Flashback Friday: Biblical Daniel Fast Put to the Test

Flashback Friday: Biblical Daniel Fast Put to the Test
4.77 (95.38%) 78 votes

Within a matter of weeks, participants placed on the vegan diet outlined by the prophet Daniel experienced improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol and insulin levels, insulin resistance, and C-reactive protein levels, a marker of inflammation within the body.

Discuss
Republish

Evidently not completely satisfied with the scientific rigor of the dietary trial presented in Daniel 1: 8 through 16, researchers in Tennessee published two papers recently, detailing a series of parallel experiments on a 21-day all-you-can-eat diet “devoid of animal products and preservatives, and inclusive of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds.” In other words, “food intake in accordance with a stringent vegan diet.”

The purpose of the studies was to determine the effect of a 21-day Daniel Fast on both biomarkers of antioxidant status and oxidative stress, as well as the efficacy of the Daniel Fast to improve markers of the lion’s den of metabolic and cardiovascular disease risk.

No surprise that a diet composed of whole plant foods improves several risk factors for metabolic and cardiovascular disease, as well as an improvement in selected biomarkers of antioxidant status and oxidative stress—including metabolites of nitric oxide, which I’ve talked about before. Participants experienced meaningful improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol, insulin levels, insulin resistance, and C-reactive protein; were all lowered to a clinically meaningful extent.

And this was in a young healthy population; imagine the miracles it could do for people who are really hurting. “This study extends the findings of other plant-based diets by documenting the impact of a strict vegan diet on multiple measures of oxidative stress and antioxidant capacity.”

Of course, if, instead of a biblical Daniel Fast, they had called it a “strict vegan diet,” they would probably not have gotten a compliance rate of 98.7%, especially in Tennessee.

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 Kerry Skinner.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Evidently not completely satisfied with the scientific rigor of the dietary trial presented in Daniel 1: 8 through 16, researchers in Tennessee published two papers recently, detailing a series of parallel experiments on a 21-day all-you-can-eat diet “devoid of animal products and preservatives, and inclusive of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds.” In other words, “food intake in accordance with a stringent vegan diet.”

The purpose of the studies was to determine the effect of a 21-day Daniel Fast on both biomarkers of antioxidant status and oxidative stress, as well as the efficacy of the Daniel Fast to improve markers of the lion’s den of metabolic and cardiovascular disease risk.

No surprise that a diet composed of whole plant foods improves several risk factors for metabolic and cardiovascular disease, as well as an improvement in selected biomarkers of antioxidant status and oxidative stress—including metabolites of nitric oxide, which I’ve talked about before. Participants experienced meaningful improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol, insulin levels, insulin resistance, and C-reactive protein; were all lowered to a clinically meaningful extent.

And this was in a young healthy population; imagine the miracles it could do for people who are really hurting. “This study extends the findings of other plant-based diets by documenting the impact of a strict vegan diet on multiple measures of oxidative stress and antioxidant capacity.”

Of course, if, instead of a biblical Daniel Fast, they had called it a “strict vegan diet,” they would probably not have gotten a compliance rate of 98.7%, especially in Tennessee.

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 Kerry Skinner.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image thanks to swordofthespirit.net

Doctor's Note

Also see the prequel video, Tightening the Bible Belt. Can the drop in biomarkers of inflammation actually translate into an improvement in inflammatory disease progression, though? See Dietary Treatment of Crohn’s Disease and Diet & Rheumatoid Arthritis.

The decrease in inflammation is likely a combination of the anti-inflammatory effects of many plant foods (see Fighting Inflammation in a Nut Shell), and the pro-inflammatory effects of animal foods (see the three-video series ending with Dead Meat Bacteria Endotoxemia).

The improvement in antioxidant capacity is also not unexpected, given the different Antioxidant Power of Plant Foods Versus Animal Foods.

Since this video originally came out, I have published a lot more on inflammation and antioxidants. Here are a few of the popular ones:

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

149 responses to “Flashback Friday: Biblical Daniel Fast Put to the Test

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. This is exactly the same as the Ethiopian fasting cuisine. They are the only society I have found that has a naturally vegan diet. (Most are vegetarian at best allowing dairy such as Indian food) And Ethiopians are an old school form of Orthodox Christianity, hence the diet.

    1. Laughing at the compliance rate. Some of us didn’t even know that we were doing a vegan diet at all. I don’t even remember what I ate, but I did comply in my share of 21-day Daniel fasts. Plus, we would do fasts during Lent. If I had found the WFPB community a long time ago, I would have had food concepts of what to eat.

      Jimbo,

      I have valued your sharing of the Ethiopian culture and cuisine. I have been eating salads since the end of March, but I have switched to recipes and Ethiopian is on my list and you are the one who inspired me.

    2. Thanks for that, Jimbo. Ethiopian Orthodox Christians survived the Islamic sword by living quietly in isolated areas, and preserved a variety of ancient traditions for nearly two millenia. Their liturgy carries on much of what was found in the earliest Christian communities.

      Their well-established vegan diet also renews interest in the world’s oldest dietary traditions, as you point out. In my city, there is an Ethiopian restaurant I intend to visit, soon. At least, I won’t to worry about modern derivations or additives.

      My last visit to a Chinese restaurant brought up the concern about MSG. When I asked the kindly older waiter about whether his restaurant added MSG, he brightened, and said, “Yes!” So emphatically, it was clear he believed that was a good idea. Maybe something was lost in the translation, so I asked again, but in reverse terms– “Does your restaurant avoid using MSG?” Again, his face brightened, and he assured me, “Yes!”

      1. The whole MSG scare thing was aapparently a miney-making scam by a notorious quack.about 25 years ago.

        ‘Since then, we’ve learned that MSG was unfairly maligned. It doesn’t cause cancer, according to the American Cancer Society. It has not been shown to cause headaches, according to a meta review of MSG studies done in 2016 for the journal Headache Pain. The Food and Drug Administration noted that while there is evidence that consuming 3 grams of MSG at a time without food may cause mild, short-lived adverse symptoms, this is unlikely given that most servings are around .5 grams — and, of course, the MSG in question is always served with food.’
        https://theoutline.com/post/1183/the-quack-behind-the-msg-scare-is-still-stoking-fear-for-profit?zd=1&zi=ou3mds7k
        .
        See also
        https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2222.2009.03221.x

        No wonder the waiter was smiling/ when you asked about MSG.

        1. Mr. Fumblefingers,

          Though MSG — mono sodium glutamate — does contain sodium, so if a person is on a low sodium diet, then that person would want to avoid MSG for that reason.

