What’s the “Natural” Human Diet?

Image Credit: Flickr. This image has been modified.

The Diet We Were Designed to Eat

There are three broad theories about evolution and food. One is that humans have become adapted to grains and other products of the agricultural revolution over the last 10,000 years. Two is the paleo view “that 10,000 years is a blink of an evolutionary eye, and that humans are adapted to paleolithic diets with a lot of lean meat,” but why stop there? The third theory is that the last 200,000 years “is a minute of the evolutionary year” when we were mostly Stone Age humans and represents just the last 1 percent of the roughly 20 million years we’ve been evolving since our common great ape ancestor. So, What Is the “Natural” Human Diet?

During our truly formative years, which one might say was the first 90 percent of our existence, our nutritional requirements reflected an ancestral past in which we ate mostly leaves, flowers, and fruits, with some bugs thrown in, thanks to wormy apples, to get our vitamin B12. “For this reason, another approach that might improve our understanding of the best dietary practices for modern humans is to focus attention not on the past but rather on the here and now; that is, on study of the foods eaten by the closest living relatives of modern humans,” given the bulk of our ancestral diets and “the lack of evidence supporting any notable diet-related changes in human nutrient requirements, metabolism, or digestive physiology” compared to our fellow great apes.

This could explain why fruits and vegetables are not only good for us but are vital to our survival. Indeed, we’re one of the few species so adapted to a plant-based diet that we could actually die from not eating fruits and vegetables, from the vitamin C-deficiency disease, scurvy. Most other animals simply make their own vitamin C, but why would our body waste all that effort when we evolved hanging out in the trees just eating fruits and veggies all day long?

Presumably, it’s not a coincidence that the few other mammals unable to synthesize their own vitamin C—including guinea pigs, some bunny rabbits, and fruit bats—are all, like us great apes, strongly herbivorous. Even during the Stone Age, data from rehydrated human fossilized feces tell us we may have been getting up to ten times more vitamin C and ten times more dietary fiber than we get today. The question is: Are these incredibly high-nutrient intakes simply an unavoidable by-product of eating whole, plant foods all the time, or might they actually be serving some important function, like antioxidant defense?

Plants create antioxidants to defend their own structures against free radicals. The human body must defend itself against the same types of pro-oxidants, so we too have evolved an array of amazing antioxidant enzymes, which are effective but not infallible. Free radicals can breach our defenses and cause damage that accumulates with age, leading to a variety of disease-causing and ultimately fatal changes. This is where plants may come in: “Plant-based, antioxidant-rich foods traditionally formed the major part of the human diet,” so we didn’t have to evolve that great of an antioxidant system. We could just let the plants in our diet pull some of the weight, like giving us vitamin C so we don’t have to be bothered to make it ourselves. Using plants as a crutch may well have relieved the pressure for further evolutionary development of our own defenses. That is we’ve become dependent on getting lots of plant foods in our diet, and when we don’t, we may suffer adverse health consequences.

Even during the Stone Age, this may not have been a problem. Only in recent history did we start giving up on whole plant foods. Even modern-day paleo and low-carb followers may be eating more vegetables than those on standard Western diets. There’s a perception that low-carbers are chowing down on the three Bs—beef, bacon, and butter—but that’s only a small minority. What they are eating more of is salad. Indeed, according to an online low-carb community, the number one thing they said they were eating more of was vegetables. Great! The problem isn’t people wanting to cut their carb intake by swapping junk food for vegetables. The concern is the shift to animal-sourced foods. “Greater adherence to [a low-carb diet] high in animal sources of fat and protein was associated with higher all-cause and cardiovascular mortality post-MI,” or after a heart attack, meaning they cut their lives short.

If there’s one takeaway from our studies of ancestral diets, perhaps it’s that “diets based largely on plant foods promote health and longevity.”


For more on the paleo and low carb diets, see:

If you were fascinated by how we can take advantage of plant defense mechanisms, check out my videos Appropriating Plant Defenses and Xenohormesis: What Doesn’t Kill Plants May Make Us Stronger.

How many antioxidants should we shoot for? See:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

Discuss

Michael Greger M.D., FACLM

Michael Greger, M.D. FACLM, is a physician, New York Times bestselling author, and internationally recognized professional speaker on a number of important public health issues. Dr. Greger has lectured at the Conference on World Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the International Bird Flu Summit, testified before Congress, appeared on The Dr. Oz Show and The Colbert Report, and was invited as an expert witness in defense of Oprah Winfrey at the infamous "meat defamation" trial.


341 responses to “The Diet We Were Designed to Eat

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

  1. I think that our major evolutionary diet adaptation is to eating cooked food. An excellent case is made for this in this book. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/06/invention-of-cooking-drove-evolution-of-the-human-species-new-book-argues/.

    I also think that eating cooked animals is part of what we evolved to eat because it was needed to survive times when fruits and vegetables weren’t available and we could then eat animals that could survive on grasses, and we can’t survive by eating grasses directly. Getting these calories helped prevent starvation so we could survive by getting through the reproductive cycle but it comes at a major cost to disease and life span.

    We finally have the luxury to choose to eat the best diet (obvious frutis & veggies) for long term health all year long, and paradox is that most people still eat animals when we aren’t forced to do it just to avoid starvation.

    1. I get your point but wheat, rice, millet and maize are all examples of edible grasses. You could even argue that grasses have actually provided the bulk of human calories for a significant part of our evolutionary history.

    2. When God created the Garden of Eden with all the beautiful plants, shrubs, trees, birds, animals, fish, and man, He proclaimed that “it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). Everything, including man, was in its perfect state; and every living thing was doing exactly what it was originally designed to do. This included the diet of each creature. To man “God said, Behold, I have given you every herb [plant] bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat [food]. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb [plant] for meat [food]: and it was so.” (Genesis 1:29- 30).
      This constituted our original diet which God gave us when we were in a perfect environment. Let us understand what it was. “Behold, I have given you every herb [a plant without a strong woody stem or trunk] bearing seed” is generally understood to mean grains (wheat, oats, corn, rice, rye, barley, millet, etc.), seeds (sunflower seeds, pumpkin seeds, sesame, flax, etc.), legumes (soybeans, kidney beans, lentils, split peas, peanuts, etc.), and other foods containing seed, some of which we call vegetables today (eggplant, bell pepper, pumpkins, cucumbers, tomatoes, okra, squash, melons, etc.). “. . . and every tree [plant with a strong woody stem such as a shrub, bush, or tree], in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed.” This is generally understood to mean fruits (oranges, lemons, cranberries, apples, pears, mangos, strawberries, dates, cherries, blueberries, bananas, coconut, avocados, olives, etc.), and nuts (almonds, pecans, cashews, walnuts, chestnuts, pine nuts, brazil, etc.). The green plants of the field were the food for the animals and birds.
      After Adam and Eve sinned God told them, “Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb [plants] of the field.” (Genesis 3:18). Now God instructed man to also eat of the plants of the field, which originally was given for the animals to eat. This is generally understood to mean leafy, flower, and root vegetables (lettuce, spinach, parsley, fennel, beets, brussels sprouts, watercress, broccoli, cauliflower, carrots, turnips, potatoes, garlic, onions, etc.). This was very wise on God’s part because many of the vegetables contain medicinal properties that are necessary to sustain us in a sinful, polluted world. This new diet was God’s appointed diet for man.
      Many years later God destroyed all living things from the face of the earth by the Flood, except the occupants of the Ark. When Noah and his family emerged from the Ark there were no trees, bushes, greenery, or plants of any kind available for food. It was going to take a little while before they could get gardens planted and harvested and trees ready to bear. So God gave them permission to eat the flesh of animals and to use their products. God said, “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.” (Genesis 9:3).
      God gave them permission to use meat temporarily or as a temporary diet because of insufficient plant food immediately after the Flood. Shortly after man began eating meat, his lifespan dropped from almost 1,000 years to less than 100 years.
      During the time of the Israelites’ wandering in the wilderness, God endeavored to start weaning His people from flesh and animal products. He gave them instructions as to which animals to eat and which ones not to eat; He told them “to make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.” (Leviticus 11:47). However, when God gave the Israelites only manna to eat, they were not too happy. Instead they craved the fleshpots of Egypt. After much murmuring and complaining, they were given quails to eat, but as a result many of them died.
      The Bible tells us of restitution or restoration: “. . . the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began” (Acts. 3:21). In other words, there will be a time of restoration among God’s people, of getting back to the way God appointed things to be. Of course this includes diet. During the reign of sin here on earth, God appointed our diet to consist of plant foods: grains, fruits, nuts, and vegetables. Flesh and animal products were given because of a temporary need when there was not enough plant food to sustain Noah and his family after the Flood. However, now that need does not exist, and certainly we are approaching the times of restitution. Thus, it is time that we gradually make the transition back to God’s appointed diet.
      In God’s kingdom there will be no death, nothing will eat any other creature, and humans will not kill animals and eat their flesh or use their products that were intended for the nourishment of their young. Isaiah describes that wonderful time: “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” (Isaiah 11: 6-9).

      1. Pretty much agree with everything you said with the exception of a few of your implications.

        For example, the implication that the Israelites began dying upon eating the quail because of something inherently wrong with eating meat, in other words, its unhealthiness, is inaccurate. In reality, it appears that as the Israelites greedily began to scoop up and eat the quail without first having bled it properly (according to his previous command at Genesis 9:4), God punished them himself.

        Also, your various statements beginning with “generally understood”, in essence, equate to mere conjecture. We cannot go beyond what is written.

        Additionally, the statement that man’s lifespan dropped from 1,000 years to less than 100 years due to his beginning to eat meat is yet more conjecture. Perhaps the aging process was accelerated in part due to a collapse and subsequent disappearance/removal of the water canopy surrounding the earth and the protection, climatic regulation, etc that it provided. Perhaps, the rate of the mutation of human DNA increased at that point. In reality, no one truly knows. Those questions remain unanswered. But, to insinuate that the change occurred due to the ingestion of meat is purely theoretical.

        While God did give the Israelites instructions regarding the eating of only “clean” animals and the avoidance of “unclean” animals, to state that his reason for doing so was to wean his people from meat is once again conjecture.

        So, while I do agree that one day, on a beautiful paradise earth under God’s Kingdom arrangement, we will eat whole plant foods and not meat, I think some of your interpretation and application of Scripture has been somewhat sculpted to fit a preconceived framework.

      2. In God’s kingdom there will be no death, nothing will eat any other creature, and humans will not kill animals and eat their flesh or use their products that were intended for the nourishment of their young. Isaiah describes that wonderful time: “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” (Isaiah 11: 6-9).
        ——————————————————————-
        Wow! sounds like a Disney movie!… or maybe Virtual Reality. This is doable!

        1. After the flood, Noah was told he could eat meat. And Peter was three times shown animals that he could eat before he went to see Cornellius.

          1. The vision had nothing to do with eating meat. I was to help Peter understand that everyone, Gentile and Jew could have the gosple. No man was to be treated as unclean.

      3. “When God created the Garden of Eden with all the beautiful plants, shrubs, trees, birds, animals, fish, and man, He proclaimed that “it was very good” (Genesis 1:31).”

        PUKE…!

        1. Good to see the ancient Egyptian king of the gods, Amen or Amen-Ra as he is sometimes called, getting so much respect here.

          1. I hope these links help you to realize that the Hebrew word amen is not at all about an Egyptian god whose name can be also spelled amun, or amon.What Does Amen Mean? Bible Definition

            | | | | | |

            |

            | | | | What Does Amen Mean? Bible Definition

            In current usage, the term “amen” has become little more than a ritualized conclusion to prayers. Yet the Hebrew…
            |

            |

            |

            The Hebrew Root of “Amen” – 119 Ministries

            | | | | | |

            |

            | | | | The Hebrew Root of “Amen” – 119 Ministries

            Testing the Hebrew root of the word “amen”, and if it’s really calling on an Egyptian God instead of our Creator.
            |

            |

            |

          2. It did not let my links show. You may look up this title, “The Hebrew Root of “Amen” – 119 Ministries”, on YouTube, from the 119 Ministries channel. Also, this article is pretty good, “Amen”, at the website Bible Study Tools. Just two quick references to help any one know that saying amen is not at all calling on an Egyptian god who happens to have a name the sounds similar to the Hebrew word.
            I hope this may be of some help.

      4. You know that the creation story is just a story, right? And just the one that made it into the bible after many authors fought over the wording? As with the rest of that book?

      5. Why people in the 21st century cling to such primitive superstitious beliefs is beyond me. It is like a 35-year old continuing to believe in the Easter Bunny.

        After all, people in India and China had sophisticated cosmological philosophies in the forms of Buddhism and Daoism many centuries before the birth of Jesus and the subsequent creation of the bastard religion of Christianity. Thinking in the West at broadly the same time was equally sophisticated with the idea of the Logos (subsequently stolen by churchmen of course). The Abrahamic religions by comparison are simply crude tribal gods writ large.

      6. yes It is God who created man and gave him every plant to eat for food; after Noah came off the ark, God did also give animals to eat. Yes it may be partly as plants had not yet sprouted but I think this giving of animals was so that man could worship by a substitutionary blood sacrifice; they were not to eat the blood; but the meat was not to be wasted; the blood was a prototype of the blood of Jesus shed in our place for forgiveness of sins for all who believe and trust in him. And the flesh of animals was foreshadowing of the body of Jesus also given for us. We who are Christian believers remember his body and blood at every communion service. To God be the glory through Jesus Christ his only begotten Son!

        1. Actually there is. Amazing discoveries. org has many archeological digs and findings proving many Biblical accounts. God is coming one day, and I believe soon, to take His children home. He chooses all of us, but it’s our choice to choose Him, or not. Oh and I just remembered the Ark Encounter… life size ark replica in KY. All the animal kinds could have fit on one floor of the ark. There were three floors. There were under 10k total including frogs & they even had included baby dinosaurs. If you are interested amazing facts. .Org is a great site for Biblical perspective too. I would check it out for the factual evidence. There is a lot to loose. And so much to gain. God is good. God is love.

      7. Amen. We have a creationist view of how we got our food, how our bodies were designed to respond to the food created for us, and how we have gone away from how we were created to eat. I believe we were created perfect and were given every plant and seed bearing fruit to eat and be healthy. God first gave us permission to eat meat after the flood. Not that humans were not already doing that, however his permission was given to Noah after the flood as recorded in Genesis. I regard the Paleo eating style to be flawed because it is based on the assumption that we evolved from graveling beings into what we are today. God gave us everything we needed to be healthy in the beginning and He still give us everything we need to be healthy today. End of story.

    3. “I also think that eating cooked animals is part of what we evolved to eat because it was needed to survive times when fruits and vegetables weren’t available”

      I was at a seminar and the speaker mentioned that. Look in our mouth.. Just two canine teeth to rip flesh and lots of molars to grind grasses and seeds. We also have longer intestines to digest plants. Carnivores have more canine teeth and shorter intestines to process meats.. Just a thought.
      mitch

      1. Yeah, I would agree that the provision of eating meat when Noah and his family came out of the ark, in addition to the aforementioned reason in this thread, may have also been due to the significant climatic change that would necessitate the eating of meat in arctic regions that didn’t have sufficient plants/fruits/grains the majority of the year.

    4. Here’s what I was told, “avoid any meat food that has an emotional connection to you…e,g a cow will shed tears for you if you should fall ill or dying.” Therefore, eat the meat of the furthest animal in the food chain that doesn’t have an emotional attachment to you…that would be a tiny fish!

      1. eat the meat of the furthest animal in the food chain that doesn’t have an emotional attachment to you…that would be a tiny fish!
        ———————————-
        YES!!! Like herring filets… they even can them without the heads so you don’t have to make a connection with them. ‘-)

        Love those little suckers!

          1. I prefer Sardines…yum!
            ———————————
            Agreed, good food. Used to eat those packed in tomato sauce.

            And while they are probably healthier than herring filets, I do like not having to eat the bones like in sardines. ‘-)

    5. I believe the exact opposite. I think cooking/burning food destroys vital nutrients, vitamins and other nutritional value (or greatly reduces it) and is extremely wasteful. Example: Raw Apple is full of nutrients but apple pie is very unhealthy and fattening. We eat Cooked/Burnt meat with RAW plant-based condiments, herbs and spices to change the taste of burnt meat to plants. Taste buds evolved over millions of years to love raw sweet plant taste. Example: hamburger, steak, filet Mignon, fried chicken, hot dog, bacon, boiled lobster, crap, shrimp, etc. All these foods are modern inventions (after refrigeration was invented which was < 200 years ago.

      1. Belief is nice but belief is not proof. As for whether we eat cooked meat with lots of condiments, well – that’s a matter of taste obviously and not proof of anything. And of course, not that long ago, your selection of spices would have been much more limited than today, as you could only source locally and according to season.

        And no, those are not modern inventions. You seriously think that steak and sausage (that’s what hot dogs are – sausage with bread) is less than 200 years old? Absolutely deluded.. :D

      1. Humans probably started eating meat after the first blood shed when Adam and Eve were given skins to wear. Not that God wanted that, but they probably did start to eat meat because of our sinful world. Permission was actually given to Noah to eat meat by God after the flood in Genesis.
        I believe that humans were created to eat plant based diets. It says so in Genesis. But, as with anything that people have been doing after the sinful fall of the first humans, we rebel against what is best.

    6. Yes, adequate amounts of vegetation are abundant in most tropical areas year round, but not all…hot arid regions with scan rainfall and poor soils exist, too. In these areas, eating meat to supplement calories and avoid starvation can spell the difference between life and death. Consider this, too: eating meat enabled our ancestors (and enables our contemporaries) to migrate and survive in harsher climates all over the world, rather than being forced (by dietary constraints of eating only plants) to remain confined within fertile warm environments. The key takeaway is that eating meat confers survival when starvation is the alternative; it doesn’t confer superior health benefits to eating plants. In our culture, where plant foods are readily available to almost everyone, eating meat becomes the less healthy (and sometimes deadly) option. In inner city areas known as “food deserts” (because fresh fruits and vegetables are absent) physical and mental health suffers among the people who live there. Spreading knowledge and awareness that human health depends on an abundance of whole fruits and vegetables, not on an abundance of meaty protein, is vital.

      1. No, I clearly don’t need to do so because they do not propose a fruit-based diet. No one does that except a few vegan quacks, most of which also makes claims like “fruits raise our vibrations/frequency.” (whatever that means)

        You should focus on coming up with some actual arguments instead of embarrassing yourself and engaging in this constant argument from authority fallacies… especially when said authorities don’t even agree with you. LOL

        1. Yes, referring to scientific reports by the World Health Organization and the US dietary guidelines advisory committee is an ‘appeal to authority’. Typical crank claim.

          Then there’s your constant pretence that references to WFPB diets are actually a reference to veganism, vegans and vegan diets.

          Just why do you have this obsession with vegans by the way? It seems positively pathological to me.

          I’m not complaining mind you since I’m not a vegan myself and I enjoy listening to obsessive cranks. It’s the religious fruitcakes who bore me.

          Talking about veganism by the way do you know that the US Dietary Guidelines identify 3 healthy dietary patterns? One of which is the healthy vegetarian pattern including what the guidelines refer to the ‘vegan’ version – in fact of course it’s just a rela vegetarian diet since it consists exclusively of vegetables (ie edible plants).

          And do you further know that the guidelines also state that dietary cholesterol consumption should be kept as low as possible consistent with consuming a healthy eating pattern?

          Since the healthy eating pattern with the lowest cholesterol content is the ‘vegan’ healthy vegetarian pattern (it contains zero dietary cholesterol after all), you can make a case that the clear implication is that all Americans should be eating the healthy vegan dietary pattern.

          Must be some kind of vegan conspiracy. Or perhaps it’s just Big Ag trying to manipulate Americans eating habits.

          1. Yeah, simply saying these and these agree with me is an appeal to authority. (and especially when you can’t even quote or don’t know what they actually say) But don’t take my word for it: “..An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible[1] argument in which a claimed authority’s support is used as evidence for an argument’s conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy..”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
            And again: They do not even propose a fruit-based diet. You’re simply throwing a bunch of “authorities” around because you yourself have no clue and do not understand any of the science involved. (or any science at all by the looks of it)

            “Since the healthy eating pattern with the lowest cholesterol content is the ‘vegan’ healthy vegetarian pattern (it contains zero dietary cholesterol after all), you can make a case that the clear implication is that all Americans should be eating the healthy vegan dietary pattern.”

