Spinach	or	collard	greens	conferred	the	most
protection. There	was	88%	less	disease	for	people	who	ate	these	greens	five
or	more	times	per	week	when	compared	with	people	who	consumed	these
greens	less	than	once	per	month. The	only	food	group	not	showing	a
preventive	effect	was	the	cabbage/cauliflower/brussels	sprout	group,	which
sports	the	least	color	of	the	six	food	groups. 43
These	researchers	also	looked	at	the	potential	protection	from	disease	as	a
result	of	the	consumption	of	five	of	the	individual	carotenoids	consumed	in
these	foods. All	but	one	of	these	five	showed	a	highly	
significant	protective
effect,	especially	the	carotenoids	found	in	the	dark	green	leafy	vegetables. In
contrast,	supplements	of	a	few	vitamins,	including	retinol	(preformed
“vitamin”	A),	vitamin	C	and	vitamin	E	showed	little	or	no	beneficial	effects. Yet	again,	we	see	that	while	supplements	may	give	great	wealth	to
supplement	manufacturers,	they	will	not	give	great	health	to	you	and	me. When	all	was	said	and	done,	this	study	found	that	
macular	degeneration
risk	could	be	reduced	by	as	much	as	88%,	simply	by	eating	the	right	foods
. 41
At	this	point	you	may	be	wondering,	“Where	can	I	get	some	of	those
carotenoids?”	Green	leafy	vegetables,	carrots	and	citrus	fruits	are	all	good
sources. Herein	lies	a	problem,	however. Among	the	hundreds	(maybe
thousands)	of	antioxidant	carotenoids	in	these	foods,	only	a	dozen	or	so	have
been	studied	in	relation	to	their	biological	effects. The	abilities	of	these
chemicals	to	scavenge	and	reduce	free	radical	damage	are	well	established,
but	the	activities	of	the	individual	carotenoids	vary	enormously	depending	on
dietary	and	lifestyle	conditions. Such	variations	make	it	virtually	impossible
to	predict	their	individual	activities,	either	good	or	bad. The	logic	of	using
them	as	supplements	is	much	too	particular	and	superficial. It	ignores	the
dynamic	of	nature. It’s	much	safer	to	consume	these	carotenoids	in	their
natural	context,	in	highly	colored	fruits	and	vegetables. The	second	study
42
	compared	a	total	of	421	macular	degeneration	patients
(cases)	with	615	controls. Five	of	the	leading	clinical	centers	specializing	in
eye	diseases	and	their	researchers	participated	in	this	study. The	researchers
measured	the	levels	of	antioxidants	in	the	blood,	rather	than	the	antioxidants
consumed. Four	kinds	of	antioxidants	were	measured:	carotenoids,	vitamin	C,
selenium	and	vitamin	E.	Except	for	selenium,	each	of	these	nutrient	groups
was	associated	with	fewer	cases	of	macular	degeneration,	although	only	the
carotenoids	showed	statistically	significant	results. Risk	of	macular
degeneration	was	reduced	by	two-thirds	for	those	people	with	the	highest
levels	of	carotenoids	in	their	blood,	when	compared	with	the	low-carotenoidgroup. This	reduction	of	about	65–70%	in	this	study	is	similar	to	the	reduction	of
upwards	of	88%	in	the	first	study. These	two	studies	consistently
demonstrated	the	benefits	of	antioxidant	carotenoids	consumed	as	food. Given	experimental	limitations,	we	can	only	approximate	the	proportion	of
macular	degeneration	caused	by	poor	dietary	habits,	and	we	cannot	know
which	antioxidants	are	involved. What	we	can	say,	however,	
is	that	eating
antioxidant-containing	foods,	especially	those	containing	the	carotenoids,	will
prevent	most	blindness	cases	resulting	from	macular	degeneration. This	in
itself	is	a	remarkable	recommendation. Cataracts	are	slightly	less	serious	than	macular	degeneration	because	there
are	effective	surgical	options	available	to	restore	vision	loss	caused	by	this
disease. But	when	you	look	at	the	numbers,	cataracts	are	a	much	larger
burden	on	our	society. By	the	age	of	eighty,	half	of	all	Americans	will	have
cataracts. 39
	Currently	there	are	20	million	Americans	age	forty	and	older	with
the	disease. Cataract	formation	involves	the	clouding	of	the	eye	lens. Corrective
surgery	involves	removing	the	cloudy	lens	and	replacing	it	with	an	artificial
lens. The	development	of	the	opaque	condition,	like	the	degeneration	of	the
macula	and	so	many	other	disease	conditions	in	our	body,	is	closely
associated	with	the	damage	created	by	an	excess	of	reactive	free	radicals. 44
Once	again,	it	is	reasonable	to	assume	that	eating	antioxidant-containing
foods	should	be	helpful. Starting	in	1988,	researchers	in	Wisconsin	began	to	study	eye	health	and
dietary	intakes	in	over	1,300	people. Ten	years	later,	they	published	a	report
45
on	their	findings. The	people	who	consumed	the	most	lutein,	a	specific	type
of	antioxidant,	had	one-half	the	rate	of	cataracts	as	the	people	who	consumed
the	least	lutein. Lutein	is	an	interesting	chemical	because,	in	addition	to	being
readily	available	in	spinach,	along	with	other	dark	leafy	green	vegetables,	it
also	is	an	integral	part	of	the	lens	tissue	itself. 46,	47
	Similarly,	those	who
consumed	the	most	spinach	had	40%	less	cataracts. These	two	eye	conditions,	macular	degeneration	and	cataracts,	both	occur
when	we	fail	to	consume	enough	of	the	highly	colored	green	and	leafy
vegetables. In	both	cases,	excess	free	radicals,	increased	by	animal-based
foods	and	decreased	by	plant-based	foods,	are	likely	to	be	responsible	for
these	conditions.MIND-ALTERING	DIETS
By	the	time	this	book	hits	the	shelves,	I	will	be	seventy	years	old. I	recently
went	to	my	high	school’s	fiftieth	reunion,	where	I	learned	that	many	of	my
classmates	had	died. I	receive	the	AARP	magazine,	get	discounts	on	various
products	for	being	advanced	in	age	and	receive	social	security	checks	every
month. Some	euphemists	might	call	me	a	“mature	adult.”	I	just	say	old. What
does	it	mean	to	be	old? I	still	run	every	morning,	sometimes	six	or	more	miles
a	day. I	still	have	an	active	
work	life,	perhaps	more	active	than	ever. I	still
enjoy	all	the	same	leisure	activities,	whether	visiting	grandchildren,	dining
with	friends,	gardening,	traveling,	golfing,	lecturing	or	making	outdoor
improvements	like	building	fences	or	tinkering	with	this	or	that	as	I	used	to
do	on	the	farm. Some	things	have	changed,	though. Clearly	there	is	a
difference	between	the	seventy-year-old	me	and	the	twenty-year-old	me. I	am
slower,	not	as	strong,	work	fewer	hours	every	day	and	am	prone	to	taking
naps	more	frequently	than	I	used	to. We	all	know	that	getting	old	brings	with	it	diminished	capacities	compared
with	our	younger	days. But	there	is	good	science	to	show	that	thinking	clearly
well	into	our	later	years	is	not	something	we	need	to	give	up. Memory	loss,
disorientation	and	confusion	are	not	inevitable	parts	of	aging,	but	problems
linked	to	that	all-important	lifestyle	factor:	diet. There	is	now	good	dietary	information	for	the	two	chief	conditions
referring	to	mental	decline. On	the	modest	side,	there	is	a	condition	called
“cognitive	impairment”	or	“cognitive	dysfunction.”	This	condition	describes
the	declining	ability	to	remember	and	think	as	well	as	one	once	did. It
represents	a	continuum	of	disease	ranging	from	cases	that	only	hint	at
declining	abilities	to	those	that	are	much	more	obvious	and	easily	diagnosed. Then	there	are	mental	dysfunctions	that	become	serious,	even	life
threatening. These	are	called	dementia,	of	which	there	are	two	main	types:
vascular	dementia	and	Alzheimer’s	disease. Vascular	dementia	is	primarily
caused	by	multiple	little	strokes	resulting	from	broken	blood	vessels	in	the
brain. It	is	common	for	elderly	people	to	have	“silent”	strokes	in	their	later
years. A	stroke	is	considered	silent	if	it	goes	undetected	and	undiagnosed. Each	little	stroke	incapacitates	part	of	the	brain. The	other	type	of	dementia,
Alzheimer’s,	occurs	when	a	protein	substance	called	beta-amyloid
accumulates	in	critical	areas	of	the	brain	as	a	plaque,	rather	like	the
cholesterol-laden	plaque	that	builds	up	in	cardiovascular	diseases. Alzheimer’s	is	surprisingly	common. It	is	said	that	1%	of	people	at	age
sixty-five	have	evidence	of	Alzheimer’s,	a	figure	that	doubles	every	five	years
thereafter. 48
	I	suppose	this	is	why	we	blandly	accept	“senility”	as	part	of	theaging	process. It	has	been	estimated	that	10–12%	of	individuals	with	mild	cognitive
impairment	progress	to	the	more	serious	types	of	dementia,	whereas	only	1–
2%	of	individuals	without	cognitive	impairment	acquire	these	
diseases. 49,	50
This	means	that	people	with	cognitive	impairment	have	about	a	tenfold	risk	of
Alzheimer’s. Not	only	does	cognitive	impairment	often	lead	to	more	serious	dementia,
it	is	also	associated	with	cardiovascular	disease,
51–53
	stroke
54
	and	adult-onset
Type	2	diabetes. 55,	56
	All	of	these	diseases	cluster	in	the	same	populations,
oftentimes	in	the	same	people. This	clustering	means	that	they	share	some	of
the	same	risk	factors. Hypertension	(high	blood	pressure)	is	one	factor
51,	57,
58
;	another	is	high	blood	cholesterol. 53
	Both	of	these,	of	course,	can	be
controlled	by	diet. A	third	risk	factor	is	the	amount	of	those	nasty	free	radicals,	which	wreak
havoc	on	brain	function	in	our	later	years. Because	free	radical	damage	is	so
important	to	the	process	of	cognitive	dysfunction	and	dementia,	researchers
believe	that	consuming	dietary	antioxidants	can	shield	our	brains	from	this
damage,	as	in	other	diseases. Animal-based	foods	lack	antioxidant	shields	and
tend	to	activate	free	radical	production	and	cell	damage,	while	plant-based
foods,	with	their	abundant	antioxidants,	tend	to	prevent	such	damage. It’s	the
same	dietary	cause	and	effect	that	we	saw	with	macular	degeneration. Of	course,	genetics	plays	a	role,	and	specific	genes	have	been	identified
that	may	increase	the	risk	of	cognitive	decline. 52
	But	environmental	factors
also	play	a	key	role,	most	probably	the	dominant	one. In	a	recent	study,	it	was	found	that	Japanese	American	men	living	in
Hawaii	had	a	higher	rate	of	Alzheimer’s	disease	than	Japanese	living	in
Japan. 59
	Another	study	found	that	native	Africans	had	significantly	lower
rates	of	dementia	and	Alzheimer’s	than	African	Americans	in	Indiana. 60
	Both
of	these	findings	clearly	support	the	idea	that	environment	plays	an	important
role	in	cognitive	disorders. Worldwide,	the	prevalence	patterns	of	cognitive	disorders	appear	to	be
similar	to	other	Western	diseases. Rates	of	Alzheimer’s	are	low	in	less
developed	areas. 61
	A	recent	study	compared	Alzheimer’s	rates	to	dietary
variables	across	eleven	different	countries	and	found	that	populations	with	a
high	fat	intake	and	low	cereal	and	grain	intake	had	higher	rates	of	the
disease. 62,	63
We	seem	to	be	on	to	something. Clearly,	diet	has	an	important	voice	in
determining	how	well	we	think	in	our	later	years. But	what	exactly	is	good	for
us?With	regard	to	the	more	mild	cognitive	impairment	condition,	recent
research	has	shown	that	high	vitamin	E	levels	in	the	blood	are	related	to	less
memory	loss. 64
	Less	memory	loss	also	is	associated	with	higher	
levels	of
vitamin	C	and	selenium,	both	of	which	reduce	free	radical	activity. 65
	Vitamins
E	and	C	are	antioxidants	found	almost	exclusively	in	plant	foods,	while
selenium	is	found	in	both	animal-	and	plant-based	foods. In	a	study	of	260	elderly	people	aged	sixty-five	to	ninety	years,	it	was
reported	that:	“A	diet	with	less	fat,	saturated	fat	and	cholesterol,	and	more
carbohydrate,	fiber,	vitamins	(especially	folate,	vitamins	C	and	E	and	beta-
carotenes)	and	minerals	(iron	and	zinc)	may	be	advisable	not	only	to	improve
the	general	health	of	the	elderly	but	also	to	improve	cognitive	function.”
