Doctor's Note

This is part of an extended new series of videos on kidney health:

I’ve compared plant and animal protein in a variety of ways. See, for example,

And perhaps the most dramatic demonstration was the new study I featured in my latest live annual presentation Food as Medicine: Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet. I’m working that into a new video that goes into greater depth—stay tuned!

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.

  • chris

    The one and only benefit of daylight saving time – I get to see the videos an hour early……

    For those of you who put their clocks forward or back last weekend, take a look at the vide below, it might cheer you up a bit…..

    • Kim Churchman

      Where was the clock adjusted last weekend? Where are you? Haven’t done that yet in Washington State USA yet.

      • Dr BC

        That was in UK

      • The answer to your question is on the YouTube page:

        Published on Mar 8, 2015 Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Daylight Saving Time – How Is This Still A Thing? (HBO)

        The video talks about setting the clock an hour ahead and losing an hour of sleep. So this was produced for spring(ing ahead) not for fall(ing back) which we are doing tonight in most of the US.

    • jj

      Just quickly scanned the transcript because I can answer the ? in the title without listening to the video. Just eat plants

      • Alan

        Yes , it is pretty simple and easy to do and leads to a healthy body and mind.

  • Ori Nabarro

    I have protein in my urine. Years ago when i turned vegan the protein went down (still above normal, but lower than before). My nehprologist said “yea that’s because you eat less sodium” – i said that i think that’s because i’m not eating animal protein but didn’t press the point. Since then my protein numbers stayed the same without any medication. Great video :)

    • Good for you, Ori! My husband is a renal pathologist and he is constantly sharing the benefits of plant-based nutrition on kidney health with the nephrologists he works with. Many of them are not ready to listen to it and a lot of them are afraid that their patients would consider it too challenging to make dietary changes, so they don’t want to even offer it as an option! I am so glad people like you are sharing these positive experiences with your physicians and with others here on to illustrate the powerful, inspiring results of eating this way…

    • tsu, is a social network that pays, I was one month on the new platform and have earned $ 35, as you can see in the photo (I just posted photos, videos every day, without any effort, if you do not believe try it yourself, register from here ( , facebook for your personal information does not pay you, but yes tsu. facetious what you do on facebook :) n

  • Nicole French

    Great piece. I’m curious whether any of the research points to the additives in meat being responsible or if diets with pasture-raised, hormone-free meat had a different impact on hyperfiltration.
    Also would like to hear Dr. Greger’s thoughts on the pros/cons of a soy-rich diet. I tend to avoid eating tofu and other soy-based products more than 3 times a week due to very old, and unclear, evidence of undesirable hormonal impact.

    • Joseph Gonzales R.D.

      Hi Nicole. It seems that animal protein itself is the problem, so “pasture-raised” or “free from added hormones” would not likely make any difference on kidney function.

      Good question about soy. Please check our all of his videos on soy. I’ll add a few important ones here. Dr. Greger says that 3-5 servings per day of whole soy foods are suggested to maintain the low IGF-I levels associated with a plant-based diet. Animal protein may significantly boost IGF-I growth. There is no reason to avoid soy (unless of course you just don’t like it), as the evidence is rather clear that it is safe and healthful. Women eating more soy in their diets tend to have less breast cancer risk. And breast cancer survivors may boost their chances of avoiding a recurrence and extending their lifespan by eating more soy. Dr. Greger has a video explaining how swapping soy protein for dairy protein may help lower body weight. He also talks about GMO Soy and Breast Cancer​. I wrote a post about soy Should I stay away from soy if I have breast cancer? – which may also help explain hormonal impact.

      • Brux

        For healthy people you are saying these studies show that animal protein in any dose will make them sick and lead to death?

        • MikeOnRaw

          Birth leads to death. Studies show that animal protein increases risks for a number of “deadly” diseases.

          • Brux

            Maybe in your haste you did not read the question:

            For healthy people you are saying these studies show that animal protein in any dose will make them sick and lead to death?

          • Tom Goff

            That’s not a sensible question. You must realise that.

          • A A

            And obviously you didn’t read the answer. The minute you’re born you start to die. There is no getting around it. What the person was saying is the quality of your life will probably be much better as you will not be putting overt amount of stresses on organs. This way they can do their job properly and you can live a happier more prosperous life. Health is wealth.

      • Wowpow

        Dr G – what about that much soy with males? I’ve read articles that suggest for men, even 1 cup of soy milk kills testosterone production.

        • Joseph Gonzales R.D.

          Interesting! I’ve seen other data for men and prostate health. Legumes, including soy foods, have been shown to lower prostate cancer risk. Please check our all of his videos on soy and see what catches your eye. Happy to discuss the research with you.

        • Alan

          I have read that also. From my studies i believe it to be a very false science. I often wonder if the people that come up with this stuff are being paid by the meat and dairy industry. In one article that i read that, in the comment section one guy said that he ate a lot of soy everyday and his testosterone level was high. I do not remember the numbers that he gave, but it was way up there.

          • A A

            Of course they’re being paid by the murderer…er uh…meat and mucous…I mean…dairy industry

      • David Johnson

        I am wondering about the relationship of age to desirable levels of IGF-1. I understand that after age 50, the amount of IGF-1 produced is greatly reduced. Since sufficient IGF-1 is needed to be healthy (growing/maintaining muscle and nerve cells and whatever else), it would seem reasonable to assume unless shown otherwise that older people should try to stimulate more IGF-1, not reduce it, to prevent e.g. sarcopenia. I am not saying this to advocate eating animal protein – I’m a 68 year old vegan with no plans to change. Instead of animal protein, I eat a fair amount of soy and do strength training but I have found it much more difficult to keep/build muscle mass than it was even 10 years ago (when I was younger and used whey protein after workouts), which made me wonder about the IGF-1 issue.

        • Fred

          The issue seems to be that higher IGF-1 levels promote cancer…but since cancer progression is a long drawn out process maybe for older people it doesn’t matter so much?

          I’m about the same age and notice muscle weakness starting even though I do eat some animal protein. I do an exercise program of about 35 mins 2xs per week…plus some walking…which makes all the difference as far as being able to get around when I want.

          I think there are foods and supplements that probably reduce the occurance and spread of cancer…which might help.

          We’ll probably have to wait till Dr. Greger hits 65 to find out…what to do….

      • Rebecca Cody

        When I read comments saying that women eating more soy have less breast cancer I always feel a little frustrated. It’s true that about 85% of breast cancers have estrogen and/or progesterone receptors, and I can see how soy would influence that large group of women, but what about those of us whose breast cancers were NOT female hormone responsive? Mine had androgen receptors, but was triple negative because it had no female hormone receptors, nor did it express HER2Nu. So, how about soy and male hormones? How does soy affect those of us in this category? Does anybody know?

      • Mari Posa

        Too much soy intake messes with hormone levels. And also, it IS a bean, and will cause a great amount of gas! I’ve seen vegans have to leave work because of this affect.

        • 2tsaybow

          I think that’s effect.

          • Scotster

            Really? Grammar Nazi here? smh

          • 2tsaybow

            But do you really think that she’s seen vegans who’ve eaten beans have to leave work because of farting? Or was she just affecting an attitude?

          • cheekybroad

            That’s no grammar Nazi…that’s a grammar corrector. It IS important to maintain the language after all. Our phones correct us constantly….and often with an incorrect correction. That’s one reason grammar is going bad. We think our phones are infalliable.

          • Scotster

            This is true. I have noticed that my spelling has gotten worse due to my spell check program that I use in my web browser.

  • charles grashow

    Look at Table 2 – the food is CRAP.

    • Veganrunner

      I give. Both meal plans are bad. Why did you post this article? 8 total subjects?

      • 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.

        SO – if there are studies that disprove the good doctor’s hypothesis then he CANNOT be right.

        • Veganrunner

          What I am not really understanding is why you want so badly to “prove” that the “good doctor” is wrong. Are you so wedded in your beliefs that your mind is completely closed to any published science? You don’t think that animal protein is tough on the kidneys? That concept has been a concern for a long time in medicine. Charles if I was as adamant about WFPB as you are about the importance of meat in your diet I would alienate all my friends, family and patients.

          • charles grashow

            My problem is with people pushing an agenda and ignoring all studies that disagree with that agenda. Cherry picking is cherry picking no what paradigm you choose to support.

            The agreement we both probably have is that the SAD is dreadfully unhealthy but saying that the best(optimal) diet is a WFPB diet is simply wrong.

          • Veganrunner

            Here is now I look at it. We know that plants are the most nutrient dense food on the planet. (See many, many appropriate videos and listed studies under topics or pubmed) personally I am convinced based on years of data that eating a WFPB diet is the best for my training, genetics (family history of heart disease), and overall health. I could go back to my eating of local free range organic meat but I don’t think based on years of study it is wise.

            I have a bias. I have many, many years of learning at universities that used the most current research to teach. I have continued this disappoint with an evidence based practice.

            I would venture to guess that you weren’t influenced in the same way or you wouldn’t spend your time talking about cherry picking. It demistrates a naïveté which I don’t hold against you. But I do hope you will eventually open your mind. Generally if you wanted to refute the message you should start by looking at all the articles listed above and seeing if they are good. Was the design appropriate etc. It might make the conversations more interesting.

          • Brux

            > Here is now I look at it.
            > personally I am convinced based on years of data that
            > but I don’t think based on years of study it is wise.

            I respect your opinion and like to read your conclusions,
            but for the majority of people I have not seen the numbers
            to show that in terms of lifespan there is a hugely significant
            different in lifespan if you look at healthy people throughout
            their lives. When someone gets to be unhealthy diets can
            help correct them and I believe and respect that, thinking
            of Kemperer first off.

            But, it is unwarranted linear thinking to believe that this is
            then the optimal diet for everyone.

            What would really help sort out a lot of this is to stop the
            focus on these small studies and look at the data in a more
            complete way. There is little experience for this and little
            motivation since most studies are done with a preconceived
            destination in mind.

          • Veganrunner

            I believe many people are concerned with quality of life–extending it is a bonus! If you want to consider the totality I believe you can get that by watching Dr Greger’s year-end reviews. As far as considering “the small studies” that is how research is done. In the listed research the scientists were concerned with protein and it’s affect on the kidneys.

          • Mason

            I agree with your first sentence completely. I visit this site and other health-related sites and read books on health and nutrition not to find how not to die but to find how to keep the doctors away, who would rip me off, poison me, and then discard me like a chewed piece of gum.. I don’t care whether I die tonight or in fifty years as long as I can be independent, productive, and live with dignity.

          • Alan

            Right on Mason !!! When i first went WFPB longevity was my goal. After receiving the benefits of no more sickness i am just thankful for my good health and do not concern my self with how long i live.

          • Alan

            Longevity is not everything. Quality of life is very valuable. I used to eat meat, dairy and other unhealthful foods. Came down with colds and flu’s fairly regular along with at least one very bad sore throat each year. I have been WFPB for about 20 yrs. I am 60 and I cannot remember the last time i was sick. I hear people say the flu is going around and everybody has it. I just say not everybody, I do not have it. I live a active lifestyle by exercising and working hard 6 days out of seven and eat a high Carb, low fat and low protein diet. Around 80/10/10 – 70/15/15

          • Brux

            Alan, I am happy that you are healthy, and that all you feel you need to explain or understand it is that it was due to WFPB diet, as you experience that. But, please, unless you can offer something past just casting your anecdotal opinion, ( how would I know if you are real, telling the truth, or know the truth about your own health? ) you are being a booster, but not really being scientific. There are a million claims by millions of different people all over that they are healthy for some reason that they feel is true enough for them. It is not science though. What I like about this site is that it discusses science, but that is not really enough for me, because science needs guidance from the real world. There are a lot of claims about “scientificness” that are made all over and not all of them are right. We cannot just assume that something we like and that resonates with us is good science and everything else is bad science and leave it at that. The whole thing about science is challenge, peer review and having it fit in and work with other facts and science.

          • Alan

            Hi Brux – In response to your other reply – yes i have actually read some of your comments. That is why i wonder why you watch the video’s. In response to this reply – We have a tendency to look at things differently. I switched to a WFPB and have received many health benefits for me. I am a Seventh Day Adventist {SDA} and know many other SDA’s that eat a WFPB and are also very healthy. I do not need science to tell me that. Also a lot of science today is a “Science falsely so called.” The WFPB diet is the diet our Creator designed us to eat and it works. That is good enough for me! One reason science is not reliable is that many times the ones doing a study have an agenda before they begin and know the end results that will be published before it starts, due to who is paying for the study.

          • Brux

            >> I do not need science to tell me that.

            No, but you do need science to tell other people that if you are being responsible.

            I also eat a WFPB diet, moving towards more plants because I think it makes sense and it mostly makes me feel better, but if I was to just go by feelings there are times when eating meat make me feel good and energetic as well.

            I am just not willing to imagine that I know or can know everything about the human being and diet as to be dogmatic and unreasonable.

            You mention a creator, and maybe that is the difference, you are driven by faith.

            One other thing is that you mention science as being driven by by an agenda … bravo, that is exactly my point. You cannot trust science until it is codified and well understood, and that is exactly why I am sometimes critical or ask questions about these videos, because they have an agenda too. You have faith in this agenda, and whether I do or not, that is just not the way I am wired, in fact when I have faith in sometime I am probably more likely to question it to see it if stands up to scrutiny.

          • Alan

            You said that maybe i am driven by faith and also that i have faith in this agenda. To begin with when i started on a WFBP i probably was motivated by faith. Not only do i believe in a Creator but also the diet He advocates. Also i have done a lot of reading and watching videos on the benefits of eating a WFPB. And once i got the benefits that the Bible and also from the other sources mentioned tells me that comes from eatin the WFPB , to me it is no longer faith,but a fact. As i mentioned in one of my earlier emails, i just do not get sick anymore. Some days i do not feel as good as others for various reasons, but not sick. The Bible in Exodus 26:15 says ” If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I [am] the LORD that healeth thee.” Part of following the Lord is eating for health. Also there is more to health than eating properly. We need exercise, fresh air, pure water, proper rest, sunlight, abstemiousness which means to dispense of the things that are harmful and to eat in moderation those things that are healthful. We also need moderation in the other things i mentioned. One other thing – Trust in Divine Power.
            I have enjoyed our little discussion and now understand more about why you watch the video’s. And i am glad you are eating more and more plants. It is good for our bodies and minds and the planet, as you know !

          • mark gillono

            “The real struggle in being vegan doesn’t involve food. The hardest part about being vegan is coming face-to-face with the darker side of humanity and trying to remain hopeful. It’s trying to understand why otherwise good and caring people continue to participate in needless violence against animals – just for the sake of their own pleasure or convenience.” -Jo Tyler

          • Brux

            I think that “that struggle” is one from the dawn of time … and would exist even if everyone was vegan, people are people. For me the hard part is finding what to eat and being able to buy it, prepare it and eat it. Also resisting the junk food is still hard for me as well. I would not say that eating is violence against animals, or that it always is. There are cruel people and often people who are real psychopaths begin that path in their lives with violence against animals. I think there is a way to respect animals and not cause them pain.

            For example, there was a TED Talk back about a year or two ago by a guy named Alan Savory who advocated repairing the Earth by a sort of permaculture method of planting trees and plants, but also by allowing grazing animals like the buffalo that used to cover the North American continent. He showed the results of doing this and they were amazing, assuming it was true. But having thundering herds of grazing animals eating and fertilizing the planet and sucking up the CO2 to prevent catastrophic climate change is going to require some kind of balance. We have to have lions or predators to keep the numbers down, or if we did not ruin the environment we would still have them around and what would we do?

            Is the way an antelope dies from a mountain lion significantly better than the way a cow dies in a slaughterhouse if it is done humanely? What would the world be like if we had to deal with thousands and thousands of large predators in our environment? Personally I have thought about this vision a lot and think humans should live only in islands on the planet and give the rest back to nature, but we should also be able to take sustainably from nature and be technological. I think we are cruel because of the way our societies have evolved to center around war, not what kind of food we eat. Just my 2 cents.