            Well, please go ahead and corroborate this claim. Saying that lowering cholesterol takes precedent over sufficient nutrient intake is a really funny take though. An absolutely insane claim – it’s like saying starving to death is better than risking a heart attack.

            1. If you’d actually bothered to look at the nutritional science literature and major reports on diet and health, you’d know these things yourself. But no, you’d rather read popular alternative diet books or visit alternative health sites or perhaps you just watch sensational YouTube videos.

              But here’s a hint, actually a couple, read chapter one of the US dietary guidelines 2015-20 and then read Appendix 5.

              However, I have no illusions that intelligent thought has any place in your belief system. Somebody who can seriously claim that I or the US dietary guidelines said that lowering cholesterol takes precedence over nutritional adequacy simply has no respect for factual accuracy.

              It’s almost as ludicrous as your previous claim that more US corn/soy/oat whatever production goes to livestock feed because humans only eat part of the plant (ie you mean the actual grain presumably) while livestock eat the entire plant. The implication being livestock eat most of corn soy etc products because they eat the roots stem etc which make up say 90% of the plant while humans eat the say remaining 10% represented by the actual grain. I couldn’t stop laughing at that one. What don’t you understand about ‘grain-fed’ cattle?

              And you complain that I don’t respond to each such detailed claim in the stories that constitute the bulk of your assertions! And then there are your complaints that I don’t provide detailed references/links to the reports I refer too. Ahem, all your wonderful stories about eg the Masai and whatever in your dozens of posts haven’t contained any ‘corroboration’ but that’s not an issue presumably. Such breathtaking double standards seem pretty typical of alternative health advocates though. Again – no complaints from me: it’s pure comedy gold especially when I suspect that you are entirely unconscious of doing it.. .

              1. “Look at it”.. like you looked at the US dietary guidelines before appealing to these? LOL! The fact that you keep repeating these accusations many times, do not make them any more true. I have looked at the science, hell I’ve linked to several reports here (you’ve not linked to any single one as far as I can tell).

                “However, I have no illusions that intelligent thought has any place in your belief system. Somebody who can seriously claim that I or the US dietary guidelines said that lowering cholesterol takes precedence over nutritional adequacy simply has no respect for factual accuracy.”

                Except you did say that a vegan diet was healthy due to not containing cholesterol: “Since the healthy eating pattern with the lowest cholesterol content is the ‘vegan’ healthy vegetarian pattern (it contains zero dietary cholesterol after all)”.. In reality, a diet isn’t healthy simply due to lacking cholesterol and when you use that as an indication of healthy, then yes – you’re in fact arguing that cholesterol content takes precedent. (over say, amount of nutrients)

                “It’s almost as ludicrous as your previous claim that more US corn/soy/oat whatever production goes to livestock feed because humans only eat part of the plant (ie you mean the actual grain presumably) while livestock eat the entire plant. The implication being livestock eat most of corn soy etc products because they eat the roots stem etc which make up say 90% of the plant while humans eat the say remaining 10% represented by the actual grain. I couldn’t stop laughing at that one. What don’t you understand about ‘grain-fed’ cattle?”

                ? When people say stuff like “cattle eat most agricultural produce” as in implying that they’re actually eating most of our food, that’s stupid – due to reasons I wrote in the comment (they mostly eat the parts we do not eat, ie NOT our food but rather what could be called “agricultural waste”) you’re now trying to refer to. That’s what the comment was about, I don’t really see what was hard to understand about that – but yet you somehow succeed..

                “Ahem, all your wonderful stories about eg the Masai and whatever in your dozens of posts haven’t contained any ‘corroboration’ but that’s not an issue presumably.”

                Really? Seems you didn’t even read the link.. How surprising. Or not. (That said, low occurrence of cardiovascular disease among the Massai is generally regarded as part of so-called “common knowledge”. Guess not for you.)

                PS. Love how you write ‘corroboration’, like you don’t think it’s a real word or something. :D It’s okay though, it’s already damn obvious you have no scientific background.

                1. VD

                  These are not ‘additional’ reports as you claim. You never previously provided any reports or links at all. Another example of your contempt for factual accuracy.

                  Yoiur first link is to the Mann article that I actually referred to in a previous post. Mann states that his team found no clinical or chemical evidence of atherosclerosis in Masai men. Perhaps they didn’t look hard enough that time because in his later paper he reports:

                  ‘The hearts and aortae of 50 Masai men were collected at autopsy. These pastoral people are exceptionally active and fit and they consume diets of milk and meat. The intake of animal fat exceeds that of American men. Measurements of the aorta showed extensive atherosclerosis with lipid infiltration and fibrous changes but very few complicated lesions. The coronary arteries showed intimal thickening by atherosclerosis which equaled that of old U.S. men. The Masai vessels enlarge with age to more than compensate for this disease. It is speculated that the Masai are protected from their atherosclerosis by physical fitness which causes their coronary vessels to be capacious.’
                  https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/95/1/26/167903?redirectedFrom=fulltext

                  So in your narrative story you selectively refer to one study by Mann about the Masai but do not refer to the later paper by Mann which found clear and incontrovertible physical evidence of atherosclerosis. And yet you have the hide to accuse Greger of one-sided reporting which ignores contrary evidence! Naturally you never provide any actual examples of your assertions about Greger. We do however have this example of your biased and one-sided reporting of the evidence.

                  It’s not just you of course, this behaviour seems par for the course by all saturated fat and cholesterol apologists. It appears to be a standard tactic of people seeking to deceive and manipulate others. Accuse others of your own sins first.
                  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201702/why-gaslighters-accuse-you-gaslighting

                  It’s also hugely amusing to note that your second link is to that second Mann study that I referred to in a previous post. Ih fact it is the very same study I quote above which states that among Masai men ‘The coronary arteries showed intimal thickening by atherosclerosis which equaled that of old U.S. men’! Which of course completely refutes your claim that the high fat diet of Masai men does not cause atherosclerosis. Obviously you didn’t even bother reading it.

                  Which brings us to the icing on the cake. That is your last paragraph/sentence. Allow me to repeat it since it says everything that anyone needs to know about your assertions and accusations:

                  “As daft as you are (and since you only rarely seem to read anything), I guess increasing the number of reports will also increase the probability that you’ll actually read one and learn something.”

                  How do you earn your living? Professional gaslighter perhaps? Or comedian?

                  1. “So in your narrative story you selectively refer to one study by Mann about the Masai but do not refer to the later paper by Mann which found clear and incontrovertible physical evidence of atherosclerosis.”

                    “It’s also hugely amusing to note that your second link is to that second Mann study that I referred to in a previous post. Ih fact it is the very same study I quote above which states that among Masai men ‘The coronary arteries showed intimal thickening by atherosclerosis which equaled that of old U.S. men’!”

                    Maybe you should make up your confused mind here? I can’t really both not link to such studies and at the same time link to those exact studies, now can I? Pick one. :D

                    And yes, he did found that. But that’s not heart disease in itself. :D

                    Here’s from the actual study:
                    “The hypothesis proposes that a large dietary intake of saturated animal fat causes hypercholesteremia which aggravates atherogenesis and leads to coronary heart disease.”

                    “If this hypothesis were true, it should follow that the Masai people who live almost exclusively on meat and milk would be found to have high levels of cholesterol in blood and extensive CHD. We examined 600 genuine Masai with clinical methods, including 350 men over the age of 40, and found very little evidence of cardiovascual disease. We have found only one Masai man with unequivocal ECH evidence of an infarction. High blood pressure was unusual among those people and blood pressure did not increase with age. The level of cholesterol in serum was low”

                    So to summarie: very little evidence of CVD and no support found for the “saturated fats cause high cholesterol which cause heart disease” hypothesis.

                    It also has something to say about that genetic protection stuff you talked about..
                    “The Masai are one of the most genetically mixed groups in East Africa. The genetic argument is worthless.”

                    Here’s a link to it all:
                    https://thescienceofnutrition.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/atherosclerosis-in-the-masai.pdf

                    So yup. Still no heart disease – and no support for the idea that high intake of saturated fat cause high blood cholesterol either.

                    Overall, you’re turning out to be a fine demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect in all its glory. :D

              2. VD

                You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel now because anybody who reads my posts and yours can see that you are deliberately misprepresenting what I have wrote.

                The US guidelines clearly and unamiguously describe a healthy vegetarian eating pattern that is ‘vegan’. It’s there in black and white. Since it is ‘vegan’, it obviously contains no dietary cholesterol.

                What happens? You have a brain meltdown. Instead of accepting reality, like all cranks you deny it. Actually, that’s not quite true. Some of the saturated fat and cholesterol nuts who have dropped in here before to set us all straight, have ckaimed that all the scientific evidence is fake and bogus. Well, it certainly doesn’t support their delusions so it absolutely must be, right? then there are the conspiracy nuts who think that it is all a Big Ag/vegan plot.

                You can see why I do enjoy watching you characters dance around the scientific evidence. It’s so funny it’s almost painful.

                That said, the comstant stream of long terminological inexactitudes is starting to become a little tedious. Are you in the manic phase or something? Or do you think the chemstrails might be responsible for your bizarre obsessive posting behavious here?

                1. “The US guidelines clearly and unamiguously describe a healthy vegetarian eating pattern that is ‘vegan’. It’s there in black and white. Since it is ‘vegan’, it obviously contains no dietary cholesterol.”

                  I quoted it: it doesn’t recommend that you should stop eating meat, dairy or seafood. It even stated that particularly seafood – should be eaten.

                  You keep claiming things that aren’t really there. :D There sure is “a brain meltdown” going on here, but it’s clearly not my brain that’s melting down.

                  Here it is again.
                  https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/chapter-1/a-closer-look-inside-healthy-eating-patterns/#protein-foods

                  Hell, let’s emphasize a few things:
                  “For example, meats provide the most zinc, while poultry provides the most niacin. Meats, poultry, and seafood provide heme iron, which is more bioavailable than the non-heme iron found in plant sources. Heme iron is especially important for young children and women who are capable of becoming pregnant or who are pregnant. Seafood provides the most vitamin B12 and vitamin D, in addition to almost all of the polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), in the Patterns (see the About Seafood call-out box).”

                  Is this a recommendation to cut all animal products, when they emphasize how these things are needed, especially for pregnant women? It is clearly not.

                  What about this?
                  “Considerations: For balance and flexibility within the food group, the Healthy U.S.-Style Eating Pattern includes weekly recommendations for the subgroups: seafood; meats, poultry, and eggs; and nuts, seeds, and soy products.”

                  Are they saying do not eat of the subgroups “seafood, meats, poultry, and eggs”. No they’re saying the opposite. :D

                  And how about those very weekly recommendations
                  “The recommendation for the meats, poultry, and eggs subgroup in the Healthy U.S.-Style Eating Pattern at the 2,000-calorie level is 26 ounce-equivalents per week. This is the same as the amount that was in the primary USDA Food Patterns of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines.”
                  Not much veganism there…

                  What about this here..?
                  “A specific recommendation for at least 8 ounce-equivalents of seafood per week also is included for the 2,000-calorie level”
                  Where they literally say EAT SEAFOOD in no uncertain terms.. is that vegan? Is eating seafood compatible with a diet that excludes animal products?

                  LOL..

                  So they’re not advocating veganism but a diet that includes animal products. End of. I’m sure you’re going to keep going though.. trying to argue some purely semantic nonsense of one kind or another.

                2. I mean ffs.. :D you actually think one sentence in the shape of “well, this could possibly be vegan if you fortify” translates to a recommendation of veganism and then further on to it being “the healthiest diet”. (which of course isn’t anything they say anywhere, it’s simply your very imaginative eh.. “interpretation”)

                  Never mind that there’s long walls of text recommending you to eat non-vegan food. One sentence overrides all (“One sentence to rule them all” etc..) and “eh, you might” becomes a recommendation first, and then healthiest diet as recommend by U.S authorities directly afterwards.

                  That’s apparently “black and white”. Whereas the long (surely, winded and boring for you) walls of text recommending you to eat foods that aren’t vegan.. that’s nothing at all. Doesn’t count, that text is not black and white at all.

                  It’s like a big joke.. Are you even trying to be serious anymore at this point? :D

                  But yup.. *I* have brain meltdown. LOL.

          2. And let me just demonstrate real quick what an absolutely laughable dolt of an authoritative appealer you truly are, after you go on and try to claim that the US dietary guidelines basically tells you to go vegan:

            “Protein Foods
            Healthy intake: Healthy eating patterns include a variety of protein foods in nutrient-dense forms. The protein foods group comprises a broad group of foods from both animal and plant sources and includes several subgroups: seafood; meats, poultry, and eggs; and nuts, seeds, and soy products. Legumes (beans and peas) may also be considered part of the protein foods group as well as the vegetables group (see the About Legumes (Beans and Peas) call-out box). Protein also is found in some foods from other food groups (e.g., dairy). The recommendation for protein foods in the Healthy U.S.-Style Eating Pattern at the 2,000-calorie level is 5½ ounce-equivalents of protein foods per day.
            Key nutrient contributions: Protein foods are important sources of nutrients in addition to protein, including B vitamins (e.g., niacin, vitamin B12, vitamin B6, and riboflavin), selenium, choline, phosphorus, zinc, copper, vitamin D, and vitamin E). Nutrients provided by various types of protein foods differ. For example, meats provide the most zinc, while poultry provides the most niacin. Meats, poultry, and seafood provide heme iron, which is more bioavailable than the non-heme iron found in plant sources. Heme iron is especially important for young children and women who are capable of becoming pregnant or who are pregnant. Seafood provides the most vitamin B12 and vitamin D, in addition to almost all of the polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), in the Patterns (see the About Seafood call-out box). Eggs provide the most choline, and nuts and seeds provide the most vitamin E. Soy products are a source of copper, manganese, and iron, as are legumes.
            Considerations: For balance and flexibility within the food group, the Healthy U.S.-Style Eating Pattern includes weekly recommendations for the subgroups: seafood; meats, poultry, and eggs; and nuts, seeds, and soy products. A specific recommendation for at least 8 ounce-equivalents of seafood per week also is included for the 2,000-calorie level”

            https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/chapter-1/a-closer-look-inside-healthy-eating-patterns/#protein-foods

            You are a clown, and that is all you are. :D

            1. LOL. Glad to see that you’re actually reading some serious documents on nutrition and health.

              Read appendix 5 by the way …. oh, and the last time i checked nuts, seeds and legumes weren’t classed as foods of animal origin . but in low carb world anything is possible I suppose.

              1. And you keep clowning I see.. :D It doesn’t matter that your laughable claim was thoroughly contradicted by the same source you claimed supported it – no no – you’re still right and everyone else is a low-carb caveman.

                Absolutely deluded. :D

                1. VD

                  More reams of misleading verbiage.and deliberate misrepresentations of what my posts say. However, my statements are there for all to see. So are your misrepresentations.

                  The US Dietary Guidelines clearly state that:
                  ‘individuals should eat as little dietary cholesterol as possible while consuming a healthy eating pattern’
                  https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/chapter-1/a-closer-look-inside-healthy-eating-patterns/

                  And the healthy vegetarian eating pattern is one of three healthy eating patterns identified in the Guidelines. The Guidelines also state that this pattern can be “vegan”.
                  https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendix-5/

                  Paleo/keto/low carb/Atkins etc are not identified as healthy eating patterns.

                  You can bluster and obfuscate all you want, but those are the facts.

              2. “oh, and the last time i checked nuts, seeds and legumes weren’t classed as foods of animal origin . but in low carb world anything is possible I suppose.”

                So since these foods are also mentioned in the quote, that somehow negates the dairy, meat and seafood? What great logic. You truly are dumb, like truly immensely dumb, and thank you for ceaselessly demonstrating it. :D

              3. VD

                You do know that people can read chapter 1 and appendix 5 of the guidelines for themselves and verify what I have written and see that you are blatantly misrepresenting the facts? I know that this is what you guys do but how stupid do you think everybody else is?

                And you do know that none of the three healthy eating patterns identified in the guidelines are low carb, keto, Atkins or whatever crank diet you follow?

                1. I refer to my latest comments about this.. You’ll easily find them a short bit above this comment. :D

                  What you try to infer is there, simply isn’t. It’s just imaginative reinterpretation on your part.

    7. Then you’d be wrong. Evolution doesn’t stop. Mankind emigrated out of Africa (or wherever we originate, there are actually some indications now that it may not have been in Africa but Asia or the Middle east – quite interesting) a long time ago and has clearly evolved in many more geographical areas then that since. Some populations also demonstrably differ from each other in terms of certain biological traits having to do with food/diet as well, such as how much amylase our bodies produce, indicating that some have historically eaten more plant based foods than others.

      Further – there are no traditional vegan cultures in Africa. (or anywhere else for that matter) There are traditional cultures that live almost exclusively off meat and dairy though such as the ever-popular-to-bring-up massai. (Who also happen to be very healthy and have a very low instance of cardiovascular disease even though they should basically all be dying of it according to the bogus claims that animal fats will inevitably clog your arteries)

      The only thing similar to a vegan diet (or the one promoted here which I’m told is very different even though it too shuns animal products and even uses the word vegan occasionally) you’d find there are some nations that rely on mostly agricultural produce to feed themselves however, with very little animal products.. (none of it really by choice) and the result? Well, they also “happen” to be among the nations suffering the worst nutritional deficiencies in the entire world.

      1. Gee …. you are a saturated fat crank as well. What a surprise. I won’t even ask about your opinions on cholesterol!

        Google crank magnet.

        1. Great arguments per usual. :D Yep, you sure aren’t simply a deluded cultist believer who’s engaged in this on a deeply (and purely) emotional level – but a real man of science. LOL

        2. But hell, let’s give you a chance here – it really should be easy for you to reply since you are such a scientist (and I’m just a crank LOL): If saturated fats are the primary factor of getting cardiovascular disease, why do they simply not suffer from any when their diet is loaded with such fats? It’s a very simple question. (with an obvious answer for anyone but a cultist who do not understand how science actually works)

          Do you understand the concept of falsifiability? Probably not so let me tell you: You can never *truly* prove something (that’s why the most certain scientific knowledge, that which has never been disproven and corroborated aplenty, is called “theory”) but you can disprove it. And a single observation that’s damning enough (ie can have no other explanation) is enough to disprove something.

          And the massai clearly disprove one of two things in this claim, either
          1) That saturated factors have anything to do with cardiovascular disease.
          Or
          2) That consumption of saturated fats are anywhere near the most important cause of cardiovascular disease.

          Most of the current hypothesis seems to be that their high amount of physical activity is what keeps them from developing cardiovascular disease: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18523037

          Ie – physical activity (and lack thereof) seems to be the important factor for developing cardiovascular disease, not diet.

          So yes, when someone simply says “saturated fats will wreck your cardiovascular system” (especially as in “avoid them completely”) etc, they’re ignoring both facts and science and is rather pushing a belief.. Much like dr. Greger here.

          1. If you want to know about dietary saturated fat consumption and human health, then you should try reading the AHA expert report on dietary fat and cardiovascular health. And the WHO/FAO expert report on fats and fatty acids in human nutritions. They provide good summaries of the evidence.

            On the other hand, you could track down ancient reports on obscure ethnic groups that were not exactly noted for living long healthy lives. Yes Mann did write a paper reporting that Masai men did appear to be in excellent cardiovasculat health despite a diet high in dairy and other animal foods. But let’s not mention Mann’s later paper where he reported that autopsies of dead Masai showed that they had hardened arteries like those found in much older Westerners. That wouldn’t be helpful at all.

            On the other hand, it does seem that the Masai have genetic mutations that affect how their bodies hamdle cholesterol. That probably means that they can handle high staurated fat diets better than you and me (or most other Westerners).

            To be honest though I don’t think that any of the Masai stories trump the evidence summarised in the AHA and WHO/FAO reports. But then I’m not a crank.`

            1. And yet again – you completely fail to refute anything or even argue against it…

              It’s very simple though – either saturated fats are the main cause of cardiovascular disease, or they are not. If you can eat them in copious amounts without incurring cardiovascular disease, then they are not and other factors are clearly more important.

              I haven’t even referenced Mann here so try to keep up, even if you simply are repeating standardized talking points (one of these being that Mann was somehow bad) like a parrot, you should try to pay some attention.. :D

              “On the other hand, it does seem that the Masai have genetic mutations that affect how their bodies hamdle cholesterol.”

