Animal Protein, Pregnancy, and Childhood Obesity

Image Credit: Max Pixel. This image has been modified.

How Can Animal Protein Intake Increase Childhood Obesity Risk?

If pregnant crickets are exposed to a predatory wolf spider, their babies will hatch, exhibiting increased antipredator behavior and, as a consequence, improved survival from wolf spider attack. The mother cricket appears to be able to forewarn her babies about the threat when they are still inside her, so they would be pre-adapted to their external environment. This even happens in plants. If you grow two genetically identical plants—one in the sun, one in the shade—the sun-grown plant will produce seeds that grow better in the sun, and the shaded plant will produce seeds that grow better in the shade—even though they’re genetically identical.

What’s happening is called epigenetics, external factors changing gene expression.

Vole pups born in the winter come out growing thicker coats. Vole mothers are able to communicate the season to their babies in utero and tell them to put a coat on even before they’re born. We’re no different. You know how some people have different temperature tolerances, resulting in “battles of the bedroom”? Do you turn the AC on or off? Open the windows? It’s not just genetics. Whether we’re born in the tropics or in a cold environment determines how many active sweat glands we have in our skin.

What does this have to do with diet? As I discuss in my video Animal Protein, Pregnancy, and Childhood Obesity, can what a pregnant woman eats—or doesn’t eat—permanently alter the biology of her children in terms of what genes are turned on or off throughout life?

What happened to the children born during the 1944 – 1945 Dutch famine imposed by the Nazis? They had higher rates of obesity 50 years later. The baby’s DNA gene expression was reprogrammed before birth to expect to be born into a world of famine and conserve calories at all cost. But when the war ended, this propensity to store fat became a disadvantage. What pregnant women eat and don’t eat doesn’t just help determine the birth weight of the child, but the future adult weight of the child.

For example, maternal protein intake during pregnancy may play a role in the obesity epidemic—but not just protein in general. “Protein from animal sources, primarily meat products, consumed during pregnancy may increase risk of overweight in offspring…” Originally, researchers thought it might be the IGF-1, a growth hormone boosted by animal product consumption, that may increase the production of fatty tissue, but weight gain was tied more to meat intake than dairy. Every daily portion of meat intake during the third trimester of pregnancy resulted in about an extra 1 percent of body fat mass in their children by their 16th birthday, potentially increasing their risk of becoming obese later in life, independent of how many calories they ate or how much they exercised.  But no such link was found with cow’s milk intake, which would presumably boost IGF-1 levels just as high.

Given that, perhaps instead of IGF-1, it’s the obesogens in meat, chemicals that stimulate the growth of fatty tissue. “[E]merging evidence demonstrates that environmental factors can predispose exposed individuals to gain weight, irrespective of diet and exercise.” After all, even our infants are fatter, and we can’t blame that on diet and exercise. Animals are fatter, too, and not just our pampered pets—even rats in laboratories and subways are bigger. “The likelihood of 24 animal populations from eight different species all showing a positive trend in weight over the past few decades by chance was estimated at about 1 in 10 million” so it appears something else is going on—something like obesogenic chemicals.

One such candidate is polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are found in cigarette smoke, vehicle exhaust, and grilled meat. A nationwide study of thousands found that the more children were exposed to PAHs, the fatter they tended to be. The researchers could measure the level of these chemicals right out of their urine. Exposure can start in the womb. Indeed, prenatal exposure to these chemicals may cause increased fat mass gained during childhood and a higher risk of childhood obesity.

If these pollutants sound familiar, I’ve covered them before in relation to increasing breast cancer risk in the Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project. So, perhaps they aren’t just obesogens, but carcinogens, as well, which may help explain the 47 percent increase in breast cancer risk among older women in relation to a lifetime average of grilled and smoked foods.

If we look at one of the most common of these toxins, smokers get about half from food and half from cigarettes. For nonsmokers, however, 99 percent comes from diet. The highest levels of PAHs are found in meat, with pork apparently worse than beef. Even dark green leafies like kale can get contaminated by pollutants in the air, though, so don’t forage for dandelion greens next to the highway and make sure to wash your greens under running water.

These are fat-soluble pollutants, so they need lots of fat to be absorbed. It’s possible that even heavily contaminated plant-based sources may be safer, unless you pour lots of oil on your food, in which case the toxins would presumably become as readily absorbed as the toxins in meat.

The good news is they don’t build up in our body. As I show in my video, if we expose people to barbecued chicken, they get a big spike in these chemicals—up to a hundred-fold increase—but our body can get rid of them within about 20 hours. The problem, of course, is that people who eat these kinds of foods every day could be constantly exposing themselves, which may not only affect their health and their children’s health, but maybe even their grandchildren’s health.

Being pregnant during the Dutch famine of the mid-1940s didn’t just lead to an increase in diseases among their kids, but even apparently their grandkids. What a pregnant woman eats now may affect future generations. “The issue of generation-spanning effects of poor conditions during [pregnancy]…may shed light on the epidemic of diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular disease,” which is associated with the transition towards Western lifestyles.


Epigenetics is the science of altering the expression of our genes. No matter our family history, some genes can be effectively turned on and off by the lifestyle choices we make. See, for example:

For more on “obesogenic” chemicals, see:

I previously touched on PAHs in Meat Fumes: Dietary Secondhand Smoke.

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.


158 responses to “How Can Animal Protein Intake Increase Childhood Obesity Risk?

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. Who knows. Maybe Dr. G. should zap the “How” in the title?

    I’ve been skinny all my life, even though I’m sure my mother followed a SAD diet when she was pregnant. Who knew about nutrition in those days?

    However, she did breastfeed. Maybe that says something?

    My two grandsons are both in good shape too. Neither is overweight.

  2. You blame meat in your article when the real issue is how it was cooked. Your misleading title should be “Obesogens May Increase Childhood Obesity.Risk”. Clearly it was the cooking method and PAH chemicals produced that is problem, not the meat itself.

    It is very disingenuous to blame meat for a childhood disease that is obviously caused by eating junk high caloric, low nutrient processed food. Excessive antibiotic use that leads to a malfunctioning Microbiome is another factor as is gluten intolerance from wheat consumption that has lead to an epidemic of Leaky Gut Syndrome. Excessive Glyphosate exposure is contributing to more obesity due to it’s antibiotic effect in the GI tract and from GMO food consumption. Massive numbers of sedentary kids glued to a TV or game screen is a huge cause of childhood obesity.

    Let’s focus on the REAL causes of childhood obesity!

    When animals are raised correctly (grass fed or free range) and their meat baked slowly as is done in many other cultures around the world the risk of obesity and various degenerative diseases will decrease due to the low carbohyhdrate nature of this food.

    Saturated fats in meat also create satiety.

    Grass fed beef for example is also loaded with B vitamins, cholesterol, essential amino acids and iron as well as anti-inflammatory omega 3 fatty acids. These are all essential nutrients growing bodies need in utero or post-delivery for optimal development.

    1. Your paragraphs don’t undo the science about the babies DNA being reprogrammed.

      It also doesn’t undo the fact that the people who are eating the highest carbohydrates, which are not refined are the thinnest people, so you blaming carbs is off.

      1. Plus, they have biopsied the fat of obese people after they had died and they found the composition of the fat and what the people were eating showed up and that is why they say, “The fat you eat is the fat you wear.”

        1. So they know already that most of the fat on the body comes from the fats in the diet and that fats go straight to fat.

          This article is more about what other factors are involved.

      2. The government has been pushing the food pyramid which is high in carbohydrates and lowin saturated fat and meat since the 1980’s.
        The Result? Massive increases in obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, cancer and heart disease.
        The facts do not back up your assertion.

        1. Randy Ice PT, CCS,

          What do the letters after your name stand for?

          PT is usually Physical Therapist. But I looked up CCS and couldn’t find anything that made sense.

          Thank you.

              1. Randy Ice PT, CCS,

                Well, she could be correct. I looked it up; my favorite is Center for Civil Society. Carbon Capture and Storage is not too shabby, either. I did not look at all 239 rows of possibilities. (Code Composer Studio?)

                But, since you were able to let Deb know that she is incorrect, why not let us know what is correct?

          1. Deb, I think it stands for certified cardiovascular and pulmonary specialist. Those are physical therapists with advanced training and certifications that work with patients with heart and lung issues in acute care. Their knowledge base is vast and pretty amazing; it’s an awesome field!

            1. Correct.  I have been in this field for 48 years. I have seen every kind of diet known to man.I came from the “saturated fat and cholesterol is bad” era that started in the late 60’s. It istotal and utter nonsense. Lowering LDL cholesterol by any means (diet or drugs) is a recipefor a medical disaster down the road.
              loss and being a sedentary couch potato.This condition is referred to as the Metabolic Syndrome.
              The NUMBER one cause of heart attacks and C-V deaths in the face the underlying Vitamin Cdeficiency that 99% of everyone has is……….insulin resistance cause by a high carb diet, hormoneloss and being a sedentary couch potato. This condition is referred to as the Metabolic Syndrome. It is NOT a consequence of eating fat……….it is the result of too many dietary carbs that are not burned off.
              That is why the Keto and Paleo Diets are so popular now……….lower in carbs and higher in saturatedfats There are several other “plaque drivers”  besides the Metabolic Syndrome including, dietary transfats,homocysteine, hsCRP (inflammation), oxidized LDL, Lipoprotein(a), low Vitamin D3 low testosterone (men), lowprogesterone (women) and thyroid hormone deficiency to name a few.  Thus a high carb diet high in breads, grains, cereals, processed food, HFCS, GMO’s sprayed with Roundup (Glyphosate) while avoiding meats, dairy, cheese and eggs etc. has lead to the massive increase in pre-diabetes, (aka insulin resistance) Type II diabetes and atherosclerosis.
              From a health standpoint I follow the principles of the Weston Price Foundation which is to eat a dietcomposed of grass fed beef, free range poultry and eggs, cheese, fresh organically grown, pesticide and herbicide freefruits and vegetables, yogurt, kefir and other fermented fruits, raw unpasteurized milk, real cream, butter, bone broth, organ meats and occasionally seafood.
              I have cut out wheat products as I am concerned that too many people have Leaky  Gut Syndrome from being unable to digest gliadin. All wheat in this country is sprayed with Roundup as a desiccant…………glyphosateis an antibiotic that is destroying the gut Microbiome of millions of unsuspecting wheat consumers.
              The Microbiome is the ultimate source of our health and nourishing the 20 Trillion bacteria,viruses and protozoa living there is essential for health and disease prevention.  https://www.westonaprice.org/dietary-guidelines-usda/

              I advise my patients to eat more or less the same way. I tried the “low fat, low cholesterol” dietaryapproach with my heart disease patients in the 70’s and 80’s and they kept having heartattacks and dying of heart disease or cancers. I gave that approach up around 1990 as it wasclearly a false paradigm. It was killing my patients.
              Since then my emphasis is to eat REAL foods as outlined above, exercise aerobically,do weight training, take a variety of nutritional supplements and get on bioidentical hormones.If one wants to follow a specific diet, I recommend the Weston Price “Nourishing Traditions” dietor the Meditarranean Diet…………but mostly I think people need to just eat real food and avoidthe junk, nutritionally depleted food we are surrounded by. This will halt the progression of atherosclerosisas I have many patients who survive into their 90’s with no further C-V events.
              In the near future, mesenchymal stem cells and exosome infusions along while optimizing the Microbiomehealth will lead the way in regenerative medicine. Tissues and organs will be repaired internally insteadof being surgically replaced. Aging will be slowed and halted and degenerative diseases willgradually be eliminated in those smart enough to jump on board and get off the allopathic drug train.

              1. Such a level of ignorance by somebody who presumes to give medical/nutritional advice to people is appalling …. although I suppose that itt is no worse than the idiocy promoted online and in books by various quacks, chroptactors, naturopaths and assorted loons.

                I mean ,,, the Weston Pice Foundation!
                https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/sbm-weston-prices-appalling-legacy/

                Try reading the World Health Organization’s ‘Diet, Nutrition and Chronic Diseases’ or the scientific report of the US Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee insteand of believing the WPF pseudoscientific nonsense

                https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42665/WHO_TRS_916.pdf
                https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/

                1. Ad hominem attacks illustrate its own level of ignorance.

                  I have 48 years of treating heart and lung disease patients with MANY following my dietary suggestions and living long healthy lives.

                  What have you got besides criticism?

                  1. “What have you got besides criticism?”
                    – – – – – –

                    Nobody is supposed to know this, but Dr. G. pays him a hefty amount, Under the table, of course. :-)

                    1. Pete

                      Yes, I have to declare a commitment to evidence-based dietary practices.

                      It sets me aside from some of the other posters here.

                      Of course i don’t get anything from Dr Greger or this site. This is just YR’s little joke.

                      I don’t think she can quite understand that people who cleave to the actual evidence tend to come to similar conclusions. Witness the WHO, WCRF, and various national dietary guidelines/food pyramids around the world. Like Greger they (and I) all seem to agree that we should be eating mostly whole plant foods. That’s why I frequently defend Greger’s analyses from what seem to me to be ill-informed criticisms. His analyses are mostly in line with current mainstream nutritional recommendations or at least broadly consistent with them. .

                      The main areas of difference appear to be that they recommend small amounts of oily fish and low fat dairy whereas Greger obviously doesn’t (although the US Dietary Guidlines do agree with him that a well-planned ‘vegan’ diet is healthful. So does the US Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics for that matter).

                      I’m agnostic on those two points personally although I have repeatedly said here that, if we don’t supplement or eat fortified foods, we should (nutritionally speaking rather than ethically) probably include several weekly servings of oily fish in the diet – for B12, iodine, vitamin D, selenium etc

                      My main disagreement with you is over full fat dairy – if you confined your argument to no or low fat dairy, I would probably find it difficult or at least more difficult to disagree with you,

                    2. “The main areas of difference appear to be that they recommend small amounts of oily fish and low fat dairy.”
                      – – – – – –
                      Works for me. A bit of fish once or twice a week (dinner) and one stick of an organic mozzarella string cheese (low moisture part skim) a couple of times a week.

