Doctor's Note

The two videos I reference are Solving a Colon Cancer Mystery and Bowel Wars: Hydrogen Sulfide vs. Butyrate.

In Stool pH and Colon Cancer, I explain how we should strive to have an acidic environment in our colon (but alkaline in our kidneys): How to Treat Kidney Stones with Diet and Testing Your Diet with Pee & Purple Cabbage).

More on bowel health in:

This helps explain why animal protein may increase cancer risk, but what about the animal fat? That’s the subject of my next video: How to Reduce Carcinogenic Bile Acid Production.

If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

To post comments or questions into our discussion board, first log into Disqus with your account or with one of the accepted social media logins. Click on Login to choose a login method. Click here for help.

  • Veggie Eric

    Kudos again Dr G! Tell it like it is…Animal products suck. Simple as that.

    • charles grashow

      “Animal products suck.”

      It would not be possible to have a discussion with you based on logic and science. If you’re a vegetarian due to moral beliefs then you will, like the good doctor, cherry pick studies that prove your point and ignore those studies which do not support your point.

      There is no evidence that any society in recorded history voluntarily chose the vegetarian diet – humans are opportunistic omnivores – eating whatever is available in their area – including cannibalism .
      Journey Of Man; A Genetic Odyssey!

      • Andrew F.

        I am on a whole food plant based diet for health reasons. I would agree that vegetarians will often seek and give bias to information that supports their own bias; however, the paleo people etc. are equally guilty. As a layperson I have to weigh up and gamble on where I believe the most liklihood of truth and accuracy is. Having listened to all sides, my gamble is not with consuming animal products

        I disagree with your claim we are opportunistic omnivores. The fact you used the word opportunistic implies choice, not physiological definition. We are opportunistic adapters and have done so in order to populate the globe, but physiologically we started as herbivores and there is no physiological necessity to consume animal products and health wise the evidence mounts that we are probably better not to. Of course, if your bias is to submit to the temptation of meat and fat, then the studies and information produced by the meat and dairy industries will be more appealing.

        • charles grashow

          “physiologically we started as herbivores ”

          Which paleo diet should we eat? The one from twelve thousand years ago? A hundred thousand years ago? Forty million years ago? If you want to return to your ancestral diet, the one our ancestors ate when most of the features of our guts were evolving, you might reasonably eat what our ancestors spent the most time eating during the largest periods of the evolution of our guts, fruits, nuts, and vegetables—especially fungus-covered tropical leaves.

          • Andrew F.

            I am not here to be better than you or to win an argument. A gamble though it is, I have heard nothing that compels me to change my view at this time; however, I’ll change it in a heartbeat if I do. Take care.

          • Ray Tajoma

            If we are Omnivores: *How come we don’t have 4 long sharp K9 teeth like All mammal omnivores do ? Why are our teeth flat and look like horse & cow’s teeth ? *Why don’t we eat RAW chicken, duck, turkey, veal, etc. with no vegan spices like omnivores do ? *Why are our intestines long and stomach aciditity low like other herbivores ? *How come we sweat through our skin like herbivores (horse) ? *Why are our jaws able to move from side to side like herbivores ? *Why when we close our mouth, our flat uniform height teeth in upper and lower jaws sit perfectly on top of each other (all teeth fit inside the jaw) like herbivores ? *How come we chew our food like herbivores (chew gum) ? *Why is the #1 cause of death in the USA, atherosclerosis (elevated cholesterol) – a disease only of herbivores ? Etc. Objective Physical Evidence is overwhelming that we are NOT omnivores.

            Most omnivore arguments (like yours) are based on past human evolution theories, opinions and stories. Proving a theory wrong, especially something that occurred millions of years ago, is like proving Santa Claus does not exist. Everything is possible. None of us were around two million years ago to know.

          • zm4jk0

            More fruigivores than herbivores. Greens are more muscle builders (just have a look at a cow) but fruits are nerve and brain builders (seems like just the right food for us). I’m not implying we should eat just fruit (unless fruit fasting to help the body heal itself) but mainly fruit.

      • Karl Young

        Righto, good point; no need to ever modify behavior based on scientific evidence.

        Also good point re. cherry picking; certainly even all scientists do it. But since you made the point I invite you to compare the volume of papers that suggest that a whole foods based, meat free diet is healthier than other diets with papers to the contrary. Based on the volume of papers cited by Dr. Greger I have my suspicions but I leave it to you to flesh out your point.

        • charles grashow

          If diet is destiny, then modern humans should thank our ancestors for their ability to eat just about anything.

          Two new studies peek into the distant past to try to figure out just how big a role food played in human evolution. One says that eating meat made it possible for early human mothers to wean babies earlier and have more children.

          The other study finds that humans and some other primates have stuck with being omnivores for a very long time. That’s unlike many of our mammal friends, who used the omnivore lifestyle as a mere rest stop on the way from herbivore to carnivore.

          • Jerry J.

            Might choice also be destiny?

          • Karl Young

            Sure but that’s completely beside the point. Being omniverous was also probably really useful re. getting to reproductive age on the Savannah. The point is that now, for people that have easy access to multiple source of protein, it appears (e.g. via numerous studies “cherry picked” herein) that whole foods plant based diets lessen the chance of degenerative disease as we age. Sure, I thank my ancestors for getting me here and now I’d like to avoid a painful demise.

        • charles grashow

          Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns.

          • Lawrence

            What better arguments does one need?

          • Linda N

            @Lawrence: Except health concerns differ widely. Those who are choosing the paleo diet are also choosing it for health concerns as well. And just like vegans/vegetarians, many are also getting great results. One man’s meat is another man’s poison is wholly true. No one diet is best for everyone. And I agree with Andrew who said “vegetarians will often seek and give preference to information that supports their own bias; however, the paleo people etc. are equally guilty.” Dr. Gregor does indeed cherry pick studies to support his views, as do the medical paleo proponents.

            Both sides have studies to support their views. That is because nutrition and biochemistry is very complex. It is not a question of whether a vegan, vegetarian or paleo diet etc. is best for humans, but whether a vegan, vegetarian, or paleo diet is best for the individual: Something each of these medical proponents, in my view, cannot seem to grasp.

            I am having to adapt a low histamine diet at this point, which is more towards the carbohydrate end of the spectrum, and still try to meet my increased methionine and B12 and other nutritional needs dictated by faulty biochemistry with supplements. The diet I am being forced to pursue fits in with none of the above dietary descriptions and I am still struggling with it and all the restrictions while trying to make certain all my nutritional needs are met. Not an easy task, but it is what it is.