          Maybe a better question to ask at a Chinese restaurant — or any restaurant, for that matter — is: does your restaurant use salt? To which the answer is of course, yes. Does it avoid using salt? Probably not. And “low salt” options can still be high in absolute amounts of salt.

        2. Interesting, Monkey Face. No need to avoid Chinese restaurants anymore, huh?

          (Just checking in….the whole month of August has been one “Don’t Ask” month for me!.)

          1. No Monkety Face please. A chimpanzee is not a monkey, it is an ape. Humans are apes too. Call me Ape Face if you will – not Monkey Face. That makes me sound like a character from a Cary Grant film.

    1. The increased stroke rate for Vegans & Vegetarians is true (10 fewer CHD but 3 additional strokes). Dr. Fuhrman has been warning about it for a while now. Eat too much salt and your risk of hemorrhagic stroke increases. Excessive added salt causes micro vascular hemorrhaging. My solution was to bring your cholestol up to 150 (so it not too high to cause a heart attack or too low to increase hemorrhagic stroke risk) and reduce salt intake.

      1. James

        Intervention studies have found no increased rate of adverse events like stroke, where cholesterol has been lowered to very low levels by drugs.
        https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2017/01/30/16/20/are-very-low-ldl-cholesterol-levels-from-alirocumab-safe-for-patients

        The possibility therefpre remains that observational studies reporting an association between stroke risk and low cholesterol may be confusing cause and effect.

        We know that cardiovascular events like heart attacks and angina cause cholesterol to decline.and that various disease and infections also cause cholesterol to decline. Why not haemorrhagic stroke?

        ‘The “key point” is expressed by the authors themselves, she pointed out: “individuals with very low LDL-C levels may be less healthy than those with higher LDL-C levels, making them more vulnerable to brain bleeds.”
        The findings therefore “do not change my practice at all, since I remain skeptical about the residual confounding from a single lipid measurement in an epidemiology study,” she said.’
        https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/911829#vp_3

        1. According to Dr. Fuhrman, the process of atherosclerosis whereby the plaque builds insides the arteries provides kind of a buffer whereby the salt can’t damage the arteries. My idea was not not only to obviously lower salt intake, but also increase chocolate and coconut milk intake. The saturated fat tells the liver to produce cholesterol. The trick is to get the total cholesterol around 150 (not too high or low). Mine is 155.

          1. I was looking things up yesterday and, yes, lowering salt is important.

            Not smoking, not drinking alcohol and not having diabetes are things that help tremendously. (Did the English vegans drink alcohol?)

            Eating enough vegetables and fruit lowers the risk – particularly foods with lycopene and folate
            Eating foods with potassium and magnesium lowers the risk
            Eating soy lowers the risk
            Eating chocolate lowers the risk
            Getting enough Omega 3 lowers the risk
            Supplementing B12 and keeping Homocysteine low lowers the risk
            Getting enough Vitamin D lowers the risk

            1. Oops, I forgot

              Eating fiber decreases the risk
              Eating Vitamin C decreases the risk
              Keeping your blood pressure low decreases the risk

              The Adventists were not having the same risks as the study in England and they mentioned that the Adventists ate way more fiber and Vitamin C. I will add that they lived in a place, which got more sunshine. They were also spiritually and health motivated, rather than protect the animals motivated.

          2. Intervention trials suggest that the lower the better.

            Associational studies finding low cholesterol associated wih high mortality and disease are almost explained by the fact disease and traima cause cholesterol to dcline.

            When the body fights infections it creates new killer cells. These have to be built using cholesterol When the body attempts to repair tissue damage, it creates new tissue (even if it is only scar tissue). This new tissue is constructed from new cells which in turn are constructed using cholesterol. Dragging free cholesterol from the blood stream is a quick and easy way for the body to construct all these new cells. That’s why injuries and disease states are associated with low cholesterol

            If cholesterol lowering by drugs does not cause excess stroke risk, why should we think that simple associations found in observation studies demonstrate that low cholesterol causes haemorrhagic stroke when haemoorhagic problems might well cause low cholesterol?

    2. Yeah, it’s fascinating how the media spins these things.

      Vegans and vegetarians had a significantly lower rate of total cardiovascular events (7 fewer per thousand people) compared to meat eaters

      Yet the media chooses to focus on the 3 extra cases of stroke and largely ignores the 10 fewer heart disease cases, thereby giving a completely contrary impression of what the study’s overall findings were.

      1. Tom, I disagree with you. The studies that I read clearly indicated that since strokes were a more frequent occurrence that heart attacks the experts felt that the vegan and vegetarian diets that reduced the risk of heart attacks were still optimal
        There was no spin

          1. Lida,

            I agree with Tom that this is being presented from the stroke risk side, and when they do the positive health benefits such as decreased heart attack risk, they say that could be caused by other lifestyle things than dietary benefit.

            They announce that they want to be careful to not attribute the heart benefits to vegan but they are not equally as careful to look for the lifestyle factors for stroke, such as alcohol, smoking, stress, etc.

              1. But it was pointed out in Mic’s video that technically, the vegans had fewer strokes, but they had to keep adjusting for things because it is hard when one group has lower BMI and lower blood pressure, etc.

                Somehow the fact that vegans and vegetarians have lower stroke risk gets lost in research translation.

              2. Deb,

                Yes I guess you would’ve had to get to the end of the articles that I read to see what the conclusion was, which is that the vegan and vegetarian approach is still very worthy since it reduces the possibility of heart issues.

                1. Lida,

                  I am not sure how to evaluate science when the vegans technically had fewer strokes to begin with.

                  Is there a level where adjusting ends up making the data misleading?

                  Could we take the 600-pound SAD diet people and compare them to the vegans and have to adjust so much that it would be less about reality and more about trying to compare two things which are too far apart.

                  1. Lida,

                    I guess I don’t disagree with you in that way. It being worthy is the subheading. It being dangerous is the heading and that is what the world learned and most of them won’t analyze it.

                    The fact that vegans have fewer strokes and they only have more because they had to adjust so much is something I don’t understand how to deal with yet.

                    I go back to the SAD versus vegan concept. They just have to find 600-pound vegans with high blood pressure, but they can’t, so they have to be fair and adjust away. But somehow they are adjusting the benefits of going vegan away at the same time.

                    It is over my head that the results could switch from vegans have fewer strokes to vegans have more strokes.

                    1. Did they intentionally choose vegetarians who were high in dairy and high in sodium and low in fiber and low in fruit and vegetable intake in the first place?

                      Is that how they adjusted to make sure it was all about the meat?

                    2. In other studies, heart problems and stroke are generally highly correlated with the same risk factors and they always say that there are more ischemic strokes and yet they are saying that the vegans have more strokes.

                      Anyway, since the vegetarian group was high dairy, that part is one that the dairy community maybe should be having to deal with the competing logic, not the WFPB community.