                      With the usual suspects (beans, lentils, etc.) for other main meals during the week.

                    3. I don’t know where to stick this.

                      Happy script-writing, Lonie! As you know, writing can be a very lonely endeavor: there are so many temptations to wander off into other areas. Lots of self discipline needed.

                      Don’t forget…..you’re going to create a role for me too! And not just an extra, an actual speaking part. Although, if I’d have to wear an ape outfit, firgit about it! :-)
                      ——————————————————————————————————
                      Likewise having trouble to find a place to put this.

                      So true about distractions, especially when one has to see to the daily obligations of just living. Trying to simplify that as much as I can.

                      As for writing a role just for you, this is just a script that I may have no control over casting. There’s an outside chance myself and a couple of Internet friends from another forum may try to shoot it ourselves.

                      Still got the Mission Inc. script that I may shoot acapella, but no place for another character in that one in its bare bones form (for inexpensive shooting.)

                      However, one of the main scripts I have in my line of ideas has the perfect character for how I imagine you… as a younger companion to an elderly dog handler who tries to get on with a longhorn cattle drive to the west coast in what was once Death Valley. (Obviously in Dystopian times)

                      That one is at least 2 years away, so there is plenty of time to sharpen your acting skills. ‘-)

                    4. I’m sure this research upset many people on this board.  It confirms  what I have written. Meat eatinghas many redeeming benefits and has very little to no long term effect on cancer nor atherosclerosis.Having said that, there is such a thing as healthy meat (grass fed) and unhealthy (CAFO produced, antibioticand estrogen laced beef fed glyphosate GMO feed). I recommend and prefer the former which fits withthe WPF’s Nourising Traditions guidelines. 

                      Is Meat OK to Eat Now? Do Food Flip-Flops Make You Mad?
                      Public health experts have told us for decades that red meat causes heart attacks and cancer. But new studies question that dogma. Is meat OK after all?
                      Joe Graedon R.Ph.
                      October 03, 2019 There’s another huge reversal in dietary advice. This is the biggest yet! First we were told to avoid eggs, and then we learned eggs are just fine. We were warned to use margarine instead of butter, and then it turned out that trans-fats in most margarines were worse for our health than butter. For decades we’ve been told that eating red meat, especially processed meat, is almost tantamount to a death wish. Is red meat OK after all? Are you thoroughly confused or do these flip-flops drive you crazy?
                      Have You Read the Headlines?
                      Depending upon your news service you could read very different accounts of the latest research. Is meat OK or bad for your health. Here are just a handful of conflicting headlines:“Is meat really that bad for you?” (BBC, Oct. 3, 2019)“Steak is back on the menu, if a new review of risks of red meat is to be believed” (Reuters, Sept. 30, 2019)“Red and processed meat are OK to eat, controversial new guidelines claim. Don’t believe it, leading experts say” (CNN Sept. 30, 2019)“New Studies on Red and Processed Meat Are a Big, Fat Nothingburger” (Union of Concerned Scientists, Oct. 2, 2019)“Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said. Now Some Believe That Was Bad Advice” (New York Times, Sept. 30, 2019)  What Does the Research Reveal? Is Meat OK?

                2. ‘My main disagreement with you is over full fat dairy – if you confined your argument to no or low fat dairy, I would probably find it difficult or at least more difficult to disagree with you’

                  Tom,

                  I think we are making slow progress here. I am agreeing that a predominantly plant-based diet reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease, and you are agreeing the addition of reduced milk fat may be beneficial. I did my low-fat dairy thing 40 years ago (Rev and Skinny Milk), and slowly came to realise it was a mistake. Which is not a good feeling when one is the progenitor of these brands. As would be expected after thousands of years of evolution, the various components are synergistic. Start messing with the ratio and it may have unintended consequences. Personally, I would rather consume less milk than take the fat out of it, albeit this may be less important as one ages. But I also believe it is not smart to consume dairy in the absence of a predominantly plant-based diet. Again, I believe they are complementary. As is fish consumption, so long as it is the right fish species. The success of the Mediterranean diet tends to confirm this.
                  The amount of saturated dairy fat in a typical diet is very low anyhow (about 25%) in comparison to total saturated and trans-fat consumption. Whats to be gained by reducing it to 12.5%?
                  75% of dietary saturated fat is consumed in the form of cakes, cookies, quick bread, pastry, pie, salad dressings, mayonnaise, margarine and butter, frankfurters, sausages, luncheon meats, crackers, popcorn, pretzels, chips, poultry, nuts, seeds (including butters, pastes), pork, ham, bacon, biscuits, corn bread, pancakes, tortillas, yeast breads and rolls, milk desserts, potatoes (white), eggs, candy, sugars and sugary foods.
                  Table 5 – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3546624/
                  This is where nutritionfacts should be directing its attention. From a nutritional aspect, its pre-occupation with dairy does far more harm than good.

                    1. Greg

                      This is the same study that you have posted about several times before

                      The only difference is that this is a University of Texas media release concerning it. Doesn’t that university have some funding relqational with the cattle industry?

                      Anyway if you are psoting that again, let me post this again

                      ‘full-fat dairy milk, yogurt, butter, cheeses, and cream were not found to increase heart disease risk (compared to a background diet that typically contains high amounts of refined carbohydrates and sugars). However, it is important to note that these foods were not found to decrease risk either.

                      What did predict risk of cardiovascular disease was “fat swapping.” When dairy fat was replaced with the same number of calories from vegetable fat or polyunsaturated fat, the risk of cardiovascular disease dropped by 10% and 24%, respectively. Furthermore, replacing the same number of calories from dairy fat with healthful carbohydrates from whole grains was associated with a 28% lower risk of cardiovascular disease.

                      Replacing dairy fat with other types of animal fat, such as from red meat, predicted a modest 6% higher risk of cardiovascular disease.’

                      https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/10/25/dairy-fat-cardiovascular-disease-risk/

                    2. The only difference is that this is a University of Texas media release concerning it. Doesn’t that university have some funding relqational with the cattle industry?
                      —————————————————–
                      Heh Tom, just because UT is in Texas doesn’t mean they have cattle. Most cattlemen in Texas would say they are all hat and no cattle. ‘-)

                      They do have one of the largest University endowments in the country (Harvard may have a larger one, but with the oil patch booming in Texas on University land, UT may be larger now.)

                      Anyway, nice try at throwing shade on the 22 year long study with follow up testing at intervals. ‘-)

                      P.S. If I were Greger I would disassociate myself from you as your tactics may be construed as having tacit approval from him.

                    3. Lonie

                      We say you are all mouth and no trousers where I come from.

                      Speaking of that, your sudden declaration that long studies are impressive is a bit surprising. I don’t recall you singing the praises of the 70 years-and-counting Framingham study or the 60-plus-years-and-counting seven countries study. But then they showed that blood cholesterol levels and dietary saturated fat consumption are risk factors.

                      No doubt, you simply find a study that tells you what you want to hear is more palatable. That study Greg cited simply looked at associations between circulating fatty acids and mortality etc. The tests couldn’t distinguish between fatty acids from dietary sources and the same fatty acids manufactured by our own body though.

                      The study also found “In multivariate models adjusting for sociodemographic, lifestyle, cardiovascular, and dietary factors, there was no significant association between quintiles of plasma phospholipid pentadecanoic, heptadecanoic, and trans-palmitoleic acids and total mortality (P-trend across quintiles = 0.19, 0.25, and 0.14, respectively; Figure 2, Supplemental Table 1).”

                      ‘No significant association with total mortality’ speaks for itself I think.

                      Also

                      ‘When we assessed total incident CVD including fatal and nonfatal events (n = 1301 events), we found no significant associations of circulating phospholipid pentadecanoic, heptadecanoic, or trans-palmitoleic acids with risk (Figure 3, Supplemental Table 4), except that pentadecanoic acid was associated with a trend toward higher CHD incidence across quintiles (P-trend = 0.02), with evidence of nonlinearity in cubic spline analyses (P-nonlinearity 0.05 each). Directions and magnitudes of these findings were generally similar in men and women.’

                      So, yes they did find apparently protective associations in some areas when they drilled down into smaller subgroups but not across the board or in total. Given that there were no links to total mortality, perhaps there was a swings and roundabout effect.

                      Also, a key area not apparently addressed was what foods were replaced by higher consumption of dairy foods. If they were processed and red meats, refined carbohydrates and processed foods generally, then dairy might well appear protective relatively speaking. That’s not saying a lot though is it?

                      If you want to hang your hat on studies like this, though, good luck to you.

                      As for your amusing final remark “If I were Greger I would disassociate myself from you as your tactics may be construed as having tacit approval from him.’ ….. we both know that I am no more associated with Greger than you are, so ‘disassociate’ is meaningless.

                      Well, perhaps you actually don’t know. I’ve noticed a tendency by saturated fat and cholesterol denialists to try to explain away evidence they don’t like by alleging a conspiracy of some sort or other. Perhaps you genuinely think that nobody could actually agree with Greger and argue for an evidence based approach to nutrition, without there being some nefarious plot or other. Having read your posts over the years, it wouldn’t surprise me too much.

                      However, let’s be frank, nobody in their right mind would take advice from you on the proper way to discuss scientific studies. In any case, Greger hasn’t disassociated himself from a whole raft of trollish and crackpot posts that have appeared in the comments pages over the years from a variety of more or less odd people. Why would he start disassociating himself from particular posts now? He seems to be a very easy-going fellow. For example, he has tolerated a number of occasionally insulting and at times bizarre posts from you over the years.

                      Consequently, I hardly think that any alleged faux pas on my part is going to cause him any great psychic distress and result in him abandoning his ‘let a hundred flowers bloom’ policy.

                      Still, that was a clever ‘when did you stop beating your wife’ type crack on your part. Well done.

                    4. However, let’s be frank, nobody in their right mind would take advice from you on the proper way to discuss scientific studies.
                      ——————————————————————————-
                      EXACTLY! Yet you went on and on about this result and that result. As I have often “disclaimer-erd” I am not a scientist… I only play one on the Internet.

                      And while I am a follower of scientific discoveries (I expect more personal longevity to come out of that than of diet or to me, anyway… more or less somewhat meaningful studies proving the pro and then the con of what to eat.

                      Sure, changing some bad food habits will get a person a few more years of healthier living, but I’m not satisfied with that. I want decades of same… maybe even more. ‘-)

                      Anyway, you won’t have ol’ Lonie to kick you around anymore… before long that is.

                      I’ll soon fade into darkness as I hammer out a script about a Cartel and the gorillas.

                      Just wanted to make sure I thanked you for being the foil that has helped me sharpen my wit in preparation for the tedious task that lies ahead.

                      In case my sabbatical becomes permanent, I just want you to know that, even though we are at odds on a lot of issues I understand your belief system that has you defending what you see as the preferred science while tearing down what others see as perfectly plausible science.

                      Like someone said in a previous post (paraphrasing) 50% of all studies published are wrong.

                      And while you think anecdotal evidence is flawed, I submit to you that the diets of the Seven Day Adventists, the Okinawans, the Mediterraneans… in other words, the Blue Zones, are in effect anecdotal Studies, in that their way of life may have evolved from experience over time.

                      Salud, and a pre-Adieu

                    5. Lonie

                      I agree with you that we should be cautious about the Okinawan and Adventist studies, Blue Zones etc. They are only observational/association studies. As such, they don’t prove causation and may be confounded by variables other than diet. The aythors of the Okinawan study for example seemed to attribute most of the health benefits seen to calorie restriction. In the Adventist studies, results may have been confounded by the fact that Adventists are committed by virtue of their religion to living a healthful lifestyle (Core belief 22). All we can say with some confidence is that they seem to show that WFPB/vegan/vegetarian diets are compatible with healthy longevity.

                      Sorry to see you go if you do depart. It has been entertaining. However, I am sure that YR will do her best to bring me down a peg or ten in your absence.

                      Best of luck with your script ….. about a cartel and gorillas or a cartel and guerrillas? Autocorrect can make life very confusing.

                      ‘So long and thanks for all the fish’ ….. so to speak.

                    6. about a cartel and gorillas or a cartel and guerrillas?
                      ————————————————————————
                      I’ll just leave that ambiguous for the time being… Hollywood was (is) built on the theft of ideas ‘-)

                    7. Thanks Lonie for reminding us that the lead author of that study was Dariush Mozaffarian of Tufts.

                      ‘Dariush Mozaffarian has several connections to big dairy. He is an employee of Life Sciences Research Organizations, which is employed by the United Dairy Industry Association.

                      He is also employed by Nutrition Impact, LLC, which has been linked to the National Dairy Council. Finally, Mozaffarian has a patent pending on trans-palmitoleic acid—a fatty acid derived from dairy sources. ‘

                      https://www.plantbasednews.org/lifestyle/dairy-study-tries-disrupt-link-dairy-mortality

                      So, a study that advocates giving dairy a clean bill of health was led by someone with financial connections to the industry.

                    8. Tom,

                      You are being mischievous, and making it seem far more sinister than the reality.

                      1. Life Sciences Research Organisation (LSRO) is a non-profit organisation that ‘ provides independent, impartial scientific analysis and advice. The organization has a reputation for conducting studies on politically charged issues which are of concern to federal agencies or corporations. Some issues include the dental amalgam controversy, dietary supplement monitoring, and “reduced risk” cigarette products’.
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Sciences_Research_Office Where’s the evidence they are dairy flunkies?

