Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

I saw this movie because I am interested in leading a healthier lifestyle. The film posits several scientific studies/examples which purport to show that veganism is the correct diet/lifestyle choice. One example intrigued me. Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, one of the main subjects of the film, furnished a graph depicting a dramatic decrease in deaths from heart-related diseases in Norway during World War II. On the graph, the drop-off during the war was astounding. Before the war, the rate of circulatory-based deaths was increasing. During the war, it dropped sharply. After the war, it went back up again. Clearly, it seemed, some factor was at work during the war. The narrator of the movie posits that this is attributable to Nazi confiscation of domesticated animals during the occupation of Norway: "In World War II the Germans occupied Norway. Among the first things they did was confiscate all the livestock and farm animals to provide supplies for their own troops. So the Norwegians were forced to eat mainly plant-based foods." After some commentary, Dr. Esselstyn subsequently states: "With the cessation of hostilities in 1945, back comes the meat, back comes the dairy, back comes the strokes and heart attacks. Such an absolute powerful lesson, but, we didn't get it." I thought this was amazing and decided to research it. Unfortunately, however, I came to find that this historical depiction is not accurate. The graph used in the movie was reproduced from an article in the "Lancet" medical journal. "Mortality from Circulatory Diseases in Norway 1940-1945." By Dr. Axel Strom and Dr. R. Adelsten Jensen, published in 1951. This is not a scientific study--its contents are not open to varying interpretations. It is a 4-page historical survey of diet during the war years in Norway. The article cites a more detailed study published by Dr. Strom in 1948: "Examination Into the Diet of Norwegian Families During the War-Years 1942-45." It is in a supplement of "Acta Medica Scandinavia." While red meat consumption decreased (due to rationing--I personally could not find evidence of Nazi confiscation, although, I did not research this heavily)--the consumption of fish increased significantly during the war. Long story short, fish consumption nearly tripled among Norwegians during the war (Norwegian sardines are famous--and fish cannot be confiscated). Consumption of herring, mackerel, and small, oily fish increased from an average of 99 to 292g per day. "The highest value ever found by any dietary investigation in Norway," Strom notes. At the same time, the fat intake among working families decreased from an average of 159 to 71g per day. Daily caloric intake was also reduced from 3,470 calories per man in 1937-38 to 2,850 calories 1942-45. Strom's 1948 study goes on to state, "Consumption of milk of all sorts averaged 404 grs. per man value per day." And subsequently, "The average daily consumption of butcher's meal was 32.3 grs. per man value." Clearly, Norwegians had access to ample fish, rationed quantities of red meat, and moderate supplies of milk. None of these facts are congruent with how this historical situation was articulated in the film. I am not a scientist, I just want to lead a healthier lifestyle. Many of the examples adduced in the movie as proofs for veganism I am unable to vet for myself. However, I am able to understand this example. The use of this example in the movie is either based upon intentional falsehood, or simplistic oversight. Simply, Norwegians weren't eating "mainly plant-based foods." Moreover, the journal articles are not very robust, they are not scientific studies. I am not sure they can inform us at all about healthy eating--perhaps during WWII Norwegians walked more and smoked less. The articles are historically interesting, but they're not really on-par with today's scientific studies. Because of this, I feel I am unable to trust other things in this movie (the studies I am unable to evaluate), and from other research, have decided to not be a vegan. If such a simple, straight-forward journal article could be misunderstood, misconstrued, or obfuscated, it would be much easier to misrepresent the other examples in the movie which rely on a firmer understanding of science. The use of this Norwegian example demonstrates either extreme deficiency in research ability (it is a straight-forward, 4-page article, after all), or intentional falsehood. Neither of which are factors which engender credibility in any research field, which requires intellectual rigor and honesty. However, I am happy to have gone through this process of studying nutrition. "Forks Over Knives" spurred me to do that. It also taught me a lot about truth, honesty, and the nature of humanity. Because of the lessons learned in the course of my research, I have come to more fully respect and value the truth. I endeavor to always be intellectually honest, admit when I do not know something or where there are nuances in what the truth is, and never compromise in communicating just the truth. I do not want to waste my life by lying--against myself, against the truth, and especially to others, when their health, well-being, and conception of the truth is at stake. I hope this benefits others.