          • Colin Wright

            Here is a critique of Savory by George Monbiot at the Guardian. Ruminants are the largest contributors of methane, a fast-acting greenhouse gas, to the atmosphere. We will need to reduce both CO2 and non-CO2 greenhouse gases if we are to stabilize the atmosphere. Life-cycle analyses show that the average carbon equivalent footprint of free-range cattle is about 58 kg/kg-product and feedlot cattle is about 24, while meat substitutes are about 1-2. That’s why some scientists are recommending a meat tax to reduce the number of ruminants.

          • Brux

            I guess what passes for thought these days is to google something and cherry pick what you like and use that without any thinking. So thanks for your few seconds of work and thought.

            No one is suggesting increasing the number of feedlots, and I have to say it is really hard not to just namecall at you for suggesting that because it is both thoughtless and disingenuous. The fact is that forests and nature works together. If you just plant a bunch of plants they do not have the environmental symbioses that going back to a real natural environment does, not to mention the world used to be more natural before we starting killing everything off.

            The subtext of your suggestion is to remove all “ruminants” from the world because that would be the final linear absurdity of your kind of thinking.

            And by the way a carbon tax would make more sense and cover more things that taxing every little thing that “some” unknown percentage of scientist recommend.

          • Colin Wright

            My point is, cattle, in feedlots or free-range have a tremendously deleterious effect on the atmosphere (compared to meat substitutes here). The scientists in the study suggest we have to substantially reduce the number of ruminants if we are to stabilize radiative forcing (see Fig 1b). According to the article “if all the land used for ruminant livestock production were instead converted to natural vegetation, increased carbon sequestration of 30-470% of greenhouse gas emissions associated with food production could be achieved.”

            Also note that veganic permaculture is totally possible.

            We could also have a long debate on what “natural” means, and the extent to which humans are part of the natural world (or whether they have ever been separated from it).

          • Brux

            >> My point is, cattle, in feedlots or free-range have a tremendously deleterious effect on the atmosphere (compared to meat substitutes here).

            You are looking at things from one limited perspective, and before you think about it, just to make a opposing point. Did I mention without thinking?

            Free range cattle are mostly cattle grazed on useless land that was made useless by desertification in the first place. Yes, there are some farms like Polyface highlighted in the documentary Food Inc. and others. If you graze cattle in a controlled program of permaculture and bring back the land for lots of plants to grow up and rebuild the ecology there is no more productive land. Then you are comparing factory farmed GMO soybeans to apples. (apples to oranges )

          • Colin Wright

            Are “free range cattle mostly grazed on useless land”?

            Here is one recent study on biodiverstity loss (“meat eaters are the number one cause of species extinction”):

            “The researchers then mapped areas where livestock production is expected to increase in the future, and determined how much land would be lost as a result of expanding meat operations, using data from the Food and Agriculture Organization and other studies about historic livestock production and land use conversion in those areas. Then, they compared the biodiversity hotspots with the expected expansion of meat production.They found that of the areas expected to have the greatest conversion of land use for agriculture — from forest to land dedicated to livestock production — 15 were in “megadiverse” countries that have the greatest diversity of species. The study concludes that in the 15 “megadiverse countries,” land used for livestock production will likely increase by 30 to 50 percent — some 3,000,000 square kilometers (about 741 million acres).“These changes will have major, negative impacts on biodiversity”

            Expanding livestock production doesn’t necessarily bring about healthy ecosystems. Historically, it doesn’t! Nevertheless, there are people living on marginal lands in the developing world that will need to rely on ruminant production to get them through bad harvests.

          • Brux

            One last comment because despite what you are saying, you are framing as livestock production, and I am not talking about that at all. That is all I have left to say on this. It’s boring and pointless to respond at length when you don’t think about what you are saying or what I am saying and go find figures that are about livestock production and push that when I am not talking about that model.

            > Are “free range cattle mostly grazed on useless land”? I did read that “livestock production accounts for a mind-boggling 70% of global agricultural land”

            Here is yet another case of you trying to conflate two different things.

            First you talk about free-range cattle, then you switch to equating that to livestock production, and neither model is what I am talking about, although free-range is closer.

          • HemoDynamic, MD – NF Volunteer

            That’s why Meta-analysis were created. And there is very strong evidence not only from meta-analysis but also from long term epidemiological studies. There are enough studies showing people that have a low incidence of chronic disease that live in one area of the world eating their diet and when they move to our country and eat our diet they end up with our chronic diseases.

            Now it has gotten even worse because we have moved our diet into other countries like China and Japan, where they used to have very healthy diets but now they eat KFC, McDonalds etc and their chronic diseases are increasing and now they have significant problems with Obesity, Diabetes, cancer and Cardiovascular disease.

            You really need to spend a lot more time researching this information rather than complaining that there isn’t enough data to support the conclusion that a whole food plant based diet is the best diet for nearly everyone on this planet. Please show me what well researched data consistently contradicts anything other than eating a whole food plant based diet to tackle our current chronic disease epidemic.

            Worse is that the only sustainable diet for human life and the planet is a Plant based diet. Continuing to eat animal products is a completely unsustainable endeavor for everyone and the planet. A good start to understand that mess is the recent documentary Cowspiracy.

          • Brux

            > That’s why Meta-analysis were created.

            One thing that really bothers me is the misuse of statistics. These studies where all they do is to try to take what they know about a group of people at point A, and then again at point B, and then say some percentage of the ate some percentage or something and then some percentage of them got sick with this disease. This is playing with numbers.

            This is a good way to try to find some correlations to study more, but it is not science and it does not say why.

            These studies are like big black box where inputs go in one side and outputs come out the other and they have no idea what happens inside, but they make assumptions, when it could be almost anything. Until they understand mechanisms of some disease or cure you really do not understand the disease and even then the body is so non-linear in most situations and everyone is a little different you cannot study things in isolation. Similar things happen when they assume they can understand the ecology and try to make changes without complete understanding.

            > Worse is that the only sustainable diet for human life and the planet is a Plant based diet.

            An argument from authority. The fact is that the Earth is turning into a desert from our agrcultural practices. The thing that my reading tells me might be able to save things is permaculture, where you raise both animals and plants together in a symbiosis. Again, what do you do with all those animals unless you have something to eat them. Do we want to unleash lions and hyenas throughout the world. We should get back to the kind of cycles we had in place in nature before mankind starting to change everything.

            These are your opinions, so even if they were right, how are you going to bring about this change? The way to absurd excess CO2 in the atmosphere is to grow plants, and plants grow better when there are animals eating them and fertilizing them. Like the Polyphase Farms guy who raises chickens, goats and cows to keep his ground fertile. Revitalize the planet for plants and animals is what I think would make the most sense.

            I am willing to believe you are right when you can prove it. I have an open mind. I see how humans have lived and his this planet has evolved for millions of years, there is a cycle to nature that you vegans what to think you have the end time answers for, and I just do not buy it, and I resent the arrogance to think you know everything.

            More and more farms like Polyface expand the sustainable agriculture movement …

            Farming animals helps plants grow and to recycle nutrients.

          • MikeOnRaw

            We don’t need small studies to tell us that a primarily plant based diet of a variety of whole foods is best for both longevity as well as health. Epidemiological studies abound on various groups that show this specifically. These smaller studies simply are attempts to understand the results of these large scale epidemiological studies. We have the Adventists vs the Baptists both with similar restrictions though Adventists also promote no animal products as a good contrast.
            If any preconceived destination in mind for the studies on the Adventists, it was simply to understand why they are so healthy and long lived. They live in the same regions as other Americans, yet their incidence of various cancers and heart disease is dramatically lower. This indicates something other than a regional environmental activity is going on.

          • Brux

            I invite you to take a look at this link:

            It is an excerpt from the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell where he talks about the Rosetto effect, which is basically the community and lifestyle factor: ( a paragraph … )

            Wolf and Bruhn had to convince the medical establishment to think about health and heart attacks in an entirely new way: they had to get them to realize that you couldn’t understand why someone was healthy if all you did was think about their individual choices or actions in isolation. You had to look beyond the individual. You had to understand what culture they were a part of, and who their friends and families were, and what town in Italy their family came from. You had to appreciate the idea that community — the values of the world we inhabit and the people we surround ourselves with — has a profound effect on who we are. The value of an outlier was that it forced you to look a little harder and dig little deeper than you normally would to make sense of the world. And if you did, you could learn something from the outlier than could use to help everyone else.

            My point here is that diet is not the factor that contributes to or detracts from health. There are all kinds of factors here, so when you fall back to the comment “a primarily plant based diet of a variety of whole foods is best for both longevity as well as health” you appear to not realize what you are saying in context of yours and other’s comments here. As I asked clearly and your evaded, you are saying that meat in any dose is poison and will cause disease – because this is the feeling one gets reading this website and I don’t think that can be supported, yet, scientifically, but one can tell from reading here that it seems to be the goal.

          • MikeOnRaw

            My point here is that diet is not the factor that contributes to or detracts from health.

            If that is in fact your point, then I feel confused why you bother with this website considering it is clear that this website and others like it are providing information for people to make better decisions about their diet.

            As I have stated before, my understanding of all that I have read is that studies show that animal products increase the risks for a number of “deadly” diseases. With cigarettes we have people who do not develop lung cancer, yet smoking cigarettes is know to create a significant risk of lung cancer. And just looking at our society, we can see that animal product eaters have increased risk for things, but not everyone gets breast cancer, nor colon cancer, nor even heart disease. But studies are finding that a diet of animal products does increase risk for all of them.

          • Brux

            Sorry, I should have more precisely written:

            >> My point here is that diet is not the ONLY factor that contributes to or detracts from health.

            You said …
            > If that is in fact your point, then I feel confused why you bother with this
            > website considering it is clear that this website and others like it are
            > providing information for people to make better decisions about their diet.

            I guess some of my comments seem to really rile you up to the point of
            expressing hostility. Why do you care about what why I do what I do?
            Isn’t that just a way to challenging me saying “I don’t like your kind

            Where is your spirit of healthy skepticism and why instead of being
            interested in things that might be contradictory do you seem to be
            fearful and hostile of inquiry?

            Why I “bother” with this website is there is a lot of good information here
            and I have gotten a lot of good suggestions in how to eat and and cook
            vegetables to improve my diet more towards WFPB. You seem to act like
            I sit at home cancer and heart disease ridden scarfing down raw meat
            and drinking blood, since it was just Halloween.

            >> As I have stated before, my understanding of all that I have read is
            >> that studies show that animal products increase the risks for a
            >> number of “deadly” diseases.

            I have no problem with that, nor am I denying it. But, that does not mean
            to me apparently what it means to you. I’d like to understand the overall
            comparative risk. I’d like to see an analysis of say if vegan diets are
            significantly life-extending why don’t we see vegans in the group of people
            who live the longest more often, or ever?

            I just don’t understand why some of you are not curious about why that is
            and instead of saying, yeah, that is interesting, what might be a reason for
            that, it gets denied or dismissed. There very well might be a logical reason
            for it.

            I do troubleshooting of various systems for a living and I like to understand
            how things work. It pays me to be inquisitive and curious, it’s just how my
            brain works.

            Risk is about two things … what is the probability of the “thing” and what
            is the magnitude, how dangerous it is. Unless you have a good handle
            on both and maybe even a comparison with other risks of that same
            magnitude, you are not really so much evaluating risk as scaring yourself
            and others to try to change your behavior and others for psychological
            hopefully positive reasons.

            Those reason may be benevolent and positive but to me, that is a different
            thing from science.

          • MikeOnRaw

            I guess some of my comments seem to really rile you up to the point of expressing hostility. Why do you care about what why I do what I do? Isn’t that just a way to challenging me saying “I don’t like your kind here”
            Where is your spirit of healthy skepticism and why instead of being interested in things that might be contradictory

            No hostility. I was only taking your words at what you stated, and if you felt those words were accurate then there is little point in continue a discussion since your decision had been made.

            Your exhibition of skepticism thus far indicates an effort to either avoid other information presented that discusses those things you question, or a purposeful effort to be obtuse.

            I have no problem with that, nor am I denying it. But, that does not mean to me apparently what it means to you. I’d like to understand the overall comparative risk. I’d like to see an analysis of say if vegan diets are significantly life-extending why don’t we see vegans in the group of people who live the longest more often, or ever?

            I just don’t understand why some of you are not curious about why that is and instead of saying, yeah, that is interesting, what might be a reason for that, it gets denied or dismissed. There very well might be a logical reason
            for it.

            For many, the choice to live a plant based lifestyle is a ethical choice. As such, their interest in the health possibilities may be quite low. Personally I am interested in why a plant based whole food lifestyle is best. Yet I don’t need to know why before I promote the lifestyle myself. The epidemiological evidence as well as significant anecdotal evidence has been enough for me to feel confident in my choice. And since starting this lifestyle for health I have found a strong ethical justification as well.

            As I’ve said before, we know that a dietary lifestyle of a variety of whole plant foods provides numerous health benefits all related to a better chance at living a long life without disability (Adventist Health Study a large North American cohort study). We know that adding occasional animal products to a diet primarily of whole plant foods still provides a good chance at long life without disability. (The Okinawa Diet).

            The actual scientific explanation why these whole plants are a better nutrition source than animal products is still being researched. The mechanism is not as clear as you might think it should be. But just because science hasn’t figured it out completely yet, does not negate the strong evidence that whole food plant based is best. And the plus side is there is no evidence that a whole food plant based diet is harmful as long as a variety of plants are a part of the diet.

          • largelytrue

            But focusing on a crappy study as if it means something significant for your paradigm is cherry-picking, basically. That’s what you did. Excluding a crappy study from discussion due to time constraints is pretty natural to do and thus not obviously connected with cherry picking. One may pick through the research to find the best research without cherry picking.

            Proposing that the study is a black swan is doubly bizarre, given the arena of discussion. What hypothesis does it disprove? You still have this bad habit of not showing your thinking when you introduce a study and connecting it with Greger’s discussion of the topic.

          • Brux

            I would not say “wrong” but I would say it is unjustifiable at this point to say that you cannot be average and healthy on anything else. I think the points you bring up are good one, the black swan thing is true if not completely relevant. What I find problematic is the way the mob will attack anything they perceive as going against their mindset. This is what the whole carnivore industry has done about vegetarian/veganism in reaction … is that the model people want to follow?

          • Veganrunner

            Brux-attack? oh come on…..

          • Alan

            I often wonder why you watch these videos. But it is a free world.

          • Brux

            That’s the difference between you and me, you just want someone you have faith in to tell you what to do, and you are willing to be part of the mob for them to get that. I would rather delve into the facts and science, which is not perfect, and discuss questions that I have rather than to be a follower. That is why I watch these videos. But, honestly, you don’t care why I watch these videos do you, what you really wanted to say in your cowardly way is that you don’t like what I have to say because it opens up questions that make you less confident in being a follower. Did you even read what I said? I am not disagreeing about WFPB at all, what I am questioning is how much real significance it has to people who are not sick. That does not mean that people who eat a big steak or hot dogs every day are not going to run into problems at some point and I am not defending that. You see, I think 95% of the people here read a bit of a post until they latch on to one or two words or concepts that light up their networks on some issue and then they assume they know what they are reading without thinking. People are not used to thinking. It doesn’t mean thinking people are always right any more than it means science is always right, but a thinking discussion, to me, is so much better than a backslapping self-congratulatory love fest because you are more likely to get something useful out of it.

        • Veganrunner

          Charles it doesn’t work that way. You should try and look at the totality of evidence. You look at the Level of Evidence that exists. If most studies are crappy we have a problem. Dr. Greger has made statements that I question. I look at the article he is referencing and see if it is any good. I then make my decision. I don’t watch a video and then head over to pubmed to see if I can find the opposite. That demonstrates a naïveté on your part.