                    3. I go back to Brenda Davis (I think it was Brenda Davis) talking about a researcher who submitted an article, which was rejected because it wasn’t juicy enough and the person took it back and re-wrote it for the opposite conclusions based on a sleight of hand and, then, the journal gladly published it.

                      I wonder why this information wasn’t framed that “vegetarians who eat high fat and low fiber and high sodium have higher risk of stroke”
                      or adding dairy and fat and salt changes the rate of stroke away from the standard correlation between heart attack and stroke.

                      I feel like this process of needing to be juicy in science and nutrition because the press is more interested in saying something dramatic is so ridiculous.

                  2. What I’d like to know is what kind of diet the vegans were on. There were not that many, and how many were on unhealthy vegan diets?

                    1. Gengo,

                      There weren’t enough vegans in the first place and the biomarkers were not those of typical vegans.

                      If anything if there is a point to be made, it is probably that lacto-ovo vegetarian isn’t the same thing as the Adventist study.

                      I could use a contrast between the Adventists and this study – since the Adventists also do have lacto-ovo vegetarians in their midst.

        1. Sorry but I can’t quite follow your argument’

          Yes there may be higher rates of non fatal strokes than non fatal heart attacks but so what? More people die of heart disease than strokes

          The fact is that there were 7 fewer cases overall per thousand in so-called vegans and vegetarians.

          The spin I was referring to was simply the headline used by the BBC …. “Vegans and vegetarians may have higher stroke risk”
          https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49579820

          In other words, a study that found that “vegan” and “vegetarian” diets were protective overall was presented in the headline as a study that suggested that “vegan” and “vegetarian” diets delivered higher risk.

    3. It is extraordinarily difficult to analyze a journalist’s report on a presumably scientific study. Other than animal flesh, fish flesh, eggs and milk, we know little of the differences between the groups. Without that we have little to go on. Without more information almost any conclusion is specious the study you mentioned. Remember, one can be an extraordinarily unhealthy vegan.. It is an interesting question but there is just not enough to go on.

      In the meantime we do know from extensive studies with good analysis of variables that there are tremendous advantages to a whole food plant based diet with low or no oil and very low saturated fats.

        1. Just watching it, I started laughing looking at the data.

          The fact that the vegetarian group didn’t have much difference in cholesterol, fat, fiber, and sodium as the meat-eaters, it is surprising that the health numbers for the vegetarian group were as good as they were.

            1. The whole concept that the vegans had lower stroke risk, but that they had to keep adjusting the data to even out the risk factors makes me laugh.

              The overuse of “adjusted for” already interests me as a topic.

              1. It’s a complicated and pretty technical subject but overadjustment is certainly a potential risk.

                I may be being cynical but there is possibility that some researchers may deliberately overadjust data to produce a result that is more congenial either to them or the study’s sponsors. For example, in studying saturated fat consumption and heart disease, you might deliberately control for BMI or blood LDL cholesterol levels to try to bias the data to a null result.

                ‘ Rothman and Greenland6 discuss overadjustment in the context of intermediate variables: “Intermediate variables, if controlled in an analysis, would usually bias results towards the null.…. Such control of an intermediate may be viewed as a form of overadjustment.”
                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2744485/

                Underadjustment may also be a risk. That;s why there are now specialist epidemiologists and biostatisticians who specialise in these types of questions.

                1. Tom,

                  I believe it was a saturated fat study where the researchers wrote a journal article against eating it and then, had it rejected and wrote a pro-saturated fat article and that is the one the journal liked and that is the one the press liked. I do believe it was Brenda Davis who spoke about it.

                  To me, that means you could just choose which direction the press would like better and just skew away.

        1. Mic the Vegan creates evidence-based YouTube videos about veganism and a whole-foods, plant-based lifestyle. Just like Dr. Greger’s excellent NutritionFacts.org site, Mic always cites verifiable evidence, usually in the form of peer-reviewed research articles and studies, in support of plant-based nutrition. I find Mic’s channel a valuable resource.

    4. The studies author also states the following – “nutritional deficiencies are common among those who don’t eat meat, like low levels of vitamin B-12, vitamin D, amino acids and fatty acids – could put them (non meat eaters) at risk, states Dr. Tong

      1. Greg

        I’d like to see the evidence for Dr Tong’s statement about nutritional deficiencies being common.

        Talking about common nutritional deficiencies, are you aware of this below?

        ‘Just 1 in 10 adults meet the federal fruit or vegetable recommendations, according to a new study …………… “This report highlights that very few Americans eat the recommended amount of fruits and vegetables every day, putting them at risk for chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease,” said Seung Hee Lee Kwan, Ph.D., of CDC’s Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity, lead author of the study. “As a result, we’re missing out on the essential vitamins, minerals, and fiber that fruits and vegetables provide.”
        https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2017/p1116-fruit-vegetable-consumption.html

        Of course it is worth remembering that Dr Greger also has long been warning us of the problems with poorly planned ‘vegan’ and ‘vegetarian’ diets which seem to deliver mortality rates that are no different to people eating meat based diets
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7KeRwdIH04&t=126s

        That’s why he urges us to adopt whole food plant based diets not any old ‘vegan’ or ‘vegetarian’ diet.

      1. Sila,

        It was debunked, but there are things like vegans can get high in Homocysteine if they don’t supplement B12 and eat their vegetables, for instance, or they can not get their Omega 3’s, and their risks do go up.

        It just is that the data was analyzed as if being vegan is a stronger risk for stroke and that doesn’t make sense because the risk for heart attack and stroke usually correlate.

        IGF-1 is a legitimate protection for hemorrhagic stroke, from what I saw, so being low in it is something to consider. Eating soy would be something which lowers risk and possibly that keeps IGF-1 from getting too low? I am not a scientist. I just knew to look up soy because that is a way IGF-1 gets raised. We don’t want it high because that increases the risk of cancer, but maybe we don’t want it too low either and that deserves a discussion within the community, I think.

        I don’t want to see us debunk it all the way out of the discussion zone. The vegans are more prone to stroke sounds ridiculous to me, but vegans who don’t eat vegetables and who don’t eat fiber and who don’t eat soy and who don’t get sunlight and who are low in Vitamin C and Magnesium and Potassium and Folate and Lycopene really could possibly be at greater risk.

        It is just hard to tell what is real when you are dating a magician.

        I just hate that they handled the data in a way that is anti-vegetarian and vegan.

        I do not like it when studies are reactionary to the Whole Food Plant-Based movement.

        1. Yesterday, I was reading the prediction that a full quarter of Great Britain may go vegan by 2025 and I feel like that article was in response to that movement.

