Forks Over Knives

[MBombardier]

I know someone who is an avid vegan. She didn't use to be, but I see from her posts on Facebook that she is now. Anyway, on one of her posts someone else commented about the movie, Forks over Knives and said that it was now available for instant view on Netflix. So we watched it last night, even my husband. I think he watched it because he had to deal with me and an intense reaction to challenging dairy that I was experiencing. Yes, I do react to casein, contrary to what I had thought. Wrong again...

Anyway, this movie made a lot of sense when they were talking about processed foods, high-fructose corn syrup, etc., but they kept throwing meat in as if it were synonymous with processed foods. There was also some misleading information, like dietary cholesterol being basically the controlling factor in blood cholesterol (although they did mention that we make cholesterol). They also seemed to say that "fullness" and "richness" were the two main reasons for satiety, so a stomach full of veggies is more satisfying than the same number of calories in processed food, or fat. They did not mention that fat exits the stomach more slowly, therefore keeping one satisfied for longer.

A couple of other problems I had with it were that they implied one can get all the amino acids one needs from plant-based protein alone, and of course--one should eat lots of grains.

I have two questions, which I hope someone can shed some light on. The first is that these two doctors did a study because of high rates of liver cancer in children in the Philippines. They each did the study (so twice) on rats fed aflatoxin and casein. They said that the studies showed that 20% protein caused cancer to grow and 5% did not. There is just something that doesn't seem valid about this. It was like they were looking for animal-based protein to cause the problem.

The second is that they talked about the rates of heart disease in Norway before, during, and after the Nazis invaded and took all the farm animals to feed their army. During the years of the occupation, the rate of heart disease went way down. To me, this is again looking for and finding what they wanted to find. It just doesnt seem valid. My husband suggested that the Norwegians switched to fish, which probably has a lot of merit.

So if anyone has any insight, I'd be obliged...

[sarkin]

I've heard about the movie from the vegan planet.

I think that even if there is some risk to eating meat (and I don't "feel" like that's a known/proven thing), I cannot knock grains, legumes, dairy and eggs off my plate and be adequately nourished with what's left - or taking it from the other angle, I cannot eat a vegan diet without grains and legumes and thrive. I suppose I could be a fish-vegan. We do attempt to eat non-factory meats, as much as we can (and we are blessed to have the option of availability and the luxury of being able to devote the budgetary resources). But I think I'm better off eating some non-boutique meat, and leaving toxic foods off my plate of all kinds.

Dr. Esselstyn's patients who have thrived so well on the vegan/no-added-oil diet were all gravely ill with heart disease when they started that regimen. I am not sure how much of what works for them is right for me. Also I found some studies persuasive that showed that higher protein diets were more important as people age. And I think for those of us with chronic/autoimmune/inflammatory MC, that goes double.

You can find a lot of debunking and defending of the movie's point of view. You can imagine, of course, what the Paleo people think (The China Study is one of the memes you can find people attacking and defending - its author concluded basically that the more animal protein, the worst health outcomes - period-end-of-story.)

Also... it's one thing to suggest that casein is a badbadbad food (in those rat experiments, and it was shown accidentally in India among children who were exposed to some toxin - the wealthier kids were *more* likely to get liver cancer than the poorer kids, and they figured out it was because they drank more milk). It's quite another to throw out all animal protein as well.

As we know (and as I'm sorry to hear you're learning afresh), one can have an awful reaction to casein and do just fine on meat cupcakes.

That is thoroughly confusing, what I just said, but I hope it helps a little!

Love,

Sara

[tex]

Hi Marliss,

I haven't seen that movie, (nor do I have any plans to view it, after reading your observations about it), but here are my thoughts on the points that you raised:

so a stomach full of veggies is more satisfying than the same number of calories in processed food, or fat

Maybe to a vegan, but that certainly doesn't work for me. I can fill up to the point of uncomfortableness, on veggies, and still not feel satiated. All that does for me is to leave me hungry, but with no room for some "satisfying" food.

A couple of other problems I had with it were that they implied one can get all the amino acids one needs from plant-based protein alone, and of course--one should eat lots of grains.

That's generally true, if one goes to the trouble of carefully analyzing what is being eaten, and carefully matching it to nutrient needs, but it makes casual eating somewhat risky, since certain essential amino acids may be accidentally overlooked. IOW, if someone does their homework, and acquires the necessary knowledge needed to regulate their diet, it can certainly be done, and it can work well, (assuming that food-sensitivities are not a major obstacle), but there are far too many vegan "experts" running around advocating the benefits, while appearing to me as if they're either sick, or starving to death. Every time I happen to catch a glimpse of Dr. Oz on tv, for example, he looks so run down, that I can't help but wonder what's wrong with him. That's kinda the way I looked, before I got my symptoms under control. (Not that I look any better now.)

They each did the study (so twice) on rats fed aflatoxin and casein. They said that the studies showed that 20% protein caused cancer to grow and 5% did not. There is just something that doesn't seem valid about this. It was like they were looking for animal-based protein to cause the problem.