              “does seem” as in “it must be so or the hypothesis is wrong and that can’t be!!”. Ie assumption.

              And let me tell you what the very definition of pseudoscience is – unfalsifiable hypothesis and theories. Which is basically what you’re coming ever closer to here: that there is nothing that could disprove this claim that saturated fats are the main cause of cardiovascular disease, because anything that runs counter to it “must” be due to some nigh-magical exception. (exceptions you have no real grounds to assume – except you count absolute belief in your hypothesis as “grounds” – actually exist in the first place)
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Applications

              1. VD

                This is the usual crank false question – either saturated fats are the main cause of cardiovascular disease or they aren’t.

                Not many of us are stupid enough to fall for this con artists’ pitch of a false, heavily loaded question. There are multiple dietary causes of cardiovascular disease not to mention viral and bacterial causes etc. Single cause theories like yours only appeal to the simple minded. Again, just how stupid do you think most people are? They know there are multiple risk factors, what they mean and what they are. High levels of dietary saturated fat consumption is definitely one of them.

                I suggest that you read the actual scientific evidence instead of relying on the sensational claims, false narratives and loaded choices posed by cynical charlatans and barking cranks.

                1. Main cause means main cause. Or I should probably rephrase that as “primary risk factor” which is more in line with what we’re really discussing. (cause could mean the actual underlying cause, which is unknown)

                  No it is clearly not a false question, and it does not infer that there can be only one cause (or risk factor). The question remains if main/primary, not “only”. If you can’t understand words like “main” or “primary”, I can’t do much about that.

                  Single cause “theories” (more like hypothesis) are more what’s being pushed here on the regular, by various people. Claims along the lines that meat = CVD and cancer or that veganism basically cures all disease as “Health volunteer Ben” (I think it was) claimed right here in this thread.

                  But keep projecting and appealing I suppose.. :D

                  1. LOL

                    It is written down in black and white in Chapter 1 and Appendix 5 of the Guidelines which I have directly quoted in my posts above.

                    It’s just absolutely gobsmacking how cranks can insist that the sky is pink with purple polka dots to a crowd standing outside under a blue sky.

            2. “To be honest though I don’t think that any of the Masai stories trump the evidence summarised in the AHA and WHO/FAO reports. But then I’m not a crank.`”

              LOL. This statement makes it quite clear that’s pretty much what you are. Science is based on attempts at refutation, not confirmation. What you “think” (correct word here is “feel”, as thinking implies logic, not subjective value statements) about it doesn’t matter.

              This isn’t even the only thing that runs counter to this claim about saturated fats cause heart disease, it’s just one of the more clear-cut and obvious cases. But even if it was.. it would be enough.

              If there are say 1000 studies that seemingly corroborate a hypothesis, and yet only a single one that disproves it – the hypothesis is wrong and needs to be revised. That’s how science actually works (or is supposed to work, even scientists are human of course and may not always be willing to concede that their hypothesis was wrong in spite of the evidence etc), not the opposite.

              1. VD

                You have just clearly demonstrated with those statements that you don’t have a clue how science works. Nice one.

                You need to take a long hard look at yourself and just as importantly at the scientific evidence.

                Not that you aren’t wonderfully entertaining as you are of course.

                1. Really, please go ahead and refute it then. Tell me what real science is, you sure seem to know all about it. :D

                  Have you ever heard the statement: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” ?

                  Perhaps you should look that up. LOL

        3. Actually, I’d LOVE to hear yours. It would most likely be a real laugh.

          Let me guess, something along the lines of: “LDL is bad cholesterol. Eating cholesterol makes you fat / give you cardiovascular disease. Statins are reduce cholesterol.”

          Go ahead and tell me if you think those statements are true or false.

          1. Why ask me?

            Someone like you with superior knowledge of, and insight into, the effects of dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol levels on human health could simply go straight to the evidence summaries set out in the European Atherosclerosis Society’s consensus statement on LDL cholesterol and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, or to the US Institute of Medicine’s discussion of the evidence, or the UK’s CG181 guidance, or the various recent US guidelines and reports, or perhaps the independent Cochrane reviews.

            Or perhaps you prrefer sensational books, websites and videos to dull boring discussions of scientific studies?

            1. To further demonstrate that you don’t actually know what you’re talking about, and to a large degree – don’t even know what the institutions you throw around constantly, say about it. Why else?

              They’re not the ones who are here, clowning around – it’s just you. This despite your laughable attempts to hide your own absolute ignorance behind their aura of authority.

            2. So yeah, please go ahead and tell everyone what you think you know about it (and start by saying if those statements are true or false) – since you are so well-versed in the current research on it (because you’re actually reading the research right.. :D not just waving those institutions around to hide your lack of knowledge behind them..?) it should be absolutely no problem for you.

              But of course, it would be. Because you don’t know what the current research is, not even the parts that might support your position. You refer to them (more like wave them around like a club) simply to hide the rather obvious fact that you’re a cultist parrot clown who know nothing. :D

              1. VD

                Your posts are just so wonderfully full of information, carefully reasoned arguments and extensive citations of the evidence. Could you possibly be any more convincing?

                Probably not ….. if you actually trotted out all the tired cholesterol denialists’ arguments you will have exposed the entire idiocy of your case. Can’t have that, can we?

                1. “Your posts are just so wonderfully full of information, carefully reasoned arguments and extensive citations of the evidence. Could you possibly be any more convincing?”

                  I absolutely could be even more informative (thank you for recognizing this LOL), but one shouldn’t throw pearls at swine and all that. Well, I have pearls to spare so you’ve been given some, but pearls aren’t plant based after all so you probably shouldn’t be given too many. :D

                  1. It’s all just BS from you isn’t it VD? No evidence, no studies just ‘VD says ….

                    I suppose all those dolts over at the American College of Cardiology are just scientifically illiterate clowns too ………..

                    “All adults should consume a healthy plant-based or Mediterranean-like diet high in vegetables, fruits, nuts, whole grains, lean vegetable or animal protein (preferably fish), and vegetable fiber, which has been shown to lower the risk of all-cause mortality compared to control or standard diet. Longstanding dietary patterns that focus on low intake of carbohydrates and a high intake of animal fat and protein as well as high carbohydrate diets are associated with increased cardiac and noncardiac mortality.”

                    https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/ten-points-to-remember/2019/03/07/16/00/2019-acc-aha-guideline-on-primary-prevention-gl-prevention

                    But hey who cares what a bunch of scientists, researchers and physicians have concluded after reviewing all the scientific evidence? That’s just an appeal to authority isn’t it?

                    (No it isn’t but do go on).

                    Believe me, VD, instead. Because …. well, because I said so. So there! Anybody who disagrees with me is a dolt, a clown and scientifically illiterate. And, no, I am not a crank.

      2. Arguing with Mr. Fumblefingers is a waste of time. Thanks for a lot of your comments, VeganD. The problem with most views on cholesterol is that people seem to think it just comes from diet, Animal foods to be more precise. They forget that the liver makes cholesterol because it is necessary for life! It is the precursor to making the steroid hormones, is part of the cell membrane, and more. Without it we die. Yet the Pharmaceutical companies have suckered everyone into believing it is some sort of highly dangerous substance.

        People who have way too high cholesterol, have it for a variety of reasons, the least of which is from inflammation. And the definition of what is high cholesterol is highly individual, not some arbitrary number invented by a committee on which most members have ties to selling Statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs (but these days mostly Statins) . Cholesterol is used by the body to patch up holes in the vessels due to damage. The reasons for the damage is what we should be addressing, and that is also very individualized. Inflammation is a big cause and yes the SAD diet contributes to that, but not necessarily just because it contains animal-based foods, but because it contains high amounts of sugar, refined grains, processed, and junk foods. And yes, not enough vegetables and nuts and such either.

        Human biochemistry is complex, but some people need to believe in simple solutions so they don’t have to dig in and really learn and think.

        1. Wonderful story but why don’t you people actually read the evidence or at least the lengthy evidence summaries contained in major US and international reports?

          Relying on senational claims and glib stories you’ve found on the internet, or trashy popular health book which try to explain away the evidence by blaming it on conspiracies or whatever, isn’t exactly sensible.

          You could even search this site for videos and blogs on cholesterol which are really short and simple, and provide good summaries of what the science shows. But no you’d rather continue barking at the moon..

          1. LOL. The broken record keeps playing. Perhaps we have? (I know I have – hell.. I’ve probably linked like 10 studies, you’ve linked what.. 1?) but the thing is that you haven’t. That’s also one of the reasons you never link to any of these supposed reports, you don’t really know them and have read seemingly close to nothing of them. (that is, assuming many of these studies you claim exist, actually do exist – which seeing how enormous in scale your claims seem to be, they almost certainly do not) You even refer to things which contradict you for goodness sake. :D

            And this despite the fact that there surely should be some links to various (surely very well cherrypicked) reports floating around somewhere on this website courtesy of dr. Greger. But you don’t even bother looking at those it seems. Again (and again) – you’re a simple believer. You are not rational even if it is very clear that you want to think yourself thus, you are a simple emotionally-driven believer. A cultist.

        2. Thank you.
          Yes, I have indeed noticed that he’s kind of – to put it mildly – “set in his ways” :D but arguing with him is not entirely pointless, if nothing else- it can demonstrate to others that he and people like him have a cultist mentality, not a scientific one, and that he does not know what he is talking about nor if that which he is pushing is actually good for you.

          And yes you are right that cholesterol is indeed made by the liver and is used in cell membranes etc. As for intake, the exact effect that cholesterol intake has on blood levels of cholesterol is not quite known, though there are emerging indications that it has quite little to do with it, for instance:
          https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/dietary-cholesterol-from-physiology-to-cardiovascular-risk/2AD4493E735677B9298CCC17FA790539

          And of course, that is assuming that LDL-C is that risk factor of a risk factor it’s sometimes claimed to be. (or downright erroneously – itself the CAUSE of heart disease)

        3. “Human biochemistry is complex, but some people need to believe in simple solutions so they don’t have to dig in and really learn and think.”

          And THIS ^ is a very insightful comment btw, Linda. It summaries a lot about the mentality here..

          It is of course much simpler to disperse and for people to digest incorrect but simple stuff like “LDL is BAD cholesterol -> so reduce it -> cure heart disease yay” when in reality LDL isn’t even cholesterol but a lipoprotein that’s transports cholesterol and other fatty molecules throughout the body, such as when repairing or creating cell membranes, ie it is essential and not something you simply could get rid of without severe consequences (such as well, dying). There’s even plenty of serious and heavyweight sites that do not even make this distinction, or even mention it exists.

          It’s also much more simple to simply sell people the garbage idea that if you just stop/start doing one thing/concept of a thing – then everything will be fine. Or if you just take this or that drug, then no more problems and so on. (“It cures everything it does, my patented snake oil”) That’s often what people want. Simple fixes and simple answers, especially simple fixes that require very little on their part except adherence to some single simple idea. (“just cut all animal foods”, “no just cut all plant foods”, “no just take this pill”)

          And that’s why we get people like fumblefingers here.. deluding themselves they’ve discovered the truthTM when they’ve bought into one of these simplistic ideas.

  2. There is a fourth theory which may not be accepted scientifically, but seems to agree with the diet you recommend. Here it is:

    History of what humans have eaten over the millennia
    Gen 1: 29 Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed which is on the face of the earth and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed, to you it shall be for meat. (herbs–vegetation-bearing seeds–grains, legumes vegetables fruits nuts)

    Gen 1: 30 To every beast and fowl, creeping things, every green herb.
    (green part of plant–animal world)

    After disobeying God
    Gen. 3”17 But to Adam he said: Because you have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you “You shall not eat of it: Cursed is the ground, in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life, thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you and you shall eat the plants of the field. (roots and leaves)

    After the flood
    Gen 9: Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you: and as I gave
    you the green plants, I give you everything.The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and every beast and every bird, everything that creeps
    on the ground and fish of the sea unto your hand they are delivered.
    Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
    2 reasons: 1. Blood carries the waste.
    2. For your life blood I will requires a reckoning.
    Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his
    blood be shed. For God made man in his own
    image.

    After Egypt

    Leviticus: A sacrificed animal—a lamb—remove to burn as a sacrifice “its fat and the whole fat tail which he shall remove close to the backbone. And the fat that covers the entrails and all the fat that is on the entrails, the two kidneys and the fat that is on them by the flanks, and the fatty lobe attached to the liver above the kidneys, he shall remove, he burns them on the altar. All the fat is the Lords.
    The blood— some put on the horns of the altar and he shall pour the remaining blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering.

    The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it.

    You shall eat neither fat nor blood.

    Moreover you shall not eat any blood in any of your dwellings, whether of bird or beast. whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people.

    Health Promise
    Ex 15:26 If you will keep my commandments and statures I will put none of these diseases upon you for I am the Lord, your healer.
    1. Diet laws-unclean animals, scavengers (cloven hoof, chew cud, fins and scales,carrion eating birds)paws, belly, dead thing
    2. Lev. 3:17 It shall be a perpetual stature throughout your generations in all you dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.

    Yearning for the meat of Egypt
    Now our whole being is dried up, there is nothing at all but this manna before our eyes.

    Manna was like coriander seed, they ground it on millstones or beat it in the mortar, cooked it in pans and made cakes of it and its taste was like the taste of pastry prepared with oil.

    Therefore the Lord will give you meat, and you shall eat.
    You shall eat, not one day, nor two days, nor five days, nor ten days, nor twenty days.
    But for a whole month, until it comes out of your nostrils and becomes loathsome to you, because you have despised the Lord who is among you, and have wept before Him, saying, Why did we ever come up out of Egypt?
    Moses replies to God, Must we slaughter all our flocks and herds for them or shall fish of the sea be gathered in order to provide enough”

    A wind went out from the LORD and it brought quail from the sea and left them fluttering near the camp..people stayed up all that day, all night, and all the next day and gathered the quail —they got sick

    The Joy of eating
    Ps. 63:5 My soul shall be satisfied as with marrow and fatness.

    Is. 25:6 And in this mountain shall the Lord of Hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, of fat things full of marrow. (“soft, fatty vascular tissue in the center of bones”)

    I Chron. 29:22 Then David said . ..Bless the Lord Your God. And all the assembly…bowed their heads and worshiped the Lord… and they ate and drank before the Lord on the day with great gladness;

    Eccl. 9:07 Go, eat your bread with enjoyment, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do.

    Neh 8:10,12 He said to them, Go your way, eat the fat and drink sweet wine and send
    portions to him for whom nothing is prepared, for this day is holy to our Lord, . . for the joy of the Lord is your strength. . . .And all the people went their way to eat and drink and to send portions and to make great rejoicing.

    1. I’ve always wondered… weren’t there other people alive in the world about this time? Why wasn’t this Omnipotent God micro-managing their lives as well?

      1. God loves you too Lonie, God doesn’t want to micro manage your life. You are free to choose whatever you want to eat. Dr Greger is spot on when it comes to How not to die…..live longer. God created the food Dr. Greger you and I believe in. We are all created in God’s image and a WFPB diet is “God’s original diet” for us. God gives us the freedom to choose things in life, yes even food.
        No body’s perfect but Dr. Greger helps us stay on the healthier path. What an amazing world God has created for us to live in. Dear God open our eyes to you more and more. Help us not to be angry with you or each other. Help us to understand how you made us and what you want from us.
        God bless you Lonie

        1. God bless you Lonie
          —————————————
          Thank you Mathew (BTW, nice book of ‘-)

          Happy you have found your Bliss.

      2. Because these other people were not God’s covenant people. God had concluded a covenant with Abraham whom he considered his “friend”. He explained to Abraham that He would bless his seed or progeny such that it would become like the stars of the heavens in number. Abraham was viewed by God as His friend because he showed great faith in God and his faith was clearly demonstrated through his decision-making and actions. Much like today, the actions of the majority of earth’s inhabitants did not show proper faith in God. Thus, the Israelites became God’s covenant people.
        However, after Jesus’ death, Peter received three symbolic keys to the kingdom which opened the way for, not only Jews to come into God’s favor, but also Samaritans and non-Jews (Gentiles). Does this mean that if you or I lived at the time when God’s covenant with the Israelite nation was in force that we could not enter into a relationship with Him? Of course not. There were Jewish proselytes who, while not having been born into the covenant relationship with God as natural Israelites, had chosen to follow the same set of laws the Israelites did. The symbolic keys of the kingdom later provided to Peter simply opened up the way for Christ’s teachings to be made known to people of the nations and for them to avail themselves of that knowledge.

        I also don’t think that the Creator’s provision of beneficial principles and guidelines to his creation would correctly be termed an act of “micro-management” any more than parents providing beneficial principles and guidelines to their children would be.

        1. Because these other people were not God’s covenant people. God had concluded a covenant with Abraham whom he considered *his* “friend”. He explained to Abraham that *He* would bless his seed or progeny such that it would become like the stars of the heavens in number.
          (asterisks are mine)
          —————————————————————————————————-
          The terms *his* and *He* suggests God has testicles… unless he is a Greek God these would be totally unnecessary since *he* had Joseph and Mary as surrogate parents.

          1. Assuming a God …GOD is spirit and assuming again his/her existence, GOD has no form! Therefore, he/she would have no need for having testicles or a womb! The scriptures say, Mary was impregnated by, the Holy Spirit who is also spirit! God had nothing to do with it!!!! Immaculate conception has always been a mystery to me perhaps someone can teach me as to how a virgin can give birth to child?

        2. the Creator’s provision of beneficial principles and guidelines to his creation would correctly be termed an act of “micro-management” any more than parents providing beneficial principles and guidelines to their children would be.
          ———————————————–
          Two words… helicopter parents. ‘-)

            1. Sorry, what are helicopter parents?
              —————————————————–
              Lee, my sincere apoligies… I assumed that term was so entrenched in the English lexicon that it was safe to use it the way I did.

              It was my answer to your saying “that would correctly be termed an act of “micro-management” any more than parents providing beneficial principles and guidelines to their children would be.”

              Helicopter Parents “hover” over their child and micro manage their every move.

      3. Just to set the record straight, GOD doesn’t ever judge anyone, he has turned that over to his Son…Jesus Christ! Look it up!

        1. GOD doesn’t ever judge anyone, he has turned that over to his Son…Jesus Christ!
          ———————————————————————————————————-
          Ummm, didn’t Jesus come along in the New Testament? Some Old Testament *I am* had to be “judging” the chosen elite until the *I am’s* helper/sun came along.

          1. I’m not an expert on the Bible, but “I was here before Abraham” “the Word created everything” tell me who was the Word?

              1. Look at John 1;1-3 and Heb 1:1-3
                ——————————————–
                Marilyn, where’s the link?

                (Oh, never mind… I can’t read *I am*brew anyway. ‘-)

            1. tell me who was the Word?
              ——————————————–
              I don’t know but I’m pretty sure Word is a rapper deity… ’cause they are always sayin’ “Word.” ‘-)

                1. The Word was JC…I’m sure you knew that!
                  ———————————————————
                  No, I don’t know that. If that was the case, why did the *Iam*brews not just come out and say so.

                  Or maybe it was the St. James *Iam*brew translators who couldn’t figure out how to translate and just made it ambiguous so it appeared they knew what they were talking about.

                  1. Lonie, don’t feel bad, when I read it for the first time I had no clue who the word was either! You need to remember that Jesus spoke in parables because he was always in danger of being stoned or crucified! When he did speak openly they killed him! If you really want to get confused, read Revelations, yikes!!!

              1. Logos or The Word was a concept devised by the ancient Greek philosophers to describe the guiding principle or causal factor of the universe. It is broadly equivalent to the tao in Taosim, dharma in Buddhism or even aum in Hinduism. Perhaps it was even borrowed by the Greeks from ancient Asian schools of thought. I doubt that we will ever know for sure. However, it didn’t require the existence of gods, with the implication being that even if they did exist they were relatively unimpirtant in the cosmic scheme of things.

                As a key feature of intellectual discussion in the Greek speaking world of several thousand years ago, it was naturally pinched by early churchmen and beaten into a form that could be argued to be compatible with christianity – even though it clearly isn’t.

      4. Lonie – micromanaging? He created us. He wanted to teach us what is best. The creator did not leave us to fend and fight in this world alone. How kind and awesome He is to provide every good thing for us. Including good food that our bodies were created to eat – plants.

