Ryan and Debi Cragun’s Blog

Skinny Bitch
Author:
Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin
Publisher:
Running Press
Date of Publication:
2005
ISBN:
0762424931
Rating:
0
Summary:
A friend of ours mentioned this book over dinner one night after she learned Debi and I are vegetarians. She had read it and thought we might find it interesting. When we first became vegetarians (almost 9 years ago) we were kind of evangelistic about it, but, over time, became much less so; now, we don’t really even talk about it unless someone brings it up (see note on vegetarianism at the end of this review). So, given the chance to read a popular book - popular enough to warrant a piss-poor NYTimes review - that advocates vegetarianism, I thought it might be worthwhile.

This is only the second book I’ve ever decided to not finish reading because it was so wildly inaccurate. Mind you, the book advocates eating healthy (mostly vegetables and fruits), exercising (moderate, not over the top), and not drinking excessively, smoking, or doing drugs. I’m for all of that. So, what’s the problem? The problem is in the arguments for why you should do what the authors say. I read the first 45 pages and found so many inaccuracies that I decided it wouldn’t be worth my time to continue reading this terrible, terrible book. Inaccuracies? How could advocating the above be in any way inaccurate? I found only 1 semi-accurate claim in the first 45 pages. This book is nothing but inaccuracies…

Take this quote from page 12 for instance, “Beer is for frat boys, not skinny bitches. It makes you fat, bloated, and farty. Why do you think when kids go away to college they gain the “freshman fifteen”? Beer, duh.” Now, those who know me know I’m no fan of beer. I don’t like the taste. But the argument against beer here is fallacious. Why? Because the “freshman fifteen” is a myth. Sure, beer has calories. And sure, drinking too much beer is bad for you. But if you watch your caloric intake and include some beer in that, there is no reason you will gain weight from drinking beer. Are there better sources of calories than beer? Absolutely. But why use myths to make your point?

Um, I think I have the answer to that… It may have something to do with the fact that the authors have no idea what they are talking about. According to the back cover: Rory Freedman is “a former agent for Ford Models,” and “is a self-taught know-it-all.” And Kim Barnouin “is a former model who holds a Masters of Science degree in Holistic Nutrition.” FYI, a Masters of Science in Holistic Nutrition is about the equivalent of saying, “I have a PhD from Never Never Land in fighting pirates.” The authors are not remotely qualified to write this book. The lack of qualifications is glaring as they make error after error. Let me point out a few more I found in those first 45 pages…

Here’s a claim from page 14, “Aspartame (an ingredient commonly found in diet sodas and other sugar-free foods) has been blamed for a slew of scary maladies, like arthritis, birth defects, fibromyalgia, Alzheimer’s, lupus, multiple sclerosis, and diabetes.” Thirty seconds on Pub Med resulted in this article (thanks Debi) that concludes, based on all of the existing literature, that aspartame “is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener.” The authors are also misleading in their presentation of aspartame. They claim, “So many people have been sickened from this shit that there are aspartame victim support groups. Some of the ninety-two aspartame side effects listed by the FDA include memory loss, nerve cell damage, migraines, reproductive disorders, mental confusion, brain lesions, blindness, joint pain, Alzheimer’s, bloating, nervous system disorders, hair loss, food cravings, and weight gain” (p. 34). If you actually look up the reference they gave for this claim, the above list of “side effects” are actually “claimed side effects” from people who have complained to the FDA. None of these side effects are supported by the scientific evidence, and the very reference they give says as much. This is either a tell-tale sign of idiotic authors (we’re too stupid to tell the difference between “claimed side effects” and “actual side effects”) or a bias that translates into deception and mischaracterization. Either way, the authors are giving out erroneous information and doing a public disservice.

Here’s another claim based on a myth, “Unless you’re from Mars, you’ve heard about the “eight glasses of water a day” thing” (p. 14; note, that’s two from the same page!). Unless you’re from planet “ignoramus” you would realize that a quick Google search results in dozens of articles debunking that myth. You don’t need to drink 8 glasses of water a day. You should drink as many as you want or feel you need (advice from actual scientists, not holistic crackpots).

And why, you might ask, do they reference the “eight glasses of water a day” myth? Because they believe the water is necessary to cleanse all of the “toxins” from your body, “Water is vital for keeping your body clean and detoxified. It literally flushes out all the shit and toxins your body stores from your horrendous diet” (p. 14; that’s 3 mistakes on one page). The second I read “toxins” I knew I was reading a book of complete and utter nonsense. Toxins are a legitimate concern - things like arsenic, lead, mold spores, or rayon can all harm you. But what are the alleged “toxins” the authors believe need to be flushed out of the body? Maybe it has to do with this absurd claim from page 37, “When food is digested, it leaves an acid or alkaline “ash” in the body, depending on the food’s mineral content.” Another PubMed search returned one search result for “alkaline base ash” from the mid 1980s that was inconclusive concerning the effects of foods on urine acidity. Apparently the whole “ash” idea is popular in holistic medicine. Oh, and nobody working in nutrition fields today think this is remotely important enough to study. So, the “toxins” you are flushing from your system are actually the foods you are eating. Huh, who knew that apple is going to kill you?

The authors are also anti-modern medicine. (What do you expect from a “holistic nutritionist”?) They actually say, “taking medicine will make you feel better for the moment, but will fuck up something else in your body” and “Do you think putting chemicals in your body is good for you?” (p. 19). They rail against the Food and Drug Administration, considering it a rubber stamp for the pharmaceutical and food industries but a gatekeeper that prevents holistic and - the most holy of buzzwords today - “organic” alternatives from getting into the market. Until one of the authors of this book can provide me a solution for my seasonal allergies that doesn’t include fluticasone propionate (a.k.a. Flonase), I think they should be forced to recall every copy of this book.