          What I will say is that if there are any magicians out there who know how the adjusting every single thing to get any outcome you want to write any type of juicy journal article, so that everybody can make money analyzing it, could you tell me, did it prove that high dairy causes an increased risk for a hemorrhagic stroke? Or maybe if vegetarians and vegans eat as poorly as the rest of us, they have a greater stroke risk than we do?

          I need Penn and Teller for this.

          1. “Yesterday, I was reading the prediction that a full quarter of Great Britain may go vegan by 2025 ‘

            Extrapolating data to make predictions is always fraught wuth difficulties. I’ve seen people extrapolate similar statistics to ‘predict’ that the entire population of the USA will be Elvis impersonators by 2050.

    5. That article went around in a big circle just to come back and tell you to eat more plant food. Just another insipid dramatic attention- seeking journos article to confuse people who watch “Survivor”,”America’s Got Talent”,”General Hospital”etc… ‘perceived health benefits’…do me favour…

  2. I have a client who is observant Copt and they too are fasting so often that they end up being de facto vegetarian most of the year and often vegan beyond that.

    I eat a whole-food, SOS-free vegan diet and discovered that the various Orthodox churches are a treasure trove of delicious recipes because when they come down the home stretch to Easter, they observe “The Great Lent” where they take the olive oil out of their already healthy and wonderfully spiced vegan Lenten dishes. I use them all the time, especially when I’m entertaining company and get rave reviews from the culinary sceptics among my friends

    1. Ralph,

      That makes me laugh.

      I was doing the fasting, but never developed the treasure trove of delicious recipes.

      Right now, I have decided to do 2 recipes per week and I will be looking up some of these cultures.

      1. When I look online for recipes, I keep finding oil and margerine in almost every Orthodox Christian ‘great fast’ or ‘lenten’ dish. Ralph, can you recommend a source for oil-free recipes or a way to substitute for oil in those dishes?

    2. Ralph Rhineau, our church fasts a lot in one form or another for Lent, Advent, fridays, holy days etc, but I did fast with my copt friends for a few years. 210 days per year it was.. something like that. What was interesting to me was that was my first intro to ‘no oil’ rule in cooking. Fruits and veggies, but no oil/fat.

      1. 210 days per year. So close to just doing it.

        There were years when I was part of a very vibrant prayer community when we would do a 21-day fast, followed by a 40-day fast, followed by the 40-day fast at Lent.

        But I have never done a 210-day fast.

        I did do a 3-day Esther fast where I passed out and hit my head on the concrete (happened to be the steps of the Supreme Court) and came to the wisdom that people who do not start off eating healthy to begin with maybe shouldn’t be doing that type of fast.

  3. Once again the wisdom of God prevails. It all started in Genesis 1:29:

    Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

    Except for those who defied this mandate, humans were vegans until Genesis chapter 9.

    1. Dr. Cobalt,

      I love the simplicity of that verse.

      I was meditating on that the other day. This way of eating fits like a lock and key with the purity of the scriptural way of eating.

      There is a reason Christians eat like this during seasons of prayer and meditation. It feels nice to stay in that space and live in it and not wear it like a coat.

    2. Really? A recent study in Nature makes clear, not only did processing and eating meat come naturally to humans, it’s entirely possible that without an early diet that included generous amounts of animal protein, we wouldn’t even have become human—at least not the modern, verbal, intelligent humans we are. According to Harvard University evolutionary biologists Katherine Zink and Daniel Lieberman, the authors of the Nature paper, proto-humans eating enough root food to stay alive would have had to go through up to 15 million “chewing cycles” a year. They found that it required from 39% to 46% less force to chew and swallow processed meat than processed root foods. A brain is a very nutritionally demanding organ, and if you want to grow a big one, eating meat will provide you far more calories with far less effort than a meatless menu will. This, in turn, may have led to other changes in the skull and neck, favoring a larger brain, better thermoregulation and more advanced speech organs. “Whatever selection pressures favored these shifts,” the researchers wrote, “they would not have been possible without increased meat consumption”. Saying no to meat today does not mean that your genes and your history don’t continue to give it a loud and rousing yes.

      1. Greg, The brain needs glucose, sugar, not found in meat. I saw a study last year that proposed that the human brain grew larger in order to find more fruit. The other primates subsisted on leaves and didn’t need larger brains to obtain “harder to find” fruits. Also, as early humans moved out of the tropical areas they needed larger brains to find starchy foods which would provide the sugar the brain needs.

      2. Greg

        You seem to highly selective in the articles from Nature that you like to quote. You presumably didn’t like this one?
        https://www.nature.com/articles/ng2123

        According to the authors
        “We view starch as a transitional food,” Dominy adds, helping us get from fruit to meat but also important in its own right. What abundant, ubiquitous resource was out there in the environment? “Fruits just don’t do it,” Dominy says. “For one thing, they’re seasonal. Meats are hard to get, and we didn’t have tools or spears yet. So we think that the shift to eating corms, bulbs and tubers gave our ancestors enough sugar resources to develop a large brain.”
        https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/magazine/09starch.html

        In any case, it doesn’t follow that foods we ate at some stage of our evolutionary history necessarily help us to live long healthy lives. Evolution doesn’t work that way and many know that this is an argument that attempts to bamboozle people by using the appeal to nature fallacy.

        The question is what does meat eating do to our health and how does it affect our mortality risk? The study quoted in that BBC articel showed that meat eaters had 7 more cases of cardiovascular disease per thousand people over 10 years compared to non meat eaters.

        Even in people who eat lots of fruit and vegetables (FV), meat increase the risk of early death

        ‘Conclusion: High intakes of red meat were associated with a higher risk of all-cause and CVD mortality. The increased risks were consistently observed in participants with low, medium, and high FV consumption’
        https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/104/4/1137/4557128

        if you choose to eat meat, that’s your business Greg (however ghoulish many of us think it is) but attempting to persuade other people to adopt an unhealthy practice like that by using blatant logical fallacies is not an entirely honest thing to do. You should point out the health risks when you do so just like the pharmaceutical adverts on TV.

      3. Sorry, but I maintain there isn’t a shred of empirical proof supporting the putative evolution of humans from “proto” humans. Darwinists routinely forthtell this absurd dogma without ever adducing any real empirical proof. Why? Because there isn’t any.

        Think about what you wrote: The Nature authors, Zink and Lieberman, postulate that early humans had to chew softer comestibles in order to grow a bigger brain (something about a calorie to chew-count ratio). This in turn facilitated growth of the neck and skull, which in turn facilitated the development of speech organs… Wow.

        I’m speechless.