        1. Lonie – micromanaging? He created us. He wanted to teach us what is best. The creator did not leave us to fend and fight in this world alone. How kind and awesome He is to provide every good thing for us. Including good food that our bodies were created to eat – plants.
          —————————————————————————————————————
          Hi Debbie, to clarify, my main point was why was God concentrating on this one little part of the globe while there were many other people he could have simultaneously been “teaching what is best?”

          But don’t mind me… I question everything.

          It seems you have moved beyond questioning… I’m happy you have found your Bliss.

    2. This is a wonderful comment, but it brings up something that has been confusing me, and I would appreciate your thoughts.
      Your example under “Health Promise”, . Lev. 3:17 It shall be a perpetual stature throughout your generations in all you dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood. He says to not eat fat, and it is perpetual. Then, the example you gave under, “The Joy of Eating”, Is. 25:6 And in this mountain shall the Lord of Hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, of fat things full of marrow. (“soft, fatty vascular tissue in the center of bones”), He is saying to eat fatty things.
      This so confuses me. I would really appreciate and look forward to hearing thoughts regarding this that may bring some clarity.

      1. The end statements of my text are the promises which God gives after earth is returned to the condition he made before man broke off their relationship with Him. It is the promise of the new Jerusalem, the new earth, the mountain. I think it is the assurance that things that we want now which he warned us not to eat will be replaced with things that will be even better.

    3. And you guys are so intelligent that you are unable to grasp the difference between so-called vegan diets and whole food plant based diets. Hilarious stuff.

      1. You don’t eat animal products, you eat like a vegan. Basing it around whole grains just makes it a certain kind of vegan diet, it doesn’t make it non-vegan in any way, shape or form. Simple. And veganism is what’s being promoted here, be real about that at least.

        You seem to believe whole grains are magical and as demonstrated in another post, don’t even understand the difference between whole grain and ordinary. To summarize what I said there (go read it) It’s not really the carbs..

        1. It’s my understanding that, in addition to not eating animal products, “vegans” do not wear leather, carry leather wallets, eat honey, yada-yada. Not the same as WFPB. I myself eat some animal foods, but I could never give up fruits, veggies, or unrefined grains. Don’t know what label I’d use….semi-omnivore?

          Lots of so called ex-vegans are often interviewed by that raw-eating meat guy. Can’t imagine why anybody would want to go from one extreme to another (to eating nothing but meat, cooked or otherwise). Maybe they don’t,…. they just want to say why the “vegan diet” did not work for them.

          Sir or Madam (am thinking “Sir), I’m just curious. Would you care to tell the folks what you “eat in a day”?

          1. Yes because veganism is originally a kind of ideology or set of ethics/morals, from which the diet then follows. But I’m of course almost only referring to the vegan diet here, as this is a site about diet and nutrition.

            And yes, if you eat a vegan diet, you eat a vegan diet – it doesn’t really matter if you don’t follow a vegan lifestyle. You could claim otherwise I suppose, but that would be arguing semantics, what term to use for it, not its actual meaning.

            “I myself eat some animal foods, but I could never give up fruits, veggies, or unrefined grains. Don’t know what label I’d use….semi-omnivore?”

            How about just “omnivore” seeing as that’s what a diet that includes basically everything – is? If you want to call it something else, particularly something with semi in it – how about “semi-balanced” because you’re likely eating too little animal products (for it to be more balanced, ie well rounded) if you’re following the advice here to any substantial degree.

            You mean “Sv3ige”? :D He’s kind of bonkers. He has done some good work in documenting the absolute insanity and horrific health of some vegan activists and the like (as well as addressed common lies about several herbivore species such as that they never eat meat, when in fact – even some ruminants do etc) but I don’t think he’s very sane himself: Some of the stuff on his channel is way out there and his own diet seems eh.. kind of extreme to say the least. Its better than the vegan diet but there is very little reason to cut all plant based foods entirely as he does.

            And yeah, like you I don’t think most of the ones he interviews follow his diet but simply wants to share their story about veganism. There are lots and lots of places pushing veganism, but not too many that want to share the negative experiences of ex-vegans.

            It varies (eating much the same thing all the time is generally not a good idea) but pretty much everything. Meat of diff kinds, fish, dairy, grains, cereals, greens etc. The first three are the main though, carbs (contrary to what seems to be the belief here) don’t build your body, carbs are fuel. Eat them but don’t go crazy with it because you’ll only get fat (or “skinnyfat”) if you can’t burn them. Protein is what builds you up and keeps you from breaking down. Some fats are required as well and animal fats are nowhere near as bad (if at all) as claimed here.

            I don’t buy into the “whole grains” stuff much because (short story) while they are richer in minerals and certain potentially beneficial phytochemicals, they also contain much more antinutrients. That’s bad on a balanced diet, but way worse on a plant based one where you’re already likely to be somewhat lacking in iron and calcium.

            1. “You mean “Sv3ige”? :D He’s kind of bonkers.”
              – – – – –

              Yeah, that dude. He proclaims all foods as being “toxic.” Everything but the raw meat he likes to scarf down in front of the camera, that is. Frankie Boy is another, but at least he gives the impression he might know what he’s talking about. :-)

              1. I haven’t looked too much at his videos in general, especially not those about his own beliefs and the like. I’ve seen a few (like what he supposedly eats in a day) and the titles of some (which seem to include things like the earth actually being flat) so I know who the guy is and is seemingly about. And yes, he seems to label most things toxic (as well as label most people as “retarded” :D).

                I have looked at the videos where he compiles vegan insanity and malnutrition though – some of that stuff is quite solid.

  3. What is the WFPB diet’s opinion of the new burgers? The Impossible burger and Beyond Meat? Are they okay for us or just new varieties of junk food? Maybe they will be a start for folks thinking about a plant based diet and good in that way? Thanks for your thoughts!

    1. Nancy, the way I see it is even if they are a sideways move to eating meat (beef especially) at least they are potentially improving the methane release from cows and sheep.

      But personally I think they are a good way for non-WFPB folk to make a healthier change.

  4. The land, water, and air are saturated with pollutants. Doesn’t matter what you eat or drink. It’s over! Your only hope is that the wizards in Silicon Valley come up with the rejuvenation protocols sooner than later.

    1. Your only hope is that the wizards in Silicon Valley come up with the rejuvenation protocols sooner than later.
      ————————————————————————————–
      While I agree in principle, I am pinning my hopes on researchers world wide to unlock the healthy longevity puzzle. I am surprised when new and often key information is reported from distant parts of the globe.

      Yes, we humans have soiled our own nest somewhat but we are working hard to clean it up.

      1. Yes. WE are working hard to clean it up. You, me and 14 others. Unfortunately our battle against the filthy rich who are more concerned about profit, is a futile one : ((( Thanks for the reply, and cheers!

        1. Unfortunately our battle against the filthy rich who are more concerned about profit, is a futile one
          —————————————————————————-
          (Disclaimer: I’m a bit of an optometrist.. err, I mean optimist… anyway, I view the events with rose colored glasses. ‘-)

          With that out of the way, let me just state that the You, me, and representative 14 others are already making a difference. We make a difference in what we choose not to buy for instance. That has caused many a company to change its corporate practices to become more acceptable to a more aware public.

          Take the IPO of Beyond Meat, for instance. That company has soared in stock price even though P/E ratio is totally lacking. And the rich and prosperous short sellers have taken an acid bath because the public is on board with the company’s goals to the point of buying the stock even though it is not currently profitable.

          All I’m sayin’ is ‘don’t get your dobber down Mark… progress may be akin to linear at the present but I look for it to turn exponential once the balls get rolling.’

    2. I agree Mark, but to look outside ourselves for solutions has always been a terrible disaster. If you want to see change, look in the mirror and begin to make a personal change, so that I can begin to make the same changes! Let’s face it, our leaders, our government officials have failed us! It is only getting worse as your comments state! I hope it’s not too late! I think it’s time now for a people peaceful revolution or we are doomed!

      1. Sorry Lee, but the reality is that it’s waaaay too late. Any type of revolution against the 1% will fail miserably. Our species was doomed since its inception. Too much instinct. Not enough reason. Thanks for the reply : ))

  5. Or we could simply believe that our creator put us in a garden and told us to eat any green plants and fruit, well except one fruit. God made us to eat plants. We don’t have to believe in millions of years of evolution. Later on he allowed us to eat animals but only for survival purposes and for special occasions. He gave the Israelites barley and wheat crops for the bulk of their calories. In Egypt they stored wheat for the seven years of famine. He made grains specifically for long term storage to sustain us through lean times. The majority of people in western nations are simply being selfish and gluttonous. It’s totally unnecessary to eat meat for nutrition in our modern world

  6. Man-kind has ALWAYS eaten meat.

    Neanderthals’ main food source was definitely meat: Isotope analyses performed on single amino acids in Neanderthals’ collagen samples shed new light on their debated –

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190219111704.htm

    “Using this technique, we discovered that the Neanderthal of Les Cottés had a purely terrestrial carnivore diet: she was not a late weaned child or a regular fish eater, and her people seem to have mostly hunted reindeers and horses,” says Jaouen. “We also confirmed that the Grotte du Renne Neanderthal was a breastfeeding baby whose mother was a meat eater.” Interestingly, this conclusion matches with the observations of the zooarcheologists

    1. The most recent DNA testing has shown that Neanderthals were simply people who absolutely could have co-habited with modern humans. Translation, they were humans. It is no longer believed that Neanderthals were a common ancestor to all mankind. Subsequently, only some people today contain Neanderthal DNA while many others do not. Also, one of the predominant theories is that the Neanderthals were destroyed by a great climatic event. The recent discovery of evidence of a great climatic event through a study of the formation of certain stalactites seems to parallel the time of the extinction of the so-called Neanderthal people.

    2. Yes, but our DNA has been being written for millions upon millions of years. Homosapien is just a small blip of our evolution. Yes, meat is good, but in moderation. Atherosclerosis is purely caused by meat and that is not even a question. If you want to live a long time, you will not eat fatty red meat every day and that’s just a cold hard fact.

      1. “Atherosclerosis is purely caused by meat and that is not even a question”

        LOL. Another clueless statement.
        https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/atherosclerosis
        “The exact cause of atherosclerosis isn’t known. However, studies show that atherosclerosis is a slow, complex disease that may start in childhood. It develops faster as you age.”

        Meat (actually, saturated fat – not meat itself and some meat has very low fat) is what’s known as a risk factor – ie there may be a statistical correlation. (And do note: correlation is not causation) And there’s no indication either it is anywhere near the most important risk factor, which rather seems to be a lack of exercise.

    3. Greg
      Greg

      Greg
      Greg
      Greg
      1. you ignore all the scientific evidence about the health effects of meat eating
      2. you invent a ‘fact’ (humans have always eaten meat) … how could you possibly know
      3. then you draw an unsupported conclusion from that fact eg therefore it must be naturral/healthy/harmless. This is the Appeal to Antiquity Fallacy. People have always committed murder, rape, incest and robbery too – and practised cannibalism – that doesn’t make those practices right or healthy.
      4. in your discusson of Neanderthals you curiously omit mention of the El Sidron Neanderthals who were apparently strict vegetarians.

      1. Do you really find logic and evidence so offensive? Hmm …. you are a paleo/low carb believer who thinks saturatefd fat is unfairly maligned …. yes of course you do.

        1. Yes absolutely, *I* have a problem with logic and evidence here.. :D
          Do you seriously believe these little tantrums and complete lack of actual arguments are helping you somehow? By all means, keep it up. It’s pretty amusing and only goes to further demonstrate that you have no clue what you’re talking about (or you’d be able to actually argue your position or actually refute anything that’s wrong) and even more certainly – no scientific background and no understanding of the scientific process.

  7. Frankly, I could care less what people ate in the past. Does it matter?
    All this Paleo stuff is just plain silly. People ate whatever was available where they lived. They just didn’t want to starve.
    The real issue is what is the healthiest diet for us now that we have choices.

          1. We all put our big fat feet in our mouth at times, Lida. Make that “foot,” although some people’s mouths might be big enuf to hold both feet. :-)

            .

        1. Marilyn, I did get the point as I always do in your posts. You always offer invaluable information and insights. Again, sorry for making such an immaterial observation.

    1. Agree. And the healthiest diet for each changes and constantly needs fine tuning, including when to skip meals entirely.

      The ethical defense of animals who are slaughtered in holocausts must also be included in the discussion.

      1. I agree Laurence. Why don’t you begin with it! I have heard so many horror stories. Can u enlighten me with the facts please.

      1. Marilyn, the English teacher in me requires me to correct you
        It should be that you couldn’t care less

        Marilyn, I apologize for my earlier post…
        —————————————————————–
        Lida, as someone who often makes the same mistake as Marilyn, please do not apologize. Otherwise, how are we ever going to kerrect our mistakes if they aren’t pointed out. ‘-)

        1. Those who use “less” when it should be “fewer” is another no-no that makes me cringe. We see/hear it all the time. :-(

  8. I also think it’s interesting that the title of the blog is “The Diet We Were Designed To Eat”. But, then intelligent design is left out of the “broad” theories under consideration.

    1. LOL ‘intelligent design’ is a very unintelligent hypothesis ….. judging by the arguments put forward in its support. The Law of Parsimony counts for something

      If the creator god doesn’t need a creator god to have created it why would the universe need a creator god to have created it?. Creates a bit of a conundrum doesn’t it?

      Mind you, that 10% titheing thing is a better business model than just thinking about the issue rationally.

      Incidentally has anybody watched Father Ted? That YouTube clip ‘The Bishops and Religion’ is quite amusing, especially that bit that starts about the 1.07 mark.

  9. Selective lying, unbalanced references, unrelated facts, etc. can produce any conclusion you want. That doesn’t make it true.

    To say humans are “meant to” eat a plant based diet is a ridiculous statement. Meant by whom? By God? “The Universe” ? Clearly humans are omnivorous with a digestive system closest to a pig (not the apes), which is clearly an omnivore. Humans can survive eating mostly anything-with some exceptions. We don’t do well eating grass like cows do, e.g. or tree bark. This does NOT mean we SHOULD eat everything.

    If we eliminate ALL processed food, salt, sugar and caffeine, including commercial animal products which are essentially processed food, get adequate sunshine, rest, exercise (walking45 min per day, e.g.) we then can have a baseline to start intelligent discussion.

    I know of many vegans that after years started adding small amounts of meat/fish to their diets and improved health. You can argue with this all you want, but I’ve seen it. I’ve also seen it the other way around. Every body is different with multiple factors influencing. Just because something is working today doesn’t mean it will work tomorrow, or next week. The ability to know FOR YOURSELF-not because Dr. Greger or anyone else says so- is very important.

    BTW I’m 100% vegan at the moment myself.

    1. And do you reserve the right to alter that if find it more suitable to health or circumstances? Just curious if that would be a logical follow-up to your comment.

    2. L. Goldman

      “The ability to know FOR YOURSELF-not because Dr. Greger or anyone else says so- is very important.”

      Here, here…!

    3. “BTW I’m 100% vegan at the moment myself.”
      – – – —

      So am I, “at the moment.” That’s because I am through eating for the day. However, tghere will be moments tomorrow when I will NOT be 100% vegan.

    4. This site and Dr Greger are not promoting ‘vegan’ diets.

      Dr Greger himself has often said that many so-called vegan diets are unhealthy. WFPB diets are what he and every other credible health authority recommend (even if most of them don’t use that term itself). Whether 100% vegetarian WFPB diets are better than WFPB diets that contain small amounts of animal food is unclear ….. but it’s worth noting that Dr Greger and the US NIH and Dietary Guidelines recommend that people eating exclusively plant diets should take supplements or eat fortified foods.

  10. It’s interesting that Dr. Greger titled this “The Diet We Were Designed To Eat”, then goes on to talk about evolution. The word “design” begs the question: who is the designer? With evolution, there is no designer, nor can there be a design without one. Therefore, we can conclude that there IS in fact a designer: The Designer created us with a body that requires certain foods for fuel and for a healthy life. And Dr. Greger is great at teaching us what those foods are!
    No one would ever look at the “design” of a building, a software program, a musical score, a dress, or a painting and think it just came into existence on its own without a designer. C’mon, people who don’t believe in a creator, admit what’s obvious! Our bodies are so intricately woven together, with such a perfect balance of chemicals & hormones & organs that work in harmony…there HAS TO BE a designer!

    1. C’mon, people who don’t believe in a creator, admit what’s obvious! Our bodies are so intricately woven together, with such a perfect balance of chemicals & hormones & organs that work in harmony…there HAS TO BE a designer!
      ——————————————————————————————-
      Nancy Ann, yes there has to be a designer… but why can’t it be found within?

      Our bodies do not operate in a cognitive mode except at times. For the most part, our gut is talking to our heart and our lungs and our kidneys and the enzymes and hormones and molecules in general are all connected. Since the body has very little direct control over what we consume (allergies may be one such control) it has to pretty much design its function around whatever consumables it receives.

      So, it may not be true that we are designed to eat a certain way, it is surely true that we are designed by what we eat.

    2. Nancy Ann, what u are really asking is, “is there God, or no God? If I tell u directly that there is a God, but someone else tells u tomorrow there is no God, either way you are left in the same place you started in!
      Why does it really matter to you? How would that change anything in your life? Would u become a better, loving, kinder person if u knew for sure that there is God? If the answer is yes, then why aren’t u behaving in that manner now? If God came to u face to face and he said to U “I am God” you would probably ask, prove it! God did come to the planet, and what did they do, they killed him. So, what is the purpose of life? It is to live your life to it’s fullest degree and to leave heavenly matters to the prophets! Sorry, I got carried away!

    1. For all doubters who want to see the scientific proof should run to the library and check out “The China Study,” by T. Colin Campbell! 2005.

        1. That’s kind of sad.

          The article is based on a piece by Harriet Hall writing for – ironically – the science based medicine website. I say ‘ironically’ because Hall is clearly confusing her own opinions and prejudices with actual science.

          If she’d bothered researching the issue, she’d have checked out the two premier US sources for assessments of nutritional science. The US dietary guidelines (based on the extensive report and assessment of the evidence by the expert Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee) identify three healthful dietary patterns one of which is the healthy vegetarian pattern. They state that this diet can be completely vegetarian (they use the term ‘vegan’ for some reason) if it meets their standards. The other is the US national Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics which has a position paper on vegetarian diets which states that well-planned vegetarian diets are healthful (including completely vegetarian or so-called vegan diets).

          But hey why bother with scientific assessments when you can scour the internet and find some opinionated know-it-all who shares your beliefs?

          1. And yet again – not a single argument. Just “nope, that’s wrong”. As I said before, you’re pretty laughable. No consistency whatsoever – you keep saying we should follow the science yet you clearly ignore it outright when it says something you don’t like.

            Read this
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

            And also, look up what said “authorities” -actually- say. :D Because you simply keep referring to various “experts” and “authorities” without even looking into (or knowing) what they actually say.

            1. You clearly haven’t figured out that scientific assessments of the evidence, evidence summaries and consensus statements are not merely the opinions of ‘authority figures’.

              it’s a bit rich anyway since your own assertions seem to be based on nothing more than the authority of your own opinions,

              Meeh – cranks, what are you going to do? Up is down, black is white and referring to the US dietary guidelines and WHO expert scientific reports is just an appeal to authority. Yes Mr Delusions, whatever you say sir..

              1. “You clearly haven’t figured out that scientific assessments of the evidence, evidence summaries and consensus statements are not merely the opinions of ‘authority figures’.”

                Just wow.. you have that page right in front of you and still can’t read it or perhaps not comprehend it.

                “Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority[14][15][16] as authority has no place in science [15][17][18] Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority: One of the great commandments of science is, “Mistrust arguments from authority.” … Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.[19]”

                But you seem to believe that such is “quackery”. I know very well they’re not simple opinions, rather you seem to imply they are as you talk about “consensus”.

                And more importantly – you keep referring to these institutions and various (almost constantly unnamed) reports but never actually quote or link, because you’re not actually using any of it to back up your claims – but to cover behind their supposed authority to hide the fact that you know nothing (which is what really makes it a very clear-cut case of “argument of authority”) and simply cannot argue your position. (due to knowing nothing)

                Not to mention what these sources/insts. actually say CONTRADICT your claims, and yet only go on and on. :D Yeah, you did refer to the US dietery guidelines for instance – yet what you said they claimed, was pretty much the opposite of what they actually did.