        • Tom Goff

          So, using the Black Swan analogy, we must conclude that smoking is harmless if we can find one lifelong smoker who lives to 100? This seems to be the essence of your argument. It’s not a appropriate analogy to use in this area.

          • charles grashow

            @Veganrunner:disqus &Tom Goff

            I also go over to google scholar to see if the full paper is available BUT I also look for papers which may disprove his position. The totality of evidence does not support a vegetarian diet as being superior to a whole food, minimally processed diet that includes animal protein. The studies the good doctor uses to support his POV always use a version of the SAD when comparing to a vegetarian diet. Also the studies cannot separate out the fact that, in the case of the seventh day adventists and mormons for example, the people do not smoke, drink, and exercise so they’re not overweight. These factors affect the final results and one cannot say how much they contribute to the final results.

            Applying the balck swan analogy to smoking is a specious argument.

          • Colin Wright

            You can in fact study study sub-groups like the Mormons and Adventists who have similar healthy lifestyles, but differing diets. You can control for risk factors, like weight and smoking status, and still find statistically significant health outcomes, like longer life spans. Here is one example:

            “The more recent 25 year follow-up of the Mormons may allow for a more informative comparison, as like the Adventist study, it included both men and women from California, and examined the effects of other lifestyle factors on mortality. Mormon men and women over the age of 25 with four favorable lifestyle factors associated with significantly reduced mortality were expected to live about 9.8 and 5.6 years longer, respectively, compared to U.S. whites. In comparison, vegetarian Adventist men and women over the age of 30 with three favorable lifestyle factors were expected to live about 13.2 and 8.9 years longer, respectively, compared to non-Adventist Californians whites. Compared to the average U.S. white however, this difference in life expectancy would be expected to be closer to about 14 and 10 years. However, and more importantly, a later paper on the Californian Adventists found that those who adhered to a vegetarian diet for at least 17 years were expected to live 3.6 years longer than those who adhered for fewer years. This suggests that when restricting the analysis to long-term vegetarian Adventists, the difference in life expectancy compared to the Mormons would be even greater.”

          • Brux

            >> Mormon men and women over the age of 25 with four favorable lifestyle factors associated with significantly reduced mortality were expected to live about 9.8 and 5.6 years longer, respectively, compared to U.S. whites.

            Do you understand what this means when they say expected? Expected value?

            It means statistically that they will live longer. It might (I said “might”) have absolutely nothing to do with diet, and more to do with a supportive community, or living where there are less dangerous jobs ( note – you said live longer, not have less prevalence of any particular disease, or die of any particular cause ). How much time and energy do you think is put into the peer review of these many, many studies? Who has to the time to go through the methodology and numbers? I think it would be fantastic if some of these studies were truly broken down and explained to some of readers here. There is a lot of good information here, no doubt. Just keep in mind how often the science is revised. In general the mainstream science is being revised in favor of WFPB, but is that the goal or is to move towards the truth rather than overshoot it the goal?

            I lot of people here seem to be incapably of parsing some of the digests of scientific studies or being critical of them. I say this not because I think WFPB is wrong, but only that the mindset here seems to be to exaggerate in the hope that this is a good way to live and “lying” in a cause that is good is justified … that is, the ends justifies the means. It may well, but that puts the site and the arguments into more of a propagandistic role and not one of science as it presents itself.

            There can be good in this, or good reasons for it, but it all gets mixed up in many of these dicussions to the disservice of both points of view, in my opinion.

          • Colin Wright

            I definitely appreciate contrary and challenging points of view on NF. We all need to engage our critical thinking, improve our knowledge and respond effectively to the latest science. I totally agree with that! The goals ought to be to get as many people as possible on the path to healthier living and a sustainable planet, in my view.

          • charles grashow

            Written by a vegan (Plant Positive) with an agenda.


          • Colin Wright

            Not sure what you mean. I assume the agenda of Travis and plant positive is to stick purely to the science, as far as I can see. Unless you have an example of where they act dishonestly, in bad faith? Meanwhile, can anyone be agenda-free, including meat-eaters?

          • charles grashow

            Now you understand – NO ONE can be agenda free – not meat eaters nor plant eaters. Therin lies the problem.

          • Colin Wright

            And that is why we have science! We can have reproducible experiments that test different hypotheses. We can then filter out failed hypotheses, extend or invent new ones, make predictions, amass evidence, and get closer to solving the human problems amenable to science. It doesn’t matter whether you are pro-meat or pro-vegan! Imagine a cure for cancer was found. Imagine a cure for heart disease was found…oh wait…

          • Tom Goff

            “Applying the balck swan analogy to smoking is a specious argument.” That’s precisely the point, Charles. Applying the Black Swan argument to dietary studies is a specious argument. Multiple factors affect endpoint results. And when environmental factors are controlled, genetics still plays a role. Even in inbred laboratory mice, the same diet does not affect every individual identically eg

            “C57BL/6J mice were fed with a HF diet (60% kcal/fat) or control diets (15% kcal/fat) for 27 months. One-half of the mice on the HF diet developed obesity (diet-induced obese (DIO) mice), whereas the remaining mice were diet resistant (DR). At 8 months of age, both DIO and DR groups had increased hyperglycemic response during a glucose tolerance test, which was normalized in 16-month-old mice. At this latter time point, all groups presented similar performance in cognitive tests (Morris water maze and inhibitory avoidance). The survival curves of the HF and control diet groups started to diverge at 15 months of age and, after 27 months, the survival rate of mice in the DIO and DR groups was 40%, whereas in the control diet group it was 75%.”

            Claiming that because a minority of individuals do not exhibit adverse effects despite consuming X, invalidates observational and experimental studies that show consuming X increases mortality and/or morbidity risk, is as you put it specious. Especially when mechanisms of action have also been identified.

            You further commented: “Also the studies cannot separate out the fact that, in the case of the seventh day adventists and mormons for example, the people do not smoke, drink, and exercise so they’re not overweight. These factors affect the final results and one cannot say how much they contribute to the final results” These factors apply to all adventists and mormons – vegetarians and meat eaters alike. As a result, this better isolates the effect of diet alone. Your argument strengthens – not undermines – the case for believing that these studies deliver meaningful lessons about the effects of diet on health.

  • HemoDynamic, MD – NF Volunteer

    Thank you, thank you, thank you!

    I have been telling all my patients but especially the ones with Diabetes, and Kidney Insufficiency/Chronic Kidney Disease that they have to back off (really stop!) the animal foods because this will help reduce the damage to the kidneys.

    Again, Dr. Greger and team, your ability to concentrate this information into short videos is invaluable to me for teaching my patients!

    To anyone who reads this please consider giving a tax deductible donation to to keep this unequalled resource solvent!

    Physicians note to anyone interested:

    Any physician can tell (if they understood the physiology) the Vegan or very low meat/dairy/egg eaters apart from the high animal protein eaters from a common Blood test assuming no significant current kidney disease.

    If you have ever had blood drawn then most probably you have had a BUN (acronym for Blood Urea Nitrogen) measured. Normal range is 8-20 depending on the lab. Animal protein eaters will have a BUN between 12-25, Vegans will have BUN levels of 6-8. High levels of BUN means the kidney is working overtime!

    How is this?

    Nitrogen is the building block of Amino Acids and Amino Acids are the building blocks of proteins. Animal foods are the most concentrated source of Proteins/Amino acids and eating them increases the BUN. An “elevated” BUN in the range of 12-20 is indicative of overuse of the kidneys which can potentially lead to kidney failure.

    The physiological process is your liver breaks down the excess amino acids into its individual parts and the Nitrogen molecules are then formed into the toxin Ammonia (NH3). Yes the same stuff you may clean your house with. Your body cannot tolerate the toxic ammonia so it is converted to a non-toxic form named Urea in your liver which is then dumped into your blood (which we can measure with the BUN test) and travels to your kidneys for excretion.

    So to protect your kidneys do as the research supports and which Dr. Greger showed so deliciously in today’s video.

    Remember, eat better for YOU!!

    Everything you think, do and eat has the potential to significantly modify your disease risk.

    So if you want to maximize your disease risk, smoke, think angry, negative thoughts, do not exercise, and eat a high fat, animal food diet!

    But if you want to minimize your disease risk and have the best odds of living a disease-free life, don’t smoke, be positive, be present, exercise (even just a stroll is fantastic for you) and eat a low fat, whole food, plant based diet!

    My patients that follow this lifestyle have the highest quality of life, meaning they are the ones most free of dis-ease.

    The people who eat the cleanest (eg Low fat, whole food, plant based) and don’t smoke, are the ones I have seen reverse their Coronary Heart Disease, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Diabetes, Hypertension, Obesity, Erectile dysfunction, back pain, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Lupus, Sjogrens, Crohns Dz, Ulcerative colitis, Carpal tunnel syndrome, Plantar fasciitis, Chronic Kidney Dz, Gastric reflux, Allergies, Asthma, Plaque Psoriasis, Lymphoma, Prostate Cancer, Renal cancer, Myalgia’s, Restless leg syndrome, and I’m sure I am forgetting some others.

    Take care of your body now and it will take care of you later!

    • Gary

      Yes a very interesting video Dr G, and thanks for taking the time to explain what the BUN test is about Dr Hemo.
      Being a newbie to nutritional health I had no idea. Nice to have some meaning to my BUN score of 8 last month.
      That was on a mostly WFPB diet with no meat, dairy, or sugar. With the occasional sardine or mackerel thrown in 3 or 4 times a month.

      The healthy and unhealthy way of life is pretty simple to understand.

      • HemoDynamic, MD – NF Volunteer

        Keep up the great work!

    • Thea

      Dr. HemoDynamic: Thanks for taking the time to write this post. It helps to hear from a doctor with a broad range of personal experience.

      • HemoDynamic, MD – NF Volunteer

        I appreciate that Thea ;-)

    • flykath

      Thanks NF team and HD! For all the naysayers, as HemoDynamic has illustrated, the proof is in the pudding!

    • Kcaj Rotcod

      I’d add to your list of healthy lifestyle habits to have regular sleeping habits, getting adequate sleep at about the same time each night. Also, a satisfactory social life may help the extroverts among us.

      • HemoDynamic, MD – NF Volunteer

        I agree! I forgot about the sacred 3. Diet, Exercise and sleep!

    • Jim

      Great explanation of BUN, Doc. I’ve wondered what it meant. I also wonder about eGFR. I understand that it has something to do with the kidneys. Since mine is low, they did an ultrasound and then an MRI on my kidneys but found nothing wrong. Is this anything to be concerned about?

      • HemoDynamic, MD – NF Volunteer

        I would have your care provider keep an eye on your kidney function and ask them what the concern was for their findings.
        The eGFR (estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate) helps to detect kidney disease in its early stages. Because the calculation works best for estimating reduced kidney function, the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) suggests only reporting actual results once values are < 60 mL/min (they state normal values as 90-120 mL/min). An eGFR below 60 mL/min suggests that some kidney damage has occurred.

        The NKF recommends that everyone "know their GFR number." A person's eGFR should be intepreted in relation to the person's clinical history and presenting conditions, utilizing the following table:


        1 Normal or minimal kidney damage with normal GFR 90+: Protein or albumin in urine are high, cells or casts seen in urine

        2 Mild decrease in GFR 60-89 Protein or albumin in urine are high, cells or casts seen in urine

        3 Moderate decrease in GFR 30-59

        4 Severe decrease in GFR 15-29

        5 Kidney failure <15
        Sorry I cannot get the table to come out correctly.

    • Stewart E.

      Fantastically informative post. This is one I’ll actually study so that I can effectively explain this process.

      I am particularly impressed at your repeated references to “educating your patients”.
      Having T1 diabetes, I have seen numerous internists and endocrinologists over the years. Rarely have they had sufficient respect for patients to even try to educate them.

      I am my primary care giver and if the doctor is any good he/she will be a good coach in improving that care. So I gotta say you have lucky patients.

      • HemoDynamic, MD – NF Volunteer

        You are too kind! Keep up the good work!

      • Charzie

        “I am my primary care giver and if the doctor is any good he/she will be a good coach in improving that care”…Well said, I love it!

    • Jean Michelle

      “Yes even thought the BUN “Normal” range is 8-20 anyone with a BUN
      above 10 should be considered ABnormal. But the “normal” index and
      range was taken on “normal” people who eat the Standard American Diet

      I wonder why my BUN score is so high? – “18” last year – I’ve been vegan for 21 years, age 71, consider myself to be very healthy and athletic. My previous blood tests have all been at least “12.”

      • HemoDynamic, MD – NF Volunteer

        That’s a good question. You need to have your physician take a look at why you’re BUN is starting to become elevated. That could be but not for sure a sign of your kidney function starting to decline. I suggest again that you find a physician who can help you through this

    • Charzie

      Yep, add me to that “reverse” list on many counts. Nothing like proving it to yourself to eliminate any doubts! None here!

    • Rebecca Cody

      Thank you for that explanation. I’ve noticed that when my husband, who, at 78, has had BPH for many years, forgets to drink enough water, his urine smells of ammonia. So maybe that’s an indicator that he’s also eating too much animal protein? I eat mostly WF vegan, but he tends to slip back to animal foods, even though he knows his old diet is what caused his cardiovascular disease in the first place.

    • Amanda

      I want to thank you for your detailed explanation of BUN values in ordinary blood tests. I looked up my old BUN from 2008 @ 15, when I was eating a lot of fish and eggs, and compared it to recent years @ 6-8, when I have been eating a mostly vegan diet, largely as a result of info from this site. I had a hard time navigating the comments section this time because a couple of individuals monopolized the posts. So I would like again to thank you for patiently sharing your medical expertise and clinical experience. I cut and pasted your remarks on the benefits of soy for my 27 year old son who lifts weights. He was dating a Duke nurse who told him to avoid all soy because of the phytoestrogens. I am grateful for your time and careful attention to medical issues that concern those of us who are serious about our own health and the health of our loved ones. Really, I don’t know where else I would have gotten this information. I am beyond grateful to Dr. Greger, the many volunteers and posters who share their knowledge with all of us.

      • HemoDynamic, MD – NF Volunteer

        Thank you so much. I truly appreciate that I was able to provide you with some insight as to what some of the lab test’s we order mean. Unfortunately, most doctors don’t understand those numbers and how they relate to plant based eating–they are never taught that and must, unfortunately, learn that on their own. It’s not an easy task given we are taught mostly how to order test and prescribe pills but not to understand how our lifestyle (mostly how we eat) effects our lab results.
        Keep up your healthy quest. Remember it is for you you do this!!

  • Kim Churchman

    My medic was worried about kidney damage in me two years ago when I had only been WPBF a few months, but now it’s all normal. At least there’s one medic not underdiagnosing.

    • Brux

      what is WPBF … can people please write out their acronyms the first time they use them?

      • flykath

        Whole Foods Plant-based. the term “vegan” is not accurate as one could eat Mac fries all day and be vegan, so we say WFPB – or, you may see it shortened to simply, “Plant-Based” – hope that’s helpful.

        • Brux

          So it was just a typo as I thought.

        • Laloofah

          True, but “vegan” also encompasses a way of living, based on “non-harming” ethical principals, that goes beyond food choices. Or as Donald Watson, the man who coined the term “vegan” in 1944, put it: “The word ‘veganism’ denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment.”

          • largelytrue

            There’s conflict within big-V Veganism, I’d say. Almost all recognize the need to not eat animals or the products of animal exploitation, so that’s the point of agreement and probably the key motivating animus. But there is variety about the “practicality” of avoiding animal exploitation and cruelty in other aspects of life. I don’t think vegans hold to a consistent judgment about the ownership of cats, the occasional use of animal collagen in a desired product, the acceptance of animal research as a practical tool that is better than the alternatives, and so forth. Diet seems to be the black and white territory, but there is also considerable gray in other important areas. If you have engaged with the views of a variety of vegans, does my perception hold up in your own experience?