          • Max Urfer

            Paleo is a dramatic improvement in comparison to a Standard American Diet, admittedly so. However, a vegan diet is vastly superior. People can attempt justify consumption animal products as much as they want, but that doesn’t make them right. We have evolved to a point at which we do have a choice and the choice is clear (for those who wish to continue to evolve). A vegan diet is superior to paleo in every way.

          • Linda N

            Well that is your belief. I do not see where the totality of literature proves by any stretch of the imagination that vegan diets are superior in any way. I do not eat paleo but neither do I eat vegan. I eat the diet that is right for me. Period

          • Veganrunner

            Linda have you watched Cowspiracy? Man the way the cattle industry is manipulating the topic is crazy. If you haven’t I would highly recommend it. It isn’t about the abuse of cattle but rather the manipulation of humans. Such an eye opener.

          • Linda N

            No I have not seen it but I do realize what the cattle and meat industry do to cattle. I no longer eat red meat for health reasons of my own, but when I did, I ate organic pastured-raised. If the video is on youtube I will certainly check it out.

          • largelytrue

            And you thought that being ‘organic’ and ‘pasture-raised’ alone significantly erased the serious concerns about red meat for the general population?

          • Linda N

            I do not see any concerns when organic pastured-raised meat is eaten as a small part of a mostly plant-based diet. When any CAFCO meat is eaten there is are concerns. End of my input on this issue. You are eating the diet you believe is best for you. Lets hope you do well on it in the long term. Vegans get cancer and heart disease and all the rest. The idea that a vegan diet is going to save everyone from heart disease and cancer is simply not ture.


            I wonder how many vegans actually put their diets through dietary analysis to see if they are meeting their nutritional requirements. Plus there are plenty of junk food vegans, just like there are plenty of junk-food meat eaters.

            There is more to nutrition than being a vegan, although I do agree that all people would do better with a lot more vegetables in their diet. Using meat and animal protein as a condiment more than the main dish.

            Having said, I don’t think I need to participate in this particular thread further. You have your dietary beliefs, and are eating accordingly. Again, I hope that your choice works for you in the long run, but no one dietary approach is right for everyone.

          • largelytrue

            But you do see concerns with eating similarly small amounts of non-organic pasture-raised meat, or small amounts of non-organic feedlot beef? What are they? Are they suggested by the totality of scientific evidence?

            Who said that a vegan diet is going to save everyone from heart disease and cancer? I certainly didn’t say that.

          • largelytrue

            Why do you switch to the language of proof when talking about the totality of scientific literature? Science is based on the tentativity of knowledge.

            Which vegan diets are not demonstrably superior “in any way” to what non-vegan counterparts?

            You eat the diet that is right for you. Period. Hopefully you don’t see this as proven or axiomatic at this point in your life, because if you are, then you are simply being foolish and dogmatic.

          • Max Urfer

            I’m definitely following the right path according to some of the smartest people in history.


          • Linda N

            And that also is your belief as well as a belief for those on the list. I look to nutritional science. I do sincerely hope that the diet you are following turns out to be the best one for you based on your unique biochemistry. I have already done DNA testing and am using the information about my biochemistry to eat the way that is best for me.

          • Panchito

            Cooked meat is a technological transformation. And thus, calling humans omnivores has errors and assumptions. For example:

            Humans are birds because they fly.

            Well yeah, they fly because of technology (air plane) . In the same way, humans can eat meat because of technology.

          • siriusfarm

            Bottom Line Up Front: Because humans get atherosclerosis, and atherosclerosis is a disease only of herbivores, humans also must be herbivores.*** William C Roberts MD

            William C. Roberts MD has five decades of experience in the field of cardiology, written over 1300 scientific publications, a dozen cardiology textbooks, and has been editor in chief of the American Journal of Cardiology for a quarter of a century. He is arguably the most highly regarded cardiologist in the world today. Dr. Roberts does not adhere to a strict vegan diet which I think even lends more credence to his findings.

          • charles grashow

            Roberts also said this

            ” if the serum total cholesterol is 90 to 140 mg/dL, there is no evidence that cigarette smoking, systemic hypertension, diabetes mellitus, inactivity, or obesity produces atherosclerotic plaques. Hypercholesterolemia is the only direct atherosclerotic risk factor; the others are indirect.”

          • Boxo
          • Linda Gains

            Did you really just link to a Berry Groves the electrical engineer turned Atkins nutter blog post about Freelee and Harley? loll! Why are you here trolling nutritionfacts with this made up bro-science stuff? Too funny man. Have a look at what Dr Fuhrman has to say about your boy ol crazy Barry.


          • Thea

            charles: I’m glad you mentioned anatomy as I think using biology/anatomy is one of the best sets of evidence for determining what is healthy for humans to eat. Going strictly based on anatomy, humans are herbivores. In other words, while humans can (and often do) consume animal products and get some nutrition from it, human anatomy is optimized for plant eating only. Not even for omnivore eating.

            You can learn more here:

            That doesn’t mean that humans have *no* adaptations for meat eating. We have a very small number. But as the page above shows, the vast majority of biological evidence puts humans in the herbivore category.

          • charles grashow
          • Thea

            charles: As explained in the page I linked you to, your statement is just a theory, in the sense of someone’s pretty story that sounds good. There is no proof to back it up. No one knows for sure how we got our big brains.

            Given that our anatomy/biology puts humans in the herbivore category, the theory that meat is responsible for our big brains seems unlikely to reflect reality. Note that there are other theories as to how we got our big brains that are just as valid–because they are all just theories. There is a TED talk about humans getting big brains just from cooking our food. I found that to be a compelling and interesting talk. But I still understand that is is just a theory.

            Big brains or no, I would encourage you to look at the link I included above for information about human biology. Our bodies are optimized for eating plants.

          • Charzie

            The cooking theory makes total sense when you consider we are the only animal that does it, but name a carnivore that has our intellect if meat eating is supposed to be the “preferred” theory. We all know cooking meat makes it even more unhealthy, so hmmm… how could that have possibly contributed to our advancement? Pretty clear to me, eh herbivores?

          • Max Urfer

            What is our brain’s primary source of energy? Glucose

          • Danilo


            Sorry, eating starchy food is how humans got their big brains.

            “…unlike our fellow primates, modern humans have many copies of a gene that makes a protein in our saliva that is crucial for breaking down starch into glucose. Our brains run on glucose.”

          • baht

            This supposedly scientific myth has been circulating for decades with absolutely no push-back. Perhaps you would find this interesting.