                I have not linked to any “alternative” or “opinionated” stuff at all either, strict mainstream science, and yet you keep rambling on about it. (Because it’s one of your pre-packaged talking points and you really can’t do anything but endlessly repeat them)

                Again, you’re nothing but a clown. :D Accusations of crankdom from you is much like what the flat-earthers threw at me when telling them the earth is actually round. (well, roundish) Laughable. You know nothing about the scienctific method, you clearly have no degree in any scientific field nor experience of scientific work, you have no knowledge garnered your own, and you literally hide behind the skirt of your betters, desperately trying to hide that you yourself have no clue. :D

  11. Maybe it’s because I’m from Canada where almost nobody (thank goodness!) is religious, so it comes as a shock to see so many people here believing in a god. So for you religious people, science is just made-up? I know it’s impossible to argue logically with religious people but if you believe in evidence-based nutrition, why don’t you believe in other science as well (i.e. evolution perhaps?)

    1. Wow! Laurie… I thinking you may get an idea how Daniel felt in the Lion’s den. ‘-)

      On the other hand, you did identify yourself as vegan. Taking on Veganism AND religion could lead to a fatwah being put out on you.

      May you find peace within… (you know, no stomach growls or anything ‘-)

    2. where almost nobody (thank goodness!) is religious
      ——————————————————————–
      This thought just struck me… isn’t thanking *Goodness* appealing to a higher power?

      My point is we all are at least a little agnostic in our sublime state. Personally I have come up with a movie script idea-solution that I think will be seen as plausible.

      It’s about 4 or 5 in a long list of 10+ script ideas so stay healthy and you may someday see it on the media of your choice someday. ‘-)

      1. someday see it on the media of your choice someday. ‘-)
        ————————————————————————-
        should have read: someday see it on the media of your choice… someday. ‘-)

    3. I think we are all getting off the subject, but open discussion is good FOOD for the soul! My Guru, said this, “what u don’t know, say and admit that you don’t know.” There is nothing wrong with that. Don’t depend on your beliefs with out knowing!! For example, how do we know that GOD is love? Who told u that? Did u have a personal experience and conversation with God? I guess my point is, if you haven’t had the personal experience of knowing, how do u know it’s true! Also, how do u know that your belief is good or bad or right or wrong?
      To the school teacher who is correcting the grammar, please stop! This forum is not grammar class!

      1. what u don’t… told u that… Did u have… how do u know… Also, how do u know
        —————————————————————————-
        This forum is not grammar class!
        _______________________________________________________
        Preemptive comment? ‘-)

          1. Lonie, so what! The point is did it make u start to think a little about your hardcore BELIEFS?
            ————————————————————————————————
            Yes it did, and I will share those with you.

            It is my belief that u is acceptable as a replacement for you… when messaging.

            On the other hand, I think using it in a proper forum populated mostly by grown ups is disrespectful to anyone who grew up being taught to speak (write) properly.

            I make no judgements on non-native speakers and have respect for the fact they are multi-lingual.

            I do admit to judging people I don’t know strictly by the way they write. As for the beliefs they share when they write, whether I agree or disagree I still respect those beliefs, although I may engage in a little light-hearted debate as Angel’s Advocate.

            (Any person who disagrees with me is automatically the Debil’s Advocate. ‘-)

            1. Thank you Lonie for that! When I text in my business posts I try to be brief, it’s a habit that I have developed over the years! If u are looking for an A + paper from me u won’t find it in my posts! Instead, look for the joy of making u see something that will want u to say, I need to dig a little more as to what I’m reading. This is what I would expect from u and all other posts. “Seek and it shall be opened to you”

              1. “Seek and it shall be opened to you”
                —————————————————
                I’m not inclined to be an active seeker of information… I am rather a passive information magnet and this smorgasbord lain out before me allows me to perform a sort of triage in the matter of importance to me.

          1. You’re more to be pitied than censured, is what you’re saying? My hubby was from Brooklyn, too. A breed apart, to be sure.

                1. I’ll leave that up to some of the other posters to decide that question? Mine was maybe a bad joke, but it was meant to be funny, yours was a maybe a joke, but a mean joke! I don’t know you that well for you to attack me in that manner! I did nothing to you that would bring out your anger. We are all trying our best to learn from each other, that should be the goal. I will not comment further on this so that it does not become a distraction to others.

    4. Laurie in Canada,

      Thanks for your comment. I’d no idea that Canadians were so socially evolved. Way to go.

      Dr. Greger uses the word “designed” as in “to eat” to mean we’ve evolved to eat, and thrive on, certain foods. It’s short hand. It’s not religious.

      But it confirms my position that words matter. So I don’t say I “believe” in climate change (implying some sort of faith), but instead I say I “accept the evidence that climate change is occurring, and it’s due to human activity.” Actually, “climate change” is too namby-pamby; I say Climate Chaos or even better Climate Chaos. For us. The good news is that it is caused by human activity: we could reverse it, maybe even in time. The bad news is that we won’t.

      1. I think it’s pretty presumptuous for someone to appoint themselves as speaking for Canadians. It’s just as nervy as posting long off topic parapgraphs in a nutrition forum.

    5. Laurie in Canada, you want science. The earth’s magnetic field is deteriorating at 5% every hundred years and has lessened in strength by 40% in the last 1,000 years. If this has been constant the field would have been strong enough 8,000 years ago to kill everything on the earth. It would have burned up the earth 25,000 years ago.
      Our DNA was perfect according to the human genome project about 6,000 years ago. We have about 150 mutations in our cells every generation. 2,000 years from now we will most likely not be able to reproduce.
      Comets only last 100,000 years. We still have comets. The moon is moving away from us at 1.5 inches per year. 1.5 billion years ago it would have been on the earth which is impossible. Half the distance it would have caused the oceans to wash over the earth twice a day killing everything.
      The sun is getting smaller by 5 feet per day. A billion years ago it would have been much bigger and colder and the earth would have been frozen.
      No tree on the earth is more than 4,000 years old and that’s when Noah’s flood happened. All major rivers in the world only have roughly 4,000 years worth of sediment at their mouths. There are no societies on earth older than 4,000.
      Clams, when they die, open up. There are clams on top of Mt. Everest that died in the closed position because the were covered by Noah’s flood.
      No transitional forms in the fossil record. In fact there are petroglyphs of dinosaurs in Utah. And Marco Polo recorded seeing them on his trip to China and also while he was in China. They were called dragons back then as the word dinosaur was not invented until 1841.
      There are hundreds of scientific reasons why the earth cannot be millions or billions of years old. It is about 6,000 just like the Bible says. Science wants to say that if you get the right chemicals together you will have life. That can never happen. When a person or for that matter an animal dies, it has all the chemicals for life, but there is no life there. God gives life. It doesn’t come from chemicals or evolution.

      1. “The earth’s magnetic field is deteriorating at 5% every hundred years and has lessened in strength by 40% in the last 1,000 years. If this has been constant the field would have been strong enough 8,000 years ago to kill everything on the earth. It would have burned up the earth 25,000 years ago.”

        Rubbish. This, if it was true (which it isn’t), would only mean that it its speed of deterioration (or the opposite) couldn’t have been constant throughout history. That’s all. But magnetic fields killing us all or causing the earth to “burn up”? No, just no.

        “Comets only last 100,000 years. We still have comets.”
        Rubbish. There’s no way to know how long a comet -could- last. The amount of comets isn’t static either, comets can be created, as well as leave and enter the solar system.

        “The moon is moving away from us at 1.5 inches per year. 1.5 billion years ago it would have been on the earth which is impossible. Half the distance it would have caused the oceans to wash over the earth twice a day killing everything.”

        Rubbish. You assume that this must have been constant with no reason to assume such.

        “Our DNA was perfect according to the human genome project about 6,000 years ago. We have about 150 mutations in our cells every generation. 2,000 years from now we will most likely not be able to reproduce.”

        Absolute rubbish. There’s not even such a thing in science as “perfect DNA”. Perfection is a philosophical concept, not a scientific one.

        “No tree on the earth is more than 4,000 years old”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tjikko
        “Old Tjikko is a 9,561-year-old Norway Spruce….”

        And on and on it goes…

          1. Ok…? And? :D You seem to be under some general delusion of grandeur here that your approval is required or even matter? You’re a nobody though: It’s rather clear by now that you know no science and have no background in it (and not to mention, mostly comments with variants of “you’re wrong you low-carb caveman” and thus have nothing to add to rational discussions) so why should your agreement on this matter? Should I send some papers to you for peer-review too? LOL.. Get over yourself. :D

            1. VD

              I was just congratulating you on a brief moment of lucidity. Keep it up. Fat chance of that, though, eh?

              Still, your tantrums are more enjoyable.

              1. Yawn. Again: your agreement is moot.
                You can’t judge what’s lucid or correct – because that would requires scientific understanding, which you do not have. You “agreed” because it lined up with what you believe to be true and you believe it to be true only because you’ve chosen to trust what you’ve been told on the issue. Which on this occasion happens to be correct.

                But you would have trusted anyone if they could present a seemingly strong enough case to you, no matter how fraudulent. (which is why you believe in a bunch of nonsense about diet and food) Because you are a scientific illiterate: So you make judgements based on emotional perceptions of what constitutes authority.

                It’s a bit like having a small child barging into adult discussion to tell you it agrees – even as it doesn’t even understand what’s being discussed – and just as ridiculous.

                1. VD

                  Perhaps but presumably it follows that all those scientists, researchers and physicians who don’t share your crank views on saturated fat and cholesterol are scientifically illiterate too. You however are scientifically literate?

    6. Laurie, there are so many flaws in the theory of evolution. As a person that values evidence I can’t ignore all the “missing links” and the numerous flaws of the theory that get ignored. If you are really interested in why many of us believe in creation as described in the Word of God, check out Creation.com. The scientists in that group put out a film “Evolution’s Achilles Heel” explaining in depth the problems with the theory.

      1. Karee, I hope you understand the healthy skepticism some of us have. Theoretical conversation:

        True Believer (TB):There is a God.

        Agnostic (Ag): How do you know?

        TB: ‘Cause the Bible tells me so.

        Ag: Where did the Bible come from?

        TB: It is God’s Word.

        Ag: Where’s your proof?

        TB: The Bible.

        Ag: So, you are basing the proof of God on the Word of God found in the Bible that is based on stories? Isn’t that like someone saying WFPB diet will save your soul (ass)? How do you know? Well because Dr. Greger is The Word on the subject. How do we know that? Because it says so on NF.org. Who wrote the words on NF.org? Well, duhhh… Dr. Greger.

            1. You hit the nail on the head,
              —————————————–
              There are many here who will disagree with you and think I hit the nail on my thumb with a hammer. ‘-)

              To them I would like to reassure them I am not anti-religion… it’s just that I rely on what to me is acceptable proof rather than faith based proof.

              Also, I would relay that one of my story ideas for a movie, working title Chrysalis, has a scene where (in a world devastated by two Cataclysms) a young pregnant girl is allowed to sift through the ruins of a deceased family.

              She finds a large Bible (I’ll use my family’s Bible as a prop) and is told she can’t keep it because the transportation is overloaded as is.

              The Trail Boss intervenes and tells the older girl in charge to find a way to let her keep it.

              1. Oh, and if there is a sequel, the girl becomes a fire breathing preacher of the Word of God… and the mother of about a dozen world re-populaters. ‘-)

                  1. Oh, “god” forbid! :-(
                    —————————–
                    Heh, assuming you are referring to me as “writer-god” I cannot forbid this turn of events as it is important that I try to incorporate as many of the threads that make the human fabric into my stories.

                    Besides, religion is not a bad thing when passive and not taken over by activists.

                    As I think can be ascertained by reading many of the posts on this comments section, it is the rock that many here anchor their lives to.

        1. Yes, Greger just gives his opinions – no science, no evidence,nothing. So it’s all a matter of Greger’s say-so. Right.

          1. Mr. Middlefinger, yes he does give evidence but it is one-sided. There is no balance between the studies he uses. We must have faith that he is the light. ‘-)

              1. Trust but verify?
                ———————————–

                OCMD, yes, for those who have the time and/or capacity for search… otherwise, your approach toward any studies not posted by Dr Greger of skepticism first.

                Our treating Dr. Greger’s evidence with a healthy skepticism may get us to our individual “best place” nutrition.

                1. Lonie

                  Yes scepticism is good but why not actually check the claims out instead of just saying they’re all probably biased?

                  Especially since every credible health body on the planet seems to say largely the same thing as Greger ie eat more fruits, vegetables and wholegrains (a WFPB diet by any other name), eg
                  https://www.who.int/topics/diet/en/
                  https://www.choosemyplate.gov/dietary-guidelines
                  https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/recommendations/wholegrains-veg-fruit-beans

                  1. Yes scepticism is good but why not actually check the claims out instead of just saying they’re all probably biased?

                    Especially since every credible health body on the planet seems to say largely the same thing as Greger ie eat more fruits, vegetables and wholegrains (a WFPB diet by any other name)
                    ————————————————————————-
                    I think I am being mis-identified as someone who is against WFPB eating. I’m not.

                    I do believe that strictly adhering to that diet is not the best way of eating. While it does seem to work for some there are other health leaders who advocate for that AND other types of food. With Dr. Greger the data he chooses is more or less supporting WFPB exclusivity.

                    I won’t take the time to look it up but if you go to Pub Med I’m sure you can find many recommendations for a more varied diet that just WFPB.

                    For me personally, I’ve benefited from some of the videos here like the blueberry ones for instance. I probably don’t do the perfect diet for my arteries (although my oxygen finger test shows high 90s for oxygen, which indicates perfusion IMO) but I now eat the blueberries daily with the expectation of keeping my arteries clean.

                    But Dr. Greger has posted videos or blogs that suggest fish (in my case, herring fillets) are harmful while many others suggest an important adjunct to good health (Longo, for example, claiming fish is necessary in anyone over 65 especially, to protect against brain disease.)

                    Sure, taken out of context and with certain cohorts you can maybe make a case for excluding fish because of the DANGER to pregnant women for instance of mercury poisoning from eating larger fish two or three times a day. I don’t think Longo et al are lesser scientists who aren’t aware of the makeup of oily fish. And I do not think they would recommend the health benefits of eating such a food if they didn’t think it was beneficial.

                    I’m talking about fish here but I’m sure others can think of other nutritional foods that are verböten in a WFPB diet.

                    1. Yes, OK but I don’t personally think that a WFPB diet necessarily does exclude fish.

                      A whole food plant (WFP) diet does but plant-based covers a multitude of sins, so to speak.

                    2. Yes, OK but I don’t personally think that a WFPB diet necessarily does exclude fish.

                      A whole food plant (WFP) diet does but plant-based covers a multitude of sins, so to speak.
                      ————————————————-
                      Then rendering it all down to our particular takes on the subject, it appears we are in (a fragile ‘-) agreement.

    7. Laurie in Canada

      “Maybe it’s because I’m from Canada where almost nobody (thank goodness!) is religious, so it comes as a shock to see so many people here believing in a god. So for you religious people, science is just made-up? I know it’s impossible to argue logically with religious people but if you believe in evidence-based nutrition, why don’t you believe in other science as well (i.e. evolution perhaps?)”

      Thank God for Canadians…(pun intended).

    8. Laurie, it’s all about your belief! If you believe in a God and I don’t, I will fight u to the death to prove my belief! Isn’t that what most wars and disobedience today are being fought over? Muslim vs Christian, Jew vs Arab, conservatives vs liberals, rich vs poor, can u see the irony’s here?

    9. Science has found evidence of God in the DNA. I believe in God and science, but science is fallible. That’s why they say, science is never settled. And that’s also why it’s crazy when people try to say that “vaccines are safe and effective” and “the science is settled.” That’s where fallibility comes in.

      1. I have never understood how people can get from ‘the science is never settled’ to ‘therefore all sorts of wild ideas which are refuted by the actual evidence must be true’.

  12. Lonie,

    I don’t agree that the phrase “thank goodness” refers to a higher power. We all have goodness within us; I like the Humanist approach of “Good Without God.” We can acknowledge and thank that goodness for the good that propels and flows from our actions.

    Just as I prefer the German phrase “Gesund heit!” After a sneeze. It means a wish for good health. As opposed to “God bless you.” Since I don’t think that a god has anything to do with health, good or otherwise. Though I most prefer the phrase: “Oh please, If you cough or sneeze, Do it in your sleeve.”

  13. I think that capitalism has commodified food items. The stuff sold as human food are products of the evolution of food commodities that maximize profit margins. There are powerful forces that benefit from making people sick! This is not a conspiracy theory, but a fact about the way food items are produced.
    “Health” industries have benefited from “sick” people; and their profit margins are directly dependent on the consumption of stuff sold as human food. They have influenced the very institutions that are supposed to help people see the truth, to the point that a good number of these institutions have become complicit in profiting from people’s suffering.
    People are addicted to the stuff they are fed by the food industries! Food addiction is much harder to grapple with than any other chemical addiction! I like the comparison Dr. Greger makes with the cigarette addiction; he notes that what we are dealing with today, with food addiction, is similar to the time when many, including the majority of doctors and scientists, were addicted to cigarettes. People need to first face the fact that they are addicted to the “food” that is making them sick, and then try to deal with it. But it is hard for people to break their denial of their own food addiction.

    1. So you seriously believe then that veganism, “eat more grains and carbs” etc is some kind of anti-establishment thing? A revolt against the evil corpos trying to keep us down? Well, the largest food industry is the agricultural one: The one based on grains and cereals. (Infact, it’s one of the largest industries in the world – and yeah, I bet they would HATE it if people ate more of their “healthy” products – you’d sure “stick it to the man” that way) The staple of the diet that dr. Greger promotes, and infact the staple of most eating habits today.

      1. This is another low carb delusion.

        Yes, grains and legumes are big business. However, most of the US corn and soybean for example crops are used for livestock feed. So, yes, the grain and cereal industries would hate it if more people started eating their products since total sales would plummet.

        Why don’t you guys ever bother looking at the facts before posting delusional comments like these? Oh, sorry – you are a low carber of course. Enough said.

        1. What you’re saying here isn’t contradicting my point in the slighest. The fact that the agricultural sector feed both livestock and humans only further demonstrates how much larger the agricultural sector is, which was the whole point. I don’t put much stock in “the man keeps us down” – I’m just pointing out how ridiculous a notion it is to think that “big meat” somehow controls the food industry when it’s actually “big grains”.

          You also seem to be under the delusion that animal feed is the exact same thing you eat? This is not the case, especially with soybeans. You only eat a small part of the plant – the beans. Livestock eat most of the rest and it is similar with grains. The feed is mostly the parts that humans can’t eat (but ruminants can). But people like dr. Greger will not tell you this, they will simply say that “oh most of the agricultural produce is actually used to feed livestock” which is only true as in a larger amount of the total mass, not a larger part of what you can eat.

          Sorry, you don’t even know what the facts are and is easily bedazzled.. that’s the issue here.

              1. LOL. If you are so delusional that you can’t see the problems with the arguments in that particular post then your thought processes are well down the crank rabbit hole.

                1. Then it should be easy for you to respond… Keep making these kindergarten “no you” excuses though. It’s quite hilarious, and very telling.

          1. VD

            ‘You only eat a small part of the plant – the beans. Livestock eat most of the rest and it is similar with grains. The feed is mostly the parts that humans can’t eat (but ruminants can)’

            Your evidence for this startling claim that humans eat the beans/grains and livestock only eat the rest of the plant is what precisely? Perhaps all those grain-fed cattle etc we hear about are just figments of our imagination?. Also, you’d better inform all those deluded sobean producers that their beans aren’t used for livestock feed.
            https://ncsoy.org/media-resources/uses-of-soybeans/

            Are you sure that all your assertions aren’t just the inventions of the paleo diet crew ……. because that is exactly what they look like.

            1. Good – you’re (slowly) learning to use links, some progress! The link only deals exclusively with the beans, but that’s still fine. You’re trying your best I suppose. So let’s get into then.

              https://ncsoy.org/media-resources/uses-of-soybeans/
              “The high-protein fiber (that which remains after processing has removed the oil) is toasted and prepared into animal feed for poultry, pork, cattle, other farm animals and pets. The poultry and
              swine industries are major consumers of soybean meal. Over half of the soybeans processed for livestock feed are fed to poultry, about one-quarter is fed to swine, and the rest is used for beef cattle, dairy cattle and pet food.”