          • Laloofah

            @Largelytrue – Oh yes… though not the Appointed Spokesperson for Vegans and Veganism (darn it! lol), after 15+ years of being vegan I have
            found myself “engaged with a variety of views,” as you put it. :-) For better or worse, vegans are, of course, people, flawed and full of
            inconsistencies even when well-meaning, and are always going to be at
            different stages of change in awareness, attitudes, and perceptions. As
            you allude to, it usually seems easier to make excuses (“but I like/need
            this exploitative item”) than to make changes (“but my inconvenience is
            not more important than another’s suffering.”) Same can be said for
            diets and other lifestyle habits. But to use the perceived difficulty of
            doing something worthwhile as an excuse not to do it – or to “cheat” –
            is different than what I believe Donald Watson meant when he used the
            caveat, “as far as is possible and practical.” He clearly recognized
            that in a modern, developed society, attaining vegan “purity” is
            challenging, if not impossible, the exploitation of animals (human &
            non-human) and use of many animal “by-products” being pervasive and
            deeply hidden in many everyday things people use and may need. While I
            think consistency is very important, and that once we know better we
            should do better, it’s not about perfection or about neglecting to do
            something just because we can’t do everything. It’s about being
            informed, letting compassion guide us, doing the most good and least
            harm to ourselves and others, and not letting anyone else’s inconsistencies influence our own ethical choices – any more than we
            should use someone else’s unhealthy food choices as an excuse to make
            our own.

            (PS Since veganism recognizes the innate rights of all
            sentient beings to not be regarded as property, many vegans don’t use
            the term “ownership” regarding their relationship with a companion – or
            any other – animal. But even in our use of language, we can be
            inconsistent and unaware creatures of habits so deeply ingrained as to
            be invisible. As awareness grows perceptions change, and mindfulness
            helps, I’ve found!)

            This can be a big, unwieldy, emotionally
            charged subject that I’m aware is also off-topic when it comes to
            kindey health and protein, so for my part I will leave it at this, and wish you a happy, healthy Halloween. :-)

          • largelytrue

            I have seen far worse digressions, Laloofa! Thanks for briefly sharing your perceptions and have a hellthy Halloween yourself.

  • Sebastian Tristan

    Very interesting. Thanks doc.

  • charles grashow
    Dietary protein intake and renal function

    Although excessive protein intake remains a health concern in individuals with pre-existing renal disease, the literature lacks significant research demonstrating a link between protein intake and the initiation or progression of renal disease in healthy individuals. More importantly, evidence suggests that protein-induced changes in renal function are likely a normal adaptative mechanism well within the functional limits of a healthy kidney. Without question, long-term studies are needed to clarify the scant evidence currently available regarding this relationship. At present, there is not sufficient proof to warrant public health directives aimed at restricting dietary protein intake in healthy adults for the purpose of preserving renal function.
    The Impact of Protein Intake on Renal Function Decline in Women with Normal Renal Function or Mild Renal Insufficiency

    High protein intake was not associated with renal function decline in women with normal renal function. However, high total protein intake, particularly high intake of nondairy animal protein, may accelerate renal function decline in women with mild renal insufficiency

    • HemoDynamic, MD – NF Volunteer

      There are updates and clarifications that need to be added so as not to steer people/patients in the wrong direction.
      You are quoting an old study from 2003. Newer studies have emerged and this study from 2011 The Western-style diet: a major risk factor for impaired kidney function and chronic kidney disease. underscores the dangers of a Standard American Diet which is high in animal protein, animal fat, salt etc.
      They even include your quoted Nurses Health Study in their review: “The Nurses’ Health Study reported an association of animal protein intake with renal function decline in women already presenting with mild kidney function impairment but not in women with normal kidney function (85). Renal function decline was observed with animal protein-rich diets but not with plant protein-rich diets, emphasizing the importance of the source of protein (and fat) rather than the amount regarding adverse health consequences.”

      “This review addresses recent progress in the understanding of the association of the Western-style diet with the induction of dyslipidemia, oxidative stress, inflammation, and disturbances of corticosteroid regulation in the development of CKD. (Chronic Kidney Disease)
      “A recent report on the Nurses’ Health Study, a prospective observational cohort study including over 3,000 women, revealed an increased risk of microalbuminuria (protein in your urine from kidney damage) at a higher dietary intake of animal fat and two or more servings per week of red meat (94). Moreover, in a subgroup analysis with available data on dietary pattern and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratios, the investigators found that high scores for a Western-style dietary pattern correlated directly with microalbuminuria and a rapid decline of estimated glomerular filtration rate (aka. worsening kidney function). (93).

      A chronic nutrient overload causes various tissue-specific and systemic metabolic dysfunctions that increase the risk of kidney damage and promote CKD. Especially, the combination of high amounts of saturated fat, fructose, and salt promotes dyslipidemia, hormonal disturbances, oxidative stress, inflammation, and fibrosis with impaired glomerular function and hypertension. . .
      “The most successful interventions, however, will include lifestyle changes consisting of a combination of enhanced physical activity and improved dietary regimens.”

      • Orion Antares

        The Standard American Diet is also high in grain consumption at the same time as all those other items. I wonder if you’d comment on the theories presented here: based on the interpretation of a 2013 study Intestinal microbiota metabolism of L-carnitine, a nutrient in red meat, promotes atherosclerosis (

      • Brux

        This may well be true, but these short little videos often fail to set the context for these relationships.
        Should advice be aimed at people with diseases from the standard American diet and everyone else be ignored, as if one size fits all. It may not be called for or appropriate for everyone to eat the same thing or the same way, particularly since the state of the science is changing. Trying to predict what that means or that it will stop is not science even though it might concern itself with science.

        • HemoDynamic, MD – NF Volunteer

          One size does fit 95% of the current population. The other 5% I can deal with as it comes along. But I will make a general reference when it is due and NO OTHER LIFESTYLE HAS PROVEN BETTER AT ARRESTING and REVERSING CHRONIC DISEASE THAN A LOW FAT, WHOLE FOOD PLANT BASED DIET! If you have evidence supporting otherwise please present it here for peer review.

          • Brux

            You are the one making the claims.

            There are a lot of factors that affect lifespan and health, and most what you is said here reduces everything down to diet.

            Further, you just narrowed the scope of your claim from 95% to the people who want to “ARRESTING and REVERSING CHRONIC DISEASE” which is surely much less than 95%.

            The way I read English as a natural born English speaker you could be a little less loose with the language and not lose your enthusiasm for the subject matter.

          • HemoDynamic, MD – NF Volunteer

            Would you like to be graded on your English as a “natural born English Speaker”? I have three three English teachers that wod love to grade your last post! Especially

          • Brux

            Yeah, really. ;-) Was that supposed to be responsive or relevant to something or just evasive. So, you have contempt for everyone who has not helped patients in their lives or just the ones that disagree with your or question your authority?

            Look, I did not mean to set you off, which I clearly have. The reason I come here is that I am looking for information, and there is a lot of good ideas and information here. But there are a lot of ambiguities as well. Apparently to you and lots of others this means – don’t question, don’t ask for more, do not ask for clarification. There is a lot of innuendo that I seek to clarify because doctor or not, most of this stuff is not well understood, even by the experts.

            You said “Trying to disparage a physician who tries to help patient’s get off their medications and has been very successful at reversing their chronic diseases?” Tell me anything I said that even came close to doing that? You know that was not my intention, so why the ruse?

            I have all the respect in the world for physicians, even when they are not perfect, medicine is an art. However, in a discussion about something it gives you not extra authority or credibility if something you says doesn’t add up to me. I could be wrong, but like most good teachers I’ve ever had say, there is no such thing as a stupid question.

            I don’t know what it looks like to run a subject discussion board either, but I’ve seen the way a majority can gang up on people and bully them, and now the politics of it works so that regulars get the message and jump in too, losing the whole point, or at least what I think is the whole point of an open discussion forum.

            When you say one size fits 95% of cases, to you, I am sure you have some idea what that means, but to me it sounds like an authoritarian argument that even contradicts itself as well as being so broad as to mean nothing.

            What would have liked me to say to that? Is this the way you would treat a patient in your office who had questions about what you were saying. Claiming to be a doctor and an authority does not just work in one direction.

          • Veganrunner

            Brux you didn’t ask Dr Hemo a question. I believe he is saying that in his practice he is able to treat 95% of his patients with a WFPB diet (and he also mentions other lifestyle changes above.) Isn’t that amazing! I wish I could have a doctor who cared so much.

            I am sure you have tried to encourage people in your life to make some of these changes and you know it isn’t easy. But to have an MD who is on board is wonderful.

          • HemoDynamic, MD – NF Volunteer

            Brux I apologize I do not remember you ever asking any questions. So if you did ask a question please restate it here so I can answer it. Regarding the 95% of the population, that’s related to the bell shaped curve were 95% of the people fall into two standard deviations of the mean. But 5% of the time there will be outliers. There are some people who can smoke, drink and eat unhealthy and live to be 100 years old. George Burns comes to mind. And there are people who can eat really healthy and still have a heart attack or get cancer but that’s not the majority of people. There are always exceptions to the rule. But I am teaching the best diet that I know for the population at large. If I have to tweak it at some point I will do so. There is no other diet other than a whole food plant-based diet it is low in fat that reverses chronic disease 95% of the time. I also reserve the right to change anything I’ve stated here because research and information changes over time.
            Regarding your comment about the short videos they are done intentionally to keep the attention span of people who come to learn. It’s not meant to be an exhaustive compendium about why you should do something or not do something. The compendium should be looked at as the whole website and you need to take the time to watch those videos and do outside reading to educate yourself. Then you will understand why I promote eating a whole food plant-based low-fat diet. And truly no one will really understand. My viewpoint and less they are physician practicing medicine and teaching lifestyle change. I have a unique view of the world and I am very blessed to be able to see so many people reversed their diseases. No other human beings on the planet get to really see the amazing changes on such a large scale unless they are working in an environment that practices a whole food plant based diet as there first line of medicine.

          • Veganrunner

            It makes it all worth it doesn’t it? To see a patient make that transformation from sick to healthy by changing their diet and exercising puts a smile on my face.

          • HemoDynamic, MD – NF Volunteer


  • Since the punchline of the research is that the proximate cause of the harm is inflammation and since that inflammation would be systemic, the harm would be to every system of the body. This story is much bigger than just kidneys.

    • Joseph Gonzales R.D.

      True that! Inflammation is at the core of every disease it seems. And excess animal protein and saturated fat tend to boost the inflammatory process. I agree the story is way bigger than just kidneys! Thanks for your note.

      • Orion Antares

        If inflammation is really the key issue, it may be time to stop trying to look at things in isolation and start to look at how they interplay. This article brings up some rather interesting points and give better direction for finding actual issues.

        • Joseph Gonzales R.D.

          I think that is the right idea! Nutrients work together like a symphony and we often focus on one piece rather than as a whole.

          • jj

            “…we often focus on one piece rather than as a whole.” Is it possible that Nutrition Facts will start focusing on the whole instead of one piece at a time?”

          • Joseph Gonzales R.D.

            Dr. G does have videos that mention the importance of total diet. He often points to studies that look at dietary trends and patterns. The difficult part is that research is often focusing on one aspect of nutrition. These studies are still valuable, but taking into account the total diet, amount of exercise, and how we deal with stress may be a better focus and give better health outcomes. Again, the problem with this approach is that we don’t know what factors specifically are responsible for the heath outcome? Is it the diet or the exercise or the 10 times daily of meditation that is aiding our health? I know Dr. G hits on this a lot in many videos. I always try to remember to put all of the tips together based on the individual studies. I love Dr. Greger’s write-up on a plant-based diet, as he mentions like 100 sources and videos connecting the dots on how to build a healthful diet.

          • Thea

            jj: In addition to the answer that you got from Joseph, I’ll also point out that Dr. Greger has a book coming out in December that is reported to be that big picture look. If you are interested, the book can be pre-ordered (and all proceeds go to supporting this site):

    • HemoDynamic, MD – NF Volunteer

      You are correct!

    • Bethany

      Since both animal proteins and plant proteins are made of the same twenty amino acids, the cause of inflammation has to be the differences in amino acid composition, or other compounds in animal foods, or both. Do we know what in animal foods cause inflammation?

      • HemoDynamic, MD – NF Volunteer

        All animal foods are inflammatory!

        This video will help your understanding and it is short, to the point and really good.

        I show this video a lot to my patients to help give them a basic understanding of inflammation and its cause.

        • Joe Caner

          Testify Sister!

          or brother as appropriate… It is definitely something to shout about. I’m okay with you raising your voice regarding this particular bit of information because it will save the lives and alleviate the suffering of those who chose to heed and follow this advice.

        • Brux

          I know sometimes when I click on the email link to view a comment
          it is missing or all of the comments do not show up, so maybe I missed

          > Do we know what in animal foods cause inflammation?

          Did you answer her question?

          • 2tsaybow
          • Brux

            The “original landmark study” was on people eating sausage and egg mcmuffins.

            Why do you and Dr. G. think it is valid to use such highly processed and adulterated good to represent all animal products. Of course those foods are laden with huge loads of bacteria and who knows what other differences from fresh organic non-factory foods.

          • 2tsaybow

            I don’t think there is any difference when the problems discussed are the consequence of microbial digestions. Even organic meat is a problem in these circumstances Here is an article for you from Europeans microbe project discussing the problem of red meat.

          • Brux

            >> I don’t think there is any difference when the problems discussed are the consequence of microbial digestion.

            This is the only statement you made. Great, you think. You opine. I thought this was about facts and science? I may or may not even agree with you but I don’t think that should be the point. Because someone might agree with you does that mean they should not challenge the logic of a study that might not prove what it says it proves?

            Then you point to an article that is shorter and has less specifics than they one mentioned in this video.

            Then you go back to something you say I “argued” at one point that you think you can prove me wrong that has nothing to do with what I am saying here and I imagine you probably misquoted or misread or misunderstood. Can you point to the actual comment please?

            When you look at the terminology, WFPB, whole foods plant based, it does not say WFPO, i.e. whole food plants only. What do you think that means? Does that significance of that just bypass your thinking process?

            I like to think of my point of view as reading the fine print … i.e. what is actually being said here instead of going with what I might like to hear or what I might want to hear. I don’t know why I should get so much flak for that, it is better for all in the long run. After all I am hear listening and reading. I don’t feel I am being impolite or disruptive? Is that what you think?

          • 2tsaybow

            >>Then you go back to something you say I “argued” at one point that you think you can prove me wrong that has nothing to do with what I am saying here and I imagine you probably misquoted or misread or misunderstood. Can you point to the actual comment please?

            Nah, I’m sure you’ll make the statement again. It seems to be a concept you fall back on. I’ll just make sure and point out that it is untrue next time you say that Dr, Greger doesn’t advocate eliminating animal products from our diet.

            >>I don’t feel I am being impolite or disruptive? Is that what you think?

            Sometimes you have been impolite. For instance you hassled a person new to this comment section about the use of an initialization which was completely unnecessary.

            >>When you look at the terminology, WFPB, whole foods plant based, it does not say WFPO, i.e. whole food plants only….

            You are not the person who gets to define what a Whole Food Plant Based Diet is. That’s up to the professionals. I linked to an article on the subject. Here it is again.
            If you wish to believe something else you may do so, but that is not what professionals are describing as a WFPB diet. (Did I get that initialization right?).

