Just watched Forks Over Knives...

I think the difference here is one of position. If someone makes a claim, it should be backed by something. Here, frequently that means we want the claim backed by science, hopefully some peer-reviewed research.

The claim we're talking about are those made by the China Study. The people who offer rebuttals aren't necessarily making claims themselves that need to be backed by their own science (though they could potentially). Instead, it appears that they're saying that the author is simply incorrect in his analysis and processes. No peer-reviewed research is really necessary there; no new subject matter is being claimed as fact that would require backing.

There's a distinction. It is appropriate to ask that someone making a claim back up what they say. It may not necessarily be appropriate to ask someone making a rebuttal (and not a new claim) to offer their own studies if all they're doing is showing how the research and subsequent conclusions are flawed. Therefore, I don't think discounting the bloggers for being bloggers is either appropriate, or doing the same that's been done to you....I can only guess at the second part of that as I haven't done a review of all criticisms of what you post.

my point, really, in all this, is that there are a number of scientific and medical professionals who DO stand behind Campbell's work, and the only people who have come out against it are not members of either community.

I'm not saying they're inherently wrong because of that, but if there were such massive flaws in Campbell's methodology, don't you think some actual scientists would come out against it? One or two have - as I mentioned above - but even THOSE doctors still recommend a plant-based diet, they just disagree with the specifics of Campbell's methodology.

At the end of the day, it's just the ketogenic crowd vs. the plant-based crowd. And I have a feeling that's a fight that won't be won by either side any time soon.

Ok..so the problem here is that your reasoning isn't logical. It sounds sort of reasonable, in the sense that you have a reason for thinking the way you do; it's not random. But it's not logical. And the reason it's not logical is that you're essentially just acting on faith without stating why the objections are flawed themselves or perhaps disingenuous or...whatever other objection might occur. Campbell responded to the rebuttals, and the rebuttals responded back.

There might be any number of reasons for what you're asking with regard to scientists. First, we can't assume you're right, that no such scientists exist. It doesn't really matter if they do or don't. And it's clearly not just a question of methodology if you read the rebuttals.

Not logical?

1) I posted information about the China Study that I find interesting, and that I've incorporated into my daily life
2) I posted examples of some of the top scientists and doctors in the field who have come out in support of Campbell's research
3) I've posted links to all of it in case you're interested in reading more for yourself.

What more do you want? You don't have to believe it. I'm not asking you to change your mind. You can side with the bloggers with absolutely no scientific or medical credentials, and that doesn't make you wrong. Science has been wrong time and time again, so maybe this time is no different, but at the end of the day, it has been proven scientifically that plant based diets can reverse heart disease. (http://www.pmri.org/dean_ornish.html) And that being the case, I'm much more likely to believe that plant-based diets can also prevent it.

Chalk it up to faith if you want.

Not logical?

1) I posted information about the China Study that I find interesting, and that I've incorporated into my daily life
2) I posted examples of some of the top scientists and doctors in the field who have come out in support of Campbell's research
3) I've posted links to all of it in case you're interested in reading more for yourself.

What more do you want? You don't have to believe it. I'm not asking you to change your mind. You can side with the bloggers with absolutely no scientific or medical credentials, and that doesn't make you wrong. Science has been wrong time and time again, so maybe this time is no different, but at the end of the day, it has been proven scientifically that plant based diets can reverse heart disease. (http://www.pmri.org/dean_ornish.html) And that being the case, I'm much more likely to believe that plant-based diets can also prevent it.

Chalk it up to faith if you want.

1) Whether or not you incorporate into your daily is irrelevant, except to you. I would say I'm glad it works for you, but in all honesty, it makes no difference to me one way or other.
2) But you haven't really addressed the objections.
3) I'm not sure why you're mentioning it. It doesn't really have an effect on logic one way or the other.

When I say you're not being logical, I mean that dismissing criticisms because they come from bloggers and instead you're choosing to believe someone with a credential for no other reason than they have a credential, isn't logical.

Apart from discourse based on material that includes you offering your thoughts on what the rebuttals in a substantive way, I don't want anything from you. At all.

Basically it sounds like you're saying "I believe it because people with credentials say so, and I don't really feel a need to question that even though there may be valid objections brought up by these other people; I feel justified in doing so because those other people don't make the grade in the pssing contest of credentials."

So perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps I do want something from you. I'd very much appreciate it if you didn't bother contributing to threads in a way that sounds like you want to have a discussion of evidence when you ultimately don't really care about how valid the evidence is.

