Best Foods to Avoid for Eczema

Best Foods to Avoid for Eczema
4.48 (89.7%) 33 votes

Randomized double-blind controlled trials suggest excluding certain foods, such as eggs and chicken, can significantly improve atopic dermatitis.

Discuss
Republish

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

Eczema, also known as atopic dermatitis, “is a chronic inflammatory skin disease”; in fact, the leading cause of healthy years of life lost due to common skin diseases, because it’s just so common—affecting about a fifth of us. And, it’s not just an itchy rash; it’s associated with other diseases, too. Yes, it can be itchy, exhausting, and embarrassing, but in kids, may increase risk for ADHD—though that may just be from the sleep deprivation. And, in adults, may increase the risk of major depression.

And, it’s on the rise.

There are drugs for it; of course, there are always drugs. Steroids are the first-line therapy, but then there are immunosuppressants as well, with more in the drug pipeline. You know the medical profession is desperate when they’re forced to go back to the basics, and start applying leeches to people.

Previously, I talked about the safety and efficacy of other, more natural treatments. But, what about diet? Our story begins in 1920, a year doctors were realizing how good this oxygen stuff was—though maybe not as good as injecting people with mercury. But, a researcher at Johns Hopkins reported a number of cases in which, “[b]y omitting eggs, meat[s], and milk from the diet, [patients’] eczema improved.” Who’s going to profit off of that, though? No wonder it took 58 years before it was put to the test.

Figuring eggs and milk were the two foods most likely involved in eczema, they excluded them— and chicken and beef, since it may just be chicken and cow proteins more generally—in a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial swapping in soy milk instead. And…70% of the patients improved.

One person got worse on the no-egg, no-chicken, no-milk, no-beef diet, but almost everyone else got better. So, the researchers conclude that for many kids, avoiding those foods may “induce a clinical improvement.” And interestingly, it didn’t seem to depend on whether allergy tests showed that they were allergic to milk and eggs. Either way, they tended to get better, regardless.

You can do randomized, double-blind, food challenges, where you like give kids with eczema various foods in opaque capsules—like one with egg powder, one with wheat powder, etc. And egg was found “by far [to be] the most…offending food.” For example, in this study, where they just cut out the eggs, dramatic improvements were documented for both the amount of skin involvement and the severity of the eczema lesions, after removing eggs from the diet.

But, in about 90% of cases, the mom had no idea that eggs were a problem. Why? Because it wasn’t like they were eating scrambled eggs or something. Almost all the egg exposure was hidden; they were exposed to hidden egg products in like packaged foods. So, they had no idea why their eczema was so bad—until this study, where they removed all eggs and egg products from their diets.

Eggs are evidently “the most frequent cause of food…sensitivity in children.” Out of hundreds of kids with eczema tested, “egg allergy was documented in two thirds” of those with sensitivities. In fact, a child having a blood reaction to egg-white proteins appears to be one of the best laboratory tests for predicting future allergic diseases in general. It appears to be the ovomucoid protein within egg white that seems to be causing most of the mischief.

About 40% of kids with eczema have some form of food allergy. And, the more food allergies they have, the more likely it appears they’re going to suffer from eczema— and, make it worse. Those who react to cow’s milk protein are significantly more likely to suffer severe eczema, showing the important role cow’s milk proteins may play “in the induction and increased severity of eczema in children.”

Often, parents switch from cow’s milk to goat’s milk, in an attempt to improve their children’s eczema. But goat’s milk should never be given to kids with a cow’s milk allergy, because they often cross-react with one another, which has been confirmed with double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges.

Ass milk, on the other hand, is a different story. Switching kids to donkey milk improved their eczema, and, for that matter, horse’s milk might, as well.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Icons created by Gabriele Masaspina and Nestor Arellano from The Noun Project

Image credit: Kai Schreiber. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

Eczema, also known as atopic dermatitis, “is a chronic inflammatory skin disease”; in fact, the leading cause of healthy years of life lost due to common skin diseases, because it’s just so common—affecting about a fifth of us. And, it’s not just an itchy rash; it’s associated with other diseases, too. Yes, it can be itchy, exhausting, and embarrassing, but in kids, may increase risk for ADHD—though that may just be from the sleep deprivation. And, in adults, may increase the risk of major depression.

And, it’s on the rise.

There are drugs for it; of course, there are always drugs. Steroids are the first-line therapy, but then there are immunosuppressants as well, with more in the drug pipeline. You know the medical profession is desperate when they’re forced to go back to the basics, and start applying leeches to people.

Previously, I talked about the safety and efficacy of other, more natural treatments. But, what about diet? Our story begins in 1920, a year doctors were realizing how good this oxygen stuff was—though maybe not as good as injecting people with mercury. But, a researcher at Johns Hopkins reported a number of cases in which, “[b]y omitting eggs, meat[s], and milk from the diet, [patients’] eczema improved.” Who’s going to profit off of that, though? No wonder it took 58 years before it was put to the test.

Figuring eggs and milk were the two foods most likely involved in eczema, they excluded them— and chicken and beef, since it may just be chicken and cow proteins more generally—in a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial swapping in soy milk instead. And…70% of the patients improved.

One person got worse on the no-egg, no-chicken, no-milk, no-beef diet, but almost everyone else got better. So, the researchers conclude that for many kids, avoiding those foods may “induce a clinical improvement.” And interestingly, it didn’t seem to depend on whether allergy tests showed that they were allergic to milk and eggs. Either way, they tended to get better, regardless.

You can do randomized, double-blind, food challenges, where you like give kids with eczema various foods in opaque capsules—like one with egg powder, one with wheat powder, etc. And egg was found “by far [to be] the most…offending food.” For example, in this study, where they just cut out the eggs, dramatic improvements were documented for both the amount of skin involvement and the severity of the eczema lesions, after removing eggs from the diet.

But, in about 90% of cases, the mom had no idea that eggs were a problem. Why? Because it wasn’t like they were eating scrambled eggs or something. Almost all the egg exposure was hidden; they were exposed to hidden egg products in like packaged foods. So, they had no idea why their eczema was so bad—until this study, where they removed all eggs and egg products from their diets.

Eggs are evidently “the most frequent cause of food…sensitivity in children.” Out of hundreds of kids with eczema tested, “egg allergy was documented in two thirds” of those with sensitivities. In fact, a child having a blood reaction to egg-white proteins appears to be one of the best laboratory tests for predicting future allergic diseases in general. It appears to be the ovomucoid protein within egg white that seems to be causing most of the mischief.

About 40% of kids with eczema have some form of food allergy. And, the more food allergies they have, the more likely it appears they’re going to suffer from eczema— and, make it worse. Those who react to cow’s milk protein are significantly more likely to suffer severe eczema, showing the important role cow’s milk proteins may play “in the induction and increased severity of eczema in children.”