66
This	conclusion	advocates	plant-based	foods	and	condemns	animal-based
foods	for	optimal	brain	function. Yet	another	study	on	several	hundred	older
people	found	that	scores	on	mental	tests	were	higher	among	those	people	who
consumed	the	most	vitamin	C	and	beta-carotene. 67
	Other	studies	have	also
found	that	a	low	level	of	vitamin	C	in	the	blood	is	linked	to	poorer	cognitive
performance	in	old	age,
68,	69
	and	some	have	found	that	B	vitamins,
69
including	beta-carotene,
70
	are	linked	to	better	cognitive	function. The	seven	studies	mentioned	above	all	show	that	one	or	more	nutrients
found	almost	exclusively	in	plants	are	associated	with	a	lower	risk	of
cognitive	decline	in	old	age. Experimental	animal	studies	have	not	only
confirmed	that	plant	foods	are	good	for	the	brain,	but	they	show	the
mechanisms	by	which	these	foods	work. 71,	72
	Although	there	are	important
variations	in	some	of	these	study	findings—for	example,	one	study	only	finds
an	association	for	vitamin	C,	and	another	only	finds	an	association	for	beta-
carotene	and	not	vitamin	C—we	shouldn’t	miss	the	forest	by	focusing	on	one
or	two	trees. No	study	has	ever	found	that	consuming	more	dietary
antioxidants	increases	memory	loss. When	associations	are	observed,	it	is
always	the	other	way	around. Furthermore,	the	association	appears	to	be
significant,	although	more	substantial	research	must	be	done	before	we	can
know	exactly	how	much	cognitive	impairment	is	due	to	diet. What	about	the	more	serious	dementia	caused	by	strokes	(vascular
dementia)	and	Alzheimer’s? How	does	diet	affect	these	diseases? The
dementia	that	is	caused	by	the	same	vascular	problems	that	lead	to	stroke	is
clearly	affected	by	diet. In	a	publication	from	the	famous	Framingham	Study,
researchers	conclude	that	for	every	three	additional	servings	of	fruits	and
vegetables	a	day,	the	risk	of	stroke	will	be	reduced	by	22%. 73
	Three	servings
of	fruits	and	vegetables	is	less	than	you	might	think. The	following	examples
count	as	one	serving	in	this	study:	1/2	cup	peaches,	
1/4	cup	tomato	sauce,	1/2cup	broccoli	or	one	potato. 73
	Half	a	cup	is	not	much	food. In	fact,	the	men	in
this	study	who	consumed	the	most	fruits	and	vegetables	consumed	as	many	as
nineteen	servings	a	day. If	every	three	servings	lower	the	risk	by	22%,	the
benefits	can	add	up	fast	(risk	reduction	approaches	but	cannot	exceed	100%). This	study	provides	evidence	that	the	health	of	the	arteries	and	vessels	that
transport	blood	to	and	from	your	brain	is	dependent	on	how	well	you	eat. By
extension,	it	is	logical	to	assume	that	eating	fruits	and	vegetables	will	protect
against	dementia	caused	by	poor	vascular	health. Research	again	seems	to
prove	the	point. Scientists	conducted	mental	health	exams	and	assessed	food
intake	for	over	5,000	older	people	and	monitored	their	health	for	over	two
years. They	found	that	the	people	who	consumed	the	most	total	fat	and
saturated	fat	had	the	highest	risk	of	dementia	due	to	vascular	problems. 74
Alzheimer’s	disease	is	also	related	to	diet	and	is	often	found	in
conjunction	with	heart	disease,
53
	which	suggests	that	they	share	the	same
causes. We	know	what	causes	heart	disease,	and	we	know	what	offers	the	best
hope	of	reversing	heart	disease:	diet. Experimental	animal	studies	have
convincingly	shown	that	a	high-cholesterol	diet	will	promote	the	production
of	the	beta-amyloid	common	to	Alzheimer’s. 53
	In	confirming	these
experimental	animal	results,	a	study	of	more	than	5,000	people	found	that
greater	dietary	fat	and	cholesterol	intake	tended	to	increase	the	risk	of
Alzheimer’s	disease	specifically,
75
	and	all	dementia	in	general. 74
In	another	study	on	Alzheimer’s,
76
	the	risk	of	getting	the	disease	was	3.3
times	greater	among	people	whose	blood	folic	acid	levels	were	in	the	lowest
one-third	range	and	4.5	times	greater	when	blood	homocysteine	levels	were	in
the	highest	one-third. What	are	folic	acid	and	homocysteine? Folic	acid	is	a
compound	derived	exclusively	from	plant-based	foods	such	as	green	and
leafy	vegetables. Homocysteine	is	an	amino	acid	that	is	derived	primarily
from	animal	protein. 77
	This	study	found	that	it	was	desirable	to	maintain	low
blood	homocysteine	and	high	blood	folic	acid. In	other	words,	the
combination	of	a	diet	high	in	animal-based	foods	and	low	in	plant-based
foods	raises	the	risk	of	Alzheimer’s	disease. 78
Mild	cognitive	impairment,	the	stuff	jokes	are	made	of,	still	permits	the
afflicted	person	to	maintain	an	independent,	functional	life,	but	dementia	and
Alzheimer’s	are	tragic,	imposing	almost	impossibly	heavy	burdens	on	victims
and	their	loved	ones. Across	this	spectrum,	from	
minor	difficulties	in	keeping
your	thoughts	in	order	to	serious	degeneration,	the	food	you	eat	can
drastically	affect	the	likelihood	of	mental	decline. The	diseases	I’ve	covered	in	this	chapter	take	a	heavy	toll	on	most	of	us	in
our	later	years,	even	though	they	may	not	be	fatal. Because	they	are	notusually	fatal,	many	people	afflicted	with	these	illnesses	still	live	a	long	life. Their	quality	of	life,	however,	deteriorates	steadily,	until	the	illness	renders
them	largely	dependent	on	others	and	unable	to	function	in	most	capacities. I’ve	talked	to	so	many	people	who	say,	“I	may	not	live	as	long	as	you
health	nuts,	but	I	sure	am	going	to	enjoy	the	time	I	have	by	eating	steaks
whenever	I	want,	smoking	if	I	so	choose	and	doing	anything	else	that	I	want.”
I	grew	up	with	these	people,	went	to	school	with	these	people	and	made	great
friends	with	these	people. Not	long	ago,	one	of	my	best	friends	suffered	a
difficult	surgery	for	cancer	and	spent	his	last	years	paralyzed	in	a	nursing
home. During	the	many	visits	I	made	to	the	nursing	home,	I	never	failed	to
come	away	with	a	deep	appreciation	for	the	health	I	still	possess	in	my	old
age. It	was	not	uncommon	for	me	to	go	to	the	nursing	home	to	visit	my	friend
and	hear	that	one	of	the	new	patients	in	the	home	was	someone	whom	my
friend	and	I	knew	from	our	earlier	days. Too	often,	they	had	Alzheimer’s	and
were	housed	in	a	special	section	of	the	facility. The	enjoyment	of	life,	especially	the	second	half	of	life,	is	greatly
compromised	if	we	can’t	see,	if	we	can’t	think,	if	our	kidneys	don’t	work	or	if
our	bones	are	broken	or	fragile. I,	for	one,	hope	that	I	am	able	to	fully	enjoy
not	only	the	time	in	the	present,	but	also	the	time	in	the	future,	with	good
health	and	independence.Part	III
THE	GOOD	NUTRITION	GUIDE
I	
WAS	IN	A	RESTAURANT	RECENTLY
,	looking	at	the	menu,	when	I	noticed	a	very
peculiar	“low-carb”	meal	option:	a	massive	plate	of	pasta	topped	with
vegetables,	otherwise	known	as	pasta	primavera. The	vast	majority	of	calories
in	the	meal	clearly	came	from	carbohydrates. How	could	it	be	“low-carb”? Was	it	a	misprint? I	didn’t	think	so. At	various	other	times	I’ve	noted	that
salads,	breads	and	even	cinnamon	buns	are	labeled	“low-carb,”	even	though
their	ingredient	lists	demonstrate	that,	in	fact,	the	bulk	of	calories	are
provided	by	carbohydrates. What’s	going	on? This	“carb”	mania	is	largely	the	result	of	the	late	Dr.	Atkins	and	his	dietary
message. But	recently	
Dr.	Atkins’	New	Diet	Revolution
	has	been	toppled	and
replaced	by	
The	South	Beach	Diet
	as	the	king	of	the	diet	books. The	South
Beach	Diet	is	pitched	as	being	more	moderate,	easier	to	follow	and	safer	than
Atkins,	but	from	what	I	can	tell,	the	weight-loss	“wolf”	has	just	put	on	a
different	set	of	sheep’s	clothing. Both	of	the	diets	are	divided	into	three
stages,	both	diets	severely	limit	carbohydrate	intake	during	the	first	phase,
and	both	diets	are	heavily	based	on	meat,	dairy	and	eggs. The	South	Beach
Diet,	for	example,	prohibits	bread,	rice,	potatoes,	pasta,	baked	goods,	sugar
and	even	fruit	during	the	first	two	weeks. After	that,	you	can	be	weaned	back
onto	carbohydrates	until	you	are	eating	what	appears	to	me	to	be	a	fairly
typical	American	diet. Perhaps	this	is	why	
The	South	Beach	Diet
	is	such	a	hot
seller. According	to	
The	South	Beach	Diet
	Web	site,	
Newsweek
	wrote,	“the
real	value	of	the	book	is	its	sound	nutritional	advice. It	retains	the	best	part	of
the	Atkins	regime—meat—while	losing	the	tenet	that	all	carbs	should	be
avoided.”
1
Who	at	
Newsweek
	reviewed	the	literature	to	know	whether	this	is	sound
nutritional	advice	or	not? And	if	you	have	the	Atkins	Diet	plus	some	“carbs,”
how	different	is	this	diet	from	the	standard	American	diet,	the	toxic	diet	that
has	been	shown	to	make	us	fat,	give	us	heart	disease,	destroy	our	kidneys,make	us	blind	and	lead	us	to	Alzheimer’s,	cancer	and	a	host	of	other	medical
problems? These	are	merely	examples	of	the	current	state	of	nutrition	awareness	in
the	United	States. Every	day	I	am	reminded	that	Americans	are	drowning	in	a
flood	of	horrible	nutrition	information. I	remember	the	adage	told	several
decades	ago:	Americans	love	hogwash. Another	one:	Americans	love	to	hear
good	things	about	their	bad	habits. It	would	appear	from	a	quick	glance	that
these	two	sayings	are	true. Or	are	they? I	have	more	faith	in	the	average	American. It’s	not	true	that	Americans
love	hogwash—it’s	that	hogwash	inundates	Americans,	whether	they	want	it
or	not! I	know	that	some	Americans	want	the	truth,	and	just	haven’t	been	able
to	find	it	because	it	is	drowned	out	by	the	hogwash. Very	little	of	the	nutrition
information	that	makes	it	to	the	public	consciousness	is	soundly	based	in
science,	and	we	pay	a	grave	price. One	day	olive	oil	is	terrible,	the	next	it	is
heart	healthy. One	day	eggs	will	clog	your	arteries,	the	next	they	are	a	good
source	of	protein. One	day	potatoes	and	rice	are	great,	the	next	they	are	the
gravest	threats	to	your	weight	you	will	ever	face. At	the	beginning	of	the	book	I	said	my	goal	was	to	redefine	how	we	think
of	nutrition	information—eliminate	confusion,	make	health	simple	and	base
my	claims	on	the	evidence	generated	by	peer-reviewed	nutrition	research
published	in	peer-reviewed,	professional	publications. So	far,	you	have	seen	a
broad	sample—and	it’s	only	a	sample—of	that	evidence. You	have	seen	that
there	is	overwhelming	scientific	support	for	one,	simple	optimal	diet—a
whole	foods,	plant-based	diet. I	want	to	condense	the	nutritional	lessons	learned	from	this	broad	range	of
evidence	and	from	my	experiences	over	the	past	forty-plus	years	into	a	simple
guide	to	good	nutrition. I	have	whittled	my	knowledge	down	to	several	core
principles,	principles	that	will	illuminate	how	nutrition	and	health	truly
operate. Furthermore,	I	have	translated	the	science	into	dietary
recommendations	that	you	can	begin	to	incorporate	into	your	own	life. Not
only	will	you	gain	a	new	understanding	of	nutrition	and	health,	but	you	will
also	see	exactly	which	foods	you	should	eat	and	which	foods	you	should
avoid. What	you	decide	to	do	with	this	information	is	up	to	you,	but	you	can
at	least	know	that	you,	as	a	reader	and	a	person,	have	finally	been	told
something	other	than	hogwash.11
Eating	Right:	Eight	Principles	of	Food	and
Health
T
HE	BENEFITS	OF	A	HEALTHY	LIFESTYLE
	are	enormous. I	want	you	to	know	that
you	can:
live	longer
look	and	feel	younger
have	more	energy
lose	weight
lower	your	blood	cholesterol
prevent	and	even	reverse	heart	disease
lower	your	risk	of	prostate,	breast	and	other	cancers
preserve	your	eyesight	in	your	later	years
prevent	and	treat	diabetes
avoid	surgery	in	many	instances
vastly	decrease	the	need	for	pharmaceutical	drugs
keep	your	bones	strong
avoid	impotence
avoid	stroke
prevent	kidney	stones
keep	your	baby	from	getting	Type	1	diabetes
alleviate	constipation
lower	your	blood	pressure
avoid	Alzheimer’s
beat	arthritis
and	more…These	are	only	some	of	the	benefits,	and	all	of	them	can	be	yours. The
price? Simply	changing	your	diet. I	don’t	know	that	it	has	ever	been	so	easy
or	so	relatively	effortless	to	achieve	such	profound	benefits. I	have	given	you	a	sampling	of	the	evidence	and	told	you	the	journey	that	I
have	taken	to	come	to	my	conclusions. Now	I	want	to	summarize	the	lessons
about	food,	health	and	disease	that	I	have	learned	along	the	way	in	the
following	eight	principles. These	principles	should	inform	the	way	we	do
science,	the	way	we	treat	the	sick,	the	way	we	feed	ourselves,	the	way	we
think	about	health	and	the	way	we	perceive	the	world.PRINCIPLE	#1
___________
Nutrition	represents	the	combined	activities	of	countless	food	substances. The	whole	is	greater	than	the	sum	of	its	parts. To	illustrate	this	principle	I	only	need	to	take	you	through	the	biochemical