If you want to be the "Hip Hip hurray! Eat more Veggies" cheerleader. Go for it. I couldn't possibly care less. But the second you start bringing evidence into it. Yeah, then discussion gets to happen.

then lets discuss it instead of discussing discussing.

SideSteel didn't discuss anything either - simply did exactly what I did (but less because he didn't offer any commentary) by posting three links to blogs as his rebuttal.

If he wants to have this discussion, shouldn't he also be held to the same standard as me?

Anyway - I'm going to read more of the rebuttals in depth, and then we can have a legit discussion if you're interested.

Not logical?

1) I posted information about the China Study that I find interesting, and that I've incorporated into my daily life
2) I posted examples of some of the top scientists and doctors in the field who have come out in support of Campbell's research
3) I've posted links to all of it in case you're interested in reading more for yourself.

What more do you want? You don't have to believe it. I'm not asking you to change your mind. You can side with the bloggers with absolutely no scientific or medical credentials, and that doesn't make you wrong. Science has been wrong time and time again, so maybe this time is no different, but at the end of the day, it has been proven scientifically that plant based diets can reverse heart disease. (http://www.pmri.org/dean_ornish.html) And that being the case, I'm much more likely to believe that plant-based diets can also prevent it.

Chalk it up to faith if you want.

1) Whether or not you incorporate into your daily is irrelevant, except to you. I would say I'm glad it works for you, but in all honesty, it makes no difference to me one way or other.
2) But you haven't really addressed the objections.
3) I'm not sure why you're mentioning it. It doesn't really have an effect on logic one way or the other.

When I say you're not being logical, I mean that dismissing criticisms because they come from bloggers and instead you're choosing to believe someone with a credential for no other reason than they have a credential, isn't logical.

Apart from discourse based on material that includes you offering your thoughts on what the rebuttals in a substantive way, I don't want anything from you. At all.

Basically it sounds like you're saying "I believe it because people with credentials say so, and I don't really feel a need to question that even though there may be valid objections brought up by these other people; I feel justified in doing so because those other people don't make the grade in the pssing contest of credentials."

So perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps I do want something from you. I'd very much appreciate it if you didn't bother contributing to threads in a way that sounds like you want to have a discussion of evidence when you ultimately don't really care about how valid the evidence is.

If you want to be the "Hip Hip hurray! Eat more Veggies" cheerleader. Go for it. I couldn't possibly care less. But the second you start bringing evidence into it. Yeah, then discussion gets to happen.

then lets discuss it instead of discussing discussing.

SideSteel didn't discuss anything either - simply did exactly what I did (but less because he didn't offer any commentary) by posting three links to blogs as his rebuttal.

If he wants to have this discussion, shouldn't he also be held to the same standard as me?

Anyway - I'm going to read more of the rebuttals in depth, and then we can have a legit discussion if you're interested.

Cliff Note's version:Ultimately, the rebuttal to Campbell's defense is that Campbell didn't really address the rebuttal in the first place.

Your choices are to show that he did, in fact do so, or to agree that he didn't.

even though I'm not a trained scientist, doctor OR statistician? that seems a tall order.

Not logical?

1) I posted information about the China Study that I find interesting, and that I've incorporated into my daily life
2) I posted examples of some of the top scientists and doctors in the field who have come out in support of Campbell's research
3) I've posted links to all of it in case you're interested in reading more for yourself.

What more do you want? You don't have to believe it. I'm not asking you to change your mind. You can side with the bloggers with absolutely no scientific or medical credentials, and that doesn't make you wrong. Science has been wrong time and time again, so maybe this time is no different, but at the end of the day, it has been proven scientifically that plant based diets can reverse heart disease. (http://www.pmri.org/dean_ornish.html) And that being the case, I'm much more likely to believe that plant-based diets can also prevent it.

Chalk it up to faith if you want.

1) Whether or not you incorporate into your daily is irrelevant, except to you. I would say I'm glad it works for you, but in all honesty, it makes no difference to me one way or other.
2) But you haven't really addressed the objections.
3) I'm not sure why you're mentioning it. It doesn't really have an effect on logic one way or the other.

When I say you're not being logical, I mean that dismissing criticisms because they come from bloggers and instead you're choosing to believe someone with a credential for no other reason than they have a credential, isn't logical.