Often, parents switch from cow’s milk to goat’s milk, in an attempt to improve their children’s eczema. But goat’s milk should never be given to kids with a cow’s milk allergy, because they often cross-react with one another, which has been confirmed with double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges.

Ass milk, on the other hand, is a different story. Switching kids to donkey milk improved their eczema, and, for that matter, horse’s milk might, as well.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Icons created by Gabriele Masaspina and Nestor Arellano from The Noun Project

Image credit: Kai Schreiber. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video

Doctor's Note

What else can we do to improve excema with diet? Stay tuned for Exclusion Diets for Eczema.

Here are three previous videos I did on eczema:

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

142 responses to “Best Foods to Avoid for Eczema

Commenting Etiquette

The intention of the comment section under each video and blog post is to allow all members to share their stories, questions, and feedback with others in a welcoming, engaging, and respectful environment. Off-topic comments are permitted, in hopes more experienced users may be able to point them to more relevant videos that may answer their questions. Vigorous debate of science is welcome so long as participants can disagree respectfully. Advertising products or services is not permitted.

To make NutritionFacts.org a place where people feel comfortable posting without feeling attacked, we have no tolerance for ad hominem attacks or comments that are racist, misogynist, homophobic, vulgar, or otherwise inappropriate. Please help us to foster a community of mutual respect. Enforcement of these rules is done to the best of our ability on a case-by-case basis.

  1. Hi everybody!

    Question? Can we consider that skin problems in general will have a favorable response following the eviction of animal proteins? I’m thinking of psoriasis or shingles or warts? or is it too simplistic a reflection?

    Thank you

    Myriam




    3
    1. No.

      Billions of people in the world have been eating animal foods protein without any problem. This does not rule out with people allergic to animal protein just like some people are allergic to peanut, gluten, pectin, nightshades, etc.




      6
      1. Please define “without any problem.” Billions of people may be ignoring problems caused by their high animal protein diets and attributing their diseases to something else. My children’s eczema dramatically improved with the complete elimination of milk products. Over a decade of topical anti-inflammatory medications and other immune modifiers did not clear their symptoms to the level of animal protein elimination. If I did not witness the changes myself in my 3 kids, you could have never convinced me that this was possible.

        Dr. Greger’s videos serve as an education platform to the public by providing the scientific evidence and the references so that we may pursue the information ourselves. Jerry Lewis, you’ve offered a subjective statement. Can you please provide your objective evidence to support your claim?




        14
        1. Billions of people in the world who are not vegans, live a very long and disease free life. Just spend $1000 and travel to a country to see what they eat and how slim and healthy they are. Just don’t sit on your couch and imagine things after reading a fantasy book written by a guy sitting in his bedroom in the U.S. By the way, it is a big industry for doing lecture on low fat and veganism. Check the Internet to see all of those guys are making money doing lecture at ski resorts in Colorado and Switzerland and aboard cruise ships. And there are Big Pharma and Big Foods behind the low fat theory.

          Things are not that clean and honest like you think.




          3
          1. Making money from promoting false information about nutrition? Absolutely. just look at the mountains of ‘research’ funded by the meat, dairy and egg industries. A lot of it funded by the US government mandated check-off programmes which are designed to promote the livestock industries and their products to US consumers. Then there is all the research funded by the Atkins Diet empire.

            The defence of saturated fat and cholesterol consumption owes no little thanks to the activities of these industries and the Atkins crowd. The big corn and bean growing industries are happy with that too. The majority of corn and soy beans grown in the US are used as livestock feed. As for Big Pharma and the hospital system, they probably aren’t complaining about the pro-saturated fat and pro-cholesterol advocates either – that’s where they get all their customers and patients from after all.

            If you want to follow the money and make accusations about conspiracies, Jerry, the evidence all points to the animal food industries and their allies.

            But who cares about vegans anyway? We know you do – you are obsessed by them. But a beer and chips diet is “vegan”, so is the Jack Daniels and Marlboro diet. They aren’t healthy. Nobody says they are. For many years Dr Greger has condemned a range of so-called vegan and vegetarian diets as unhealthy. For example, this video of a presentation he gave back in 2003
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7KeRwdIH04&t=8s

            This site promotes WFPB diets not so-called vegan diets. Of course you can have an exclusively plant (“vegan”) WFPB diet but the traditional Okinawan diet conbtained 4% or less animal foods. That is or was a WFPB diet and a very healthy one.

            And your remarks about the China Study are either ignorant nonsense or lies you have found on the internet. This was a major epidemiological study – the biggest such study in history. A collaboration between Chinese national academies of science and Oxford and Cornell universities. Campbell was a director of that study. Yet here you are trying to deceive people into believing that Campbell’s book about the China study was a novel written in somebody’s bedroom. Typical of the deceptive and misleading claims made by charlatans and crackpots on the internet.

            It is a crying shame that you do not have the integrity that would prevent you from posting such intelligence-insulting fabrications here.

            Travelling the world might be great fun and it might show us what people do eat around the world now. But it won’t show us the healthiest way to eat. We need to see the evidence and the science to obtain that information. Your advice about travelling the world is intended to distract people’s attention away from studying the scientific evidence because that evidence refutes your opinions and exposes the misleading claims of the internet snake oil marketers that you apparently adore.




            10
    2. I can’t speak for skin ailments but the general health of my skin (and hair and nails) has drastically improved since going vegan and eating a whole foods diet. I always had good skin but my nails sucked before going vegan (they used to peel and were pathetically thin). My hair was OK but it’s now like it was when I was a little kid, very very silly and shiny. My hair is medium-dark brown but in adulthood in my typical SAD vegetarian diet, it got a reddish tint, upon going vegan that went away. Red hair is beautiful, not insulting it, just noting my experience. Also it wasn’t red it just had a rusty or coppery tint. It’s much darker now and back to my true color.
      Back on my vegetarian version of a SAD diet, people would compliment me on my skin but say I looked pale at times, and if I ate more fruits or veggies in an effort to be healthier, the difference in my skin was dramatic, it’s like I had inflammation showing through most of the time.
      I literally have not once had someone call me pale and I actually have a tan tone now even when completely getting no sun.

      So the appearance and general quality definitely improves with improved diet and I would imagine that ailments would show some signs of improvement as the body as a whole becomes healthier and healthier.

      Sorry for my lengthy comment but figured someone out there may possibly find it somewhat healthy or interesting.




      13
      1. I also didn’t mean to imply that there is anything wrong with very light skin, all skin colors are beautiful and it’s annoying when people make comments about people having light skin, I used to get annoyed by it. But I never actually did have very light skin when I was little. So it was cool to see my natural color come back and of course the best self tanner for anyone who wants an extra glow is a beta carotene rich diet :)




        7
      2. Testimonials are good as they give some encouragement , when needed , however they can also obscure the facts . There could have been 10 people with opposite results , they just moved on to something or somewhere else.




