Lose Two Pounds in One Sitting: Taking the Mioscenic Route

Lose Two Pounds in One Sitting: Taking the Mioscenic Route
5 (100%) 6 votes

Our physiology evolved for millions of years eating a plant-based diet. What would happen if researchers tried to recreate our ancestral diet in the lab?

Discuss
Republish

The Paleolithic period, the Stone Age, only goes back about two million years. Humans and other great apes have been evolving for the last 20 million years, starting back in the Miocene era. We hear a lot about the Paleolithic diet, but that just represents the last 10% of hominid evolution—what about the first 90%?

During the Miocene era, the diet is generally agreed to have been a high-fiber, plant-based diet. For the vast majority of our family’s evolution, we ate what the rest of our great ape cousins eat—leaves, stems, and shoots (in other words, vegetables), and fruits, seeds, and nuts.

Anatomically, the digestive tracts of humans and our fellow great apes are very similar. In fact, our DNA is very similar. So, what do they eat? Largely vegetarian diets with high greens and fruit consumption. Just largely vegetarian? Yeah, chimpanzees have been known to hunt, kill, and eat prey. But the intake of food of animal origin by chimpanzees is at a very low level, with only 1.7% of chimp stools providing evidence of animal food consumption—based on eight years of work, collecting nearly 2,000 fecal samples. So, even the most carnivorous of great apes appear to eat like a 98% plant-based diet. We may be closest to the diet of bonobos, one of the less known great apes, who eat nearly exclusively plant-based diets as well.

Even our Paleolithic hunters and gatherers must have been done an awful lot of gathering to get upwards of 100 grams of fiber a day. So, what would happen if you put people on an actual Paleolithic diet? Not a supermarket-checkout-aisle-magazine Paleo diet, or some caveman blogger diet, but an actual 100+ grams of fiber diet. Or even better, a Miocenic diet, taking into account the last 20 million years of evolution since we split with our common great ape ancestors.

David Jenkins and colleagues gave it a try. They tested the effects of feeding a diet very high in fiber. We’re talking 150 grams a day, far higher than the recommended 20 to 30 grams a day, but 150 was like what populations in rural Africa used to eat—populations almost entirely free from many of our chronic killer diseases like colon cancer and heart disease.

Look at this. They were not messing around. So, what did you have for lunch today? Oh, a pound of cabbage. Certainly, just eating a lot of fruits/veggies/nuts can’t be very satisfying. No, it got the maximum satiety rating, three out of three by every one of the ten subjects, it appears. Why? Because all the diets were designed to be weight-maintaining; they didn’t want weight loss to confound the data. And so, to eat a full day’s calories of whole plant foods, they had to shovel in 11 pounds of food a day, not surprisingly resulting in some of the largest bowel movements ever recorded in the medical literature—in the men, exceeding a kilogram per day. You know how some people on weight-loss diets lose two pounds a week? They dropped two pounds in one day.

But that’s not the only record-breaking drop. A 33% drop in LDL cholesterol within just two weeks. Even without any weight loss, bad cholesterol levels dropped a third within two weeks—that’s the biggest drop I’ve ever seen in any dietary intervention—better than a starch-based vegetarian diet, better than a low-saturated fat American Heart Association-type vegetarian diet. A cholesterol reduction equivalent to a therapeutic dose of a statin drug. So, one needs to take a drug to get our cholesterol levels down to where they’d normally be if we ate a more natural diet.

We’ve been eating 100 grams of fiber every day for millions of years.  Similar to what’s eaten by populations who don’t suffer from many of our chronic diseases. Maybe this shouldn’t be called a very high fiber diet. Maybe what we eat should be considered very low; an extremely fiber-deficient diet. Maybe it’s normal to eat 100 grams of fiber a day. Maybe it’s normal to be free of heart disease; maybe it’s normal to be free of constipation, and hemorrhoids, and diverticulitis, and appendicitis, and colon cancer, and obesity, and type 2 diabetes, and all the other diseases of Western civilization.

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 RyanMcGuire via Pixabay.