                      2. Harvard University patented a compound in milk fat which lead researcher Huffian describes as having BOTH beneficial and deleterious metabolic effects. The study was not funded by the dairy industry. The beneficial component?: ‘Circulating trans-palmitoleate is associated with lower insulin resistance, atherogenic dyslipidemia, and incident diabetes. Our findings may explain previously observed metabolic benefits of dairy consumption and support need for detailed further experimental and clinical investigation’.
                      Just guessing, but seems to me they are Harvard University scientists attempting to isolate a beneficial from non-beneficial component of milk fat. For probable commercial gain. Either way, it does not support your theory Huffian is a paid dairy evangelist. Incidentally, trans-palmitoleic acid is found in both dairy fat and macadamia oil, so lets not get too carried away with dairy-bashing.

                      3. Seems to me Nutrition Impacts, Inc. is more closely associated with flogging plant-based compounds than dairy https://www.foodandnutrientimpact.com/

                      4. Dairy researchers are no more or less biased than every vegan or vegetarian who ever authored a book on the subject. Should Harvard University do the research and not patent what their researchers discovered and not report the findings? Does not seem very realistic.

                      Interestingly, according to Huffian:

                      ‘Our results may offer insights into some previous observations. First, consumption of ruminant trans-fat has not been associated with higher cardiovascular risk; indeed, three cohorts have observed nonsignificant trends toward inverse associations.(22) These finding remain unexplained, as major ruminant trans-fats (predominantly trans-18:1 isomers) appear to adversely affect blood cholesterol levels similar to industrial trans-fats at equivalent doses.(52) Our findings suggest trans-palmitoleate, a fatty acid relatively unique to ruminant foods,(23) could at least partly offset adverse effects of other trans-fats in ruminant foods. Additionally, multiple large cohorts have recently reported inverse associations between dairy consumption and risk of obesity, metabolic risk factors, or type2 diabetes,(24, 25, 53–61) without consistent differences for different types of dairy foods.(55–59) Vaccenic acid and calcium were proposed mediators of such benefits, but vaccenic acid and its metabolites (e.g., conjugated linoleic acid) produced disappointingly adverse effects on blood lipids and insulin resistance,(62–65) and clinical studies evaluating dairy calcium found small or no metabolic benefits.(66, 67) Our findings support potential metabolic benefits of dairy consumption and suggest that trans-palmitoleate may be a candidate to mediate these effects. Our results also suggest that efforts to promote exclusive consumption of low-fat and nonfat dairy products, that would lower population exposure to trans-palmitoleate, may be premature until the mediators of health effects of dairy consumption are better established’.

                      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056495/

                    9. Here is additional research supporting the benefits of eating eggs, dairy (whey) and beef: Eating plenty of eggs and meat could reduce your chances of developing dementia, researchers report.The two foods are rich in phosphatidylcholines, compounds that help maintain brain health, and people who regularly eat them are 28 per cent less likely to suffer from dementia, researchers from the University of East Finland estimate.They tracked the diets and health of 2,500 men, who were aged between 42 and 60 at the start of the study, for 22 years, during which time 337 of them developed dementia.They found a correlation between the amount of eggs and meat the men ate and the risk of dementia; in other words, the more they ate, the lower the risk. The findings are “significant”, the researchers say, as dementia has become so prevalent, affecting more than 50 million people around the world.Choline is an essential nutrient that’s needed to make acetylcholine, a neurotransmitter. The latest findings echo those of earlier studies that have found that choline plays a key role in preventing cognitive decline.
                      References

                    10. Pete

                      It is hardly being mischievous to disclose conflicts of interest and dairy industry links in papers that are being used to make health clains for dairy consumption.

                      Frankly, it could be argued that you are being disingenuous when you complain aboit me noting those links. They are surely relevant. One could also criticise you for citing these papers without disclosing those links.

                      And yea, we should also be wary about studies conducted by committed vegan advocates like Dr Barnard and PCRM. The issue is just the same even if the food industries have a lot more money for ‘research’ and hiring consultants etc than PCRM

                      As for those organisations listed, they provide consultancy services for industry and I understand that clients have included dairy bodies. And possibly other food industry and supplement manufacturer groups etc too.

                      As for studies that indicate that some componenets in dairy may be beneficial relltive to people eating the standard American diet, so what? Comoaring a bad diet to an even worse diet doesn’t prove that it is healthy. It just shows that it is less unhealthy than the chosen comoarator diet.

                      The question is, is dairy healthy compared to a range of alternatives? It certainly appeasr to be better than red meat and refined carbs. But that doesn’t prove that it is healthier than eg eating fish, whole plant foods etc etc Healthful carbohydrates seem a much better choice than (full fat) dairy
                      ‘What did predict risk of cardiovascular disease was “fat swapping.” When dairy fat was replaced with the same number of calories from vegetable fat or polyunsaturated fat, the risk of cardiovascular disease dropped by 10% and 24%, respectively. Furthermore, replacing the same number of calories from dairy fat with healthful carbohydrates from whole grains was associated with a 28% lower risk of cardiovascular disease.

                      Replacing dairy fat with other types of animal fat, such as from red meat, predicted a modest 6% higher risk of cardiovascular disease.’
                      https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/10/25/dairy-fat-cardiovascular-disease-risk/

                      I do eat full fat dairy occasionally but I have not seen any evidence that it is superior to plant foods (or even fish) in the context of a healthy plant based diet.

                      Your loyalty to the dairy industry is mystifying to me. Dairy is fairly late addition to the (adult) human diet and most people globally have lactose intolerance. Basing an argument for its consumption on the associations of single fatty acids with risks for specific conditions and dismissing null effects on total mortality risk,and/ or greatly increased risk for other conditions, seems a little week. If not irresponsible.

                    11. Tom,

                      Its not so mystifying. I got cancer 15 years ago (exposure to toxic chemicals during my army conscript days). One of the few things one can do in that situation is control diet. I threw myself into nutritional research. I decided it best to follow a predominantly plant-based diet (supplemented with curcuminoids, vitamin K, vitamin D, cocoa – plenty of flavanoids). I fully expected dairy would be eliminated from my diet. But the more I studied the subject, the more it became obvious it was complex.
                      Notwithstanding Big Dairy, there was ample evidence that dairy is beneficial. Which was a long way removed from what Ancel Keys (and T.C.
                      Campbell) had been sprouting. So, what I occasionally do nowadays, is what I expect you also believe you are doing. Correcting disinformation on the subject of dairy. I think history will be mostly on my side, but no doubt you believe the same.
                      The following is interesting. Small Aussie study on alleviating stroke injury through exercise.
                      https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/wellbeing/2019/09/19/stroke-recovery-exercise-help

                  1. Pete

                    Not quite. I am saying that mainstream nutritional advice recommends that people consume no or low fat dairy instead of full fat dairy. This is probably because of studies like those summarised in the WHO report on ‘Fats and fatty acids in human nutrition’ and the AHA/ACC scientific statement on ‘Dietary fats and cardiovascular disease’. Consumption of large amounts of saturated fat as found in full fat dairy appears to significantly increase the risk of CVD.

                    Small amounts may be relatively safe depending on the amount of saturated fat delivered by other foods but I have no real idea what a safe level is. While I do consume full fat ice cream every month or two, I am not convinced that it is entirely harmless.

                    As far as I can recall, the studies reporting benefits or no harm from full fat dairy consumption fail to (adequately) address the food substitution issue (ie if people eating lots of dairy were eating very little meat or refined carbs, this could well explain the relative benefits). That Harvard study I keep quoting, on the other hand, indicates substantial risk reduction from substututing healthful alternatives to dairy fat.

                    Whether the mainstream recomendations to eat low fat dairy are based on studies showing positive benefits from no or low fat dairy, or simply a conclusion that no and low fat dairy will be somewhat less unhealthy than full fat dairy, I don’t know. It’s also worth remembering that ‘Approximately 65 percent of the human population has a reduced ability to digest lactose after infancy.’ So, it’s probably unhealthful for most people on the planet.
                    https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/lactose-intolerance#statistics.

                    I can well accept that dairy is a superior alternative to the SAD diet, red and processed meat and refined carbs. The evidence seems to show that I agree. I am not convinced that dairy is necessary or has any advantages vis-a-vis a well-planned WFPB diet.because I have not seen any such evidence. And that Harvard study suggests quite the opposite.

                    Since I believe that a WFPB diet may contain small amounts of animal foods, I would nevertheless see a WFPB diet that contains some dairy as superior to one that contains some meat or processed foods . But I don’t believe that there is any convincing evidence that dairy should recommended in place of healthful plant foods or even fish for people eating well-planned WFPB diets

                    1. I am not convinced that dairy is necessary or has any advantages vis-a-vis a well-planned WFPB diet.because I have not seen any such evidence. And that Harvard study suggests quite the opposite.

                      Agree.

                    2. I don’t know where to stick this.

                      Happy script-writing, Lonie! As you know, writing can be a very lonely endeavor: there are so many temptations to wander off into other areas. Lots of self discipline needed.

                      Don’t forget…..you’re going to create a role for me too! And not just an extra, an actual speaking part. Although, if I’d have to wear an ape outfit, firgit about it! :-)

                  2. But I also believe it is not smart to consume dairy in the absence of a predominantly plant-based diet.

                    For me, right now, Finland was the heavy high-fat dairy diet. People dying from heart attacks and strokes in their 40’s, plus, they became #1 in the whole world for Alzheimer’s.

                    I came from a heavy high-fat dairy diet. I can’t say it was entirely that which caused my brain to break down, but I can say that all of my disease symptoms started going away when I went off of it.

                    1. The thing is, for people who want to eat a little bit of dairy, there is evidence from the Finland studies, and the Adventists and Sardinians, that you probably can.

                      But milk viruses and the fact that most of the milk providers mistreat the animals, plus the fact that I don’t mind oat milk all help me to continue to not want it.

                      When I have had it, which has only happened a few times in the past almost 2 years, I have felt a little sick now. I think my gut microbiome doesn’t like it anymore.

        2. Randy,

          Dr. Barnard showed the graphs of sugar intake versus animal products intake and obesity, and when the sugar intake leveled off when people switched from soda to bottled water, the obesity rate continued exactly with the intake of saturated fats from meats and cheese.

          You are looking at old science. The newer understanding of being able to reverse T2D by lowering saturated fats and getting rid of REFINED carbs ONLY has gotten people off of Diabetes and caused people to lose sometimes upwards of 250 pounds on diets like those by Dr. McDougall and Dr. Fuhrman.

          Mastering Diabetes site has 3500 people who are thriving and reversing T2D and losing weight going highest carbs as long as they are whole foods.

            1. Deb, In addition to a high carb diet, I always like to mention that the Okinawans consumed 69% of their daily calories from Sweet Potatoes! I eat them all the time myself because they’re so tasty :-)

              From : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet

              “In short, the Okinawans circa 1950 ate sweet potatoes for 849 grams of the 1262 grams of food that they consumed, which constituted 69% of their total calories.”

              Also, a Dr G video:

              https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-okinawa-diet-living-to-100/

              1. Thanks, Hal!

                I am going to be trying a sweet potato dish next week and I will think about the Okinawans while I eat it.

                It is September and I am doing dishes more in line with The Starch Solution this month. Honestly, so far, I found beans and greens more filling, but I am sticking with it for 2 more weeks.

        3. ‘The government has been pushing the food pyramid which is high in carbohydrates and lowin saturated fat and meat since the 1980’s.
          The Result? Massive increases in obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, cancer and heart disease’

          This is the standard half truth peddled by con artists to deceive the naive and the gullible.

          Americans’ food contains fewer carbs now than it did 100 years ago … and more fat and more protein. The Result? Massive increases in obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, cancer and heart disease.

          Check the US Food Supply data for yourself.

          Also, when did Americans follow the guidelines? I don’t recall McDonalds, KFC, Pizza Hut closing down because Americans stopped eating meat and fat, do you? The real problem is that

          ‘Just 1 in 10 adults meet the federal fruit or vegetable recommendations, according to a new study published today in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

          “This report highlights that very few Americans eat the recommended amount of fruits and vegetables every day, putting them at risk for chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease,” said Seung Hee Lee Kwan, Ph.D., of CDC’s Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity, lead author of the study. “As a result, we’re missing out on the essential vitamins, minerals, and fiber that fruits and vegetables provide.”

          Seven of the top 10 leading causes of death in the United States are from chronic diseases. Eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables daily can help reduce the risk of many leading causes of illness and death, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes, some cancers, and obesity.’
          https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2017/p1116-fruit-vegetable-consumption.html

          1. You’re mixing apples and oranges.
            I am not suggesting anyone eat meat from KFC, McDonald’s nor anywhere else.  I am not suggesting people not eat fruits and vege’s, although the bigger problem now is that manyare GMO and glyphosate laden. You should eat organic but its more expensive and manycannot afford to do so.
            What I am saying is eating real grass fed beef, free range chickens and eggs, realcheese, real butter, real cream IS healthy.  The facts supporting that premiseare indisputable. This what we ate in the 1950’s when I was a kid and obesity wasjust about non-existent then. The heaviest kid in my senior class was 245 pounds. Now itis common to see 300 – 350 pound high school kids.
            My patients are all much healthier eating real food, they have learned to avoid junkfood and take nutritional supplements from not being able to eat “9 servings offruits and vegetables daily.”  Most people cannot or will not do that, and if they did it would more than likely be GMO……….not a good idea due to horizontal gene transfer.

            1. “What I am saying is eating real grass fed beef, free range chickens and eggs, realcheese, real butter, real cream IS healthy. The facts supporting that premise are indisputable.”

              That’s a claim for which there is no scientific evidence. It’s simply wishful thinking. You have provided no evidence to support any of your asertions.

              What we know is that in countries like Uruguay where all the beef is grass fed etc etc, cancer rates go up as more beef is eaten.
              http://journal.waocp.org/?sid=Entrez:PubMed&id=pmid:19640186&key=2009.10.3.429

                1. I am not a ‘vegan’. My understanding is that the evidence indicates that a whole food plant based diet is healthiest. This may or may not include some animal foods.