Oh, and they don’t just think medicine is bad. I said they recommend exercise, but not too much, because that is bad for you, too. Here’s what they say, “In fact, you shouldn’t, because too much exercise is bad for you. It can lead to dehydration, arthritis, osteoporosis, and injuries like strains, sprains, and fractures” (p. 20). Dehydration is easily prevented with proper hydration. So, too much exercise doesn’t lead to this unless you are an idiot. Perhaps highly repetitive exercises could lead to arthritis, but it would have to be highly repetitive. But the big faux pas here is osteoporosis. There are a few million medical doctors (and a fair number of scientists) who just fell off their chairs laughing as a result of reading this. Any guess what the recommended treatment is for osteoporosis? Exercise and chemicals a.k.a. medication (to increase bone density)! I’m going to be generous to the authors of this book and say that they aren’t killing you willfully, just negligently. They aren’t saying, “Let’s kill our readers.” What they are saying is, “We’re too fracking ignorant to know that our advice will kill our readers.”

I have another 10 or so examples I’d like to debunk here, but I’ll only give one more. I can’t help but include this one because it is just so telling of how ignorant the authors of this book are. They try to attack eating meat by attacking evolution, “Before you start spouting off information you’ve been brainwashed with about evolution and the food chain, read on. Yes, humans have a high level of intelligence. Yes, we created weapons for hunting and fire for cooking. Yes, we found a way to mass-produce animals for consumption. However, if you study animals in the wild, you will note that they do not rely on anything other than their natural hunting ability, speed, strength, claws, teeth, and jaws. They have no tools or weapons. Now look at yourself. Look at your flimsy fingernails in comparison to an eagle’s talons. Look at your flat, blunt teeth compared to a lion’s fangs. Compare your speed and agility to that of a tiger. Compare the strength of your jaw to a wolf’s. Imagine yourself trying to run after an animal, catch it, and kill it using your bare hands, fingernails, teeth, and jaws. Not only would you look ridiculous, but you’d probably get your ass kicked, too. And even if you were successful, envision yourself eating the kill without the aid of an oven and silverware. Yes, the human brain allows us to stay removed from the process of hunting. But does this mean we are “evolved” and “intelligent” and should be eating animal flesh just because we can? Man’s “intelligence” also created alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs. Should we drink, smoke, and use just because we can?” (pp. 41-42). In case you don’t see the problems here, let me spell them out. First, our large brains provide an evolutionary advantage over other animals that allows us to kill them, both to avoid being killed by them and to eat them. Many evolutionary biologists today also believe that the high energy requirements of our brain required a turn to a higher energy diet that is loaded with animal protein. Additionally, our closest living primate relatives, chimpanzees, do hunt and kill other animals and eat them - and they do so without huge fangs or claws. In no sense is their characterization of evolution accurate or informed. What’s more, they are committing a logical fallacy by comparing the consumption of meat to the consumption of cigarettes. Cigarettes are, quite literally, toxic. Meat is not. Cigarettes can’t keep you alive. Meat can. This is a false comparison.

After about the second erroneous claim, I checked the list of references in the back of the book. The book does, amazingly, have references. But, here’s the catch, not a single one of the references is to a peer-reviewed academic/scientific publication. There are a couple references that are to news articles that discuss peer-reviewed publications, but that’s as close as they get. Most of the references are to conspiracy theory type, pro-vegan publications. So what, you say? Well, the peer-reviewed publications are the currency of factual information. If the authors of this book can’t bother themselves to dig through any of that literature, can they be trusted to tell you anything accurate? Should you trust them?

In case you didn’t notice in the quotes, the authors are also keen to swear and make rude, disparaging comments. They insult their readers and speak down to them. If Nobel Laureates are humble enough not to speak down to other scientists, the authors certainly have no justification for doing so. I don’t want to harp on this point as I really don’t care that much about it, but it’s just one more reason why you shouldn’t read this book. In summary: If you like being insulted, misled, and lied to by people who are less informed than you are, then, by all means, buy this book. If, however, you are like me and prefer to LEARN when you read something, this is not the book for you.

(Note on Vegetarianism: Humans really have evolved to be omnivores. Reputable nutritionists and doctors recommend a diet that is mostly grains, vegetables, and fruits, with small amounts of lean meats, dairy, and sweets. We are less evangelistic of vegetarianism precisely because we can no longer argue health benefits from eating this way. There are, however, a few studies that indicate vegetarians tend to be more intelligent than non-vegetarians; probably a correlation, and not causation. There are also studies indicating vegetarians are less likely to be obese; again, probably correlation and not causation, though there is more evidence for cause on this one. The single best argument for vegetarianism today is really environmental: meat production adds more CO2 to the atmosphere every year in the US than does driving cars. Plus, you can feed more people on a vegetarian diet than a protein rich, meat-based diet, which is a concern if you are a neo-Malthusian. So, we are vegetarians primarily for environmental reasons. References available on request.)

(Second Note: If you’re a credentialed nutritionist and would like to write a book debunking the claims of this book, please email me or comment below. My wife and I have worked out an outline for such a book and would be willing to contribute a substantial amount, but lack the credentials to write such a book.)

—————-
Now playing: Tchaikovsky - Nutcracker: Toy Flutes
via FoxyTunes