          • charles grashow

            From your linked article

            “But Henry Bunn, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, has a more typical–and skeptical–reaction to the tuber theory. He says Wrangham’s team “downplay[s] lots of sound evidence that we have [for meat-eating and fire use] and [accepts] at face value problematic evidence.” A major problem for the theory, notes Hill, is that where there’s cooking smoke, there must be fire. Yet he, Michigan’s Brace, and most other anthropologists contend that cooking fires began in earnest barely 250,000 years ago, when ancient hearths, earth ovens, burnt animal bones, and flint appear across Europe and the middle East. Back 2 million years ago, the only sign of fire is burnt earth with human remains, which most anthropologists consider coincidence rather than evidence of intentional fire.

            O’Connell counters that fires for cooking tubers rather than meat “might have been very ephemeral” and left few traces, but most of his colleagues remain unconvinced. “I think there would be evidence if it were [behind] as important an evolutionary leap as [Wrangham’s team] suggests,” says Behrensmeyer.”









          • Thea

            baht: Such an interesting article. Thanks for sharing!

          • Panchito

            Meat does not make the brain bigger. Lions eat lots of meat but don’t have big brains.

          • charles grashow

            Gorillas eat plants – how big are their brains??

          • Panchito

            elephants eat plants and they have bigger brains than humans

          • charles grashow

            and that proves what?

          • Panchito

            This is what you previously wrote:

            “Eating meat and cooking food is how humans got their big brains”

            I just showed you that lions eat more meat but have smaller brains. I also showed you that elephants eat raw plants but have bigger brains. In conclusion, you statement above is false.

          • Kate Reed

            It will not work to compare lions to humans (the old saying: like apples to oranges). You may be able to find a comparison between primates, though. The theory is that the reason we have so much more brain power than our primate cousins is that we came up with cooking, which makes nutrients so much more available to our bodies.

          • Charzie

            Right, and tigers and lions eat meat, and how big are theirs?

          • Karl Young

            I hate to keep flogging a dead horse here but you keep bringing up evolutionary characteristics that may or may not have been a partial product of being omnivorous. But giving you the benefit of the doubt that those assertions are true, the important point, at least as far as the issues discussed here, is what is the healthiest diet for the very different environment in which we now live, and for which life expectancy is drastically higher than our early evolutionary environment.

          • Max Urfer

            Perhaps it’s the “cooked foods” that was the primary contributing factor to our brain development. Maybe fruit wasn’t around year round, so what else could we have cooked? Well, what about startches, such as root vegetables and beans? No, that wouldn’t make sense. The smartest animals on the planet are carnivores… I’m voting for alien intervention.

            Charles, what star system did we come from?

          • largelytrue

            I think these are some of the crudest arguments, personally, and suspect that they tend to seem persuasive because the categories and examples are tailored at the outset so that ‘omnivores’ are nearly identical with ‘carnivores’ anatomically and therefore rather distinct from humans.

            Is Mills qualified to speak wide-rangingly on comparative mammalian anatomy as an expert? Did his oft-cited (in vegan communities) paper pass peer review to get in a journal that covers topics in comparative mammalian anatomy within its expertise? Does he cite the research of experts in relevant fields? Is the article therefore scholarly in even the most minimal sense?

            For an example of a credible source, consider this article. It is a peer-reviewed paper on the comparative anatomy of the human jaw joint, for the purpose of discussing the strengths and weaknesses of various animal models. While arguing for the importance of studying a variety of animals to develop inferences about human disease, the authors note that higher primate jaw joints share a lot of similarity with that of the pig, which is able to move in three dimensions relatively freely and withstands a much stronger force during chewing than the jaw joints of ungulates, rodents, or lagomorphs.

            Pigs are a kind of omnivore with much of dietary energy coming through plant sources and they share some similarities with what is often hypothesized for the early bipedal hominids. Part of why underground storage organs (USOs) are being so carefully considered for their role in human evolution is because these clearly represent a fairly uncrowded niche that offers a rich source of calories to large ground-foraging creatures with special skills that aren’t necessarily yet well adapted to take big game and hold onto a large carcass without substantial risk of injury or death.

          • Thea

            Interesting. Thanks.

          • JohnC

            The best and most up-to-date look at evolutionary nutrition is Don Matesz, “Powered by Plants,” extensively referenced, available as an ebook (available as “read for free” on Amazon).

          • Joseph Gonzales R.D.

            Thanks for the counter arguments, Charles! They are always welcome :-) Of course, as John pointed out everyone is free to make up their own minds based on the research and for some that choice is to include a small amount of animal products in the diet and for others the opposite (as Eric and Andrew mention). I admire whatever decision is best for the individual and find the discussion about anatomy and evolution interesting. Here is one perspective from this research website about “paleolithic diets.” All materials are free with references available, if interested.


          • charles grashow

            I’ve read and viewed all of plant positive’s videos and blog posts. They are indeed very good. Let me be clear. I do not believe that VLCHF diet is good and I don’t believe a HCLF diet is good as well.

            I’ve tried classic paleo, vegetarian, and even experimented with Doug Grahams’s 80-10-10 diet

            What I now eat is a diet I can easily stick to as well as it’s one I enjoy.

          • Joseph Gonzales R.D.

            Good for you! And yikes ALL of his work?!?! That is very impressive. I love when folks find what works for them. Thanks again for always sharing.

          • Charzie

            I finally figured out since I have a brain and conscious awareness, I should utilize them to consume what I feel suits me the best, and not just what my tastebuds want. It’s an option we all have and I long neglected, and paid for. Since I trialed a WFPB diet five years ago against diabetes and a host of other ills, I am overwhelmed by the amazing improvements all around, and will never look back. We are each entitled to “cherry-pick” whatever we care to believe, but the info on this website has definitely worked miracles for me, so call me “vegan” or whatever if it’s more convenient to believe I have some predefined agenda.
            Survival is the driver of our evolution, so yeah, we can eat about anything for energy, and I did, but that doesn’t cut it for optimal health. We may do fine eating insects, some still do, and why not, they are ubiquitous, but meat? Maybe carrion left behind by a true carnivore or omni, but where is our “hunting” anatomy? We have the ability to digest starch, starting at first bite with our saliva, unlike most other animals, and managed to utilize fire to concentrate calories and make certain nutrients more accessible, which is what I believe drove our evolutionary advancement. Since we are the only creature that uses fire and we took over the planet, it makes a whole lot more sense to me than the meat eating theory…otherwise why aren’t all the other carnivores and omnis as “advanced” as us???
            I totally disagree with your statement:
            “Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet.”
            Really, look at us, how do you qualify that?
            Last time I looked in the mirror, my facial anatomy and dentition didn’t much resemble a bear, skunk, racoon, rat, opossum, etc., and I lack the sharp claws too. I don’t salivate when my cat or dog come near, my necessary pouncing reflex is lacking, nor do I ever feel inclined to rip their throats out with my “sharp” canines. Ditto for cows, pigs, bunnies, lambs, goats, or any other living creature. It’s easy for people to disassociate what comes in that sealed plastic meat package from the grocery store from their pets and other animals, but I wonder just how many people would stay avid meat eaters if they had to slaughter, bleed, skin, gut and clean that furry creature, before they ate it raw, swallowing the chunks whole like ALL other omnis and carnivores do? I think this is the definition of cognitive dissonance, and personally, that also contributed to less than optimal health, both mental and physical. It has been a total win-win for me!