              Right, no surprises here. So is that a part that humans eat you think? :D ie “deoiled soy fibers”? (yum!) It’s “agricultural waste product”, much like I said. Let me quote myself:

              “(they mostly eat the parts we do not eat, ie NOT our food but rather what could be called “agricultural waste”)”

              So to summarize:
              Simple soybeans as they are – A part you can eat. Goes to humans.

              Soybean oil – A part you can eat. Goes to humans.

              What remains of soybeans after they’ve been crushed, otherwise processed and deoiled to make that soybean oil (including oils for technical use, some of which is mentioned in the link, a part which is usually chemically extracted – meaning you do not really want to eat this): A part you can’t eat – Goes to animals. Agricultural (hell, borderline industrial) waste.

              As for the other parts of the plant (which you can’t eat) – Goes to animals. It’s “called soybean hay” or “soybean forage”, here’s a link with some general stuff about it: https://www.feedipedia.org/node/294

              So yeah – no problems backing up my claims while you simply end up looking like a general ignorant clown who know nothing and makes constant assumptions. (Which is what you are) Over and over again. :D

  14. For the creationist OR the evolutionist, look at our teeth: 20/32 molars for grinding plants, only 4 canines for flesh. (Additionally, stomachs are different sizes and acids are unlike carnivores, etc.).

    Besides, less FLC (Feel Like Crap) syndrome when eating healthy grains, produce, etc. as compared to SAD processed foods.

    1. Well sure, lets. Do compare our digestive systems to that of true herbivores (which is what vegans must claim we are if veganism is our natural diet) Quite different. We are most similar to (other) omnivores. Which makes sense of course – seeing as we are omnivores ourselves.

      “Besides, less FLC (Feel Like Crap) syndrome when eating healthy grains, produce, etc. as compared to SAD processed foods.”

      So the choice is either veganism or processed-to-shit foods? That’s it? I get why you would claim thus, because vegans tend to be dishonest in their arguments (how else could you “win”?), but that’s a classic case of a false dilemma. (Good reading for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)

      The choice here is between eating like an omnivore (ie things that vegans eat PLUS animal products) versus eating like a vegan – cutting out all animal products. (and suffering the nutritional deficiences that will lead to)

      1. Aren’t you forgetting all the studies that show that low carb high animal protein diets deliver higher mortality? And that eating meat delivers higher mortality?

        Or do we have to ignore all evidence that conflictts with low carb holy writ?

        1. Are you having a hard time sticking to the subject at hand? Try addressing the actual point being discussed in the comments you reply to first. (But I take it you can’t?)

          And no, I’m not. Are you forgetting all the studies that show the deterimental effects of a high carb intake? (Yes, obviously) Taken as a whole, results are somewhat mixed.. but I’d say there are many more studies demonstrating the negative effects of a too high carb intake.

          But I suppose that is to be – as you say – ignored. And I’m not so much promoting a certain diet as arguing against the one being promoted here.

          1. Straw man srgument yet again – everybody accepts that a high intake of undifferentiated carbs is unhealthy. That’s because most carbs eaten in Western countries are refined foods like eg white bread and refined foods are unhealthy. Once again you ignore the fact that Greger and this site recommend whole food plant based (WFPB) not vegan diets or high carb diets as such. Of course you absolutely have to ignore tghis fact – if you don’t your arguments collapse.

            However, every credible health authority.around the globe recommends that people eat more fruit, vegetables and whole grains ie healthy (unrefined) carbs. Which just so happens to be what Greger redommends. No credible dietary guidelines recommend low carb diets.

            1. Oh I use straw man arguments? Not you who literally claims that it’s either dr. Gregers recommendations or what you call “SAD” foods? :D In either case, no. See below.

              “everybody accepts that a high intake of undifferentiated carbs is unhealthy. That’s because most carbs eaten in Western countries are refined foods like eg white bread and refined foods are unhealthy.”

              High scientific literacy on display here as per usual. :D Instead of just repeating talking points from other people who’m you yourself don’t really seem to understand: Why are they unhealthy? What is this differentiation? The only actual differentiation of carbs (ie saccharides) there is to talk about is if they are complex (“slow carbs”) or simple (“fast carbs”) and if they’re indigestible (fiber) or not.

              Fast carbs are worse because they are broken down into monosaccharides faster (or because some are monosaccharides to begin with) and thus tend to raise the blood sugar faster (causing blood sugar spikes) but all carbs (except fibers which your body cannot break down / digest) are eventually broken down into monosaccharides! If you eat more carbs then you need for energy, the excess will mainly be processed into fat and stored throughout the body. When it comes to this – slow or fast carb doesn’t matter.

              Whole grains have pretty much NOTHING to do with the carb content, it has to do with mineral and phytochemical content. But apparently, you don’t even know this – you instead think it somehow makes the carbs “better”. Really, all you do here is repeat what others have told you and you don’t even understand WHAT they seem to be telling you.

              Because I very much doubt that dr. Greger is claiming that the carbs somehow become magically different if you’re getting them from whole grains instead of “ordinary”.

              1. I never even mentioned SAD foods let alone pose a dichotomy between Greger’s advocacy of a WFPB diet and the SAD diet.

                Try reading scientific reports on nutrition and health instead of just believing stories you find on the internet and making stuff up.

                1. “I never even mentioned SAD foods let alone pose a dichotomy between Greger’s advocacy of a WFPB diet and the SAD diet.”

                  That one’s actually right – that was “Ry Bru” it seems and you jumped in afterwards. My mistake.

                  “Try reading scientific reports on nutrition and health instead of just believing stories you find on the internet and making stuff up.”

                  And here we go again.. :D Not a single attempt at refuting anything, just “look at the science, it surely agrees with ME” Well, I do: I’ve even linked to some reports here, more than you have in fact who simply refer to “the scienceTM” without ever quoting anything nor linking to it, or seemingly – actually reading even the things you think support you.

                  Unlike you – I simply don’t pick one side of them either, oh and of course – I can make some judgment on if the methodology is crap or not. (For instance: generally using statistics to try and prove causation in an actual population when there is a myriad of potential factors = usually a crap methodology. Or trying to prove a negative, which is well known BS) Which you do not seem able to, probably due to lacking scientific background and never even bothering to learn any basics about scientific process on your own either, and naturally – judging methodology is kind of hard when you don’t even read the reports.. Hint: the summary of a paper is not the paper itself. :D

                    1. We kindly ask that if you guys disagree with each other, you do so respectfully on this website. Please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules. We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

                      See our full Community Guidelines for more details: https://nutritionfacts.org/community-guidelines.

                    2. Getting hard to find posts here.. (a well-meaning tip would be a function to collapse/expand comments, but maybe this much “traffic” is a bit unusual) but okay, Steven. I do not need to point out his personal issues to show him how he’s factually wrong.. so I can stop doing that from this point onwards.

  15. For the past aeons man has lived near the sea, and no doubt many islanders, Vikings etc lived on shell fish and fish, as well as whatever edible berries and leaves and roots they found available. In your article today, I notice no mention of fish as part of the earliest diets. Any comment ??

    1. I’m not sure who your comment is directed to, but I would jump in and state that the main reason is the Mercury levels found in large fish, such as tuna, albacore, swordfish, marlin. Very toxic for many humans. It is said that small fish have lower levels of toxins.

  16. The assumptions made here are misguided. When we ate mostly berries, etc., we were still mostly UPRIGHT APES. It wasn’t until we began to eat meat that our brains grew EXPONENTIALLY bigger, we grew taller, and lived long lives, if we outlived the dangers of the day. Ancient man wasnt riddled with disease. Then with agriculture we grew shorter, weaker bones and teeth and diseases killed us more readily than danger or scarcity. During the TRULY formative years we ate mostly meat, marrow, and fat with seasonal berries, nuts, seeds, fruits and a small amount of plants. Plants were mostly MEDICINAL, as they should be today.

    1. Assumption, downright misinformation and half-truths is all you’re likely to find here. The site only has one purpose: to convice people to become vegan by any and all means. Everything is aimed at this – the conclusion to everything is always “become vegan”.

      The purpose is not to ascertain scientific truths or spread actual information (unless that actual information would benefit turning people vegan) etc. Always keep that in mind whenever reading – that it’s propaganda.

      1. Rina and ‘VeganDelusions, Where is there evidence for your beliefs?
        I’m a biochemist who has looked at the science. And I’ve seen people with chronic diseases heal with a Whole Food Plant Based diet.

        Have you not seen the Blue Zones studies? Do you not know about the 7th Day Adventist studies? How about Dr. Valter Longo’s 30 years of research on longevity? True, he isn’t vegan, but advises eating a fairly low protein diet with the only animal food being a small amount of fish.
        The Blue Zones residents eat a very low percent of animal food. And the healthiest men in the Adventist studies were vegan. For women it was vegan with a bit of fish.
        Have you heard of mTor, IGF-1?
        How do you explain the healing power of the Ornish or Esselstyne diets?
        If you are going to make such claims, then be prepared to defend them with real science!

        1. I suggest you take a look at that “evidence” again then my dear biochemist. You should know that there are lots of studies, and that taken together, results are contradictionary. (As is so often the case, which you should also know) As for the claims about the blue zone diet etc, several of those claims are simply downright false.

          Here’s for example what the Sardinians themselves (claimed to not eat much animal products) had to say about it: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/8262788/Sardinians-call-for-formal-recognition-of-diet.html
          “Sardinians insist the secret to a long life can be found in their traditional diet of lamb, roast piglet, milk and cheese, including the notoriously pungent “casu marzu” sheep’s milk cheese, which is eaten when it is crawling with maggots.”

          I hope you’re more thorough in your actual work than this..

          As for this: “And I’ve seen people with chronic diseases heal with a Whole Food Plant Based diet.”

          So anecdotal evidence then, but I thought you wanted to engage in real science here? Since you’re so quick to mention your occupation/education (which I’m sure isn’t some sad attempt at argumentum ab auctoritate, oh no) should I assume you also use anecdotal evidence in your work? But okay, to address this – and? What chronic diseases are we talking about or do you usually blanket them all like this, one is as good as then next? Again – a very professional approach to disease, I must say.

          How about gastrointestinal diseases? Why is a low-fibre (which would often infer a diet based around animal products as plant based foods are naturally fiber rich unless processed to all hell) demonstrably better for several of these, when it’s such a “healing food” for the gastrointestinal system? It is quite interesting how this wonderful healing food only seems to “heal” the already healthy – while mostly making the sick even sicker. One might even start to think that it’s about as effective at healing gastrointestinal issues as a magical charm is effective at warding off tiger attacks, it only “works” when you’re already healthy, much like the charm only “works” if there’s no tigers around. :D

        2. Perhaps I should also explicitly point out another very important issue as you’d otherwise seem bound to overlook it and probably go on with “what about the rest of the blue studies though, that part which you did not directly show to be a lie?” (as if just one example of downright lying shouldn’t be enough to throw a study out)

          Then it’s the fact that the “blue zone studies” (which by I assume you actually mean Dan Buettners claims) are absolute pseudoscience in regards to the methodology. He nitpicked some places where people live longer (leaving out places where people also live longer but do not seem to eat a mainly plant-based diet, such as say mormons: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17920112 probably as that would mess with the conclusion he was looking to “prove”) then simply ignored every other possible factor (lifestyle, genetics, pollution, you name it) and went “it must be the diet!”

          Correlation is not causation in general, and it gets even worse when you simply ignore other possible factors.

          I don’t expect Buettner or the like (who afaik has no scientific education whatsoever and is an author, journalist and “explorer”) to know how to conduct a proper study, but I would expect a biochemist to do so – and to recognize what is proper studies and what is not, ie what is “real science”. (your own words) But maybe I’m hoping for too much here..

          Here’s an actual study into “blue zones”, please note how it does not ignore every other factor nor jump to a certain conclusion as to what “must” be the cause.
          https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255508953_The_Blue_Zones_areas_of_exceptional_longevity_around_the_world

  17. “but why stop there? The third theory is that the last 200,000 years “is a minute of the evolutionary year” when we were mostly Stone Age humans and represents just the last 1 percent of the roughly 20 million years we’ve been evolving since our common great ape ancestor.”

    Because that’s the time range within which we’re actually human. If using your logic – why stop at great apes – why not go back to even earlier ancestors on the evolutionary tree? Or why not all the way back to unicellular organisms?

    Because all those stops would be arbitrary and make little sense: Staying within the time range our species actually has been our species is what makes sense.

    And no, we haven’t “adapted to grains” (or most agricultural plant based foods) and therein lies a large part of the issue. To claim that things that we’ve only had for between 5000-10000 years (and which have changed considerably during that time as well) should be the basis of our diet, or worse that it’s “our natural diet”, is a literally insane claim to make.

    It gets even more insane when one consider that eating a more “balanced” vegan diet (none of them are nutritionally complete but some are much worse than others) have only been possible for a VERY short period of time, as foodstuffs need to be sourced globally. Ie only possible in the technologically modern society of today. We’re talking less than a hundred years.

    1. Vegandelusions

      LOL. You appear to be well-named.

      First, this site promotes whole food plant based diets that may or may not contain small amounts of animal foods. The ‘vegan’ argument is a straw-man ….. but useful if you have no intelligent arguments to support your opinions I suppose.

      As for grains, well they have been part of the human diet for well over 100,000 years. Google ‘Mozambican grass seed consumption during the middle stone age’. They were also consuming tubers – another no-no according to paleo diet holy writ I understand. Of course that was wild grains – people have only been actively cultivating grains for 23,000 years or so. Google the origion of cultivation and proto-weeds long before neolithic farming.

      This of course is exactly what we would expect since unlike all other great apes humans have multiple copies of genes that produce the amylase that allows digestion of starch suggesting that dietary reliance on starch (eg grains and tubers) is of considerable antiquity and may be a defining feature of homo sapiens.

      As for so-called ‘vegan’ diets only being possible in the last ‘less than a hundred years’, this is another paleo delusion. The El Sidron Neanderthals were apparently eating a completely vegetarian diet some 40,000 to 50,000 years ago.

      However, all this ancestral diet stuff is irrelevant. The biggest problem our ancestors had was getting enough calories to stay alive, neither they nor evolution would select for a healthy longevity diet if that diet was going to increase the risk of death through starvation in the short term.

      What does the science show? Every credible health authority around the globe advocates whole grain consumption because the scientific evidence shows health and mortality benefits from whole grain consumption. Paleo diet beliefs about grains and tubers are pseudoscience at best and require true believers to ignore all the inconvenient scientific evidence.

      1. Ah yes, some old seeds found on stone tools in Mozambique = Proof that humans have always eaten grains as a staple of diet, universally. So yes, I obviously did name myself aptly – because jumping to conclusions like that is obviously absolutely deluded. It is a religious leap of belief, not science.

        “As for so-called ‘vegan’ diets only being possible in the last ‘less than a hundred years’, this is another paleo delusion. The El Sidron Neanderthals were apparently eating a completely vegetarian diet some 40,000 to 50,000 years ago.”

        1) Neanderthals are actually a different species.
        2) Vegetarianism is obviously not veganism.
        3) So you claim – but how would such a claim be corroborated? “Oh they were vegetarians, did eat animal products just not meat. We know this because..” how? It is one thing to corroborate that someone DID something, to prove they did NOT, well no. Again – it’s jumping to conclusions. (Reading that’s relevant for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence)

        And of course, you keep ignoring the actual point. Nobody is arguing that plant foods haven’t been a part of human diet – what I said was that, and I quote “a more “balanced” vegan diet (none of them are nutritionally complete but some are much worse than others) have only been possible for a VERY short period of time, as foodstuffs need to be sourced globally.”

        So the argument is rather that animal based food has always been a part of our diet. (ruling out veganism) And if you think that veganism would have been feasible in the slightest, with the very meager selection of plant foods that would have been available locally in ancient times, or any point in time before we were able to source globally – then yes, you are deluded.

        “However, all this ancestral diet stuff is irrelevant. The biggest problem our ancestors had was getting enough calories to stay alive, neither they nor evolution would select for a healthy longevity diet if that diet was going to increase the risk of death through starvation in the short term.”

        No, it’s obviously relevant when the whole article is about what we “were designed to eat”. :-D And yes, they were mostly concerned with staying alive – which is yet another reason that no ancient people were vegans and only a few vegetarian, overall they did not have the “luxury” to be so – they would have starved.

        Veganism isn’t based on any health considerations, it’s based on an idea of what’s ethical and not.

        “What does the science show? Every credible health authority around the globe advocates whole grain consumption because the scientific evidence shows health and mortality benefits from whole grain consumption. Paleo diet beliefs about grains and tubers are pseudoscience at best and require true believers to ignore all the inconvenient scientific evidence.”

        Yeah.. no. :D I suppose you might get that impression if you only, as here, present the one side and ignore the other though.

        1. VeganDelusions, You say that a whole food plant based diet is only possible now. So what? What this website is about is giving people information to help them be healthy now!
          It doesn’t really matter what people ate in the past! (And all these experts disagree about it anyway.)
          As for gut diseases, I work with a board-certified Gastroenterologist who advises patients to eat a high soluble fiber diet. His patients do much better than those advised to eat low fiber. They actually heal. Heather’s Acacia Fiber is good.

          Btw, if you personally have gut problems, try drinking Pu-Ehr tea, (fermented about 10 years.) It raises a gut bacteria called Akkermansia Muciniphilia. It protects the lining of the gut.

          You sound angry, quick to put others down who disagree with you. That’s sad. One of the things I admire about Dr. Gregor is he never does that.

          1. Of course it matters – the entire article is about “what we were designed to eat” so it’s obviously relevant – and are you seriously suggesting that what we should eat is somehow separate from what we evolved to eat? Because obviously – they’re one and the same. Much like the diet of say a cow is determined by evolution having determined its current biological nature, so was ours determined the same way. You can’t separate “supposed to eat to stay healthy” from our evolution and thus one must look at the past.

            “As for gut diseases, I work with a board-certified Gastroenterologist who advises patients to eat a high soluble fiber diet. His patients do much better than those advised to eat low fiber. They actually heal. Heather’s Acacia Fiber is good.”

            Yet more anecdotal evidence. Any (objective, logical) reason I should consider your anecdotes more than I should consider that of say ex-vegans (..who do not seem popular here..) or those of any snake-oil merchant quack (who always has plenty of anecdotal “evidence” to “support” their claims).

            You should be familiar with what the established general practice is for several gastrointestinal disease: And that is a low fiber or as it sometimes called a “low residue” diet.

            “Btw, if you personally have gut problems, try drinking Pu-Ehr tea, (fermented about 10 years.) It raises a gut bacteria called Akkermansia Muciniphilia. It protects the lining of the gut. ”

            LOL. No, I don’t have any problems myself. Thanks for the concern though.

            “You sound angry, quick to put others down who disagree with you. That’s sad. One of the things I admire about Dr. Gregor is he never does that.” Okay….?

        2. VD

          “1) Neanderthals are actually a different species”
          That may be your opinion but there is still disagreement among experts on this matter. Some researchers argue that they are a sub-species of homo sapiens. At least according to Encyclopaedia Britannica which, no offence, is probably a more credible source of information than you.
          https://www.britannica.com/topic/Neanderthal

          “2) Vegetarianism is obviously not veganism.’
          IIR we were talking about the so-called “vegan” diet. In fact, vegans eat a (completely) vegetarian diet There is no diet unique to vegans. Hence I used the term vegetarian.

          “3) So you claim – but how would such a claim be corroborated? ‘
          You could have just Googled it.
          https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21674

          ‘Yeah.. no. :D I suppose you might get that impression if you only, as here, present the one side and ignore the other though.”
          Well, in that case it should be easy enough for you to come up with international or national dietary guidlines, or scientific reports by professional medical etc associations, World Cancer Research Fund etc, that do not recommend whole grain consumption as part of a healthy diet or which recomend that people adopt paleo diets

          1. 1) That it is being contended doesn’t change that currently they are classified as a species. But sure – you want to refer to them as a subspecies, I’m fine with it. That doesn’t biologically make them modern humans nor does it change the actual differences between us and them. It’s terminology.

            2) Vegans do not eat any animal products at all – whereas “vegetarian diet” can include dairy and eggs (some even include fish), thus a distinction should clearly be made.