            Animal products are bad for you. One reason is because the microbes in our gut that live on animal products cause inflammation in our entire system when we consume them; another reason is because the cholesterol and saturated fat in animal products cause many diseases,

            Even meat that is organic causes problems as Susan Levin MS RD states in her article Will Switching to Organic Meat Dairy and Eggs save your health? Here is the entire article:

            “However,while concentrations of some contaminants may be decreased, switching to organic animal-based food does nothing to decrease the risk for the diseases that remain the biggest killers of Americans. Cholesterol, fat (especially saturated fat), and animal protein are the major culprits in animal products that are associated with higher risks of heart disease, diabetes, and some cancers. They are also associated with the development of the many risk factors that lead to these diseases, including obesity and hypertension.”

            Your interjection about how you define a WFPB diet, while entertaining to you is wrong, and if someone comes to this site looking for help and reads what you are writing and believes you and doesn’t believe that animal product consumption is bad for them, they could be harmed.

            You wouldn’t want to hurt anyone would you, Brux? What do you want to prove to people when you interact here? Is this a hobby or is it a job?

            I’m sure it’s not a job, and that you’re just interacting with all of us and expressing your views. But just in case, you might want to look at the RICO Act. You can’t do what you’re doing as a job because it can harm people if you deceive them and that’s a crime. So redefining a term like WFPB diet had better just be a hobby for you.

            RICO Act, now that’s an initialization you always want to get right. Just ask the tobacco companies, that’s what brought them down.

          • Brux

            If you want to go off the deep end, you’re going to go without me, you’ve stepped way over the line here.

          • 2tsaybow

            Expect push back when you say things that are untrue on this site.

            You get to be a shill for anything you believe, it’s a free country. Just remember if you are a paid shill you are committing a crime, and you should talk to a lawyer about the consequences.

          • Brux

            > Nah,

            Yeah, I thought so.

            > you hassled a person new to this comment section about the use of an initialization which was completely unnecessary.

            That’s a downright lie. There was an acrocym that was far enough away from WFPB that I asked about it to see if I was missing something. What is wrong with you that you need to lash out at people with accusations like that? Get a grip.

            > You are not the person who gets to define what a Whole Food Plant Based Diet is.

            In English, plant-based does not translate to plant-only any more than animal-based diet means animal-only.

            > Animal products are bad for you.

            The constraints of that statement have not been experimentally verified or qualified. Say what you want, but you cannot prove it and don’t seem to really understand what that means. It is clear you are not a scientist and your way to participate here is to try to be a bully to make points with people. More often than not the longest lived people on the planet eat or ate diets with animal foods, it is the norm. A norm that is far different from the average American diet. There is data that says too much animal or processed food is bad for you, but you don’t seem to perceive the difference or recognize nuance or subtlety.

            Apparently you do not really understand the very basics of what “associated with higher risks of” means in a scientific context either. That is something you will have to argue with someone else since as I said – your rudeness, bullying and threats (laughable as they are about breaking the law) and waste of time, show you to be someone who is not productive to try to converse with Sorry to have to be blunt, I don’t enjoy it, but as I said, your last posts have crossed the line.

    • Joe Caner

      Inflammation from endotoxemia following meat and dairy ingestion leading to endothelial dysfunction is the smoking gun behind most, if not all, of our modern life style diseases including kidney disease. Routine and systematic endotoxin release over time destroys our vascular systems.

  • Ginger C


  • RicardoRichard

    Dr Greger, you continue cherry-picking. What you are telling is only half truth. You had better tell your audience/readers/video viewers about consumption of soy if it is not fermented. What a bloody havoc it wreaks in human body, boys start developing breasts not to mention other disasters it causes. I appreciate your research and I devour your articles and videos and presentations but a researcher of your category should be more objective and not utterly biased.

    • largelytrue

      So should you. Cite evidence for your claims about gynecomastia in boys because of soy. Here’s what a basic PubMed search turns up, by the way:

    • JeanC

      I have a 17 yr old male (grandson) who has been vegan since birth and had consumed quite a bit of soy products and soy formula as a baby from about 8 mo. to 15 mo., just to let everyone know he is of healthy weight , mentally and physically in excellent condition, very muscular build, very manly look, and facial hair, developing maybe slightly sooner than his peers. (no breasts :) He is an excellent student, super healthy (has never been sick or needed to go to a doctor). Grades and test scores excellent. Interacts well with teachers, adults and peers. No issues or problems at almost 18 years old.
      I am sure someone will respond with being sure of organic non gmo and plenty of fresh fruits veggies etc and yes , that too, along with lots of pasta.

      • RicardoRichard

        My congratulations. But one swallow does not make a summer. You know of that case and I know of many others whose results are just the opposite.

        But how do you know that it is due to soy?

        Apart from that there are many wiser people than myself and they will tell you the same. And they are not only Americans.
        Just see the results from all over the world instead of stewing in your own American juice. Look at Dr Greger, he also looks at other countries as well. America, unfortunately is not the only country, even though you Americans still consider yourselves the navel of the world but this is a very provincial view. And America, unfortunately, is slowly bubbling under.

        • HemoDynamic, MD – NF Volunteer

          I would appreciate references for me to validate your claims because I have reviewed much of the literature and I cannot find any studies that support your claim.

          So help me out here. If there is evidence to support you views I would love to read it!

          This is the most current reviews on the matter you speak that I am able to find:

          Soybean isoflavone exposure does not have feminizing effects on men: a critical examination of the clinical evidence.

          Conclusion: “The intervention data indicate that isoflavones do not exert feminizing effects on men at intake levels equal to and even considerably higher than are typical for Asian males.”

          Here’s another study Clinical studies show no effects of soy protein or isoflavones on reproductive hormones in men: results of a meta-analysis.

          RESULTS: “No significant effects of soy protein or isoflavone intake on T(Testosterone), SHBG (Sex Hormone Binding Globulin), free T (Testosterone), or FAI (Free Androgen Index) were detected regardless of statistical model.

          CONCLUSION(S): The results of this meta-analysis suggest that neither soy foods nor isoflavone supplements alter measures of bioavailable T concentrations in men.”

          Again please help and educate me on this matter.

          • HeartHealthy

            Thank you for all your comments in supporting this website. You doctors bring an expertise and experience that the rest of us can’t provide. You are on the front lines every day fighting the good fight, and you represent the growing grassroots efforts to change how medicine is practiced.

            I’ve came to the conclusion from my reading that most doctors won’t apply a WFPB diet in their practice unless they apply in it in their own life and family. With few exceptions, most of these doctors have changed due to some personal experience usually a health problem such as pre-diabetes, metabolic syndrome, high cholesterol, or heart disease. They didn’t want to take the same medicine that they prescribe to their patients for the rest of their life and dealing with the potential side effects, and knowing it was only accomplishing palliative care. They did their research, went on a WFPB diet, corrected their medical condition, and then ,started applying WFPB diet to their practice.

            We need a better way to get new doctors coming out of medical school on a WFPB diet and get them to apply it in their practice. We need to get the old doctors as they come down sick to see the benefits of WFPB diet on their own health, and then start applying it in their own practice. We need to get the insurance companies on board. If doctors and researchers could prove the benefits of diets such as WFPB diets and exercise on people’s health maybe companies and insurance companies could encourage their employees by offering them reduced insurance premiums which would have to be backed up by improved medical conditions such as improvement in weight, blood pressure, and cholesterol levels, etc.

          • HemoDynamic, MD – NF Volunteer

            Boy you are opening a can of worms with that comment:). I will answer in more detail later but keep eating well!!! I have to sleep!

          • Veganrunner

            Excellent articles. Thanks Dr Hemo!

          • Orion Antares

            Did this particular study not look at DHT levels? I’ve seen another study used to claim that it does reduce DHT levels,

        • Jean Catron

          “But how do your know that it is due to soy?”…not sure what that means. I am just saying soy is a part of our plant based diet (mine and my grandsons) and I have first hand experience with a developing male child consuming soy and have seen no down side. I do not assume that anything i spoke of is ‘due to’ soy, it is just one food that we eat, just a bean…not a demon food.

          I also would like to know what are the “disasters it causes”? and “I know of many others whose results are just the opposite” Who are the many and what are the issues?

          I have previously, several years ago, done extensive research on this very subject because of the fears of soy statements such as you are making now. I could find no evidence of soy being an issue with males. Opinions yes, lots of them but no proof.

          Soy has been a part of my grandsons diet from about 8 mo to almost 18 years. What is most interesting to me is that he seemed to go through puberty somewhat sooner than most of his peers, …voice changing, needing to shave, etc. So obviously no feminizing effect if that is what you were referring to as a “disaster” I am not promoting soy, just saying it is not proven to be a problem and I don’t believe it is an issue for growing boys. Just wanted to put another opinion here for folks who are interested.

          • HemoDynamic, MD – NF Volunteer

            Keep up your great work! Soy is safe!

          • Joe Caner

            I’ll have a double order of Soy. Please hold the Glyphosate!

    • Joseph Gonzales R.D.

      Thanks for the note. We always allow folks to post any research you feel Dr. Greger has missed. Soy is not the demon it’s made out to be based on the science. Unfermented soy like tofu and edamame are fine choices and I have not seen research on humans to say otherwise. Of course if you don’t like it don’t eat it. It is not a miracle food. You can rely on other legumes if you’d rather.

      Best regards,

      • RicardoRichard

        Something must be wrong with THE SCIENCE. Or perhaps everything is OK if science is relative in its nature. How can researchers arrive at contradictory statements? You will answer – interests. I wouldn`t say it is the best argument. Obviously there are interests involved but we should not exaggerate, not to such an extent that well-known people would love to risk their authority to claim some ridiculous things. There must be a grain of truth in what they say. But you also must admit that there is a total mess in the results but only those with closed mind look at their circle of followers and claim that they are the only truth owners. Where is the truth then?

        I am unwilling to support a consumption of unfermented soy not because of its taste but for deeper reasons. I have read or heard from different sources that soy is not healthy food. If you consider it otherwise, you (plural, I am saying it to this circle of Dr Greger`s followers) may consume it in industrial quantities until you are blue in the face, I will not stop you from doing that. Bon appetit!
        Kind regards

        • HemoDynamic, MD – NF Volunteer

          Again help me out here. Where are the studies YOU talk about?

          • RicardoRichard

            Haven`t you noticed yet? How long have you been in this world? A year or two? Whatever topic you come across, there are different and contradictory results of research and everything is scientific.

            What is a healthy diet? Should cooking oils be consumed? Red meat? Milk and dairy? Fruits are OK or not? Even Dr Ornish when started his campaign to reverse heart disease in the 1990s was saying that sugar is not bad to your health, only fat and cholesterol.

            So if you haven`t noticed it yet, please open more widely your eyes. But if you stay in one circle, you will have no doubts whatsoever.

            Stay healthy and wise.

          • 2tsaybow


          • Joe Caner

            Answers to your questions in order: most contradictory results are illusory due to industry funded stacked research, WFPB diet, no, no, no, definitely okay.

            I’ll make a deal with you. I’ll keep an open mind, and you back up your claims with references which have been repeated requested without response.

          • RicardoRichard

            If you wear blinkers, just be happy. . Here you have
   . You will find lots of references there. If you want in Portuguese there is an excellent scholar called Lair Ribeiro – find him on youtube. In Polish you have Jerzy Zieba and if you want in Spanish or Swedish I will arrange it for you as well. Satisfied? So happy watching or reading.

          • Joe Caner

            Thank you for revealing one of sources. It is appreciated. Unfortunately, I don’t speak Portuguese. Polish, Spanish or Swedish so I don’t believe that they’d do me much good, but others on the community may benefit so feel free to site the source from which you’ve formed your opinion. Kudos to you if you can understand all of those languages.

            Dr. Mercola begins his video by stating that fermented soy is okay, and that the dangers of which he is speaks has to do with unfermented soy products. He sites that 95% of the soy grown in the USA is grown from GMO seeds which is a concern due to, 1) herbicide contamination, and 2) unknown effects of the GM process, and 3) impact on fertility of subsequent generations of rats whose progenitors were fed GMO soy. BTW, these issues are a concern for me and others. That is why we’ve switched to organically grown foods because, at the moment at least, they cannot contain GMO’s. Soy and Monsanto have become nearly synonymous in the US. They have convinced US lawmakers NOT to require labeling for GM products.

            He really doesn’t go into why he believes fermented GMO soy would is okay while unfermented GMO soy isn’t. This seems a bit like a logical fallacy because it is unknown how the fermentation process effects Roundup saturated soybeans. It would be an interesting line of inquiry, and someone should do a study, but Monsanto’s EULA forbids such research on its products. He sites no research on that topic or any other for that matter. Mercola pretty much states options and alludes to studies which he has read without providing them, and up until now, that is what you’ve been doing. You state opinions, and you seem to suggest that we are blind for not agreeing with you which is at best provocative, and at worst insulting.

            I can understand your hesitation to use this particular source as justification for your position because it is just not up to the standards set by Dr. Greger’s work which is well researched, well documented with citations and presented with an economy and style that I for one find compelling.

            So no, I am not satisfied.

          • RicardoRichard

            Mercola did not limit his statement to GMO concerning soy as far as I remember and he explains in a sentence or two why fermented soy is safe (not GMO). But there are other sources below the article. There are other references in English as well. Although you are not satisfied, read the rest and you will be less sure of what you have thought of soy up till now. Truth is very complex, but reading / listening to Dr Greger it seems that the truth is so simple, because he knows how to manuvre in order to show where the truth lies. And he sounds very convincing – I devour his texts and videos but … with a pinch of salt.

            I suppose it is not enough to understand something in a foreign language – one must also discuss these things in that language. It is still hard for most of Americans to find usefulness of knowing foreign languages, especially nowadays, but America has really lost its monopoly on knowledge.even though it is so hard to fathom.

          • Joe Caner

            I can’t really speak for others, but I don’t believe that America or Americans have a corner on the the truth. I do believe that languages exert a powerful influence on the way ideas can be expressed in both subtle and not so subtle ways. At one time, German was the language of science, medicine and engineering, and now English has come to dominate scientific literature. Some consider that a form of cultural imperialism to go along with the garden variety imperialism that get’s exported along with pervasive propagation of military bases and McDonnell’s .

            I think that people should be discerning about the information that they choose to accept so while you are salting Dr. Greger’s words, you may also want to take Mercola’s words with a handful of the supplements that he sells on his web page, not that there is anything wrong with selling supplements. Of course, being censured by the FDA for making unsubstantiated claims for supplements that one are sells would be a concern which Mercola has on three separate occasions.

          • RicardoRichard

            I suppose I am in a circle of religion here not in a community of open/minded people. If Mercola is not your cup of tea, go to Chris Kresser site – he also has an article on soy, which you will hate, I know why, because he does not belong to this circle.

            It is not the Americans that propagate military bases round the world – it is the military and industrial complex that Eisenhower was warning not only Americans but the whoke world about.

          • guest

            I think you’re in your own circle of delusion. You yourself are so close-minded that you won’t accept the information being presented to you here because of your own inflated ego and personal paleo dogma. Chris Kesser is just another opinionated money driven blogger looking to make a buck on the paleo fad. He sells pills and books for sucker low carbers who believe that junk. You might like to know that Kesser recently came under fire for admitting that low-carb diets CAUSE insulin resistance. The paleo world didn’t like that. Might take away book sales. Paleo is a shame like snake oil, easy money from suckers who believe those fudged dishonest industry backed studies.

          • RicardoRichard

            Still afraid of thaking off your mask? Identify yourself first and we may continue discussing. Anyway, I think you had better stew in your own juice here. Don`t forget to put your blinkers on.

          • guest

            Go away troll, nobody cares about your paleo propaganda here. Take it over to perlmutter or Kessers site. Your ego driven pompous attitude shows you need attention and stomping around here telling everyone they are wrong seems to give you what you lacked as a child.

          • Joe Caner

            Yep! That’s right. We’re a cult. You’ve clocked us. We just give lip service to all that fancy research stuff to mask the truth that you have so intrepidly uncovered.