          • The Vegetarian Site

            Except that some of the longest living populations consume very low levels of animal products — the traditional Okinawans and the 7th Day Adventist vegetarians (USA) are good examples. Omnivorous diets, and even meat-heavy diets, are certainly sufficient to get you well through reproductive age, but why would you possibly think that eating like our ancestors would be optimal for maximal human lifespan??

          • charles grashow

            Caloric Restriction, the Traditional Okinawan Diet, and Healthy Aging
            The Diet of the World’s Longest-Lived People and Its Potential Impact on Morbidity and Life Span

            SO – is it the diet or the caloric restriction??

            With regard to the 7th Day Adventists
            Exercise and avoidance of harmful substances such as tobacco, alcohol and mind-altering substances lead to clear minds and wise choices. A well-balanced vegetarian diet that avoids the consumption of meat coupled with intake of legumes, whole grains, nuts, fruits and vegetables, along with a source of vitamin B12, will promote vigorous health.

            Is it the diet – or the avoidance of alcohol, tobacco cominbed with exercise??

            With regard to the Ikarians

            Eat locally, seasonally and sparingly. The octagenarians, nonagenarians and centenarians I spoke with on Ikaria all described the eating habits of their early years — years of dire poverty, dearth and isolation — not so much in terms of what they ate but of how little they ate, because there simply wasn’t that much food.

            Meat was rare, for some as rare as two to three times a year on the big holidays. For others who may have had animals (mainly chickens), they could afford to slaughter a few times a month. Fish was accessible if one fished; gardens were carved into terraces along Ikaria’s steep slopes and watered sparingly.

            The 100-year-olds ate what they found in nature, from snails to mushrooms to wild greens, as well as what their gardens provided. There was and is still virtually no processed food on the island, except in some restaurants.

            Diet, caloric restriction, lack of stress??

          • The Vegetarian Site

            As you already know, Loma Linda U has produced many studies showing that the vegetarian 7th Day Adventists fare significantly better than their meat-eating 7th Day Adventist counterparts. Of course other lifestyle factors are very important to longevity as well. Diet is just one (important) part of the equation. ……By the way, did you ever notice the large percentage of those who practice CR (calorie restriction) for longevity that eat little or no animal products?

          • Christo Okulian

            try to consider this seminar to equip your point of view. thx


        • charles grashow

          Ever hear of the black swan? The whole falsifiable hypothesis thing. If I say all swans are white, then finding all the white swans in the world provides further support for my claim, but it can never be “proven”. However all I need is one black swan for the claim to be falsified.

          • John

            You can still eat a small amount of meat and be eating a whole food plant based diet. I would have to agree that based on the amount of evidence I’ve seen that one should be eating way more plants than meat, like 10:1 or 50:1. Getting B12 and some vitamin a and d compounds from fermented dairy like yogurt and kefir can help. Small amounts of wild cold water seafood can provide omega 3s in the most bioavailable form, but that is very different from eating anywhere near as much meat as plants.
            John S

          • Slavica Mazak Beslic

            We need not any animal products and we have not opportunity for methabolisation them because our cells have not uricase,LAB, lactase( lactase are present just in firt three years for our mother milk), weneed aminoacids and essential ones, fatacids and essentiale ones , vitamins, minerals, oligoelements , and also all B vitamins are very present at nuts and seeds. We must not kill animals because by killing and earing them we cause chronical diseases: 15 top human killers.p.s.sorry , english is not my first language :-) Thank You dr.Greger and thanks to all great people who sent comments .

      • Veggie Eric

        “It would not be possible to have a discussion with you based on logic and science. If you’re a vegetarian due to moral beliefs”

        Ok, Cool, so tell me why would I be here talking about the HEALTH implications of animal product consumption if I was only an ethical Vegan? This is a science based health site so I do get a little perturbed when people such as yourself throw out the “moral” disqualify-er to rational science based discussion.

        I’m a WFPB Vegan (not vegetarian) and sure, I do care about how animals are treat but that doesn’t mean I deny science or logic with regards to our ancestors past history of hunting and meat eating. I believe that by the time humans started hunting to migrate out of Africa that our digestive system was already fully evolved over millions of years to be primarily plant based… and that we ADAPTED (not evolved) to meat consumption to survive long enough to procreate and migrate. In saying that, and based on the data presented on this site (and others like PCRM) animal products are not ideal for longevity and disease mitigation. I believe the more we cut out the animal foods and get back to the plant foods we evolved to eat, the healthier we will be.

      • Panchito

        Humans are not omnivores because they don’t eat meat. However, they eat “cooked” meat, which is altered processed food. Thus, by an act of technology, cooking transforms non edible matter into food, which allowed for the human diaspora out of the tropical regions. Yes, some people could get away with small quantities of raw meat, but they would not thrive long term since physiologically, the human body is not adapted and prone to disease. By using your own arguments, there are no known human cultures in history that ate raw meat ever. Thus, they have been wrongly labelled “omnivores” so as to fit in a natural category. The image of humans laying down and eating a fresh dead horse does is not exists.

        • Linda N

          Eskimos often ate raw fish etc.

 “Because Inuit frequently eat their meat raw and fresh, or freshly frozen, they can obtain more carbohydrates from their meat, as dietary glycogen, than Westerners can”

          • Panchito

            FYI, most herbivores can eat some small animals/insects. But that does not make them omnivores. If people lived in an extreme environment like the moon, they would eat rocks if there were nothing else. If you call yourself a true omnivore, try a raw chicken breast and report back the experience. You should handle it fine if your theory is correct.

          • Linda N

            Straw man argument with irrelevant response. What you said was “Humans are not omnivores because they don’t eat meat. However, they eat “cooked” meat, which is altered processed food” and addressed that. Now since you obviously believe that anything altered by cooking is unnatural, you can go and eat your uncooked beans and oatmeal.

