Talk:Forks Over Knives/Archive 1

Criticism
"The scientific basis of the film was thoroughly criticized by Denise Minger in her blog.[6]" Why on earth is Denise Minger mentioned? She is not a nutrition professional, scientist, journalist, or in any career that matters, or would make her an authority on this topic. If I were to hazard a guess, I would bet she entered the reference herself. The blog post linked is basically a book report; she offers no critical insight or valid scientific insight. Rather, her rebuttals read like a sardonic teenager using phrases like "Nice job screwing it up", "Fo’ sho’", "Oh, but it gets better.", or "Well, golly.". Such verbiage would be better suited to a rebuttal of the Kardashian Wikipedia article. I recommend that this reference be removed. This girl would never be referenced in a hard copy encyclopedia. 128.119.55.8 (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There certainly should be a space for criticism of the film. I don't know of anything published about this, however.  Several of the studies mentioned in the film as key evidentiary points have since been changed - long before the movie was made - so there should be some citable criticism of the movie.  And I say this as a practitioner of 'eat whole food, mostly plants,' style diet. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, but such criticism should be given by someone with a degree in nutrition, in a peer-reviewed article, or by a similarly qualified source. Denise Minger does not by any stretch meet those criteria! 71.192.214.133 (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Our cavemen ancestors had no disease and ate only plants like Disney lions. Quick destroy the archaeological skeletal remains with arthritis etc and cooked animal remains. The "natural" evidence is obviously cooked.


 * Which is sad. Because the vegan topic DOES have a rationale scientific socio-political basis in truth. That being that the planet can support more people on vegan basis than high carnivorous slant to omnivore. I can remember the idea presented in schools in the 1960s before they resorted to propaganda based on testimonials and manipulated "evidence". Nowadays the public opinion experts say use any lie to sell your ideological truth and to remember emotion is more powerful than logic. (I can present a film of graphic digestive disease and results that would probably convince many "delicate" people not to eat at all.)


 * Of course the sad part of that ideological truth is that its pure procrastination on worldwide human population control. The human population levels supported by a vegan life-style actually will make every dimension of the final crisis MANY times worse. Humans will be able to totally crowd out all higher animals by eating plants. And in doing so erase much of the elasticity of the bio-sphere to rebound with some higher lifeforms support after the human overpopulation finally crashes things.


 * Vegan means the end of the earth can look like a nearly completely paved over urban area except for dusty areas that used to be high concentration vegan farms (organic farms will clear out animal habits but then be replaced by gene engineered production.) No land animal larger than a rat is expected to survive nor any natural land plants. The seas may well suffer similar fate depending on how accessible all areas become. Life will likely continue after humans but it well not be higher than single celled life after the Vegan apocalypse happens. Carnivorous diets at least mean the human population will crash while some sort of higher land animals still live. 72.182.15.249 (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Pretty silly movie, they keep saying Casein = Animal protein, but really, Casein is more related to Gluten (from your favorite grains) than any other animal protein. Also the plant diet is only good because it eliminates refined sugars, ANY diet that reduces sugars will be healthier than what you ate before. So ye, a criticism tab should definitely be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.9.240 (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sean O'Connell
WHY is Sean O'Connell of The Washington Post mentioned here? He goes down into history as the one critic that has never anything nice to say about any movie that she reviewed so why bother now?

I think we should put Sean on a liquid plant based diet for a while with occassional servings of hemp infused rubber chicken with cow bile reduction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.203.62.251 (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Celebrities reception
Various sources (here for instance) indicates that the documentary has convinced several celebrities to become vegan, Russell Brand, Eliza Dushku, Ozzy Osbourne, Carrie Ann Inaba. Should this be included ? --Joancharmant (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)== Critical Review of the Science == Denise Minger's critical review of the science in the film is notable in that it cites studies that challenge or directly contradict conclusions of several of the films fundamental studies, including studies on the effect of high versus low protein diets on aflatoxin induced cancer progression showing opposite results as studies cited in the movie. The review is published at http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/09/22/forks-over-knives-is-the-science-legit-a-review-and-critique/. Jtankers (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See Identifying reliable sources and WP:USERGENERATED re: blogs.
 * "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." -Classicfilms (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See also Manual of Style/Film, in particular:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Reception
 * -Classicfilms (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Change "over" to "Over" in article title
Lamentably, the actual title of the film is "Forks Over Knives" (notice the capital "O" in "Over"), not "Forks over Knives". Therefore, the title of this article should be changed to ""Forks Over Knives" (capital "O" in "Over"). Wideangle (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

