Customer Review

16 of 31 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Some good, some extreme and possibly biased, September 27, 2011
By 
This review is from: Forks Over Knives: The Plant-Based Way to Health (Paperback)
There is much good in Forks Over Knives and it points to what any educated American now knows i.e. that processed foods come from the profit-driven and not health-driven food industry and are unhealthful. Our government agencies appear to be more industry-protective than public-protective so we would do well to educate ourselves as much as possible and trust mainly our own judgment. Forks Over Knives helps us to do this. But, one of the authors is also the author of The China Study which has been discredited by some as heavily biased in favor of a vegetarian diet. So, what to do? Whom to believe and trust? Let's use common sense and recognize that any extreme view deserves skepticism. Recommending a plant-only diet is an extreme view for humans. There's nothing wrong with eating meat if it's pasture-fed (beef, veal, lamb), organically raised meat and the portions are small. Rather, I recommend reading Seeds of Deception and The World According to Monsanto which will shed light on why you must take complete charge yourself of your diet (seems obvious doesn't it?) and go natural and organic, prepare your food yourself, and eat much less.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
 

Comments

Tracked by 2 customers

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-8 of 8 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Sep 28, 2011 6:45:35 PM PDT
E. Campisi says:
Where has a plant based diet been discredited. The scientific literature is full of evidence. Where's yours? Just wondering. People who claim things are discredited don't often delve into the literature themselves, or make sure that those doing the discrediting have done due diligence. The China study is a valid study done by Cornell U researchers, and I've checked Joel Furhman's citations in Eat to Live, also from well-done studies.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2011 12:43:32 AM PDT
PHC says:
Thanks for your view. I bought and read part of The China Study. Thinking it somewhat extreme, I searched around on the internet for others' opinions on it and came across some detailed analyses that argued that the science was skewed and the conclusions forced. I have also discussed at length with several nutritionists and a cardiologist the idea of a vegetarian or vegan diet and all counsel against it arguing that humans are built for digesting and using meat and that meat provides necessary nutrients; the quality of meat is the first main issue not whether or not to eat it and the size of the portions is the second main issue. I also have several vegetarian friends who are happy with their choice but willingly admit that they have to make quite an adaptation to secure the nutrients that meat would otherwise bring them. Finally, I have been living in France and Switzerland for more than 30 years. Switzerland is a 3-culture country, German, French, and Italian. The French, the Swiss, the Italians I see all about me are mostly slender, healthy, and are almost all meat eaters. They are almost all slender, healthy, energetic, happy and are very careful and demanding about the quality and source of their food ingredients and careful about the amount they eat. Of course, part of their health probably comes from universal, readily available, prevention-oriented, affordable, and high quality health care, a dimension of modern life still missing in the U.S., but that's another subject.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2011 12:43:34 AM PDT
PHC says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2011 11:07:27 AM PDT
D. Nelson says:
1 - those who claim the China study was skewed with forced conclusions are also biased - many having ties to the food industry that could be harmed by the conclusions.
2 - Nutritionists and cardiologists who council against a vegetarian diet know nothing about nutrition. EVERY nutrient available in meat can be found in a vegetarian diet (which also includes eggs). And with the exception of a couple of amino acids, they can be found in a vegan diet. Even the person with a basic understanding of nutrition knows that. Yes meat provides necessary nutrients, but those nutrients are also found in non-meat foods as well.
3 - If your vegetarian friends had to make adaptations to meet the nutrient requirements it is probably because they aren't willing to eat certain vegetables that provide the needed nutrients - but they are available .
4 - Just because someone is slender does not mean they are healthy. Many slender, apparently healthy people go under the knife for bypass surgery every day. The western countries in Europe also have problems with cancers, heart disease and diabetes, but not in numbers quite as high as the U.S. One reason it is a little lower is they eat more fresh fruits and vegetables, LESS meat and fewer processed foods. But they haven't eliminated them completely.
5 - Healthcare isn't an issue. We have high quality health care in the U.S., it just costs WAY more than in needs to.
6 - The people at the FDA setting the standards - saying we should be eating meat and dairy, have ties to the meat and dairy industry. It is a PERSONAL FINANCIAL decision for them - not one of public health. It is people like THIS who discredited the China Study.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 3, 2011 9:46:14 AM PDT
B. Aiken says:
Here: http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/; and here: http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/2010/09/22/the-curious-case-of-campbells-rats-does-protein-deficiency-prevent-cancer/

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 3, 2011 2:02:45 PM PDT
PHC says:
Dear B. Aiken, Many thanks for these links. The more information is available, the better we can all formulate reasoned opinions and, hopefully, vote and/or militate in favor of truly natural and organic foods, pasture-fed animals, GM labelling, exposure of corruption among our Washington reps and the FDA.

Posted on Jan 3, 2012 8:38:08 AM PST
Some loser hack w less than 1st year stats background types an email critical of china study, paid for by paleo/weston price/meat industry and the meat addicts woo-hoo. Tell you what, go ahead and eat yer meat. The other overwhelming # of people actually understand reasoned scientists might have a thing or two up on the meatheads who borrow language from STAT101 textbook. The only question that remains is if those reasoned folks can maintain a diet devoid of what got forcefed them their whole lives. The answer - eat and eat and eat. The stuff in this book you can gorge yourself happy and still be healthy. Life is fun, eat well, love animals, ignore meat addicts.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 25, 2012 5:58:02 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 25, 2012 5:58:57 PM PST
A. griffin says:
No, it's actually not just refuted by those with ties to industrial meat and dairy. If it makes you feel better about the China Study, keep telling yourself that, but it's not true. Many well-respected physicians have called it's validity as the final word on the health of meat-consumption into question. And Denise Minger who wrote a pretty comprehensive refutation of the China Study, was given a lengthy response by Campbell himself, which did little to redeem the study from the destruction her criticism.

Ms Minger is completely objective, and is a raw-food vegetarian herself, that has very recently added TINY quantities of raw fish to her diet. She has no ties to corporate food, meat, or dairy whatsoever - I know this because I know her personally.

As much as you think those that discredit the China Study are tied to meat and dairy, those that find fault with Campbell's study find his ties to animal rights activism just as shady. Add to that the ambiguous nature of the funding of the China Study. Campbell has stated that the Chinese funded it. He has stated that Harvard funded it. He has stated that it was Federally funded. So which was it? Seems like a stretch to believe the science of a man who can't seem to make up his mind.

Campbell has even admitted that it was funded, in part, by PCRM, and it's associated animal rights groups.

Nope, no bias there.

The bottom line is that corporate food, and industrial dairy and meat are tragic, no one here argues that, but science has still never proven that eating well-raised and healthy meats are any less healthy than a purely vegan diet. Even the China Study didn't do that. I've read it twice, and at no point was the science conclusive. The China Study was a correlative epidemiological study, and anyone who knows anything about the scientific research process realizes that correlation does not prove causation.

And, by the way, the Swiss, German, and French populations are not just slim - they are some of the healthiest, most long-lived cultures on the planet. Science HAS proven that.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details

Item

4.4 out of 5 stars (559 customer reviews)
5 star:
 (390)
4 star:
 (82)
3 star:
 (45)
2 star:
 (25)
1 star:
 (17)
 
 
 
$14.95 $8.44
Add to cart Add to wishlist
Reviewer


Top Reviewer Ranking: 15,507,377