The Paleolithic period, the Stone Age, only goes back about two million years. Humans and other great apes have been evolving for the last 20 million years, starting back in the Miocene era. We hear a lot about the Paleolithic diet, but that just represents the last 10% of hominid evolution—what about the first 90%?

During the Miocene era, the diet is generally agreed to have been a high-fiber, plant-based diet. For the vast majority of our family’s evolution, we ate what the rest of our great ape cousins eat—leaves, stems, and shoots (in other words, vegetables), and fruits, seeds, and nuts.

Anatomically, the digestive tracts of humans and our fellow great apes are very similar. In fact, our DNA is very similar. So, what do they eat? Largely vegetarian diets with high greens and fruit consumption. Just largely vegetarian? Yeah, chimpanzees have been known to hunt, kill, and eat prey. But the intake of food of animal origin by chimpanzees is at a very low level, with only 1.7% of chimp stools providing evidence of animal food consumption—based on eight years of work, collecting nearly 2,000 fecal samples. So, even the most carnivorous of great apes appear to eat like a 98% plant-based diet. We may be closest to the diet of bonobos, one of the less known great apes, who eat nearly exclusively plant-based diets as well.

Even our Paleolithic hunters and gatherers must have been done an awful lot of gathering to get upwards of 100 grams of fiber a day. So, what would happen if you put people on an actual Paleolithic diet? Not a supermarket-checkout-aisle-magazine Paleo diet, or some caveman blogger diet, but an actual 100+ grams of fiber diet. Or even better, a Miocenic diet, taking into account the last 20 million years of evolution since we split with our common great ape ancestors.

David Jenkins and colleagues gave it a try. They tested the effects of feeding a diet very high in fiber. We’re talking 150 grams a day, far higher than the recommended 20 to 30 grams a day, but 150 was like what populations in rural Africa used to eat—populations almost entirely free from many of our chronic killer diseases like colon cancer and heart disease.

Look at this. They were not messing around. So, what did you have for lunch today? Oh, a pound of cabbage. Certainly, just eating a lot of fruits/veggies/nuts can’t be very satisfying. No, it got the maximum satiety rating, three out of three by every one of the ten subjects, it appears. Why? Because all the diets were designed to be weight-maintaining; they didn’t want weight loss to confound the data. And so, to eat a full day’s calories of whole plant foods, they had to shovel in 11 pounds of food a day, not surprisingly resulting in some of the largest bowel movements ever recorded in the medical literature—in the men, exceeding a kilogram per day. You know how some people on weight-loss diets lose two pounds a week? They dropped two pounds in one day.

But that’s not the only record-breaking drop. A 33% drop in LDL cholesterol within just two weeks. Even without any weight loss, bad cholesterol levels dropped a third within two weeks—that’s the biggest drop I’ve ever seen in any dietary intervention—better than a starch-based vegetarian diet, better than a low-saturated fat American Heart Association-type vegetarian diet. A cholesterol reduction equivalent to a therapeutic dose of a statin drug. So, one needs to take a drug to get our cholesterol levels down to where they’d normally be if we ate a more natural diet.

We’ve been eating 100 grams of fiber every day for millions of years.  Similar to what’s eaten by populations who don’t suffer from many of our chronic diseases. Maybe this shouldn’t be called a very high fiber diet. Maybe what we eat should be considered very low; an extremely fiber-deficient diet. Maybe it’s normal to eat 100 grams of fiber a day. Maybe it’s normal to be free of heart disease; maybe it’s normal to be free of constipation, and hemorrhoids, and diverticulitis, and appendicitis, and colon cancer, and obesity, and type 2 diabetes, and all the other diseases of Western civilization.

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 RyanMcGuire via Pixabay.

Doctor's Note

How do we know our ancient ancestors were eating >100g of fiber a day? We can examine their fossilized fecal matter. See my video Paleopoo: What We Can Learn from Fossilized Feces.

