Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: "Forks Over Knives" vs meat vs whatever diets

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    21,835
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Co-gnARR View Post
    Some opinions I have about Forks Over Knives after watching it a few years ago:
    -The website is click bait store front with no valid data to back claims (this was 5-6 years ago; unsure what it is like now)
    -The documentary is anti-animal protein with minimal evidence provided, to the point that it felt evangelical, ie, this is the truth! Follow us to salvation! Just believe what we say!
    -Oreos are mentioned as vegan, so they must be better source of nutrition than a steak.
    -The China Study has been widely criticized and its veracity is in doubt. This is out of my lane in terms of structuring a study, collecting/evaluating data, etc, but seeing numerous criticisms from a variety of sources raises alarms for me.

    That said, your dietary choices are similar to mine, and over the years it has worked very well for me in terms of maintaining muscle mass w/o excessive fat gain, healthy blood pressure and good numbers for blood work.
    If anyone used the China Study (which was never a published study but a book BTW) as a source of information to support vegan nutrition, they automatically lose all and any validity among those who what's what. That's like using Brady Bunch web site stats to support gun control. It shows the person does not know dick about the topic.
    - Will

    General Performance/Fitness Advice for all

    www.BrinkZone.com

    LE/Mil specific info:

    https://brinkzone.com/category/swatleomilitary/

    “Those who do not view armed self defense as a basic human right, ignore the mass graves of those who died on their knees at the hands of tyrants.”

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    21,835
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by austinN4 View Post
    I would offer that the veracity of the criticism is in doubt as well.
    I have seen no support for legit criticism for those critical of the book called the China Study other than the vegan equivalent of fingers in ears " la la la I can't hear you"

    One, it was not a study, it was a book. No study published nor peer review, etc happened.

    Two, it's epidemiological, and page 1 of any epi text book will tell you correlation does not = causation. Full stop

    The author is a vegan who has been paid by PETA and an activist type, so about as objective as HC is on gun control

    Finally, his own data does not actually support the authors conclusions:

    https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the...udy-revisited/

    That's a few reasons why among legit researchers, the China Study considered a POS and to be ignored as trash.
    - Will

    General Performance/Fitness Advice for all

    www.BrinkZone.com

    LE/Mil specific info:

    https://brinkzone.com/category/swatleomilitary/

    “Those who do not view armed self defense as a basic human right, ignore the mass graves of those who died on their knees at the hands of tyrants.”

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Republic of Texas
    Posts
    4,088
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by WillBrink View Post
    I have seen no support for legit criticism for those critical of the book called the China Study other than the vegan equivalent of fingers in ears " la la la I can't hear you"

    One, it was not a study, it was a book. No study published nor peer review, etc happened.

    Two, it's epidemiological, and page 1 of any epi text book will tell you correlation does not = causation. Full stop

    The author is a vegan who has been paid by PETA and an activist type, so about as objective as HC is on gun control

    Finally, his own data does not actually support the authors conclusions:

    https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the...udy-revisited/

    That's a few reasons why among legit researchers, the China Study considered a POS and to be ignored as trash.
    All good to know.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,797
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by scooter22 View Post
    The only thing I put in my body that has multiple ingredients and comes in a package is whey and Ezekiel bread.
    Congratulations, you're not the norm. However, the mass of our society, of which I refer, doesn't follow your lead.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,793
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by tylerw02 View Post
    I'm probably alone on this, but I hate the phrase "processed foods". All food is processed unless you go to the pasture and take a bite out of a cow's ass. I wish people were more specific when calling out foods that are bad for your body.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Quote Originally Posted by tylerw02 View Post
    I get that. But define excessive...? It's vague and a blanket term that really has no meaning anymore. That's why our diets suck so bad. Anyway, rant over.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Quote Originally Posted by tylerw02 View Post
    Congratulations, you're not the norm. However, the mass of our society, of which I refer, doesn't follow your lead.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    It isn't always black and white. The general rule is the more processed the worse for you. Is a can of Spam worse for you than a fresh cut of meat? Canned veggies versus frozen, etc. The more convenient choices are usually less healthy.