        I give glory to God the Creator. As Psalm 19 says: The heavens declare the glory of God; the firmament showeth his handiwork. What that means is that if you study the heavens and the earth with telescope and microscope, a reasonable person must conclude that these things reveal the stunning Design work of the Creator.

        1. >>> Darwinists routinely forthtell this absurd dogma without ever adducing any real empirical proof. Why? Because there isn’t any We’ve been over this topic on this forum. I could not disagree more, but won’t bother getting into it with you. You forthtell in your way, let us horribly ignortant Darwinist forthtell in ours.

          1. I will do that. And believe it or not, gengogakusha, I respect you, even if we disagree. I was once one of your kind… an evolutionist.

            One day I prayed to God and asked him to make himself more real to me. He did. And I responded to that.

            God knows you, gengogakusha, and loves you. Please remember I said that, even if you disdain me and people of faith now.

    3. The Great God Crom says you have it all wrong, mortal. Humans were designed to eat dinosaurs but there was a delay in the human product delivery, and the dinosau product line was discontinued for other reasons, which is why there is so much argument about what humans should be eating now.

      Praise be unto Crom.

      1. From Wikipedia:

        Crom is the chief god of the Cimmerian pantheon, and he lives within a great mountain, from where he sends forth doom or death. It’s useless to call upon Crom, because he is a gloomy and savage god who despises the weak. However, Crom gives a man courage, free-will, and the strength to kill their enemies at birth.

        Yep.

        The true Creator God fills all of heaven and earth (Jeremiah 23). He created all the virtues that humans venerate: compassion, love, forgiveness, kindness, peace, righteousness, justice, truth, gentleness, and patience. He gave these gifts to us when he made in his image.

  4. Hi,

    I have been suffering from ulcerative colitis, anexity and depression these all together, what is the treatment for these desease?

    What should I do?
    Thank you and wishing you health and happiness 

    faraz Ahmad 

    India

    1. Faraz here is a video for colitis

      https://nutritionfacts.org/video/treating-ulcerative-colitis-with-diet/

      He has a few videos for depression. An anti-inflammatory diet is important for it. Up your intake of vegetables.

      https://nutritionfacts.org/video/anti-inflammatory-diet-for-depression/

      https://nutritionfacts.org/video/plant-based-diets-for-improved-mood-and-productivity/

      https://nutritionfacts.org/video/antioxidants-and-depression/

      As far as anxiety goes, I am going to add that if you are Whole Food Plant-Based vegan, make sure you supplement your B-12 and eat your plant-foods with Folate to have your Homocysteine improved. You can also try drinking 1 liter of silica water, such as Fiji Water every day for 12 weeks to get aluminum out of your brain.

      I say those things out of experience. I had serious brain problems and used to have night terror. I have upped my intake of vegetables and I have made sure to get enough Magnesium and Folate from food sources and I have been supplementing B12 and I did drink Fiji water for 12 weeks and somewhere in that process the anxiety went away and after adding in the superfoods like turmeric, blueberries, broccoli sprouts, saffron, ginger, kale and pomegranate seeds, I even had a reversal of social anxiety. I got rid of the night terrors during the middle of drinking the Fiji water and I got rid of the social anxiety in the middle of adding in superfoods.

      As far as prayer versus meditation, make sure that you allow your mind to have some silence. In Christianity, it would be called practicing the Presence. In modern world it is called practicing mindfulness – where you aren’t thinking about the past or the future. I am not sure which religion you are and I am not meaning to guess Christian for you. I am a Christian and prayer can be either an active communicaton process or it can be more like what Mother Teresa used to say where they asked what she talked about with God in prayer all the time and she used to say, “Mostly, I just listen” and they asked what God said to her and she said, “Mostly, He just listens.” I always loved that and have had many seasons of that type of prayer.

      Meditation can be about mindfulness or it can be about thought-replacement.

      There is a Christian leader who talked about getting rid of “stinking thinking” and thinking about things that are positive and productive and healthy instead. He used to talk about something he called UGB’s, which was a short-hand for ungodly belief systems where we look down at ourselves or we look down at other people or get obsessed with someone else or whatever else injures our heart and mind.

      I am not sure if that helps, but it is what I do.

  5. Question: A recent report stated that Vegans are at a higher risk of stroke. They seemed to have a large cadre of participants.
    Does the science support this report?

    Thank you.
    Tom Jones

    1. Tom,

      Mic The Vegan on YouTube already has a debunking video up.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFAOdAmGoho

      The people were mostly high dairy, high fat, high sodium eating vegetarians grouped with a few vegans. They were also low in B12, Vitamin D, Vitamin C, and Fiber.

      What they weren’t is Whole Food Plant-Based.

      Their study does not match at all with the Adventist studies, but the Adventists eat more fiber, eat more fruit and vegetables, probably get more sunshine than England, are lower sodium and other real risk factors for stroke.

      You can’t be a junk-food vegan and get the same benefits as WFPB is one lessen of that study.

      1. What we know for sure is that the biometrics given are for dairy and sodium eating vegetarians, with a smattering of vegan.

        We also know that the BBC spun it in a direction which was not true.

        As Tom stated above, the BBC went in the direction of “Vegans and vegetarians may have higher stroke risk”

        When the fact is that there were 7 fewer cases overall per thousand in so-called vegans and vegetarians.

        1. I am going to add a positive spin to the plate.

          Even when vegetarians and vegans eat a lot of fat and sodium and don’t eat all that much fiber or eat enough vegetables and even when they don’t supplement B12 or D3 or eat enough foods with Vitamin C, they still trounce the meat-eaters in the heart attack category and in ischemic heart attacks.

          Just think of how fabulous the results could be if they actually tried a little harder to eat a little bit better.

            1. I think I did the math though and it isn’t proof of vegan or vegetarian or meat-eating being healthy.

              It needs the Adventists and Okinawans held up against it to know if they were doing anything right at all.

              1. Next, I have to defend the BBC, who is doing their job and they looked at the study and maybe felt that vegans not having as many heart attacks as meat-eaters is old news. Their country had such a big spike in veganism last year and that message is out there already and maybe they were looking for something new and were intentionally looking for something all the new vegans might want to hear about.

                Benefit of the doubt.

                  1. It does seem like a good time for the vegans to write to the BBC.

                    Maybe insisting that lower risk of stroke than meat-eaters not be called higher risk of stroke.

                    Maybe insisting that vegan not be lumped with high dairy, high saturated fat vegetarian.

                1. Barb,

                  Brenda Davis said that the results from that study were like that because of how very, very healthy all of the groups ate. It wasn’t a lot of fish or a lot of lacto-ovo. As far as the greater study goes, vegans who ate nuts did the best, is what was discussed.

