Love what you wrote, Jeff.
And just to give Louie an idea of how closely Jack Norris and Ginny Messina actually looks at the scientific literature, see Ginny Messina's article about recommended percentage fat in the vegan diet:
Having quoted the Harvard meta-analysis which only showed that SUBSTITUTING mono-unsaturated fat for saturated fat was better than NOT SUBSTITUTING (and proved nothing about ADDING oil to a NO-OIL diet), she then quotes the 4 WEEK Jenkins Eco-Atkins study as if it proves something against a low-fat VEGAN diet. If she'd bother to read the study she would've seen that the low-fat diet not only had less fiber than the Eco-Atkins vegan diet, it actually included animal protein and around 50 mg cholesterol per day in the form of low-fat dairy and egg whites. So it was an Eco Atkins vegan diet versus an ORNISH-style vegetarian diet. The same ORNISH-style diet that she has repeatedly admonished vegans for using to promote veganism because "IT WASN'T ACTUALLY A VEGAN DIET". And yet she quotes this 4 WEEK Eco-Atkins vs. ORNISH-diet study in 3 of her posts as evidence that a low-fat VEGAN diet has been superceded.
This is just one example of how she mis-reads or mis-represents the studies she's quoting from. Of course it's not easy to read the studies she's quoting from because she so seldom includes references in her posts. Probably not a coincidence.
And here's Jack Norris' incredibly modest take on the PCRM diabetes trial:
"The only statistically significant differences between diet groups for medical outcomes was that vegan dieters lost more weight than did the ADA diet group."
If he'd actually read the study he'd have seen that when you control for medication changes, the drop in HBA1c was (statistically) signifantly greater in the PCRM group compared to the ADA group.
He then makes some ill-founded and un-referenced comment about how low-fat diets MIGHT be unsafe, and how unsaturated fats help keep HDL at "healthy" levels. What's amazing is that Jack Norris (and Ginny Messina) can look at the Esselstyn trials, the PCRM trials, the Oxford/Cornell China Project, the various studies showing the effect of animal protein on age of menarche and serum IGF-1 levels, the clinical success of Dr McDougall, Jeff Novick and True North Centre and remain unconvinced that a vegan diet has health benefits. And yet they have somehow seen satisfactory evidence that low-fat wholefood vegan diets are unhealthy and that high HDL levels are important for good health.
I say what this movement needs is unity and honesty, not a bunch of jumped up animal rights dieticians trying to make a name for themselves by taking shots at the big guys.
Taken from the comments section of Jack Norris' article "Of Oil And Ethics":
August 23rd, 2012 at 10:27 am
May you please give a reference for your claim:
“Though it may be rare, or even extremely rare, some people who follow a very low-fat diet find that they lose their libido and regain it upon eating more fat.”
I find it disturbing, and a reliable source for that would be welcome.
August 23rd, 2012 at 10:39 am
Jack Norris RD Says:
I’m afraid I have no citation. I can recall this happening to two people. The wife, Eva, of the most recent person posted to my blog: http://jacknorrisrd.com/?p=2783
I followed up with her over email and she told me that after adding some fats back her husband had improved. The other person I remember was a guy who lost his libido and started eating plant saturated fats and it improved his libido and health significantly. He wanted me to really push the need for vegans to include saturated fats but I didn’t think there was enough evidence for that.
It's interesting to note the quality of evidence that Jack bases his recommendations on. The Esselstyn studies weren't enough for him, the PCRM studies weren't enough for him, the evidence in the China Study wasn't enough for him, the clinical success of Dr McDougall, Jeff Novick and True North Centre wasn't enough for him, but some guy posts a message on his blog and he's all ears.
Perhaps someone can explain to Jack Norris that AN EMAIL CONVERSATION IS NOT CAUSATION !!
Further down in the comments section, at the request of one of the commenters, Jack clarifies another statement in the article:
August 24th, 2012 at 11:37 am
Jack Norris RD Says:
> “…[In today’s world, getting the ratio down to this level without adding large amounts of ALA to the diet would likely mean a very low fat diet] which would be difficult to maintain, and possibly even harmful, for many people”
I meant: “which would be difficult to maintain for many people, and possibly even harmful (for some).”
I’ve changed it to:
“…which would be difficult to maintain for many people.”
It wasn’t one of my most scientific statements.
The funny thing is, I've actually read quite a bit of Jack's blog, and I think that WAS pretty much one of his most scientific statements !! And I'm sure it would've stayed in the article ad infinitum had the commenter not picked him up on it.
Ha ! True words, Jeff.
I think more and more people are getting sick of the non-stop health-bashing coming out of the Norris / Ball / Messina quarters.
At the end of the day, I think they're confused about what they stand for and derive most of their identity from the shots they take at others in the veg world. Others who are far too busy saving lives (human and animal) to retaliate.