perspective	of	a	meal. Let’s	say	you	prepare	sautéed	spinach	with	ginger	and
whole	grain	ravioli	shells	stuffed	with	butternut	squash	and	spices,	topped
with	a	walnut	tomato	sauce. The	spinach	alone	is	a	cornucopia	of	various	chemical	components. Chart
11.1
	is	only	a	
partial	list
	of	what	you	might	find	in	your	mouth	after	a	bite	of
spinach. As	you	can	see,	you’ve	just	introduced	a	bundle	of	nutrients	into	your
body. In	addition	to	this	extremely	complex	mix,	when	you	take	a	bite	of	that
ravioli	with	its	tomato	sauce	and	squash	filling,	you	get	thousands	and
thousands	of	additional	chemicals,	all	connected	in	different	ways	in	each
different	food—truly	a	biochemical	bonanza. As	soon	as	this	food	hits	your	saliva,	your	body	begins	working	its	magic,
and	the	process	of	digestion	starts. Each	of	these	food	chemicals	interacts
with	the	other	food	chemicals	and	your	body’s	chemicals	in	very	specific
ways. It	is	an	infinitely	complex	process,	and	it	is	literally	impossible	to
understand	precisely	how	each	chemical	interacts	with	every	other	chemical. We	will	never	discover	exactly	how	it	all	fits	together. CHART	11.1:	NUTRIENTS	IN	SPINACH
Macronutrients
Water
Fat	(many	kinds)
Calories
Carbohydrate
Protein	(many	kinds)
Fiber
Minerals
Calcium
Sodium
Iron
Zinc
Magnesium
Copper
Phosphorus
Manganese
Potassium
Selenium
VitaminsC	(Ascorbic	Acid)
B-6	(Pyridoxine)
B-l	(Thiamin)
Folate
B-2	(Riboflavin)
A	(as	carotenoids)
B-3	(Niacin)
E	(tocopherols)
Pantothenic	acid
Fatty	Acids
14:0	(Myristic	acid)
18:1	(Oleic	acid)
16:0	(Palmitic	acid)
20:1	(Eicosenoic	acid)
18:0	(Stearic	acid)
18:2	(Linoleic	acid)
16:1	(Palmitoleic	acid)
18:3	(Linolenic	acid)
Amino	acids
Tryptophan
Valine
Threonine
Arginine
Isoleucine
Histidine
Leucine
Alanine
Lysine
Aspartic	acid
Methionine
Glutamic	acid
Cystine
Glycine
Phenylalanine
Proline
Tyrosine
Serine
Phytosterols	(many	kinds)
The	main	message	I’m	trying	to	get	across	is	this:	the	chemicals	we	get
from	the	foods	we	eat	are	engaged	in	a	series	of	reactions	that	work	in	concert
to	produce	good	health. These	chemicals	are	carefully	orchestrated	by
intricate	controls	within	our	cells	and	all	through	our	bodies,	and	these
controls	decide	what	nutrient	goes	where,	how	much	of	each	nutrient	is
needed	and	when	each	reaction	takes	place. Our	bodies	have	evolved	with	this	infinitely	complex	network	of	reactions
in	order	to	derive	maximal	benefit	from	whole	foods,	as	they	appear	in	nature. The	misguided	may	trumpet	the	virtues	of	one	specific	nutrient	or	chemical,
but	this	thinking	is	too	simplistic. Our	bodies	have	learned	how	to	benefit
from	the	chemicals	in	food	as	they	are	packaged	together,	discarding	some
and	using	others	as	they	see	ht. I	cannot	stress	this	enough,	as	it	is	the
foundation	of	understanding	what	good	nutrition	means.PRINCIPLE	#2
___________
Vitamin	supplements	are	not	a	panacea	for	good	health. Because	nutrition	operates	as	an	infinitely	complex	biochemical	system
involving	thousands	of	chemicals	and	thousands	of	effects	on	your	health,	it
makes	little	or	no	sense	that	isolated	nutrients	taken	as	supplements	can
substitute	for	whole	foods. Supplements	will	not	lead	to	long-lasting	health
and	may	cause	unforeseen	side	effects. Furthermore,	for	those	relying	on
supplements,	beneficial	and	sustained	diet	change	is	postponed. The	dangers
of	a	Western	diet	cannot	be	overcome	by	consuming	nutrient	pills. As	I	have	watched	the	interest	in	nutrient	supplements	explode	over	the
past	twenty	to	thirty	years,	it	has	become	abundantly	clear	why	such	a	huge
nutrient	supplement	industry	has	emerged. Huge	profits	are	an	excellent
incentive,	and	new	government	regulations	have	paved	the	way	for	an
expanded	market. Furthermore,	consumers	want	to	continue	eating	their
customary	foods,	and	popping	a	few	supplements	makes	people	feel	better
about	the	potentially	adverse	health	effects	caused	by	their	diet. Embracing
supplements	means	the	media	can	tell	people	what	they	want	to	hear	and
doctors	have	something	to	offer	their	patients. As	a	result,	a	multibillion-
dollar	supplement	industry	is	now	
part	of	our	nutritional	landscape,	and	the
majority	of	consumers	have	been	duped	into	believing	that	they	are	buying
health. This	was	the	late	Dr.	Atkins’s	formula. He	advocated	a	high-protein,
high-fat	diet—sacrificing	long-term	health	for	short-term	gain—and	then
advocated	taking	his	supplements	to	address	what	he	called,	in	his	own
words,	the	“common	dieters’	problems”	including	constipation,	sugar
cravings,	hunger,	fluid	retention,	fatigue,	nervousness	and	insomnia. 1
This	strategy	of	gaining	and	maintaining	health	with	nutrient	supplements,
however,	started	to	unravel	in	1994–1996	with	the	large-scale	investigation	of
the	effects	of	beta-carotene	(a	precursor	to	vitamin	A)	supplements	on	lung
cancer	and	other	diseases. 2,	3
	After	four	to	eight	years	of	supplement	use,	lung
cancer	had	not	decreased	as	expected;	it	had	increased! No	benefit	was	found
from	vitamins	A	and	E	for	the	prevention	of	heart	disease	either. Since	then,	a	large	number	of	additional	trials	costing	hundreds	of	millions
of	dollars	have	been	conducted	to	determine	if	vitamins	A,	C	and	E	prevent
heart	disease	and	cancer. Recently,	two	major	reviews	of	these	trials	were
published. 4,	5
	The	researchers,	in	their	words,	“could	not	determine	the
balance	of	benefits	and	harms	of	routine	use	of	supplements	of	vitamins	A,	Cor	E;	multivitamins	with	folic	acid;	or	antioxidant	combinations	for	the
prevention	of	cancer	or	cardiovascular	disease.”
4
	Indeed,	they	even
recommended	against	the	use	of	beta-carotene	supplements. It	is	not	that	these	nutrients	aren’t	important. They	are—but	only	when
consumed	as	food,	not	as	supplements. Isolating	nutrients	and	trying	to	get
benefits	equal	to	those	of	whole	foods	reveals	an	ignorance	of	how	nutrition
operates	in	the	body. A	recent	special	article	in	the	New	
York	Times
6
documents	this	failure	of	nutrient	supplements	to	provide	any	proven	health
benefit. As	time	passes,	I	am	confident	that	we	will	continue	to	“discover”
that	relying	on	the	use	of	isolated	nutrient	supplements	to	maintain	health,
while	consuming	the	usual	Western	diet,	is	not	only	a	waste	of	money	but	is
also	potentially	dangerous.PRINCIPLE	#3
___________
There	are	virtually	no	nutrients	in	animal-based	foods	that	are	not	better
provided	by	plants. Overall,	it	is	fair	to	say	that	any	plant-based	food	has	many	more	similarities
in	terms	of	nutrient	compositions	to	other	plant-based	foods	than	it	does	to
animal-based	foods. The	same	is	true	the	other	way	around;	all	animal-based
foods	are	more	like	other	animal-based	foods	than	they	are	to	plant-based
foods. For	example,	even	though	fish	is	significantly	different	from	beef,	fish
has	many	more	similarities	to	beef	than	it	has	to	rice. Even	the	foods	that	are
“exceptions”	to	these	rules,	such	as	nuts,	seeds	and	processed	low-fat	animal
products,	remain	in	distinct	plant	and	animal	“nutrient”	groups. Eating	animals	is	a	markedly	different	nutritional	experience	from	eating
plants. The	amounts	and	kinds	of	nutrients	in	these	two	types	of	foods,	shown
in	
Chart	11.2
,	
7,	8,	9
	illustrate	these	striking	nutritional	differences. CHART	11.2:	NUTRIENT	COMPOSITION	OF	PLANT	AND	ANIMAL-
BASED	FOODS	(PER	500	CALORIES	OF	ENERGY)
Nutrient
Plant-Based	Foods*
Animal-Based	Foods**
Cholesterol	(mg)
—
137
Fat	(g)
4
36
Protein	(g)
33
34
Beta-carotene	(mcg)
29,919
17
Dietary	Fiber	(g)
31
—
Vitamin	C	(mg)
293
4
Folate	(mcg)
1168
19
Vitamin	E	(mg_ATE)
11
0.5
Iron	(mg)
20
2
Magnesium	(mg)
548
51
Calcium	(mg)
545
252
*	Equal	parts	of	tomatoes,	spinach,	lima	beans,	peas,	potatoes
**	Equal	parts	of	beef,	pork,	chicken,	whole	milk
	
As	you	can	see,	plant	foods	have	dramatically	more	antioxidants,	fiber	and
minerals	than	animal	foods. In	fact,	animal	foods	are	almost	completelydevoid	of	several	of	these	nutrients. Animal	foods,	on	the	other	hand,	have
much	more	cholesterol	and	fat. They	also	have	slightly	more	protein	than
plant	foods,	along	with	more	B
12
	and	vitamin	D,	although	the	vitamin	D	is
largely	due	to	artificial	fortification	in	milk. Of	course,	there	are	some
exceptions:	some	nuts	and	seeds	are	high	in	fat	and	protein	(e.g.,	peanuts,
sesame	seeds)	while	some	animal-based	foods	are	low	in	fat,	usually	because
they	are	stripped	of	their	fat	by	artificial	processing	(e.g.,	skim	milk). But	if
one	looks	a	little	more	closely,	the	fat	and	the	protein	of	nuts	and	seeds	are
different:	they	are	more	healthful	than	the	fat	and	protein	of	animal	foods. They	also	are	accompanied	by	some	interesting	antioxidant	substances. On
the	other	hand,	processed,	low-fat,	animal-based	foods	still	have	some
cholesterol,	lots	of	protein	and	very	little	or	no	antioxidants	and	dietary	fiber,
just	like	other	animal-based	foods. Since	nutrients	are	primarily	responsible
for	the	healthful	effects	of	foods	and	because	of	these	major	differences	in
nutrient	composition	between	animal-	and	plant-based	foods,	isn’t	it	therefore
reasonable	to	assume	that	we	should	expect	to	see	distinctly	different	effects
on	our	bodies	depending	on	which	variety	of	foods	we	consume? By	definition,	for	a	food	chemical	to	be	an	essential	nutrient,	it	must	meet
two	requirements:
the	chemical	is	necessary	for	healthy	human	functioning
the	chemical	must	be	something	our	bodies	cannot	make	on	their	own,
and	therefore	must	be	obtained	from	an	outside	source
One	example	of	a	chemical	that	is	not	essential	is	cholesterol,	a	component
of	animal-based	food	that	is	nonexistent	in	plant-based	food. While
cholesterol	is	essential	for	health,	our	bodies	can	make	all	that	we	require;	so
we	do	not	need	to	consume	any	in	food. Therefore,	it	is	not	an	essential
nutrient. There	are	four	nutrients	which	animal-based	foods	have	that	plant-based
foods,	for	the	most	part,	do	not:	cholesterol	and	vitamins	A,	D	and	B
12
. Three
of	these	are	nonessential	nutrients. As	discussed	above,	cholesterol	is	made	by
our	bodies	naturally. Vitamin	A	can	be	readily	made	by	our	bodies	from	beta-
carotene,	and	vitamin	D	can	be	readily	made	by	our	bodies	simply	by
exposing	our	skin	to	about	fifteen	minutes	of	sunshine	every	couple	days. Both	of	these	vitamins	are	toxic	if	
they	are	consumed	in	high	amounts. This	is
one	more	indication	that	it	is	better	to	rely	on	the	vitamin	precursors,	beta-
carotene	and	sunshine,	so	that	our	bodies	can	readily	control	the	timing	and
quantities	of	vitamins	A	and	D	that	are	needed. Vitamin	B
12
	is	more	problematic. Vitamin	B
12
	is	made	by	microorganismsfound	in	the	soil	and	by	microorganisms	in	the	intestines	of	animals,
including	our	own. The	amount	made	in	our	intestines	is	not	adequately
absorbed,	so	it	is	recommended	that	we	consume	B
12
	in	food. Research	has
convincingly	shown	that	plants	grown	in	healthy	soil	that	has	a	good
concentration	of	vitamin	B
12
	will	readily	absorb	this	nutrient. 10
	However,
plants	grown	in	“lifeless”	soil	(non-organic	soil)	may	be	deficient	in	vitamin
B
12
. In	the	United	States,	most	of	our	agriculture	takes	place	on	relatively
lifeless	soil,	decimated	from	years	of	unnatural	pesticide,	herbicide	and
fertilizer	use. So	the	plants	grown	in	this	soil	and	sold	in	our	supermarkets
lack	B
12
. In	addition,	we	live	in	such	a	sanitized	world	that	we	rarely	come
into	direct	contact	with	the	soil-borne	microorganisms	that	produce	B
12
. At
one	point	in	our	history,	we	got	B
12
	from	vegetables	that	hadn’t	been	scoured
of	all	soil. Therefore,	it	is	not	unreasonable	to	assume	that	modern	Americans
who	eat	highly	cleansed	plant	products	and	no	animal	products	are	unlikely	to
get	enough	vitamin	B
12
. Though	our	society’s	obsession	with	nutrient	supplements	seriously
detracts	from	other,	far	more	important	nutrition	information,	this	is	not	to	say
that	supplements	should	always	be	avoided. It	is	estimated	that	we	hold	a
three-year	store	of	vitamin	B
12
	in	our	bodies. If	you	do	not	eat	any	animal
products	for	three	years	or	more,	or	are	pregnant	or	breastfeeding,	you	should
consider	taking	a	small	B
12
	supplement	on	occasion,	or	going	to	the	doctor
annually	to	check	your	blood	levels	of	B	vitamins	and	homocysteine. Likewise,	if	you	never	get	sunshine	exposure,	especially	during	the	winter
months,	you	might	want	to	take	a	vitamin	D	supplement. I	would	recommend
taking	the	smallest	dose	you	can	find	and	making	more	of	an	effort	to	get
