http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/09/22/forks-over-knives-is-the-science-legit-a-review-and-critique/
The rawfoodsos site and Denise Minger keep turning up like bad pennies. I searched but couldn't find any rebuttal here on 30bananasaday. Therefore, I'd though I give it a go. First off most of Minger's rebuttals get really complicated to the point I need a break. Even so, she seems to have a band of cheerleaders or yes men that cheer her on. Do you really think the fans of Minger understand what she is saying and if her criticism is correct?
First, you have to skip a few paragraphs, to find any real criticism. I'm going to try to outline the critiques:
I. Cholesterol, that dietary cholesterol doesn't raise serum cholesterol
II. Correlation doesn't mean causation for the Philippines study
III. Rats, and that the high casein fed rats were living longer.
Linking here:
At this point I'm already overwhelmed. I need to stop and fact check everything before continuing.
IV. 19:21 Western vs Eastern diet "in rural China—at least based on the China Study data—heart disease mortality was actually inversely associated with meat intake" Minger
V. War time changes, Norwegian animal products seized
Her criticism goes on and on, I'm going to stop here. Any ideas of how to tackle this undertaking? Has anyone else debunked her criticism of FoKs?
Replies
Reality is 99% of people on the planet are more after weight loss than health. Denise is only supported by the obese crew who sit on cruise boats and want more reasons to sit on their ass and eat more bacon.
Many say Denise Minger is a meat and dairy industry shill. I can see why they say that as she seems to have some good financial motivation to continue trying to 'debunk' real science and real life examples.
She lacks passion in real life and you can hear that in her live talks. The only reason she is doing what she is doing is for financial gain. If some vegan company could pay her more than whatever she is getting now she would switch right over again.
Good to see she isnt anorexic and losing hair anymore though.
Doh, I found somebody else already has a criticism just couldn't find it before. Sorry Healthy Longevity I somehow missed your posts.
http://www.30bananasaday.com/group/debunkingthechinastudycritics/fo...
http://www.30bananasaday.com/forum/topics/denise-minger-s-serious-i...
http://healthylongevity.blogspot.com/2012/08/forks-over-knives-and-...
I'm going to go back and start analysis Minger's criticism of Forks over Knives.
I. Claim: Cholesterol is negligible
First if you look at the studies Minger links you will find cholesterol still matters, just not as much as saturated fat and HDL and LDL. Lets look at the broader picture. Just how much saturated fat do eggs contain? 8g of saturated fat out of 24g and out of 347 calories. Nutritondata.com That's a lot of saturated fat, and fat in general. Even if Minger is correct, eggs still aren't healthy. There's no fiber, no beta-carotene, and lots of fat.
Do I really need to explain why high saturated fat and high fat is bad? That the excess fat becomes intramyocellular lipid. Minger try to explain that the ratio is the same between HDL and LDL when eating eggs. Yet, I question how important the ratio is. For example given the same ratio wouldn't you want a lower total amount of cholesterol in your blood stream? Isn't lower serum cholesterol better than higher?
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/dairy-and-egg-products/111/2
Wow, Healthy Longevity you did a way better job than me.
"Minger is ignorant of the fact that literally hundreds of experiments on numerous different omnivorous species, the most relevant being non-human primates have demonstrated that dietary cholesterol has unfavorable effects on serum lipids and induces atherosclerotic lesions.15 "
http://healthylongevity.blogspot.com/2012/08/forks-over-knives-and-...
The problem seems to be yet again omega 3s. Which can be obtained from plant sources.
"This review summarizes the emerging evidence of the use of omega-3 fatty acids in the prevention of coronary heart disease." O'Keefe JH Jr1, Harris WS. Mayo Clin Proc. 2000 Jun;75(6):607-14.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10852422
Yes, omega 3s are considered healthy. This doesn't mean eggs are healthy as Minger states. Look at the 343% of daily value for cholesterol of 1028mg. Now she is not only criticizing Campbell, but the daily values. Summary of what's wrong with eggs:
A. Very high in cholesterol
B. high in saturated fat
C. high in fat
D. No fiber
E. no beta carotene antioxidants
Not only that but the one redeeming trait of eggs is omega 3s. With only 180mg omega 3's compared to 2789mg of omega 6's it is safe to conclude that eggs are a poor source of omega 3's and that the cons outweigh the pros.
Now compare eggs to flaxseeds. "Total Omega-3 fatty acids 38325 mg Total. Omega-6 fatty acids 9931 mg." nutrtiondata. As you can see flaxseeds are a much better choice of omega 3s. Not only that but saturated fat is less and has 45.9g of fiber or 183% dv.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/nut-and-seed-products/3163/2
Finally, flaxseeds aren't the only vegan form of omega 3's. Chia seeds contain omega 3s.
http://plenteousveg.com/vegan-sources-omega-3/
I consider Minger's advice not only wrong but dangerous.
Now that I've explained omega 3s in eggs. I thought I would skip to omega 3's and fish.
