to say, I agree that plant-based diets are healthier than meat-based diets, but my diets are still under my control.
Animal-based Diets Lead to More Chronicle Diseases
《中国健康调查报告》热门书评
-
亲历奇迹
98有用 2无用 悦然 2009-08-13
在读这本书之前,我被检查出宫颈细胞癌前病变, 同时感染了可引发恶性宫颈癌的高危型HPV病毒。(对于病毒和细胞癌变,医生暂无有效疗法,病变细胞只能等到恶化后局部切除,对于病毒更是束手无策,只能寄希望于自身的免疫系统。)所以当我找到这本书时,希望能够得到指引。这本书从两个方面严谨地证明了作者的观点:动物...
-
转:为何真相竟如此难得?——读《中国健康调查报告》
79有用 5无用 渡渡鸟 2008-12-09
为何真相竟如此难得?——读《中国健康调查报告》蒋劲松博览群书,2007,1,104-107老实说,作为一位素食者,本书的基本立场——以动物性食物为主的膳食会导致慢性疾病的发生,以植物性食物为主的膳食最有利于健康,也最能有效地预防和控制慢性疾病——,对我来说并非什么“石破天惊”的新观念,不过是一些未被...
-
素食,肉食和冰河时代
42有用 3无用 mytony 2009-06-14
我刚刚读完Dr. T. Colin Campbell的《中国健康调查报告》,一本非常好的,值得每个人都读的书。我忽然想到,如果Dr. Campbell的结论正确,也就是说,素食,相比肉食,同样能给与人类个体足够的支持体能,生长发育,高大健壮,全面丰富的营养,那么既然并不差,为什么人类进化时要从最早的...
-
Revelatory and revolutionary
26有用 3无用 弱水三千 2009-07-03
这周以来正事没怎么做,连续三天在办公室里断断续续地把这本书读完。这本书彻底推翻了我原来关于营养与饮食的诸多误解与无知。不仅如此,还让我更进一步地看到各种经济、政治与文化的势力围绕着人们的饮食与健康所展开角逐。不仔细读这本书很难想像,在一个信息公开的社会里(美国),由政府机构、企业、媒体与专业组织所(...
-
zz提醒大家注意一本伪书《中国健康调查报告》
15有用 15无用 姑布子卿 2010-04-13
http://book.douban.com/subject/1900356/new_review作者:lw56102 偶尔看到一位中医粉丝在自己的博客里转载一本书的内容,这本书的中文名叫做《中国健康调查报告》,原版为英文,作者T. Colin Campbell,是康奈尔大学的营养学教授。因为这位...
书名: 中国健康调查报告
作者:
出版社: 吉林文史出版社
副标题: 营养学有史以来最全面的调查
译者: 张宇晖 | Thomas M·Campbell
出版年: 2006.09
页数: 360
定价: 39.80
装帧: 平装
ISBN: 9787807023975