outside. I	call	these	supplements	“separation	from	nature	pills,”	because	a	healthy
diet	of	fresh,	organic	plant-based	foods	grown	in	rich	soil	and	a	lifestyle	that
regularly	takes	you	outdoors	is	the	best	answer	to	these	issues. Returning	to
our	natural	way	of	life	in	this	small	way	provides	innumerable	other	benefits,
as	well.PRINCIPLE	#4
___________
Genes	do	not	determine	disease	on	their	own,	Genes	function	only	by
being	activated,	or	expressed,	and	nutrition	plays	a	critical	role	in
determining	which	genes,	good	and	bad,	are	expressed. I	can	safely	say	that	the	origin	of	every	single	disease	is	genetic. Our	genes
are	the	code	to	everything	in	our	bodies,	good	and	bad. Without	genes,	there
would	be	no	cancer. Without	genes,	there	would	be	no	obesity,	diabetes	or
heart	disease. And	without	genes,	there	would	be	no	life. This	might	explain	why	we	are	spending	hundreds	of	millions	of	dollars
trying	to	figure	out	which	gene	causes	which	disease	and	how	we	can	silence
the	dangerous	genes. This	also	explains	why	some	perfectly	healthy	young
women	have	had	their	breasts	removed	simply	because	they	were	found	to
carry	genes	that	are	linked	to	breast	cancer. This	explains	why	the	bulk	of
resources	in	science	and	health	in	the	past	decade	has	shifted	to	genetic
research. At	Cornell	University	alone	$500	million	is	being	raised	to	create	a
“Life	Sciences	Initiative.”	This	initiative	promises	to	“forever	change	the	way
life-science	research	is	conducted	and	taught	at	the	university.”	What	is	one	of
the	main	thrusts	of	the	program? Integrating	each	scientific	discipline	into	the
all-encompassing	umbrella	of	genetic	research. It	is	the	largest	scientific
effort	in	Cornell’s	history. 11
Much	of	this	focus	on	genes,	however,	misses	a	simple	but	crucial	point:
not	all	genes	are	fully	expressed	all	the	time. If	they	aren’t	activated,	or
expressed,	they	remain	biochemically	dormant. Dormant	genes	do	not	have
any	effect	on	our	health. This	is	obvious	to	most	scientists,	and	many
laypeople,	but	the	significance	of	this	idea	is	seldom	understood. What
happens	to	cause	some	genes	to	remain	dormant,	and	others	to	express
themselves? The	answer:	environment,	especially	diet. To	reuse	a	previous	analogy,	it	is	useful	to	think	of	genes	as	seeds. As	any
good	gardener	knows,	seeds	will	not	grow	into	plants	unless	they	have
nutrient-rich	soil,	water	and	sunshine. Neither	will	genes	be	expressed	unless
they	have	the	proper	environment. In	our	body,	nutrition	is	the	environmental
factor	that	determines	the	activity	of	genes. As	we	saw	in	chapter	three,	the
genes	that	cause	cancer	were	profoundly	impacted	by	the	consumption	of
protein. In	my	research	group,	we	learned	
that	we	could	turn	the	bad	genes	on
and	off	simply	by	adjusting	animal	protein	intake. Furthermore,	our	China	research	findings	showed	that	people	of	roughlythe	same	ethnic	background	have	hugely	varying	disease	rates. These	are
people	said	to	have	similar	genes,	and	yet	they	get	different	diseases
depending	on	their	environment. Dozens	of	studies	have	documented	that	as
people	migrate,	they	assume	the	disease	risk	of	the	country	to	which	they
move. They	do	not	change	their	genes,	and	yet	they	fall	prey	to	diseases	and
illnesses	at	rates	that	are	rare	in	their	homeland	population. Furthermore,	we	have	seen	disease	rates	change	over	time	so	drastically
that	it	is	biologically	impossible	to	put	the	blame	on	genes. In	twenty-five
years,	the	percentage	of	our	population	that	is	obese	has	doubled,	from	15%
to	30%. In	addition,	diabetes,	heart	disease	and	many	other	diseases	of
affluence	were	rare	until	recent	history,	and	our	genetic	code	simply	could	not
have	changed	significantly	in	the	past	25,	100	or	even	500	years. So	while	we	can	say	that	genes	are	crucial	to	every	biological	process,	we
have	some	very	convincing	evidence	that	gene	expression	is	far	more
important,	and	gene	expression	is	controlled	by	environment,	especially
nutrition. A	further	folly	of	this	genetic	research	is	assuming	that	understanding	our
genes	is	simple. It	is	not. Recently,	for	example,	researchers	studied	genetic
regulation	of	weight	in	a	tiny	worm	species. 12
	The	scientists	went	through
16,757	genes,	turning	each	one	off,	and	observed	the	effect	on	weight. They
discovered	417	genes	that	affect	weight. How	these	hundreds	of	genes
interact	over	the	long	term	with	each	other	and	their	ever-changing
environment	to	alter	weight	gain	or	loss	is	an	incredibly	complex	mystery. Goethe	once	said,	“We	know	accurately	only	when	we	know	little;	with
knowledge	doubt	increases.”
13
Expression	of	our	genetic	code	represents	a	universe	of	biochemical
interactions	of	almost	infinite	complexity. This	biochemical	“universe”
interacts	with	many	different	systems,	including	nutrition,	which	itself
represents	whole	systems	of	complex	biochemistry. With	genetic	research,	I
suspect	we	are	embarking	on	a	massive	quest	to	shortcut	nature	only	to	end
up	worse	off	than	when	we	started. Does	all	this	mean	I	think	that	genes	don’t	matter? Of	course	not. If	you
take	two	Americans	living	in	the	same	environment	and	feed	them	exactly	the
same	meaty	food	every	day	for	their	entire	lives,	I	would	not	
be	surprised	if
one	died	of	a	heart	attack	at	age	fifty-four,	and	the	other	died	of	cancer	at	the
age	of	eighty. What	explains	the	difference? Genes. Genes	give	us	our
predispositions. We	all	have	different	disease	risks	due	to	our	different	genes. But	while	we	will	never	know	exactly	which	risks	we	are	predisposed	to,	we
do	know	how	to	control	those	risks. Regardless	of	our	genes,	we	can	all
optimize	our	chances	of	expressing	the	right	genes	by	providing	our	bodieswith	the	best	possible	environment—that	is,	the	best	possible	nutrition. Even
though	the	two	Americans	in	the	example	above	succumbed	to	different
diseases	at	different	ages,	it	is	entirely	possible	that	both	could	have	lived
many	more	years	with	a	higher	quality	of	life	if	they	would	have	practiced
optimal	nutrition.PRINCIPLE	#5
___________
Nutrition	can	substantially	control	the	adverse	effects	of	noxious
chemicals. Stories	of	cancer-causing	chemicals	regularly	appear	in	the	press. Acrylamide,	artificial	sweeteners,	nitrosamines,	nitrites,	Alar,	heterocyclic
amines	and	aflatoxin	have	all	been	linked	to	cancer	in	experimental	studies. There	is	a	widely	held	perception	that	cancer	is	caused	by	toxic	chemicals
that	make	their	way	into	our	bodies	in	a	sinister	way. For	example,	people
often	cite	health	concerns	to	justify	their	opposition	to	pumping	antibiotics
and	hormones	into	farm	animals. The	assumption	is	that	the	meat	would	be
safe	to	eat	if	it	didn’t	have	those	unnatural	chemicals	in	it. The	real	danger	of
the	meat,	however,	is	the	nutrient	imbalances,	regardless	of	the	presence	or
absence	of	those	nasty	chemicals. Long	before	modern	chemicals	were
introduced	into	our	food,	people	still	began	to	experience	more	cancer	and
more	heart	disease	when	they	started	to	eat	more	animal-based	foods. A	great	example	of	a	misunderstood	“public	health	concern”	regarding
chemicals	is	the	lengthy,	$30	million	investigation	of	minimally	higher	rates
of	breast	cancer	in	Long	Island,	New	York,	referred	to	in	chapter	eight. Here,
it	seemed	that	chemical	contaminants	from	certain	industrial	sites	were
creating	breast	cancer	for	women	who	lived	nearby. But	this	ill-conceived
story	has	proven	to	have	no	merit. Another	chemical	carcinogen	concern	surrounds	acrylamide,	which	is
primarily	found	in	processed	or	fried	foods	like	potato	chips. The	
implication
is	that	if	we	could	effectively	remove	this	chemical	from	potato	chips,	they
would	be	safe	to	eat,	even	though	they	continue	to	be	highly	unhealthy,
processed	slices	of	potatoes	drenched	with	fat	and	salt. So	many	of	us	seem	to	want	a	scapegoat. We	do	not	want	to	hear	that	our
favorite	foods	are	a	problem	simply	because	of	their	nutritional	content. In	chapter	three,	we	saw	that	the	potential	effects	of	aflatoxin,	a	chemical
touted	as	being	highly	carcinogenic,	could	be	entirely	controlled	by	nutrition. Even	with	large	doses	of	aflatoxin,	rats	could	be	healthy,	active	and	cancer-
free	if	they	were	fed	low-protein	diets. We	also	saw	how	small	findings	can
make	big	news	every	time	cancer	is	mentioned. For	example,	if	experimental
animals	have	an	increased	incidence	of	cancer	after	gargantuan	exposures,	the
chemical	agent	is	trumpeted	as	a	cause	of	cancer,	as	was	the	case	for	NSAR
(see	chapter	three)	and	nitrites. However,	like	genes,	the	activities	of	thesechemical	carcinogens	are	primarily	controlled	by	the	nutrients	that	we	eat. So	what	do	these	examples	tell	us? In	practical	terms,	you	aren’t	doing
yourself	much	good	by	eating	organic	beef	instead	of	conventional	beef	that’s
been	pumped	full	of	chemicals. The	organic	beef	might	be	marginally
healthier,	but	I	would	never	say	that	it	was	a	safe	choice. Both	types	of	beef
have	a	similar	nutrient	profile. It	is	useful	to	think	of	this	principle	in	another	way:	a	chronic	disease	like
cancer	takes	years	to	develop. Those	chemicals	that	initiate	cancer	are	often
the	ones	that	make	headlines. What	does	not	make	headlines,	however,	is	the
fact	that	the	disease	process	continues	long	after	initiation,	and	can	be
accelerated	or	repressed	during	its	promotion	stage	by	nutrition. In	other
words,	nutrition	primarily	determines	whether	the	disease	will	ever	do	its
damage.PRINCIPLE	#6
___________
The	same	nutrition	that	prevents	disease	in	its	early	stages	(before
diagnosis)	can	also	halt	or	reverse	disease	in	its	later	stages	(after
diagnosis). It	is	worth	repeating	that	chronic	diseases	take	several	years	to	develop. For
example,	there	is	a	general	thought	that	breast	cancer	can	be	initiated	
in
adolescence	and	not	become	detectable	until	after	menopause! So	we	very
well	may	have	lots	of	middle-aged	women	walking	around	with	breast	cancer
initiated	during	their	teens	that	will	not	be	detectable	until	after	menopause
. 14
For	many	people	this	translates	into	the	fatalistic	notion	that	little	can	be	done
later	in	life. Does	this	mean	that	these	women	should	start	smoking	and	eating
more	chicken-fried	steak	because	they’re	doomed	anyway? What	do	we	do,
given	that	many	of	us	may	already	have	an	initiated	chronic	disease	lurking	in
our	bodies,	waiting	to	explode	decades	from	now? As	we	saw	in	chapter	three,	cancer	that	is	already	initiated	and	growing	in
experimental	animals	can	be	slowed,	halted	or	even	reversed	by	good
nutrition. Luckily	for	us,	
the	same	good	nutrition	maximizes	health	at	every
stage	of	a	disease. In	humans,	we	have	seen	research	findings	showing	that	a
whole	foods,	plant-based	diet	reverses	advanced	heart	disease,	helps	obese
people	lose	weight	and	helps	diabetics	get	off	their	medication	and	return	to	a
more	normal,	pre-diabetes	life. Research	has	also	shown	that	advanced
melanoma,	the	deadly	form	of	skin	cancer,	might	be	attenuated	or	reversed	by
lifestyle	changes. 15
Some	diseases,	of	course,	appear	to	be	irreversible. The	autoimmune
diseases	are	perhaps	most	frightening	because	once	the	body	turns	against
itself,	it	may	become	unstoppable. And	yet,	amazingly,	even	some	of	these
diseases	may	be	slowed	or	attenuated	by	diet. Recall	the	research	showing
that	even	Type	1	diabetics	can	lower	their	medication	requirements	by	eating
the	right	food. Evidence	also	shows	that	rheumatoid	arthritis	can	be	slowed	by
diet,
16
	as	can	multiple	sclerosis. 17,	18
I	believe	that	an	ounce	of	prevention	does	equal	a	pound	of	cure,	and	the
earlier	in	life	good	foods	are	eaten,	the	better	one’s	health	will	be. But	for
those	who	already	face	the	burden	of	disease,	we	must	not	forget	that
nutrition	still	can	play	a	vital	role.PRINCIPLE	#7
___________
Nutrition	that	is	truly	beneficial	for	one	chronic	disease	will	support
health	across	the	board. When	I	was	trying	to	get	this	book	published,	I	had	a	meeting	with	an	editor
at	a	major	publishing	house,	and	described	to	her	my	intent	to	create	disease-
specific	chapters	that	related	diet	to	specific	ailments	or	
groups	of	ailments. The	editor	asked,	in	effect,	“Can	you	make	specific	diet	plans	for	each
disease,	so	that	every	chapter	doesn’t	have	the	same	recommendations?”	In
other	words,	could	I	tell	people	to	eat	a	specific	way	for	heart	disease	and	a
different	way	for	diabetes? The	implication,	of	course,	was	that	the	same
eating	plan	for	multiple	diseases	simply	wasn’t	catchy	enough,	wasn’t
sufficiently	“marketable.”