                2. That’s true but a key take-away is that everybody did better than the meat eaters.

                  it would be interesting if Dr G did a video on those Adventist study results for women. However, I suspect that there just isn’t enough good evidence to explain the differences in results between the sexes.

                  That said, that study does explain some of my belief that a WFPB diet containing small amounts of oily fish may be optimal – certainly for people who don’t supplement. I don’t eat fish myself (for ethical and environmental reasons) but I can appreciate the nutritional arguments. The other part of it is the mainstream nutritional advice that people should eat a couple of fish means every week. It’s possible that the association between fish eating and lower mortality is simply that fish eaters are more health conscious and have healthier lifestyles overall but the figures/data are compelling..

                  1. Deb, in that particular study they didn’t have a nut group, though I would agree that according to those studies, a few walnuts are great to include. And the difference between the groups statistically is startling, even if overall they all did well. For someone like myself who’s life is on the line with the finer points, I have to pay attention.

                    Also, Fumbles, yes I was thinking the same thing about those who choose to eat the fish…. that they would definitly be more health conscious on average even in the midst of a healthy community. Just as an aside, I had a meeting with a neurologist yesterday who gave a big thumbs up to the wfpb diet and exercise plan for addressing risk factors in trying to prevent strokes.

                    1. Thanks Barb.

                      As for the nuts thing, that was from the Adventist 1 mortality study and only examined nut consumption vis-a-vis CVD mortality not total mortality.

                      The mortality figues you and I were talking about, however, are from the Adventist 2 study.

  6. I went back to look up the logic for the cholesterol again and it may be that there were some very, very low cholesterol males. I looked at a different study on saturated fats and it was inverse in Japanese males, but not in non-Japanese, and it was only inverse for the lowest quintile, which is the same for the cholesterol study.

    There was a significant (p = 0.001) inverse association between serum cholesterol and the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage but not of subarachnoid hemorrhage. This inverse association was nonlinear, with a higher incidence rate only for men with serum cholesterol in the lowest quintile (less than 189 mg/dl).

    Since the numbers of fats are so high, and the dairy intake is high, it won’t be low cholesterol for most people.

    But they might have a vegan population which is very, very low, similar to the Japanese.

    1. Very low cholesterol is usually a consequence of disease states and injury.

      However, the traditional Japanese diet is high in sodium whereas the Westernised diet eaten by many Japanese now is higher in fat but lower in sodium.

      I’ve also seen it suggested that low cholesterol levels are markers for people eating the tradiional Japanese diet and higher cholesterol levels are markers for people eating a Westernised diet. Consequently, among Japanese, low cholesterol indicates that those people consume more sodium which is a known risk factor for stroke.

      If the cholesterol association was truly causal, one would also expect there to a gradient of increasing risk with lower cholesterol. From what I can understand, the increased risk is limired to the lowest quintile.

      However, I would also stress once again that people are simply assuming that an observed association between low cholesterol and stroke is evidence of causation. And that low cholesterol causes stroke (rather than cerebral cardiovascular disease causing low cholesterol). There is no hard evidence for either of these two assumptions, I believe. Yet people have come up with all sorts of imaginative reasons why they might be true. As has been pointed out before, multiple cholesterol lowering trials have failed to find any increased stroke risk ….. which should lead us to question the assumption that the association is causal

      “Serum total cholesterol is a risk factor for CHD in Asian countries22,23). It is clearly shown in Asian cohort studies that serum total cholesterol level is positively related to CHD morbidity and mortality 22,23). However, serum total cholesterol is not a risk factor for total stroke17,24), although it was a weak risk factor for cerebral infarction22,25) and low cholesterol was rather a weak risk factor for cerebral hemorrhage24–27), especially in hypertensives24,25) based on observational cohort studies. On the other hand, a large individual based meta-analysis 28) showed that cholesterol lowering therapy with statins could prevent total stroke or ischemic stroke without increasing hemorrhagic stroke.”
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096564/

      1. Thanks, Tom,

        Yes, I am just reading studies and haven’t been analyzing them deeply.

        One place said that about 80% of their Hemorrhagic strokes were from hypertension.

        The concept that the vegetarians and vegans had more hypertension than the other categories doesn’t seem right, but they were eating a lot of cheese with a lot of sodium, so who knows?

        Fish-eaters had fewer strokes, where people who ate meat, plus fish, had way more.

        That goes back to the low EPA association maybe or something.

        I know that I cannot solve it, but I feel like the studies like the antioxidants and eating leafy greens, fruit, whole grains, soy, cruciferous, flavonoids, Vitamin C-rich foods, Magnesium and Folate and Potassium-rich foods all are a fairly good start to understanding potential action steps.

  7. So are leafy greens, fruit, and dehydration in one of the studies (people who had hemorrhagic strokes were much more likely to be dehydrated and much less likely to eat leafy greens and fruit.

  8. Looking at the Japan studies, it shows that you want cholesterol and saturated fats and IGF-1 to be low, but there is a level where they can go too low.

      1. Okay, but it is inversely related only to the very lowest quintile and it was only in the male Japanese.

        Dr Fuhrman put it all on the salt.

        Obviously, most people need to worry about their levels being too high.

        Even the Japanese women didn’t have the same equation as the Japanese males.

        Okay, so you are saying that they haven’t put that part to the test yet.

        1. The non-Japanese didn’t have the inverse relationship.

          They have been pointing to it as a Japanese males phenomenon.

          I am just looking up studies and at the lowest quintiles IGF-1, saturated fat, and cholesterol are inversely associated and Only at the lowest quintile and some of those studies were only in males and particularly Japanese males (if genetics were involvedd)

        2. If low cholesterol caused stroke, one would expect there to be a gradient – the lower the cholesterol, the greater the stroke risk. But apparently, that is not so. The association is only found in the lowest quintile. There is no gradient.

          Also very low levels of cholesterol appear to be a consequence of disease (diagnosed or undiagnosed)

          Thirdly, cholesterol lowering by statins and other drugs appears not to increase stroke risk.

          All this suggests to me that there is a third variable at work here that causes both low cholesterol and increased stroke risk

      1. Gengo,

        There have been a few.

        Japan used to have an astronomical rate of Hemorrhagic stroke, but that has been improving since the 1960’s as they changed their diets and lowered hypertension.

        https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/01.STR.19.1.48

        The hypertension-caused types decreased.

        There are still types caused by other things, such as amyloid, tumors, blood dyscrasia (which I didn’t know what it was, but it is low blood count from marrow failing and that would also be linked to high homocysteine among other things, which are already in the risk factors) and arteriovenous malformation (which is an often treatable tangle of blood vessels)

        If England had tumors as cause maybe the eggs and casein in the high-dairy vegetarians causing tumors?

        If it is amyloid in England, maybe something like aluminum in the cheese?