"Need I mention the eighty gazillion studies showing the benefits of fish, DHA, and an improved omega-3/omega-6 ratio for cardiovascular health?" Minger
Now I've spend hours researching nutrition as you can see by my posts. I've never heard of or forgot about DHA. Being enticed by the new word I look it up.
"
There are the two main types of omega-3 fatty acids:
http://www.webmd.com/diet/what-to-know-about-omega-3s-and-fish
One idea is becoming increasingly clear. Minger is both smart and knowledgeable, she knows way more about nutrition than the average person. When I first heard the China Study was debunked I didn't have the knowledge to even understand what Minger was talking about. Yet, I was still skeptical of many of her claims, particularly about serum cholesterol.
Why? Because I was taught by many teachers that cholesterol was important, before suddenly it was all about omega-3s, trans fat, HDL, and LDL. Lets focus on the how much you would have to eat of the short chain omega-3s ALA, the plant based alpha-linolenic acid to equal the long chain EPA and DHA.
What I am seeing is good new for vegans. That if you eat enough short chain omega-3's you will get the same benefits without eating fish. Of course the webmd continues on endlessly about fish. Tell me they aren't bias against vegans.
I'm going to admit that I am out of my league here. This entire different types of omega-3s is new to me. Here's an article for more info.
"
There are three important omega-3 fatty acids:
Its fairly clear you can get plenty of ALA omega 3's from vegan sources. As for EPA and DHA its beyond my comprehension at the moment.
The premise that we need to consume any Omega -3 fatty acids at all needs to be examined. Endocrinologist Ray Peat believes that most are actually harmful. Here is a typical passage from one of his typical articles:
Between 1912 and 1927 there were several studies that reported that animals could live on a fat-free diet, and that in fact they lived longer, and without the normal mortality from cancer. In the 1940s and 1950s, most textbooks that mentioned the idea that certain fats were essential nutrients described it as a controversial idea. But the oil industries used public relations effectively to sell the medical (heart protective) benefits of a diet containing increased amounts of linoleic and linolenic acids, which they called the essential fatty acids. They began citing a 1929 publication (by G. Burr and M. Burr) that claimed to demonstrate the essentiality of those fatty acids, while ignoring the publications that pointed in different directions.
Ray Peat has a few articles that relate to this issue directly:
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/unsuitablefats.shtml
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/fishoil.shtml
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/unsaturatedfats.shtml
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/fats-degeneration3.shtml
http://raypeat.com/articles/nutrition/oils-in-context.shtml
Instead of arguing over omega-3s I'm going to make this as simple as possible.
0. Excess fat accumulates inside the muscle cells regardless of type intramyocellular lipids
1. cholesterol even in small amounts is unhealthy
2. Wild caught fish are subject to pollutants and mercury
3. In general its best to be vegan, and the smoking one cigarette a day argument.
4. animal cruelty
5. enviorment
6. humanitarian, tribes deprived by over fishing
7. Lack of fiber and anti-oxidants specifically beta-carotene
0. Excess fat accumulates inside the muscle cells regardless of type intramyocellular lipids
"Conclusions: Our results suggest that IMCL content is not modulated by dietary fat type but by total fat intake and that reducing fat intake effectively lowers IMCL. However, the metabolic implications of having lower IMCL concentrations are not clear." Am J Clin Nutr November 2007 vol. 86 no. 5 1316-1322
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/5/1316.full
"A vegan diet may also be associated with reductions in intramyocellular lipid, which is strongly associated with insulin sensitivity (21)." Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 May; 89(5): 1588S–1596S.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2677007/
1. "These findings suggest that even small intakes of foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn, with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality rates." Am J Clin Nutr May 1994
vol. 59 no. 5 1153S-1161S
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/59/5/1153S.short
"“We were inspired to review the literature based on our findings after recent publications showed increased risk of advanced prostate cancer and atrial fibrillation in those with high blood levels of LCPUFAs,” Fenton said."Excess omega-3 fatty acids could lead to negative health effects 10/28/2013
http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2013/oct/excess-omega-3-fatt...
Good find, I noticed it was about saturated fat rather than cholesterol since about 2005. In fact my biology teacher stated "saturated fats are ten times worse than cholesterol."
"Diets high in saturated fat may increase blood cholesterol levels, which in turn can clog your arteries." fitday.com retrieved Sept 12, 2015.
http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/nutrition/fats/heart-health-...
"Doctors nearly unanimously agree that eating foods loaded with saturated fats — such as butter, cream and pork in all its wondrous manifestations — can cause heart disease, obesity and diabetes. Conversely, foods with unsaturated fats, such as olives and salmon, can have the opposite effect."Saturated Fat's Dirty Secrets Revealed
http://www.livescience.com/16458-saturated-fat-clogs-arteries.html
Basically the blame has been shifted off of cholesterol onto fats. Which is very clever of the meat and dairy industry because fat exist in vegan diets and cholesterol is absence. Meanwhile cholesterol only exists in animal products.
Even more clever is the omega 3's, especially the EPA and DHA long chain omega 3's which can't be found in flaxseeds.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next