'Forks Over Knives:' How To Eat Healthy, Avoid Chronic Diseases

[appalachiablue]

(2 mins). The feature film 'Forks Over Knives' examines the profound claim that most, if not all, of the degenerative diseases that afflict us can be controlled, or even reversed, by rejecting animal-based and processed foods. (Wiki). "Forks Over Knives" is a 2011 American advocacy film and documentary that advocates a low-fat, whole-food, plant-based diet as a way to avoid or reverse several chronic diseases. The film stresses that processed foods and all oils should be avoided. This is sometimes confused with a vegan diet, which in practice can be very different.

The whole-food, plant-based diet promotes eating whole, unrefined or minimally refined plant-based foods. Those who adopt the lifestyle will base their diets around foods such as whole grains, legumes, tubers, vegetables, and fruits. It seeks to exclude or minimize any sources of animal-based protein and highly refined foods such as refined sugars, bleached flours, and oils.

Through an examination of the careers of American physician Caldwell Esselstyn and professor of nutritional biochemistry T. Colin Campbell, 'Forks Over Knives' claims that many diseases, including obesity, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer, can be prevented and treated by eating a whole food, plant-based diet, avoiding processed food and food from animals.

-> THE CHINA STUDY. The film also provides an overview of the 20-year China–Cornell–Oxford Project that led to Professor Campbell's findings, outlined in his book, The China Study (2005) in which he suggests that coronary artery disease, diabetes, obesity, and cancer can be linked to the Western diet of processed and animal-based foods (including dairy products)...More, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forks_Over_Knives

[Dream Girl]

1. The China Study was thorughly debunked years ago as bad science, but plant based diets are still

great...limited meat, good fats and tons of vegetables, limited fruit diets are the way to go. It's the highly processed, sugar laden diets that are killing us and contributing to diabetes, cancer, obesity etc. Stay away from processed foods of all kinds including "whole grains".

[appalachiablue]

2. I think you can post something to support 'debunking,' I see

only some critiques and rebuttals. Thanks.

[Dream Girl]

3. There's this

Notice Campbell cites a chain of three variables: Cancer associates with cholesterol, cholesterol associates with animal protein, and therefore we infer that animal protein associates with cancer. Or from another angle: Cancer associates with cholesterol, cholesterol negatively associates with plant protein, and therefore we infer plant protein protects against cancer.

But when we actually track down the direct correlation between animal protein and cancer, there is no statistically significant positive trend. None. Looking directly at animal protein intake, we have the following correlations with cancers:

Lymphoma: -18
Penis cancer: -16
Rectal cancer: -12
Bladder cancer: -9
Colorectal cancer: -8
Leukemia: -5
Nasopharyngeal: -4
Cervix cancer: -4
Colon cancer: -3
Liver cancer: -3
Oesophageal cancer: +2
Brain cancer: +5
Breast cancer: +12

Most are negative, but none even reach statistical significance. In other words, the only way Campbell could indict animal protein is by throwing a third variable—cholesterol—into the mix. If animal protein were the real cause of these diseases, Campbell should be able to cite a direct correlation between cancer and animal protein consumption, which would show that people eating more animal protein did in fact get more cancer.

https://deniseminger.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/

[Dream Girl]

4. And this...

Campbell Claim #2

Breast cancer is associated with dietary fat (which is associated with animal protein intake) and inversely with age at menarche (women who reach puberty at younger ages have a greater risk of breast cancer).

Campbell is correct that breast cancer negatively relates to the age of first menstruation—a correlation of -20. Not statistically significant, but given what we know about hormone exposure and breast cancer, it certainly makes sense. And there is a correlation between fat intake and breast cancer—a non-statistically-significant +18 for fat as a percentage of total calories and +22 for total lipid intake. But are there any dietary or lifestyle factors with a similar or stronger association than this? Let’s look at the correlation between breast cancer and a few other variables. Asterisked items are statistically significant:

Blood glucose level: +36**
Wine intake: +33*
Alcohol intake: +31*
Yearly fruit consumption: +25
Percentage of population working in industry: +24
Hexachlorocyclohexane in food: +24
Processed starch and sugar intake: +20
Corn intake: +20
Daily beer intake: +19
Legume intake: +17

[appalachiablue]

6. Think I see where this is coming from, inconclusive, tx.

A Response to Denise Minger’s Critique of The China Study, T. Colin Campbell, PhD, July 11, 2010

A Response to Denise Minger’s Critique of The China Study
Denise Minger has published a critique of the book, The China Study as follows: The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? It is both interesting and gratifying that there has been such a huge response, both on her blog and on those of others. This is a welcome development because it gives this topic an airing that has long been hidden in the halls and annals of science. It is time that this discussion begin to reach a much larger audience, including both supporters and skeptics.