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1811120

        Changes in living situations changed the rate of ischemic stroke in males and hemorrhagic strokes in females.

        https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0173860

        I am trying to imagine if the vegetarians might have less social support, but it is hard to imagine.

        The possible reason where that could happen is that if a whole society is based around meat, people who don’t eat it often opt out of social situations especially if they are politically-charged.

        I tend to not be politically-charged very often, but even without that, my family and friends hated veganism so much that it did cause us to need a year and a half transition.

  9. Yep, that is the only study people care about this weekend.

    Boy, I wish there was a special message from Dr. Greger option. It seems like for special cases, the concept of waiting months seems like it would be a long way away.

    Anyway, I figured out what is confusing to me. Because they have vegetarians who are high dairy, they wouldn’t be low in IGF-1 or Cholesterol or Fats of any kind, because the numbers given were not low fat at all. There might be a hidden group who is, but not the lacto-ovo vegetarians, who were most of that category.

    I found a few other topics, which I am trying to understand. Amyloid plaques would be a risk factor. Something to do with Astrocytes would be a risk factor. Low VEGF is a risk factor for dying from it.

    I learned that Casein disrupts the blood-brain barrier and that soy doesn’t, so after a serve stroke, milk intake might make things worse.

    Laughing, soy was part of the tryptophan thing, which I still don’t understand yet.

    The whole amyloid thing, they know that blocking the enzyme BAC1 helps and there are flavonoids, which help with that.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3930994/

    Yes, I am a million miles over my scientific understanding and grabbing for an oxygen mask.

  10. I did see a stat from Mass General where almost 1/4 of their patients who have Hemorrhagic strokes are on Warfarin.

    England is big at prescribing it, but would the lacto-ovo vegetarians be the ones on it?

  11. I was reading that women have more strokes than males and I found this from Sweden.

    WebMD had an article that a study followed two groups of women, one group had already had heart disease or a stroke and one hadn’t.

    Women without a history of heart disease or stroke who ate diets with a lot of antioxidants were 17% less likely to have any type of stroke, and those results held even after researchers took into account exercise, smoking, and other behaviors that could affect stroke risk.

    With the women who already had a history of heart disease or stroke, those who ate and drank the most antioxidant-rich foods and drinks were 45% less likely to have a hemorrhagic stroke than women who ate the least.

    Since it directly related to hemorrhagic stroke, I felt it was a powerful one.

    1. Laughing.

      Now I just turned to another article and it said that males were more likely to have a stroke than females.

      I throw my hands up and know that researching on the internet is not a good thing, but it is free.

      1. By and large, men drink more than women

        ‘THURSDAY, Jan. 29, 2015 (HealthDay News) — Too much alcohol in middle age can increase your stroke risk as much as high blood pressure or diabetes, a new study suggests.

        People who average more than two drinks a day have a 34 percent higher risk of stroke compared to those whose daily average amounts to less than half a drink, according to findings published Jan. 29 in the journal Stroke.

        Researchers also found that people who drink heavily in their 50s and 60s tend to suffer strokes earlier in life than light drinkers or non-imbibers.

        “Our study showed that drinking more than two drinks per day can shorten time to stroke by about five years,” said lead author Pavla Kadlecova, a statistician at St. Anne’s University Hospital International Clinical Research Center in the Czech Republic.’
        https://www.webmd.com/stroke/news/20150129/too-much-alcohol-at-midlife-raises-stroke-risk-study-finds#1

    2. Men frequently die from causes other than stroke before women on average, and stroke risk goes up with age.

      https://utswmed.org/medblog/stroke-symptoms-women-risk/

      Why are women at higher risk for stroke than men?

      The good news for women is that they generally live longer than men. The less than great news is that the risk for stroke increases with age, which means that women typically have a higher stroke risk.

      In 2016, about 55,000 more women than men will have a stroke. More women than men die from stroke each year because older women outnumber older men.
      Strokes are the leading cause of disability for women, and they kill twice as many women as breast cancer.

      Stroke ranks No. 4 among all causes of death, behind heart disease, cancer, and chronic lower respiratory disease. However, it’s the third-leading cause of death among women, and women accounted for almost 60 percent of stroke deaths in 2013.

  12. Okay, so, now, what did Japan do to lower their hemorrhagic stroke risk by 85% or something like that?

    They changed their diets.
    They lowered their hypertension.
    They involved the communities for screening and health support for elderly people.

    So, can the vegetarian and vegan community in England have a radical transition?

    Maybe start with screening for blood pressure and lab testing for Homocysteine and B12.

    Maybe education about the risk factors like eggs and salt and fats?

    Seems like that is a more productive use of discussion.

    1. I went back and watched the infamous Shocking Vegan Study Dr. Greger video again and tried to look up what oils they use in cooking in the UK and

      1/3 use Sunflower oil
      7% use Coconut oil
      Vegetable (soy, Mazzola corn oil), Rapeseed, and Olive oil are used by 4 out of 10 of the population (I don’t know why they grouped all of those into 1 statistic, and it is confusing because they had said that, for the first time, almost half of the people use Olive oil in 2005 and now, it appears to be less than half, and Rapeseed and Coconut oil are the ones going up.)

      I still haven’t drawn lines to see which ones do the whole Arachidonic Acid thing, which brought down the risk factors by 75% in that study, but posting the oils is the most I can do. I am not a math person, except for tutoring. Actually doing math is what I don’t know how to do and I don’t know why.

      1. Okay, so I just had the thought…

        Back then, the year of the shocking vegetarian and vegan study, the death rates for heart disease and just about everything was equal between meat eaters and vegans, but now a whole bunch of vegans stopped using oil and even though most still probably do, the vegans have pulled way ahead.

        There is still room for improvement though, but it is already so much better.

        Now they just have to lower their hypertension and get off the eggs and salt and continue to move away from oil, etc.

        1. Dr Greger,

          You have been through this situation, but a worse version, so I nominate you to reach out to leadership in England an encourage them with how fabulous their study results are.

          1. I have evaluated it and it is wisdom to not debunk it.

            It is wisdom to acknowledge that vegans maybe didn’t go off oil because they aren’t getting the right percentage of improvement over the meat eaters.

            Probably aren’t doing what it takes to improve their Homocysteine either.

            If it is close enough that the vegans didn’t trounce them by a much higher percentage that means it is more important to acknowledge the work left to do.

            1. I guess I see it that not long ago there was no mortality advantage, even though the vegans had low cholesterol, low BMI, low Diabetes, etc.

              Which is more likely, that the high fat, high sodium, high likelihood of using oil and low in B12 and D lacto-ovo vegetarians are doing the same thing as that old study or is it more likely that the researchers adjusted too much?