                2. Randy Ice PT, CCS,

                  Actually, my concerns are primarily sustainability and environmental: Eating animal products is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, uses far more resources (land, water, petroleum products, etc) than eating a plant based diet (about 10 times as many), and is environmentally degrading. Then there is the cruelty to animals and workers in the industry, and the contributions to antibiotic resistance.

                  And I am relieved to learn that not only is plant based whole food eating healthy, it is one of the healthiest, if not the healthiest, way to eat.

                  Note the use of the phrase: “whole food.” Processed food is not whole food. Therefore, it’s avoided as much as possible when eating this way. That means, cooking at home. Since many to most restaurant foods are actually prepared or processed foods. (Plus, they have way too much added sugar, oil, and salt.)

                  So, a great diet, for you and me and our planet, is to eat a variety of veggies and fruits, legumes and whole grains, and nuts and seeds (in moderation).

                  Here’s hoping that we and the generations after us have a future on this blue earth.

                  1. Sorry there is no bigger hoax than AGW.  CO2 and methane are not the earth’s “temperature knob.”
                    Gases that are 0.04% and 0.0017% irespectively in the atmosphere cannot raise the temperature.
                    The hottest decade in this country was the 1930’s when CO2 levels were lower.
                    The modest increases in CO2 from a number of sources has improved crop yield and  greened the earth.

                    “Current global warming is not catastrophic, not unusual, and likely beneficial to the planets overall ecosystem. Humans are no more impactful on excess CO2 production the the 600 trillion ants that inhabit the planet exhaling CO2, up from 200 trillion during the last ice age.”

                    Could not agree with this statement more.
                    It’s the sun and it’s activity that determine the earth temperature. In the 1970’s, we were all goingto freeze to death. Thirty years later (!), we’re all going to die from trivial global warming.  Many scientists say we are now entering another cooling phase!  Why would I believe any of these “scientists?” Most are funded by government to push an agendaof income redistribution, social control and power consolidation over the “citizens.”
                    The UN has admitted the AGW scam is only being used as a massive Socialist income redistributionscheme.
                    Whatever happens, the temperature changes are minimal, are not under our controland never will be……….unless government alphabet agencies screw it up with their Geoengineering experiments.
                    I think we humans are fully capable of adapting to normal ambient temperature changes.

                    1. Gee, what evidence don’t you deny?

                      So, according to you, we should believe that:

                      Dietary saturated fat in signiificant amounts isn’t unhealthy.
                      High levels of blood cholesterol aren’t unhealthy.
                      Large amounts of red meat and full fat dairy aren’t unhealthy (as long as they are grass fed/organic}.
                      The Weston Price Foundation provides good advice on diet and nutrition
                      Statin drugs don’t reduce adverse events.
                      AGW isn’t real.
                      And my personal favourite “The UN has admitted the AGW scam is only being used as a massive Socialist income redistributionscheme.”

                      Is all that correct?

                      You seem to be a veritable wholesale iconoclast. I hesitate to ask but, in for a penny in for a pound, what are your views on vaccination?

                    2. Ex-Vaxxer, which the majority of “anti-vaxxers” are. This is a pejorative term used by the  vaccine industryto make people who demand proof they work and are safe look unintelligent or crazy.
                      Had a total of two in my life…….polio sugar cube in 1956 AFTER I already had the disease (unnecessary but Ididn’t know any better at age 7) and one tetanus shot in Junior High School.  Stopped all vaccinations back in then because I didn’t think I needed them and they were redundantwith a healthy immune system.
                      Would never have another…….not needed, not proven effective nor safe and my own immune system having been exposedto multiple childhood and adult communicable diseases has given me lifetime immunity to them. No vaccinelasts more than a few years before it “wears off.”  Many people have no antibody response whatsoever to a vaccine.  People who are vaccinated do get the disease.despite an antibody response because the immune response is muchmore complicated than just and antigen-antibody reaction. It’s called vaccine failure……….influenza is a strikingexample of that!
                      Many vaccinated shed the vaccine antigen to others, causing vaccine-induced disease. Most all measles casesnow are the vaccine strain, not the wild type measles.
                      Ever wonder why when you donate blood they want to know if you had a “vaccination in the last two weeks?”  I had chickenpox at age 14 which gives me protection against developing Shingles as I get older. We had chickenpoxand measles parties back then and as a result gained lifetime immunity and protection against otheradult onset diseases.
                      There are no placebo-controlled double-blind studies done in the USA showing are safe nor effective.
                      The 1986 NVICA was passed precisely because Pharma was being slaughtered by vaccine injury lawsuits.
                      Per this law, the industry was mandated to perform safety studies and publish the results every year since then.
                      How many were actually done and published?
                      NONE.
                      What does that tell you? Not even the industry which can manipulate studies any way they want did them.  Big Pharma gave Americans and the Congress Criminals in DC the middle finger!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S1-LgYyjQg&feature=player_embedded

                      This is ONLY product in the USA that has complete PRODUCT LIABILITY……..no thanks.  I’ve seen more than enough adult and childhood Guillane Barre, autism spectrum disorder, neuro-developmental defects, asthma, eczema, dyslexia, digestive problems, ADHD, etc. in the last 30 years since the vaccine schedule went berserk. Vaccines are not the only cause as Glyphosate sprayed GMO plant foods is another, but the correlation between the massive increase in vaccines and these diseases is clear.
                      I hope since you enjoy a plant based diet you’re eating organic and avoiding Roundup. I don’t worry about Glyphosate intake when I eat grass fed beef, unpasteurized milk and cream, butter sourced from raw milk, yogurt, kefir, sour cream, and free range eggs from chickens given the proper feed.
                      (I also take extra glycine to wash Glyposate out of my body…………which everybody has).
                      Question: What are Dr. Gregor’s views on GMO foods and Glyphosate. A quick look at the Youtube video takenfrom the recommendations in his “How Not To Die” book does not even mention either topic.  Does he think GMO fruits, vege’s and grains are “safe to eat?” Does he think Glyphosate is harmless like the EPA and USDA do?: Many published studies prove the neurological damage caused by vaccines. Often the Pharma vaccine package insert will listASD and other neuro-development problems are a “side effect” of the vaccination: https://www.activistpost.com/2013/09/22-medical-studies-that-show-vaccines.html

                      Deaths from measles in the last 20 years: 0

                      Deaths from the MMR vaccine in the last 20 years: 108 What few studies have been done show unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated kids: https://vactruth.com/2016/06/03/vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated/

                      Mortality is  also increased in vaccinated babies and children compared to unvaccinated kids.
                      https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-part-5/

                      Yes AGW is a complete fraud and hoax which the UN DOES ADMIT: https://climatism.blog/2019/05/28/dr-tim-ball-must-read-environmentalism-evidence-suggests-it-was-always-and-only-about-achieving-world-government/

                      Dr. Tim Ball just kicked the AGW guru Michael Mann’s ass in court.  “Dr.” Mann refused to provide his so-called”Hockey Stick” junk science global warming data to the court and others for  scientific scrutiny.
                      https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/08/hockey-stick-broken-scientist-michael-mann-loses-in-court-forced-to-pay-court-costs-global-warming-hoax-hit-the-hardest/

                      Why would he do that and lose the case?  Well obviously it’s all crock of manipulations where the past is cooled while exaggerating the degreeof warming in recent years.  Satellite and high altitude balloon temperatures show essentially nochanges in average temperature over the last 20 years.  Dr. Ball’s  also graph shows essentially insignificant “global warming” over the last 1000 years.
                      This legal slap down should wake up call to the world to this fraud.
                      Rationale people call it weather changes……….. fall, winter, spring and summer. Mother Nature is in control and there is nothing we do that will change what she does.
                      This is junk science world we live in now…….whether it’s the nutrition field, medical field, pharmaceuticalresearch or the “climate change” world………..it’s about cherry picking subjects or data points, massaging statistics, publish or perish and pushing an agenda depending on which government entity or private corporation is funding the “research.”
                      Pharma funded studies show “statins work” while independent, non-industry studies show theydon’t work and have multiple down sides.  I see the harms everyday in my practice.

                    3. Actually, I think that if you had the chickenpox, which I also did, you’re at risk of developing shingles later in life.

                      Back then, parents tried to get their kids to get it.

                  2. Here’s hoping that we and the generations after us have a future on this blue earth.
                    ————————————————————————————–
                    Just watched the movie Soylent Green on one of the Alzheimer’s Channels. (You know, the ones that take a syndicated series and run it over and over expecting us to forget we ever watched it before.)

                    The movie was entertaining but totally implausible… that is, we would have taken drastic action before we allowed the earth to get in that shape.

                    On the other hand, I agree with you on your implied notion that beef cattle and their methane emissions are 30 times more potent at trapping heat. That’s not the reason I avoid beef (Mad Cow Disease scare, inflammation promoting NeuG5 in red meat animals that cause our bodies to develop always-on anti-bodies when we consume red meat)… but it’s a good side benefit if we eventually convert to Impossible burgers for our meat.

                    I personally think we are smart enough to make the changes necessary to keep our blue marble very habitable.

                    I also subscribe to the theory that we may actually be entering something like the Maunder Minimum that lasted for ~ a hundred years a few centuries ago and kept the earth in a cooling period.

                    Climate is a gee haw thing that sometimes swings wildly. Sure we as humans have an impact but probably we aren’t as important as we think. ‘-)

          2. Vegetarians have 20% higher risk of stroke, and 20% lower risk of atherosclerosis. Full fat dairy significantly reduces the risk of stroke. The perfect combination…the Mediterranean diet?

            1. Vegetarians have a 13-22% lower risk of ischaemic heart disease than meat eaters, but a 20% higher rates of haemorrhagic and total stroke (bleeding in the brain). Possibly due to sub-optimal ‘circulating cholesterol subfractions, vitamin B12, amino acids, and fatty acids’.
            https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l4897

            2. ‘certain types of dairy fat may help guard against having a severe stroke, the researchers reported’ “Our findings not only support, but also significantly strengthen, the growing body of evidence which suggests that dairy fat, contrary to popular belief, does not increase risk of heart disease or overall mortality in older adults. In addition to not contributing to death, the results suggest that one fatty acid present in dairy may lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease, particularly from stroke,” said Marcia Otto, Ph.D., the study’s first and corresponding author and assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental Sciences at UTHealth School of Public Health.
            Dariush Mozaffarian, M.D., of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, was senior author of the study, funded by the National Institutes of Health.

            The study evaluated how multiple biomarkers of fatty acid present in dairy fat related to heart disease and all-cause mortality over a 22-year period. This measurement methodology, as opposed to the more commonly used self-reported consumption, gave greater and more objective insight into the impact of long-term exposure to these fatty acids, according to the report.

            Nearly 3,000 adults age 65 years and older were included in the study, which measured plasma levels of three different fatty acids found in dairy products at the beginning in 1992 and again at six and 13 years later.

            None of the fatty acid types were significantly associated with total mortality. In fact one type was linked to lower cardiovascular disease deaths. People with higher fatty acid levels, suggesting higher consumption of whole-fat dairy products, had a 42 percent lower risk of dying from stroke.

            http://www.newswise.com/articles/new-research-could-banish-guilty-feeling-for-consuming-whole-dairy-products

            3. Dairy fat also helps protect against diabetes

            https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.018410

            1. ‘To address this gap in the literature, a new study by Harvard Chan School researchers published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition investigated the relationship between dairy fat intake and risk of cardiovascular diseases, such as heart disease and stroke. (1) Researchers followed more than 43,000 men from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, 87,000 women in the Nurses’ Health Study, and 90,000 women in the Nurses’ Healthy Study II to study the relationship between dairy fat and heart disease risk. The detailed information collected over several decades allowed the investigators to adjust for smoking, physical activity, and other factors known to influence the development of heart disease. For dairy lovers, the good news is that various foods including full-fat dairy milk, yogurt, butter, cheeses, and cream were not found to increase heart disease risk (compared to a background diet that typically contains high amounts of refined carbohydrates and sugars). However, it is important to note that these foods were not found to decrease risk either.

              What did predict risk of cardiovascular disease was “fat swapping.” When dairy fat was replaced with the same number of calories from vegetable fat or polyunsaturated fat, the risk of cardiovascular disease dropped by 10% and 24%, respectively. Furthermore, replacing the same number of calories from dairy fat with healthful carbohydrates from whole grains was associated with a 28% lower risk of cardiovascular disease.

              Replacing dairy fat with other types of animal fat, such as from red meat, predicted a modest 6% higher risk of cardiovascular disease.’
              https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/10/25/dairy-fat-cardiovascular-disease-risk/

              1. Tom,

                We are principally discussing stroke risk, not cardiovascular risk.
                Vegetarians have a lower cardiovascular risk, but a higher stroke risk. So, why are you quoting a study on cardiovascular risk?
                The two very credible studies I quoted demonstrate that vegetarians have a 20% higher risk of stroke, and consumption of milk fat decreases stroke risk by 42%. So, for most, its probably just a matter of joining the dots.
                If you were truly objective, both you and Dr Greger should be warning vegetarians of this. Or does hell have to freeze over for this to happen?
                Both of the relevant studies I quoted are difficult to refute, even for the most committed of denialists. I would back my prospective cohort study of 48,000 EPIC participants any day against your nurses study. Likewise, measuring the dairy fatty acids in the bloodstream of 3000 subjects, and discovering milk fat consumption decreases the risk of dying from stroke over by 42% over a 22 year period. You cant put that down to bogey Big Dairy propaganda.
                Your quoted study declares that milk fat is not harmful (are you belatedly conceding this?) but ‘unsaturated fats from vegetable oils, nuts, seeds, avocados, and some oily fish’ are even better. It appears you might need to update Dr G. on the author’s recommendations for both cheese and fish consumption. But will you do that?
                I have no problem with you choosing an 20% increased stroke risk for yourself, and choosing not to eliminate that risk by consuming dairy. Now that you have been warned, its entirely your choice. But for years you and Dr G. have selectively provided advice to others which (on the evidence) has increased their risk of stroke, and, by failing to consume dairy, failing to reverse this risk. (Note: unsaturated fats from vegetable oils, nuts, seeds, avocados, and oily fish – as much as I also favour them, do not – on the evidence – contain the aforementioned stroke-protective milk fats). Given your history in public health, you need to start accepting your responsibilities to others, and cease peddling pure dogma. Both of you should just stick to promoting a predominately plant-based diet (were you are on much safer ground) and leave it at that.