Apart from discourse based on material that includes you offering your thoughts on what the rebuttals in a substantive way, I don't want anything from you. At all.

Basically it sounds like you're saying "I believe it because people with credentials say so, and I don't really feel a need to question that even though there may be valid objections brought up by these other people; I feel justified in doing so because those other people don't make the grade in the pssing contest of credentials."

So perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps I do want something from you. I'd very much appreciate it if you didn't bother contributing to threads in a way that sounds like you want to have a discussion of evidence when you ultimately don't really care about how valid the evidence is.

If you want to be the "Hip Hip hurray! Eat more Veggies" cheerleader. Go for it. I couldn't possibly care less. But the second you start bringing evidence into it. Yeah, then discussion gets to happen.

then lets discuss it instead of discussing discussing.

SideSteel didn't discuss anything either - simply did exactly what I did (but less because he didn't offer any commentary) by posting three links to blogs as his rebuttal.

If he wants to have this discussion, shouldn't he also be held to the same standard as me?

Anyway - I'm going to read more of the rebuttals in depth, and then we can have a legit discussion if you're interested.

Cliff Note's version:Ultimately, the rebuttal to Campbell's defense is that Campbell didn't really address the rebuttal in the first place.

Your choices are to show that he did, in fact do so, or to agree that he didn't.

even though I'm not a trained scientist, doctor OR statistician? that seems a tall order.

Then I can't imagine how you could possibly accept something in the original text, in this case the China Study, as valid either. If you can't claim enough facility with the material to make your own judgments (pro or con), then what exactly do you base your acceptance of the material on? Cause that sounds an awful lot like faith.

Not logical?

1) I posted information about the China Study that I find interesting, and that I've incorporated into my daily life
2) I posted examples of some of the top scientists and doctors in the field who have come out in support of Campbell's research
3) I've posted links to all of it in case you're interested in reading more for yourself.

What more do you want? You don't have to believe it. I'm not asking you to change your mind. You can side with the bloggers with absolutely no scientific or medical credentials, and that doesn't make you wrong. Science has been wrong time and time again, so maybe this time is no different, but at the end of the day, it has been proven scientifically that plant based diets can reverse heart disease. (http://www.pmri.org/dean_ornish.html) And that being the case, I'm much more likely to believe that plant-based diets can also prevent it.

Chalk it up to faith if you want.

1) Whether or not you incorporate into your daily is irrelevant, except to you. I would say I'm glad it works for you, but in all honesty, it makes no difference to me one way or other.
2) But you haven't really addressed the objections.
3) I'm not sure why you're mentioning it. It doesn't really have an effect on logic one way or the other.

When I say you're not being logical, I mean that dismissing criticisms because they come from bloggers and instead you're choosing to believe someone with a credential for no other reason than they have a credential, isn't logical.

Apart from discourse based on material that includes you offering your thoughts on what the rebuttals in a substantive way, I don't want anything from you. At all.

Basically it sounds like you're saying "I believe it because people with credentials say so, and I don't really feel a need to question that even though there may be valid objections brought up by these other people; I feel justified in doing so because those other people don't make the grade in the pssing contest of credentials."

So perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps I do want something from you. I'd very much appreciate it if you didn't bother contributing to threads in a way that sounds like you want to have a discussion of evidence when you ultimately don't really care about how valid the evidence is.

If you want to be the "Hip Hip hurray! Eat more Veggies" cheerleader. Go for it. I couldn't possibly care less. But the second you start bringing evidence into it. Yeah, then discussion gets to happen.

then lets discuss it instead of discussing discussing.

SideSteel didn't discuss anything either - simply did exactly what I did (but less because he didn't offer any commentary) by posting three links to blogs as his rebuttal.

If he wants to have this discussion, shouldn't he also be held to the same standard as me?

Anyway - I'm going to read more of the rebuttals in depth, and then we can have a legit discussion if you're interested.

Cliff Note's version:Ultimately, the rebuttal to Campbell's defense is that Campbell didn't really address the rebuttal in the first place.

Your choices are to show that he did, in fact do so, or to agree that he didn't.

even though I'm not a trained scientist, doctor OR statistician? that seems a tall order.

Then I can't imagine how you could possibly accept something in the original text, in this case the China Study, as valid either. If you can't claim enough facility with the material to make your own judgments (pro or con), then what exactly do you base your acceptance of the material on? Cause that sounds an awful lot like faith.

you know what? fine. in this instance I will put my faith in the nutritional, scientific, and medical communities that all stand behind the research since I don't have the training or the knowledge or the credentials to offer a fair assessment of the material myself.

but I'm still going to continue my research, and if I find that my faith was misplaced I'll be sure to let you know.