Although	this	might	be	good	marketing,	it	is	not	good	science. As	I	have
come	to	understand	more	about	the	biochemical	processes	of	various	diseases,
I	have	also	come	to	see	how	these	diseases	have	much	in	common. Because
of	these	impressive	commonalities,	it	only	makes	sense	that	the	same	good
nutrition	will	generate	health	and	prevent	diseases	
across	the	board. Even	if	a
whole	foods,	plant-based	diet	is	more	effective	at	treating	heart	disease	than
brain	cancer,	you	can	be	sure	that	this	diet	will	not	promote	one	disease	while
it	stops	another. It	will	never	be	“bad”	for	you. This	one	good	diet	can	only
help	across	the	board. So	I’m	afraid	I	don’t	have	a	different,	catchy	formula	for	each	disease. I
only	have	one	dietary	prescription. But	rather	than	be	forlorn	about	its	effect
on	my	book	sales,	I’d	prefer	to	remain	excited	about	telling	you	how	simple
food	and	health	really	is. It	is	a	chance	to	clear	away	much	of	the	incredible
public	confusion. Quite	simply,	you	can	maximize	health	for	diseases	across
the	board	with	one	simple	diet.PRINCIPLE	#8
___________
Good	nutrition	creates	health	in	all	areas	of	our	existence. All	parts	are
interconnected. Much	has	been	made	of	“holistic”	health	in	recent	times. This	concept	can
mean	a	variety	of	things	to	different	people. Many	people	lump	all	of	the
“alternative”	medicines	and	activities	into	this	concept,	so	holistic	health
comes	to	mean	acupressure,	acupuncture,	herbal	medicines,	meditation,
vitamin	supplements,	chiropractic	care,	yoga,	aromatherapy,	Feng	Shui,
massage	and	even	sound	therapy. Conceptually,	I	believe	in	holistic	health,	but	not	as	a	catchphrase	for
every	unconventional	and	oftentimes	unproven	medicine	around. Food	and
nutrition,	for	example,	are	of	primary	importance	to	our	health. The	process
of	eating	is	perhaps	the	most	intimate	encounter	we	have	with	our	world;	it	is
a	process	in	which	what	we	eat	becomes	part	of	
our	body. But	other
experiences	also	are	important,	such	as	physical	activity	emotional	and	mental
health	and	the	well-being	of	our	environment. Incorporating	these	various
spheres	into	our	concept	of	health	is	important	because	they	are	all
interconnected. Indeed,	this	is	a	holistic	concept. These	expanding	interconnections	became	apparent	to	me	through
experimentation	with	animals. The	rats	fed	the	low-protein	diets	were	not
only	spared	liver	cancer,	but	they	also	had	lower	blood	cholesterol,	noticeably
more	energy	and	voluntarily	exercised	twice	as	much	as	the	high-protein	rats. The	evidence	regarding	increased	energy	levels	was	supported	by	an
enormous	amount	of	anecdotal	evidence	I	have	encountered	over	the	years:
people	have	more	energy	when	they	eat	well. This	synergy	between	nutrition
and	physical	activity	is	extremely	important,	and	is	evidence	that	these	two
parts	of	life	are	not	isolated	from	each	other. Good	nutrition	and	regular
exercise	combine	to	offer	more	health	per	person	than	the	sum	of	each	part
alone. We	also	know	that	physical	activity	has	an	effect	on	emotional	and	mental
well-being. Much	has	been	said	about	the	effect	physical	activity	has	on
various	chemicals	in	our	bodies,	which	in	turn	affect	our	moods	and	our
concentration. And	experiencing	the	rewards	of	feeling	better	emotionally	and
being	more	mentally	alert	provides	the	confidence	and	motivation	to	treat
ourselves	to	optimal	nutrition,	which	reinforces	the	entire	cycle. Those	who
feel	good	about	themselves	are	more	likely	to	respect	their	health	bypracticing	good	nutrition. Sometimes	people	try	to	play	these	different	parts	of	their	lives	against
each	other. People	wonder	if	they	can	erase	bad	eating	habits	by	being	a
runner. The	answer	to	this	is	no. The	benefits	and	risks	of	diet	are	crucially
important,	and	more	sizable,	than	the	benefits	and	risks	of	other	activities. Besides,	why	would	anyone	want	to	try	and	balance	benefits	and	risks	when
they	could	have	all	the	benefits,	working	together? People	also	wonder
whether	a	perceived	health	benefit	is	because	of	the	exercise	or	because	of	a
good	diet. In	the	end,	that’s	simply	an	academic	question. The	fact	is	that
these	two	spheres	of	our	lives	are	intimately	interconnected,	and	what’s
important	is	that	
it	all	works	together	to	promote	or	derail	health. Furthermore,	it	turns	out	that	if	we	eat	the	way	that	promotes	the	best
health	for	ourselves,	we	promote	the	best	health	for	the	planet. By	eating	a
whole	foods,	plant-based	diet,	we	use	less	water,	less	land,	fewer	resources
and	produce	less	pollution	and	less	suffering	for	our	
farm	animals. John
Robbins	has	done	more	than	any	other	person	to	bring	this	issue	to	the	front
of	American	consciousness,	and	I	strongly	recommend	reading	his	most
recent	book,	
The	Food	Revolution. Our	food	choices	have	an	incredible	impact	not	only	on	our	metabolism,
but	also	on	the	initiation,	promotion	and	even	reversal	of	disease,	on	our
energy,	on	our	physical	activity,	on	our	emotional	and	mental	well-being	and
on	our	world	environment. All	of	these	seemingly	separate	spheres	are
intimately	interconnected. I	have	mentioned	the	wisdom	of	nature	at	various	points	in	this	book,	and	I
have	come	to	see	the	power	of	the	workings	of	the	natural	world. It	is	a
wondrous	web	of	health,	from	molecules,	to	people,	to	other	animals,	to
forests,	to	oceans,	to	the	air	we	breathe. This	is	nature	at	work,	from	the
microscopic	to	the	macroscopic.WHO	CARES,	ANYWAY? The	principles	outlined	in	this	chapter	began,	for	me,	with	a	narrowly	focused
question	on	diet	and	cancer	in	rats,	then	grew	into	an	ever-expanding	universe
of	questions	about	human	and	societal	health	around	the	world. In	large
measure,	the	principles	in	this	chapter	are	the	answers	to	the	far-reaching
questions	that	I	could	not	help	but	ask	during	my	career. The	applicability	of	these	principles	should	not	be	underestimated. Most
importantly,	they	can	help	to	reduce	public	confusion	regarding	food	and
health. The	latest	fads,	the	newest	headlines	and	the	most	recent	study	results
are	put	into	a	useful	context. We	need	not	leap	from	our	seats	every	time	a
chemical	is	called	a	carcinogen,	every	time	a	new	diet	book	hits	the	shelf	or
every	time	a	headline	screams	about	solving	disease	through	genetic	research. Simply	put,	we	can	relax. We	can	take	a	much-needed	deep	breath	and	sit
back. Moreover,	we	can	do	science	more	intelligently,	and	ask	better
questions	because	we	have	a	sound	framework	relating	nutrition	to	health. In
effect,	we	can	interpret	new	findings	with	a	broader	context	in	mind. With
these	newly	interpreted	findings,	we	can	enrich	or	modify	our	original
framework	and	invest	our	money	and	resources	where	they	matter	to	increase
our	society’s	health. The	benefits	of	understanding	these	principles	are	wide-
ranging	and	profound	for	individuals,	societies,	our	fellow	animals	and	our
planet.12
How	to	Eat
W
HEN	MY	YOUNGEST	SON
	and	collaborator	on	this	book,	Tom,	was	thirteen
years	old,	our	family	was	in	the	final	stages	of	a	slow	shift	to	becoming
vegetarian. One	Sunday	morning,	Tom	came	home	from	a	sleepover	at	a	close
friend’s	house	and	told	us	a	story	I	still	remember. The	night	before,	Tom	was	being	grilled,	in	a	friendly	way,	on	his	eating
habits. The	sister	of	Tom’s	friend	had	asked	him,	rather	incredulously,	“You
don’t	eat	meat?”	My	son	had	never	justified	his	eating	habits;	he	had	just
gotten	used	to	eating	what	was	on	the	dinner	table. As	a	consequence,	Tom
was	not	practiced	at	answering	such	a	question. So	he	simply	answered,	“No,
I	don’t,”	without	offering	any	explanations. The	girl	probed	a	bit	more,	“So	what	do	you	eat?”	My	son	answered,	with
a	few	shrugs,	“I	guess	just	…	plants.”	She	said,	“Oh,”	and	that	was	the	end	of
that. The	reason	I	enjoy	this	story	is	because	my	son’s	response,	“plants,”	was
so	simple. It	was	a	truthful	answer,	but	couched	in	an	entirely	untraditional
manner. When	someone	asks	for	the	glazed	ham	across	the	table,	she	doesn’t
say,	“Pass	the	flesh	of	the	pig’s	butt,	please,”	and	when	someone	tells	his
children	to	finish	their	peas	and	carrots,	he	doesn’t	say,	“Finish	your	plants.”
But	since	my	family	and	I	changed	our	eating	habits,	I’ve	come	to	enjoy
thinking	of	food	as	either	plants	or	animals. It	fits	well	into	my	philosophy	of
keeping	the	information	on	food	and	health	as	simple	as	possible. Food	and	health	are	anything	but	simple	in	our	country. I	often	marvel	at
the	complexity	of	various	weight-loss	plans. Although	the	writers	
always
advertise	their	plan’s	ease	of	use,	in	reality	it’s	never	easy. Followers	of	these
diets	have	to	count	calories,	points,	servings	or	nutrients	or	eat	specificamounts	of	certain	foods	based	on	specific,	mathematical	ratios. There	are
tools	to	be	used,	supplements	to	be	taken	and	worksheets	to	be	completed. It
is	no	wonder	that	dieting	seldom	succeeds. Eating	should	be	an	enjoyable	and	worry-free	experience,	and	shouldn’t
rely	on	deprivation. Keeping	it	simple	is	essential	if	we	are	to	enjoy	our	food. One	of	the	most	fortunate	findings	from	the	mountain	of	nutritional
research	I’ve	encountered	is	that	good	food	and	good	health	is	simple. The
biology	of	the	relationship	of	food	and	health	is	exceptionally	complex,	but
the	message	is	still	simple. The	recommendations	coming	from	the	published
literature	are	so	simple	that	I	can	state	them	in	one	sentence:	eat	a	whole
foods,	plant-based	diet,	while	minimizing	the	consumption	of	refined	foods,
added	salt	and	added	fats. (See	table	on	page	243. )SUPPLEMENTS
Daily	supplements	of	vitamin	B
12
,	and	perhaps	vitamin	D	for	people	who
spend	most	of	their	time	indoors	and/or	live	in	the	northern	climates	are
encouraged. For	vitamin	D,	you	shouldn’t	exceed	RDA	recommendations. That’s	it. That’s	the	diet	science	has	found	to	be	consistent	with	the
greatest	health	and	the	lowest	incidence	of	heart	disease,	cancer,	obesity	and
many	other	Western	diseases.WHAT	DOES	MINIMIZE	MEAN? SHOULD	YOU
ELIMINATE	MEAT	COMPLETELY? The	findings	from	the	China	Study	indicate	that	the	lower	the	percentage	of
animal-based	foods	that	are	consumed,	the	greater	the	health	benefits—even
when	that	percentage	declines	from	10%	to	0%	of	calories. So	it’s	not
unreasonable	to	assume	that	the	optimum	percentage	of	animal-based
products	is	zero,	at	least	for	anyone	with	a	predisposition	for	a	degenerative
disease. But	this	has	not	been	absolutely	proven. Certainly	it	is	true	that	most	of	the
health	benefits	are	realized	at	very	low	but	non-zero	levels	of	animal-based
foods. My	advice	is	to	try	to	eliminate	all	animal-based	products	from	your	diet,
but	not	obsess	over	it. If	a	tasty	vegetable	soup	has	a	chicken	stock	base,	or	if
a	hearty	loaf	of	whole	wheat	bread	includes	a	tiny	amount	of	egg,	don’t	worry
about	it. These	quantities,	very	likely,	are	nutritionally	unimportant. Even
more	importantly,	the	ability	to	relax	about	very	minor	quantities	of	animal-
based	foods	makes	applying	this	diet	much	easier—especially	when	eating
out	or	buying	already-prepared	foods.EAT	ALL	YOU	WANT	(WHILE	GETTING	LOTS	OF	VARIETY)	OF
ANY	WHOLE,	UNREFINED	PLANT-BASED	FOOD
While	I	recommend	that	you	not	worry	about	small	quantities	of	animal
products	in	your	food,	I	am	not	suggesting	that	you	deliberately	plan	to
incorporate	small	portions	of	meat	into	your	daily	diet. My	recommendation
is	that	you	try	to	avoid	all	animal-based	products. There	are	three	excellent	reasons	to	go	all	the	way. First,	following	this
diet	requires	a	radical	shift	in	your	thinking	about	food. It’s	more	work	to	just
do	it	halfway. If	you	plan	for	animal-based	products,	you’ll	eat	them—and
you’ll	almost	certainly	eat	more	than	you	should. Second,	you’ll	feel
deprived. Instead	of	viewing	your	new	food	habit	as	being	able	to	eat	all	the
plant-based	food	you	want,	you’ll	be	seeing	it	in	terms	of	having	to	limit
yourself,	which	is	not	conducive	to	staying	on	the	diet	long-term. If	your	friend	had	been	a	smoker	all	of	his	or	her	life	and	looked	to	you	foradvice,	would	you	tell	them	to	cut	down	to	only	two	cigarettes	a	day,	or
would	you	tell	them	to	quit	smoking	all	together? It’s	in	this	way	that	I’m
telling	you	that	moderation,	even	with	the	best	intentions,	sometimes	makes	it
more	difficult	to	succeed.CAN	YOU	DO	THIS? For	most	Americans,	the	idea	of	giving	up	virtually	all	meat	products—
including	beef,	chicken,	fish,	cheese,	milk	and	eggs—seems	impossible. You