            Now will you all please open your copies of “How Not to Die” to page 42 and sing one of my favorite hymns entitled:
            “Compression of Morbidity”

          • Richard Kurylski

            How happy I am that you have found “the truest truth”. So grab it with all your fours and defend it tooth and nail. And bask in this circle of mutual adoration. You have set a perfect example of THE scientific forum. All the rest fora in the domain of healthy food is just a crap..But be careful, you could transform yourselves into gods. Full stop or period as you say in America.

          • RicardoRichard

            I have mentioned the link and other references here in this discussion. I will not repeat myself, sorry. Please find it somewhere here.

          • largelytrue

            The vast majority of Mercola’s links in “the link” are not to research studies, but either to other articles he’s written or to various popular sources of mixed quality such as the Huffington Post. At this point you don’t seem to be talking about studies, but about people who put their authority (however strong or limited) in opposition to unfermented soy. We know that some people think that unfermented soy is a big problem. What we don’t know is whether or not there is a credible case for it in the scientific literature, or one of sufficient quality to support a claim of cherry picking.

            Scientific evidence is important, which is why so many asked you to cite it. When you cry “cherry picking!”, you imply that you have had some meaningful contact with the research itself, examples of cherries that were not picked. Asking for studies from you doesn’t seem like a very unreasonable request to me.

          • RicardoRichard

            Sorry, I have told you before (it was some months ago while there was a discussion on some other topic) what I think of the so called “scientific evidence” etc. A new paradigm is emerging but the hard-core scientists can`t see the wood for the trees. And the result is their desperate reaction – they start picking holes in facts or they even launch their campaigns of witch hunting. Mercola is the prime objective, because he upsets their apple-cart. Now the aim is Perlmutter and others. I know those methods. The diehard dies hard. Your days as “scientists” are counted. You are unable to stop Deepak Chopra, Gregg Braden or Rupert Sheldrake to name only a few.

          • guest

            Perlmutter and Mercola are Atkins wannabe cholesterol deniers. They are not to be trusted. They are misguiding people (like you) with bogus studies and misinformation. Most people here on nutritionfacts “get it” with regards to those types of Drs. They are bought and paid for by the meat, eggs and dairy industry. I would not be surprised if some of the cholesterol deniers trolling here are being paid to spread misinformation on sites like nutritionfacts and McDougalls site. You would be best to start listening to Dr Geger and ditch the pseudo-science doctors.

          • RicardoRichard

            What? Cholesterol? Are you serious? You must be joking. People started talking about cholesterol conspiracy 40 years ago. The Big Pharma wanted to sell statins and they knew how to approach the authorities. I wish I could have 250-280 and I devour 2 eggs every day and it does not help. Dr Ribeiro from Brazil consumes 35 eggs a week and feels fine. He looks even 15 years younger (he is almost 70). The same another researcher from Poland called Zieba. More and more American cardiologists talk about the myth of cholesterol. I am afraid you must update your knowledge.

          • largelytrue

            Mercola is a quack. He sells potions and tanning beds and so forth. If you hate the “so-called” “scientific evidence” (which sounds to me like an antiscientific attitude, pure and simple) then why do you care about cherry picking? What is cherry picking in your view? Do you rant at every other of these websites about cherry picking, just because a different website says something different?

          • RicardoRichard

            Obviously for such a diehard like you are, Mercola, Chopra, Sheldrake and so on are a bunch of idiots with anti-scientific stance. But I don`t care what you think. I know what academic – science sensu lato – of the 18th century is. I have experienced it myself in the 20th and the 21st centuries. I even have a PhD… Do you, calling yourself “largely true”? If I were you, I would change it into “the absolute truth” – you would sound even more authoritative.

            Don`t you know what what cherry-picking is? I am not going to look it up for you in a dictionary. Find it yourself.

            I do criticize others too when they sing accompanied by “mono-music”. Reactive when I get into rhetorical corner? I haven`t heard such a good joke for years. I simply laugh at people who wear scientific-evidence blinkers without even trying to see life evidence because it does not fit into their scientific pattern.

          • largelytrue

            My username is mostly about my perspective of the topic area rather than myself, and the “largely” is meant to suggest incomplete certainty, skepticism.

            I know what cherry picking is but the way you are using the term and backing it up seems entirely unorthodox. Your support for your claim doesn’t fit with my definition of cherry picking: evidence of similar quality being ignored for reasons of bias, or, using wikipedia.en‘s terminology and my emphasis:

            “the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a
            particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related
            cases or data that may contradict that position”

            Because you haven’t hastened to show the portion of “related cases or data that may contradict that position” (and its significance), I’m curious as to whether you have a somewhat different idea of what cherry picking is supposed to be.

          • RicardoRichard

            Precisely what Dr Greger most of the ime tells us by picking the things that serve his purpose.

          • largelytrue

            But you are still saying that there are other things that he should have picked. What kind of “things” are being picked when you make your charge and what are the other “things” that he should be picking? Do you simply mean that he should be more concerned to discuss some of the possible downsides of vegan diets in general, or what?

            Do you think that I don’t believe Greger has some biases, alongside areas of incomplete expertise? Bias is something we all share but our ability to mitigate the effect of particular biases varies.

          • largelytrue

            Further, aren’t you the diehard, since you literally propose that these individuals are uniquely the vanguards of a shift in a dying scientific paradigm, when two of the three definitely aren’t even scientists?

            When I say that Mercola is a quack I don’t mean to imply that he is an idiot. Quacks are often quite shrewd, and need not even believe the weak claims that they promote.

          • RicardoRichard

            You are mistaken – you should have said none of them is a scientist

          • largelytrue

            Sheldrake is a biochemist by training but I do have a sneaking suspicion that the ideas that you are pointing to are pseudoscientific, in that they reject the scientific community, they ignore scientific consensus on a multitude of topics, and they make no significant use of his actual credentialed expertise in biology.

          • RicardoRichard

            This is your opinion. Mine is different – they ARE true scientists and this is the only way-out for science, especially for life sciences but not only. And all those stick-in-the-muds will disappear in 20 years, because the science they represent will die its natural death as it is unable to solve scores of questions that life puts forward.

            I am really surprised that this obsolete science did not die 60 years ago at the latest – the result of quantum physics progression (double slit experiments, particle entanglement, etc, the role of the observer in the experiment). And then unified field, dark matter, etc and to crown it all – consciousness. Where is it? The easiest thing is to say – it is metaphysics. The scientific method cannot withstand the changing time. And the time is invariably approaching a moment when those diehards will look utterly ridiculous. Even today there`s an exaggerated – to my mind – anti-scientific attitude of society, which I deplore but understand why it is so.

          • largelytrue

            Lastly, what you said to me three months ago was basically an empty and probably hastily written rant. For example you charged that “Everything that does not agree with [me] belong[s] to pseudoscience.” That simply isn’t so. There are minority opinions in the scientific community and they are often articulated on reasonably scientific grounds in scientific literature. That is one way in which science continually expands and investigates new areas. However the time to believe a claim is not immediately, as soon as a researcher hypothesizes it. Other competing claims may be on better footing.

            Just because some minority hypotheses are eventually vindicated — and technically almost every scientific hypothesis begins with a minority in the scientific community — does not mean that they should be believed as soon as someone advances an argument for them. We don’t have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight in any endeavor, and the time to believe a hypothesis is when appropriate evidence is actually in. Sometimes, yes, the majority’s biases must be overridden, making the quality of evidence to change majority opinion somewhat more stringent than the evidence needed to properly justify the minority hypothesis against competitors. But its still crucial to look at the actual evidence, and many minority opinions simply die because they don’t match reality.

            Especially outside the scientific community, many beliefs are promoted with hardly any evidence at all, and scarcely any critical thinking. We’d anticipate that many such beliefs will fail to match reality.

          • RicardoRichard

            Oh gosh. I am hearing Richard Dawkins… his new incarnation.

            Bear in mind, life is LARGER THAN THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE because the latter lacks some features that would help it to understand better the former. I see you haven`t even dipped into Chopra`s or Sheldrake`s arguments.

            What you have written is a theoretical cock-and-bull story. Either you are still wet behind the ears or you are on purpose trying to deceive the reader, because the truth is very different. Read or listen to Sheldrake. No wonder he says that those diehard scientists cultivate religion. And he was not at a red-brick university…

          • largelytrue

            If you have learned some important information from Sheldrake, why can’t you share it beyond saying that I need to read or listen to him? Also, what makes you so certain that I haven’t heard some of Chopra’s arguments? Which argument do I need to examine?

          • RicardoRichard

            Because if you had heard them, you wouldn`t have dared to write such nonsense concerning scientific approach.

          • largelytrue

            That’s mere opinion from you, I’d say. What claim would you most like to see me to support?

          • RicardoRichard

            I am not here to impose any values on you. Follow your consciousness and I will follow mine. Oh sorry, consciousness is metaphysics, so follow your obsolete scientific method and I will follow my consciousness or heart and brains.

          • largelytrue

            And further, what particular argument from them would so indubiously dissuade me from writing which claim?

          • RicardoRichard

            There`s no point in continuing our dialogue. It is THE waste of time. I am talking about the basics and you are a scientist. As they say “a word to the wise is enough”…

          • RicardoRichard

            Because a good scientists should not rely on interpretation but read / listen to the original. After all if I started spreading their ideas I would be accused of financially taking advantage of the situation like scores of you at this site accuse Dr Perlmutter and others of being etc. etc.

          • largelytrue

            Perlmutter again sold and promoted supplements on a dubious basis, given his actual expertise as a psychiatrist. You don’t have the problem. Simply introducing an argument and highlighting the specific ideas that you have is good intellectual hygiene, and does not demonstrate that you are financially invested any more than your professed trust in Perlmutter does.

          • RicardoRichard

            But he has got good results and his humble attitude towards even his own achievement is staggering. Read his last two books. His explorations could lead to some estonishing results. I know the reasons why you belittle him. I have put a short comment on Greger`s microbiome. Precisely this is example of cherry-picking.

            How can you support Perlmutter if he talks “nonsense” about ketogenic diet, paleo, etc – this is blasphemy. Sheldrake would say that you and most of the circle here represent religion and not science. And this is what bugs you and therefore you appoint cannons at people like Perlmutter or Mercola. But more Mercolas and Chopras are coming up and they will grow up like mushrooms and eventually take over the claudicating science.

          • guest

            Perlmutter sucks. He’s not to be trusted. He has no background in medical science. He’s a head shrink looking to make money from suckers like you the same way Atkins did with fake studies and deception. He is a low carb quack like the rest.

            What do you expect to
            accomplish by coming here and talking negatively about Dr Gerger’s work
            and picking fights with the staff and volunteers? Do you think by being obnoxious and trolling a plant based website you are somehow forwarding the paleo agenda? You’re not convincing anyone. I think you’re here because you didn’t get enough attention as a child and trolling gives you the attention and self worth you desire. That’s typically why trolls like you do what they do. Don’t you get it? People on this site don’t
            care about paleo diets. So why are you here and not on those trendy fad paleo sites you love so much? Get over yourself and
            step down off your soap box. Maybe head over to Perlmutters forums where your attitude and views would be more appreciated.

          • RicardoRichard

            Everyone whose opinions differ from your beliefs sucks. Just in case, about cholesterol and its myth a lot has been written. Look ar Stephen Sinatra a man with over 30 years of practising cardiology. Look at the bright young medical researcher Chris Kresser - He also has an article about soy. Wakey wakey – it`s high time. I am not here to convince anyone. Stew in your own religious circle, which this site is. Is there any way to convince fanatics who love adoring each other`s views.

            I am not a paleo diet fan at all. Unfortunately Dr Gonzales is not with us any more. There`s no diet that serves everyone. You americans are so individualistic and you don`t know about it.The diet should be adapted to particular body-type and cultural background. Would you impose a plant-based diet on the Eskimos? Look into Ayurveda.

            Besides, don`t be afraid to take off your mask. Stop hiding behind the Guest.

          • guest

            Again, how much attention do you need Rich? Why are you here? No one cares about Paleo junk science. Sinatra is another Low-carber quack hack. Collin Campbell debated and debunked his misleading studies already. He is another quack doc not to be trusted. Why are you here on a plant based site promoting those people? You’ve also said many times some pretty nasty things about Americans as well. Do you hate Americans or something and that’s why you’re here causing trouble? To stick it to Americans? You are exactly the type of egotistical low-carb cholesterol denying zealot that we keep hearing about. Go over to those sites if that’s what you are into but leave us alone here. No one cares about those industry bough sell out docs like Sinatra. He is a paid shill for the animal products industry.

          • RicardoRichard

            Pull off your mask first and then open your mouth. Afraid of showing your face? I don`t talk to anonymous faces.

          • largelytrue

            I never said that the scientific evidence alone is all that matters. Obviously the scientific evidence means nothing if no one reads it or if we don’t read it well. I’m still concerned that you are probably not reading the scientific evidence or reading it well.

        • Charzie

          You were asked to point us to the studies so that we can know of what you speak, but you have yet to do so. Who exactly are “they” and what do they say???

          • RicardoRichard

            I have already posted a link with other references in there. Please find it here in this discussion. Sorry I cannot repeat the same all the time. Sorry for the extra trouble you will have.

          • largelytrue

            Just dropping a link to a secondary source is not enough. You should be able to briefly summarize the kind of evidence, showing evidence of your own careful processing of the studies, when you are making big claims. Highlighting the studies that you think are most important alongside the popular article from which you got them would also be good. Referencing the studies themselves was what was explicitly asked of you.

        • Veggie Eric

          I think you have an irrational fear of soy based on rumors and water cooler talk, not science. Lots of people say soy isn’t healthy but have no research to back up their claim… One thing I will agree on is that I try to avoid GMO soy products and look for the “non-GMO verified” sticker when buying tofu just to be on the safe side.

    • Joe Caner

      The highest average soy consumption is to be found in Japan, Korea, Indonesia and China. The last time checked, I busty boys from these countries. Of course, I wasn’t looking for them.
      “Nevertheless, Americans as a whole still consume very little soy protein. Based on 2003 data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, per-capita soy protein consumption is less than 1 gram (g) per day in most European and North American countries, although certain subpopulations such as vegetarians, Asian immigrants, and infants fed soy-based formula consume more. The Japanese, on the other hand, consume an average 8.7 g of soy protein per day; Koreans, 6.2–9.6 g; Indonesians, 7.4 g; and the Chinese, 3.4 g.”

      • JCarol

        This is very helpful information, Joe, as per your usual. I’d recently been avoiding soy because of something I’d read – can’t remember where. Obviously research on soy can use a deeper dive on my part.

        I’ll be less nervous about eating tofu a few times a week until (and unless) I find data to convince me otherwise. As a WFPB, low added fat, low added sugar vegan, eliminating tofu put a big hole in my food choices.

        A woman can only eat so many sweet potatoes, you know…

        • Joe Caner

          You are welcome. I hear you. Tofu is not a whole food so I try to mix it up some. I will alternate organically raised King Oyster mushrooms, pinto beans, organic tempeh and GMO free or organic dry/pressed tofu. They go great in tomato based pasta sauce (except for the tempeh), stir steams with greens or as taco fillings. I love the real firm, dry tofu because it give you texture cues similar to chicken or ground beef depending on how you cut or chop it. King Oyster mushrooms are really chewy as well.

          • JCarol

            I have only recently started eating these mushrooms and hadn’t considered putting them in tomato sauce. Great idea.

            There’s a Korean tofu soup package called BCD Soon Tofu Soup Starter. If you have a Korean market nearby you can probably find it in the refrigerator section of the market near the tofu. It includes very soft tofu and a wonderful spicy seasoning packet. Yes, there’s some sodium and a little sugar in the spice packet, but half a packet is sufficient to spice this up properly . By the time I finish adding baby bok choy, napa cabbage, mushrooms, green onions, bean sprouts and whatever else is in the crisper, I figure I’m outweighing the sodium negative. (That’s the story I’m telling myself and I’m sticking to it.)