            3) It’s good that you’re actually linking to something, you should try to do that more often. But you should also try reading it because this (atleast the conclusion, whole study is pay walled per usual) simply confirms what I said before: “In contrast, no meat was detected in the diet of Neanderthals from El Sidrón cave, Spain, and dietary components of mushrooms, pine nuts, and moss reflected forest gathering”

            Ie not detecting any meat doesn’t prove they never ate meat. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

            LOL. I have already linked several reports against various claims made here as well as to back up my own. Most reports do not deal with a whole diet though (whether for or against), only parts of it. The more potential factors involved, the less reliable the results. Reports that try to do things like this as a rule look for statistical correlations, which isn’t causation. Thus it may be helpful in determining risk factors for certain things like say CVD (smoking, excercise, saturated fats or whatever) but it can never show causation and tend to have a problem with cherrypicking. (such as when Dan Buettner did with the whole blue zones thing, where he, whether on purpose or not, ignored certain populations that showed similar longevity but could not be said to have anything close to a plant-based diet)

            As for “paleo” and “low carb” and what not.. you keep rambling about this and making assumptions about it (again, because it’s a pre-packaged talking point which you simply keep repeating, no matter if applicable or not) not me. I have not even once recommended a certain diet to you. :D (And the closest I’ve even come to arguing for a diet was telling someone a bit about what I myself ate – when inquired) I have simply argued against a bunch of (insane and deluded) claims made here.

            So instead, if you have some near magical reports that “prove” how great this diet here is, especially “lock stock and barrel” (ie the whole diet, not a small part – the whole diet as such – as you requested of me.. though for diets I’ve never promoted LOL) you really should present them instead of simply referring to “all the studies!!1” that are then conveniently never presented.

            1. VD

              I really haven’t got time but a couple of points:

              1. ‘Ie not detecting any meat doesn’t prove they never ate meat. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

              Nice one – how then do you justify your claim that no humans ever ate a ‘vegan’ diet intil the lasy hundred years or so? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence after all.
              Not detecting evidence of humans eating so-called vegan diets doesn’t prove humans never ate such diets.

              2. ‘ I have already linked several reports against various claims made here as well as to back up my own’
              The two GV Mann Masai studies which I first referred to.

      1. Religious ‘nuts’?
        ————————-
        Which ones are those? Almonds or Walnuts? ‘-)

        Dr. Greger gives his blessing to both. ‘-)

      2. Marilyn, I can’t speak for Fumbles here but, as far as “nuts” go, I consider those who say one must believe that Jesus H. Christ is the “only Son of God, who died on the cross for our sins, and only those who believe he is our savior will go to “heaven.” Yup, to me they’re certified nut jobs. They too will find out one day.

        The rest of humanity….even those who live on some remote island and never even heard of JC…..will either end up as a crispy critter in Everlasting Hellfire or else spend a “shorter” period of time in a similarly torturous place called “purgatory.” I, as a former RC, could tell you about incidents in my own family as I was growing up. Really made an impression on me. :-(

        1. YR, it is hard to deal with negative family history. Something I do get as mine was not good. But, I’m concerned that disrespect turns away people seeking help.
          And, btw, I really appreciate your sense of humor. It’s made me smile on many a tough day!

            1. Nah. Five or six years ago I sort of corresponded with a gal I knew from an online writers group. She had a few articles published in various NY periodicals, so you’d think she’d know better. When she said “I could care less,” I was shocked but tried not to show it. I merely said, “Oh, you mean you could NOT care less.” She did seem a bit grateful, and said she always got that mixed up.

              But she really shocked me when we arranged to meet for lunch one day. She used to say that she considered meat her “medicine,” and that she needed it to stay grounded. A few years before that she’d had a very startling kundalini awakening, and apparently it scared her. Anyway, she ordered nothing but a platter of beef. (Well, at least it was cooked.)

              No salad, no side dish, no nothing! That was the first time I learned that, wow, there really are people out there who tear into nothing but meat!

              (We lost touch over the years.)

      3. Any body who actually reads the bible will find it full of contradictions. So how on Earth can anybody say they believe in it?

        There are so may religions out there, and have been many many more over the aeons. I am sure that true believers of each and every religion believe that every other religion is wrong. I suspect that they are all right in that respect.

        Religion is belief based on faith not scientific evidence. People in the ancient world had divine revelations too. So do modern day Hindus. Why are your beliefs correct and their’s wrong? How about cultural conditioning and the forced indoctrination of people as young children.

        As for what types of nut, I tend to think old chestnuts although filberts might do at a pinch.

      4. We will all find out the truth of the matter someday.
        ———————————————————————-
        Or not.

        An actual small turning point in my life was hearing the Peggy Lee song “Is that all there is?” for the first time.

        If there is no way to have consciousness after death then we will not know the truth of the matter. If somehow consciousness survives the death of the brain and body, then those who have faith will know TRUTH.

    1. Thanks Lonie. Interesting.

      On the other hand, Sinclair does have a history of finding ‘cures’ for aging, developing pills based on his reserach and making big money from companies he sets up to promote them. He previously co-founded Sirtris for example which was another fountain of youth company. GlaxoSmithKline paid $720M to acquire the company I believe but had to shut it down after about 5 years.

      1. Sinclair does have a history of finding ‘cures’ for aging, developing pills based on his reserach and making big money from companies he sets up to promote them.
        ————————————————————————————
        An important consideration.

        But unless there is some unknown patent or process I am unaware of, there really is no way to exclusively profit from this research. That is, NMN is a natural part of our bodies. It only becomes important as an intervention as we age and no longer produce it. And while they are currently doing human studies, we can purchase NMN on Amazon right now, from many different suppliers.

        And as a Sirt1 activator, NMN actually seems to take the place of a more expensive Sirt1 activator… Nictotinamide Riboside. I’ve had a long-running experience with NR and quite frankly welcome the less expensive solution to NAD production.

        (Although NR may be effective as a NAD booster, I’ve seen comparisons where NMN outperforms NR due to NR losing some of its potency when passing through the stomach. NMN that is delivered sublingualy gets quickly into the bloodstream. NMN is also sold in pill form but personally I am staying away from that method of delivery.)

  18. Michael Gregor and Mr. Fumblefingers are committed evolutionists who prefer to ignore that evolution is a theory, and currently being debunked by creationists such as Mark Armitage who was fired from his job at Cal State Northridge for finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones. How dare creationists find hard evidence against the theory of evolution. I say that Gregor and Fumblefingers are selective scientists who squint their eyes and brains to study what proves their theories while blocking anything that does not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=We_XIq-k66c&t=946s

    1. The US National Academies of Sciences has a page discussing the question ‘is evolution a theory or a fact?’

      It’s worth Googling I suggest.

    2. Fumblefingers is clearly not a scientist in any way, shape or form.
      But that does not mean that evolution is wrong nor does it mean anything at all in regards to said theory. The theory of evolution (or any theory) obviously doesn’t hinge on whether people you dislike agree with it or not.

      As for the video, seems like a long ramble, but gave it a few minutes: So in essence he worked with an advanced microscope, and using it looked at a supposed dinosaur bone, then concluded (correctly or otherwise) that the bone was actually quite young. Would you say that’s a correct (albeit short) summary of it?

      In either case – just present the facts (or the claims rather).. And are his claims documented? Can they be corroborated? etc.. Otherwise, it’s basically just anecdotes and not really anything to bother with.

      1. VD

        ‘Fumblefingers is clearly not a scientist in any way, shape or form’

        I have never claimed to be a scientist. Do you?

        On the other hand, I would like to think that I possess some critical thinking skills – skills which seem to be remarkably lacking on your part.

        1. Well, I do have a bachelors degree in chemistry and should soon have a masters in organic chemistry as well. (It’s not a phd, but I like to think it’s something) I wonder how I’m supposed to manage snatching that degree though, seeing as I possess no critical thinking skills etc. The first one must have been a fluke. LOL!

          Again, clown – you may think so but you don’t know how to judge what’s scientific or not (hell, you don’t even look at things posted nor try to refute them) and as for critical thinking, you clearly don’t display any either. You choose what to believe based on what you perceive to be “expert opinion” (ie the “authority” on it). As I’ve said repeatedly. So there’s no thinking (ie logic analysis) involved in anything you write here, just regurgitation of your beliefs.

  19. At least VeganDelusions (VD) agrees about the importance of evidence. Common ground is a great place to start. As Dr. G has pointed out, we’re at about 4000 unbiased, published, peer-reviewed studies demonstrating lower rates of all diseases and all cause mortality when consuming an unprocessed vegan diet. I have an open mind though, so maybe VD can share with us ONE well founded, unbiased, published peer-reviewed study that shows that some diet of VD’s choosing decreases the risk of disease and ACM more than an unprocessed vegan diet? I’ll wait.

    1. “As Dr. G has pointed out, we’re at about 4000 unbiased, published, peer-reviewed studies demonstrating lower rates of all diseases and all cause mortality when consuming an unprocessed vegan diet.”

      Well that’s obvious BS so I do hope that Dr. Greger isn’t claiming such and that it is only you who do so. :D

      Hint: “Lower rates of all diseases” and “lower rates of all cause mortality” is what gives it away as a snake oil merchant claim. (“It cures the cold, it cures cancer, it cures TBC, it cures HIV, it cures constipation!”) There is and cannot be anything that is better in absolutely every single possible regard or that lowers the rate of every disease – such a claim is laughable for obvious reasons – with one of the more obvious being that so many diseases have nothing to do with diet, but with pathogens. :D (Another being that diseases, even those caused by non-food related issues, have varying causes and as such there is no “catch all” there either) Overall – “cure-alls” are perhaps the most classic hallmark of snake oil peddling and pseudoscience.

      There is no study in existence that has (or could) cover every disease or any actual all cause mortality reduction from a fricking diet.. :D And you also make it abundantly clear you do not even know what “all cause mortality” means. :D

      https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/all-cause+mortality
      “All of the deaths that occur in a population, regardless of the cause. It is measured in clinical trials and used as an indicator of the safety or hazard of an intervention.”

      https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-is-all-cause-mortality-2223349
      “Understanding All-Cause Mortality
      The word mortality means death. The term all-cause mortality is utilized in reference to a disease or a harmful exposure—such as to radiation or dangerous chemicals—in a statistical context. It is typically expressed as the total number of deaths due to that condition during a specific time period. Anything that causes death is considered to be a “cause of death.” Therefore all-cause mortality is any cause of death.”

      So “all cause mortality” can include everything from being run over by a car to dying from AIDS – it needs to be specified what it means in the context of a certain study! But I guess you thought it would sound great to throw around, didn’t it? Even if you obviously had no idea what it actually meant or what you were talking about.. But so far, that seems a general pattern here.

      So thanks for the laugh, hilarious comment and yet another great example of how completely clueless you lot are. :D

      PS. Nutritional deficiency (such as in say B12 that always occurs on a vegan diet without supplements.. and supplements are not a part of a diet) or at least the conditions resulting from such are regarded as disease. (B12 is a co factor in DNA synthesis for instance, meaning that deficiency will cause premature aging due to a slowed rate of cell regeneration) And veganism surely does not exactly reduce that risk. :D
      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009898102003078

      All in all.. Sutor, ne ultra crepidam

      1. “Another being that diseases, even those caused by non-food related issues, have varying causes and as such there is no “catch all” there either)”

        This should of course be “even those caused by food related issues”.

  20. First evolution doesn’t optimize for longevity or health, evolution optimize for reproduction. So to say that evolution optimized for certain diet, to have best health is fallacious. So here health argument from evolutionary perspective collapses. Evolution optimized human diet that is best for reproduction and that diet is omnivore diet.
    Second human chimpanzees common ancestor was between 13-4 million years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor )
    Third human began eat meat at least 2 million years ago (stone tools cuts on animal bone next to human skeletons). First meat was probably from scavenging, because human stomach pH is around 1.5 and is more similar to scavengers than carnivores like dog or cat (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134116 ). Such acidic stomach works as filter against dangerous bacteria.
    Argument that human ancestor was eating plants for 20 million years (say I grant that 20 million) and past 2 million years meat, so conclusion that human can’t adapted in 2 million years to eat animal product is flawed. 2 million years for evolution is plenty of time to make adaptation e.g. adaptation to digest lactose happen in 5000-10000 years (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182075/ ). Human have heme receptor in intestine and heme iron is mostly exclusively found in animal products (http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-7g.shtml ).
    Human isn’t carnivore also, because amylase gene amplification happen 300.000-400.000 years ago (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep37198 ).
    So that is ration between animal and plant foods in human diet? Data form ancient hunter-gatherer tribes shows that energy from animal foods (45-65%) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10702160 ):
    Our analysis showed that whenever and wherever it was ecologically possible, hunter-gatherers consumed high amounts (45-65% of energy) of animal food. Most (73%) of the worldwide hunter-gatherer societies derived >50% (> or =56-65% of energy) of their subsistence from animal foods, whereas only 14% of these societies derived >50% (> or =56-65% of energy) of their subsistence from gathered plant foods. This high reliance on animal-based foods coupled with the relatively low carbohydrate content of wild plant foods produces universally characteristic macronutrient consumption ratios in which protein is elevated (19-35% of energy) at the expense of carbohydrates (22-40% of energy).

    Fresh meat and animal products have vitamin C.
    Human body produce antioxidant that it needs, this includes glutathione, superoxide dismutase, carnosine (https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00397.2007 ), but human body doesn’t produce plant antioxidants e.g. polyphenols. So plants antioxidants isn’t antioxidants at all, but activates poison detoxification system (Nfr-2 gene), which increase human antioxidants. Sulforaphane isn’t produced in broccoli cells, because it’s to much damaging to broccoli (e.g. generates reactive oxygen species), but it’s synthesized when crunched by attacker. The same mechanism is in garlic. Also sulforaphane de-repress longterm repeats in cell and these repeats begin to move around in DNA (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4019935/ ).
    Human body in intestine detoxify all plant “antioxidants” and only small amount reach blood (https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/81/1/230S/4607515 ) (I think why?). Max concentration is 7umol/dL, then vitamin C concentration in blood is 34-100 umol/dL and as I have said plants antioxidants isn’t antioxidants at all.

    1. “First evolution doesn’t optimize for longevity or health, evolution optimize for reproduction. So to say that evolution optimized for certain diet, to have best health is fallacious. So here health argument from evolutionary perspective collapses.”

      This is an interesting argument but surely, optimal health benefit reproduction? Fertility and health are clearly linked after all, and the time window during which one could reproduce is linked to health.. if nothing else because a shorter life means shorter time to reproduce. (particularly for males) So it would seem the two should not be separated entirely.

      “as I have said plants antioxidants isn’t antioxidants at all.”

      ..This is a simply a strange statement. Why aren’t they antioxidants? An antioxidant is chemically defined as a reducing agent, which ascorbic acid (vitamin C, a common antioxidant found in many plants) most definitely is.

      The link you give for this (https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/81/1/230S/4607515) doesn’t seem to deal with antioxidants in general either. It seems to deal with polyphenols and thus do not lend support to any claim that all plant antioxidants are eliminated as such nor that they’re somehow not antioxidants.

  21. You know folks, the issue on this site isn’t what the bible says about diet, it’s about what medical research says about diet.

    I just sent a message to the site administrators suggesting that they moderate biblically-based comments here. If you agree, please do the same.

    1. I have a feeling Dr. G. knew, just by the title, that “the thread that never dies” would draw biblical comments such as these.

      There have been so few comments on other threads lately, that to amass such a huge amount (276 and counting) might “look good on paper” for a change. If y’know what I mean. :-)

      And as long as Fumbles and VD (“Venereal”?) keep baiting one another, it could go on forever.

      1. There have been so few comments on other threads lately, that to amass such a huge amount (276 and counting) might “look good on paper” for a change. If y’know what I mean. :-)
        —————————————————————————————————————

        Big Picture much? ‘-)

      2. I have actually suggested previously that the site should ban all posts of a religious or political nature.

        There is however an argument that whatever generates the greatest exposure for these videos and blog posts,is actually helpful. After all, “there’s no such thing as bad publicity”. perhaps there is no such thing as bad video titles either.

        And yes I do enjoy VD’s posts. I haven’t had this much fun since he-who-shall-not-be-named departed to spend his remaining years in the high security wing of Aunt Fanny’s Twilight Home for the Terminally Deluded. VD is probably already a resident.

        1. PS

          To be honest, I am a bit disappointed that at least one (and probably more) of VD’s blunter posts seem to have disappeared. They probably fell foul of the comment etiquette although I personally didn’t find them offensive. I have been called far worse than ‘clown’ for one thing and for another thing I think they provided some useful insight into VD’s arguments and thought processes.

          Hmm, perhaps some of my more pointed posts have disappeared too?

          1. And over in this corner, Fumbles is gearing up for his sucker punch to Venereal. He jabs at the air in his over-sized boxing mitts: POW! POW! POW!

            But where oh where is Venereal? He hasn’t shown up! Hmmm….perhaps he is spent — in the diarrhea of the mouth department, that is. Oh well……tough titties. :-(

            1. Oh ouch. That stings. :D
              Is there some issue you yourself want to discuss here though.. If so, by all means – don’t keep it to yourself.

              1. Ah, there he is! :-) Fumbles will probably show up later on, as he lives…wherever it is he lives. The Philippines?

                And then the boxing match can begin in earnest! :-)

                1. “Later on”? Haha okay. Though where I’m at right now, it’s getting pretty late. Without giving too much away.. I’ll just say that it’s quite a bit later here than the comment timestamps says it is. :D

                  I don’t care much about this “boxing match” though :D nor do I ‘t consider battering clueless clowns to even constitute something akin to an internet fight., he’s free to stop embarrassing himself at any time.. or I’ll just stop myself if it gets too boring. (which it might because he’s kind of a one trick pony of a clown)

    2. Jacques, even though I posted a lot about science and religion, I think that Dr. Greger’s blog mentioned evolution. If you step back, no one knows how long anything has been here. Scientists, creationists and evolutionists, have all the same information at their disposal. But Historical Science is an interpretation. Science is what we can observe and test which can only be done in the present.

      I listen to what Dr. Greger says, have bought his book and observe his posts. It makes a lot of sense to me. I know he believes in evolution as he mentions it in some posts. It doesn’t bother me. Evolution is not science, but religion also. It can’t be science, because it is the past.

      I think that if Dr. Greger wouldn’t bring up his religion, I’m sure it would preclude others from bringing up theirs.

      Just my thoughts.

      1. “I think that if Dr. Greger wouldn’t bring up his religion, I’m sure it would preclude others from bringing up theirs. ”
        – – – -.

        Lynn, I’ve never see where Dr. G. mentions his personal “religion” — if he even has one. Lots of people do not subscribe to any particular religion — I no longer do.

        As for evolution, in this blog he merely uses the word theories:

        “There are three broad theories about evolution and food.”

  22. I thought it would be useful to summarise some of the problems with the flood of posts here by someone who calls himself VeganDelusions. Since that is a bit of a mouthful, I’ll just refer to him as VD for short from now on.

    This might be a better way of critiquing the reasoning, arguments and multiple personal attacks set out in the seemingly dozens of long intemperate posts that VD has made, than responding individually to them all. There really aren’t enough hours in the day to respond to all his strange assertions and vitriolic personal attacks, individual post by individual post.

    Epidemiology
    Remember that diatribe about epidemiological studies that VD made, criticising them as worthless? He presumably picked that up from the journalist Gary Taubes who wrote books trying to exculpate dietary saturated fat and had to try to discredit epidemiological studies that showed strong associations between dietary saturated fat consumption, high blood cholesterol levels and mortality/adverse cardiovascular events. Now remembering that epidemiology is basically the observational study of the health of defined populations and associated risk factors, what did VD do in an attempt to argue that dietary saturated fat is not a causal factor in atherosclerotic heart disease? Why he dug out an old 1964 observational study of a small population of Masai with a focus on the men (who ate a high saturated fat diet) which looked at a number of biomarkers which revealed no evidence of atherosclerotic disease. Incidentally, the authors noted that there were few aged men among the Masa. That may or may not be related to their diet since the study authors made no comment other than imply observing that there were very few old Masai males in the population studied.

    So which is it VD? Observational studies of defined populations, their health and associated factors, are utterly worthless or they are reliable conclusive proof about whether or not a particular nutrient is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease.