My other popular paleo videos include:

This is one of my favorite videos to date. When I recorded it, I gave myself goosebumps when I got to the line “Maybe it’s normal to be free of heart disease…”

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

232 responses to “Lose Two Pounds in One Sitting: Taking the Mioscenic Route

Commenting Etiquette

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

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

    1. Rough smoothies, yes. If these foods are finely blended, Dr. G has vids showing that the fiber discussed in this vid gets destroyed, plus the plant nutrients bound to the fiber is gone as well! I blend foods only enough to make them look like I chewed them. I bought a piece of 1/2 tubing to use for a straw.




      1



      1
    2. You may find this helpful. I took it from a Green Smoothie site. I don’t know why the embedded links disappeared. I hope when I do the post they will reappear.
      Hope this helps:
      Blending does not destroy fiber. A high-speed, professional blender might break it down, but you don’t get less fiber in a blended smoothie than you would if you ate the whole fruit. If anything, you are more likely to enhance nutrient absorption and speed up digestion. The fiber will still be in there to provide its health benefits.

      Juicing, on the other hand, removes fiber. Because of this, I don’t recommend long-term juice fasts or juice diets. I also don’t recommend drinking lots of juice every day (especially fruit juice) since fiber is such an important part of a healthy diet. Consuming adequate dietary fiber has been associated with better health, proper bowel function and the evidence suggests that adequate fiber intake may help protect against colon cancer.

      Green smoothies are an excellent source of dietary fiber.

      Return to the Green Smoothie FAQ.




      0



      0
  1. 5 kilos a day! And I thought we were doing well to use 12 inch serving bowls as our personal salad bowls.

    My concern about this study is that while it is true that primates have been evolving for 30 million years, humans have accumulated a number of significant evolutionary changes over the last million years, and not just in the brain department. The size of our digestive track has shrunk considerably in comparison to chimpanzees and gorillas. So while it obviously is possible to stuff enough low calorie density leaves and fruit through our reduced gut to get enough calories to maintain weight, I don’t think that it is reflective of the diet for which anatomically modern humans are well adapted.

    Our smaller guts point to a diet with a higher average calorie density than that of our ape cousins. I know that a small gut is something used by the carnists to justify eating animal foods, but it is still an observable fact of our anatomy. My feeling is that while we obviously did eat 100 grams of fiber a day, we didn’t do by trying to stuff 5 kilos of basically salad through our system a day. Rather we found higher calorie density sources of food to exploit like tubers, legumes and seeds plus more meat (but not anywhere near as much as the paleo fantasists fetishize).

    The additional meat, as has been shown here numerous times, was a double edged sword. It allowed calories to be obtained when others might have been scarce and so improved survival through childbearing and rearing years, but we aren’t well adapted to eating meat and so it brought with it a host of ailments, especially when eaten on a thrice daily basis as quarter or more of calories as is currently the case. We, at least in the industrialized countries, live in a completely different food environment where calories from all sources are available year round. Thus we can safely ditch the meat, dairy and eggs without risking starvation and in doing so live off of the foods we are better adapted to eat.




    0



    0
    1. The cooking of tubers/bulbs/corms to make their starch more accessable may account for much of the reduction in colon size since our common ancestor with other great apes. See Richard Wrangham’s work. Gorillas are so dependent on their colonic microbiota fermenting fiber that its estimated that over 40% of their calories came from bacterially produced short chain fatty acids.




      0



      0
      1. It was Wrangham’s work I was thinking about. My postings tend to be on the long side for even short responses, so I didn’t include the 50% increase in available calories in cooked tubers/bulbs/corms being a much more likely source of dense calories to support our carbohydrate burning big brain than carbohydrate free meat.




        0



        1
        1. Termites, grubs and other insects would also have been an easy source of animal food that did not require the use of fire. Chimpanzees eat them deliberately and all herbivores will inadvertently eat them every day.




          0



          0
      2. Here he is talking of millions of years. If you google it, harnessing fire was discovered only a few hundred thousand years ago probably after our brains had evolved. I am sure it took many years after discovering harnessing fire that cooking was invented, spread and became widely used. I think (my own personal theory and not scientific) eating cooked-burnt meat became popular a few thousand years before Judaism and the Jewish religion endorsed it and made it morally acceptable to kill animals for food. Full disclosure, I am an atheist vegan.