So, I watched the documentary Forks over Knives, and now I'm seriously thinking about cutting out meat/dairy. I've tried no meat before, but I know I didn't eat correctly (way too many carbs, and lots of dairy). I was just wondering if anyone has seen this movie (it's on Netflix if you want to), and if anyone is on a veg/vegan diet? Also, what kind of recipes do you have that are high in protein?

Forks Over Knives is the best documentary I've seen! I went vegetarian after watching it, then transitioned to vegan. This was about a year ago. The trick is to do tons of research on what to eat, and what vitamins/minerals you need to be mindful of daily. A multivitamin isn't necessary BUT it's good to add in there "just in case" you're forgetting something in your diet. If you want to add extra protein in between meals, try hemp protein powder, brown rice protein powder, soy protein powder (GNC's soy protein is deliciousss).

I don't want to rely heavily on soy so I'm sure to eat plenty of beans, other legumes, nuts, seeds, quinoa, etc. When I do have soy, I buy non-GMO soy. Soy is a controversial topic, but I'm only against GMO soy. I try to keep it simple like soy milk or tofu, rather than more heavily processed items like fake meats (although these are an option). The key is to eat a large variety, eat mostly whole foods, and don't skip the fruit and veggies!

I average 75-110g protein, depending on the day. Without any soy, I can get 75g fairly easy if I plan my meals with this in mind, which is enough. Athletes protein requirements are set much higher than an average person needs. The daily recommended protein for an average person is usually stated to be around 50g (for women).I Keep in mind that this is said with a safety margin. In the documentary they state that we only need about 10% protein, but I like to have a little more, so for MFP I set my target at 15% since I workout 4-5 days a week. A lot of days I go way over that target even! So don't worry about getting enough unless you live off of processed, low nutrient foods. Do some research first, and then give it a try and see how you feel.

I'm sorry you've had rude and negative comments. I would hope that we could have discussions on the boards, not dismissive zingers. "Forks over Knives" is a very interesting documentary and it did impact the way I eat. I watched it at the same time that I read "anti-cancer" and was struck by how many of the same suggestions were in both. "Anti cancer" does not promote vegetarianism, but it does encourage consumption of organic and grass fed meats because of the omega content. After reading and watching I have reduced my meat consumption, probably to once or twice a week, using organic meat sources. Of course I have also eliminated "white foods" , corn syrup and sugar, and turned to whole grains. Doing this, I lost my first 30 pounds (before joining MFP) without counting calories, and with only light exercise. Good luck.

Thanks for whoever posted the link to the group, just joined!

I liked this documentary as well. I adapted this lifestyle a little over one and half years ago and I am so glad that I did. I lost 30 pounds, my hair and nails grow insane, I sleep better, more energy. Definitely has been awesome for me. I don't do the no oil thing though. I cook with coconut oil everyday. I eat lots of avocado and nuts too, plenty of fat.

I don't eat soy either but still get plenty of protein. Lentils have a lot of protein and iron. Yesterday I did lentil tacos (a hit with the husband, 10 year old, and 7 year old.) 28 protein and 50 iron in just one meal. Half a cup of lentils have 18 protein and 37 iron all on their own. Top with homemade guacamole and salsa, yum! Pepitas are a good snack to have on hand too (raw pumpkin seeds) lots of iron, easy to keep in your bag/car for a quick snack. I use 1/4 cup of nutritional yeast every day too. Lots of b12.

a lot of those documentaries are one sided. this film was probably made and shot by a group of veggy heads trying to promote their cause. some of the info was interesting in that movie,..most of it not new


its cool to get some info out it but just take everything they say with a grain of salt

I don't let movies determine my dietary intake

I certainly would not let one movie determine what I ate either. However, around the time that I decided it was time to take control of my eating and my health, I saw this movie, as well as several others, and started to think that there might be something to it. I did a lot of research on my own and talked to my doctor, and have been following the recommendations in the movie since March. I have lost over 100 pounds, have a TON of energy, and my lab work is fantastic. It is not just about losing weight for me, it is about being as healthy as Ican for as long as I can. I do not intend to go back to my old way of eating. I also LOVE the food that I am eating!!