                1. Stroke is a (cardio)vascular disease.

                  That particular study you refer to found that vegans/vegetarians had 10 fewer cases of heart disease and 3 more cases of stroke per thousand people over 10 years.

                  Your argument appears to be that we should accept 10 more cases of heart disease to prevent 3 cases of stroke? That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Perhaps because you have a personal commitment to the dairy industry

                  if anyone here is peddling dogma I’d suggest that it is not me. Relying on the evidence to minimise total risk is hardly being dogmatic.

                  As for being selective, by talking about an increased stroke risk of 3 cases but completely ignoring the 10 fewer cases of heart disease, isn’t that precisely what you are doing here?

                  1. In the study Pete quotes the risk was increased for hemorrhagic strokes, not atherosclerotic based ischemic CVA’s.  Hence the higher risk of stroke was not a “cardiovascular” disease, but an increased weakening of the vascular wall in the arteries within the brain leading to hemorrhage, a risk that was reducedby consumption of dairy fat.

                    1. ‘As I noted, vegans/vegetarians had 10 fewer cases of heart disease versus 3 more cases of stroke for a b=net reduction of 7 cases’.

                      This assumes an equivalence between the effects of CVD and stroke. That aside, a vegetarian diet plus dairy = a net reduction of 10 cases. A 43% better result than not consuming dairy. Thats a very big benefit.

                  2. I’m agnostic on those two points personally although I have repeatedly said here that, if we don’t supplement or eat fortified foods, we should (nutritionally speaking rather than ethically) probably include several weekly servings of oily fish in the diet – for B12, iodine, vitamin D, selenium etc

                    My main disagreement with you is over full fat dairy – if you confined your argument to no or low fat dairy, I would probably find it difficult or at least more difficult to disagree with you,
                    ————————————————————-
                    I was prepared to recommend you for Jedi first grade, stating that being Jedi does not mean you have to agree with all because Jedi is a code that welcomes all opinions.

                    But then you posted this in a later comment:
                    _________________________________________
                    “Perhaps because you have a personal commitment to the dairy industry”
                    —————————————————————————————————
                    That has long been put to rest as a red herring argument since Pete has stated he has been a software engineer for decades, after working in the dairy industry for a couple of years (IIRC) all those decades ago. Thus, you are guilty of Jedi on Jedi crime.

                    I’m going to submit to the Jedi Council that you be reduced to the rank of Jedi Intern. You’ll have to earn your spurs to get back to even Jedi 4th grade.

                    1. Then O Wise One how do you explain the fact that all Pete’s posts (that I can recall) all seem to be telling us that dairy is healthy (ignoring all evidence to the contrary)?
                      It’s probably healthier than red meat and ultra processed foods – but then that is not saying much.

                      I’m beginning to suspect that you may have been seduced by the dark side of the Force. Turn back now Lonie and embrace the light
                      .

                    2. Tom.
                      I would love you to consider my response, but your chief censor is working overtime to delete my posts at present. My responses to both you (twice) and Lonie (once) about 4 hours ago have been blocked or deleted.

                    3. Pete

                      The only thing I can suggest is that you remove any weblinks in your posts.

                      I’ve found before that a number of my posts disappeared into the ether too …. presumably because the automatic spam filter doesn’t let certain linsk through. When i posted them again without the links, they appeared.

                      I now try to compose all my posts in Notepad before copy-pasting them here,
                      so they aren’t completely lost if the spam filter deletes them first time around..

                  3. ‘My main disagreement with you is over full fat dairy – if you confined your argument to no or low fat dairy, I would probably find it difficult or at least more difficult to disagree with you’

                    ‘Stroke is a (cardio)vascular disease’.

                    ‘Your argument appears to be that we should accept 10 more cases of heart disease to prevent 3 cases of stroke? That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

                    Tom,

                    Its not my argument at all. I am clearly arguing one should have a predominantly plant based diet to obtain the cardiovascular benefits, plus dairy to reduce the associated risk of stroke. The best of both worlds.
                    Probably the Mediterranean diet comes closest. If you keep an open mind, maintain your scepticism of industry-funded studies – whilst nonetheless not ignoring the bulk of the evidence, you may eventually come to the same conclusion.
                    Atherosclerosis is an inflammatory disease caused by pollution, injury, insomnia, sickness and diet. Foods that increase inflammation include sugar, artificial trans fats (margarine), vegetable and seed oils, refined carbohydrates, excessive alcohol and processed meat.
                    The study in this case found a disconnect between the significant cardiovascular benefits of consuming a plant-based diet and significant disadvantages in terms of stroke. These are both vascular issues, but can have different causes and/or processes. For example strokes may originate from atrial fibrillation. The researchers are suggesting dairy fatty acids may be somehow intervening in a beneficial manner. This may not be conventional wisdom, but conventional wisdom is generally right only until proven otherwise. Overall, the evidence is suggesting:

                    1. Western diets should be more plant-based, and the Mediterranean diet appears ideal.
                    2. Consumption of meat should be reduced, particularly grilled and processed meat 3. Dairy consumption is beneficial in regards most cancers, the possible exceptions being prostate cancer – where the risk appears either minimal or non-existent.
                    4. Vegetarians have a 20% lower risk of atherosclerosis, but 20% increased risk of stroke.
                    5. Consumption of saturated dairy fat may well eliminate this apparent 20% increased risk in vegetarians.
                    6. Raw milk consumption may slightly increase the risk of breast cancer.
                    The risk is eliminated by imposing regulations, herd-testing, or by consuming pasteurised/UHT milk.
                    7. Dairy consumption significantly reduces the risk of colon cancer 8. Dairy consumption should be restricted to the produce of grass-fed animals and non-industrialised dairy farms.
                    9. Dairy consumption should be accompanied by adequate vitamin D and K2.
                    10. The amount of saturated dairy fat in a typical diet is very low anyhow (about 25%) in comparison to total saturated and trans-fat consumption. 75% of dietary saturated fat is consumed in the form of cakes, cookies, quick bread, pastry, pie, salad dressings, mayonnaise, margarine and butter, frankfurters, sausages, luncheon meats, crackers, popcorn, pretzels, chips, poultry, nuts, seeds (including butters, pastes), pork, ham, bacon, biscuits, corn bread, pancakes, tortillas, yeast breads and rolls, milk desserts, potatoes (white), eggs, candy, sugars and sugary foods.
                    Table 5 – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3546624/ 11. Dairy fat contains CLA,a dairy trans-fat which appears to be particularly health beneficial.
                    12. There is a vast difference between saturated fats. Not all are harmful, and some (such as dairy) are beneficial.
                    ‘Such counterbalancing effects, as well as beneficial effects of saturated fat on levels of triglyceride-rich very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol,236 could explain why meta-analyses of long-term cohort studies demonstrate no significant associations of total dairy consumption with CHD events and actually lower risk of stroke, without consistent differences comparing reduced versus regular fat products.1

                    https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.117.309008

                    ‘None of the fatty acid types were significantly associated with total mortality. In fact one type was linked to lower cardiovascular disease deaths. People with higher fatty acid levels, suggesting higher consumption of whole-fat dairy products, had a 42 percent lower risk of dying from stroke’.

                    http://www.newswise.com/articles/new-research-could-banish-guilty-feeling-for-consuming-whole-dairy-products

                    ‘In conclusion, this systematic review provides an in-depth perspective on the association between dairy product consumption and the risk of cardiovascular-related clinical outcomes, including MetS and T2D. Although there are still key research gaps to address, evidence suggests either a neutral or a favorable association between dairy intake and cardiovascular-related outcomes. …….the review also emphasized that the recommendation to focus on low-fat in place of regular- and high-fat dairy is currently not evidence-based.

                    https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/7/6/1026/4568635

                    …a recent systematic revue of 52 clinical trials which demonstrates that dairy foods are instead anti-inflammatory in nature (Dairy products and inflammation: A review of the clinical evidence). The exception is the pro-inflammatory effect occurring in those allergic to cows milk, which is a fully expected outcome. Inflammation aside, Park et al also demonstrate that dairy fats increase the level of both LDL and HDL cholesterol. That is, they ‘might not affect or even lower the total cholesterol:HDL cholesterol ratio’. The findings of these studies coincides with a great deal of other research demonstrating the benefit of dairy foods in reducing the risk of metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, colorectal cancer and a host of other chronic diseases. Moreover Ericson et al (below) demonstrates but the risk from meat is not derived from its saturated fat, and that unlike meat, dairy foods are protective.

                    ‘Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017 Aug 13;57(12):2497-2525. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2014.967385.

                    ‘Vegetables oils, partially hydrogenated fats, and fried foods are responsible for the persistently high rate of heart disease. The most effective way to prevent coronary heart disease and sudden death according to these conclusions is to eat fewer commercially fried foods, fewer polyunsaturated fats and to avoid partially hydrogenated fats. Conversely, we should eat more vegetables and fruit as a source of antioxidants.”

                    https://universityhealthnews.com/daily/heart-health/oxidized-cholesterol-vegetable-oils-identified-as-the-main-cause-of-heart-disease/

                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26287637

                    …recent research has shown that dairy lipids possess putative bioactivity against chronic inflammation. Inflammation triggers the onset of several chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, and cancer.

                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28342603

                    …Adolescents with high milk intake had lower CMRS, compared with those with low intake (10.6% vs 18.1%, P = .018). Adolescents with appropriate milk intake were less likely to have high CMRS than those with low milk intake (odds ratio, 0.531; 95% confidence interval, 0.302-0.931).

                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24418246

                    ….Higher intakes of whole fat milk, yogurt, and cheese were associated with better cardiovascular health. Even when controlling for demographic and dietary variables, those who consumed at least 5 servings per week of these dairy products had a significantly higher CHS than those who consumed these products less frequently.

                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25476191

                    Participants in the highest tertile of whole-fat dairy intakes (milk, cheese, yogurt) had significantly lower odds for being obese (global obesity: OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29-0.72; P < .01; abdominal obesity: OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.23-0.54; P < .001), compared with those in the lowest intake tertile, after full adjustment for demographic, lifestyle, dietary, and cardiovascular risk factor variables. Increasing consumption of dairy foods may have the potential to lower the prevalence of global and abdominal obesity.

                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25159495

                    Accumulated evidence from prospective cohort studies suggests that dairy consumption is inversely and longitudinally associated with the risk of childhood overweight/obesity.

                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26862005

                    Ericson et al.

                    Dietary fats could affect glucose metabolism and obesity development and, thereby, may have a crucial role in the cause of type 2 diabetes (T2D).
                    Studies indicated that replacing saturated with unsaturated fats might be favorable, and plant foods might be a better choice than animal foods.
                    Nevertheless, epidemiologic studies suggested that dairy foods are protective.

                    CONCLUSIONS:

                    Decreased T2D risk at high intake of high- but not of low-fat dairy products suggests that dairy fat partly could have contributed to previously observed protective associations between dairy intake and T2D.
                    Meat intake was associated with increased risk independently of the fat content.

                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25832335

                    Park et al. Results from short-term intervention studies on CVD biomarkers have indicated that a diet higher in SF from whole milk and butter increases LDL cholesterol when substituted for carbohydrates or unsaturated fatty acids; however, they may also increase HDL and therefore might not affect or even lower the total cholesterol:HDL cholesterol ratio. The results from the review also indicate that cheese intake lowers LDL cholesterol compared with butter of equal milk fat content.

                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22585901

                    1. Thanks Pete.

                      I will have to work my way through them. However, a number of them I suspect are compromised by failure to control for food substitution. In other words, people eating more dairy are presumably eating less of something else … in Western countries, perhaps that is meat products and refined carbohydrates. I have little trouble accepting that dairy products may be relatively healthful compared to those alternatives including junkfood ‘vegan’ diets.

                      The real question to my mind is whether dairy foods are healthful relative to alternatives such as whole plant foods and fish. I haven’t seen any such evidence. Nor is the stroke argument at all convincing. First, the three fewer stroke cases per thousand came at the cost of 10 additional heart disease cases. This is a cost that only a committed dairy foods advocate would consider acceptable. In any case, what happens with junkfood ‘vegans’ and ‘vegetarians’ shouldn’t be represented as showing what would happen in the case of people following a WFPB diet.

                      Another problem I have with many of the studies showing dairy benefits is the comparison diets used and other aspects of study design, especially those funded by industry. Not all study designs are as blatantly loaded to deliver a positive result as the one you refer to at the end of your post – “The results from the review also indicate that cheese intake lowers LDL cholesterol compared with butter of equal milk fat content” – but some caution is definitely warranted.

                      Anyway, thanks again for posting the links. It’ll take me a while to review them. I accept that a WFPB diet containing small amounts of (low or no fat?) dairy would be a healthy one though ….. but I haven’t yet seen any evidence that it would be superior to a well-planned WFPB diet that instead contains some fish or one that is completely vegetarian.

                    2. Pete

                      I’ve just been through those links you kindly provided. Here are my comments:

                      1.Your first link is to a more or less less speculative review of several subjects, including dairy, by Mozzafarian and Hu.
                      https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.117.309008
                      Mozzafarian has several financial links to companies which are associated with the dairy industry, either directly or indirectly. I understand that other nutrition experts might not agree with a number of his statements/conclusions about dairy products.