        2
        1. Buster, I never expect anyone to take my personal experience as a scientific fact (I’m not Jerry lol) but if you do talk to people who have gone WFPB you hear many similar testimonials. It makes sense once you learn about nutrition and our natural biology. Also, the science does show greater skin quality among those eating plants.
          But either way, the great thing about a WFPB diet is that there’s no downside, so someone trying it out only stands to gain overall and therefore it can’t hurt if one wants to see if it resolves specific issues.




          6
      3. You are mixing up SAD diet with healthy meat eaters. It’s apple and orange comparison.

        Why don’t you compare vegan WFPB with meat eater WFPB + WFAB + (saturated) fats.




        0
        1. Jerry, healthy meat eaters is a bit of an oxymoron. Yes you can eat meat and reduce your amounts and eat lots of fruits and veggies, but you’re still putting one of the most harmful things in your body unnatural to your human biology and will never be in optimal health as you would eating the diet nature designed for you, a plant based diet.

          When I first went vegan I ate sooo many processed foods and yet felt significantly healthier and appeared so as well. That was my personal experience. Of course I feel and look far better on a whole foods diet with minimal processed foods, naturally.




          8
        2. Who has done that study Jerry?

          However, if people want to know about saturated fat, they can look at the recent AHA presidential advisory statement on fats and cardiovascular disease. Or consider the mechanisms by which saturated fat damages heart health, brain health and its association with certain cancers.

          Stamping your little feet and shouting loudly over and over again that saturated fat consumption is healthy is neither scientific evidence nor a convincing argument.




          9
    3. well let me tell you a story, my uncle for most of his life, was diagnosed with psorasis, was on multiple different treatments, then one day, one of the plaques looked different and was biopsied. it came out that he had a gluten allergy. and when he went, gluten free, 99% of all the sores were gone. I would put the patient/people off the most common food allergies, as well as animal products (due to the inflammation properties) and see what happens. good luck.




      3
  2. Hi Myriam:

    This is a great question, but unfortunately it is too simplistic. As biological systems are too complex and chaotic to “think through logically”, we have no way of knowing without careful, extensive clinical studies comparing groups eating WFPB vs. animal proteins. Simply “evicting animal protein” likely won’t be enough in general as we all know people that eat french fries and coke all day, and call themselves vegan. It’s true, but it’s a very unhealthy lifestyle. “From farm to plate” should be the mantra with no processing in between. Also, the diseases you listed have completely different causes: psoriasis is an autoimmune disease, shingles is a type of recurrent herpesvirus (varicella zoster=chicken pox virus) while warts are caused by one of over a hundred HPV (human papilloma viruses), so our bodies deal with them in completely different fashion. From a risk vs benefit perspective, we’re at over 4000 clinical studies that show reduced disease and death rates from a WFPB lifestyle so there are many reasons to go this route, even if we are not certain about the outcomes on myriad skin diseases.

    Dr. Ben




    14
  3. This is a misleading video again. People have been eating eggs for thousand of years without any problem. Japanese eat eggs almost everyday for breakfast. The fact that some people are allergic to eggs does not make eggs into a bad foods. Same with people who are allergic to peanut, gluten, pectin, nightshade, etc. It does not make those foods bad.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_as_food




    1
    1. Jerry Lewis, This website is about finding the right nutrition for OPTIMAL health, not just survival. Sure, our ancestors would eat whatever food they could find, and most died at an early age before chronic disease could manifest itself.

      All the people I know that eat a diet like you recommend, with saturated fat, meat, eggs, dairy products and a handful of supplements, they are all sick with various diseases including clogged arteries, type 2 diabetes, overweight, arthritis, and even declining mental issues. When they eliminate the saturated fat, meat, eggs and dairy and quit taking the supplements which throw their metabolism out of balance, they all get better and reverse their disease. Good luck in your unhealthy eating.




      23
      1. On the contrary, all people that I know who got a heart attack, have very low cholesterol, are vegetarians and eat a low fat diet. They know get Alzheimer’s after the heart attack that left them paralyzed.




        1
          1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4513492/

            Traditional efforts to prevent cardiovascular disease have emphasized the benefits of cholesterol lowering and statin drugs. Often overlooked is the fact that numerous studies of cholesterol lowering have failed to demonstrate a mortality benefit and the benefits of statins may have been overstated. The Mediterranean diet has consistently lowered cardiovascular events and mortality in numerous studies and does not typically lower cholesterol levels. Alternative theories of atherosclerosis are independent of cholesterol metabolism and may provide the key to future preventive strategies.

            ASSOCIATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION
            The cholesterol hypothesis links cholesterol intake and blood levels to cardiovascular disease. Because cholesterol is considered a risk factor for atherosclerosis many believe that lowering cholesterol in the blood is the best way to prevent CHD. Ideally, risk factors should help us distinguish those who will develop a disease from those who will not. However, if one examines the original Framingham Heart Study data (as an example) it is clear that the cholesterol levels of those who developed CHD and those who did not overlap except when the total cholesterol level exceeded 380 mg/dL or was less than 150 mg/dL (Figure ​(Figure1).1). Moreover, cholesterol may be associated with CHD but that does not prove causation. Despite the fact that high triglycerides and low HDL have long been associated with CHD, studies designed to raise HDL or lower triglycerides have failed to reduce CHD mortality. Similarly, cholesterol should not automatically become a treatment target. It may be a leap of faith to assume that lowering cholesterol is the best way to prevent CHD.

            LOWERING CHOLESTEROL MAY NOT LOWER CARDIOVASCULAR MORTALITY
            The rare occurrence of CHD in isolated, rural societies such as Tukisenta, New Guinea has been attributed to low cholesterol levels[7]. However, it is equally plausible that the diets and lifestyles of these individuals may protect them from CHD. While we may never be certain if low cholesterol or a healthy lifestyle (or both) are responsible for preventing CHD in these societies, there is ample evidence that lowering cholesterol does not consistently lower CHD mortality. Reducing cholesterol blood levels by reducing dietary saturated fats is commonly recommended, but an exhaustive review and meta-analysis of 72 dietary studies concluded that reduced consumption of saturated fat does not reduce cardiovascular mortality[8]. Many drugs such as niacin, fibrates, and bile acid sequestrants can lower cholesterol levels, but the recent AHA/ACC guidelines on cholesterol concluded that these drugs do not lower CHD mortality rates[9]. Moreover, the results of cholesterol-lowering statin trials, as will be discussed and analyzed later, do not consistently lower mortality rates[10]. Consider also the dramatic mortality benefit of the Mediterranean diet in the Lyon Diet Heart Study which was achieved without a reduction in cholesterol levels[2-4]. Thus, the hypothesis that lowering cholesterol lowers mortality from CHD is not supported by many clinical research studies.

            EARLY STATIN TRIALS MAY HAVE BEEN FLAWED
            Early statin trials reported significant mortality benefits, yet serious concerns have been raised in some studies regarding biased results, premature trial terminations, under reporting of adverse events, high numbers of patients lost to follow-up and oversight by the pharmaceutical company sponsor[10]. Heightened awareness within the scientific community regarding problems in clinical trial conduct and analysis – exemplified by the unreported risk of heart attacks in patients taking the pain killers Vioxx and Celebrex – led to new regulatory rules for clinical trials in 2005[11]. Curiously, statin trials conducted after 2005 have failed to demonstrate a consistent mortality benefit[10].




            2
            1. What has this got to with eczma?

              Anyway, Jerry. this is de Lorgeril again. He has some provocative ideas about a range of things but provocative is not the same thing as correct His argument is misleading because of the things he does not discuss or simply glosses over. He appears to have equally naive views of saturated fat because he refers to a meta analysis which failed to find an association between lowering saturated fat consumption and mortality. We know that that study was misleading for a whole range of reasons eg Dr G’s video
              https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-saturated-fat-studies-set-up-to-fail/
              https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-saturated-fat-studies-buttering-up-the-public/

              His views on cholesterol are equally misleading and for the same reasons.

              Firstly, high cholesterol is a a risk factor for heart disease. It is not the sole cause. There are other risk factors as well as protective factors that need to be taken into account. This is why different countries, where the mix of risk and protective factors is different, have different guidelines for cholesterol lowering. Even in the US, differing medical specialist associations have different guidelines on cholesterol lowering and statin use to take account of the differing needs of particular patient target groups. For example, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists has its own specialist guidelines on dyslipidemia
              https://www.aace.com/files/lipid-guidelines.pdf

              Second, he states a number of times that trials do not consistently show a mortality benefit from cholesterol lowering. This is true. However, they do show a mortality benefit. In particular demographic cohorts. especially low risk groups, no clinically significant mortality benefit may occur. However, even in these cohorts, adverse events are usually reduced. Adverse events are things like heart attacks, strokes and cardiovascular surgical procedures. Reducing these is a very real and highly desirable benefit. Another issue is the nature of the target groups where no clinically significant mortality reduction is seen and the relatively short observation period in the study. Cardiovascular diseases often takes decades to develop and it may take many years for cholesterol lowering interventions to reduce mortality.

              De Lorgeril’s article is carefully worded to gloss over these important points and indeed to muddy the waters on the issue. The recent European consensus statement on cholesterol noted that

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

              The earlier but much longer UK NICE guidelines discussed at length the factors involved in cholesterol lowering for a range of target groups including the issue of studies which found no clinically significant mortality reduction in statin use by certain target groups. It is well worth reading for people interested in this topic
              https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg181

              As for saturated fat and cholesterol denialists generally, as well as the recent AHA presidential advisory statement on fats and cardiovascular disease and Dr G’s video on the saturated fat meta analyses denialists rely upon, Plant Positive has some interesting videos on this broad topic including discussion of the arguments and tactics used by cholesterol denialists
              http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2017/06/15/CIR.0000000000000510
              http://plantpositive.com/display/Search?moduleId=19496100&searchQuery=cholesterol




              13
            2. Jerry, your 2015 article
              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4513492/
              “In particular, whether statins actually decrease cardiac mortality and increase life expectancy is controversial.”

              So how about a 2016 meta-analysis that shows that non-adherence to statins increases risk of CVD from 22 to 526% and mortality from 25 to 254%.
              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4239963/

              Obviously, it would be better to not have high cholesterol in the first place or go WFPB. But statins do save lives for people who want to keep on enjoying the SAD until the end or even kids with congenital extremely high cholesterol.




              4
              1. Richard, it’s a waste of time for us to discuss those who are on SAD diet or who eat processed foods, or those who have sky high cholesterol. At some point then you do need FDA medication, But in most cases you don’t want to take those FDA medication because the side effects are enormous.

                So it’s no question that plant foods are essential, so we put this to rest.

                The remaining question is whether we should eat a certain amount of animal foods for optimal health. I think we do.

                Further we need to eat a certain amount of fat and that included saturated fat because there is one plant food that has which is coconut and it is essential to consume it. Then if you eat a certain amount of animal foods for optimal health then you cannot avoid saturated fat which is harmless.

                So my arguments with a lot of people on this board is not about eating WFPB or not, we have to, no question about it, but about eating a certain amount of animal foods and low cholesterol has nothing to do with low risk of CHD and dementia. I am not talking about sky high
                total cholesterol but around 200 TC is acceptable if one eats the right foods.

                So back to the conditional amino acids, take for instance glycine. It will actually reduce heart disease. Guess where do you find the most of glycine?

                You see, people on this board are trashing me just because I eat a certain amount of animal foods while eating also WFPB, and they argue not from a scientific point of view but from a vegan point of view and a lot of things they said are unscientific and downright harmful. If they just said that they are vegan then it’s fine. It’s a noble goal but let’s not mix up sciences with ideology.

                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4195924/

                http://nutritiondata.self.com/foods-000094000000000000000.html




                1
        1. I didn’t read through Jerry’s sensless ranting as he simply says the same things over and over in total disregard for facts, but from what I gather, ancestors were brought up and he’s trying to claim everyone he knows on the SAD and supplemented diet he reccomend are all healthy… LOL. To that I just want to say for anyone reading, Dr. Greger has videos here about how our ancestors ACTUALLY ate and to his other claim about his healthy SAD friends, I guess we should ignore all the evidence, our personal experience, statistics, and so on because Jerry says he knows a guy.
          I vote Jerry as head of the FDA! Haha, for all we know, he already is.




          7
        2. Darwin is correct. many common supplements apparently contain excessive amounts of some minerals for example.

          PCRM has expressed concern, for example, about iron and copper levels and their associations with cognitive problems. See
          http://www.pcrm.org/health/reports/metals-of-concern-in-common-multivitamins

          This is one of the reasons why I have previously expressed concern about Jerry’s statement that he takes many supplements, and the possibility that this practice has affected his cognitive abilities.




          7
        3. Hi S, My reference to supplements was to highlight the dangers of taking too much of any one specific nutrient. Jerry Lewis often referenced several websites such as Dr Mercola’s website, which sells numerous supplements of all varieties. So I assume he recommends taking some of them.

          As Dr T Colin Campbell pointed out in his book, Whole, the human body is an intricate complex dynamic interrelated system that continually tries to stay in “balance”. So the “reductionist” approach to nutrition can only go so far in predicting consequences of the isolated nutrients that we put in our bodies. Taking too much of one specific ingredient could upset the delicate balance required to maintain optimum health. The below excerpt explains the concept fairly well:

          “What happens when you eat an apple? The answer is vastly more complex than you imagine.

          Every apple contains thousands of antioxidants whose names, beyond a few like vitamin C, are unfamiliar to us, and each of these powerful chemicals has the potential to play an important role in supporting our health. They impact thousands upon thousands of metabolic reactions inside the human body. But calculating the specific influence of each of these chemicals isn’t nearly sufficient to explain the effect of the apple as a whole. Because almost every chemical can affect every other chemical, there is an almost infinite number of possible biological consequences.

          And that’s just from an apple.

          Nutritional science, long stuck in a reductionist mindset, is at the cusp of a revolution. The traditional “gold standard” of nutrition research has been to study one chemical at a time in an attempt to determine its particular impact on the human body. These sorts of studies are helpful to food companies trying to prove there is a chemical in milk or pre-packaged dinners that is “good” for us, but they provide little insight into the complexity of what actually happens in our bodies or how those chemicals contribute to our health.”




          11
    2. Jerry

      No, It is your comment that is misleading. The video cites the evidence and reports the findings from that evidence.

      You, on the other hand, are simply trotting out the appeal to tradition fallacy again (“people have been eating eggs for thousands of years)” and an invented fact (“without any problems”).

      You don’t know that there were no problems in the past associated with eating eggs. You just made that up. There is no real data from the past on this point. However, the modern scientific evidence described in this and other videos on eggs shows that people in modern times do have problems with eating eggs. The odds are that people in the past were just like us and the same effects occurred.

      Go with the evidence, Jerry, instead of logical fallacies and invented “facts”. Yes we know you have a problem with this approach – the evidence doesn’t support your opinions so you have to rely on logical fallacies and invented “facts” to try to justify your opinions. But this really is isn’t a sensible attitude to take. I am perpetually amazed that you can so casually dismiss evidence you don’t like and always manufacture reasons why your opinions are always correct. You are not doing yourself or anyone else a favour with this unscientific attitude.




      18
      1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4513492/

        Reducing cholesterol blood levels by reducing dietary saturated fats is commonly recommended, but an exhaustive review and meta-analysis of 72 dietary studies concluded that reduced consumption of saturated fat does not reduce cardiovascular mortality[8].

        EARLY STATIN TRIALS MAY HAVE BEEN FLAWED
        Early statin trials reported significant mortality benefits, yet serious concerns have been raised in some studies regarding biased results, premature trial terminations, under reporting of adverse events, high numbers of patients lost to follow-up and oversight by the pharmaceutical company sponsor[10]. Heightened awareness within the scientific community regarding problems in clinical trial conduct and analysis – exemplified by the unreported risk of heart attacks in patients taking the pain killers Vioxx and Celebrex – led to new regulatory rules for clinical trials in 2005[11]. Curiously, statin trials conducted after 2005 have failed to demonstrate a consistent mortality benefit[10].




        1
        1. Hmmm, Chowdhury’s 2014 paper again. This is one of those meta analyses which failed to find an association between saturated fat consumption and cardiovascular disease because it did not consider emplacement nutrients or look at the evidence from RCTs. The latest such meta analysis did consider these issues and concluded that the probability that there was a null association between saturated fat consumption and cardiovascular disease was ‘very low’.
          http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3978

          The 2017 AHA presidential advisory statement on fats and cardiovascular disease and came to the opposite conclusion to that of Chowdhury.
          http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2017/06/15/CIR.0000000000000510

          This is not surprising. We know of a range of mechanisms by which saturated fat damages our health. A new one was recently reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences using a newly developed analysis technology. Scientists were able to observe how saturated fat exerts toxic effects on cells.
          http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/11/30/1712555114.full
          https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171201181545.htm




          12
        1. This is what the Japanese eat TODAY, not historically. As animal fat intake has increased so has dementia in Japan: https://nutritionfacts.org/2015/11/12/where-are-the-lowest-rates-of-alzheimers-in-the-world/

          The very article you cite says this:

          ‘However, these quintessentially Japanese dishes were not widely eaten until fairly recent times.

          Domestic chickens were introduced to Japan from China via Korea around 2,500 years ago, but eggs were used for medicinal purposes and as sacred offerings rather than as food. Egg consumption was banned periodically from the 14th century, since they were usually included in several Buddhism-based anti-animal consumption edicts (although curiously, eating chickens was OK). It only became acceptable to eat eggs in the Edo Period (1603-1867), albeit as a luxury item. Even in the early 20th century, the average Japanese only ate about 40 eggs per year.

          It wasn’t until after World War II that egg consumption really took off. Foods that were high in protein and calcium were deemed to be critical to improving the damaged health of the Japanese population, and the government and the media pushed hard to increase the consumption of eggs, dairy products and meat.’




          14
      2. Nail on the head TG, another brilliant comment but it doesn’t seem like anything could cause Jerry to think or have any real conversation. He is a troll through and through who is angry not so much at the truth, but that the truth is being shown and acknowledged.
        I don’t think it’s his opinion but rather his senseless decision to believe what he’d prefer to be the reality that he’s so viciously keen on defending. How some people can be so contently deluded is beyond me.




        9
    3. Jerry I don’t think I heard anyone in this video call eggs or any of the milks “bad”. What I did hear was a reflection of the science that implied that if one had this skin affliction one would want to try an egg and/or animal milk elimination diet to see if one received an improvement in their skin condition. That’s all.

      You also complain, yet again, that you think these videos are misleading and false. It’s your consistent criticism and complaint. If you’re so unhappy I can’t help but wonder why you continue to stay on this site and torture yourself.

      Oh, . . .but I forgot, . .. you’re an idiot.




      14
        1. RBG wrote “this video”. Nothing to do with me or other videos.

          You seem to have a need to twist or misrepresent everything, Jerry. Is it a compulsion of some sort?




          7
    4. Jerry, you say people have been eating eggs for thousands of years without problems, but you don’t have any studies to back that up. I don’t think people had much of a choice what they ate thousands of years ago, or the ability to do double blind tests. So you can generalize all you want, but it’s still your ‘opinion’, not fact. I tend to go with the science. Good luck with your opinions. Cheers…




      0
  4. Off topic:
    For about the third time in recent weeks I have burned my mouth, throat and esophagus with hot food (this is the real danger of microwave cooking, IMO). I know, I’m dumb (and hungry); of course, I will try to avoid doing this again.

    My question is, is there anything I can drink or eat to offset the damage?




    1
    1. I should probably clarify – damage in terms of high temperature as a carcinogen. Also, green tea is great stuff, but it gives me heartburn (so does rooibos).




      0
    2. Dear CD,

      you could definitely try cold drinks or foods. Some people report that milk helps to coat the inside of the mouth. But milk indeed isn’t healthy:

      https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/dairy/

      But maybe if it helped you and you did it just for a very short-term, it shouldn’t hurt you. You could also try sugarless gum, ice cream, ice pops…

      Avoiding spicy and irritating foods is wise, too.

      Let us know what helped :-)

      Moderator Adam P.




      1
      1. I have to say that I’m very surprised to see a moderator here suggest such harmful products, I’m very positive Dr. Greger would not stand by the reccomendations of animal milk (one of the most harmful things to us), ice cream (even worse than milk or even if it’s plant based it’s still a sugary food that shouldn’t be consumed daily with healthy meals), or sugarless gum (which usually has substances in it that are much more harmful than sugar).
        Especially since CD wasn’t looking for relief so much as a way to prevent or repair damage caused. If anything, those suggestions would cause more damage.




        2
  5. Hi everybody!

    This question is not related to the video, but hopefully some of you will find it interesting.
    TL;DR: Can you have too much of the good thing? Good thing being vegan diet.

    I read How Not to Die more than a year ago, loved it, installed the app and started introducing more and more plant-based foods.
    My monthly averages in the app had been mostly going up: 13/16/16/11 – Christmas binge…/14/16/16/15/17/and finally 21!
    I was really satisfied, but that is when the problems started. My stomach started feeling really bad. Long story short I ended up with severe gastritis for almost 5 weeks (and ppi for 3 months)! Couldn’t really work for the whole period. The average dropped to 8, and I haven’t really been able to get it to more than 11.
    I must admit, the whole thing got me quite depressed. After all, I was expecting to feel better than ever!
    Not really sure what make of it. Raw foods are a real problem, cooking helps only up to a point. Anyone else experienced something similar?




    1
    1. I have never heard of this problem. It is possible that it is just a coincidence – you know the cliche, association in time does not prove causation.

      However, a possible reason might be suggested by your comment about cooking. Beans and whole grains are an important part of the daily dozen. It is important to cook these thoroughly to deactivate the lectins they contain. I mention this because when I am feeling lazy I sometimes just pour boiling water over my rolled oats and let them sit for a few minutes. Whenever I do that though, there is a chance of gastointestinal disturbance.

      Beans need even more cooking time and/or soaking time- especially things like red kidney beans. Undercooking beans can cause real problems.

      Just Google “how to cook beans” for more information but this newspaper article will give you an idea of problems that can occur if we rush the cooking time
      http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/beware-of-the-beans-how-beans-can-be-a-surprising-source-of-food-poisoning-931862.html




      6
      1. I went thorough a few cycles of trying to bump up my daily dozen score to rule out possible correlation – this is as close as I can get to “putting it to the test” by myself.
        Based on that, unfortunately, I seem to be getting worse every time I eat “too much”
        healthy food.

        Beans were my number 1 hypothesis for why I was feeling unwell, but I have reintroduced those recently – without any changes to the previous preparation methods – and I don’t seem to have any issues.

        So far, it seems that ANY good foods above some threshold are the problem.
        I have never heard of anything like that as well, so I am considering possible reasons for that, but I am not sure which of these is more likely (if any): 1. Can you have too much fiber? If yes, how to deal with it?
        2. Can digestion be a problem, i.e. lack of digestive enzymes (shamefully, I feel WELL after greasy burgers and chips – but not planning to end up with a diet like that).
        3. Can desk job (but otherwise gym 3x a week) be problematic when on a very good diet (in terms of, again, digestion)?
        4. Any proteins on raw foods that can irritate the lining of the stomach?
        5. Environmental factors (some bacteria in the water that I drink)?
        6. Gut flora unable to deal with the workload?
        7, etc. Stress? Allergy medication? Intolerance – but to what?

        Again, not sure what to think about it all.
        If anything rings a bell, please share (journal papers welcome).

        #noVeganLeftBehind :)




        2
        1. I have a few thoughts:

          I’m wondering if you have tried increasing some starches–such as maybe potatoes?

          I recently went through a period of nausea and indigestion for a couple months. My doctor recommended anti-anxiety meds–(I am a caregiver in a house for someone with dementia.) I declined the meds but made a conscious effort to relax my stomach/torso muscles and all of a sudden noticed that I no longer had nausea and indigestion. In any case, I was wondering (before I tried the muscle relaxing) if it was the brassica family veggies. Have you been ingesting a lot of those?

          Any thoughts on these ideas?




          6
          1. Hi Liisa

            I am not sure if this will be of any interest but here in Australia there are a number of national programmes to support carers and also a number of specialist ones for carers of people with dementia. They aren’t usually easily available to anyone outside Australia though.

            However, the Commonwealth Government funds a number of specialist dementia care and training resource centres around the country which undertake research and offer some educational resources. One initiative you might want to consider is this one
            http://www.utas.edu.au/wicking/understanding-dementia

            There are some more free courses here
            https://www.dementiatrainingaustralia.com.au/




            4
            1. Hi, Tom,

              Yes, in the States I attend support group meetings and wouldn’t miss the monthly meeting for anything. There are also classes. The trick with Alzheimer’s is that you can never predict what a person will do next, which is very unsettling and keeps one on edge….




              3
            2. P.S. Thank you for the links! I have been unable to get myself into a class yet. I know they exist, but haven’t seen one for my particular situation yet. I’ve been dealing with this situation for a number of years now….




              3
        2. The EAT RIGHT 4Y TYPE book has been debunked (thank the Powers That Be, because I’m an O positive and I love peanut butter!), but just wondering if you know your blood type. Unfortunately, the Os are told to polish off a lot of animal protein, whereas another type supposedly does well on a veggie diet.




          0
          1. I’m O negative and have a friend with same blood type. We eat what our bodies can handle and its not quite the same as we have different problems. He has had colitis for 60 years and I have migraine disorder. We do both get along fine on nut butters but not animal products. Neither one of us does well on raw veges anymore.

            “Unfortunately, the Os are told to polish off a lot of animal protein,” … That is just plain bunk. No way for me!!! Sounds revolting. And it is a big deception.




            2
        3. re the protein question in your post. I don’t think there is any extensive research on this although it is possible that you have an autoimmune response to certain foods. Some people are allergic to soy or nuts for example and this may cause gastritis. Usually, gastritis is caused by H pylori infection though and Julie’s advice about adding probiotics can help in such cases. That said a course of antibiotics is considered the gold standard treatment.
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4588086/

          On protein generally, Jack Norris’ article is – as usual- very informative.
          http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/protein

          I can’t remember if anyone has previously suggested reviewing the NIH webpage on gastritis but the NIH has a whole range of good quality information on many health topics. They are very helpful
          https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/digestive-diseases/gastritis




          3
    2. The daily dozen is fine overall. But you need to cut down on the legumes recommended by the diet, in particular grain and bean, I mean eat it but less. Also you may be the same type than me who cannot eat too much raw vegetables and slightly cook it will solve the problem. Also this diet needs to add fat. And you might to eat a small amount of animal foods for your protein and amino acids.




      2
    3. Raf – I’m not clear what your symptoms were when you mentioned ‘gastritis’. I looked it up and here’s what Mayo Clinic defines as gastritis: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gastritis/symptoms-causes/syc-20355807
      It’s clear it could be caused by a number of things and its unclear what you were dealing with exactly. So I’ll just share a few things and you can see if anything fits for you.
      When I went WFPB I’d not been in the habit of eating many beans. It took me about 2 years before the gas settled down to a normal production level. So that might be a factor.
      You could try an elimination diet. Dr. McDougall had a patient with severe colitis. . .so serious she was close to having her colon removed. He had her eat a concoction of spinach, purple potato, white rice congee (google a recipe), and squash (winter or summer). All vegetables cooked and soft so that it was easy on her system. I would try that for a while and let your system settle down and then slowly reintroduce foods.
      Another thought would be to pick up a bottle of digestive enzymes and take with your meals to see if that helps. As I mentioned, it took my system a good 2 years to adjust to the amount of beans I was consuming. Now I can eat a boatload with no problem.
      I don’t know how severe your gastritis was, but the Mayo Clinic link, above, mentioned that gastritis could also be caused by the H. Pylori bacteria which can go on to cause ulcers. In that case an antibiotic is required.
      Hope things settle down for you. :-)




      6
    4. Raf, that does sound disappointing–being all revved up to improve your health by eating WFPB, then ending up feeling worse. The first thing that comes to mind is the microbiome. Your gut bacteria were happy eating your original diet. Then the new foods come along and they’re like, “What’s this?”. It then takes awhile for the healthy gut bacteria to evolve, so that healthy foods and healthy bacteria can happily coexist. You might want to add in your new foods gradually, recording symptoms with a food diary, and also consider adding some probiotic foods/beverages (gradually, of course!) to your diet.
      https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/microbiome/
      https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-fermented-foods/
      https://bodyecology.com/articles/gastritis.php
      https://universityhealthnews.com/daily/digestive-health/gastritis-diet-healing-the-inside-from-the-outside/




      5
    5. Hi Raf! Super quickly I just want to mention that veganism isn’t a diet but a way of life which excludes the use and exploitation of other animals. Plant based is solely the diet, e.g. all vegans are plant based but not all plant based dieters are vegan. I just like to clarify cause this often gets confused.

      That being said, have you considered that there may be detoxing going on? When our bodies start cleaning themselves out and healing, it can be normal to feel worse for a period of time and sometimes people even feel very sick. I’m not sure that’s it but it is possible.
      I know when I used to eat a standard diet and go on “cleanses” (which just meant eating healthy plant foods) I would always feel really sick for a while, I even got nauseous at times after eating something like sprouted seeds. I knew the foods weren’t the culprits but rather the built up toxins I had. Sure enough, after regularly eating healthy instead of going on “cleanses” I felt amazing on all these foods.
      Of course don’t take my word for it, be careful with yourself. However it might be something to consider if you haven’t already.




      2
    1. Re: Also, Raf, you get plenty of amino acids on a WFPB diet. Here’s a link where you can check out any food you like and you can see what the amino acid profile is. I started you off with asparagus which, as you can see, is a complete amino acid with a whole lot of nutrition.

      LOL. Do you know what percent of DV amino acids do you get in asparagus? You will need to eat a lot of asparagus and bean until you explode with gas to get barely a percentage of DV amino acids and still miss a whole bunch.

      http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2311/2#ixzz5088awSOQ

      Amounts Per Selected Serving%DV
      Protein2.9g6%
      Tryptophan36.2mg
      Threonine113mg
      Isoleucine100mg
      Leucine172mg
      Lysine139mg
      Methionine41.5mg
      Cystine41.5mg
      Phenylalanine100mg
      Tyrosine69.7mg
      Valine154mg
      Arginine122mg
      Histidine65.7mg
      Alanine154mg
      Aspartic acid681mg
      Glutamic acid312mg
      Glycine125mg
      Proline95.2mg
      Serine142mg

      http://blog.herbaldiet.com/2010/05/19/essential-amino-acids-recommended-daily-intake/

      So in total, for a person weighting 65 kg (143 pounds), recommended essential amino acid intake is as follows:

      1235 mg of Isoleucine
      2795 mg of Leucine
      2470 mg of Lysine
      1235 mg of Methionine
      2145 mg of Phenylalanine
      1300 mg of Threonine
      325 mg of Tryptophan
      1560 mg of Valine
      910 mg of Histidine




      1
  6. Awesome video! On another note, I understand that these message boards are open but at what point of someone relentlessly repeating the same misinformation over and over again and literally flooding the comments section with said repetition, do the moderators interfere? It’s just getting ridiculous. Jerry Lewis is single handedly flooding every new video with his repetitive comments that most often have nothing to do with the topic being discussed. It’s degrading the comments section at this point.




    14
    1. S,
      The comment section has became almost a ghost town compared to what it was prior to JL’s unfortunate arrival. Shame on NutritionFacts for allowing the steady loss of qualified and fascinating participants who generously donated their time to answer questions and comments. The very few who remain have to wade painfully through nonsensical comments and rude retorts from JL. Not fun.

      The comment section imo is essential in helping to disseminate the info that Dr Greger puts together in the videos.. I thought it worth defending but apparently NF does not.




      11
      1. S and Susan,

        I share your sentiments! In my opinion, JL is either a paid troll or has an insatiable need to be the center of attention, even though the attention he receives is usually negative. People like that would rather have negative attention than be ignored! (Like the kid in school that constantly interrupts the class.) Unfortunately, banning JL would probably not work because he can always come back under a different name. (People have indicated that he has used different names in the past here, such as “Jimmy” and “Broccoli”. Maybe the best solution is to just ignore him completely. The new people coming to this website will learn rather quickly that his comments are not based on unbiased scientific evidence.




        11
        1. Strangely enough, I think that Jerry is improving.

          He now cites articles and quotes from them. This is a step forward. The next step would be for him to read them and critically analyse the contents. I live in hope.




          5
          1. If NF still used discus we that tire of Jerry and others like that could just block them and their comments would not show for us to wade through. Can’t understand why discus was a problem here. I go on a site that has many articles with hundreds of comments (some got over 1000) and they seem to work just fine.




            6
            1. Yes, it worked fine here too and did not lose posts that because they contained certain links or special characters. My posts regularly fail to post – it is some kind of software glitch I understand. Just like the glitch that means the system does not inform me of replies to my posts – that function just stopped working a month or two ago and the techsupport people can’t seem to fix it.