          • Panchito

            Can’t you see? With the help of technology, you could turn a rabbit into a “carnivore” if you process the meat. Fire and tools are technologies, but which are so common that are assumed to be thought of natural. If you cut meat into tiny pieces to transformed it into byte size or smaller pieces, you are using an advantage (tech), and which other animals don’t have. However, people can eat an apple straight from the tree without any technology. The opposing thumbs, the colour vision, etc., are clues as to the original diet of man before technological advances.

          • Veganrunner

            I was at the farmers market once and met this guy that was buying chickens to eat raw! The idea of that makes my stomach turn!

          • panchito

            That’s nasty. Many people will grind or cut the meat and then later call themselves carnivores. This person would have a hard time biting of the pieces from a whole chicken since humans don’t have the proper teeth and neither do well with gulping big chunks like lions do.

          • Lawrence

            Pica de Pollo?

        • charles grashow

          Unless one eats an entirely raw uncooked food diet one is eating “processed” food.

          I eat raw grass fed/finished ground beef – I purchase it from local farms – appx 1/2 pound/day and have been doing this for decades.

      • Mitch Earleywine

        Delighted to see this video generate so much discussion. You might want to check out a meta-analysis that does a little less cherry-picking, in part thanks to peer review. In truth, the anti-cancer and cardioprotective impact of vegetarian diets lead to effects that are considered small in the world of statistics (an 18% advantage for cancer; 29% for ischemic heart disease mortality). But with dependent variables as important as DEATH, I think these small effects justify the “gamble” mentioned by others. Vegan diets are a decent bet if longevity is your goal.

      • Justin Bosley

        I am sorry Charles but your arguments are ridiculous. You can’t argue against solid scientific evidence that Dr. Greger lays out flat with lame theories that can’t be proven like “eating meat is how humans go their big brains”. There is no solid scientific evidence to support that. It’s pure conjecture. On the other hand several studies have shown that high meat diets cause obesity, diabetes and heart disease and that eating a plant based diet reverses that. If you are new to the site I challenge you to watch his videos and even read the papers that he cites. I doubt you will though because you don’t seem like the kind of person that likes to do good research.

        • charles grashow

          “Each participant also received an individualized prescription for a cholesterol-lowering drug. The most frequent regimen included cholestyramine, 4 g twice daily, and lovastarin, 40 mg to 60 mg daily. Time-release niacin was prescribed for a short while but was discontinued when many patients reported nausea, vomiting, and swollen ankles.”

          “Combining a plant-based diet with medication achieves better long-term results than changing diet alone or combining modest diet changes and medication.”

          “Every patient with diagnosed coronary artery disease has the potential to make themselves heart attack proof and abolish any future disease progression by achieving and maintaining every 4-6 weeks a total serum cholesterol less than 150 mg/dL through ingesting a totally plant-based diet and cholesterol-lowering medication.”

          SO – how much was the result of the diet and how much was the result of the medications??

          “Experimental group patients were prescribed an intensive lifestyle program that included a 10%-fat vegetarian diet, moderate aerobic exercise, stress management training, smoking cessation, and group psychosocial support
          previously described in detail. 3,7-10 Patients were encouraged to avoid simple sugars and to emphasize the intake of
          complex carbohydrates and other whole foods.Only1patient in the experimental group was actively smoking at baseline, and she quit at entry. Control group patients were asked to follow the advice of their personal physicians regarding lifestyle changes.”

          SO – multilple co-factors. Was it the diet, the exercise, the stress management, the smoking cessation, or the group psychosocial support or a combination??

          • Charzie

            They were all so sick he covered all bases, not a general study that applies to your average peeps.

          • charles grashow

            You’ve not answered the main question which is how much did the medication contribute to the cholesterol lowering. Also, all of the subjects stayed on the medication foe the ENTIRE length of the study. If the diet worked so well why were the not taken off of the meds?

      • Ray Tajoma

        You can always find studies that prove your own personal prejudiced views (just google it). You have to use your own brain to decide which is valid and which is BS (scientists hired by an industry or group to promote their cause with fake science).

  • I love the complexity of human metabolism and the science that helps us understand it. However, even if you don’t love it the science the evidence on how to eat in ways that minimize our risk of getting many of the diseases of western civilization keeps mounting. Eat plants and insure an adequate intake of Vitamin B12. Of course this is a “general population” recommendation that needs to be tweaked for individuals. For instance some folks don’t tolerate “gluten”… either celiac disease, allergy or non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS). One recently published study shows these diagnoses are nowhere as high as thought by patients. The study by Capannolo et al was published in Digestion in May 2015 volume 92 number 1 pages 8-13. This type of information makes it easy for myself as a clinician to keep recommending the best way for my patients to eat while “tweaking” the recommendations based on the individual patients beliefs, symptoms and goals. Another much discussed and common issue is problems with glucose metabolism. You can divide our population into three groups… those with fasting glucoses below 100 (i.e. “normal”), 100-124 (i.e. “prediabetes”) or >125 (i.e. “diabetes”). To improve the health of our population as it relates to glucose metabolism it is most important to reduce the fats in our diet and maintain normal BMI’s. I have found that once patients change their behaviors in line with the best science they improve their glucose metabolism regardless of which “population” they are currently in. (Of course there are other factors that contribute to poor glucose metabolism as detailed in previous video’s such as pollutants. A good one to start with is Keep tuned and let others who might benefit from eating healthier know about

    • Russell

      Dr. Forrester, there’s a small group of us who are pre-diabetic, who met online through NF. Very much appreciate your comments, but wanted to correct two things: all four of us have been able to reduce our fasting glucose to under 100 by consuming more plant fats and fewer grain-based carbs, rather than the other way around. Interestingly, this has also decreased our BMI levels (we’re all around 20 BMI).

      Also, quantifying by fasting glucose levels clearly isn’t appropriate for some of us. Rather, A1c levels and post-meal glucose levels have been a much better and more accurate gauge. Thanks much.

      • Congrats on the support group and your success. To respond specifically I would have to know individual details… a habit I developed as a physician. Given that caveat I would make some general comments. The loss of weight is more related to the energy density of food consumed and exercise levels. Lower body fat improves insulin resistance regardless of how it is accomplished. The problem I have with HgbA1c’s is that it requires the expense and inconvenience of a blood test… usually requires an order from a physician. I don’t like doing isolated post prandial’s as there are too many variables. Besides sampling such as an isolated blood sugar won’t give you a since of the summation of glucose over time. I know the HbGA1c is supposed to do that but I like t have my patients test their fasting blood sugars in AM as it eliminates the most variables and is the best studied value. I would congratulate your group on getting your FBS under 100… “curing” your prediabetes. However as Dr. Greger’s video and the cited article pointed out FBS in the 90’s may not be a reason to stop your efforts to improve glucose metabolism. I like to think of FBS’s in the 90’s as at risk values. I’m sure you have seen the ideo… and viewed associated video’s and cited articles. Plant fats come in alot of different “flavors”. After watching the video and associated studies on the direct toxicity of saturated fat on the pancreas and liver I have another reason to recommend limiting saturated fats. Hopefully your support group of pre-diabetics… who I would no longer label as such if you are running FBG of under 100… will continue to grow and be successful.