            I don’t so much miss the taste or texture of meat – whether in tomato sauce or other places – but rather the extended full feeling that meat and cheese bring.

          • Thea

            Joe Caner: I LOVE oyster mushrooms! Great tips!

    • Joe Caner

      On the other hand, Gynecomastia, also know as “bitch tits” in the weight lifting world, are a common enough in the world of those using anabolic steroids. AND there is plenty of naturally occurring and artificially introduced steroids in the US meat and dairy supply. So, if your so concerned with boys sporting secondary female sexual characteristics in the form of breast growth, you’ll be wanting to avoid meat and dairy consumption.

  • Corson1

    Nicely done…powerful information… matches with the inflamatory responses on the endothelium from previous podcast presentation. One would like to know if our meat processing: feeding, antibiotics, hormones, or the time for butchering>table introduce something….microbes, endotoxins, preservative etc that generate the inflamation. In other words can we assume this is specifically animal protein vs. several other possibilities…involved in processing. Are we introduing something or is it the protein? Campbell’s work with casein is pivitol to seeing the potential in the liver cancer model in the Phillipines….but I don’t know to the details of the origin of or how the animals were ‘cared’ for that the casein (protein) came from. In the Blue Zone areas where meat was periodic and NOT sustained, is the sacriface to cooking/to-the-table-time short enought that the endotoxin induced inflamation is not stimulated and thus the periodic eating maybe not as deliterious? Don’t get me wrrong I am in support of plant-based eating, but I think understanding the origins of the inflamation is critical. Do we see the same inflamatory response in those who eat deer meat or other game? Those animals have foraged, not been prepped on antibiotics and not force fed food that are foreign to their digestion. Hopefully, Dr. Greger will locate some studies that might have looked in that direction. Thank you.
    Interested in your thoughts, comments and insight….

    • Joseph Gonzales R.D.

      Great questions. In this new report on meat and cancer by the World Health Organization the question of “does the type of meat matter?” gets thrown out a lot. The short answer is we don;t know. Some of these newer animal products like nitrite-free and pasture-raised meats have not been studies heavily. Here is Dr. Greger’s videos that can help answer some of these great question. There is one study that found less multi-drug resistant bacteria contamination on organic chicken, compared with conventional chicken. The difference was not huge. Another great post on free-range vs. conventional eggs and cholesterol may help. Learn more about organic chicken and arsenic? And this video talks about the problem with organic salmon. I suggest looking at the studies themselves in the sources cited section and see what’s appealing.

      Furthermore, here is a post by a fellow RD of mine on the issue.

      “My opinion is no, how your raise the meat does not affect whether or not it is carcinogenic. Both conventional, feedlot meat and grass fed organic meat are probable carcinogens. And once you process either of these into “processed meat,” they are definitive carcinogens, per WHO and other large health/research agencies.

      In addition to the nitrates/nitrites in processed meats, three key issues to consider with meat in general are heme iron, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heterocyclic amines (HCAs). Ample evidence suggests heme iron contributes to chronic disease risk, particularly heart disease and possibly digestive tract cancers, including colon cancer. Heme iron in particular is a strong pro-oxidant; in processed meat, heme iron likely interacts to worsen the carcinogenic effects of the nitrites. I heard an interview on the WHO statement, and heme iron was mentioned as one of the leading hypotheses regarding why/how meat is pro-carcinogenic.

      As for PAHs and HCAs, you cannot avoid these if you eat cooked flesh. These compounds are generated due to the precursor compounds in the meat. HCAs are formed when amino acids, sugars, and creatine (found in muscle) react at high temperatures. PAHs are formed when fat and juices from meat grilled directly over an open fire drip onto the fire, causing flames and smoke, which rise up and coat the meat. So you can reduce PAHs by not grilling over open flame, but HCAs are formed regardless, simply because it’s meat plus heat.

      You can grill your carrots and eggplant until they resemble a charcoal briquette, and you will not form PAHs or HCAs, because vegetables don’t contain the precursor compounds. You may get other noxious compounds, but PAHs and HCAs, which are carcinogenic, are particular to cooked flesh.

      While it isn’t definitively known that PAHs and HCAs directly cause cancer in humans, evidence suggests this is the case.

      So for cured meat, it makes no difference if it’s grass-fed or conventionally-raised, you still have nitrates/nitrites, heme iron, PAHs, and HCAs. For uncured red meat, it makes no difference if it’s grass-fed or conventionally-raised, you still have heme iron, PAHs, and HCAs.”

  • sfr53

    This article mentions an anti-inflammatory that lessens the kidney’s response when animal protein is processed.
    What is the specific compound and can it be had naturally and in what amounts per gram of protein and/or bodyweight?

    • Joseph Gonzales R.D.

      From the video it looks like the drug is called indomethicin. I am not familiar with it. If you want to learn more I suggest pulling the study, which can be found in the sources cited section. Let me know if you cannot find it? I bet that there are natural compounds like the drug. We have loads of videos on anti-inflammatory responses from plant-foods.

      Here are some protein recommendations. In the last link of this blog Dr. Greger mentions how plant protein is preferable, just like in this video on kidney health.

  • SoCalSue

    So based on this research the gold standard dietary recommendation for anyone in renal failure should be a whole food plant based diet with restrictions an any plant foods that may already me known to place a heavy load on the kidneys. I have a friend on dialysis awaiting a kidney transplant who continues to eat a wide variety of animal products. She believes that following the R.D. advice in her best interest because the R.D. is a trained professional.

    • Blaice

      hubris in one’s own knowledge will often inhibit us from exploring and understanding the truth. We often will face consequences of this cognitive dissonance, assuming you told her the truth.

    • HemoDynamic, MD – NF Volunteer

      By far the best thing you can do when you are awaiting a kidney transplant is eat a whole food plant based diet. I would even say the best diet would be the old Walter Kempner diet of white rice, fruit, fruit juice and sugar. The reason sugar was added was because Dr. Kempner felt that the 5% protein his patients were getting from the rice was too much so he cut the protein calories buy adding sugar for the needed calories which has no protein.

      The rice diet was originally started was for patients with Kidney failure and Severe high blood pressure. You see no drugs or dialysis was available back then and so diet was the only therapy. It worked phenomenally! Here’s a nice piece on Dr. McDougall’s website about his work.

  • vegank

    Thank you Dr Greger and team and Hemodynamic for explaining this so well.
    it’s a real intensive to stick with the positive changes we make.

  • Amy

    This is a great video but I question the use of substituting soy as a protein source as it has been known to mimic estrogen. Best to use a yellow pea, rice and cranberry protein to be on the safe side.

    • HemoDynamic, MD – NF Volunteer

      Amy you bring up a very common concern: Soy does mimic estrogen but it is only 1/10th the strength of your bodies estrogen. So when it attaches to your receptors it blocks your bodies estrogen from stimulating those receptors to the same level effectively lowering the estrogenic activity on your body thereby reducing your risk of breast and ovarian cancers. The strongest effect with reduced rates of breast cancer though is when you start in your youth eating soy. And as you will see Green tea and all mushrooms (white button mushrooms are the best) have fantastic protective effects as well.

      Here are a couple of good videos from this site that explain it in more detail.
      I hope this helps.

  • Veggie Eric

    Another great vid Doc G! Thank you for all you do.

  • peseta11

    I’m a bit nonplussed by the continued fuss overran admittedly crappy
    paper, first because of the rather poor (above SAD average) diets compared,
    then also because of the odd arithmetic in the analytical Table 3, which led me
    not to think about it further, except as further confirmation of the general

    Bigger issues came up:
    ” to understand why otherwise good and caring people continue to
    participate in needless violence against animals – just for the sake of their
    own pleasure or convenience.” There was
    some emotion about ‘people are people’ (Brux) and nothing would change if all
    were vegan—an easily tested hypothesis, checked by the criminal record of 7th-Day
    Adventists clustered in southern CA. Then followed some speculations about
    Allan Savory’s ideas of letting loose ruminants to repopulate otherwise unused
    areas of the drier western US—again, something discussed extensively in the
    ecological literature as to its pros and cons, the populations that might
    survive, etc. Consensus seems to be that such meat, if humans ate it, would be
    a tiny part of the diet.

    Then came “I think we are cruel because of the way our societies have
    evolved to center around war, not what kind of food we eat.” Here the reply
    long predates modern science. The philosopher Plato, speaking of justice as his
    mentor Socrates in the first part of the Republic, gives his view (for a change)
    of a good life well lived and is at once attacked for it as a life fit only for
    pigs. His interlocutor wants good meats, music and dancing girls, all the
    civilized amenities. Socrates replies, ok, I showed you a healthy society, but
    you prefer one that’s sick, and we may learn as much about justice looking at
    that sort of society…we’ll need slaves and more land, and so we will go to war…
    and the rest of the book, the Guardians and their ruthlessly crafted rearing and
    rule, has justly been called proto-Fascist . So from what we eat comes, among
    other things, war.

    Last, a critique of meta-studies that makes much of the implied black
    box — but teasing conclusions from otherwise black boxes was the purpose of
    statistics since Galton, Pearson and Fisher weaned it from counting cannon
    fodder to understanding human society in its many forms. “[U]nderstand[ing] the
    ecology and try[ing] to make changes without complete understanding” is a great
    deal of science today, dealing with for example global warming (much too
    conservatively for my taste) when waiting for more complete data would
    guarantee the failure that’s now merely probable, since the problem was defined
    at least by 1969 by of all people Isaac Asimov.

    It may well be unfair of me to read the exchanges, insert my too-long reply,
    and go my way—but so it came to me this Sunday. From reading other such
    disagreements, I think the basic general problem for many disputants is lack of
    awareness of just how much has been done over the decades and centuries to
    solve the problems newly raised again.

    • Brux

      >> It may well be unfair of me to read the exchanges, insert my too-long reply

      No sh-t Sherlock.

      I don’t have any problem with you voicing just about any opinion, but when you summarize what I say unfairly, and so incredibly poorly, without responding directly to my comment, it is like insulting someone behind their back. And you can do that because the mindset of this site is not about logic or science, or comments like yours would be put in some kind of perspective by the responsible people here.

      >> Then followed some speculations aboutAllan Savory’s ideas of letting loose ruminants to repopulate otherwise unused areas of the drier western US—again

      A total mischaracterization. This is what follows for about 85% of what is called thought here, twisting and distorting words. Many are so used to this they actually have the nerve to call it science.

      Reversing desertification is not about letting loose ruminants. It is also not only ( that linear thinking again ) about reducing methane. The world never shot up in temperature when there were multiple millions of buffalo herds roaming the American plains.

      >> ‘people are people’ (Brux) and nothing would change if allwere vegan—an easily tested hypothesis, checked by the criminal record of 7th-Day Adventists clustered in southern CA.

      Actually, that is not so easily tested at all and even if it were, great, let’s put you in charge of converting the terrorists of the world to Seventh Day Adventists, that might keep you busy enough to not write nonsense like this.

      • peseta11

        Luckily, I got your reply before leaving for the day; unluckily, there were few facts to deal with (desertification, reducing methane– neither mine). I wasn’t trying to ‘characterize’ Savory’s work, only to say that much has been written about it and around his ideas. Nor did I intend to ‘summarize’ your many statements, only to comment on some sentences that had holes.
        I’m not a regular contributor here, so judging the site by its permission to let me– or you– speak as we will is another error.
        If you think the site fails in logic (which, by the way, IS linear!) or science, I do again suggest you restudy the beneficial effects of statistics on various black boxes, not merely its ills; and as for current terrorists in the news, also some basic cybernetic theory showing the necessity of history in sufficiently complex systems.

        • Brux

          You know, if we were actually attempting to communicate and discuss you would have to make some effort to first – understand what I am saying instead of using your first gut reaction, and second express your point.

          Yes, logic is linear, but that is exactly the problem, there are two sense in which the world “logic” can be used, symbolic formal logic and thinking process, or reasoning. If you miss that, yeah, it’s a problem.

          When I say linear logic I mean it to denote the simplistic idea of one dimensional thinking. Here that might mean that eating less meat is better, so eating no meat is best. These are two different arguments that have completely different contexts for most people. No distinction is EVER made here.

          > I do again suggest you restudy the beneficial effects of statistics on various black boxes, not merely its ills;

          And if you read my comment, go back and read it again and tell me what I stated was one benefit of black box thinking, finding correlations and forming hypotheses, but not for assuming you know causation. Did you miss that, or deliberately leave it out to make a short argument to which I then have to waste my time on something you already know?

          • largelytrue

            Here that might mean that eating less meat is better, so eating no meat is best. These are two different arguments that have completely different contexts for most people. No distinction is EVER made here.

            In statistical terms, extrapolation is something that we do all the time to make inferences. The arguments that less and less and less smoking is better and that zero smoking is best are intimately related, right? When one observes a protective effect for less X with no apparent threshold and a probable set of causal mechanisms, one infers that less and and less and less X is best, absent evidence of a countervailing harmful effect of equal validity and similar potency.

          • Brux

            > In statistical terms, extrapolation is something that we do all the time to make inferences.

            That does not make it right, and even if it is right for some range of values it does not make it scientific.

            In terms of smoking, if I smoke 1 cigarette it is completely insignificant to my mortality risk, but someone could still come up with a number, and expected value, but it would have no validity. This is exactly what I am talking about.

            A similar situation exists for radiation. We get plenty of background radiation, and our bodies seem to be able to handle that, repair it, and even more, yet there is no evidence that a single particle of radiation makes any difference at all.

            Many things if not most things are like this, yet people persist in this faith-based linear thinking. It most things it is not valid and it is not scientific.

            You assume stuff based on your frame of experience, but other people, for example people who have eaten fish all their lives in cultures that eat a lot of fish might look at it differently, or not take the slight risk that might exist as significant data but just noise, because that is what a lot of this stuff works out to be.

          • largelytrue

            Sure, thresholds exist sometimes, but these must be evidenced too for each particular topic, and absent that evidence, we are justified in extrapolating.

          • peseta11

            Yes, I missed your equating ‘reasoning’ with ‘logic’– not a good idea to blur the two, and not consistently done, as with ‘people are people’– a logical tautology that conceals a far from proven attitude about motives among humans.
            But as I see the issues on this site, I’ve not noted the deduction you present, at least from Dr Greger’s blogs and videos I’ve looked at. I have noted unwillingness to assume a human effect from effects in other animals, suspicion of meta-analyses that aren’t carefully done, and detailed presentation of conclusions contrary to a vegan cultural dogma– as well as some sharp remarks about ‘vegan junk food, which one look at agave nectar confirms
            I’ve also seen evidence, incomplete as science always is (or we could all go home), that the various harms found in this or that study of animal foods don’t seem to taper off at lower levels. Granted those levels often are still high for US studies, Dr Greger searches out other populations as a check.
            I reread your black box statement and found it somewhat wanting still. Statistics has come a long way since correlation and even partials were the vogue, and causes are much easier to tease out by such methods– but politics muddies those waters, and some rage over conclusions that vie with prejudice.
            I could go on, but it starts to get into philosophy of science (and of social science), cybernetic laws, the uses of history (and poetry), anthropology, system theory, etc. And there’s an audience with other wants, needs, time. What I said was not directed to you but to a few statements quoted from your note (hence your username parenthesized) that looked particularly wanting. I gave alternatives. Some may find my approach to them more useful. Or not.
            But this is more than I intended to say, on this subject.

          • Brux

            > Yes, I missed your equating ‘reasoning’ with ‘logic’

            I think it was you equated the two without taking the context into consideration. it is right there in the dictionary.

            1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct orreliable inference.
            2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation:

          • peseta11

            Reread your dictionary def, noting ‘a particular’. Sorry I’m otherwise busy. My remark stands.