    Half Truths and Bias
    VD is always accusing Dr Greger and the NF site of only giving only half the information and ignoring contrary evidence. He never actually provides any examples of this of course, he just makes vague unsubstantiated claims. However, there is one glaring example of someone only giving half the information. It is VD and the Masai again. VD discusses the first study by GV Mann et al of Masai men but does not describe a later study by the same lead author which reported the results of autopsies on dead Masai men. What did it find? “Measurements of the aorta showed extensive atherosclerosis with lipid infiltration and fibrous changes but very few complicated lesions. The coronary arteries showed intimal thickening by atherosclerosis which equaled that of old U.S. men.”
    https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/95/1/26/167903?redirectedFrom=fulltext

    Talk about half truth and blatant bias. According to VD, the Masai example is supposed to prove that high saturated fat consumption is not a risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. How can anyone seriously argue this? Other than by only reporting the results of the first study and deliberately not revealing that a second study by the same investigator found that all the Masai men had ‘extensive atherosclerosis’ in their aortas, that is.

    Appeals to Authority
    Apparently, according to the scientifically literate VD, any reference to the evidence set out in reports by scientific panels on dietary saturated fat and on blood cholesterol as risk factors for disease, is an appeal to authority. This is a very unusual definition of an appeal to authority which is commonly taken to mean an argument that something must be true because someone else, who is believed to be an authority on the matter, also thinks it is true. It is not used to refer to scientific reports and evidence assessments. Not by professional scientists anyway. However, we are supposed to just take VD’s word for it that low carb diets are healthful, dietary saturated fat is not a meaningful risk factor for chronic disease and nor is high blood cholesterol.

    So, let’s get this straight. Referring to scientific reports by panels of leading experts, which describe, cite and assess the evidence is merely an appeal to authority, and therefore should be ignored, whereas we should all just take VD’s word for it because he considers himself to be an expert on these matters. Wait a minute, isn’t that just an appeal to aithority (in this case the authority is VD who is a self-appoimted expert on these matters)?

    Invented “Fact”
    As well as believing that low carb diets are healthful, and high dietary saturated fat and high blood cholesterol are not risk factors for chronic disease (all beliefs that are contradicted by the scientific evidence), VD apparently believes that “Big Ag” would be delighted if everybody started eating more grains and beans instead of meat. When it was pointed out to him that more grains like corn and more beans like soy are fed to livestock than to humans, it was suggested that total sales of corn and soy would likely plummet if people ate no meat. In fact, “Big Ag”, if it exists as a single tightly-knit group, would probably prefer us to eat more meat and dairy. After all, acccording to the Economist ‘The results confirm that efficiency in livestock varies hugely. Chickens and pigs convert grain into meat at rates of two or three to one (ie, it takes 2kg of feed to produce 1kg of chicken). The ratio for lamb is between four and over six to one and that for beef starts at five to one and goes as high as 20 to one. This has long been known.’
    https://www.economist.com/feast-and-famine/2013/12/31/meat-and-greens

    That translates into much higher grain sales if people eat more meat. Encouraging people to eat more meat instead of less would therefore be more profitable for Big Ag. VD didn’t like that. Not surprising. For some reason, passionate anti-vegans like VD seem to believe that Big Ag would be overjoyed if everyone became strict vegetarians. In fact, it would be an economic disaste for Big Ag. Anyway, VD ‘explained’ that the statistics showing more corn and soy sales for livestock feed than for humans were because humans ate the very small part of the plants represented by the actual grains and beans while livestock ate what remained of the plants (presumably leaves, stem, roots etc). This is an obvious invented fact – grain-fed cattle are fed grains and soy-fed livestock are fed soy meal and soy oil from the processed soy beans. VD’s claim claim is simple invention.

    Healthy ‘Vegan” Diets Aren’t Healthy According to the US Dietary Guidelines
    VD seems obsessed with ‘dissing’ vegans. Look at the VD name for starters. All vegan diets are unhealthy too. How do we know that? Well, VD tells us so that’s how. When it was pointed out that both the US Dietary Guidelines and the US Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics assessed the relevant evidence and concluded that a well-planned ‘vegan’ dietary pattern is healthy, VD wasn’t pleased. He (she?) was even less pleased when it was noted that the US Dietary Guidelines don’t identify either paleo or low carb diets as healthy. In fact, the US Dietary Guidelines state ‘As recommended by the IOM,[24] individuals should eat as little dietary cholesterol as possible while consuming a healthy eating pattern.’ That’s not good news for someone with VD’s strong opinions, and paleo/low carb believers in general.
    https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/chapter-1/a-closer-look-inside-healthy-eating-patterns/

    Now, of the three healthy eating patterns described in the US Dietary Guidelines, the healthy eating pattern containing the lowest amount of cholesterol is the ‘vegan’ variant of the healthy vegetarian eating pattern:
    ‘This Pattern can be vegan if all dairy choices are comprised of fortified soy beverages (soymilk) or other plant-based dairy substitutes. Note that vegetarian adaptations of the USDA Food Patterns were included in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines. However, those adaptations did not modify the underlying structure of the Patterns, but substituted the same amounts of plant foods for animal foods in each food group. In contrast, the current Healthy Vegetarian Pattern includes changes in food group composition and amounts, based on assessing the food choices of vegetarians. The Pattern is similar in meeting nutrient standards to the Healthy U.S.-Style Pattern, but somewhat higher in calcium and fiber and lower in vitamin D due to differences in the foods included.’
    https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendix-5/

    There is therefore, one might even say, an implication that we should all be eating the healthy ‘vegan’ dietary pattern. VD though claims that I and the guidelines actually stated that it is more important for people to eat a low cholesterol diet than to eat a healthy nutritious diet. They don’t say any such thing of course. As the direct quotes provided here show. Neither did I. Either he hasn’t bothered reading the guidelines (odd for somebody who is always accusing other people of not reading reports) or he is deliberately choosing to misstate what the guidelines say.

    Scientific Illiteracy
    Apparently I am scientifically illiterate because I don’t share VD’s fringe beliefs about cholesterol, saturated fat and low carb diets and insist on challenging him to address the evidence set out in major scientific reports. Using this same absurd argument, we must therefore conclude that leading scientists, researchers and physicians all around the world must also be scientifically illiterate because they too don’t share VD’s fringe beliefs about cholesterol, saturated fat and low carb diets. And they insist on basing their beliefs on what the evidence shows instead of what VD says.

    But let me be clear. VD is not unusual. There are hordes of low carb, saturated fat and cholesterol ‘experts’ out there who know that low carb diets are healthful. Saturated fat is not a risk factor for chronic disease and neither is high blood cholesterol. Then there are the conspiracy theorists – Big Ag wants us all to eat vegetarian diets apparently, and Big Pharma has been manipulating the evidence for decades to present high blood cholesterol as a risk factor when in fact it is harmless or even protective. Such people are widely regarded as cranks because they ignore or reject the mountains of evidence (accepted by all health authorities and medical associations around the globe) that unequivocally demonstrate that those beliefs are false. VD is just one such obsessed person. As illustrated by his own posts, he is violently opinionated and immune to both reason and evidence.

    ‘”Crank” is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1] A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held that it is considered ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making any rational debate a futile task and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference.’
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29

    That seems like a pretty accurate description of VD’s posts.

    1. Epidemology.
      Why I do not consider large epidemiological studies “proof” (rather, corroboration) of anything are for the simple reason they’re not. They are statistical and have so many potential factors and unknowns. Correlation does not imply causation, a well known maxim in actual science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
      Usually, they can’t do more than identify patterns to be further investigated. (in a controlled setting) So the way you try to use them – to prove causation – is simply wrong.

      Quote of what I actually said: “generally using statistics to try and prove causation in an actual population when there is a myriad of potential factors = usually a crap methodology.”

      The masai studies did not take a whole population and then simply correlated say longevity and diet. The looked at diet, lifestyle etc in a controlled sample, and things like occurence of CVD and actual measured blood levels.

      There is a huge difference here, easily recognized by anyone with scientific training, that being that large population studies (say “blue zone studies”) lack scientific control – there is no elimination of other variables/factors than the one to be studied. So you’re comparing apples and oranges.

      And, I don’t really know who “Gary Taubes” is, nor do I tend to put much stock into what journalists (at least that’s what you claim he is) say in scientific matters. (..that includes journos like say Dan Buettner.. and journos working for the economist etc..) You’re again simply making assumptions, then passing them off as some kind of fact.

      Half Truths and Bias
      I’ll repeat a small part of what I said in another post: Yes, he did found that. But that’s not CVD in itself. He’ll tell you as much:
      “If this hypothesis were true, it should follow that the Masai people who live almost exclusively on meat and milk would be found to have high levels of cholesterol in blood and extensive CHD. We examined 600 genuine Masai with clinical methods, including 350 men over the age of 40, and found very little evidence of cardiovascual disease. We have found only one Masai man with unequivocal ECH evidence of an infarction. High blood pressure was unusual among those people and blood pressure did not increase with age. The level of cholesterol in serum was low”
      https://thescienceofnutrition.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/atherosclerosis-in-the-masai.pdf
      Go back and read what I said – it’s about if saturated fat intake leads to CVD (which these studies show that it does not necessarily do) not if the Masai have atherosclerosis. So your “rebuttal” here is based on misrepresentation of what I claimed (straw man arguments) and a lack of knowledge of terminology: You conflate atherosclerosis with CVD when it’s not quite the same thing – my statements were about CVD and saturated fat intake. That is all.

      Appeals to Authority
      Yes, referring to institutions and apparent “authority figures” without actually presenting any evidence is. You refer to “reports” and “studies” and various institutions that supposedly support everything you say, but if you do not really present them (which you don’t), it’s an empty claim with nothing to back it up.
      Much like if I said (along the lines of what health volunteer Ben did) that “I have 10000 studies from leading experts in the field”, not even presenting a fraction of them, that would also be appeal to authority. But I don’t, see?
      Simply claiming that “there are studies” or “the experts agree with me” does not equal presenting studies, it does not equal presenting evidence, it does not equal actually having such support. It is and remains empty claims and appeals to (supposed) support from authority, hoping that his supposed aura of authority will make people shut up and agree.
      In short: An appeal to authority.

      And as for me, no. I haven’t claimed to be an authority but much more importantly – never told you that you must submit to me simply because of such. As I argue my claims, I link to reports etc.
      I never once said anything in the manner of “this is the authority (it is me) and the authority says thus so” (which is how you use these claims of supposed institutional support). Anyone can read the comments for themselves. :-) At most, I would suggest you try to educate yourself first or simply “stay in your lane” and stop wasting time, yes, but you’re free to do whatever.
      I did present my educational background (when asked if I was some kind of scientist – by you :D – and not before). If I wanted to try and “appeal to authority” you – that would rather have been the first thing I wrote. (A bit like Marilyn said she was a biochemist in her first comment to me)
      I have pointed out your lack of scientific knowledge as a problem, because it is, as illustrated in some of the arguments you make here (and in many of your previous comments).
      Because you’ll unfortunately try to argue against established practice of scientific method etc, dismiss most things as “crankhood”, not understand some of the terminology and argue points based on that etc etc.
      While it can be considered funny in a way, it also gets in the way of more constructive discussion.

      Invented “Fact”
      “VD apparently believes that “Big Ag” would be delighted if everybody started eating more grains and beans instead of meat.”
      Not really, quote: “I don’t put much stock in “the man keeps us down” – I’m just pointing out how ridiculous a notion it is to think that “big meat” somehow controls the food industry when it’s actually “big grains”.”
      I did say (ironically) that I bet they’d hate if people bought more of their products, but I don’t doubt that any industry would be. As shown in the quote below: I don’t really engage in conspiracy theories. (Which the comment that was a reply though, DID – and which you did not seem to take issue with..)
      So I suppose this could be an example of so-called invented facts, but rather on your part.

      As for the claim in the economist that’s exactly the kind of claim we’ve discussed before. I’d refer you to our latest discussion on it.
      All in all: It’s not really true because it’s based on simply mass ratios, making little to no distinction between waste product (say hay or as in the latest soybean discussion, “deoil soy fiber” etc) and edible produce.
      It of course also completely ignores the fact that much livestock can – and infact is in many places – be grassfed, whereas we obviously can’t eat grass.

      Similar with the U.S dietary guidelines. Your claim was that it recommends a vegan diet, signs off on it on as the healthiest diet etc. And this is based solely on the complte reinterpretation of that single sentence “This Pattern can be vegan if all dairy choices are comprised of fortified soy”.
      (Ie “this could be vegan” becomes “this should be vegan” and then “vegan is best”) All the while, the guidelines themselves contains walls of text recommending consumption of non-vegan foods. That you simply ignore, in favor of wildly reinterpreting this single statement.

      Scientific Illiteracy
      No, I said so becaue you actually are. It really is as simple as that, it’s not some subjective insult. It’s usually not a bad thing either, most people are. It mostly becomes a thing when you start with.. well, what you just did.

      1. This is a long litany of misrepresentations and downright false statements. For example:

        “So the way you try to use them – to prove causation – is simply wrong.”
        Give me one example of where I have used epidemiological studies to ‘prove’ causation. You can’t because you are gaslighting again since it was you who used the first Masai observational study to ‘prove’ that high saturated fat diets don’t cause heart disease.(but didn’t mention the second study which found extensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in Masai men)
        ‘Measurements of the aorta showed extensive atherosclerosis with lipid infiltration and fibrous changes but very few complicated lesions. The coronary arteries showed intimal thickening by atherosclerosis which equaled that of old U.S. men.’
        https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/95/1/26/167903

        Then there is this beauty
        “You refer to “reports” and “studies” and various institutions that supposedly support everything you say, but if you do not really present them (which you don’t), it’s an empty claim with nothing to back it up”
        Yes, referring to the World Health Organization (WHO) report on ‘Fats and Fatty Acids in Human Nutrition’ is just an empty claim. So is citing the WHO report on ‘Diet Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases’, ,the European Atherosclerosis Society’s consensus statement on cholesterol and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the UK’s CG181 guidance, US cholesterol guidelines and Cochrane reviews. Yes sirree, empty claims with nothing to back them up.

        The cream of the crop for me though is this perfect gem:
        ‘As I argue my claims, I link to reports etc.’
        When? Where? Apart from the link to the first Masai study which found no apparent sign of cardiovascular disease in men (but let’s not mention the second study by the same investigator which found that upon autopsy all Masai men had extensive atherosclerosis). Everything else is just assertion and a few dictionary definitions – very interesting I am sure but which do not support your claims in any way.

        There’s also
        ‘Similar with the U.S dietary guidelines. Your claim was that it recommends a vegan diet, signs off on it on as the healthiest diet etc.’
        I never wrote any such thing. You are deliberately misrepresenting my position again. I wrote that the guidelines state in the first chapter ‘individuals should eat as little dietary cholesterol as possible while consuming a healthy eating pattern’. I added that one of the three healthy eating patterns identified by the guidelines is the healthy vegetarian pattern. Appendix 5 of the guidelines states that this can be ‘vegan’ if it meets stated requirements. Of all the healthy dietary patterns, this vegan version would be the absolute lowest in cholesterol. I wrote that ‘therefore it could even be argued’ that this is the diet that all Americans should be eating.

        I also enjoy your repeated gaslighting claims that other people are scientifically illiterate. Your views on dietary saturated fat, high blood cholesterol levels and low carbohydrate diets are refuted by the scientific evidence No health authority anywhere in the world, to my knowledge, shares these strange beliefs ……. after frequent scientific reviews over many decades. But apparently you are not the one who is scientifically illiterate. So you say.

        You also said that Neanderthals are a different species. Every literate person in the Western world must surely know by now that all humans outside Africa have a percentage of their DNA which came from Neanderthal ancestors and pretty conclusively proves that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals interbred. As even Encyclopaedia Britannica notes

        ‘ Eurasians generally carry about 2 percent Neanderthal nuclear DNA, which suggests that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred and thus were not two different biological species’
        https://www.britannica.com/topic/Neanderthal/Neanderthal-classification

        Your claims of scientific literacy and indeed competence would appear to be refuted by such assertions (if they are not just simple trollishness). I wonder if you are a victim of the Dunning=Kruger Effect

        1. Dunning-Kruger Effect

          ‘People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error.’
          https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-15054-002

      2. Can’t forget this one either …………

        ‘You conflate atherosclerosis with CVD when it’s not quite the same thing – my statements were about CVD and saturated fat intake. That is all.’

        If ‘extensive atherosclerosis’ of the aorta, or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in general, isn’t a cardiovascular disease, then I don’t know what is. The Masai had a high saturated fat intake and extensive ASCVD but you were claiming that they did not have CVD and that this proves high saturated fat intake is not associated with CVD.

        Here’s an abstract you might find interesting given your thoughts on cholesterol

        ‘We assessed whether the association between LDL and ASCVD fulfils the criteria for causality by evaluating the totality of evidence from genetic studies, prospective epidemiologic cohort studies, Mendelian randomization studies, and randomized trials of LDL-lowering therapies. In clinical studies, plasma LDL burden is usually estimated by determination of plasma LDL cholesterol level (LDL-C). Rare genetic mutations that cause reduced LDL receptor function lead to markedly higher LDL-C and a dose-dependent increase in the risk of ASCVD, whereas rare variants leading to lower LDL-C are associated with a correspondingly lower risk of ASCVD. Separate meta-analyses of over 200 prospective cohort studies, Mendelian randomization studies, and randomized trials including more than 2 million participants with over 20 million person-years of follow-up and over 150 000 cardiovascular events demonstrate a remarkably consistent dose-dependent log-linear association between the absolute magnitude of exposure of the vasculature to LDL-C and the risk of ASCVD; and this effect appears to increase with increasing duration of exposure to LDL-C. Both the naturally randomized genetic studies and the randomized intervention trials consistently demonstrate that any mechanism of lowering plasma LDL particle concentration should reduce the risk of ASCVD events proportional to the absolute reduction in LDL-C and the cumulative duration of exposure to lower LDL-C, provided that the achieved reduction in LDL-C is concordant with the reduction in LDL particle number and that there are no competing deleterious off-target effects.
        Conclusion
        Consistent evidence from numerous and multiple different types of clinical and genetic studies unequivocally establishes that LDL causes ASCVD.’
        https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/38/32/2459/3745109

    2. As for this constant whine about cranks.. If anyone wants to see an example of an actual crank (really 2 cranks.. but one doesn’t say much so it’s not as readily apparent) who seem to be regarded as a serious scientist by the kind of people who frequent a site like this I recommend this interview with McDougal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW7AzTnxzoo

      Among the painfully obvious crank claims are things like “100 millions of years of data!” and the Bible constituting a study. :D

      1. “I recommend this interview with McDougal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW7AzTnxzoo

        – – – – – –

        VD, if you were hanging around this-‘ere joint in April, you’d see that we already posted this link. It seems poor Dr. McD had a sort of hissy fit; some of us were waiting for him to foam at the mouth. :-(

        The comments below the interview weren’t particularly flattering either.

        1. Well, I have been here before on various occasions, though I only rarely comment on posts. This time it became different because of the, let’s call it “very violent disagreement” :D prompting further comments.. but yeah. I haven’t seen anywhere near every post (That would require following the site very actively – especially as dr. Greger posts new stuff quite frequently) nor (obviously) every comment.

          As for “hissy fit”.. that doesn’t even begin to describe it. Claiming absolutely crazy things (of which I only gave two – very obvious examples) like he does isn’t simply a hissy fit.

          But maybe a “hissy fit” is what it took for him to very openly display how little is required for him to convince himself he’s right. Hell – according to himself – he suffered a stroke at 18 (https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2009nl/apr/why.htm) which he then “concludes” was caused by eating foods containing animal products. So it’s not like the pattern for extremely flimsy “conclusions” and speaking without any support for what’s claimed, wasn’t there.

            1. It is of course pure assumption on his part. It would be interesting to know is if it was a hemorrhagic stroke or not, he doesn’t seem to specify what type it was.

              Hemorrhagic stroke, especially at young age, is linked to birth-defects such as AVM. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arteriovenous_malformation

              https://www.strokeassociation.org/en/about-stroke/types-of-stroke/hemorrhagic-strokes-bleeds/what-is-an-arteriovenous-malformation

              He probably should get himself checked for such instead of simply jumping to conclusions that it “must” have been his junk food..

              1. I am not at all surprised that you and YR share some common ground.

                YR constantly has little digs at Dr Greger and this site. She also believes in astrology and that claims made in books by medical mediums and alleged channeled supernatural entities represent valid medical and nutritional facts. Her other belief that ‘the truth lies within’, and we can often intuit medical/nutritional solutions, seems quite unsurprising by comparison.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This