        • Stewart

          Dr Don, I am a type one diabetic and have been for 4 decades. I monitor my blood glucose very carefully. About 3.5 years ago I changed to a wfpbd for health reasons. My HbGA1c tests have remained about the same and I have increased my carbohydrate intake necessarily in order to make up for the missing animal calories. I use an insulin pump and it keeps a history of the total units of insulin used per day. My former total was about 45-50 units per day and now it is 35-40. I must conclude that my insulin sensitivity has increased, perhaps dramatically. I hear reports of the same phenomenon from other type one diabetics . Having said that, neither my experience nor those Russell reports were controlled studies but I do monitor carefully. Russell seems to monitor carefully as do I. My BMI is about 21.5. I would suspect that another factor for him in lowering the FBSs is the reduced BMI. If I lower my weight another 5 lbs I suspect my average insulin usage would drop perhaps another 5 units after the weight were stabilized.

          Certainly carbohydrates will raise blood sugar but the question then is how effective is the insulin in dealing with it. My current insulin intake and diet suggests greatly enhanced insulin activity. I do think looking at type one diabetic might give a rather simpler way of determining inputs.

          • Your experience reflects that of other Type 1 Diabetics I have taken care of. Unfortunately as you know once your pancreas can no longer make insulin you need to replace it and be very diligent about it. Hopefully the technology will exist in the future to ease that burden. Fortunately there have been advances. When I first started practicing after residency diabetics were adjusting their insulin based on urine testing!! There is some good news… by eating properly you will lower your cholesterol and blood pressure minimizing the risk of complications that afflict diabetics. In most patients this will also avoid the need to take medications for cholesterol and blood pressure. Of course for those who follow Dr. Greger’s work you are aware that there are a host of chronic diseases that can be avoided by eating correctly. If there is one thing a person with one chronic disease doesn’t need is another chronic disease. Best wishes.

        • Russell

          Yes, we agree on the inconvenience of A1cs, but not necessarily the cost. I do my labs with, without the need for calling a physician (they have a doctor sign the order electronically, and you just print the order out), and they cost only $37 at LabCorp or Quest. If you haven’t tried them, I recommend them highly for many types of tests. As for the PP tests, based on this research below, I would argue that they are much more important that fasting tests. One needs to stay below readings of 140 at ALL times, or the risk of cardio disease doubles.

          As for saturated fats, all of us monitor our LDL, VLDL, etc. and are at very reasonable levels (approx. 70-120), so it is quite possible to eat, as we do, 40-60% fats as part of a PB diet, and still have good lipid profiles.

          • Stewart

            Hi Russell, as a type 1 diabetic, I am very disciplined about monthly A1cs. I get one at my clinic only twice per year and that is not adequate. In my area in Central Texas there is a local grocery store chain pharmacy that will do them once a month free for diabetics. That would be good for you to look for in your area. With luck you might find something similar. For non diabetics they charge about half the price you mentioned. Still the knowledge you get from those result are extremely important.

            I was not clear on your lipid profiles. You said that your levels are at 70-120. Is that total cholesterol or just the LDL?

            I will put it out that when I eat something high in plant fat (ie >40% of calories for that meal) even with keeping the carbohydrates at an equivalent level I require a great deal more insulin for about 10 hours. I can easily need an extra 8-10 units of insulin and still have less effective control.

          • Russell

            Stewart, thanks for your input. I just double checked the price and I was mistaken. It is only $27. That’s actually less then my co-pay so definitely not worth using insurance for it. Plus it saves all the time associated with calling a doctor, getting an appointment, etc.

            The values I mentioned are for LDL. Ideally of course we’d all like to be down at 80 but with a reliance on avocados, nuts, and soy products it’s hard to do ( at least for me). Personally my total fats are 100 g a day, and saturated fat is around 10 g. I experimented this year with bringing fats 250 g a day and my LDL dropped to 85, but my BMI was dropping below 20. That was a bit too much.

            I cited a link above I sent to the moderator showing that postprandial glucose above 140 doubles the risk of heart disease. So all of us have a goal of staying under 140 at all times. That’s virtually impossible to do eating grains, for us. So we have come to the conclusion that eating a lot of healthy plant-based fats while closely monitoring LDL levels, is the best course of action.

  • Matt K

    Don’t Africans have a lower life expectancy and thus, lower risk of getting cancer in the first place?

    • Alexandre

      they compared colons of people from different originis, but with the same age and the results of the study are shown

  • Dasaniyum

    So what happens with plant proteins? They have less sulfur containing amino acids but do they still undergo putrefaction?

    • Lawrence

      Dasanlyum, I cordially invite you to check out HealthTopics -> P -> protein; S -> sulfur. You may find just the answers you seek, and, along the way discover other topics that pique your interest. Have a great day!

    • Joseph Gonzales R.D.

      Hey Dasaniyum. I agree with Lawrence we have videos that explain the process better. If you are having trouble finding just look at the ‘Doctor’s Note’ at the ned of the video and watch the Bowel Wars: Hydrogen Sulfide vs. Butyrate. Let me know if it helps?

  • Michelle

    I am using methlsulfonylmethane (MSM) for pain. Is this a form of sulfur that is toxic? I am vegan most of the time . Can too much soy be consumed? Thank you.

    • VegGuy

      Michelle, I’m not sure about the MSM, but Dr. Greger has some good stuff on soy.

    • guest

      You do not need to consume ANY soy. My suggestion is to costume 0% soy, avoid it like the plauge.
      I think the anti-nutrients in soy adversely effect some people, and some not. But best to avoid. Do yourself
      favor and be open to going a few years without it, and most other beans as well. Eat fresh plants, fruits,
      some seeds and maybe nuts here and there. Small amounts of fish or poultry if you are protein-worried,
      but please get the soy out of your diet. Don’t just listen to the people who promote it. Eliminating soy changes
      so many lives for the better. People are not lying when they make these claims. My nails starting growing again,
      stopped flaking off. Stopped neuro issues, and more. Who knows what long term harm soy causes some of

      • lgking

        “But best to avoid. Do yourself
        favor and be open to going a few years without it, and most other beans as well.”