                      2.Your second link is to a press release which Greg posted previously. It refers to a study which while showing no associations with overall mortality did suggest higher stroke risk with lower levels of certain fatty acids associated with dairy consumption. However, the study didn’t look at the food substitution issue. It also controlled for BMI and waist circumference – arguably overadjustment given it was a study of dietary fat consumption. The lead author was again Mozzafarian who has some links to the dairy industry, including I understand a patent application.

                      3.Your third link was to a systematic review of the association between dairy products and cardiovascular outcomes.
                      https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/7/6/1026/4568635
                      The lead author of that review is the chair of the Dairy Farmers of Canada scientific advisory panel and has also received funding from that and other dairy bodies/companies.

                      4. Your fourth link referred to ‘Dairy products and inflammation: A review of the clinical evidence’
                      https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2014.967385
                      I would just note that it discloses that ‘The authors of this review are members of the FA COST Action FA1005 “Improving health properties of food by sharing our knowledge on the digestive process” (INFOGEST)’
                      and that Infogest itself notes ‘Connections between academic partners
                      and industry are strong thanks to the participation to INFOGEST of more than 50 food companies.’
                      https://www.cost-infogest.eu/ABOUT-Infogest

                      5. Your fifth link is to an online magazine by the Belvoir Media Group. It reports a 2013 article/hypothesis by Fred Kummerow (which doesn’t even mention dairy products)
                      https://universityhealthnews.com/daily/heart-health/oxidized-cholesterol-vegetable-oils-identified-as-the-main-cause-of-heart-disease/#
                      And I am pretty sure that dairy products contain cholesterol in any case.

                      6. Your sixth link is the same as your fourth link.

                      7. Your seventh link is to an article in the Journal of Dairy Science. The authors reported receiving funding from Enterprise Ireland, a government agency reposnisible for promoting exports from the Irish Republic. The Republic is a major exporter of dairy products.

                      8. Your eighth link is to a study by a Portuguese team.
                      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0271531713002510?via%3Dihub
                      Its title is ‘Intake of milk, but not total dairy, yogurt, or cheese, is negatively associated with the clustering of cardiometabolic risk factors in adolescents’ How does that show dairy consumption is healthful? As usual, it doesn’t address food substitution issues.

                      9. Your ninth link is to study of a population in Luxembourg.
                      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0271531714000499?via%3Dihub
                      It found positive associations but also noted ‘Higher total whole fat dairy food intake was also associated with other positive health behaviors, including being a nonsmoker, consuming the suggested dietary intakes of recommended foods, and having a normal body mass index.’ Confounding then?

                      10. Your tenth link also discusses results from the Luxembourg study, this time those about obesity
                      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0271531714001213?via%3Dihub
                      This too is behind a paywall so it’s hard to assess what factors they controlled for and how well. It may simply be that dairy eaters, like fish eaters, are more likely to consciously adopt healthy behaviours. Nor does it appear to compare obesity levels to those in eg fish eaters or vegetarians ……. merely to people eating a background average Western diet.

                      11. The eleventh link is also about obesity and indicates that compared to children eating average diets, children eating more dairy were less likely to be obese.
                      https://www.nature.com/articles/ejcn2015226
                      Again, no great surprise perhaps that diets high in dairy were less obesogenic than standard Western-style diets.

                      12. The twelfth link suggests that dairy fat could partly contribute to an observed association between dairy consumption and lower T2D risk However it also states that ‘Meat intake was associated with increased risk independently of the fat content.’ A possible alternative explanation might be that people eating more dairy, simply eat less meat and possibly less of other unhealthy foods, and this explains the association.

                      13. The last one talks about the effects on cholesterol and notes that dairy consumption may increase HDL cholesterol.
                      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649459/
                      One of the authors is from the Dairy Research Institute, though, and the other is a food industry consultant. It is also worth noting that the article accepts that LDL levels are increased. Further, I would note that intervention trials have not demonstrated any benefits from HDL raising on clinical outcomes.

                      To be honest, Pete, I find all of these underwhelming. Even ignoring the industry connections in most of them, at best they suggest that high dairy diets may be superior to standard background diets in Westernised economies, although even there an association with more health-conscious behaviour by dairy consumers may have confounded results.

                      They provide no evidence that adding dairy to a WFPD diet would be beneficial. Even the possibility of reducing stroke risk (and it’s far from certain that WFPB dieters do have increased stroke risk), comes at the cost of a three times (plus) greater increase in heart. disease risk. But in the context of a SAD diet, if they displace more unhealthful foods I can see them being relatively beneficial.

                    3. Tom,

                      Appreciate your detailed reply. I think we have both stated our cases.
                      Therefore, no compelling need to (endlessly) respond to responses.

                2. The two very credible studies I quoted demonstrate that vegetarians have a 20% higher risk of stroke, and consumption of milk fat decreases stroke risk by 42%.
                  ———————————————————————————————————
                  I had a sister who had a hemorrhagic stroke and spent the last 8 years of her life in a wheelchair.

                  I have a nephew who had a stent put in and he’s pretty much normal.

                  If I had a choice, I’d take the stent.

                    1. Full fat dairy!

                      ‘full-fat dairy milk, yogurt, butter, cheeses, and cream were not found to increase heart disease risk (compared to a background diet that typically contains high amounts of refined carbohydrates and sugars). However, it is important to note that these foods were not found to decrease risk either.

                      What did predict risk of cardiovascular disease was “fat swapping.” When dairy fat was replaced with the same number of calories from vegetable fat or polyunsaturated fat, the risk of cardiovascular disease dropped by 10% and 24%, respectively. Furthermore, replacing the same number of calories from dairy fat with healthful carbohydrates from whole grains was associated with a 28% lower risk of cardiovascular disease.

                      Replacing dairy fat with other types of animal fat, such as from red meat, predicted a modest 6% higher risk of cardiovascular disease.

                      ““These results suggest that dairy fat is not an optimal type of fat in our diets.”

                      https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/10/25/dairy-fat-cardiovascular-disease-risk/

                    2. “Wow! A 22 year study not based on self reporting but follow up tests instead. That’s pretty impressive.”

                      Those tests don’t distiguish between fatty acids from dairy and the same fatty acids naturally produced by the body.

                      What is more, there was no link between those fatty acids and all cause mortality …. perhaps suggestingswings and roundabouts.

                      What is more, they controlled for BMI and waist circumference … which is arguably overadjustment in the context of presumed higher levels of saturated fat consumption.

                      https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/108/3/476/5052139?guestAccessKey=c18b1acf-2778-42b9-8d72-878c0e86cdbf

              2. Furthermore, replacing the same number of calories from dairy fat with healthful carbohydrates from whole grains was associated with a 28% lower risk of cardiovascular disease.

                Yes.

                Thank you, Tom, for posting the studies every single week.

                I have learned quite a bit from that process.

        4. Randy,

          They did a study on De novo lipogenesis – by overfeeding women overfeeding by 50% with foods either sucrose or glucose foods to see how well sugary foods converted to fat and their conclusion was:

          De novo lipogenesis increases after overfeeding with glucose and sucrose to the same extent in lean and obese women but does not contribute greatly to total fat balance.

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11722954

          That, on top of the biopsy of fat from obese people who died, plus the fact that the obesity rate most closely corresponds to the animal product rate – rather than the sugar rate settles the issue.

          Yes, sugar is not good for you, but it is the fat you eat that is MOST of the fat you wear. Fat has more calories and it goes straight to fat without a process.

          The sugar to fat process is one animals are efficient at, but humans are not efficient at it at all.

          1. Plus, when they studied which types of foods created more satiety, carbs won.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365993

            Partly because of the Volumetrics concept where it was noticed that people eat the same volume of food no matter how many calories the food has.

            Partly because the stretch receptors in the stomach, which are responsible for shutting off the hunger hormones are not as sensitive to fats as they are to fiber.

            Most people’s stretch receptors don’t register fats and they have shown in studies that if you add something like oil to a pasta sauce, people will not register the extra calories and they will over eat.

            1. Carbohydrates (CHOs) exert potent effects on satiety. Inhibition of CHO metabolism stimulates intake, as do transient declines in plasma glucose. Inhibition of fat metabolism also stimulates intake, but fat is the least readily metabolized macronutrient, and therefore, joule for joule, is less satiating than CHO or protein. High-fat, energy-dense diets lead to excess energy intakes (EIs) and weight gain relative to lower-fat, less energy-dense diets, and fat intake is a risk factor for subsequent weight gain.

              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10422099

        5. The government has been pushing the food pyramid which is high in carbohydrates and lowin saturated fat and meat since the 1980’s.
          The Result? Massive increases in obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, cancer and heart disease.
          —————————————————————————————————————————
          Randy, remember the Sergio Mendez song “Fool on the Hill”?

          Judging from the comments following your post… (One old drag-axle saying “This is the standard half truth peddled by con artists to deceive the naive and the gullible.”) … I think you must know how that so-called “fool” who sees the sun coming up … and the eyes in his head sees the world spinning round, feels.

          IMO, some of what Dr Greger posted helps connect the dots but your logic does as well. Both of you are Big Picture people.

          1. Wishful thinking is not big picture thinking. It’s self deception.

            “Iit’s not evidence if I ignore it”.

            Or in your case…,.. If I call it dogma, it is not evidence so I ignore it.

            1. Tom, there have been multiple presentations of evidence from respected govt. websites that run contrary to your dogmatic postings. Why are those dismissed while yours are demanded we accept as right?

              Obstinacy can be an easy path to follow but eventually people start to dismiss the messanger as being unable to see both sides. If you call tails every time, theoretically you will only be right half the time.

              1. Which evidence is that then? Why not post it instead of just making vague unspecific accusations?

                All I have seen so far is assertions and stories..

                So far you have described Greger’s videos and blogs here as mere ‘dogma’. When I post statements here supported by references to studies, I am also being dogmatic.

                On the other hand, when Randy and you make statements, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, purporting to be ‘indisputable’ facts, we are supposed to believe that they aren’t just statements of low carb dogma.

                it seems to me that you are accusing me of your own sins.

                1. On the other hand, when Randy and you make statements, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, purporting to be ‘indisputable’ facts, we are supposed to believe that they aren’t just statements of low carb dogma.
                  ——————————————————————————-
                  You’ve probably heard “Figures don’t lie but liars figure.” I think that is how many of us think of studies as they are narrow in scope, as a rule.

                  But anecdotal evidence is as the nomenclature implies, evidence. I think Randy’s experience over many decades and his own admission that he was killing his patients by following the govt. food pyramid, suffices as evidence of the highest order that changing to the diet he outlined is saving lives.

                  And the link I posted to a Ted Talk in another similar video comment section (that you dismissed out of hand) showing how a practitioner was reversing diabetes by cutting out carbs in her dying patients, qualifies as professional evidence.

                  I still submit that your insistence that these life-saving real world cases are lies fabricated by money-hungry practitioners of black arts, are a clear and present danger to those who are here to improve their lives through the teachings of Greger and the many professionals who participate in the comments.

                  I can’t remember ever reading one of your posts conceding that anything other than what you use to put out any fire you think anyone having a different opinion to Dr. Greger is starting.

                  (Full disclosure: I seldom read any of your posts because I already know the gist of the anti-message you will be saying ‘-)

                  1. And still stories and anecdotes trump scientific evidence in your book.

                    That’s your privilege.

                    I find it such a mindset entertaining but sad.

                    What I find unconscionable though is couselling others to ignore strong evidence set out in major scientific reports in favour of claims based on anecdotes, carefully chosen case studies and blue sky speculation.

                    1. What I find unconscionable though is counseling others to ignore strong evidence set out in major scientific reports in favor of claims based on anecdotes, carefully chosen case studies and blue sky speculation.
                      ——————————————————————————————-
                      I’m against that too. That’s why I find it necessary to challenge you when you put down claims contrary to your belief and even try to belittle or discredit those who post the strong evidence set out in major scientific reports.

                      I don’t want to win the day (as seems to be your aim)… I want the readers to win by having different viewpoints to choose from.

                    2. Who’s chief censor at nutritionfacts at present? What I also find unconscionable is being censored on this website. Which is a fairly regular occurrence.
                      My posts to both Lonie (1) and Tom (2) about 4 hours ago have been deleted for no reason other than they were written by me – and contradict the official line.