              They were high fat and high sodium and low B12, isn’t that by definition similar to the old study?

              1. The current movement away from B12, D and Omega 3 supplementation is something I wonder about.

                It look at the fish eater category and they have such an advantage here that i can’t predict if the next phase of this study might be worse and I will wonder if it is coconut oil or not supplementing Omega 3

                  1. To me, the Adventist women are proof that vegans can trounce meat eaters and can have longevity, but is it the estrogen or the Omega 6/3 ratio or the B12 that kept them from being the best?

                    I know that all those groups of Adventist’s were healthy, but I would rather Brenda did the same process you did for that old study.

                    Are the women dying of Breast cancer, Alzheimer’s, hemorrhagic stroke or stop eating after hip fractures?

                    1. If the English study is about women dying of hemorrhagic stroke, then we are being ripped off by the science community if we try to just brush women’s vulnerabilities under the rug.

                      The vegan women getting breast cancer more often because they choose to not have children more often is another option. Do those same women who choose to not have children, within the Adventist community get Alzheimer’s.

                      How about the Nuns? Can their study help solve whether this is an estrogen problem or not wanting to get fat eating nuts or not having children? The nuns seem like a good candidate for not having had children.

                    2. Has the defensiveness about being “vegan is better” caused people to want to not look at the woman side of the issues?

                      Don’t get me wrong, I agree with Brenda Davis, if the fish-eating Adventist women were eating the exact same diet, except for fish once per week, then it can be just that the vegan women didn’t have kids or didn’t get married as often or something, since Japan already showed that living situations particularly when women were older changed the rate of hemorrhagic stroke. Are the vegan women more independent, for instance?

                      It is just that we will never find out unless women start pestering someone like Dr. Greger who has moderators who toss notes.

                    3. Okay, if the vegan women didn’t have children, they wouldn’t have children and grandchildren helping take care of them.

                      Is that why the Japanese women whose living situation changes have hemorrhagic strokes?

                      Are they more traditional in that the woman is doing caretaking in the household, is that why when a person comes in after that it helps the males not have ischemic strokes, but the women have even more hemorrhagic strokes because they have more people to take care of? Is it that they lose something financially or have more stress with taxes and cars and businesses or something else, is it just plain stress? Or lack of caretakers?

                    4. I say those things because I read an article about elderly people in England who didn’t even hear one human voice per week. Zero human interactions. No kids calling and asking if they can do something? No grandkids visiting and saying, “Maybe you ought to talk to a doctor about that headache?” No husband driving them to the doctor?

                    5. Okay, I found a way to decide between social changes and cholesterol – because in Japan, it said that it was the males only where it correlated between cholesterol and the hemorrhagic stroke and most of the hemorrhagic strokes went away by fixing blood pressure problems.

                      Switch to the Japanese women having more hemorrhagic stroke after their husbands died.

                      Women, not males with low cholesterol.

                      Did they stop eating or something or were the women hemorrhagic strokes related to something like cortisol or depression rather than cholesterol?

                      Again, is it more of a woman issue somehow in England? Do the vegans in England run as slim and low in cholesterol as the lowest quintile of vegans in Japan? Could the women vegans in England run more slim and low in cholesterol than the Japanese women, who didn’t have theirs linked to low cholesterol?

                      Or is it males in England, too?

                      And, do they have other health issues, which lowered their cholesterol in the first place?

                    6. I think one thing that I am confused about is that in my mind the study with the hemorrhagic stroke is the same study where there used to be no benefits for vegans or vegetarians at all?

                      Am I just confused?

                      If that is the truth, why not more of a vegans have improved article?

                      I am also trying to figure out which group had the increases in Alzheimer’s.

                      I tried to find the WHO chart which Dr Greger used back in his UK talk.

                      Ischemic stroke has decreased dramatically but Alzheimer’s used to not be in the top 10, but now it is through the roof. Where’s the vegans have twice the rate of Alzheimer’s sentence? Is it less than twice now or does the rate of Alzheimer’s going up mean they are 3 times more likely to get it?

                      All you mentioned about stroke was potassium and some studies say it doesn’t help hemorrhagic and others say it does help.

  13. Of course, if, instead of a biblical Daniel Fast, they had called it a “strict vegan diet,” they would probably not have gotten a compliance rate of 98.7%, especially in Tennessee.

    Why “especially in Tennessee”? This comes across to me as a gratuitous and inappropriate insult.

    1. I am not sure if it is funny or if you are right.

      Are there a lot of vegans in Tennessee or are they known for hunting or something?
      Biblically, are there churches anti-vegan? Some Christians are anti-vegan and that is based on one verse. As a Christian I balance that one verse with the whole Bible and don’t see eating animals as Gods design. But I watched God’s Not Dead and there was one pro-gun anti-vegan character and those Christians are not where I am.

      Either way, this had to be made before the Tennessee Titans went WFPB.

  14. After getting incredibly high cholesterol results and wanting to avoid being a statin user for life, I asked one physician if there was anything I could do with regards to diet. My LDL was at 200 (it’s half that now). I was not overweight; exercised very regularly; ate a ‘mostly’ plant based diet; and when I ate meat or fish, it was always grass fed beef, organic chicken or wild fish. He introduced me to “How Not to Die.” My cardiologist recommended that I still used statins, because of the very high cholesterol levels. I listened to the HNTD audio book twice, and cut way down on my consumption of chicken and eggs, which were regular elements of my diet (now I’ll eat them maybe once a month). While I’d say I’m 90% vegan now, I’m finding it hard to give up consumption of meat and fish approx once a week. So the question is, if one is 90% plant based, is that life changing, or do you really have to be in 100%? We are also a wine drinking household. Thanks for your reply.

    1. Chris,

      Each change you make will have value of its own.

      It is mostly that you have to choose your own level of risk for yourself.

      Dr Ornish is who I would point you to.

      He said something like that people who made big changes got big results and people who made small changes got small results.

  15. Dear Dr. Greger and NutritionFacts.org,

    Thank you for another great video. I have a suggestion for an upcoming topic: “Alopecia”.
    Would you share your thoughts and comments on Alopcia, Plant-based diets and nutrition and general.
    Given the fact that so many people around the globe suffer from this condition, it might be worth considering.
    Thank you for your great work.

  16. Hi, Charlotte Rodgers! It is my understanding that the Daniel fast participants were allowed to eat as much as they wanted of any fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds, and did not consume animal products, processed foods, white flour products, preservatives, additives, sweeteners, flavorings,
    caffeine, nor alcohol. You can find the two main studies cited in the video here: https://lipidworld.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1476-511X-9-94 and here: https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1743-7075-8-17 I hope that helps!

Leave a Reply

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

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This