        Not only do I NOT avoid ‘beans’…but I actively pursue about 3 cups per day. My favorites are ‘black beans’, followed by ‘red beans’, but there are others. They are in everyone of my ‘live’ salads.

        I happen to think the BEANS are one of the most healthy foods in the world!

        Call me crazy!

        • Wade Patton

          Love black beans (wasn’t really aware of them before) and all other beans and could never recommend against them. Just made up a pot. Getting them 5# at a time from the Mexican open market. Keep a few cans around too for “quickies”-watch out for junk added when getting canned of course. Also, am making my own fresh tortillas now.

        • Thea

          lgking: You are one smart cookie! And you inspired me to eat beans two meals per day for the last week. And I did it!

    • Joseph Gonzales R.D.

      Good question! VegGuy already beat me to it linking the soy video. I have another section, too. Should I avoid soy if I have breast cancer?.

      The “sulfur” in MSM is different than what happens when meat goes thru putrefaction and produces hydrogen sulfide. I researched this before and came up empty. Maybe others can back me up?

    • Darryl

      There have been only three clinical studies of methylsulfonylmethane in arthritis (1, 2, 3), totalling 76 patients on active treatment. No one knows why it appears to have positive effects, the closest to a plausible mechanism is inhibition of superoxide production by neutrophils (4). There are no kinetic studies in humans, but in rats MSM is rapidly absorbed and ultimately excreted in urine (5) with only 3% passing in feces. If the pharmacology in humans is similar, very little will be available to gut bacteria.

  • Guest01

    Very small sample size used in this research

    • largelytrue

      And yet O’Keefe et al still reach statistical significance at the group level for the cited results on crypt cell proliferation, with a very low P-val. This is because the rates of cell proliferation observed in AAs and CAs were so wildly different from those of NAs:

  • Matthew Smith

    Coming from a weight lifting background, they recommend eating some lean protein every two hours. They also recommend eating many small meals. You can pick up any men’s fitness magazine at the grocery store and see that they have meal plans based on intake of protein. I think this diet is really pervasive in American culture. I think many people are at least in part eating like a weight lifter. Here, raw foods diets are suggested as leading to a protein deficiency, and in some cases a protein limited diet could have health benefits (Leucine and Methionine). I actually think that with milled grain and breeding pressures on meat that Americans are deficient in both niacin and tryptophan, making for problems of energy metabolism and the neurotransmitter serotonin. I think that when talking about protein one should address amino acids, as animal diets are probably nearly as deficient in Tryptophan and Lysine. Plant proteins might in some ways be superior for weightlifting. I’m really happy that I found brown rice and hemp seed protein powders. Of course fiber and potassium are really deficient in American diets. I was always on the lean high protein diet. I like the vegan diet for the hope it brings. I am excited that, based on the literature, a whole foods plant based diet can treat almost any illness, and I can get back to resistance training.

    • JMO

      What a great comment!

    • Wade Patton

      Plant protein _is_ the leanest protein! Olympic gold medals are won by plant-based athletes. This tends to deflate those “animal protein” notions for those who have an open mind.

  • Wade Patton

    Here’s how I introduced this video to my friend of the facebook. Sharing here to illustrate how I try to get folks to pay attention by indicating that I do care-trying to punch through the confusion and apathy with real concern and helpfulness:

    See, I share this stuff- this ever-developing nutritional
    information, in order to help folks understand how they, themselves can
    quite easily play and active role in NOT getting cancer.

    I share because I care. I understand that very high levels of confusion exist
    in our society and that commercialism and corruption will continue to
    distort the truth to the favor of profits each and every day. But as an
    optimist I hope to reach one or two or three people every now and then.
    Then maybe they reach two or three, and so on! And so on until
    consumer demand forces meaningful marketplace changes and
    SuperMegaFoodCorpInc and their lackeys reduce the junk and offer us more
    whole foods.

    It’s not a mystery any more. Modern science clearly shows us that most cancers
    (and other top causes of death) result from lifestyle. IOW you are the
    diseases you eat to create.

    Please don’t eat that way. I want us to live long and happy without expensive and dangerous “drug therapies”
    and minimal cognitive decline as are now accepted as commonplace
    “normal” aging. It is not. It just doesn’t have to be that way.

    And it’s not an all/none thing. Hellfire and Brimfrickinstones I had a
    small bag of chicharrones just today (that’s pork rinds if you’re from
    Alabama [sunglasses smilie emoticon]) [I’m in the South]. Why? Because I like them and hadn’t had any in quite some time and it is the only non-plant item I’ll consume today [this week likely]. Sunday I may have
    BBQ or Steak, or not. Once your gut changes your cravings change…but
    that’s way too deep a concept at this point for many.

    Here’s the latest from a guy who does a pretty good job of shaking down all the
    latest in nutritional information. Thanks for giving it a little
    looksee if you’ve never done such before. It could change your life.

    no shit.

    [link to video]

  • Gary O’Reilly

    Is Dr Greger’s son working on this site now? Who is that whippersnapper in the profile shot? (looking good Dr G)

    • Adrien

      Dr Greger’s goatee is gone !! :'( Sad, cauz’ it look very nice on him. But he look younger now.

  • Mike Bloom

    Dr. Gregor: Can you comment on this article about animal protein consumption? Thanks,

    • Lawrence

      Hi Mike, here’s my non-professional take on your study: plant-sourced protein intake is associated with more supple arteries, while animal-sourced protein intake is associated with stiffer arteries. Of course, this makes perfect sense and is entirely consistent with related videos from Dr. Greger like this one, for example:

      If you don’t mind sharing, what was your conclusion about the study you provided? Just curious. Thanks, and have a great day!

  • Lali

    First of all, congratulations for this amazing website. I’ve been reading it
    for years, and I always find lots of useful information. I never before felt
    the need to post a question because I always find all the answers! But now I do
    have a question I’d love to ask. I’m an ethical vegan (for almost 8 years).
    While my diet is not perfect, I’m not the ethical vegan some people joke about
    (you know, living on Oreos, protein bars, and soy burgers — who are these vegans
    anyway? I suspect this is a bit of an urban legend :D). However, there is room
    for improvement, and I’ve been feeling that the time has come for me to really
    go WFPB. Now here’s my conundrum: I’m a mother to a wonderful and very healthy 8
    month-old baby who is almost exclusively breastfed (he’s started eating some
    solids, but breastmilk is still his main source of nourishment). When I first
    went vegan (8 years ago) the standard recommendation on protein was: about 0.6 to
    0.8 grams per kilo of body weight, depending on the “quality” of the protein
    (ex. 0.6 If you eat mostly soy, 0.8 if you go for mostly beans – I wonder if
    this is still considered correct ?). Is there any recommendation for a
    breastfeeding mother? Also, I don’t eat a lot of oil, but I do eat quite a bit
    of nuts and some peanut butter (breastfeeding makes me HUNGRY!) Is there a
    recommendation on fat? I would hate for my milk quality to diminish and give reason
    to the naysayers who drove me crazy while I was pregnant (“OMG, are you STILL
    vegan? Is your baby going to be ok??” ugh!). Help me show ‘em!! How much
    protein? How much fat? Any other pointers for a healthy vegan mama? :) Thank
    you very much!!!