might	as	well	ask	Americans	to	stop	breathing. The	whole	idea	seems	strange,
fanatical	or	fantastic. This	is	the	biggest	obstacle	to	the	adoption	of	a	plant-based	diet:	most
people	who	hear	about	it	don’t	seriously	consider	it,	despite	the	truly
impressive	health	benefits. If	you	are	one	of	these	people—if	you	are	curious	about	these	findings	but
know	in	your	heart	that	you	will	never	be	able	to	give	up	meat-then	I	know
that	no	amount	of	talk	will	ever	convince	you	to	change	your	mind. You	have	to	try	it. Give	it	one	month. You’ve	been	eating	cheeseburgers	your	whole	life;	a
month	without	them	won’t	kill	you. A	month	isn’t	enough	time	to	give	you	any	long-term	benefits,	but	it	is
long	enough	for	you	to	discover	four	things:
1
. There	are	some	great	foods	you	can	eat	in	a	plant-based	diet	that	you
otherwise	may	never	have	discovered. You	may	not	be	eating	everything
you	want	(desire	for	meat	may	last	longer	than	a	month),	but	you	will	be
eating	lots	of	great,	delicious	foods. 2
. It’s	not	all	that	bad. Some	people	take	to	this	diet	quite	quickly	and	love
it. Many	take	months	to	fully	adjust	to	it. But	almost	everyone	will	find
that	it’s	a	lot	easier	than	they	thought. 3
. You’ll	feel	better. Even	after	only	a	month,	most	people	will	feel	better
and	likely	lose	some	weight,	too. Try	having	your	blood	work	done	both
before	and	after. Odds	are,	you’ll	see	significant	improvement	in	even
that	period	of	time. 4
. Most	importantly,	you’ll	discover	that	it’s	possible. You	may	love	the
diet,	or	you	may	not,	but	at	the	very	least	you’ll	come	away	from	your
one-month	trial	knowing	that	it’s	possible. You	can	do	it,	if	you	choose
to. All	the	health	benefits	discussed	in	this	book	are	not	just	for	Tibetan
monks	and	fanatical	spartans. You	can	have	them	too. It’s	your	choice. The	first	month	can	be	challenging	(more	on	this	shortly),	but	it	gets	much
easier	after	that. And	for	many,	it	becomes	a	great	pleasure. I	know	this	is	hard	to	believe	until	you	experience	it	for	yourself,	but	your
tastes	change	when	you	are	on	a	plant-based	diet. You	not	only	lose	your	taste
for	meat,	you	begin	to	discover	new	flavors	in	much	of	your	food,	flavors	that
were	dulled	when	you	ate	a	primarily	animal-based	diet. A	friend	of	mineonce	described	it	as	like	being	dragged	to	an	independent	film	when	you
wanted	to	go	to	the	latest	Hollywood	action	flick. You	go	in	muttering,	but
you	discover,	to	your	surprise,	that	the	film	is	great—and	much	more
fulfilling	than	the	“shoot	’em	up”	movie	would	have	been.THE	TRANSITION
If	you	take	me	up	on	my	suggestion	of	trying	a	plant-based	diet	for	one
month,	there	are	five	main	challenges	you’ll	likely	face:
In	the	first	week,	you	may	have	some	stomach	upset	as	your	digestive
system	adjusts. This	is	natural;	it	is	nothing	to	worry	about	and	doesn’t
usually	last	long. You’ll	need	to	put	some	time	into	this. Don’t	begrudge	this	time—heart
disease	and	cancer	take	time	too. Specifically,	you’ll	need	to	learn	some
new	recipes,	be	willing	to	try	new	dishes,	discover	new	
restaurants. You’ll	need	to	pay	attention	to	your	tastes	and	come	up	with	meals	that
you	really	enjoy. This	is	key. You’ll	need	to	adjust	psychologically. No	matter	how	full	the	plate	is,
many	of	us	were	trained	to	think	that	without	meat,	it’s	not	a	real	meal—
especially	at	dinner. You’ll	need	to	overcome	this	prejudice. You	may	not	be	able	to	go	to	the	same	restaurants	you	used	to	go	to,	and
if	you	can,	you	certainly	won’t	be	able	to	order	the	same	things. This
takes	some	adjustment. Your	friends,	family	and	colleagues	may	not	be	supportive. For	whatever
reasons,	many	people	will	find	it	threatening	that	you	are	now	a
vegetarian	or	vegan. Perhaps	it’s	because,	deep	down,	they	know	their
diet	isn’t	very	healthy	and	find	it	threatening	that	someone	else	is	able	to
give	up	unhealthy	eating	habits	when	they	cannot. I’d	also	like	to	offer	you	a	few	pieces	of	advice	for	your	first	month:
In	the	long	term,	plant-based	eating	is	cheaper	than	an	animal-based	diet,
but	as	you	learn	you	may	spend	a	little	extra	money	trying	things. Do	it. It’s	worth	it. Eat	well. If	you	eat	out,	try	lots	of	restaurants	to	find	some	great	vegan
dishes. Often,	ethnic	restaurants	not	only	offer	the	most	options	for
plant-based	meals,	but	the	unique	tastes	are	exquisite. Learn	what’s	out
there. Eat	enough. One	of	your	health	goals	may	be	to	lose	weight. That’s	fine,
and	on	a	plant-based	diet	you	almost	certainly	will. But	don’t	hold	back
—whatever	you	do,	don’t	go	hungry. Eat	a	variety. Mixing	it	up	is	important	both	for	getting	all	the	necessary
nutrients	and	for	maintaining	your	interest	in	the	diet.
_OceanofPDF.com_The_China_Study__The_Most_Comprehensive_St_-_T_Colin_Campbell.txt
Summarize the following text section accurately and concisely. Maintain specific details and numerical information, and use anti-repetition mechanisms:

        Spinach	or	collard	greens	conferred	the	most
protection. There	was	88%	less	disease	for	people	who	ate	these	greens	five
or	more	times	per	week	when	compared	with	people	who	consumed	these
greens	less	than	once	per	month. The	only	food	group	not	showing	a
preventive	effect	was	the	cabbage/cauliflower/brussels	sprout	group,	which
sports	the	least	color	of	the	six	food	groups. 43
These	researchers	also	looked	at	the	potential	protection	from	disease	as	a
result	of	the	consumption	of	five	of	the	individual	carotenoids	consumed	in
these	foods. All	but	one	of	these	five	showed	a	highly	
significant	protective
effect,	especially	the	carotenoids	found	in	the	dark	green	leafy	vegetables. In
contrast,	supplements	of	a	few	vitamins,	including	retinol	(preformed
“vitamin”	A),	vitamin	C	and	vitamin	E	showed	little	or	no	beneficial	effects. Yet	again,	we	see	that	while	supplements	may	give	great	wealth	to
supplement	manufacturers,	they	will	not	give	great	health	to	you	and	me. When	all	was	said	and	done,	this	study	found	that	
macular	degeneration
risk	could	be	reduced	by	as	much	as	88%,	simply	by	eating	the	right	foods. 41
At	this	point	you	may	be	wondering,	“Where	can	I	get	some	of	those
carotenoids. ”	Green	leafy	vegetables,	carrots	and	citrus	fruits	are	all	good
sources. Herein	lies	a	problem,	however. Among	the	hundreds	(maybe
thousands)	of	antioxidant	carotenoids	in	these	foods,	only	a	dozen	or	so	have
been	studied	in	relation	to	their	biological	effects. The	abilities	of	these
chemicals	to	scavenge	and	reduce	free	radical	damage	are	well	established,
but	the	activities	of	the	individual	carotenoids	vary	enormously	depending	on
dietary	and	lifestyle	conditions. Such	variations	make	it	virtually	impossible
to	predict	their	individual	activities,	either	good	or	bad. The	logic	of	using
them	as	supplements	is	much	too	particular	and	superficial. It	ignores	the
dynamic	of	nature. It’s	much	safer	to	consume	these	carotenoids	in	their
natural	context,	in	highly	colored	fruits	and	vegetables. The	second	study
42
	compared	a	total	of	421	macular	degeneration	patients
(cases)	with	615	controls. Five	of	the	leading	clinical	centers	specializing	in
eye	diseases	and	their	researchers	participated	in	this	study. The	researchers
measured	the	levels	of	antioxidants	in	the	blood,	rather	than	the	antioxidants
consumed. Four	kinds	of	antioxidants	were	measured:	carotenoids,	vitamin	C,
selenium	and	vitamin	E. Except	for	selenium,	each	of	these	nutrient	groups
was	associated	with	fewer	cases	of	macular	degeneration,	although	only	the
carotenoids	showed	statistically	significant	results. Risk	of	macular
degeneration	was	reduced	by	two-thirds	for	those	people	with	the	highest
levels	of	carotenoids	in	their	blood,	when	compared	with	the	low-carotenoidgroup. This	reduction	of	about	65–70%	in	this	study	is	similar	to	the	reduction	of
upwards	of	88%	in	the	first	study. These	two	studies	consistently
demonstrated	the	benefits	of	antioxidant	carotenoids	consumed	as	food. Given	experimental	limitations,	we	can	only	approximate	the	proportion	of
macular	degeneration	caused	by	poor	dietary	habits,	and	we	cannot	know
which	antioxidants	are	involved. What	we	can	say,	however,	
is	that	eating
antioxidant-containing	foods,	especially	those	containing	the	carotenoids,	will
prevent	most	blindness	cases	resulting	from	macular	degeneration. This	in
itself	is	a	remarkable	recommendation. Cataracts	are	slightly	less	serious	than	macular	degeneration	because	there
are	effective	surgical	options	available	to	restore	vision	loss	caused	by	this
disease. But	when	you	look	at	the	numbers,	cataracts	are	a	much	larger
burden	on	our	society. By	the	age	of	eighty,	half	of	all	Americans	will	have
cataracts. 39
	Currently	there	are	20	million	Americans	age	forty	and	older	with
the	disease. Cataract	formation	involves	the	clouding	of	the	eye	lens. Corrective
surgery	involves	removing	the	cloudy	lens	and	replacing	it	with	an	artificial
lens. The	development	of	the	opaque	condition,	like	the	degeneration	of	the
macula	and	so	many	other	disease	conditions	in	our	body,	is	closely
associated	with	the	damage	created	by	an	excess	of	reactive	free	radicals. 44
Once	again,	it	is	reasonable	to	assume	that	eating	antioxidant-containing
foods	should	be	helpful. Starting	in	1988,	researchers	in	Wisconsin	began	to	study	eye	health	and
dietary	intakes	in	over	1,300	people. Ten	years	later,	they	published	a	report
45
on	their	findings. The	people	who	consumed	the	most	lutein,	a	specific	type
of	antioxidant,	had	one-half	the	rate	of	cataracts	as	the	people	who	consumed
the	least	lutein. Lutein	is	an	interesting	chemical	because,	in	addition	to	being
readily	available	in	spinach,	along	with	other	dark	leafy	green	vegetables,	it
also	is	an	integral	part	of	the	lens	tissue	itself. 46,	47
	Similarly,	those	who
consumed	the	most	spinach	had	40%	less	cataracts. These	two	eye	conditions,	macular	degeneration	and	cataracts,	both	occur
when	we	fail	to	consume	enough	of	the	highly	colored	green	and	leafy
vegetables. In	both	cases,	excess	free	radicals,	increased	by	animal-based
foods	and	decreased	by	plant-based	foods,	are	likely	to	be	responsible	for
these	conditions. MIND-ALTERING	DIETS
By	the	time	this	book	hits	the	shelves,	I	will	be	seventy	years	old. I	recently
went	to	my	high	school’s	fiftieth	reunion,	where	I	learned	that	many	of	my
classmates	had	died. I	receive	the	AARP	magazine,	get	discounts	on	various
products	for	being	advanced	in	age	and	receive	social	security	checks	every
month. Some	euphemists	might	call	me	a	“mature	adult. ”	I	just	say	old. What
does	it	mean	to	be	old. I	still	run	every	morning,	sometimes	six	or	more	miles
a	day. I	still	have	an	active	
work	life,	perhaps	more	active	than	ever. I	still
enjoy	all	the	same	leisure	activities,	whether	visiting	grandchildren,	dining
with	friends,	gardening,	traveling,	golfing,	lecturing	or	making	outdoor
improvements	like	building	fences	or	tinkering	with	this	or	that	as	I	used	to
do	on	the	farm. Some	things	have	changed,	though. Clearly	there	is	a
difference	between	the	seventy-year-old	me	and	the	twenty-year-old	me. I	am
slower,	not	as	strong,	work	fewer	hours	every	day	and	am	prone	to	taking
naps	more	frequently	than	I	used	to. We	all	know	that	getting	old	brings	with	it	diminished	capacities	compared
with	our	younger	days. But	there	is	good	science	to	show	that	thinking	clearly
well	into	our	later	years	is	not	something	we	need	to	give	up. Memory	loss,
disorientation	and	confusion	are	not	inevitable	parts	of	aging,	but	problems
linked	to	that	all-important	lifestyle	factor:	diet. There	is	now	good	dietary	information	for	the	two	chief	conditions
referring	to	mental	decline. On	the	modest	side,	there	is	a	condition	called
“cognitive	impairment”	or	“cognitive	dysfunction. ”	This	condition	describes
the	declining	ability	to	remember	and	think	as	well	as	one	once	did. It
represents	a	continuum	of	disease	ranging	from	cases	that	only	hint	at
declining	abilities	to	those	that	are	much	more	obvious	and	easily	diagnosed. Then	there	are	mental	dysfunctions	that	become	serious,	even	life
threatening. These	are	called	dementia,	of	which	there	are	two	main	types:
vascular	dementia	and	Alzheimer’s	disease. Vascular	dementia	is	primarily
caused	by	multiple	little	strokes	resulting	from	broken	blood	vessels	in	the
brain. It	is	common	for	elderly	people	to	have	“silent”	strokes	in	their	later