                    3. Marcel Angel, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine came to the conclusionas many as 50% of the “research studies” published in the medical literature were false.  You can pick any topic and find studies pro and con to support whatever findings youwant to believe.
                      It’s called bias or worse, pushing an agenda whether that be diets, drugs, vaccines, surgery…..whatevertopic you want to pick, I read many studies and keep an open mind, but after a while I find relying on realworld experience teaches me more about what helps my patients and what does not.
                      Statin drugs are a good example. You can find many studies showing they “work.” Thereality is they have no effect on heart attack or stroke rate, and at best in secondaryprevention less than a 1% absolute risk reduction in C-V mortality. Meaning 99% ofthose with a previous MI or stent will have no benefit year after year while subjectingthemselves to a myriad of over 300 documented side effects, many of which arelife threatening in and of themselves (congestive heart failure, dementia and Type IIdiabetes to name just a few).
                      You can also confirm what I believe which is that statins don’t work at all and actually accelerateatherosclerosis.  https://www.europeanscientist.com/en/features/do-statins-really-work-who-benefits-who-has-the-power-to-cover-up-the-side-effects/#_ftn7

                      I believed the low fat, low cholesterol dogma for 20 years and saw it disastrous resultsin my heart disease patients. Cholesterol is an essential nutrient, not a poison.
                      I gave this dietary approach the heave ho in 1990.
                      Now that my patients eat more cholesterol and more saturated fat from REAL food sources(grass fed beef, free range eggs, etc) along with other interventions I previously discussed, my patient’s repeat C-V event rate has become almost nil and their health and mental statusis much improved. Starving the brain of cholesterol is not a good formula for optimalmental health IMHO.
                      It’s important to remember vascular disease is a multi-factoral process.The reductions inrisk from dietary changes are modest in my opinion in the bigger picture of atherogenesis.
                      Specific nutrient deficiencies, hormone loss, increased blood viscosity, endothelial trauma,excessive oxidative stress, gluten intolerance, an abnormal intestinal Microbiome,  inflammation, bacterial endotoxins from periodontal disease and infected root canals (sorry, Weston Price DDS was correct and wrote 2 books totaling 1100 pages years ago confirming many root canals lead to infected teeth that leak endotoxins into the jaw circulation, further  verified years later by George Meinig DDS in his book “Root Canal Coverup”), abnormalities in homocysteine and Lipoprotein(a) metabolism, insulin resistance,carbon monoxide exposure from environmental sources or cigarette smoking,clinical and subclinical  hypothyroidism, elevated iron and calcium blood levels and of course being sedentary are some but not all of the risk factors that lead to atherosclerosis.  Neither a plant based diet nor any other “diet” be it Keto, Paleo, Mediterranean or the “Twinkie”diet can address all of these issues. I don’t like “diets”……….my advice is to eat healthy realfoods from a variety of sources and avoid junk processed foods as well as specific nutritionalsupplements to address specific biochemical needs based on one’s individual metabolic issuesand blood nutrient level measurements.
                      Optimizing Microbiome diversity and quantity is a growing part of what I do now…and eating fermented dairy products (as well as high fiber plant products) are part of that strategy. That’s also rightout of Weston Price’s Nourishing Traditions website……….he was way ahead of his time and Microbiome research is confirming the fermented and nutrient dense foods he recommendedprevent disease and improve health.

                    4. Tom,

                      I read all of your posts because you post links to scientific studies.

                      I know that you didn’t choose to go vegan and I will tell you that The Game Changers documentary talked about eating meat once per week already had a negative result.

                      Even eating it one meal affected not only the blood of the males, but also the number of erections they had and how firm those erections were. One vegan meal increased the number of erections for one man by almost 500%.

                      Honestly, viagra has competition and all these males are going to suffer with that drug and may cut off oxygen to their penis instead of improving the blood flow.

                      Seeing the athletes improve so quickly, on top of the lab numbers improving by 100 points in 7 days, there is no way meat is good for people.

    2. Nice story Randy but that is all it is.

      Greger quotes the evidence for his statements. All you do is repeat the wishful thinking of internet cranks who wish tio justify their unhealthy dietary practices.

      No sale mate.

    3. Would you think it odd to see a horse eating a lion or a deer eating a dog? Yes of course. Why? Because we know that all meat eating animals have the fangs for ripping flesh. Its the teeth that tells whether the animal is an herbivore or a carnivore.
      But most importantly, studies show the disease that the animals are carrying. Why would you want to eat a bloody piece of cancer or leukemia and be fatally sick?
      The choice is yours!

      1. Sorry, organically produced grass fed beef is hormone and antibiotic free as well asdisease free.

        These cattle do not carry diseases nor am I eating any animal product containingany diseases. The USDA inspects meats and pulls them off the market whennecessary.  They are not perfect, but they’re pretty good out sorting out healthy fromsick cattle, which is more likely eating CAFO meat which I do not eat.
        If I was eating “bad meat” I don’t think I would be 70 years old and as “healthy as a horse.”

    1. Explain how I can show you countless studies showing that a low carb diet can help and reverse diabetes AND help and reverse fatty liver disease?

      1. The Twinkie Diet guy showed that weight loss improves bio markers. Low carb diets that deliver weight loss may be as good as the Twinkie Diet in that ‘respect.

        The various ketogenic diets that severely restrict all carbohydrates and replace them mostly with fats are associated with increased risk for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease or NAFLD (JAMA Intern Med, published online July 15, 2019). NAFLD can lead to diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, liver cancer and other cancers (Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care, Jul 1, 2012;15(4):374-380). Ketogenic diets have also been associated with kidney stones, constipation, diarrhea, fatigue, headaches, bad breath, bone fractures, and an increase in LDL cholesterol that increases risk for heart disease. Ketogenic diets increase markers of cholesterol and inflammation, although they do lower triglycerides (Obesity, June 2019;27(6):971-981).

        1. Show me a Twinkie diet study that states the below.

          ** A low-carb diet may have benefits for people at risk of developing type 2 diabetes. They found that more than half of study participants no longer met the criteria for metabolic syndrome immediately following a four-week low-carb diet. –

          https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190620100036.htm
          The effect of a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low-glycemic index diet on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus.Trusted Source Nutrion & Metabolism

          Details: 84 individuals with obesity and type 2 diabetes were randomized to a low-carb, ketogenic diet or a calorie restricted low-glycemic diet.

          Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost more weight (11.1 kg – 24.4 lbs) vs. (6.9 kg – 15.2 lbs

          Conclusion: The low-carb group lost significantly more weight. There were several other important differences.

          Hemoglobin A1c went down by 1.5% in the LC group. Diabetes medications were either reduced or eliminated in 95.2% of the LC group, compared to 62% in the low-glycemic group.

          1. Greg

            That study’s lead author was Jeff Volek …. big wheel in the Atkins Diet empire, author of several popular books promoting the Atkins Diet etc etc ….. and it was funded by the National Dairy Council and the Dutch Dairy Association.

            It was never going to come to any other conclusion was it?

            I had a quick look – the study doesn’t appear to report what happened to LDL cholesterol levels in the different groups. Also, the high carb group only averaged 25 grammes of fibre daily. This is a bit odd for people on a high carb diet …… especially when we consider that the US National Academies of Science recommend 38 grammes of fibre per day for males aged 14-50. (the average age of study participants was 41).

            https://insight.jci.org/articles/view/128308

                1. I am laughing that they gave the high carb groups things like Marshmallow Fluff, refined sugary cereal, ham, multiple servings of cheese and multiple juices, It’s not butter and sour cream.

                  I think the only whole foods were a potato and some broccoli, but that meal had meat, cheese, It’s Not Butter and sour cream.

                  I got to the end of the list and I already forgot what the study was about.

  3. And, Randy Ice, he wrote an article, which examined what about meat intake led to the risk factors and your concept that people are going to switch to slow cooking from grilling without ever having read articles like this one is not true.

    People are so into grilling meat and they don’t know this information at all.

    So, unless you hate meat eaters, let the good doctor do his job.

  4. 87 years ago grocery stores mainly offered only basic food items fresh vegetables flour meat milk eggs little if any prepackaged food etc. also no patato chips etc. everything was prepared cooked at home at home including meat. my mother father I and my brothers grew up and did not become obese. same with grand parents and cousins.
    no obese childhood friends and school mates.
    instead of just studying the impact of mother’s diet and environmental conditions add to your research the impact of today’s junk food along with the traditional diets that include meat and ingredients added to it.

    1. Correct.  Our grandparents from the late 1880’s through the 1930’s and ate REAL food including meat, eggs, cheese, milk, chicken etc and mine all lived into their 90’s, as did their parents. They lived onfarms and raised their own cattle, pigs and chickens, or as you pointed out……….the stores hadREAL food grown or raised on these organic farms free of pesticides and herbicides and virtually no high carb, high polyunsaturated fat/high transfats processed foods. These lead in inflammation and insulin resistance………the root cause of most diseases today.

  5. The study cited in your blog deals with pregnant women in Tasmania, Australia in 1988-1989.

    “Hormonal growth promotants for cattle have been registered for use in Australia for the last 30 years”.
    https://www.mla.com.au/research-and-development/search-rd-reports/final-report-details/Productivity-On-Farm/HGP-Use-in-the-Australian-Beef-Industry/376#

    I would look to Zeranol as a potential cause… even if it wasn’t intentionally given to livestock. Zeranol is as potent as Estradiol. [Human Reproduction Vol.16, No.5 pp. 1037–1045, 2001]

    “Zearalenone, α-zearalenol and its epimer β-zearalenol are produced by several Fusarium species that colonise grains. High amounts can be found on maize, wheat, barley and oats.”
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/zeranol

    “Analysis of 24 samples (of corn) indicates that approximately 70% of the monitored samples were contaminated with zearalenone, with levels ranging from 3 to 83 μg/kg of corn kernels.” [Food Chemistry Vol. 100, Issue 2, 2007, pp. 693-698]

    The Australian study cited DID NOT look for the presence of Endocrine Disruptors in either the mothers nor in their adolescent children.

  6. Maybe a Low Carb diet (animal protein) can actually help adolescents lose weigh?

    The Effects of a High-protein, Low-fat, Ketogenic Diet on Adolescents With Morbid Obesity: Body Composition, Blood Chemistries, and Sleep Abnormalities

    https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/101/1/61

    *Conclusions.The K diet can be used effectively for rapid weight loss in adolescents with morbid obesity. Loss in lean body mass is blunted, blood chemistries remain normal, and sleep abnormalities significantly decrease with weight

    Adolescent study —- Krebs NF, et al. Efficacy and safety of a high protein, low carbohydrate diet for weight loss in severely obese adolescents.Trusted Source Journal of Pediatrics, 2010.

    Details: 46 individuals were randomized to a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 36 weeks. Low-fat group was calorie restricted.

    Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost more weight and had greater decreases in BMI than the low-fat group.

    Conclusion: The low-carb group had greater reductions in BMI. Various biomarkers also improved.

    Efficacy and Safety of a High Protein, Low Carbohydrate Diet for Weight Loss in Severely Obese Adolescents

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892194/

    1. In a recently published study that focuses on tolerability and complications of the ketogenic diet, Kang and coworkers prospectively followed up a cohort of 129 children treated with the ketogenic diet for a mean duration of 1 year…..

      Within the first 4 weeks, dehydration and gastrointestinal complications were the most commonly encountered complications. Infectious diseases, aspiration pneumonia, serum lipid abnormalities, hyperuricemia, hypoglycemia, electrolyte imbalance and acidosis, hepatitis, and acute pancreatitis also occurred. After the first 4 weeks, study patients were still prone to almost all of the early complications except dehydration, pancreatitis, and hyponatremia. In nearly 15% of the patients, osteopenia, renal stones, hydronephrosis, iron deficiency anemia, secondary hypocarnitinemia, and cardiomyopathy developed after the first month of ketosis. Fortunately, most early- and late-onset complications improved with conservative management and did not cause the patient to exit the diet. However, 22 patients dropped out as a result of a variety of adverse effects, including gastrointestinal disturbance, infections, aspiration pneumonia, pancreatitis, electrolyte disturbance, and osteopenia. No significant differences were found in the rate of complication for patients who were taking or not taking valproate. Four (3.8%) patients died during the study period. One child with pyruvate dehydrogenase deficiency died of cardiomyopathy. One patient died of lipoid pneumonia after aspirating, and in two patients, serious infectious diseases developed. The latter three died within 60 days of initiating the diet; all had significant underlying brain damage.

    2. Too late Greg… the “Keto is bad” seed has been planted and fertilized with obscure anti-keto dung by Mr. Middle Finger et al.

      Even proof as unimpeachable as yours will be shouted down.

        1. I put either peanut oil
          —————————-
          That’s a new one on me… I buy pure peanut butter where the oil floats on top. I pour that off and use it to oil the chain on my chain saw.

          Now I may just rub some on my arms when using the chain saw. ‘-)

      1. Yes people can lose weight on low carb diets.. So what? People can lose weight on a cocaine diet and a twinkie Diet. And losing weight will improve biomarkers.

        That doesn’t prove such diets are healthy …. that’s a big logic fail.

      2. Proof as unimpeachable as yours – er, right..

        As for your remark that …… ‘the “Keto is bad” seed has been planted and fertilized with obscure anti-keto dung’ …… that dung is scientific studies Keto is essentially the latest name for diets that restrict carbohydrate consumption.and we know that

        ‘‘Compared to participants with the highest carbohydrate consumption, those with the lowest intake had a 32% higher risk of all-cause death over an average 6.4-year follow-up. In addition, risks of death from coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and cancer were increased by 51%, 50%, and 35%, respectively.

        The results were confirmed in a meta-analysis of seven prospective cohort studies with 447,506 participants and an average follow-up 15.6 years, which found 15%, 13%, and 8% increased risks in total, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality with low (compared to high) carbohydrate diets.’
        https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180828085922.htm

        We now have a new addition to the keto catechism

        ‘What about the evidence?
        If I call it obscure dung, it is not evidence. So I ignore it’

        Thanks!

  7. Our bodies were “programmed” for sure. But it wasn’t by a mythical “evolution”, it was by a loving Creator who made us in His image.

    1. it was by a loving Creator who made us in His image.
      ———————————————————————-
      True, Dad had a hand in it and in some ways I’m sorta in his image… but in my case, mom was the more loving one of my creator(s).

  8. “Our bodies were “programmed” for sure. But it wasn’t by a mythical “evolution”, it was by a loving Creator who made us in His image.”

    Joking, right…?

    1. :-D It’s too soon for the next Mercury retrograde transit.

      It would have helped if he had inserted “I believe that” in front of his statement. Otherwise, it comes off as “my way or the highway.”

      1. It’s not about beliefs – it’s about what the evidence shows.

        You don’t think Randy’s and Lonie’s statements were equally uncompromising?

        1. “It’s not about beliefs – it’s about what the evidence shows.”
          – – – – –

          We were talking about Brian’s “it was by a loving Creator who made us in His image” in this case. Is your “what the evidence shows” referring to that statement?

          1. No, sorry. My bad.

            It was late at night here and I was on a Randy/Lonie response loop at the time and presumed your post was about that ….. as opposed to being about the strange post by Brian.