    Yes most food is processed to some extent but think about why that would or wouldn't be bad for you. Like adding salt, sugar, preservatives and fat that weren't there to begin with. It appeals to more shoppers is apparently why we the public consume so much of it. That and it frequently costs less than healthier choices ironically.


    That doesn't mean all preservatives are bad but putting a bunch of chemicals in stuff just to give it a ten year shelf life is questionable.

    http://www.eatright.org/resource/foo...rocessed-foods
    Last edited by Waylander; 05-24-17 at 17:58.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    N.E. OH
    Posts
    7,595
    Feedback Score
    0
    It gets really confusing when you have "all natural" processed foods. Like "naturally smoked" bacon. Yes, it's less bad than regulag bacon, but still has nitrates, which naturally occur in smoke. Last I checked, a pig never smoked itself while rooting around a field.

    So if curing is not natural, why is smoke? The medium by which the chemicals are added? It's a very confusing topic, and I digress as I'm rambling on down the rabbit hole.

    Edit, you mentioned preservatives. Another term for them is "antioxidants". They are reducing agents.

    Some are bad. Some are good. Many are good in small amounts and bad in large amounts, like most things. Some are natural.
    Last edited by MegademiC; 05-24-17 at 18:01.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,797
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Waylander View Post
    It isn't always black and white. The general rule is the more processed the worse for you. Is a can of Spam worse for you than a fresh cut of meat? Canned veggies versus frozen, etc. The more convenient choices are usually less healthy.

    Yes most food is processed to some extent but think about why that would or wouldn't be bad for you. Like adding salt, sugar, preservatives and fat that weren't there to begin with. It appeals to more shoppers is apparently why we the public consume so much of it. That and it frequently costs less than healthier choices ironically.


    That doesn't mean all preservatives are bad but putting a bunch of chemicals in stuff just to give it a ten year shelf life is questionable.

    http://www.eatright.org/resource/foo...rocessed-foods

    Glad you can agree that generically saying "processed foods" doesn't tell the whole story.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,793
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by WillBrink View Post
    I have seen no support for legit criticism for those critical of the book called the China Study other than the vegan equivalent of fingers in ears " la la la I can't hear you"

    One, it was not a study, it was a book. No study published nor peer review, etc happened.

    Two, it's epidemiological, and page 1 of any epi text book will tell you correlation does not = causation. Full stop

    The author is a vegan who has been paid by PETA and an activist type, so about as objective as HC is on gun control

    Finally, his own data does not actually support the authors conclusions:

    https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the...udy-revisited/

    That's a few reasons why among legit researchers, the China Study considered a POS and to be ignored as trash.
    Wow, that's crazy. The book being passed off as legit is amazing.

    My take is the author of the book agrees that correlation doesn't equal causation. Except in this special case where he has manipulated data so he can ignore that rule.

    Some of the top comments on the article are also worth reading.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,815
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    Base the majority of your diet on whole natural foods that don't come in a box with multiple ingredients and preservatives.

    It's really not that hard.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    21,835
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Waylander View Post
    Wow, that's crazy. The book being passed off as legit is amazing.
    Combine people who don't know squat about research combined with cognitive dissonance, and a book called The China Study becomes legit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Waylander View Post
    My take is the author of the book agrees that correlation doesn't equal causation. Except in this special case where he has manipulated data so he can ignore that rule.

    Some of the top comments on the article are also worth reading.
    The author has been exposed for what he is a long time ago and his own data did not support his conclusions. Hence, not much else needs sayin' in my view.
    - Will

    General Performance/Fitness Advice for all

    www.BrinkZone.com

    LE/Mil specific info:

    https://brinkzone.com/category/swatleomilitary/

    “Those who do not view armed self defense as a basic human right, ignore the mass graves of those who died on their knees at the hands of tyrants.”

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •