Flashback Friday: Animal Protein Compared to Cigarette Smoking

Flashback Friday: Animal Protein Compared to Cigarette Smoking
4.58 (91.69%) 77 votes

Only about 1 in 10,000 people live to be 100 years old. What’s their secret?

Discuss
Republish

Only about one in 10,000 people make it to be 100 years old. What’s their secret?  Well, in 1993, a major breakthrough in longevity research was published: a single genetic mutation that doubled the lifespan of a tiny roundworm. Instead of all being dead by 30 days, the mutants lived 60 days or longer. This lifespan extension was the largest yet reported in any organism.

This Methuselah worm medical marvel is the equivalent of producing a healthy 200-year-old human—all because of a single mutation? That shouldn’t happen; I mean, presumably, aging is caused by multiple processes, many genes. How could just knocking out one gene double the lifespan?

What is this aging gene, anyway? This gene that so speeds up aging that if it’s knocked out, the animals live twice as long? It’s been called the Grim Reaper gene. What is it? It’s the worm equivalent of the human IGF-1 receptor. And mutations of that same receptor in humans may help explain why some people live to be a hundred, and other people don’t.

So, is it just the luck of the draw whether we got good genes or bad? No, we can turn on and off the expression of these genes, depending on what we eat. Three years ago, I profiled a remarkable series of experiments about IGF-1—insulin-like growth factor 1—this cancer-promoting growth hormone, released in excess amounts by our liver when we eat animal protein. So, men and women who don’t eat meat, egg whites, or dairy proteins have significantly lower levels circulating within their bodies.

Switching people to a plant-based diet can significantly lower IGF-1 levels within just 11 days, markedly improving the ability of women’s bloodstreams to suppress breast cancer growth, and then kill breast cancer cells off.

Similarly, the blood serum of men on plant-based diets suppresses prostate cancer cell growth about eight times better than before they changed their diet. This dramatic improvement in cancer defenses is, however, abolished if you add back just the amount of IGF-1 banished from their systems because they were eating and living healthier.

This is one way to explain the low rates of cancer among plant-based populations: the drop in animal protein intake leads to a drop in IGF-1, which leads to a drop in cancer growth. An effect so powerful, Dr. Dean Ornish and colleagues appeared to be able to reverse the progression of prostate cancer without chemo, surgery, or radiation—just a plant-based diet, and other healthy lifestyle changes.

Now, when we’re kids, we need growth hormones to grow. There’s a rare genetic defect that causes severe IGF-1 deficiency, leading to a type of dwarfism—but also apparently makes you effectively cancer-proof. Not a single death from cancer in about 100 individuals with IGF-1 deficiency. How about 200 individuals? None developed cancer. See, most malignant tumors are covered in IGF-1 receptors. But if there’s no IGF-1 around, then they may not be able to grow and spread.

This may help explain why those eating low-carb diets appear to cut their lives short. But not just any low-carb diet—specifically those based on animal sources, whereas vegetable-based low-carb diets were associated with a lower risk of death.

But look, low-carb diets are high in animal fat, as well as animal protein. So, how do we know it wasn’t the saturated animal fat that was killing people off, and it had nothing to do with the protein? What we need is a study that just follows a few thousand people and their protein intakes for 20 years or so, and just see who lives longest, who gets cancer, who doesn’t. But, there’s never been a study like that—until now.

6,000 men and women over age 50 from across the U.S. were followed for 18 years, and those under age 65 with high protein intakes had a 75% increase in overall mortality, and a fourfold increase in the risk of dying from cancer. But not all proteins; these associations were either abolished or attenuated if the proteins were plant-derived. This all makes sense, given the higher IGF-1 levels among those eating lots of animal protein.

 The sponsoring university sent out a press release with a memorable opening line: “That chicken wing you’re eating could be as deadly as a cigarette,” explaining that eating a diet rich in animal proteins during middle age makes you four times more likely to die from cancer than someone with a low-protein diet—a mortality risk factor comparable to smoking cigarettes. And when they say low-protein diet, what they actually mean is just getting the recommended amount of protein.

“Almost everyone is going to have a cancer cell or pre-cancerous cell in them at some point. The question is: Does it progress?” said one of the lead researchers. That may depend on what we eat.

“The question is not whether a certain diet allows you to do well in the short term,” one of the researchers noted. “But can it help you survive to be 100?” It wasn’t just more deaths from cancer; middle-aged people who eat lots of protein from animal sources were found to be more susceptible to early death in general. Crucially, the same did not apply to plant proteins, like beans. And it wasn’t the fat, but the animal protein that appeared to be the culprit.

What was the response to the revelation that diets high in meat, eggs, and dairy could be as harmful to health as smoking? Well, one nutrition scientist replied that it was potentially dangerous. It could damage the effectiveness of important public health messages. A smoker might think, “Why bother quitting smoking if my ham and cheese sandwich is just as bad for me?'”

It reminds me of a famous Philip Morris cigarette ad that tried to downplay the risks by saying, “Hey, you think second-hand smoke is bad, increasing the risk of lung cancer 19%; well, hey, drinking one or two glasses of milk may be three times as bad—62% increased risk of lung cancer. Or doubling the risk frequently cooking with oil; or tripling your risk of heart disease eating non-vegetarian; or multiplying your risk six-fold eating lots of meat and dairy.” So, they conclude, “Let’s keep some perspective here.” The risk of cancer from secondhand smoke may be well below that of other everyday activities.  So, breathe deep. 

That’s like saying: yeah, don’t worry about getting stabbed, because getting shot is so much worse. It’s like saying if you don’t wear seat belts, you might as well have unprotected sex. If you go bungee jumping, might as well disconnect your smoke alarms at home. Two risks don’t make a right.

Of course, you’ll note Philip Morris stopped throwing dairy under the bus once they purchased Kraft Foods.

To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by Katie Schloer.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image thanks to gholem via Pixabay.

Only about one in 10,000 people make it to be 100 years old. What’s their secret?  Well, in 1993, a major breakthrough in longevity research was published: a single genetic mutation that doubled the lifespan of a tiny roundworm. Instead of all being dead by 30 days, the mutants lived 60 days or longer. This lifespan extension was the largest yet reported in any organism.

This Methuselah worm medical marvel is the equivalent of producing a healthy 200-year-old human—all because of a single mutation? That shouldn’t happen; I mean, presumably, aging is caused by multiple processes, many genes. How could just knocking out one gene double the lifespan?

What is this aging gene, anyway? This gene that so speeds up aging that if it’s knocked out, the animals live twice as long? It’s been called the Grim Reaper gene. What is it? It’s the worm equivalent of the human IGF-1 receptor. And mutations of that same receptor in humans may help explain why some people live to be a hundred, and other people don’t.

So, is it just the luck of the draw whether we got good genes or bad? No, we can turn on and off the expression of these genes, depending on what we eat. Three years ago, I profiled a remarkable series of experiments about IGF-1—insulin-like growth factor 1—this cancer-promoting growth hormone, released in excess amounts by our liver when we eat animal protein. So, men and women who don’t eat meat, egg whites, or dairy proteins have significantly lower levels circulating within their bodies.

Switching people to a plant-based diet can significantly lower IGF-1 levels within just 11 days, markedly improving the ability of women’s bloodstreams to suppress breast cancer growth, and then kill breast cancer cells off.

Similarly, the blood serum of men on plant-based diets suppresses prostate cancer cell growth about eight times better than before they changed their diet. This dramatic improvement in cancer defenses is, however, abolished if you add back just the amount of IGF-1 banished from their systems because they were eating and living healthier.

This is one way to explain the low rates of cancer among plant-based populations: the drop in animal protein intake leads to a drop in IGF-1, which leads to a drop in cancer growth. An effect so powerful, Dr. Dean Ornish and colleagues appeared to be able to reverse the progression of prostate cancer without chemo, surgery, or radiation—just a plant-based diet, and other healthy lifestyle changes.

Now, when we’re kids, we need growth hormones to grow. There’s a rare genetic defect that causes severe IGF-1 deficiency, leading to a type of dwarfism—but also apparently makes you effectively cancer-proof. Not a single death from cancer in about 100 individuals with IGF-1 deficiency. How about 200 individuals? None developed cancer. See, most malignant tumors are covered in IGF-1 receptors. But if there’s no IGF-1 around, then they may not be able to grow and spread.

This may help explain why those eating low-carb diets appear to cut their lives short. But not just any low-carb diet—specifically those based on animal sources, whereas vegetable-based low-carb diets were associated with a lower risk of death.

But look, low-carb diets are high in animal fat, as well as animal protein. So, how do we know it wasn’t the saturated animal fat that was killing people off, and it had nothing to do with the protein? What we need is a study that just follows a few thousand people and their protein intakes for 20 years or so, and just see who lives longest, who gets cancer, who doesn’t. But, there’s never been a study like that—until now.

6,000 men and women over age 50 from across the U.S. were followed for 18 years, and those under age 65 with high protein intakes had a 75% increase in overall mortality, and a fourfold increase in the risk of dying from cancer. But not all proteins; these associations were either abolished or attenuated if the proteins were plant-derived. This all makes sense, given the higher IGF-1 levels among those eating lots of animal protein.

 The sponsoring university sent out a press release with a memorable opening line: “That chicken wing you’re eating could be as deadly as a cigarette,” explaining that eating a diet rich in animal proteins during middle age makes you four times more likely to die from cancer than someone with a low-protein diet—a mortality risk factor comparable to smoking cigarettes. And when they say low-protein diet, what they actually mean is just getting the recommended amount of protein.

“Almost everyone is going to have a cancer cell or pre-cancerous cell in them at some point. The question is: Does it progress?” said one of the lead researchers. That may depend on what we eat.

“The question is not whether a certain diet allows you to do well in the short term,” one of the researchers noted. “But can it help you survive to be 100?” It wasn’t just more deaths from cancer; middle-aged people who eat lots of protein from animal sources were found to be more susceptible to early death in general. Crucially, the same did not apply to plant proteins, like beans. And it wasn’t the fat, but the animal protein that appeared to be the culprit.

What was the response to the revelation that diets high in meat, eggs, and dairy could be as harmful to health as smoking? Well, one nutrition scientist replied that it was potentially dangerous. It could damage the effectiveness of important public health messages. A smoker might think, “Why bother quitting smoking if my ham and cheese sandwich is just as bad for me?'”

It reminds me of a famous Philip Morris cigarette ad that tried to downplay the risks by saying, “Hey, you think second-hand smoke is bad, increasing the risk of lung cancer 19%; well, hey, drinking one or two glasses of milk may be three times as bad—62% increased risk of lung cancer. Or doubling the risk frequently cooking with oil; or tripling your risk of heart disease eating non-vegetarian; or multiplying your risk six-fold eating lots of meat and dairy.” So, they conclude, “Let’s keep some perspective here.” The risk of cancer from secondhand smoke may be well below that of other everyday activities.  So, breathe deep. 

That’s like saying: yeah, don’t worry about getting stabbed, because getting shot is so much worse. It’s like saying if you don’t wear seat belts, you might as well have unprotected sex. If you go bungee jumping, might as well disconnect your smoke alarms at home. Two risks don’t make a right.

Of course, you’ll note Philip Morris stopped throwing dairy under the bus once they purchased Kraft Foods.

To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by Katie Schloer.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image thanks to gholem via Pixabay.

Doctor's Note

In an even more recent study entitled Association of Animal and Plant Protein Intake with All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality, Harvard researchers concluded: “Replacing animal protein of various origins with plant protein was associated with lower mortality.”

The IGF-1 story is so pivotal that it’s one of the first video series I ever produced for NutritionFacts.org. I’m so glad I was able to release this long-awaited update. If you want a blast from the past, watch the original series starting with Engineering a Cure.

For more parallels between the tobacco industry and the food industry, see:

What about the mobile phone industry? Does Cell Phone Radiation Cause Cancer?

For more on healthy aging and longevity, see:

Since this video was originally published, I did a series on intermittent fasting that included a couple videos on longevity: The Benefits of Calorie Restriction for Longevity and Does Intermittent Fasting Increase Life Expectancy?

It’s important to note the so-called low protein intake is actually the recommended protein intake, which is associated with a major reduction in cancer and overall mortality in middle age, under age 65. But did you notice that it says not among older individuals? All of this is covered in my video Increasing Protein Intake After Age 65.

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

133 responses to “Flashback Friday: Animal Protein Compared to Cigarette Smoking

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. OK, I would like to see YR’s comment on the lead-in picture of the fire dragon. She always has such good comments on these lead-in pictures :-)

      1. Hey, YR, I figured you would come through with something good!
        That video you linked to demonstrates a modern form of aerobic exercise, so not entirely unrelated to health :-)

        1. “That video you linked to demonstrates a modern form of aerobic exercise, so not entirely unrelated to health :-)”
          – – – –

          One man’s aerobic exercise video is another man’s porno video. *_^

      2. I miss these illustrations using legos and other small toys! They just seem genuine and playful and do the job sincerely. Nice to see one from the vault.

  2. I’m a Ph.D in pharmacology, practiced public health toxicology for over 20 years at a government agency and am a supporter of NutritionFacts.org. I like to look up articles referenced on the site in PubMed and learn about the many subjects in more detail. Because Dr. Greger doesn’t read more into the data than can be supported, I trust his analyses.

    Now. The new format distracts from the scientific basis of NutritionFacts.org’s important public health message. Half the screen is devoted to Dr. Greger narrating, and unfortunately, because he is demonstrative with his hands, and speaks quickly, it looks and feels as if the footage has been sped up – to comic effect!! Having a viewer-friendly vibe is important, but some level of seriousness can help counteract the enormous amount of slick misinformation in the public domain. The science does that, but now the articles, shown in smaller format, are hard to read and are quickly removed from view. The overall feel is “Trust me, I’m a witty guy”. But to get their acceptance, people without a technical background need to be carefully walked through the science.

    1. I agree with s. wuerthele, at the end of this video I thought, I really liked this video’s format. So instead of saying what I don’t like, I’d like to say this format and content was great. I’ve been doing random videos to try to learn from previously presented materials and hadn’t come across this one. It fits in perfectly with a conversation I was having with a friend on various amounts of protein needed (he’s a “old” weight lifter who still lifts) and will sending a pointer of this video to him. Thanks to all who create this web and associated media support.

    2. s. wuerthele,

      Dr. Greger already asked for feedback and the feedback he has gotten agrees with you but the videos were pre-recorded and it will be about April playing the videos from this format.

    3. S. Wuerthele:
      I agree with you fully. I watched today’s video from the start to the end, understood it, and learned something useful from it, and because of that gave five stars.

    4. I agree with s. wuerthele in full. I’ve been a fan/supporter of NF.O for at least five years now, sharing and quoting and generally pissing off the rest of America since I adopted this way of life*. I appreciate all the work that goes into the videos, but ALSO value my ability to freeze-frame and read the rest of excerpts and to go read further–except it is useless if you don’t have pay access other resources. I trust Michael Greger, but often I like to read more of these selected studies and reports. And I prefer facts over flash or drama.

  3. Excellent, as always. Thank you so much for this update. I like both formats and learn from a restating of information in a different way.

    1. Heartsforberries,

      You are a positive person. I can tell by the word “hearts” being in your screen name.

      I am enjoying the new videos, too. It is nice to see Dr. Greger on screen.

      But I also do really love the old format and I really, really, really loved when Dr. Greger wasn’t getting humiliated every Monday and Wednesday in the comments and when people didn’t think he needed to be replaced by someone more handsome.

      I genuinely do find him handsome, but I sat there looking at the “faces of WFPB” and there are only a very, very few people in the bunch who are “Hollywood Handsome” and I mentally played with which actors would I replace Dr. Ornish and Dr. Greger and Dr. Lisle and others with and I wouldn’t trade any of them.

      .

      1. The concept that these doctors work for decades and decades and decades and build their own websites and Dr. Greger is one who doesn’t even take vacations and people see this site as if he could be replaced somehow.

        1. I have been a regular viewer of NF.org for many years now, so have seen both formats. I must say that I do prefer the older format where the research papers are more visible, especially after pausing the video. But I agree with you, Deb, that I will continue to watch the videos no matter what the format is!

          And I might also comment that this particular video is really packed with good information. It covers a little about genetics, epigenetics, IGF1, and several other important topics. Makes me want to re-watch the video series on IGF-1

          I had seen this video when it was first published in 2016, but a reminder is helpful, so I do like these once per week “Flashback Fridays”.

  4. Hard to take any health related website seriously when most regulars on here are more into the images than the actual health discussion.

    1. Reality bites,

      I understand that it is a pet peeve with you. The thing is, there are 100% scholarly sites and they will have more serious discussions.

      This site is special in that it is a mixture between doctors and newbies and foodies and health-oriented people all in the same discussion boards.

      To me, that is more special than when I have looked at medical sites.

      Plus, this is Flashback Friday and if you go back to the first time IGF-1 was discussed, the comments were much more dynamically on-topic.

      I particularly was looking at all of those video images in this video and those videos are all my favorites.

      For this topic, I was looking again at the protein and this study is the one I am trying to put into my memory.

      6,000 men and women over age 50 from across the U.S. were followed for 18 years, and those under age 65 with high protein intakes had a 75% increase in overall mortality, and a fourfold increase in the risk of dying from cancer. But not all proteins; these associations were either abolished or attenuated if the proteins were plant-derived.

      I don’t mind your comments against people commenting on the creativity of the videos, but I would rather you bring up a topic to discuss.

  5. although this is primarily a health based discussion, it is imperative to also consider the ethical and environmental aspects of exploiting & killing sentient beings. at least when someone decides to smoke, the only victim involved is themselves.

    1. ahimsa42,

      Sadly, the decision to smoke affects everyone around you. And many of those inhaling second hand smoke, or even third hand smoke, will themselves suffer adverse health consequences.

      I recall being in the hospital 50 years ago, in a ward with 3 other patients, all of whom smoked. It was dreadful; I actually got sick from the smoke. And I have relatives who never smoked themselves but whose spouses smoked, and they are suffering from smoking-related illnesses — though their spouses did die a much earlier death. Just two example of many, many more.

      So, I am extremely glad that the tide finally turned with respect to smoking. I hope it’s turning with respect to eating animal products; I’ve been a vegetarian for almost 50 years, for environmental and sustainability reasons, and have spent most of my life subjected to “food bullying.” Since discovering this site, I’ve transitioned to whole plant food eating — and am relieved and pleased to know that this might be the healthiest way to eat, for us and for our planet.

      1. Dr. J – Thank you for pointing out the second hand smoke issue. My Mother passed from lung cancer after decades of COPD. She was not a smoker, but her Father was. She grew up in a home where her Father smoked both cigarettes and pipes.

        1. Yes, addictions of any kind are never (almost never) a ‘ one-man show.’ There are consequences on many levels both close to home, in the community, or the country as a whole. Food/ obesity, alcohol, street/prescription drugs, gambling etc.. they effect us all and cost us as a society.

  6. To whom this e-mail may concern;
    Is Dr. Greger in the video also including fish like sardines and salmon that is cancer causing proteins also? or is it just the land animals including eggs and dairy?

    1. Raymond

      As I understand it and without being overly technical: Animal protein as differentiated from plant protein. This almost always means all things of the animal kingdom (most meat-products differentiation is marketing by those industries who use meat for profit, or marketing by someone trying to sell you a fad program–Facts: less [animal products] is better, but a tiny amount taken infrequently doesn’t hurt health/longevity (The Blue Zones). Dairy is certainly a cancer contributing protein as you can read about in The China Study.

      1. How does HGH gel applied topically (which I have been using for about 1 year and noticed good benefits) compare to IGF-1. Would you recommend using the gel if I avoid animal proteins in my diet?

        1. Sandy, are you referring to this product ?https://www.suppreviewers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/partial-label-somaderm.jpg
          If so, there is no hgh in it. It’s homeopathic. You are paying basically for green tea, aloe vera, vit c, and that’s about it. chaste tree berry and wild yam are sometimes included in herbal menopause symptom remedies. Dimethacone is often found in make up and creams as a skin “smoother’. (environmental working group can give you more info).

          If a child was being prescribed human growth hormone by an endocrinologist that is a different matter entirely.

          1. Yes, unfortunately … and have been wondering for some time since I haven’t noticed any benefits other than the initial one of more energy. Going to cancel!!!! Thank you!!

    2. Ray,

      fish flesh is just as bad if not worse than the flesh of land animals. in addition to the saturated fat, cholesterol and animal protein, the ocean is also polluted with mercury, PCB’s and even radiation from reactor leaks and all of these toxins bio-accumulate in the animals you are eating.

      in addition, fishes are sentient beings who suffer and feel pain so killing them when one could instead choose to only eat plants is immoral. you should also look up what by catch is too. fishing is also a tremendous environmental disaster and is destroying the oceans. there is a free, short documentary on youtube titled “Seaspiricy” which can greatly help to enlighten you on these issues.

      1. Thank you ahimsa 44, but I been brain washed that Omega 3 (fish) from the sea is anti Inflammatory and good for the body, keeps heart attacks and stokes at bay and thins the blood, so I read so many times. I did read about the fish oil Omega 3 multi billion dollar hoax starting in the 70’s, I fell for that myself. It’s getting so one can’t believe what you read for sure. Myself I’m mostly vegan, but have been including sardines, salmon and cod fish in my diet here and there.

          1. Marine omega-3s include algal omega 3s. Marine algae is where the fish get their omega 3s from in the first place after all.

            In any case, the first study didn’t look at fish oil, it looked at a proprietary product/drug derived from fish oil…………..

            ‘a high dose (∼4 grams/day) of icosapent ethyl (IPE) (Vascepa, Amarin Corporation, Bedminster, NJ), a concentrated omega-3 product that is an ethyl ester form of EPA, as an adjunctive therapy in combination with a high-intensity statin for persons with triglycerides (TGs) above 150 mg/dL. ‘
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31627938/

            I understand that some reservations have also been expressed about conclusions drawn from the other studies. Also, I believe that at least
            the corresponding author and DiNicolantonio have pre-existing ideological commitments to particular dietary approaches to disease prevention and treatment.

            The AHA continues to point out that

            ‘There are no reports from RCTs that have targeted exclusively the primary prevention of CHD, that is, the effects of omega-3 PUFA supplements in the general population of patients without prior CHD. No recommendation for treatment with omega-3 PUFA supplements can be made for this segment of the population.’

            and

            ‘Overall, the current evidence from RCTs suggests no benefit of omega-3 PUFA supplementation among patients with or at risk for diabetes mellitus to prevent CVD ‘

            https://ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000482

            and

            ‘In each of these trials, the patients enrolled who were free of prior clinical CHD were considered at high risk for CHD on the basis of the presence of prior atherosclerotic disease in another vascular bed; for example, stroke or peripheral vascular disease, diabetes mellitus, or hypercholesterolemia. Two of the 3 trials showed no benefit from omega-3 PUFA supplementation on clinical CHD.6,7

    3. Raymond

      ‘Just like the proteins in dairy, eggs, and meat, the protein in fish also contains a higher proportion of essential amino acids, which results in our bodies producing increased levels of the hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1).[i] [ii] [iii]

      IGF-1 stimulates cell division and growth, and it is associated with cancer proliferation and malignancy. The role of IGF-1 in cancer promotion is well understood, and animal protein, including fish, is associated with increased circulating levels of this hormone (and thereby with increased risk of cancer development).[iv] [v] [vi] [vii] [viii]’

      https://www.forksoverknives.com/is-fish-a-health-food-or-have-we-just-let-it-off-the-hook/#gs.rnvdgj

      1. Lonie, if you figure out how to get PTSD you could have flashbacks all week long.
        —————————————————————————————
        Heh, pretty sure I could get the PTSD just by watching the new video format for a while… but then the Flashbacks would likely be in the new format! ‘-)

  7. Can anyone in the know confirm whether or not injectable ( or other) testosterone replacement therapy promotes cancer due to the production of IGF-1 . Or is the testosterone produced IGF-1 non-binding to the surface cells in such a way that the cancer threat is not exaggerated.

    1. I’m not aware that this has ever been trialled. However, it’s a possibility because

      ‘For every increase of 5 nanomoles in the concentration of IGF-1 per liter of blood (5 nmol/L), men were 9% more likely to develop prostate cancer.

      For every increase of 50 picomoles of free testosterone per liter of blood (50 pmol/L), there was a 10% increase in prostate cancer risk.’

      https://www.ascopost.com/news/november-2019/higher-igf-1-and-free-testosterone-levels-may-be-risk-factors-for-prostate-cancer/

  8. Those not eating IGF-1 can still get nailed by 2nd hand smoke. A smoky fireplace / bon fire / grill / fire-in-general produces smoke. 67 % of all active duty fire fighters get cancer. 60% of them die. It’s thought to be from the smoldering embers after the fire is knocked down — when fire fighters take of their breathing equipment. It’s mostly lung cancer.

    1. 67 % of all active duty fire fighters get cancer. 60% of them die. It’s thought to be from the smoldering embers after the fire is knocked down — when fire fighters take of their breathing equipment. It’s mostly lung cancer.
      ——————————————————————————————————-
      Do firefighters still use asbestos suits? If not, I’m sure they use some sort of flame retardant material. I remember California requiring all infants wear to be flame retardant… only to learn years later that the flame retardant was damaging to all infants health rather than the few that were affected by burning clothing.

  9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12145221/
    Can we admit that other studies do not agree with the information in today’s video?

    The study above controlled for some of the potential confounding factors by feeding people with Type 2 Diabetes two different types of meals for 6 weeks:

    Group A got meals with 60% animal protein and 40% plant protein.
    Group B got meals with 100% plant protein.
    At the end of the study…

    “There were no significant differences between diets for glomerular filtration rate, renal plasma flow, albumin excretion rate, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, triglyceride area under the curve (AUC), glucose and insulin AUC, HbA(1c,) blood pressure, or serum amino acids. For both diets, at the end of the treatment periods as compared with baseline, total cholesterol was significantly lower…HbA(1c) had significantly improved …and diastolic blood pressure was significantly lower.”

    The study showed no advantage of a 100% plant-based diet compared to a diet containing animal protein.

    Another one –
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19033572/

    And another one –
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19261724/

    And this today on a Low Carb diet –

    https://www.mdedge.com/endocrinology/article/215242/diabetes/carbohydrate-restriction-viable-choice-reversal-type-2?ecd=wnl_evn_200109_mdedge_8pm&uac=352093ET&oc_slh=e74fd77756b22a15b4ecc8e6067e98fd787b1f634c8d04c8439f5c281b125af0&utm_source=News%5FMDedge%5FeNL%5F010920%5FF&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Restricting%20carbs%20aids%20T2D%20reversal%20%7C%20Bariatric%20surgery%20cuts%20cancer%20risk%20%7C%20And%20more

    1. Your studies aren’t talking about IGF-1.

      IGF-1 is also involved in Diabetes and relate to Insulin and increasing fat affects insulin resistance, and there is the whole acetone topic, so when you switch from talking about plant protein to animal protein and back, there will be things that get affected and other things where there is less of an effect.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3374394/

      I couldn’t click into PubMed even to read the link I am posting but the topic is IGF-1 and the study that Dr. Greger posted, the IGF-1 being added in took away the benefit.

      I would have to really examine your study, but if the IGF-1 gets raised by something other than animal products (and if I remember properly there were other things that did raise it) that could explain differences in results, but you are comparing apples to iguanas.

      1. My non-medical understanding of IGF-1 is that both low- and high-normal IGF-I levels are both related to insulin resistance.

        We already know that high saturated fat is also related to insulin resistance.

        Oh yeah, that is it.

        REFINED carbs increase IGF-1. So if their diet was REFINED carbs, like white flour or lots of sugar it could also raise IGF-1 levels, because they can cause rapid increases in insulin levels, leading to increases in IGF-1 signaling.

        So, Greg, you are bringing up a legitimate argument against the wrong type of carbs.

        But it is still lowering fats AND refined carbs/sugar that is what WFPB is about.

      2. One of the study authors (from today’s video) is Dr Longo. Longo has declared interests in (actually, he’s the founder of) L-Nutra – a company that makes ProLon™ – an entirely plant based meal replacement product.

        Also, if you read the study, the study wants us to believe that animal protein ups cancer mortality in folks between the ages of 50 and 65, but then does the reverse & decreases this ‘causation’ at 65. Guess folks would be better off in the high protein group. This doesn’t add up. Did the researchers find a big difference between animal protein & plants protein to mice? No, they didn’t.

        Association does not mean causation & Relative risk is a poor measure when absolute risk can be reported instead.

        * This study found that both plant and animal protein were associated with lower blood pressure (cut the carbs):

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23514841/

        1. Greg,

          I don’t understand your sentences about Dr. Longo. Are you saying not to trust him because he made a product for people to try the fasting-mimicking diet for a few days after his trial of fasting-mimicking helping cancer patients who need chemo? Do you think that biases his motivations?

          The thing with IGF-1 is that it naturally begins to lower in the elderly, so having a different discussion based on different age groups doesn’t sound wrong to me.

          I can’t click on PubMed links right now to look at your studies, but I do know that refined carbs and sugar do taint studies when it is “carb” versus other macros. But when the doctors like Barnard, Ornish, Esselstyn, McDougall, Fuhrman, etc, emphasize that they also don’t want people eating refined carbs or too much sugar, those are the studies WFPB is based on.

        2. ‘Did the researchers find a big difference between animal protein & plants protein to mice? No, they didn’t.’

          They found a big difference between animal protein and plant protein IN PEOPLE.

          Also, Longo advises people to eat fish. He also advises people over 65 to eat some meat, eggs and dairy ….. so he is hardly part of some nefarious ‘vegan’ plot against animal protein.
          https://valterlongo.com/daily-longevity-diet-for-adults/

          Your last link is to a paper by a team of Dutch researchers belonging to the TOP Institute in the Netherlands. It is closely associated with the food industry
          https://www.tifn.nl/organisation/

          I am not sure that studies comparing protein consumption with undifferentiated carbohydrate consumption (mostly refined carbs I’d wager) throw much light on this subject.

    2. No, Greg. You once again seem to be trying to muddy the waters by posting irrelevant or at best tangential studies on other topics.

      The video is about lifespan/mortality and IGF-1 levels. Why you think that a 6-week study about diets for people with type 2 diabetes and kidney problems, that didn’t look at IGF-1 levels, casts doubt on other studies about IGF-1 levels and lifespan is beyond me.

      Your second study found

      ‘RESULTS:
      A total of 1,478 incident cases of renal cell cancer were identified (709 in women and 769 in men). We observed statistically significant positive associations or trends in pooled age-adjusted models for intakes of total fat, saturated fat, monounsaturated fat, polyunsaturated fat, cholesterol, total protein, and animal protein.’

      those associations may have been adjusted away or attenuated in subsequent statistical analyses but whether that ‘adjustment was valid or a case of overadjustment is something that may be moot. Either way, it doesn’t show that animal protein diets are actually healthy

      Your third study was ‘Supported in part by the Cattlemen’s Beef Board, through the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and the National Pork Board’ so its findings are hugely convenient for the study’s funders. No doubt just a coincidence.

      Your last link was to a puff piece about someone who works for an organisation that sells low carb medical services and constantly promotes its approach on the internet, YouTube etc

      Why you persist in haunting this site to promote low carb ideology beats me. You must know by now that such diets have been found in multiple studies to be associated with higher mortality eg

      ‘Several recent papers show that diets that restrict all carbohydrate-containing foods can cause diseases and shorten your life. People who eat the most vegetables, fruits, beans and whole grains, which are full of carbohydrates, have the lowest rates of heart attacks and heart disease (Nutrition Journal, July 10, 2018;17:67), partly because these foods are rich sources of soluble fiber (Nutr Rev. Apr, 2009;67(4):188-205).’
      https://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition/lowcarbohydrate-diets-can-harm.html

      1. I like this site because I want to hear all opinions but when I watched the video, I knew that not all doctors and not all studies agree with the conclusion. Do you know the authors of the study? Do you know that one of them speaks at vegetarian conferences? Who was the invited “peer” review author? Was it Dean Ornish? Do you know that one of the authors stated that “one soft drink a day raises the risk of heart attacks” – which of course there is no real evidence that it does? Do you know that the study only suggest an observed relationship and to make allegations about causation and risk is erroneous? Do you know that the overall risk (according to this study) of dying is not even 1 person in 100 over a 25 plus year study?

        How would this study exist if low carb diets are so bad?

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24176230/

        Or this one?

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24021709/

        Or this?

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26178720/

        1. Greg

          You wrote ‘Do you know that one of the authors stated that “one soft drink a day raises the risk of heart attacks” – which of course there is no real evidence that it does?’

          As far as I know the only people who argue that there is no real evidence on this point are the Sugar Association and the American Beverage Association. Why an animal foods loving low carber like you would repeat this claim (and thereby defend vegetarian high carb drinks) is a mystery to me. Especially since the statement you object to is based on a sizeable and lengthy Harvard study that found just one sugar sweetened soft drink a day was associated with a 20% increased risk of heart disease..
          https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120312162744.

          All it shows is that the author who made the statement you object to is aware of the literature on the subject and is not a one-eyed defender of vegetarian carbohydrate consumption.

          As an animal foods promoting low carber, shouldn’t you instead be cheering on scientific researchers who state that sugar-containing vegetarian foods like soft drinks raise heart disease risk? Especially since low carbers as a group seem pretty insistent that here is a ton of evidence to show that sugar is the root cause of all nutritional evil?

          1. The point I was trying to make is that there is not one study that proves drinking a regular soda once a day will cause someone to have a heart attack. I understand that a study might show association but that doesn’t make it true.

            1. That wasn’t your original point, Greg.

              Your original assertion was that there is no real evidence that one daily ‘soda’.RAISES THE RISK OF HEART ATTACKS. The Harvard study I referred to showed that one daily soda is associated with a 20% increased risk of heart disease. That seems like real evidence to me.

              If we accept your argument, we would also have to conclude that there is no real evidence that cigarette smoking raises heart disease and lung cancer risk. All the evidence there is associational too. I remember defenders of smoking similarly arguing that since not everybody who smokes gets heart disease or lung cancer, cigarette smoking cannot CAUSE those things.

                1. By this same logic, there has never been any study that proves cigarette smoking is harmful either.

                  But that wasn’t your original point. You wrote – wrongly – that there was ‘no real evidence’. There is real evidence but it doesn’t include human RCTs. Neither does the evidence about smoking. It is also a standard of evidence you don’t appear to demand of low carb claims that it is a healthy diet in the long term.

                  ‘Science’s defenders have identified five hallmark moves of pseudoscientists. They argue that the scientific consensus emerges from a conspiracy to suppress dissenting views. They produce fake experts, who have views contrary to established knowledge but do not actually have a credible scientific track record. They cherry-pick the data and papers that challenge the dominant view as a means of discrediting an entire field. They deploy false analogies and other logical fallacies. And they set impossible expectations of research: when scientists produce one level of certainty, the pseudoscientists insist they achieve another.’
                  https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-mistrust-of-science

  10. Greg, It’s easy to manipulate statistics to show any conclusion one wants, especially when one is talking about micro-details like: “glomerular filtration rate, renal plasma flow, albumin excretion rate, etc., etc.

    Looking from a broader perspective, there is plenty of evidence that humans are not physiologically equipped to be animal eaters (carnivore’s), or even omnivore’s, if one considers Optimal health.

    For example, check out these websites for the complete perspective:

    https://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html

    http://whale.to/a/comp.html

    Dr Milton R. Mills:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXj76A9hI-o

    1. Haven’t we been consuming animals/animal protein for a very long time? But yet we aren’t made to eat meat??

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21745624/

      There is considerable variation in the macronutrient content of hunter-gatherer diets. In one study,6 229 hunter-gatherer diets from around the world were analyzed using plant-to-animal subsistence ratios. A high variance in carbohydrate intake was found (approximately 3%-50% of daily calories). This variance is related to what is available based on climate and geography, and carbohydrate intake is inversely associated with latitude. In extremes of latitude (such as the Northern Tundra environments) higher proportions of animal derived foods, protein, and fat are consumed due to the relative abundance of large game-animals and scarcity of carbohydrate containing foods. In comparison, higher carbohydrate foods such as fruits, tubers, and grains are more plentiful closer to the equator.

      However, the authors of the above tudy noted that independent of the local environment, the range of energy intake derived from carbohydrate in most hunter-gatherer populations is significantly lower than the current minimum dietary recommendations. The recommended minimum amount of carbohydrate for modern humans is higher than the intakes of any of the hunter-gatherer populations studied.
      Wonder why so many people have success on lower carb diets?

      Does Meat Cause Cancer? Revisiting the Meat, IGF-1, and Cancer Connection – Sara Gottfried MD –
      https://www.saragottfriedmd.com/does-meat-cause-cancer-revisiting-the-meat-igf-1-and-cancer-connection/

      1. Greg, Sure, early humans “survived” by eating animal parts when their preferred foods weren’t available. But that is quite different from eating the “Optimal” human diet for health and longevity.

        Take a look at Figure 2 in the research paper at the following link. The charts show Food Groups vs Risk of All-Cause Mortality. Trend lines that decrease from 1.0 on the Y-axis show a smaller risk of early death, whereas trend lines that increase from 1.0 on the Y-axis show a larger risk of early death.

        Whole Grains and Legumes are the clear winners with Vegetables a close third! The trend lines just keep going down, the more you eat.

        Works for me, but, hey, to each his own :-)

        https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/105/6/1462/4569801

        1. Yes sir, but there are studies that state the opposite. Residents of Hong Kong are not shy about their meat eating and they have a very high life expectancy. You can read two studies listed below.

          A UK based study into the health benefits of vegetarian diets – the largest of it’s kind to date – has just published its findings in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition showing that long-term diets reducing or eliminating meat and other animal products did not lead to significant reductions in early death.

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26657045/

          A 2007 paper that analyzed health metrics for over 240,000 Australians, part of the “45 and Up study”, similarly found no increased longevity from avoiding meat: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Vegetarian-diet-and-all-cause-mortality%3A-Evidence-a-Mihrshahi-Ding/9b08642465afab42b351ee9ff5b22a0a87ed9520

      2. ‘Wonder why so many people have success on lower carb diets?’

        Delete ‘success; and insert ‘higher mortality’

        ‘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

        1. Are you aware that the data that low carb diets shorten life’s are based on food questionnaires and that the correlation is not to a low carb diet per se and that the study is based on observational associations?

          How would you explain the below then? How would you explain the success of low carb diet? How would you explain that since I started a low carb diet in mid 2014 that my weight dropped from 270 pounds to 217 pound, that my total cholesterol dropped from 269 (January 2014) down to 187 (November 2019), my C-reactive protein went from high down to almost zero, my heartburn disappeared, my sleep improved, my energy improved, my libido improved, my total testosterone level went from 191 (2013) to 389 (November 2019), my blood sugar level that was slightly high in 2014 is now normal, and my back pain (diagnosed with a herniated disc L4/L5 in 2013 – had 3 rounds of epidural injections in 2013 – advised to have spine surgery in October 203) is now 90% better??

          At two years, the low-carb intervention group experienced several impressive changes:

          * Retention: 74% of the original participants (194 people) remained in the study * Diabetes outcomes: * Nearly half (53%) of participants were considered to have reversed their diabetes, meaning their blood sugar control improved, yet medication was reduced or eliminated * As a group, average hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was reduced by 0.9% (similar to results in diabetes drug trials) * 67% of insulin and oral diabetes medications (other than metformin) were eliminated altogether. For participants who still used insulin or oral drugs after two years, dosages were greatly reduced * Weight: Average weight loss was 26 pounds (11.9 kg), and three-quarters of the participants lost at least 5% of their body weight, including abdominal fat * Cardiovascular risk markers: Triglycerides decreased and HDL cholesterol increased, whereas LDL cholesterol increased only slightly, on average * Liver health: Liver function markers, fatty liver scores, and liver damage scores improved * No adverse changes in bone health or thyroid or kidney function were seen

          By contrast, the group that received usual diabetes care and nutrition recommendations didn’t experience diabetes reversal or improvement. In fact, some of the usual-care participants needed more diabetes medication after two years. Additionally, very few of them lost any weight or experienced other health improvements.

          https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2019.00348/full

          Or this – https://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/1900694/effects-low-carbohydrate-low-fat-diets-randomized-trial

          1. Greg,

            I could not eat a “low carb diet,” since it appears to involve eating a lot of animal products. I have been vegetarian for almost 50 years for environmental and sustainability reasons, and most recently a whole plant food eater for health reasons. No matter what you say about eating lots of animal products, it’s not sustainable, it’s environmentally degrading, it results in as much GHG emission as the whole transportation system, it’s cruel to animals and workers, and it uses huge amounts of antibiotics resulting in the development of antibiotic resistance.

            So, California and Australia are burning. After droughts. The glaciers and ice sheets are melting, the sea level is rising. We are seeing increasingly ferocious storms, increasing drought, oceans polluted with contaminants, and more. So why do you want to eat animals? Knowing all this.

          2. And Greg,

            My personal experience, that of my husband and my brother and others, indicates that whole plant food eating is the healthiest way to live. The anecdata supports the data. I’m good with that.

          3. Greg, you are my new “Studies Finder Hero!” based not on the first link data you posted above, but on a side bar study, “Nutritional Ketosis Increases NAD+/NADH Ratio in Healthy Human Brain: An in Vivo Study by 31P-MRS” from the Frontiers in Nutrition website.

            I have long been a believer in the MCT to Ketone pathway to fueling the brain alongside or in lieu of glucose based energy. This study clearly states that glucose-fueling is considered aging-related whereas ketone-fueling is brain protective against aging, as they carefully state in a healthy brain.

            I am currently involved in consuming a synthetic ketone-producing product that only provides ketones for a time. According to the study, MCTs raise ketones for brain fuel for a measured time, but are provided naturally by the body. They clearly show the ketones as brain fuel are superior due to the way it utilizes NAD+ and NADH.

            Personally, this is one of the better study-approaches I’ve encountered as they are tackling a modern approach to brain health without the long established bias against ketones.

            I will bookmark this site and check often for new-paradigm studies. ‘-)

              1. Greg, perhaps the effect of low-carb eating on human behavior should be studied. Now come clean and explain what comforts do you feel by trolling websites?

                1. Allen, what do you have against different viewpoints, different outlooks? This place would get pretty boring if “one size fits all.” Greg sincerely believes in what he says just as much as do you. I wouldn’t call that trolling,

                  Also, he manages to get a lot of responders who are interested enough to counteract with links of their own.

                    1. Ah….so you’re saying the links that Greg comes up with are not “scientific based,” whereas those that Fumbles and etc. manage to sleuth down ARE. Okay then.

                2. I’ve been signed up to receive emails from this site for a long time. I only comment when I see something that I find questionable. After reading the transcript, I knew that many other studies were out there that came to a different conclusion so I just wanted to point that out.

                  1. Apples and oranges comparisons.

                    We can find cancer studies that show that giving patients toxins in tablets improves mortality. Or that providing opioids results in symptom relief. These things don’t prove that consuming toxic tablets and taking opioids is a healthy long term choice for people without cancer. Any more than symptom relief in T2D by low carb diets proves that they are a healthy option. Most of those people still have T2D as is obvious any time they attempt to eat real food. Also any diet that delivers weight loss will improve .or even reverse diabetes in a significant proportion of patients. It is not an outcome unique to low carb diets. The arguments is simply this

                    “Low carbohydrate diets might be useful in the short term to lose weight, lower blood pressure, and improve blood glucose control, but our study suggests that in the long-term they are linked with an increased risk of death from any cause, and deaths due to cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, and cancer.”
                    https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases/Low-carbohydrate-diets-are-unsafe-and-should-be-avoided

                    All the evidence suggests that low carb diets are associated with long term higher mortality. And those studies are basically in the context of omnivore diets There is no contrary evidence that I am aware of that low carb diets deliver lower mortality 9unless you are comparing rich First Worlders toThird Worlders on inadequate poverty diets).. Ditto for evidence about red meat consumption.

              2. Greg, the Dr. Mary Newport is the very first one that I read way back in the day that turned me on to, at the time I think was, coconut oil. Later on through PHd Valter Longo’s work was when I learned about the fasting/ketone relationship and then was made aware of how the MCT oil was the way to go and switched from coconut oil to MCT oil maybe a decade ago.

                I have to admit NF.o was instrumental in my reduction of MCT oil intake over the past year to year and a half. The link I found at the Frontier site cleared up the actual process taking place and has now put me back on the right track.

                Thanks again for posting the link that became the gateway to finding that newer ketone research.

    2. Thanks, Hal.

      I will look at your links, and Greg, I will look at your links eventually.

      But the way SAD eaters eat carbs is not healthy and the things like the Blue Zones already show that there is nothing to be afraid of with carbs and you seem to be “anti-carb” when the healthiest populations on earth are very high carb, and I don’t see that you can acknowledge that and that there aren’t any longevity cultures who are low carb.

      1. And I want to say that I am not saying it to pick on you.

        It is one thing to come here and try to argue that eating some meat isn’t bad, but when the longevity zones world-wide are high carb, it is you who is ignoring evidence when you try to push low carb as better.

        I hate the internet because you can’t hear a light tone of voice and that I really am not trying to pick a fight. I really will read the links sometime this weekend.

      2. …and that there aren’t any longevity cultures who are low carb.
        ————————————————————————————
        Deb, hold onto that thought as rather moldable clay rather than stone. Changes are coming.

        And knowing you are concerned about the stasis of your brain, please, please, please read the study at the link below. It could be that final piece of the puzzle you are searching for. ‘-)

        https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2018.00062/full

        1. And Deb, as a teaser to entice you to read the research…

          “Brain relies on blood glucose as its predominant energy source. Interestingly, while brain glucose utilization decreases in mild cognitively impaired elderly and in Alzheimer’s disease patients, ketone metabolism remains intact (1). Interventions using ketones or their precursors have shown therapeutic potential in several neurometabolic disorders (2), demonstrating the possible value of ketones as an alternative source of brain energy. The two main ketones, beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHB) and aceto-acetate (AcA), are actively transported to the brain by the monocarboxylic transporter 1 (MCT1), resulting in brain levels directly proportional to their blood concentrations (3). They are then further metabolized to Acetyl-CoA and enter the Krebs cycle to generate ATP (2). In Alzheimer’s disease patients, it has been recently shown that an increase in blood ketones can restore part of the brain glucose energy deficit (4). Remarkably, under healthy homeostatic conditions, an increase in brain ketones proportionally decreases brain glucose utilization (5).”

          1. Thanks, Lonie,

            Glad I came back.

            The part of it that confuses me is that women – after menopause have that brain switch to ketosis and women who have menopause come early are more likely to get Alzheimer’s.

            That being said, I do definitely believe that ketones are better than no fuel for the brain at all.

            I just do have trouble grappling with the whole women go into ketosis and get Alzheimer’s faster. I think Dr. Greger’s Keto videos might have had a sentence that I need to go back and find. But which video? Hmmmm. It is a vague notion that something to do with the gut microbiome or something to do with the brain and keto.

            1. Hmmmm. It is a vague notion that something to do with the gut microbiome…
              —————————————————————————————————-
              Maybe you are thinking of this one…

              https://neurosciencenews.com/whole-body-vibration-diabetes-14739/

              “They found both a significant increase in the number of M2s as well as increases in levels of other anti-inflammatory molecules like the cytokine IL-10, in both normal mice and their diabetes mouse model after vibration. In fact, whole body vibration restored M2 levels to that of normal controls.

              In the microbiome, they saw numerous shifts but by far the most significant was the increase in Alistipes and a general decrease in the diversity of the microbiome.

              They note that while more diversity is generally considered a good thing, in this case the shift likely resulted from an increase in species like Alistipes, which can produce short chain fatty acids like butyrate, which result from the fermentation of dietary fiber in our gut and which feed inhabitants of the microbiome, are highly anti-inflammatory and can help reverse ill effects of high-fat diets, they write.”

              And Deb, to my way of thinking the higher production of butyrate from the WBV (whole body vibration) jives with the comment from the keto link:

              “The two main ketones, beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHB) and aceto-acetate (AcA), are actively transported to the brain by the monocarboxylic transporter 1 (MCT1), resulting in brain levels directly proportional to their blood concentrations (3). They are then further metabolized to Acetyl-CoA and enter the Krebs cycle to generate ATP (2). In Alzheimer’s disease patients, it has been recently shown that an increase in blood ketones can restore part of the brain glucose energy deficit (4). Remarkably, under healthy homeostatic conditions, an increase in brain ketones proportionally decreases brain glucose utilization (5).”

              Personally, I’ve been doing the WBV twice a day for 10 minutes each time. (I’ve gone from the lowest vibration setting to the highest setting as I found the low setting boring ‘-)

              I’ve not only found this as a way to clear my sinuses, but to clear my thinking and boosting my energy as well… not to mention it is a good way to exercise as I feel my leg muscles tighten to keep me stable on the vibration unit.

              I’ll be adding back the regular MCT (C-8 oil from coconut) to further fuel my brain and will continue my recent regimen of Muscle Milk to increase my protein (and hopefully, IGF-1) intake as I qualify for that sort of thing due to my chronological age of 69 years and 71 months. ‘-)

              This has been a fruitful past few days as I have learned information that is fine-tuning my longevity goal… I feel I’ve at least increased my health-gevity by at least a decade… which is a small amount in my overall expectations, but there is plenty of discovering to do to extend my life expectancy out to a new record for longevity. ‘-)

  11. I was looking at the instant pot grains and rice machine and, no, I am not buying. I am looking.

    I found a review from a rice cooker experiment and they agreed with the other resources that I have been looking at.

    “Since each of the rice cookers had different manufacturers, and since we wanted to give the Instant Pot as fair a test as possible, we decided to use Instant Pot’s guide to making perfect rice in an Instant Pot as our method for all the rice cookers.

    Essentially, in this method, you rinse a fixed volume of rice in water until the water runs clear, then add the rinsed, drained rice to the pot along with the same volume of water, then you cook it.

    The results of this test were definitive: This is a bad method for cooking rice in any machine, including the Instant Pot. Of all the rice in this test, the Instant Pot’s rice was the worst: both under- and over-cooked at the same time.”

    It might take me a year to figure out what went wrong between me and the Instant Pot, but I am finally finding professionals who can explain things to me.

    1. Deb,

      I have an Instant Pot, which I love. I also have two pressure cooking cookbooks by Jill Nussinow, an RD who has been teaching plant based eating for over 30 years AND who is an excellent cook, “The New Fast Food” and “Vegan Under Pressure,” which I also love. There are cooking charts in these cookbooks for whole grains, rice (there are kinds of different rice), beans, and veggies, with directions for how much food, how much water, and cooking method (pressure, time, release) — and they work for me every time. Perfect results. Different rice types have different cooking methods; one single method does not suit all rice. But I can now cook other grains as well, such as quinoa and polenta perfectly every time; I set up the pot, punch in the settings, push start, and it’s done. So I can do other things while my food in the IP cooks.

      But even better, there are delicious recipes in these books which are fairly simple, easy, and quick. I find outside expertise very helpful, especially when my own “expertise” is not very high. That’s why I rely on cookbooks, and especially the cooking charts. And I did read all the introductory chapters about pressure cooking, what it is, how it works, etc. I even read the owner’s manual for the IP. And watched electric pressure cooking videos online.

      I am sorry that you had such a difficult time with your Instant Pot. I find it to be a fabulous appliance. So much so that I will probably buy a second one. I rarely use my stovetop any more.

    2. I make my rice and I also make my beans on a stovetop in old stainless steel Revereware pans. What makes the most difference is that I weigh my ingredients and I also use a timer for rice. My rice always comes out the same and that is always perfect. I only cook brown rice. I weigh one pound of rice at 454 grams, then weigh the water, 810 grams for medium-grain calrose or jasmine, 800 grams for basmati. Once they come to a boil, I put the lid on and then lower the flame quite low and set the timer. Don’t need a separate plug-in electric appliance because they take up counter or cupboard space.

  12. From the transcript:

    “So, men and women who don’t eat meat, egg whites, or dairy proteins have significantly lower levels circulating within their bodies.”
    – – – – –

    What’s the deal with egg yolks? Is there a reason they were not included?

    (Those with egg allergies are usually allergic to the whites, not the yolks.)

  13. I’m curious about how this info applies to children, who Dr Gregor notes need to grow. It seems clear adults don’t need to eat animal protein—will kids grow more if they versus if they don’t?

    1. VyMaria – I don’t know your age, but if you remember Dr. Spock who was a pediatrician and was known as “America’s Pediatrician” died at 98 after adopting a WFPB diet in his elder years (as information became available to him). In his last book he recommends that children be grown on a wfpb diet, no need for animal protein. The American Dietetic Association green-lights WFPB diets for children as do the American Academy of Pediatrics (with attention paid to nutrition, obviously, and not a junk-food diet).
      My second cousin refused meat from infancy and grew up vegan despite her parents worry. In her 30’s now she has birthed her own children after vegan pregnancies. She and her family eat whole foods as grown (not manufactured food junk vegan or otherwise).

    2. VyMaria

      Protein is protein. Our body doesn’t really care where the protein/amino acids come from.

      However, high protein animal foods like meat come with a lot of other stuff such as (cholesterol, saturated fat, haem iron, NeuG5c and) animal growth hormones. In some countries, animals are also injected with synthetic growth hormones and steroids,and fed antibiotics to make them grow even faster. I believe the US may be one of those countries. Those things will end up in the meat of slaughtered animals and thereby probably make children grow more.

      I doubt this is a good thing healthwise.though.

      1. Did a Pediatrician tell you that?

         Iron deficiency is more common in vegetarian and vegan children than in omnivores https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23712019/

           protein requirements in strict vegans will need to be increased to account for the lower digestibility of plant protein – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2912628/

        The prevalence of Low B-12 is 67 percent in American children, 50 percent in New Zealand children, and 85 percent in Norwegian infants who have followed vegetarian or vegan diets their entire lives https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23356638/

        Studies have shown that kids raised until age 6 or 7 on a vegan diet are still B12 deficient years after adding at least some animal products to their diet.
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8172122/

        B-12 effects in children on strict Vegan diet https://adc.bmj.com/content/77/2/137

        Bone turnover markers were lower in child vegetarians compared to omnivores, increasing the risks of impaired bone growth and lower peak bone mass during adolescence.
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15213373/

        Bone Health https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18217433/

        One review remarked that “the evidence on vegan–vegetarian diets in pregnancy is heterogeneous and scant,” suggesting that more research is needed to answer the question of whether they are, in fact, safe during pregnancy https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1471-0528.13280

    3. (Sorry- posting this in wrong spot)
      Children too benefit from obtaining their protein from plant not animal sources. Here are so detailed resources that will explain the benefits of whole plant foods including protein for children–best start for healthy lives:
      http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/vegdiets/vegetarian-diets-for-children-right-from-the-start/
      http://www.pcrm.org/pdfs/health/info/
      http://www.vrg.org/family/kidsindex/htm/
      http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/kids.php/

  14. I’m curious about how this info applies to children, who Dr Gregor notes need to grow. It seems clear adults don’t need to eat animal protein—will kids grow more if they versus if they don’t?
    ———————————————————————————————-
    My observations as well.

    I’m curious if the science-based food creations that are happening (faux meat and other animal based foods) will someday provide the IGF-1 children need for growth, then IGF-1 free foods for those who have achieved their optimal growth to consume, then back to increased IGF-1 foods for the elderly to consume to help maintain muscle mass.

    We live in better times, but living in the best-of-times are still yet to come. ‘-)

      1. But Lonie, Dr Greger says that the studies show we Don’t need more more protein… we just need to exercise more.
        The muscle mass decreases with sitting around, not through lack of protein.
        ————————————————————————————————————
        Barb, my thinking was that irrespective of additional protein, the elderly may need the (supposedly) removed IGF-1 invented for the folk who have reached their development… re-inserted into the faux meat dishes for the elderly as the IGF-1 presumably has a role in growth, including muscle growth.

        To be honest I am just spitballin’ as I do not know if what I suggest is even doable in re: the faux meat/faux dairy products… but if not now, maybe later?

        1. I never got back to go through the studies.

          My cousin is going through with dialysis now.

          They keep bringing him below his dry weight on top of the rehab almost killing him by not knowing how to adjust insulin based on meals they are serving.

          He said that it is so scary being in a rehab.

          At least at home blood sugar is fine when he is doing it but he can’t get the dialysis people to not take it too low and he can’t get the rehab to adjust his insulin based on the meals they are serving and he is afraid they are going to kill him.

      2. Dr Greger says that the studies show we Don’t need more more protein… we just need to exercise more.
        ——————————————————————————————————————————————-
        Maybe for now… but the science is like a fly on the wall. Don’t go looking for Sestrin yet, but be on the lookout for it in years to come. ‘-)

        https://neurosciencenews.com/exercise-replacement-15458/

  15. Dr. Greger
    The same paper that concluded that high animal protein increased mortality in adults between ages 50-65 also found that high protein REDUCED mortality in those aged 66 and above. Since you failed to mention this paradox, I hope it was a simple oversight and urge you to address the authors conclusions which also included a high protein Rx for older age adults.

    1. I haven’t read the whole study, but I suspect they didn’t factor in elderly people who were being treated for kidney disease. What other reason do people in the greater society deliberately eat a low-protein diet than if they are fighting kidney disease. I turned 66 last month and tyhought about it, but still haven’t retreived the whole study to read it. I eat whole food plant based and my protein is between 8% and 10%, except when I am eating my way through a pot of beans. Then it will rise to 12% I think it would be ridiculous for me to chase after protein powders right now.

        1. From your first link

          ‘However, sex-stratified analyses indicated the association was driven by the association in women alone (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.49 [0.32, 0.74], p trend = .002) and was nonsignificant in men (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.14 [0.70, 1.86], p trend = .59).’
          Also

          ‘Stratified analyses indicated results consistent with protein expressed in grams per day, with significant inverse associations in women across all models (model 5, Q4 vs Q1 [ref], hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.60 [0.33, 1.09], p trend = .01) and no associations in men’

          Which is interesting. The results were also ‘attennuated’ after adjusting for other dietary variables (such as total energy intake)

          The third link apparently didn’t adjust for total energy intake and certain other factors. It remains a possibility that low protein intake serves as a marker for appettite, low energy intake and/or poverty.9steak and lobster are expensive). As the researchers noted ‘these analyses are prone to reverse causality.’

          Dr Greger has of course posted videos on this

          https://nutritionfacts.org/video/increasing-protein-intake-age-65/

          and on how vegetarian foods high in protein seem to be associated with longer survival in older people

          https://nutritionfacts.org/video/increased-lifespan-from-beans/

          1. “…..and on how vegetarian foods high in protein seem to be associated with longer survival in older people.”
            – – – – – –

            Yes, beans are great; I eat them and other legumes very often. But I’m wondering if research has ever been done on people who eat not only beans but ALSO a little animal food here ‘n there. Not an either/or situation, in other words.

            https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/list-legume-foods-4212.html

          2. Fumbles, I have been reading a few papers on the topics that both Greg and Lonie raise. I came across this link you may find interesting too. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3820068/?report=classic The fact that mineral deficiencies such as magnesium, selenium and zinc impact IGF1 levels makes sense, and that eating a wfpb diet, being nutrient rich and anti inflammatory would land us in the IGF1 sweet spot. In Greg’s link that you discuss, the ‘high’ protein category was greater than 1.2 g /kg body weight. For me (as an example) that translates out to less than 68 g protein. On wfpb, 1500 cal/day at even 5% calories protein, we are at 75g. I have not used cronometer or other programs to estimate what protein would be at if I made an effort to eat beans or tofu daily.

            The other thing that came to mind while reading the Framingham link mention of ‘significant inverse association found in women’ was the Advent study. There the vegan men reaped stellar results but it was not the same for women. Vegan women (RR 1.19 if I remember correctly) did not fare as well as those who chose to eat fish. The pescatarian women were comparable to the vegan men with risk ratios for heart disease and stroke.

            1. Yes. barb, it’s an important issue.

              Even in the men in the Adventist study, pescatarians had only 73% of the mortality risk of ‘non-vegetarians’ versus 72% for ‘vegans’. There wasn’t really any meaningful difference I’d say.

              I really don’t understand why. However, oily fish are good sources of omega 3s, B12, selenium, iodine, zinc etc and do not contain NeuG5c. Further, we don’t know if those Adventists took supplements or not. That might be relevant since women may have increased lifetime needs for iron and other factors lost through decades of regular menstruation. Or hormonal differences (oestrogen/testosterone etc) may play a role. Or both.

              Mainstream nutritional advice is to take several oily fish meals per week ………. and all mainstream advice assumes that people do not supplement.

              For what it’s worth and contrary to the overall thrust of this website, my personal belief is that a WFPB diet should include (for health reasons) several oily fish meals a week especially if people do not supplement. However, for ethical and environmental reasons I choose not to eat fish and instead supplement in line with Dr G’s recommendations plus a good multivitamin to cover the selenium, iodine, zinc angle.

            2. Barb

              I’d just add, re your comment about reading the papers cited by Greg, that it’s important not to be confused by apples and oranges comparisons.

              Greg appears to argue that some studies showing no difference between eg vegetarians and non vegetarians negate studies sowing increased meat consumption is associated with increased mortality, or increased animal protein consumption or lower carbohydrate consumption or whatever. Or short term studies appearing to show benefits negate the results of long term studies show an association with increased mortality. Of course, Greg also dismisses studies that he doesn’t like on the grounds that they are merely observational. Yet he is quite happy to cite other observational studies that he believes support his arguments

              These aren’t logical or valid arguments. Studies of meat eaters show that the more red meat they eat, the higher their mortality. In vegetarian studies, we don’t know how much or how little meat the ‘non-vegetarians’ eat Ditto for carbs and animal protein. Dr Greger has also been pointing out for many years that that most so-called vegetarian and vegan diets are unhealthy. Soft drinks are ‘vegan’ but unhealthy. So are most plant oils and processed plant foods.

              Also, as we know from the comments pages here, many people take up vegan/vegetarian diets because of a health crisis of some kind. It is no wonder that as a group they would have no better mortality than average non-vegetarians. Ditto for those who take up such diets for ethical and environmental reasons,since they they are likely to eat junk/processed food ‘vegan’ diets (ie ‘vegan’ version of the SAD) , their health outcomes will be no better than omnivores. This is why the Adventist studies are more relevant – they eat this way largely for religious reasons and their religion also tells them to eat a healthy diet:

              ‘Exercise and avoidance of harmful substances such as tobacco, alcohol and mind-altering substances lead to clear minds and wise choices. A well-balanced vegetarian diet that avoids the consumption of meat coupled with intake of legumes, whole grains, nuts, fruits and vegetables, along with a source of vitamin B12, will promote vigorous health.’
              https://www.adventist.org/people/health/

              This is much closer to the diet/lifestyle advocated here than the diets of European and UK ‘vegetarians’, or undifferentiated US ‘vegans’ are likely to be. The fact is that a ‘vegan’ SAD is no more healthy than an omnivore SAD …. because neither are WFPB diets.

              It’s very easy for us to get tripped up by apples and oranges comparisons like these. It’s why so many people can convince themselves that obviously unhealthy diets are good for them. I’m only surprised that the Twinkie Diet hasn’t caught on …. after all, that guy lost weight, his BP, went down and his cholesterol improved. These are the sorts of results that still convince low carbers that their diets are healthy after all.

              https://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

              1. Thank you for your comments Fumbles… you have made good points and I’m thankful you took the trouble.

                The link for the twinkie diet is hilarious! His triglycerides dropped by 39% ! The funny part though was just eating veggies in front of his family lol.

              2. Tom -I’m just trying to point out that not all studies come to the same conclusions. I have read many, many studies that state a Low Carb diet is beneficial & healthy. Not all studies indicate that eating meat is unhealthy. I would assume that you eat & think potato’s are healthy, correct? How can this study come to a different conclusion?

                A 2016 study published in The BMJ looked at a large cohort of women and found that those who ate four or more servings of potatoes a week had a higher risk of blood pressure compared to women who ate potatoes less than once a month. The risk held for women who ate baked, boiled, mashed or fried potatoes and for men who ate fried potatoes.

                https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2351

                1. Tom -I’m just trying to point out that not all studies come to the same conclusions. I have read many, many studies that state a Low Carb diet is beneficial & healthy. Not all studies indicate that eating meat is unhealthy.
                  ——————————————————————————————————–
                  Greg, personally I appreciate your pointing out other points of view, even though I don’t ascribe to some of them.

                  And unlike Allen Crier (who tries to dismiss you and the science you link to as heretic) Tom Fumblefinger does at least respond with study links that support his own POV.

                  There’s truth on both sides of the debate and rather than fearing either truths, I prefer to pick and choose the fruits from either platter to achieve my best way forward.

                  Some will say D R Greger has courage to rail against the Volcano of accepted knowledge… I think you deserve the same respect for offering similar notations of accepted knowledge that may serve well for some.

                  My point is, sometimes a study will claim something as fact when perhaps 60% of the participants improve… well, what about the %40 who did not improve significantly? One size doesn’t necessarily fit 100%, so there can be another approach that studies and improves the 40%
                  cohort as much as the original studied approach fit the 60%.

                  In other words, we need studies that study the failed members of a cohort as their own new cohort.

                2. Greg

                  I think you perform a valuable role here by providing counter arguments and especially by citing studies to support your case. However, I don’t think that your arguments hold much water. Neither apparently do health authorities and medical/scientific bodies around the globe, none of which recommend low carb diets for general health ( they may have a role in eg intractable paediatric epilepsy or for weight loss in obese people unable to lose weight on other diets but they are separate issues).

                  So I apologise if I come on a bit strong but I think it is important to point what I see as the flaws and weaknesses in your arguments. I personally think that small amounts of animal foods are compatible with WFPB diets and may be essential in the absence of eg B12 and certain other nutrients for people who don’t take supplements or eat fortified foods. Also it is perfectly possible to eat a completely vegetarian low carb diet but I don’t think that there is any real evidence that they are safe long term either.

                  My point really is that your ‘contrary’ studies almost always seem to be apples and oranges comparisons to the evidence presented in the videos/blogs, or they contrast short term results with findings from long term studies.

                  1. Yes sir but Low Carb & Keto type studies are ramping up over the years. Not all of them show a negative and many of them show a positive result. I look at as many studies as possible. I also know from my experience going Low Carb in 2014 to present that the results have been good. I’ve maintained a 40 plus pound weigh loss, my cholesterol was around 270 two weeks before starting my low carb eating plan and is now averaging 185 the last two years. I was told that my C-reactive protein level was high in 2014 and now it’s normal. I just completed a cardio work up (EKG, echo, stress test and heart scan three months ago) and all my testing was normal. My slightly high blood sugar level (2014) is now normal and my blood pressure has remained normal. All of this plus basically no more heart burn, sleeping way better and an increase in energy. That’s my story but I will continue to try and stay up to date on new studies. Coincidentally, a co-worker of mine who lives in California was referred to a low carb program by our health insurance just yesterday – Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

                    Long Term Low Carb and Cardio Risk Factors – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17298712/

                    Two year study – CETP genotype and changes in lipid levels in response to Low Carb – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25548261/

                    Total red meat intake of ≥0.5 servings/d does not negatively influence cardiovascular disease risk factors https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27881394/

                    Reversing type 2 diabetes means playing the long game–so get started today: https://blog.virtahealth.com/reversing-type-2-diabetes-means-playing-the-long-game-so-get-started-today/

      1. I recommend all old people hit the gym three times a week for resistance training. Especially since the form of our bootys collapse around the age of 60. It’s quite easy to see at a glance with elder person works out and which doesn’t. Just like the problem of osteoporosis is solved by resistance training, so will sarcopenia be prevented or reversed by resistance training. I visit the gym early, about 7 in the morning and almost all the people there working out are old folks. This inspiring Ted Talk might help to encourage my fellow oldsters to go to the gym https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGgoCm1hofM Too bad he wasn’t plant-based. He’s gone now.

    1. YR, When I see headlines like this, I’m always suspicious of who funds these studies … the dairy industry, perhaps? I’m sure the latest surge in plant milk consumption is really hurting the dairy industry.

      I have plenty of flowers planted in my garden, along with a variety of vegetables and I have no problem with lack of bees! So I guess I’m allowed to drink all the plant milk I want without feeling guilty ;-)

      1. Darwin, I strongly feel the dairy industry has nothing to do with it. A lot of people eat nuts, including almonds: I certainly do!

        We’ve heard of bee problems for many years now. Those poor little guys! :-(

  16. I’m wondering how great the difference is between vegetarian diets and vegan diets on health and if vegetarians take in animal products (milk, honey, eggs), if eating organic animal products makes any significant difference.

  17. Organic cholesterol cause cardiovascular disease and cancer just like non-organic cholesterol, just like smoking organic tobacco causes lung cancer just like the non-organic variety. Organic poison is still poison.

  18. Deborah,

    There is a distinct difference between the two diets. Consider that the vegetarian diet can consist of a host of highly saturated fats, (ex.Dairy/Eggs) and would have a higher intake of hormonal contents along with a potentially very different level of choline intake, with TMAO considerations. (https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-our-gut-bacteria-can-use-eggs-to-accelerate-cancer/)

    Also consider that a vegetarian diet and a vegan diet can be carried out in so many different ways. When we take into account the use of fake foods, be that processed “meats” to fake cheese and others it changes the nutrient values radically. It’s important to get the details of before making a total comparison.

    The use of the “organic” animal products is not going to change some of their constituents. The oils in the meat may or may not be different if OG, as that tells us nothing about the use of grain or grasses feed, they will have only a reduced hormone level and the list goes on. For an interesting take on the definition see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_beef

    There are no lack of studies that will lean one way or another however, if you’re looking for more CV disease or cancer prevention it seems to favor the vegans….assuming they are supplementing with the extra B12 and omega 3’s along with vitamin D from a nutritional point of ingesting a more adequate comprehensive diet with phytonutrients that show benefits.

    Dr. Alan Kadish moderator for Dr. Greger http://www.Centerofhealth.com

  19. Are there any specific research studies that compare a whole food plant-based diet to an omnivore diet that’s rich in whole plant foods?

  20. Hi Marie,

    I am a volunteer for Dr. Greger. Thank you so much for bringing your question to NutritionFacts.org.

    There are not specific studies that have compared a whole food plant-based diet to an omnivorous diet rich in whole plant foods, at least not that I am aware of. However, there are studies comparing whole food plant-based diets to diets recommended by the American Diabetes Association or American Heart Association, which are supposed to be relatively healthy diets. Dr. Greger has covered one of these studies for diabetes (https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-to-treat-diabetes/) and I am sure there are other studies out there in which the “control” group was a fairly healthy diet. Here is a video showing the comparison of data between studies using a Mediterranean diet compared to a plant-based diet: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-mediterranean-diet-or-a-whole-food-plant-based-diet/

    Finally, there are also prospective cohort studies on the Seventh-Day Adventists in California. Roughly half of the population is vegetarian, with some of those vegetarians being vegans. Even the non-vegetarians eat substantially less meat than the average American. This study repeatedly shows that the further one moves towards more plants and less animal products, the less risk of chronic disease and death — lower hypertension, lower BMI, lower cancer risk, lower incidence of diabetes (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24871675).

    I hope this helps answer your question, although I am not aware of any studies directly comparing the 2 diets you are asking about.

    1. Thanks for your reply! I will certainly look into these studies. The feedback I often get from nonvegans is, “Okay, animal products might be bad for us. But as long as we combine animal products with lots of whole plant foods it’s fine because the whole plant foods counteract the bad effects of the animal products.” I don’t really know how to respond to this as I wasn’t aware of any research that compared a whole plant food diet to a healthy omnivorous diet. Thanks again!

Leave a Reply

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

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This