    • Matthew Smith

      Hello. This site says pregnant and nursing women need 71 grams of protein a day.

      I found a brochure on it, for vegetarians.

      Consider eating a daily brazil nut for Selenium and lots of foods rich in vitamin C.

      You seem to know much more than we do. Congratulations on your healthy 8 month old.

    • Thea

      Lali: re: ” I’m a mother to a wonderful and very healthy 8 month-old baby…” I can hear the pride in your “voice”, and it is wonderful.

      I’m not an expert on your questions, but I think I have some good references for you. A group called Vegetarian Resource Group (VRG) is very well researched and well respected. I’ve seen Joseph refer people to this group too. VRG has a whole page/set of well researched articles dedicated to the topic of kids, including infants. I’m thinking you will be able to get your questions answered here:
      Scroll down to the nutrition section. You might want to start with: “Vegan Nutrition in Pregnancy and Childhood” ??? I also really like this one:

      Your questions about protein made me want to recommend one more page to you. It is an awesome Protein 101 page. I know your question is specifically about the amount of protein a breastfeeding mom should get, but I wonder if checking out this page might help you in general with protein questions:

      You go healthy vegan mama! That babe is one lucky boy!!

      Hope that helps.

  • Linda N

    Once again this was all about the SAD diet. High in meat, ridiculously low in Fruits and veggies, and high in refined carbs. A low fiber low nutrient diet to be sure. The studies in this video made no comparison to diets high in fruits and veggies (I have issues with diets high in fruits…too much sugar…should be much higher in veggies than fruits but I digress) with meat, animal, and fish and products eaten in condiment amounts like the Asian countries do.

    Lessen the meat surely, and up those veggies especially broccoli which is high in Calcium D-glucarate which suppresses the B-glucoronidase enzymes in the colon. Saccharomyces boulardii, also helps reduce some of the gut organisms that produce glucuronidase. A lot of this is about enhancing glucoronidation and promoting the right type of gut microbiome.

    Thankfully I adore broccoli and other brassica veggies but I also take a Calcium D-glucarate supplement.

  • The Vegetarian Site

    Please clarify: Is Dr. Greger’s presentation indicating that egg consumption is associated with colon cancer risk? And how about animal flesh other than red meat?

    • Wade Patton

      Eggs are horrible in every aspect, Dr. Greger presents that in many videos.

      I think the problem has to do with more animal protein intake than the small intestine can fully digest. Any undigested animal product in the large intestine creates the putrification situation resulting in all these toxic and carcinogenic products.

      • The Vegetarian Site

        Have there been some peer-reviewed studies associating egg consumption with colon cancer? We’ve all seen such studies for red/processed meats, but for eggs or other animal products?

        • Wade Patton

          Could be. I gave them up for half a dozen other reasons. Maybe a better answer will be provided by these fine folks.

  • cyndishisara

    The facts are that oral cancer and dental disease (gingivitis) is connected to colon cancer. Africans do not suffer dental problems either. So the key here must be in the micro-biome of the mouth.

    Colon Cancer Linked to Mouth Infection?

    Study suggests pathway from oral bacteria to colon cells.

    WEDNESDAY, Aug. 14 (HealthDay News) — An infection from a common type of mouth bacteria can contribute to colorectal cancer, a new study suggests.

    The bacteria, called Fusobacterium nucleatum, can attach to colon cells and trigger a sequence of changes that can lead to colon cancer, according to the team at Case Western Reserve University School of Dental Medicine.

    The researchers also found a way to prevent the bacteria from attaching to colon cells.

    “This discovery creates the potential for new diagnostic tools and therapies to treat and prevent the cancer,” lead investigator Yiping Han said in a university news release.

    The findings show the importance of good oral health, said Han, a professor of periodontics. She noted that levels of F. nucleatum are much higher in people with gum disease.

    Although the study found a possible association between oral infection and colon cancer, it did not prove a cause-and-effect relationship.

    The study was published in the journal Cell Host & Microbe, which also contained another study from a different research group showing how F. nucleatum can speed the accumulation of cancer cells”.

    I as of now have not figured out if or how diet effects Fusobacterium

  • Rodrigo Cardoso

    “But out of the 17 African American
    or Caucasian colons, they found 21 problems each: polyps,
    diverticulosis, lots of hemorrhoids.”
    Does this mean they found 21 issues in each colon? As an average?

    • largelytrue

      As a group total.

  • Rodrigo Cardoso
  • Yvette

    Dr Greger, I was told to repost my question under a protein video. I became vegetarian to keep away from cardiac and rheumatoid issues, as well as keeping my mind sharp. This Japanese study on older people confused me. It says meat protein increased “functional capacity” in Japanese male subjects, but not in women. Does Japan have the same bias underhandedness depending on who funds the study?

    • Yvette M Palladino

      The older male subects prevented functional decline with a meat based diet, not a plant based one. Interestingly, the older female subjects did not reap this benefit. Could the study also be influenced by cultural bias, attitudes between the sexes, or how the study was coordinated?

    • Veggie Eric

      The study you linked above was only a food frequency questionnaire. They did not have total control over the participants diet. Lot of wiggle room in the conclusion wouldn’t you say? I would be leary of this one.

  • Jane

    Enzymes!!! I have a question about a specific enzyme called SERRAPEPTASE, which has been touted to digest dead tissues and proteins in the body. It supposedly helps those with arthritis, sinsinitis, allergies, pain, any kind of inflammation. However, my question is, can it also digest HEALTHY PROTEINS in addition to the dead ones????? Will this enzyme target only dead tissue or will it keep on digesting without discrimination? I foresee unintended consequences if it digests protein indiscriminately. I wouldn’t want it to attack healthy tissue! Does the science say anything about this? All I’ve seen are references to serrapeptase’s usefullness in digesting dead tissue….
    Thank you in Advance!