Kudos to Ms. Minger for having the interest, and taking the time, to do considerable analysis, and for describing her findings in readily accessible language. And kudos to her for being clear and admitting, right up front, that she is neither a statistician nor an epidemiologist, but an English major with a love for writing and an interest in nutrition. We need more people with this kind of interest. I am the first to admit that background and academic credentials are certainly not everything, and many interesting discoveries and contributions have been made by “outsiders” or newcomers in various fields. On the other hand, background, time in the field, and especially peer review, all do give one a kind of perspective and insight that is, in my experience, not attainable in any other way. I will try to make clear in my comments below when this is particularly relevant.

My response can be divided into three parts, mostly addressing her lack of proportionality—what’s important and what’s not. •Misunderstanding our book’s objectives and my research findings •Excessive reliance on the use of unadjusted correlations in the China database •Failure to note the broader implications of choosing the right dietary lifestyle
A. Not understanding the book’s objectives. The findings described in the book are not solely based on the China survey data, even if this survey was the most comprehensive (not the largest) human study of its kind. As explained in the book, I draw my conclusions from several kinds of findings and it is the consistency among these various findings that matter most.

..Fourth, and most importantly, there are the enormously impressive findings of my physician colleagues, which came to my attention near the end of the China project data collection period, which were showing remarkable health benefits of plant-based nutrition, involving not only disease prevention but also disease treatment (alphabetically: Diehl, Esselstyn, Goldhamer, Klaper, McDougall, Ornish, Shintani–and many others since the book’s publication: T. Barnard, N. Barnard, Corso, Fuhrman, Lederman, Montgomery, Popper, Pulde, Schulz, Shewman). I cannot overemphasize the remarkable accomplishments of these physicians. In effect, their work affirmed my earlier laboratory research. I should add that I knew none of them or their work during my career in the laboratory, thus was not motivated or biased to find ways to affirm their work. ...https://nutritionstudies.org/minger-critique/

[mitch96]

5. Too much fact based medicine to prove it works...

I've seen before and after angiograms of people with blockages of the coronary arteries that have been opened up with this program.. No surgery.. It gets to the route cause of the problem, not just a bandaid fix.
Whole food plant based diet with No added fat did the trick. Also fixes common diabetes and high blood pressure. An added benefit is you loose weight also. If you check out the parts of the world that are considered "Blue Zones" there are people that are healthy and active into their 90's. They eat a whole food plant based diet. They use meat as more of a condiment than the main part of the meal.
I've been eating this way for years(I'm 70) and I'm fit as a fiddle, don't take any meds either.
Do I miss some of the meat and crapy SAD foods? yes. And the rewards outweigh the risk of eating poorly. It takes some getting use to but after a while it's just second nature no pun intended. Works for me YMMV..
m

[appalachiablue]

7. This corresponds with what I've found and read of

Drs. Esselsyn and Barnard's works on plant-based approaches. With so many positive effects I don't know why people wouldn't follow this way of eating. It's no problem for me esp. since I've always loved plants and have no attachment to eating meat whatsoever, in fact just the opposite.

Reaching people who are unaware is a real issue and trying to wean them off bad eating habits and products that are everywhere. The unhealthy, broken food system is especially entrenched in the US but things are changing for the better in the last 10-20 years, it's wonderful to see.

[mitch96]

8. "what I've found and read of Drs. Esselsyn and Barnard's works on plant-based approaches."

I follow Fuhrman (https://www.drfuhrman.com), McDougall (https://www.drmcdougall.com) and Greger. What gets me is some of these guys start selling supplements and "health programs" to supplement their income.. A necessary evil I guess.
Dr Greger has a website that has a ton of vid's all backed up by science... Real medical science using double blind placebo controlled studies done in university medical centers.
He posts the documentation to back it up. Real good stuff. https://nutritionfacts.org

Changing peoples minds it tough even with the science staring them in the face. Leading a horse to water kinda thing.
I have a long time buddy that is racked with diabetes, gout and heart disease you name it. Two heart attacks and he HATES veg. His idea of a vegetable is french fries. He would eat steak and potatoes with a coke chaser every day if he could.. He's a rabid conservative too.. Hummm.
m