years. A	stroke	is	considered	silent	if	it	goes	undetected	and	undiagnosed. Each	little	stroke	incapacitates	part	of	the	brain. The	other	type	of	dementia,
Alzheimer’s,	occurs	when	a	protein	substance	called	beta-amyloid
accumulates	in	critical	areas	of	the	brain	as	a	plaque,	rather	like	the
cholesterol-laden	plaque	that	builds	up	in	cardiovascular	diseases. Alzheimer’s	is	surprisingly	common. It	is	said	that	1%	of	people	at	age
sixty-five	have	evidence	of	Alzheimer’s,	a	figure	that	doubles	every	five	years
thereafter. 48
	I	suppose	this	is	why	we	blandly	accept	“senility”	as	part	of	theaging	process. It	has	been	estimated	that	10–12%	of	individuals	with	mild	cognitive
impairment	progress	to	the	more	serious	types	of	dementia,	whereas	only	1–
2%	of	individuals	without	cognitive	impairment	acquire	these	
diseases. 49,	50
This	means	that	people	with	cognitive	impairment	have	about	a	tenfold	risk	of
Alzheimer’s. Not	only	does	cognitive	impairment	often	lead	to	more	serious	dementia,
it	is	also	associated	with	cardiovascular	disease,
51–53
	stroke
54
	and	adult-onset
Type	2	diabetes. 55,	56
	All	of	these	diseases	cluster	in	the	same	populations,
oftentimes	in	the	same	people. This	clustering	means	that	they	share	some	of
the	same	risk	factors. Hypertension	(high	blood	pressure)	is	one	factor
51,	57,
58
;	another	is	high	blood	cholesterol. 53
	Both	of	these,	of	course,	can	be
controlled	by	diet. A	third	risk	factor	is	the	amount	of	those	nasty	free	radicals,	which	wreak
havoc	on	brain	function	in	our	later	years. Because	free	radical	damage	is	so
important	to	the	process	of	cognitive	dysfunction	and	dementia,	researchers
believe	that	consuming	dietary	antioxidants	can	shield	our	brains	from	this
damage,	as	in	other	diseases. Animal-based	foods	lack	antioxidant	shields	and
tend	to	activate	free	radical	production	and	cell	damage,	while	plant-based
foods,	with	their	abundant	antioxidants,	tend	to	prevent	such	damage. It’s	the
same	dietary	cause	and	effect	that	we	saw	with	macular	degeneration. Of	course,	genetics	plays	a	role,	and	specific	genes	have	been	identified
that	may	increase	the	risk	of	cognitive	decline. 52
	But	environmental	factors
also	play	a	key	role,	most	probably	the	dominant	one. In	a	recent	study,	it	was	found	that	Japanese	American	men	living	in
Hawaii	had	a	higher	rate	of	Alzheimer’s	disease	than	Japanese	living	in
Japan. 59
	Another	study	found	that	native	Africans	had	significantly	lower
rates	of	dementia	and	Alzheimer’s	than	African	Americans	in	Indiana. 60
	Both
of	these	findings	clearly	support	the	idea	that	environment	plays	an	important
role	in	cognitive	disorders. Worldwide,	the	prevalence	patterns	of	cognitive	disorders	appear	to	be
similar	to	other	Western	diseases. Rates	of	Alzheimer’s	are	low	in	less
developed	areas. 61
	A	recent	study	compared	Alzheimer’s	rates	to	dietary
variables	across	eleven	different	countries	and	found	that	populations	with	a
high	fat	intake	and	low	cereal	and	grain	intake	had	higher	rates	of	the
disease. 62,	63
We	seem	to	be	on	to	something. Clearly,	diet	has	an	important	voice	in
determining	how	well	we	think	in	our	later	years. But	what	exactly	is	good	for
us. With	regard	to	the	more	mild	cognitive	impairment	condition,	recent
research	has	shown	that	high	vitamin	E	levels	in	the	blood	are	related	to	less
memory	loss. 64
	Less	memory	loss	also	is	associated	with	higher	
levels	of
vitamin	C	and	selenium,	both	of	which	reduce	free	radical	activity. 65
	Vitamins
E	and	C	are	antioxidants	found	almost	exclusively	in	plant	foods,	while
selenium	is	found	in	both	animal-	and	plant-based	foods. In	a	study	of	260	elderly	people	aged	sixty-five	to	ninety	years,	it	was
reported	that:	“A	diet	with	less	fat,	saturated	fat	and	cholesterol,	and	more
carbohydrate,	fiber,	vitamins	(especially	folate,	vitamins	C	and	E	and	beta-
carotenes)	and	minerals	(iron	and	zinc)	may	be	advisable	not	only	to	improve
the	general	health	of	the	elderly	but	also	to	improve	cognitive	function. ”
66
This	conclusion	advocates	plant-based	foods	and	condemns	animal-based
foods	for	optimal	brain	function. Yet	another	study	on	several	hundred	older
people	found	that	scores	on	mental	tests	were	higher	among	those	people	who
consumed	the	most	vitamin	C	and	beta-carotene. 67
	Other	studies	have	also
found	that	a	low	level	of	vitamin	C	in	the	blood	is	linked	to	poorer	cognitive
performance	in	old	age,
68,	69
	and	some	have	found	that	B	vitamins,
69
including	beta-carotene,
70
	are	linked	to	better	cognitive	function. The	seven	studies	mentioned	above	all	show	that	one	or	more	nutrients
found	almost	exclusively	in	plants	are	associated	with	a	lower	risk	of
cognitive	decline	in	old	age. Experimental	animal	studies	have	not	only
confirmed	that	plant	foods	are	good	for	the	brain,	but	they	show	the
mechanisms	by	which	these	foods	work. 71,	72
	Although	there	are	important
variations	in	some	of	these	study	findings—for	example,	one	study	only	finds
an	association	for	vitamin	C,	and	another	only	finds	an	association	for	beta-
carotene	and	not	vitamin	C—we	shouldn’t	miss	the	forest	by	focusing	on	one
or	two	trees. No	study	has	ever	found	that	consuming	more	dietary
antioxidants	increases	memory	loss. When	associations	are	observed,	it	is
always	the	other	way	around. Furthermore,	the	association	appears	to	be
significant,	although	more	substantial	research	must	be	done	before	we	can
know	exactly	how	much	cognitive	impairment	is	due	to	diet. What	about	the	more	serious	dementia	caused	by	strokes	(vascular
dementia)	and	Alzheimer’s. How	does	diet	affect	these	diseases. The
dementia	that	is	caused	by	the	same	vascular	problems	that	lead	to	stroke	is
clearly	affected	by	diet. In	a	publication	from	the	famous	Framingham	Study,
researchers	conclude	that	for	every	three	additional	servings	of	fruits	and
vegetables	a	day,	the	risk	of	stroke	will	be	reduced	by	22%. 73
	Three	servings
of	fruits	and	vegetables	is	less	than	you	might	think. The	following	examples
count	as	one	serving	in	this	study:	1/2	cup	peaches,	
1/4	cup	tomato	sauce,	1/2cup	broccoli	or	one	potato. 73
	Half	a	cup	is	not	much	food. In	fact,	the	men	in
this	study	who	consumed	the	most	fruits	and	vegetables	consumed	as	many	as
nineteen	servings	a	day. If	every	three	servings	lower	the	risk	by	22%,	the
benefits	can	add	up	fast	(risk	reduction	approaches	but	cannot	exceed	100%). This	study	provides	evidence	that	the	health	of	the	arteries	and	vessels	that
transport	blood	to	and	from	your	brain	is	dependent	on	how	well	you	eat. By
extension,	it	is	logical	to	assume	that	eating	fruits	and	vegetables	will	protect
against	dementia	caused	by	poor	vascular	health. Research	again	seems	to
prove	the	point. Scientists	conducted	mental	health	exams	and	assessed	food
intake	for	over	5,000	older	people	and	monitored	their	health	for	over	two
years. They	found	that	the	people	who	consumed	the	most	total	fat	and
saturated	fat	had	the	highest	risk	of	dementia	due	to	vascular	problems. 74
Alzheimer’s	disease	is	also	related	to	diet	and	is	often	found	in
conjunction	with	heart	disease,
53
	which	suggests	that	they	share	the	same
causes. We	know	what	causes	heart	disease,	and	we	know	what	offers	the	best
hope	of	reversing	heart	disease:	diet. Experimental	animal	studies	have
convincingly	shown	that	a	high-cholesterol	diet	will	promote	the	production
of	the	beta-amyloid	common	to	Alzheimer’s. 53
	In	confirming	these
experimental	animal	results,	a	study	of	more	than	5,000	people	found	that
greater	dietary	fat	and	cholesterol	intake	tended	to	increase	the	risk	of
Alzheimer’s	disease	specifically,
75
	and	all	dementia	in	general. 74
In	another	study	on	Alzheimer’s,
76
	the	risk	of	getting	the	disease	was	3. 3
times	greater	among	people	whose	blood	folic	acid	levels	were	in	the	lowest
one-third	range	and	4. 5	times	greater	when	blood	homocysteine	levels	were	in
the	highest	one-third. What	are	folic	acid	and	homocysteine. Folic	acid	is	a
compound	derived	exclusively	from	plant-based	foods	such	as	green	and
leafy	vegetables. Homocysteine	is	an	amino	acid	that	is	derived	primarily
from	animal	protein. 77
	This	study	found	that	it	was	desirable	to	maintain	low
blood	homocysteine	and	high	blood	folic	acid. In	other	words,	the
combination	of	a	diet	high	in	animal-based	foods	and	low	in	plant-based
foods	raises	the	risk	of	Alzheimer’s	disease. 78
Mild	cognitive	impairment,	the	stuff	jokes	are	made	of,	still	permits	the
afflicted	person	to	maintain	an	independent,	functional	life,	but	dementia	and
Alzheimer’s	are	tragic,	imposing	almost	impossibly	heavy	burdens	on	victims
and	their	loved	ones. Across	this	spectrum,	from	
minor	difficulties	in	keeping
your	thoughts	in	order	to	serious	degeneration,	the	food	you	eat	can
drastically	affect	the	likelihood	of	mental	decline. The	diseases	I’ve	covered	in	this	chapter	take	a	heavy	toll	on	most	of	us	in
our	later	years,	even	though	they	may	not	be	fatal. Because	they	are	notusually	fatal,	many	people	afflicted	with	these	illnesses	still	live	a	long	life. Their	quality	of	life,	however,	deteriorates	steadily,	until	the	illness	renders
them	largely	dependent	on	others	and	unable	to	function	in	most	capacities. I’ve	talked	to	so	many	people	who	say,	“I	may	not	live	as	long	as	you
health	nuts,	but	I	sure	am	going	to	enjoy	the	time	I	have	by	eating	steaks
whenever	I	want,	smoking	if	I	so	choose	and	doing	anything	else	that	I	want. ”
I	grew	up	with	these	people,	went	to	school	with	these	people	and	made	great
friends	with	these	people. Not	long	ago,	one	of	my	best	friends	suffered	a
difficult	surgery	for	cancer	and	spent	his	last	years	paralyzed	in	a	nursing
home. During	the	many	visits	I	made	to	the	nursing	home,	I	never	failed	to
come	away	with	a	deep	appreciation	for	the	health	I	still	possess	in	my	old
age. It	was	not	uncommon	for	me	to	go	to	the	nursing	home	to	visit	my	friend
and	hear	that	one	of	the	new	patients	in	the	home	was	someone	whom	my
friend	and	I	knew	from	our	earlier	days. Too	often,	they	had	Alzheimer’s	and
were	housed	in	a	special	section	of	the	facility. The	enjoyment	of	life,	especially	the	second	half	of	life,	is	greatly
compromised	if	we	can’t	see,	if	we	can’t	think,	if	our	kidneys	don’t	work	or	if
our	bones	are	broken	or	fragile. I,	for	one,	hope	that	I	am	able	to	fully	enjoy
not	only	the	time	in	the	present,	but	also	the	time	in	the	future,	with	good
health	and	independence. Part	III
THE	GOOD	NUTRITION	GUIDE
I	
WAS	IN	A	RESTAURANT	RECENTLY
,	looking	at	the	menu,	when	I	noticed	a	very
peculiar	“low-carb”	meal	option:	a	massive	plate	of	pasta	topped	with
vegetables,	otherwise	known	as	pasta	primavera. The	vast	majority	of	calories
in	the	meal	clearly	came	from	carbohydrates. How	could	it	be	“low-carb”. Was	it	a	misprint. I	didn’t	think	so. At	various	other	times	I’ve	noted	that
salads,	breads	and	even	cinnamon	buns	are	labeled	“low-carb,”	even	though
their	ingredient	lists	demonstrate	that,	in	fact,	the	bulk	of	calories	are
provided	by	carbohydrates. What’s	going	on. This	“carb”	mania	is	largely	the	result	of	the	late	Dr. Atkins	and	his	dietary
message. But	recently	
Dr. Atkins’	New	Diet	Revolution
	has	been	toppled	and
replaced	by	
The	South	Beach	Diet
	as	the	king	of	the	diet	books. The	South
Beach	Diet	is	pitched	as	being	more	moderate,	easier	to	follow	and	safer	than
Atkins,	but	from	what	I	can	tell,	the	weight-loss	“wolf”	has	just	put	on	a
different	set	of	sheep’s	clothing. Both	of	the	diets	are	divided	into	three
stages,	both	diets	severely	limit	carbohydrate	intake	during	the	first	phase,
and	both	diets	are	heavily	based	on	meat,	dairy	and	eggs. The	South	Beach
Diet,	for	example,	prohibits	bread,	rice,	potatoes,	pasta,	baked	goods,	sugar
and	even	fruit	during	the	first	two	weeks. After	that,	you	can	be	weaned	back
onto	carbohydrates	until	you	are	eating	what	appears	to	me	to	be	a	fairly
typical	American	diet. Perhaps	this	is	why	
The	South	Beach	Diet
	is	such	a	hot
seller. According	to	
The	South	Beach	Diet
	Web	site,	
Newsweek
	wrote,	“the
real	value	of	the	book	is	its	sound	nutritional	advice. It	retains	the	best	part	of
the	Atkins	regime—meat—while	losing	the	tenet	that	all	carbs	should	be
avoided. ”
1
Who	at	
Newsweek
	reviewed	the	literature	to	know	whether	this	is	sound
nutritional	advice	or	not. And	if	you	have	the	Atkins	Diet	plus	some	“carbs,”
how	different	is	this	diet	from	the	standard	American	diet,	the	toxic	diet	that
