Critique of 'The Vegetarian Myth'

[Sayward]

I see Lierre Keith's ridiculous screed against vegetarianism referenced a lot on these forums. It always surprises me how smart people can read such not-science and just take it at face value.

Anyway, here's a preliminary rebuttal (the book is too full of misinformation to do a comprehensive analysis in a single blog post) by an actual dietician.

Read! Enjoy!
http://www.theveganrd.com/2010/09/re...rian-myth.html

[Smokering]

That's not a rebuttal. A rebuttal needs to prove the opponent's arguments wrong, not just declare them wrong. The author of that particular review got a lot of mileage out of Lierre Keith's allegedly bad sourcing (which is fair enough, if she refs Wikipedia - I haven't read TVM), but gives no sources for her own statements. "She says saturated fat is bad, but it isn't" is a disagreement, not a rebuttal - and odd in the light of several works recently on the importance of saturated fat.

I was also unimpressed with her depiction of the WAPF. The "opinions" of a 1930s dentist? No, the research of a 1930s dentist, much of which has been confirmed, expanded on and corroborated by more modern, well-designed studies.

So yeah... TVM may well have serious issues, and the one fact she actually rebutted (about soy vs soy protein) was interesting, but that read like more of a hate rant than a rebuttal.

[Purple Sage]

Hey Sayward, have you read The Vegetarian Myth? I have.

I agree with Smokering. This was not really a rebuttal at all. If the author of this review is so concerned with the sources of Lierre Keith's information, I would expect her to provide some sources of her own. But she didn't. However, if you read any of the material put out by Dr. Eades (a source the author of the review critiques Keith for citing), you'll see that it is very well researched and cited. It might take a little longer to get to primary sources this way, but there's plenty of information for anyone willing to do the legwork involved.

She also didn't address many of the points Lierre Keith made, like how many animals have to die to make a vegan meal. (Yes, they do!) Or how grains are not very good food for human consumption....you would agree with that, wouldn't you, Sayward, at least on a personal level? Seeing as how much of the vegan argument for combating human starvation revolves around people consuming a lot of grains, I would think this is an important subject to talk about.

She also didn't say where Lierre Keith said that polyunsaturated fats are "lowfat" and I certainly don't remember reading that in the book.

I don't really have the time to get into this any further, and my copy of TVM is on my Kindle so the page numbers don't line up with the review, anyway. I'm just not impressed with this so-called rebuttal. Not that Keith's book is spot-on and perfect, but this review is honestly not a good one.

[Shantimama]

I am re-opening this thread. Let's make sure to keep the forum guidelines in mind when posting!

[Shantimama]

[mamadelbosque]

Can I just say that I really don't get the obsession TF people have in attempting to shooting holes in vegetarian/vegan's beliefs, nor the vegetarian/vegans attempting to shoot holes in TF thinking?? I mean, really. If you don't want to be a vegetarian, fine, who cares, good for you. If you think eating animals is wrong/bad/whatever thats fine too. But really, all these cosntant threads about "well this book is just awful. Its so wrong, cause' theres all of THIS science that says THIS so that is *OBVIOUSLY* WRONG!" just doesn't make sense to me. You know? I mean, really. Humans have survived & thrived peachy fine on thousands of different diets... who the heck are you or *ANYONE* to say that XYZ is 'wrong' or 'bad'?? I mean, really??