              I presume that the decision to abandon disqus was made on financial grounds but can’t be sure. The current system is certainly a major step backwards in terms of functionality and user friendliness.




              4
            2. jj, If I remember correctly, the reason that was stated for not continuing to use Discus was because they forced the hosting website to support their advertising. If that’s the main reason, then I agree with that decision. I believe that commercial advertising would detract tremendously from the credibility of this website.




              4
          2. TG,

            First of all, I want to thank you for all of your excellent intelligent posts in this comments section over the years.

            But I must disagree with your statement that JL is “improving”. Even though he now posts some references, I think he is just doing that to sound legitimate with the minimal amount of work. Like you indicated earlier, he doesn’t even read the references he posts!




            11
  7. hi Jerry !

    You are the star of this conversation see all the conversations bravo good job!
    We need people like you otherwise things would be too simple! What does not kill you makes you stronger ! you do no harm to anyone that I know so you make us stronger. continue!
    It’s a great thing that you absolutely challenge all the articles and videos keep going !!!
    In marketing strategy when there is criticism we consider that the “battle” is then about to be won !! And yes, if it bothers, it disturbs you as much is that you have to ask questions about how you eat … and it’s a small victory.
    You do not stop claiming “the millions of people who are omnivorous for millions of years” …. not sure that this is a scientific argument your defense.
    For many years also believed that the Earth was flat no?

    Remember J.L. any revolution, whatever its sector, goes through 3 phases:

    – Ridiculous
    – Dangerous
    – Obvious

    For example, the vote of women is initially considered ridiculous: “women must be content with the vote of their husband”, then dangerous: “the vote of women may upset society”, before being admitted as a obvious by all, 70 years after the decision to allow women to vote.

    have a good word ;-)




    3
    1. Myrium, Jerry doesn’t challenge anyone, he repeats the same things over and over and gives out unsupported advice and misinformation while both blatantly ignoring the science presented to him and making up his own facts.
      He also accuses people of ridiculous things including Dr. Greger and fellow commenters and has trolled under numerous names. He’s even made personal jabs about veganism and refuses to accept that vegan and plant based are separate entities. Once something he says is corrected or disproven, he doesn’t concede nor does he adjust his argument but rather repeats himself over and over.
      His comments aren’t on topic but rather the same perpetual ranting about how saturated animal fats, etc. are good and Dr. Greger and the scientific evidence are wrong.

      He doesn’t do so just once or twice, but bombards virtually every comment under each video with his same nonsense and potentially dangerous advice which is his opinion but he chooses to present his opinions as facts in spite of evidence those trying to partake in an actual DISCUSSION with him offer him and in spite of the overwhelming evidence in all of the videos on this site which he routinely insults but chooses to be a part of.

      What I do where REAL misinformation is being promoted on a website is avoid the website or comment on an article once and leave.

      There are plenty of people here who have intelligently challenged and discussed the topics at hand, and they do so like sane and mature adults.
      The comments on these boards are interesting due to intelligent discussion, not aggressive, relentless and sensless trolling.

      Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with Jerry’s history.




      5
    2. Hi Myrium, I misunderstood your comment and didn’t seem to see the whole thing (reading/commenting here on my phone while exercising has its down sides) so ignore my reply, I’d delete it if there were an option to do so. My appolgies!




      2
      1. hi S.
        no problem
        I am French and do not master English very well (but I will progress). Indeed, I wanted to be ironic with Jerry. I’m new on the forum so no I do not know the story of Jerry. But I meet a lot in France of Jerry Lewis. I pay close attention to my diet and exclude a lot of food which is worth a lot of criticism but I assume that if there is criticism it is good sign that means that people think about what they do not are not able to make a sudden they criticize.
        I wanted to remind this gentleman that all the great discoveries have jostled beliefs!
        thank you for taking the time to warn me!




        4
        1. Actually Myrium, I thought your comment was really well stated and you also make a brilliant point! All the great discoveries and revolutions do create this type of reaction, great reminder.
          Trust me, my original misinterpretation was my own fault, it did not reflect on your writing or English. I wouldn’t have guessed English wasn’t your first language. I’m actually hoping to get my French on the level of your English.




          2
  8. health/diet/eating-cheese-may-reduce-the-risk-of-stroke-and-heart-disease-research-finds/news-story/d3abde7c2facd623ab1cc2e

    Has anyone seen this study that is published around the world on news sites I’d like Dr McGregor to look into this and see who sponsored the studies. Cheese is 70 percent fat …how could eating more cheese prevent stroke or heart attack?




    0
    1. Just look at all the best science out there… the evidence that dairy is one of the most detrimental things to our health is already overwhelming but it’s also growing.
      Cheese is in my opinion the worst of dairy based on my past experience. It was probably my main source of animal protein when I was a vegetarian before going vegan and eating a plant based diet and I was amazed at the immediate difference in the way I felt and particularity noticed my improved gut health and decongestion, this was noticeable for me within the first week. I didn’t know how bad it was then, I went vegan for moral/ethical reasons and learned about health later, so I actually didn’t expect to feel better or get healthier.




      3
  9. Tara, that Chinese study simply associated cheese with a % reduction in various ills; it speculated, I think, that cheese eaters who aren’t rodents may be healthier in other ways.




    1
  10. I have seborrheic and perioral dermatitis on my face. I’ve tried a plant-based diet for over 4 weeks now hoping that would at least ease the symptoms but it’s the same or even slightly worse. Do you have any suggestions? I’m enjoying eating this way just wish my face did too.




    0
    1. Hi Viki, I am one of the volunteer moderators. Well done for taking control of your health with plant -based diet. I would suggest looking into other life style factors such as cleaning products, make up, soap shampoo and using environmental friendly products. These are some suggestions that come to my mind. Relaxation techich to control stress if that is an issue. I hope these suggestions are of any use to you. Wishing you good health.




      0
    2. Trying to find a dermatologist good at diagnosing and treating dermatitis. My journey took me to a university center with testing for 120+ items. Turns out I have 15 causes of allergic contact dermatitis. After cleaning up my causes, my skin has dramatically improved. I used to get perioral dermatitis too.

      I still get dermatitis but mostly on my hands and from leaning my arms on tables. I also get random hives (different allergic response), so my allergist calls me a rashy type person. :).




      0
      1. Thank you Amanda for your reply. I appreciate your input. Finding a good dermatologist is a challenge especially since I live in a small community.
        I only have dermatitis on my face and through trial and error I’m finding out what I can put on my face and what I can’t. So in your opinion seborrheic dermatitis is a contact dermatitis? I just assumed it was a autoimmune disease. That’s why I was hoping a plant-based diet would help my system.
        Well, I’ve learned how to cover up the red spots but it would be nice to be able to have them go away. At least I know I’m getting good nutrition by eating a plant-based diet so I’m going to continue eating this way.




        0

Leave a Reply

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

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This