That's a no-brainer, IMO. Aflatoxin is a powerful carcinogen. Casein is a potent source of protein. Cancer cells, (like any normal cells in the body), require an adequate supply of protein, in order to thrive, and propagate. That's why adequate protein is necessary for healing - without sufficient protein, diseased, or old cells in the body, that are marked for apoptosis, (programmed cell death), cannot be replaced by new cells at the normal rates needed by the body to maintain good health. Yes, you can slow down cancer, and probably prevent it, as well, by starving it, (in fact many conventional treatments utilize that "trick", but unfortunately, you starve yourself, in the process.

IMO, all that those two studies manage to prove, is that adequate protein is necessary for the growth of new cells. Period. Rats, (or any other mammal, including humans), cannot survive for long, on a diet of only 5% protein - that's a starvation diet. Anyone who has ever raised rats, (no, I have not, in case you're wondering. ), can tell you that rats require between 16 and 18% protein in their diet, in order to remain healthy. With a 20% protein diet, the rats were on a "supercharged" diet, so it's no wonder that the cancer grew so well.

Deceitful claims, backed up by self-serving, but fraudulent research of that type, are the primary reason why I have always considered health claims such as this to be little more than scams, and it's the main reason why I will never view that movie.

The second is that they talked about the rates of heart disease in Norway before, during, and after the Nazis invaded and took all the farm animals to feed their army. During the years of the occupation, the rate of heart disease went way down. To me, this is again looking for and finding what they wanted to find. It just doesnt seem valid. My husband suggested that the Norwegians switched to fish, which probably has a lot of merit.

Without knowing the medical care environment during that traumatic period of time, I can only guess at a possible reason, and I would guess that those data are simply corrupt. Any period of military occupation is an extremely unsettled time in history. Such a period is extremely stressful for the native residents. Does it make any sense at all that rates of heart disease would go down, during such a time - not to me, it doesn't, no matter how healthy the prevailing diet might be.

During an occupation, everyone fears the prevailing government, and who would seek routine medical care, knowing that everything would be reported to the Nazi authorities? The way you survive a period of occupation, is by staying completely off the radar of the occupying forces. If most of the population doesn't report routine medical issues to their doctors, then their doctors don't have any evidence of disease. When individuals in a society don't have a documented history of disease, their death is usually reported as "old age", or "natural causes", rather than as heart disease, etc. Remember, that happened roughly 65 years ago, when people still died of "old age" and "natural causes".

I could be all wet, of course, but I have a hunch that this scenario has a lot to do with the "rosy" outcome claimed by those so-called researchers. When one selects data that uniquely, it's possible to prove just about anything.

Tex

[MBombardier]

Sara, What you said made little sense until something Tex said made me go look, and I discovered that I had been laboring under the misconception that there are essential amino acids that can only be found in meat. I was a vegetarian a long time ago, after reading Diet for a Small Planet. I ate a lot of green beans and rice, which the book said was a complete protein. That would still be one of my favorite meals if I could eat either of them.

Tex--your brain may have shrunk(as you mentioned in another thread) but your cognitive abilities certainly have not. Your dissection of the rat studies is very clear, and I think your conclusion is right on the money. And of course the Norwegians did their best to stay off the radar of the Nazis. That makes so much sense, and probably skewed all sorts of data collection. "During the Nazi occupation, studies show the Norwegians only wound their clocks half as often..."

I agree with you about the look of Dr. Oz. If he looks that skinny on TV, what does he look like in real life? I have read some musings by vegans who have discovered that they are not feeling well, and have gone back to eating some meat, and their thoughts/feelings about that. I also have a friend who was vegan, and recently began eating eggs again because her body was doing some worrisome things.

Thanks, y'all...

[sarkin]

Marliss,

I was a 'Small Planet' vegetarian for many years. I recently heard (online) an interview with the author of the Vegetarian Myth. She was herself a vegan for many years (with some bad health effects), and now believes we "got the math wrong" back then. And that to achieve the kind of results we hoped to, for health and planet, the real problem is not meat-eating but factory farming. She is very political and clearly has an agenda, but she's also smart and articulate, and I found her thinking helpful in reconciling myself to my new "meatatarian" routine.

I think one can adjust to become somewhat more satisfied with a belly full of salad, just as one can adjust to a lower-carb or low/no-grain diet. It does take time... like everything else. But I don't think that makes it a good idea. Dr. Neal Barnard is looking a little gaunt, too.

Tex, your thinking is terrific - it is amazing how many conclusions are reached that seem to be based on faulty premises, compounded by poor reasoning. When *we* lay-folk talk in this way, our observations are dismissed as anecdotal; when they speculate wildly, they really do need to back it up a little better. It occurs to me that heart disease isn't typically a reflection of what we're eating now - maybe the low rates of heart disease in Norway during the war were more about the level of health (and maybe prosperity) in the pre-war years.

Love,
Sara

[tex]

It occurs to me that heart disease isn't typically a reflection of what we're eating now - maybe the low rates of heart disease in Norway during the war were more about the level of health (and maybe prosperity) in the pre-war years.

Very good point.

Love,
Tex