I hope Norris / Ball / Messina find their true calling some day.
Love this video.
No posts published so far.
I don't know where you're getting these smoking statistics from. I'm not extremely familiar with studies about cigarette smoke, but even a quick search on pubmed shows a lot of studies of social smoking or occasional smoking. And they all show that even limited smoking or second hand (or third hand)smoking is dangerous.
But that aside, smoking and eating meat are two different activities. A dangerous dose for one can't be compared to a dangerous dose for another.
I don't have a horse in this fight, but I think arguments for or against should be accurate and based on scientific consensus, not on the work of individuals.
Well there's definitely more "evidence" than there was when I last had this debate. But still only a couple of epidemiological studies, so not the sort of evidence that would convince someone like Ginny "Just The Facts" Messina. But for argument's sake, what if we were to play it safe and go for 2 cigarretes a MONTH ?
I can't say that I understand your point about comparing the risk of smoking to the risk of meat eating. The point I'm making is that there's a level of consumption below which the health consequences become negligible. At which point it becomes impossible to show the associated harm (in a RCT or even epidemiological setting). I'm sure you realise that such a level does exist even for smoking.
Regarding your point about opinions being based on scientific consensus and not on the work of individuals, I agree, but surely you don't think the above-mentioned doctors are just basing their opinions on the work of a few individuals.
Have you seen the number of references that Dr Campbell cites in his book The China Study ? That book includes Dr Campbell's review of hundreds of articles in the scientific literature as well as the China Project itself. I'm sure some people have been fooled by the seemingly persuasive and undeservedly well publicised criticisms of The China Study that are floating around. As well as criticisms from people like Jack and Ginny. Most if not all of which have fallen apart under closer scrutiny. And for the record, I don't think there's any scientific evidence on this planet that could withstand the scrutiny that that book has been subjected to. I'm sure that if you read it, you'll understand WHY it's been scrutinised so hard. Please also note that Dr Campbell has always been very clear about how far the evidence goes, as well as presenting a good case as to why people should go 100%.
As for olive oil, do you think these guys would recommend giving it up if they didn't think it was worth it ? Do you think they're just saying it because they think it'll make them more popular, or because they like destroying everyone's fun ? Do you think people such as Jeff Novick or Dr Barnard aren't reading all the same studies as Ginny Messina and Jack Norris ? I can guarantee you they are, and I can guarantee you that they're also evaluating the results of those articles carefully and seeing how that information fits in with what they've seen in their many years of clinical experience. And during those many years of clinical experience, I'm sure they've learned many things that aren't even IN the scientific literature (yet).
No doubt these docs sometimes resort to hyperbole-esque statements when trying to communicate their message to a brainwashed public, and maybe once in a while they might change their recommendations in line with new findings, and I know not all of them are ethical vegans, and some of them might say "plant-based" instead of vegan. But they still have a goldmine of information to offer you, and most of them risked their careers and professional circles to get that information to you. And not to have a dig, but I know a couple of ethical vegans who lament the use of the word "plant-based", and yet these same people haven't even plucked up the courage to tell their own mothers-in-law that they're vegan.
Vegan Outpreach and Ginny Messina drew a line in the sand many years ago when they said they don't think the health argument exists. And I think they made it quite clear that they wouldn't use it even if they thought it DID exist. And they don't want anyone else using it either. That indicates a strong bias in my view, and may well be clouding their judgement on these matters. And when you draw a line in the sand like that, it also means you're going to be less likely to admit you're wrong if/when that realisation comes.
You may be interested to know that Vegan Outpreach and Ginny Messina also think vegans should stop using the environmental argument:
They want this to be purely about the animals.
Although for some reason, they're happy to try and hook the public in with tasty fat-laidened food, which I find to be quite inconsistent with their values. Because that's really pandering to people's self-interest isn't it ? Just like the health argument. It's called the "taste argument". And there was me thinking it was supposed to be about the animals. And what are people going to do if they're stuck in some low-class hotel with no fancy vegan restaurant and no oven to make their vegan Pumpkin Streusel Coffee Cakes ? Might they give up on veganism if the food they're faced with isn't up to the standard they've been promised by all those taste-promoting vegans ? It's just setting them up for failure if you ask me.
Anyways, in light of the possible biases mentioned above, I'd encourage you to contact the above doctors / RD's next time you hear Jack or Ginny or anyone else criticise their work, because there may well be something that Jack and Ginny are over-looking or not wanting to face up to. And it's only fair to give these docs a chance to defend themselves.
I can tell you from first-hand experience that they're very accessible.
All the best
P.S. - I realise that I've responded to a couple of points that you didn't actually make.
Copyright ©2012 VegSource Interactive, Inc. Reproduction of material from any VegSource pages without written permission is strictly prohibited.
VEGSOURCE ® is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as a trademark of Mostly Magic Productons, Inc.