            I was probably feeling a bit guilty about being so abrasive towards the low carbers …. even though I think that these latter-day heirs of Atkins who come here to spread their peculiar beliefs, have a lot to answer for …………….

            ‘Compared to participants with the highest carbohydrate consumption, those with the lowest intake had a 32% higher risk of all-cause death over an average 6.4-year follow-up. In addition, risks of death from coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and cancer were increased by 51%, 50%, and 35%, respectively.

            The results were confirmed in a meta-analysis of seven prospective cohort studies with 447,506 participants and an average follow-up 15.6 years, which found 15%, 13%, and 8% increased risks in total, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality with low (compared to high) carbohydrate diets.’
            https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180828085922.htm

  9. The reason I follow Dr G and NF is because I’m provided with an evidence based approach to what I eat. There’s no guess work; no hearsay observations; no anecdotal stories and old wives tales. The science is in and the evidence is clear – WFPB is the only diet proven to stop and reverse heart disease among a host of other diseases. Read the studies – I have! What more do you need?

    If you have the evidence (randomised, placebo controlled, double blind studies preferred) to show eating meat and associated products can improve my health – show me please!

    1. Greginoz,

      I agree with you about accepting the conclusions of current evidence, and using that as a guide to eating and living well.

      But I also like all the anecdotal evidence — which includes me, my husband, my brother, and my nephew. We all eventually changed to plant based eating (and eventually to whole food), and lost weight. And in my brother’s case, he went off several meds, including for type 2 diabetes. (He also started exercising, moderately but consistently.). My husband and I don’t take any meds (at ages 68 and 76). My nephew is still young. Ish. Knock wood. Works for us.

    2. Greginoz,

      With science being as corrupt as it is, we still need all of the anecdotal evidence that we can get.

      Plus, there are topics which are being more hotly debated after every study because of conflicting evidence.

      I am not against the anecdotal evidence. I go back and forth between the two and if they don’t match up, I try to figure out why.

      I can use the UK study with hemorrhagic stroke in the vegan and vegetarian groups. The blogs and doctors have already debunked it, but I do see possible mechanisms, which could fall between the cracks of the studies.

      Just looking back at that old Dr. Greger video where the vegans had zero benefit in any category and had twice as much Alzheimer’s and more Breast Cancer. The process Dr. Greger did back then is the one I want. It isn’t just listening to a study, it is a deeper analysis.

      The fact that vegan women might lose their periods earlier and maybe have moral reasons to not have too many children, and that movement is growing. The fact that there are things they can do to help prevent losing their periods earlier and things maybe they can do to stop some of the negative results on the body of not being pregnant and of having lost their periods early has already fallen between the cushions on the couch with nobody looking for the things to change, because it is one side trying to come against veganism and the other side trying to defend it – rather than a deeper examination.

      I go to a lot of sites and women are not always getting the benefits of WFPB to begin with. They also often don’t get the benefit of Keto or Intermittent fasting. That gets lost in the scientific process.

      1. “With science being as corrupt as it is, we still need all of the anecdotal evidence that we can get.”
        – – – – –

        Hmmm, will Fumbles with all his reliance on “reputable scientific evidence” like that sentence? :-)

          1. And, in case the staff of Nutritionfacts.org is so focused on How Not to Diet that they missed me plugging for the women’s health topic, I will mention that the younger generation are putting off having children to pay off student loans and because of the logic about population explosion and because they have 3 jobs and can’t afford it and because they are less likely to get married young and more likely to use contraception or the abortion pill than older generations, plus, they are more likely to be infertile because of diet. The list is longer than that, but it isn’t just vegan women nowadays who need to know how and why to avoid early menopause and they need to know about the risks for things like breast cancer, Alzheimer’s and Hemorrhagic stroke.

            Plus, the vegan community has women who are doing Fruitarian to the point of losing their periods.

            The fact that I found food solutions, I know that your team can do a special series for the women in the community.

            1. You beautiful young women on the staff, I am counting on you. I highly respect Dr. Greger and all of these doctors, but there is a place where women’s health issues still is lagging behind and what I do know is that when the UK study came out, Dr. Greger and all of these men worked their brain cells so much to clear veganism. They found the mechanisms and the thing is, Dr. Greger already also knew the mechanism of estrogen and he didn’t go the extra 100 steps to present solutions for that. He presented Homocysteine and Omega 6/3 ratio.

              I am not calling any of these doctors’ sexist. I am saying that so many of them being males, you will get situations where Dr. Ornish chooses prostate cancer versus breast cancer and that is a useful study, but it is that people tend to be attracted to things which are in their own wheel well until someone tugs on their sleeves enough times.

              Genuinely, I am more of a humanist than a feminist and believe that males probably are the more vulnerable population in our society with more suicides, more murder, more homelessness, more addiction, more males in prison, more males at the lowest end of poverty, more males without role models, more males who don’t finish education, more males who struggle verbally and with reading and writing, and even though there are fewer males, they have so many issues and not a very big “males movement” to help them, so nobody ever focuses there.

              Well, with health, it is women and races, other than white who are tugging on the sleeves of doctors.

          2. I could reply that you all seem quite happy to attribute opinions and beliefs to others on the basis of your own personal prejudices!

            Parhaps I am kidding myself, but I like to think that my own opinions reflect the balance of evidence.as set out in major scientific reports, following the extensive analysis of a wide range of complementary evidence. As opposed to just cheering the odd study that appears to support my personal beliefs.

            Anyway as they say, chew on this
            https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-a-data-detective-exposed-suspicious-medical-trials

        1. “Corrupt’ may be too strong a term. However, in my opinion it is absolutely correct that many studies seem to be influenced by the funding source and/or the personal beliefs of individual researchers. It is all too easy to design a study that will predispose the results to a certain conclusion. Or the authors can interpret the results in ways which reflect their opinions or the interests of grant funders etc. Look at the studies posted by Greg for example. There’s just no need to make corrupt under the counter payments to obtain such ‘convenient’ results.

          Let’s also remember relevant videos on this site describing industry attempts to obscure issues and create doubt about the scientific evidence eg

          https://nutritionfacts.org/video/big-food-using-the-tobacco-industry-playbook/
          https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-saturated-fat-studies-buttering-up-the-public/
          https://nutritionfacts.org/2018/08/14/dont-be-confused-by-big-salt/

          That is why it is important to rely on multple lines of evidence – not just eg potentially confounded or conveniently overadjusted obervational studies, or even Atkins-funded intervention studies. In the case of dietary saturated fat for example, we don’t just rely on observational studies that link lower levels of consumption with lower mortality, we look at interventional/experimental studies that show replacing SFAs with eg PUFAs reduces mortality/adverse events. We also have studies of mechanisms that demonstrate the toxic effects of saturated fatty acids on heart cells.

          Similarly, in the case of high blood LDL cholesterol levels, observational studies reveal higher risk as levels increase, interventional/experimental studies report fewer adverse events when cholesterol is lowered and we also have studies that report te mechanisms by which high LDL cholesterol increase the risk of advverse events.

          Additionally, there are mendelian randomisation studies that support such conclusions.

          If we have 3 or 4 different types of evidence that all point in the same direction, we can have greater confidence that that might well be a good dietary direction to follow.

          Anecdotes and testimonals are a form of evidence but they are not reliable indicators of what might happen to everybody. For example, people who commit to vigorous exercise at the same time as adopting a new diet might claim that the benefits of exercise and weight loss are in fact the result of the diet. Or there is survivorship bias – you get a thousand people adopting a diet, 900 fail to see a benefit but a hundred do and become enthusiastic advocates giving eg YouTube testmonials. And how do you choose between testimonial A that swears by one diet and testimonial B that swears by a diet that does the exact opposite. The there was the study that showed that about half of all breast cancers disappeared on their own – but the internet ids full of people claiming that this or that alternative ‘cure’ was responsible.

          But sure, if you just want an excuse to ignore the bulk of the evidence and go with your ‘druthers, that observation of Deb’s will work as well as anything else. And it sounds considerably more rational than simply saying well … Seth/some medical medium/the Weston Price Foundation/any internet guru or YouTube video of your choice reveals the real truth about diet and health.

          That is why it is important to rely on multple lines of evidence – not just potentially confounded or conveniently overadjusted obervational studies. In the case of dietary saturated fat for example, we don’t just rely on observational studies that link lower levels of consumption with lower mortality, we look at interventional/experimental studies that show replacing SFAs with eg PUFAs reduces mortality/adverse events and we also have studies of mechaisms that demonstrate the toxic effects of saturated fatty acids on heart cells.

          Similarly, in the case of high blood LDL cholesterol levels, observational studies reveal higher risk as levels increase, interventional/experimental studies report fewer adverse events when cholesterol is lowered and we also have studies that report te mechanisms by which high LDL cholesterol increase the risk of advverse events.

          Additionally, there are mendelian randomisation studies that support such conclusions.

          If we have 3 or 4 different types of evidence that all point in the same direction, we can have greater confidence that that might well be a good dietary direction to follow.

          But sure, if you just want an excuse to ignore the bulk of the evidence and go with your ‘druthers, that observation of Deb’s will work as well as anything else. And it sounds considerably more rational than simply saying well … Seth/some medical medium/the Weston Price Foundation/any internet guru or YouTube video of your choice reveals the real truth about diet and health.

                1. I was though considering altering my pen name to Mr Middle Finger in line with Lonie’s quip.
                  ——————————————–
                  DO IT! (or you don’t have a hair on your ass… baldy ‘-)

                  Quote stolen from a Robert L. Bixler 566th Med Co (Ambulance) c. 1968 I Corp, Republic of Vietnam.

    1. Thanks Lonie.

      I saw this a couple of days ago on ScienceDaily I think.

      However, it doesn’t really give us a clue about what the long term health effects of consuming fatty meals are.

      Short term responses aren’t always good indicators for one thing. Exercise causes a short term increase in blood pressure for example. And resting/sleeping may cause blood pressure to decline, That doesn’t show that lounging around on the sofa is healthier than regular exercise

  10. To the NF.org team,

    I want to say that I do know that you do cover women’s topics.

    Maybe the way I want to word it is that I watched the old video and perhaps 1 video on Dr Ornish and one Dr Barnard study and feel like I understand everything except how to lose weight and whether the Estrogen issues are covered under WFPB or if they fall into categories like omega 3 and Homocysteine and I feel like it is the special category.

  11. I am wondering if there are any studies on bedding and sleep or health.

    There are so many options and a lot of it can be outrageously expensive.

    I bought a new bed and I feel like I want new mattress protectors and sheets and pillows because of things like dust mites and bed bugs and sleep hygiene issues.

    But choosing what to get. Is overwhelming and I include mattress, even though I sincerely bought the best mattress I have ever slept on ( and the most expensive mattress that I have ever slept on.

    I have such sleep issues that it was worth spending more, but Consumer Reports said that most of the cotton sheets failed to fit after a few washings.

    I went to their selection, but it is going to be $500 in bedding.

    I do not understand what the truly poor can do at all.

    Yesterday, I had a poor friend ask if I could give garbage bags. She has had many times where she only owned 1 pair of pants.

    The concept that I am going to have spent thousands of dollars by the end and I feel deep sadness at this culture.

    That family has no air conditioning no matter what the heat wave and I bought them cheap Ocean State Job lot comforters a few years ago, but things like sneakers and mattresses and all of it is so far out of people’s reach.

    We used to do Don’t let the bed bugs bite, but I look st them and it isn’t a funny saying anymore.

    1. Not sleeping has serious health implications already.

      Plus, there are all these synthetic materials, plus so many things are made by slave labor in China.

      The stress of having to make endless “no win” decisions and the stress of spending money and planned obsolescence even for something like cotton sheets.

      Plus, there is does organic matter in sheets or is it more a philosophy which is nice if you can afford it?

      What about pillows? Are they like toothbrushes? Or if you do an enclosed case, can they last forever?

      1. I am going to add that maybe 15 years ago, when washing machines switched to energy saving, Consumer Reports said, “For the first time, we recommend that you don’t buy a washing machine. The switch to lower water and lower temperature wasn’t working and clothes were coming out just as dirty as they went in.

        I bought a Speed Queen because it was the only washing machine still made old school with metal parts. (My brother bought a Maytag to replace his old one and had to have it repaired so many times already.

        I don’t understand if things like mattress pads and sheets and comforters would really get clean enough or would dry cleaning be better. I don’t understand how dry cleaning works at all.

        1. Because all of the topics are so confusing in the first place, and people are just buying a bed in a box on the internet, for most things, like sheets, I would be so overwhelmed trying to decide, that I might buy one high thread count cotton, which they said is also usually a scam and I would also buy flannel for Winter and I end up with storage problems and clutter, which adds stress from that side.

          1. That process is modern culture.

            Wealthy people get out of a lot of the stress of it. They hire people who know what they are doing and but the expensive stuff and have bigger closets.

            I compare that to the tiny house movement and I know that my falling outside of all of the trends has made it worse for me.

              1. Just keep replacing everything is expensive and bad for the planet, which is another stressor.

                It seems like there should be an app for weighing information to make decisions properly.

                They do have a flip a coin app, but I want one that does decision math for everything.

                1. The stress of having to learn everything is so serious, but the stress of trying to figure out how to learn it after if you opt out is just as bad and so is the stress of trying to keep up with all of the topics.

                  The people who didn’t learn computers now are not even understanding any of the cultural references and that is how I have felt about nutrition and every single topic.

                  Eventually, it seems like people will have to not try to figure it out, but then later you can’t and keeping up is easier than starting over.

                  Sorry for going on and on, what I know is that it all does come back to nutrition versus every other topic and I am studying nutrition and letting other things go because of the principles in “How Not To Die”. Diet trumps most things, but the culture is not healthy and never will be. Pandora’s box of unlimited information is already open.

Leave a Reply

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

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This