This section does not belong in this article
This is an article about the film Forks Over Knives. Reviews should focus specifically on the film. Much of the text below focuses on critique of the research of individual scientists in the film and thus should be moved to the biographies of these individuals. They are also based on just a few sources which indicates opinions rather than trends. I will work to expand the review section to fit MOS:FILM. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I just reviewed the reception section, which as it stands fulfills WP:NPOV. I am not opposed to a discussion of the science in the film, but the references should be speaking specifically to the film and not just randomly to people interviewed for it. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Scientific criticisms
The research presented in the Forks over Knives movie has been criticized by both nutrition researchers and health bloggers for using the lowest levels of scientific evidence for conclusions and decision making (i.e. animal studies, cohort studies and case control studies rather than randomized controlled trials or systematic reviews) and for picking and choosing only those data sets that support his views while disregarding others.

Esselstyn has also been criticized for his dichotomous approach to nutrition (i.e.either plant-based or "the traditional American diet") and neglecting to evaluate diets free of junk food, red meat, dairy, fish, nuts, wheat, or combinations thereof.

Numerous reviews of the science behind the movie have shown that conclusions drawn in the movie are not in line with standard statistical analysis practice. Harvard scientist Frank B Hu and Walter Willett state,

"Campbell questioned the validity of our findings because they contradict the results of international correlation studies on animal product consumption and disease rates... Correlational studies conducted within a country can usually provide more credible data than international comparisons because of relatively homogeneous populations and the possibility of collecting data on potential confounding variables at individual levels. A survey of 65 counties in rural China, however, did not find a clear association between animal product consumption and risk of heart disease or major cancers."

Similar conclusions were reached by Orlich et al (2013), which was a large and comprehensive epidemiological study done in the US and looking at a very homogeneous population. While this study gives strong evidence to the virtues of reducing overall meat consumption, it does not support the stronger conclusions made in the film and in Campbell's book that urge reducing fat and eliminating all animal products, except with regards to renal and endocrine related mortality - both of which showed a large reduction in mortality when animal protein was avoided.

In particular, Orlich et al study picks out as most healthful the pesco-vegetarian, not the vegan diet, although vegan men specifically had the lowest all-cause mortality, ischemic heart disease, cardiovascular disease, and cancer mortality rates.

Further analysis by Orlich et al significantly substantiated the film's claim that avoiding animal protein had protection against certain types of cancers, mainly colorectal. However, again, the most protection seemed to be a plant based diet that added fish consumption (pesco-vegetarian diet).

In this study, pesco-vegetarians (those consuming fish but no other animal products) had almost half the rate of death (0.57 Hazard Ratio) from colorectal cancers than those that ate a regular diet. Vegans also showed a statistically significant difference of mortality rate from colorectal cancers (0.84 Hazard Ratio).

Query
Classicfilms, why do you keep questioning that it recommends a vegan diet? The refs were at the end of the sentence. Linking to "plant-based" makes it look as though they might be recommending meat and dairy, i.e. semi-vegetarianism. Sarah (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Sarah,


 * As I’ve mentioned before, I do not have an issue with the term “vegan.” My goal is to fulfill WP:RS in any Wikipedia article. In particular, I’ve worked with MOS:FILM for a number of years and am thinking of this particular policy:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Documentaries


 * “Documentary films require a modified approach for their articles. Instead of a plot summary, a documentary article should have a synopsis that serves as an overview of the documentary. The synopsis should describe the on-screen events of the film without interpretation, following the same guidelines that apply to a plot summary (see WP:FILMPLOT).”


 * So for example, I created the article on Vegucated in 2012 which I described from the very first edit as:
 * “a 2010 American documentary film that explores the challenges of converting to a vegan diet.”
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vegucated&oldid=513001130


 * “Forks Over Knives” never explicitly uses the term “vegan” or discusses a “vegan diet” (except I believe in one interview in which the person interviewed uses the term “vegan” in a general way). In addition, the director Lee Fulkerson states in an interview (included in the article):


 * “Veganism just means anything that doesn’t have animal-based products in it. But you can still eat highly processed foods that are vegan,” he says, citing potato chips and french fries as examples. “You want to use minimally processed things.”.