has	been	shown	to	make	us	fat,	give	us	heart	disease,	destroy	our	kidneys,make	us	blind	and	lead	us	to	Alzheimer’s,	cancer	and	a	host	of	other	medical
problems. These	are	merely	examples	of	the	current	state	of	nutrition	awareness	in
the	United	States. Every	day	I	am	reminded	that	Americans	are	drowning	in	a
flood	of	horrible	nutrition	information. I	remember	the	adage	told	several
decades	ago:	Americans	love	hogwash. Another	one:	Americans	love	to	hear
good	things	about	their	bad	habits. It	would	appear	from	a	quick	glance	that
these	two	sayings	are	true. Or	are	they. I	have	more	faith	in	the	average	American. It’s	not	true	that	Americans
love	hogwash—it’s	that	hogwash	inundates	Americans,	whether	they	want	it
or	not. I	know	that	some	Americans	want	the	truth,	and	just	haven’t	been	able
to	find	it	because	it	is	drowned	out	by	the	hogwash. Very	little	of	the	nutrition
information	that	makes	it	to	the	public	consciousness	is	soundly	based	in
science,	and	we	pay	a	grave	price. One	day	olive	oil	is	terrible,	the	next	it	is
heart	healthy. One	day	eggs	will	clog	your	arteries,	the	next	they	are	a	good
source	of	protein. One	day	potatoes	and	rice	are	great,	the	next	they	are	the
gravest	threats	to	your	weight	you	will	ever	face. At	the	beginning	of	the	book	I	said	my	goal	was	to	redefine	how	we	think
of	nutrition	information—eliminate	confusion,	make	health	simple	and	base
my	claims	on	the	evidence	generated	by	peer-reviewed	nutrition	research
published	in	peer-reviewed,	professional	publications. So	far,	you	have	seen	a
broad	sample—and	it’s	only	a	sample—of	that	evidence. You	have	seen	that
there	is	overwhelming	scientific	support	for	one,	simple	optimal	diet—a
whole	foods,	plant-based	diet. I	want	to	condense	the	nutritional	lessons	learned	from	this	broad	range	of
evidence	and	from	my	experiences	over	the	past	forty-plus	years	into	a	simple
guide	to	good	nutrition. I	have	whittled	my	knowledge	down	to	several	core
principles,	principles	that	will	illuminate	how	nutrition	and	health	truly
operate. Furthermore,	I	have	translated	the	science	into	dietary
recommendations	that	you	can	begin	to	incorporate	into	your	own	life. Not
only	will	you	gain	a	new	understanding	of	nutrition	and	health,	but	you	will
also	see	exactly	which	foods	you	should	eat	and	which	foods	you	should
avoid. What	you	decide	to	do	with	this	information	is	up	to	you,	but	you	can
at	least	know	that	you,	as	a	reader	and	a	person,	have	finally	been	told
something	other	than	hogwash. 11
Eating	Right:	Eight	Principles	of	Food	and
Health
T
HE	BENEFITS	OF	A	HEALTHY	LIFESTYLE
	are	enormous. I	want	you	to	know	that
you	can:
live	longer
look	and	feel	younger
have	more	energy
lose	weight
lower	your	blood	cholesterol
prevent	and	even	reverse	heart	disease
lower	your	risk	of	prostate,	breast	and	other	cancers
preserve	your	eyesight	in	your	later	years
prevent	and	treat	diabetes
avoid	surgery	in	many	instances
vastly	decrease	the	need	for	pharmaceutical	drugs
keep	your	bones	strong
avoid	impotence
avoid	stroke
prevent	kidney	stones
keep	your	baby	from	getting	Type	1	diabetes
alleviate	constipation
lower	your	blood	pressure
avoid	Alzheimer’s
beat	arthritis
and	more…These	are	only	some	of	the	benefits,	and	all	of	them	can	be	yours. The
price. Simply	changing	your	diet. I	don’t	know	that	it	has	ever	been	so	easy
or	so	relatively	effortless	to	achieve	such	profound	benefits. I	have	given	you	a	sampling	of	the	evidence	and	told	you	the	journey	that	I
have	taken	to	come	to	my	conclusions. Now	I	want	to	summarize	the	lessons
about	food,	health	and	disease	that	I	have	learned	along	the	way	in	the
following	eight	principles. These	principles	should	inform	the	way	we	do
science,	the	way	we	treat	the	sick,	the	way	we	feed	ourselves,	the	way	we
think	about	health	and	the	way	we	perceive	the	world. PRINCIPLE	#1
___________
Nutrition	represents	the	combined	activities	of	countless	food	substances. The	whole	is	greater	than	the	sum	of	its	parts. To	illustrate	this	principle	I	only	need	to	take	you	through	the	biochemical
perspective	of	a	meal. Let’s	say	you	prepare	sautéed	spinach	with	ginger	and
whole	grain	ravioli	shells	stuffed	with	butternut	squash	and	spices,	topped
with	a	walnut	tomato	sauce. The	spinach	alone	is	a	cornucopia	of	various	chemical	components. Chart
11. 1
	is	only	a	
partial	list
	of	what	you	might	find	in	your	mouth	after	a	bite	of
spinach. As	you	can	see,	you’ve	just	introduced	a	bundle	of	nutrients	into	your
body. In	addition	to	this	extremely	complex	mix,	when	you	take	a	bite	of	that
ravioli	with	its	tomato	sauce	and	squash	filling,	you	get	thousands	and
thousands	of	additional	chemicals,	all	connected	in	different	ways	in	each
different	food—truly	a	biochemical	bonanza. As	soon	as	this	food	hits	your	saliva,	your	body	begins	working	its	magic,
and	the	process	of	digestion	starts. Each	of	these	food	chemicals	interacts
with	the	other	food	chemicals	and	your	body’s	chemicals	in	very	specific
ways. It	is	an	infinitely	complex	process,	and	it	is	literally	impossible	to
understand	precisely	how	each	chemical	interacts	with	every	other	chemical. We	will	never	discover	exactly	how	it	all	fits	together. CHART	11. 1:	NUTRIENTS	IN	SPINACH
Macronutrients
Water
Fat	(many	kinds)
Calories
Carbohydrate
Protein	(many	kinds)
Fiber
Minerals
Calcium
Sodium
Iron
Zinc
Magnesium
Copper
Phosphorus
Manganese
Potassium
Selenium
VitaminsC	(Ascorbic	Acid)
B-6	(Pyridoxine)
B-l	(Thiamin)
Folate
B-2	(Riboflavin)
A	(as	carotenoids)
B-3	(Niacin)
E	(tocopherols)
Pantothenic	acid
Fatty	Acids
14:0	(Myristic	acid)
18:1	(Oleic	acid)
16:0	(Palmitic	acid)
20:1	(Eicosenoic	acid)
18:0	(Stearic	acid)
18:2	(Linoleic	acid)
16:1	(Palmitoleic	acid)
18:3	(Linolenic	acid)
Amino	acids
Tryptophan
Valine
Threonine
Arginine
Isoleucine
Histidine
Leucine
Alanine
Lysine
Aspartic	acid
Methionine
Glutamic	acid
Cystine
Glycine
Phenylalanine
Proline
Tyrosine
Serine
Phytosterols	(many	kinds)
The	main	message	I’m	trying	to	get	across	is	this:	the	chemicals	we	get
from	the	foods	we	eat	are	engaged	in	a	series	of	reactions	that	work	in	concert
to	produce	good	health. These	chemicals	are	carefully	orchestrated	by
intricate	controls	within	our	cells	and	all	through	our	bodies,	and	these
controls	decide	what	nutrient	goes	where,	how	much	of	each	nutrient	is
needed	and	when	each	reaction	takes	place. Our	bodies	have	evolved	with	this	infinitely	complex	network	of	reactions
in	order	to	derive	maximal	benefit	from	whole	foods,	as	they	appear	in	nature. The	misguided	may	trumpet	the	virtues	of	one	specific	nutrient	or	chemical,
but	this	thinking	is	too	simplistic. Our	bodies	have	learned	how	to	benefit
from	the	chemicals	in	food	as	they	are	packaged	together,	discarding	some
and	using	others	as	they	see	ht. I	cannot	stress	this	enough,	as	it	is	the
foundation	of	understanding	what	good	nutrition	means. PRINCIPLE	#2
___________
Vitamin	supplements	are	not	a	panacea	for	good	health. Because	nutrition	operates	as	an	infinitely	complex	biochemical	system
involving	thousands	of	chemicals	and	thousands	of	effects	on	your	health,	it
makes	little	or	no	sense	that	isolated	nutrients	taken	as	supplements	can
substitute	for	whole	foods. Supplements	will	not	lead	to	long-lasting	health
and	may	cause	unforeseen	side	effects. Furthermore,	for	those	relying	on
supplements,	beneficial	and	sustained	diet	change	is	postponed. The	dangers
of	a	Western	diet	cannot	be	overcome	by	consuming	nutrient	pills. As	I	have	watched	the	interest	in	nutrient	supplements	explode	over	the
past	twenty	to	thirty	years,	it	has	become	abundantly	clear	why	such	a	huge
nutrient	supplement	industry	has	emerged. Huge	profits	are	an	excellent
incentive,	and	new	government	regulations	have	paved	the	way	for	an
expanded	market. Furthermore,	consumers	want	to	continue	eating	their
customary	foods,	and	popping	a	few	supplements	makes	people	feel	better
about	the	potentially	adverse	health	effects	caused	by	their	diet. Embracing
supplements	means	the	media	can	tell	people	what	they	want	to	hear	and
doctors	have	something	to	offer	their	patients. As	a	result,	a	multibillion-
dollar	supplement	industry	is	now	
part	of	our	nutritional	landscape,	and	the
majority	of	consumers	have	been	duped	into	believing	that	they	are	buying
health. This	was	the	late	Dr. Atkins’s	formula. He	advocated	a	high-protein,
high-fat	diet—sacrificing	long-term	health	for	short-term	gain—and	then
advocated	taking	his	supplements	to	address	what	he	called,	in	his	own
words,	the	“common	dieters’	problems”	including	constipation,	sugar
cravings,	hunger,	fluid	retention,	fatigue,	nervousness	and	insomnia. 1
This	strategy	of	gaining	and	maintaining	health	with	nutrient	supplements,
however,	started	to	unravel	in	1994–1996	with	the	large-scale	investigation	of
the	effects	of	beta-carotene	(a	precursor	to	vitamin	A)	supplements	on	lung
cancer	and	other	diseases. 2,	3
	After	four	to	eight	years	of	supplement	use,	lung
cancer	had	not	decreased	as	expected;	it	had	increased. No	benefit	was	found
from	vitamins	A	and	E	for	the	prevention	of	heart	disease	either. Since	then,	a	large	number	of	additional	trials	costing	hundreds	of	millions
of	dollars	have	been	conducted	to	determine	if	vitamins	A,	C	and	E	prevent
heart	disease	and	cancer. Recently,	two	major	reviews	of	these	trials	were
published. 4,	5
	The	researchers,	in	their	words,	“could	not	determine	the
balance	of	benefits	and	harms	of	routine	use	of	supplements	of	vitamins	A,	Cor	E;	multivitamins	with	folic	acid;	or	antioxidant	combinations	for	the
prevention	of	cancer	or	cardiovascular	disease. ”
4
	Indeed,	they	even
recommended	against	the	use	of	beta-carotene	supplements. It	is	not	that	these	nutrients	aren’t	important. They	are—but	only	when
consumed	as	food,	not	as	supplements. Isolating	nutrients	and	trying	to	get
benefits	equal	to	those	of	whole	foods	reveals	an	ignorance	of	how	nutrition
operates	in	the	body. A	recent	special	article	in	the	New	
York	Times
6
documents	this	failure	of	nutrient	supplements	to	provide	any	proven	health
benefit. As	time	passes,	I	am	confident	that	we	will	continue	to	“discover”
that	relying	on	the	use	of	isolated	nutrient	supplements	to	maintain	health,
while	consuming	the	usual	Western	diet,	is	not	only	a	waste	of	money	but	is
also	potentially	dangerous. PRINCIPLE	#3
___________
There	are	virtually	no	nutrients	in	animal-based	foods	that	are	not	better
provided	by	plants. Overall,	it	is	fair	to	say	that	any	plant-based	food	has	many	more	similarities
in	terms	of	nutrient	compositions	to	other	plant-based	foods	than	it	does	to
animal-based	foods. The	same	is	true	the	other	way	around;	all	animal-based
foods	are	more	like	other	animal-based	foods	than	they	are	to	plant-based
foods. For	example,	even	though	fish	is	significantly	different	from	beef,	fish
has	many	more	similarities	to	beef	than	it	has	to	rice. Even	the	foods	that	are
“exceptions”	to	these	rules,	such	as	nuts,	seeds	and	processed	low-fat	animal
products,	remain	in	distinct	plant	and	animal	“nutrient”	groups. Eating	animals	is	a	markedly	different	nutritional	experience	from	eating
plants. The	amounts	and	kinds	of	nutrients	in	these	two	types	of	foods,	shown
in	
Chart	11. 2
,	
7,	8,	9
	illustrate	these	striking	nutritional	differences.
Eating dark green leafy vegetables, such as spinach and collard greens, which has been shown to reduce the risk of these diseases.
What is the most effective way to prevent macular degeneration and cataracts?
The author emphasizes the importance of a plant-based diet and encourages the reader to adopt a whole foods approach.
What is the key to maintaining good health, according to the author?
The author strongly advises against relying on supplements, as they are ineffective and potentially harmful.
What is the author's stance on the use of supplements?
The author believes that while genetics play a role, they are not the primary factor in determining disease; rather, environmental factors, such as diet, have a much greater impact.
What is the author's view on the role of genetics in determining disease?
The author recommends that the reader try a plant-based diet for a month, acknowledges that it may be challenging, but emphasizes the importance of persistence and exploration of new recipes and restaurants.
What is the author's advice for someone who wants to transition to a plant-based diet?