  • Rodrigo Cardoso

    Subtitled in Portuguese / Legendado em Português:

  • Susie

    my husband had kidney cancer, none of the specialists who oversaw his surgery
    said a word to me about protein, animal or otherwise – only to make sure he
    drank enough water. What a shock it was to me to learn only last summer that he
    was no longer considered as having CKD! After having switched to a WFPB diet 2 ½
    years ago to combat prostate cancer, there were “side effects”. The side
    effects were stabilization of macular degeneration, improved vision, stabilization of arthrosclerosis,
    no more TIA’s, normal blood pressure, stabilization of prostate cancer, and of course, normal creatinine levels. He is 92 and still leads an active life. And I
    still have a darling husband.

  • Ellie

    I’m all for eating plant-based but I can’t help wondering about these studies — the eggs/meat they use is most likely from the diseased animals that are the result of modern farming methods. I wonder if that isn’t a large part of the story. I wonder what kind of results you would get from looking att eating meat/eggs intermittently if they were from organically raised animals?

    • Rami Najjar – NF Moderator

      Ellie, there is little reason to assume that the results would be any different. The primary issue with meats is not from pesticides or hormones, but from the inherent compounds present in these animals. This is not something that a natural pastor raised animal could be void of.

  • Amanda

    Want to make sure HemoDynamic MD-NF Volunteer sees my longer post buried way down under his detailed explanation of BUN values on blood tests. I appreciate his patient, clear and concise medical explanations. I checked my BUN score from 2008 (15) when I was eating fish and eggs, and compared it to my current BUN score (6-8) since I’ve been eating a whole plant diet, largely because of this site. Many thanks to all who share their relevant experience and expertise!


    • largelytrue

      Amanda, that’s very nice of you to say. I’ll mention though that when you have a Disqus account you get notification of replies, upvotes and downvotes, so HemoDynamic probably will get the message. There is no particular harm in your current post, though.

  • SoCalSue

    The recommendations from the NIH seem to be outdated and very contrary to current findings. How long does it take this organization to revise recommendations? The recommend diet would seem to speed the disease process.

  • Surfer2u2015

    It would be nice to see if Dr. Greger would also address all the hype around whey protein concentrates and isolates related to effects on the body. Many of my friends swear by whey protein isolate and I’ve researched it to some extent, but I do not have the time to cypher through which studies are non-bias versus those that are industry funded (i.e., study design, which as Dr. Greger points out is critical to obtaining accurate and precise information on nutrition). Specifically, I’ve looked for information on oxidized cholesterol concentrations, inflammatory response, and kidney function/effects. There seems to be a dearth of information on these topics in particular. I’ve also tried without much success to find information on purification with whey concentrates and isolates. Given these protein types prominence among many people, especially among the bodybuilding crowd, I can only hope Dr. Greger might someday help illuminate on this topic a bit.

    • Joseph Gonzales R.D.

      Me too. Let me ask him. In the meantime here is what I wrote about whey in the past. Let me know if it helps?

      I think any food isolate or concentrate is unnecessary. Whole foods are preferred. Oncology populations differ, as survivors may not be able to eat by mouth or need additional nutrients to supplement their diet. That’s where I see the potential benefit of some of these protein powders, but I am not sure whey is the best choice? Some studies suggest whey and leucine-rich foods (meat and milk) stimulate the TOR pathway, which Dr. Greger addresses in this video. Whey protein is a highly concentrated source of animal protein, which may stimulate IGF-1 production. Similarly, concentrated/isolated soy protein supplements can also increase IGF-I. Animal proteins are linked to increased risk of bone degeneration and kidney diseases. It may be that the ratio of animal to plant protein intake is important, too. In a paper I wrote about cancer prevention, Applying the Precautionary Principle to Nutrition and Cancer I reference a study pointed out to me by Dr. David Jenkins about the overabundance of amino acids (Reference 46). If interested in reading more here’s a bunch of studies on whey and cancer.

  • Wow! Interesting video thanks for posting!

  • Erez

    Hi Doc, I really love your videos, they are truly inspiring and help direct people, myself included, to better health.
    I wanted to ask about powdered Pea protein as a substitute for whey protein for athletes and body builders – what’s your take on that?
    Thanks a lot.

  • KathyKale

    I have been diagnosed with systemic lupus, which often destroys the kidneys, but have had no problems because I have been Vegan for more than 12 years. My saliva and urine ph is at 7 or higher. My doctor is always amazed, but will Never acknowledge that it is because of what I eat!!!!!!!

    • Thea

      KathyKale: These kinds of stories are so fun to read. I love how you have kept your kidneys in good order. Yeah kale!

  • Killerchip

    To my understanding Humans actually cant taste protein or amino acids that well, if at all, and can only taste fats and sugars. That’s why we like to add butter, sauce, or spices to our meals. Does anyone know for sure if that is the case?

  • bockdharma

    Should we assume that whey protein (powder) as a dietary supplement has the same inflammatory effect on the kidneys as meat protein discussed in this video?

  • Sean Ferdinand

    I am an advocate of plant-based nutrition for athletes. I am crossing my fingers and hoping for a rebuttal article from you to the claim that whey protein supplements are superior to plant-based protein supplements. This is an important topic because an enormous number of people use protein supplements, so notwithstanding that a whole food plant based diet may be ideal, the question is relevant for those who want to use the most beneficial / least harmful protein supplement. A typical article has emerged at it is claimed that whey protein powder has a myriad of benefits (claims include: muscle gain, benefits of wound healing for chemotherapy patients and regulating glucose levels in diabetes patients, the abundant presence of Glutathione as an antioxidant that benefits the immune function for athletes and patients, graceful ageing by limiting muscle loss). I’d be deeply grateful for the benefits of your experience and knowledge on this.

  • Tommy H

    Dr. McDougall said that soy has almost twice as much IGF-1 compared to cows milk,and that we should stay away from it.How are we supposed to know what to believe?

    • Thea

      Tommy H: I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that Dr. McDougall was talking about studies done on soy protein isolate, not traditional/whole soy products. (Soy protein isolate = where the factories take *just* the protein out of the soy.) If my understanding is correct, then those studies tell us that eating vegan junk food with soy protein isolate (a common ingredient in vegan junk foods) is probably not so good for us. But it tells us almost nothing about eating traditional/whole soy products.

      Here’s an analogy that helps me: A large percentage of the table sugar out there is actually processed from the sugars inside beets. If a study was done on beet table sugar, it would tell us nothing about the healthfulness of eating whole beets. All it tells us is that yet again, we have evidence that heavily processed food is not so good for us.

  • Rph1978

    It appears that a high protein Western Diet is only a concern in certain disease states (eg. diabetes,obesity) but the evidence is lacking in those with normal renal function. The increase in glomerular filtration rate and urea excretion associated with a high protein diet may be an adaptive mechanism by the kidneys “without any clinical relevance”. Furthermore, athletes who resistance train have supplemented with whey/beef protein to raise their intake of protein to 3.4 g/kg/day and without evidence of deleterious effects. However, being a vegetarian, I do favor plant based diet over meat but I also take whey protein because I resistance train and vegetarian protein is always more expensive and grainy to taste.
    1. William F Martin, Lawrence E Armstrong, and Nancy R Rodriguez, Dietary protein intake and renal function, Nutr Metab (Lond). 2005; 2: 25.
    2. Lukas Schwingshack, George Hoffmann, Comparison of High vs. Normal/Low Protein Diets on Renal Function in Subjects without Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Plos One May 2014
    3. Jose Antonio, Anya Ellerbroek, Tobin Silver, Steve Orris, Max Scheiner, Adriana Gonzalez, and Corey A Peacock, A high protein diet (3.4 g/kg/d) combined with a heavy resistance training program improves body composition in healthy trained men and women – a follow-up investigation, J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2015; 12: 39.

  • ShadowsDad

    I read in his book that Dr. Greger has a dog and a couple of cats. As I read about the negative impact of both meat and dairy on our health I can’t help but wonder how much (if any) of this applies to our pets. I wonder what Dr. Greger feeds his pets? In the past 12 years I’ve lost two dogs to cancer (Lung in one case, Lymphoma in the other) so I worry about what to feed my new dog Shadow. If chicken is bad for me won’t chicken be bad for my dog – even if I use naturally-raised chicken? I’d really love to have some insight on this. Thanks . . . .

    • Thea

      ShadowsDad: When I did the research on this topic 6 years ago, I came to the conclusion that the healthiest diet I could feed my dog was a vegan kibble designed to have macro and micro nutrient ratios needed by dogs. (My dog went vegan before I did.) I settled on the brand V-dog and now I have a happy, healthy *12 year old Great Dane!* The average for a Great Dane is typically 8-10 years. Also, I know others who are also using V-dog, and their dogs are thriving too.

      There is a vet who gives great talks on the benefits and potential pitfalls of feeding a vegan diet to dogs and cats. If you are going to do it, it is important to do right:

      • ShadowsDad

        thanks! I had checked out Natural Balance Vegetarian dog food but had not found the grand you mentioned. I’ll watch the video. Glad to hear that this diet seems to be working for your dog. I’ll keep you posted. David

        • Thea

          Glad to help. Note: There are two specific amino acids that big dogs seem to need especially and which are not included in all vegan kibbles. That’s why you have to be careful, and I can’t remember if Natural Balance has those two amino acids (or in large enough quantities) or not. If memory serves, you will learn more about that in the talk. I just wanted to make sure you look into that part for whatever brand you end up choosing.

  • Bluemoonstudio

    Hi: What a terrific video, who knew that kidney disease had become so prevalent. I’ve had nephrotic syndrome for 2 years. Working with a large renal clinic I’ve been on medications from high doses of intravenous prednisone to Tacrolimus. Although we have had moderate success for brief periods, we are currently still only treading water and the quality of my life is greatly impacted (edema, mobility, breathless) ‘ve been told that this disease requires lower protein intake, but no dietary suggestions were made.

    The video suggests that those with this problem should steer toward a plant based whole foods program which is sound advice. I wondered what your thoughts are on occasional animal protein. An abstract published by the “Natural Medicine Journal” (Jenna Henderson, ND) states that a vegan, high soy diet can be problematic to renal patients (calcification, mineral absorption). They state that in small amounts animal protein has CLA (conjugated linoleic acid and L-carnations which can be beneficial.

    It’s a bit confusing! Your input is appreciated very much.

  • caffreycmc

    I have had chronic diarrhea for 8 months. All the diet recommendations I find include huge amounts of meat, no grains, no beans, no dairy. How on earth can I avoid meat and still repair my gut biome? I’ve asked before for some info on this topic – gut biome/gut disbiosis/ permeable gut – and hope that more will be forthcoming. Most of the diet sites do not provide any research citations for their recommendations.

    • Thea

      caffreycmc: I don’t know your situation. Have you tried a whole plant food diet? A whole plant food based would be the diet recommended on this site. If you would like to try it, but are not sure how to get started, I have some helpful suggestions.

      re: diet with huge amounts of meat and not grains or beans.

      This description is the very opposite of a healthy diet. I don’t know if such a diet would help with diarrhea or not, but it seems to me that a person would ideally address the problem with a diet that one can safely continue indefinitely–ie, with lots of grains and beans and veggies and fruit and no meat, dairy or eggs.

      Also, NutritionFacts has some videos on the topic that may interest you:

    • Brux

      >> How on earth can I avoid meat and still repair my gut biome?

      This gut biome thing is fairly abstract … wouldn’t it make sense to see a doctor or try to do what you can solve chronic diarrhea … 8 months … really? That either sounds like a disease or that you are eating a diet that your body cannot handle …. probably vegetarian, right?

      When I eat vegetarian I tend towards looser poops, and I don’t like it. What do you normally eat … I bet if you list what you normally eat it would be obvious. Do you eat bread? Bread seems to tighten things up a bit.

      • caffreycmc

        I’ve had a colonoscopy and endoscopy. My GI doctor prescribed something that made my problem worse and wasn’t interested in dietary alternatives. I’m not a vegetarian, just don’t eat much meat – I don’t cook and have had too much expensive meat spoil. The diet recommended by my GP is high in meat and animal fat, something which according to this site is clearly problematic.

        Your response indicates that you don’t know much about gut biome issues; it is a fairly new field but not at all abstract. Before you answer a comment like mine, you might do some research on the subject. But thank you for taking the time to reply.

        • Brux

          You had diarrhea for the better part of a year?
          Then you saw a doctor but did not get a diagnosis?
          You didn’t’t mention what the doctor prescribed or why?
          Is that what you are saying?
          You have two issues … first, whatever is making you
          really sick, and second your imaginary feelings about
          your gut biome.
          You can’t even talk to a doctor and get a straight answer
          as to what is ailing you, I don’t think taking swipes at
          someone who was trying to help you saying I don’t know
          much about gut biome is very productive.
          I think you might benefit from reading or listening to the
          audiobook “How Doctors Think” that might give you a clue
          how to speak and listen to your doctor better.
          And when your diarrhea get worse from eating lots of
          plants then maybe you might break out of the thinking that
          not eating meat is the universal panacea. Good luck.

        • Brux

          >> Before you answer a comment like mine, you might do some research on the subject. But thank you for taking the time to reply.

          I find that comment offensive since everything I have ever said on this site is backed up by my research. Why don’t you delete … except it says thank you in a disingenuous way. Sites where you have to top toe around to say things just the right way and delete comments for disagreeing with them are are sites that are hiding something and being dishonest.

  • caffreycmc

    I’m a little puzzled. I got a response to some comments and was notified by an email saying I could respond to the response. But when I clicked the link, I went to a page that no longer seems to include my comments, so I don’t know how to respond to the particular response.

    In any event, the response was very hostile and made a great many prejudiced assumptions about me and the person did not seem to have really read my comments carefully. I’m concerned that this sort of attack is allowed on your site. Perhaps you need to consider monitoring your comments.

    • Thea

      caffreycmc: You are correct that the comments were rude and uncalled for. That’s why they were deleted–and why you were not able to respond to them. NutritionFacts does not pre-monitor comments, but comments which break the rules for monitoring on this site are deleted when we catch them. I’m sorry you got that response and hope that you will get other more helpful responses in the future.

      • caffreycmc

        I wish you would put back my original questions/comments. I’m still interested in legitimate feedback about my dilemma and about the conflicting recommendation from your site and other long-standing intestinal diet sites..

        • Thea

          caffreycmc: I have not touched any of your comments. I only deleted one offending reply to you. Your comments should still be there. If they are not, it was not something I did. I can look into it if you want.

          • Thea

            I just did look into it. If you click the following link, you will see that your original comment stands. If you are not able to see this comment, I don’t know what that means. It may be a disqus problem at your end??? Good luck.

          • Brux

            There was nothing rude in anything I said, nor did I rudely imply Caffreycmc was ill-informed or stupid about anything as she did.

            You people are really starting to look rather quackish when you delete any comment that does not 110% agree with your vegan religion.

            If you have chronic diarreah and went to see a doctor and did not get a diagnosis you are not getting what you need from your doctor. I kindly recommended the book “How Doctors Think” by Jermome Groupman that talks at length about this through the book.

            Thanks for calling that rude and insulting. This is the kind of behavior that has moved me to not visit this site very often anymore, and to criticize it in other forums.

            The constant implication that virtually any illness can be conquered in a few weeks time by eating the right vegan diet is absurd bordering on malpractice.

          • caffreycmc

            I just couldn’t find them. Probably too old. Thanks for getting back.

  • maria

    So is pea protein OK to have as a shake ?

    • Thanks for your question Maria!

      It really depends on the context and factors such as individual/person, presence or absence of a clinical condition, total protein intake of diet, purpose, timing, dose, safety of manufacturing process and other factors would have to be taken into account to answer that question.

  • Annabanana

    Is Quorn an ok protein source? Thanks.

  • This is a relevant video about a topic that many many clinicians are not aware of.