 * The sources that you added next to the term “vegan” are two film reviews and a review by its very definition is an opinion, not fact. Usually in film articles, reviews are sourced in the review section. Perhaps a way to address this matter with regard to WP:RS is to say that while film reviews refer to the film as exploring a vegan diet, the filmmakers call it "whole foods plant-based" to stress that processed food should be avoided as well as food of animal origin. In this way the Wikipedia is directly reflecting the sources.

That being said, I’m not going to revert your edit as I’m too busy in Real life for long discussions. I will leave it to other editors to explore. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem with plant-based diet is that it has come to mean many things, a lack of clarity to which I fear Wikipedia has contributed. While the film director clearly intended it as another term for a vegan diet, it can now refer to diets that include animal products. It makes sense to add the standard term, rather than rely on a source's private language. Sarah (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved: OK, OK, OK, as asked. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Forks over Knives → Forks Over Knives – Does anyone mind if this is moved back to Forks Over Knives? We're the only publication that I can see that doesn't capitalize the O. Sarah (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Noting that Anthony has converted my post to an RM. Sarah (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It personally doesn't matter to me one way or the other. However, I suspect the change was made in accordance with this film MOS guideline: "Naming conventions (films)." I do agree that no where else on the web is "over" lowercase. -Classicfilms (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (copied from User talk:Anthony Appleyard):-
 * Hi Anthony, you moved Forks Over Knives to Forks over Knives in 2012 as uncontroversial. The film title is Forks Over Knives, and Wikipedia seems to be the only publication using the lower case; for example, film website and NYT review. Would you mind moving it back? I tried to do it but would have had to use the tools. Many thanks, Sarah (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

content not supported by sources
The following is not supported by its sources, so i'm moving it here. Esselstyn is not mentioned by name in either source provided.

Esselstyn has also been criticized for his dichotomous approach to nutrition (i.e.either plant-based or "the traditional American diet") and neglecting to evaluate diets free of junk food, red meat, dairy, fish, nuts, wheat, or combinations thereof.

- Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Not related to the movie
The following chunk of content is not related to the movie specifically, but seems to be arguing generally about whether it is better to eat no fish or to include fish (?)

Numerous reviews of the science behind the movie have shown that conclusions drawn in the movie are not in line with standard statistical analysis practice. Harvard scientist Frank B Hu and Walter Willett state,

"Campbell questioned the validity of our findings because they contradict the results of international correlation studies on animal product consumption and disease rates... Correlational studies conducted within a country can usually provide more credible data than international comparisons because of relatively homogeneous populations and the possibility of collecting data on potential confounding variables at individual levels. A survey of 65 counties in rural China, however, did not find a clear association between animal product consumption and risk of heart disease or major cancers."

Similar conclusions were reached by Orlich et al (2013), which was a large and comprehensive epidemiological study done in the US and looking at a very homogeneous population. While this study gives strong evidence to the virtues of reducing overall meat consumption, it does not support the stronger conclusions made in the film and in Campbell's book that urge reducing fat and eliminating all animal products, except with regards to renal and endocrine related mortality – both of which showed a large reduction in mortality when animal protein was avoided.

In particular, Orlich et al study picks out as most healthful the pesco-vegetarian, not the vegan diet, although vegan men specifically had the lowest all-cause mortality, ischemic heart disease, cardiovascular disease, and cancer mortality rates.

Further analysis by Orlich et al significantly substantiated the film's claim that avoiding animal protein had protection against certain types of cancers, mainly colorectal. However, again, the most protection seemed to be a plant based diet that added fish consumption (pesco-vegetarian diet).

In this study, pesco-vegetarians (those consuming fish but no other animal products) had almost half the rate of death (0.57 Hazard Ratio) from colorectal cancers than those that ate a regular diet. Vegans also showed a statistically significant difference of mortality rate from colorectal cancers (0.84 Hazard Ratio).

- Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forks Over Knives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512012224/http://metrotimes.com/screens/forks-over-knives-1.1149729 to http://metrotimes.com/screens/forks-over-knives-1.1149729

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

missing criticism section
This film has been highly criticized by experts. We need to reflect that. trysten (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)