        0



        0
    2. Most great apes produce very little amylase, the enzyme needed to digest starches. And so, a starch-based diet would not be workable for them. Instead, they need the simple sugars found in fruits and as Jim pointed out, fiber which their intestinal flora can digest to provide them with short-chain triglycerides as a source of calories. Man however, and a primate called the Gelada monkey are exceptions, producing an abundance of amylase, and they thrive on starches. However the diet in today’s video could probably be successful for a short time, but it would be a hassle to prepare and eat- and probably quite expensive.




      0



      0
      1. Chimpanzees have two copies of the AMY1 gene for salivary amylase. The oft-cited value for humans is six copies. But human populations vary widely in the number of copies of the AMY1 gene href=”http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377015/#SD1″>Perry et al surveyed a number of different human populations and found that some small percentage of four of the seven population still only had two copies of the AMY1 gene including the Hadza which consume a significant portion of their calories from tubers. So while the average copy number of the AMY1 gene was 6, the range in healthy humans ranged from 2 to 10. Apes also have genes for pancreatic amylase production like humans. So other hominids like chimpanzees and gorillas have the digestive machinery to digest starch. A likely explanation for why even though two copies appears to be adequate is that extra copy numbers would have conferred a marginal improvement in the ability to utilize starchy foods for calories, but not a decisive advantage. As such those with a high copy number had a greater evolutionary fitness level, and so the average copy number increased. However the fitness level of those with a low copy number was good enough that even to current times low copy number humans have not been weeded out of the human gene pool.

        The bottom line is that in early hominins with ape level AMY1 copy number would have been able to utilize the starch in tubers.




        0



        0
      2. Oh and in an interestingly paper by Schnorr et al looked at the tubers gathered by the Hadza. They note that the calories available from tubers varied considerably based on quality with more skillful foragers finding more tubers of higher quality. The impact of the mental skill of foraging on the ability to acquire calories would seem to be a prime example of how tubers could have been the foundation of the development of larger brains in hominins. Individuals with increased mental capacity would have been more successful in finding higher quality tubers and so increased the number of calories available, which would have supported the greater caloric demand of larger brains.




        0



        0
        1. In my opinion, humans adapted very quickly to the high starch diet from farming and the ideal diet for people might be heavy loads of starches. This is the exact opposite of what many nutritionists advocate. In this space, that a high grain diet is healthy, there are no proponents even though the food pyramid advocates a grain heavy diet. Perhaps grain will always be a staple, and a healthy one. Perhaps the bread of life is being forgotten.




          0



          0
      3. Don, I need some clarification. I know it’s a fine and perhaps esoteric point here but my understanding was that alpha amylase is present in most mamalian saliva and digestive juices. You say the other great apes are exceptions to this. However, I also understood that this might not be so important since both alpha and beta amylase are present in seeds and grains of all sorts as well as our gut microflora. Even white flours contain ample amylase if they have been exposed to some sprouted grain. (Malted barley flour might be ideal for this.)

        Therefore, unless we have been on some sort of totally processed and probably all meat diet, I should think we likely would able to use a mostly starch based diet without our own amylase production. And perhaps the same would be true for the other great apes.




        0



        0
      4. One more very interesting bit of research. Chimpanzees in the Ugalla region of Tanzania use simple digging tools to dig up tubers. So here is direct usage of tubers as a food source in hominids other than humans. This region is described as the driest most open environment in which Chimpanzees are found and much like the environment where the earliest hominin fossils have been found. Interestingly evidence for consumption of tubers was found during the wet season rather than the dry when conventional thought is that underground storage organs (USOs) would have served as a fallback food during the dry season when other foods like fruits and greens would been less available. The speculation is that soil hardness is too great for the very simple tools used.

        As would be expected, the tools used were sticks, fragments of a dead tree trunk and bark from sources immediately at hand. All were used only a single time and without additional shaping. If this represents the kind of tool making that the earliest hominins engaged in, archaeological evidence of such behavior would not be available. Even minor improvements in tool making would have improved gathering of this food source. It would also have likely reduced the calorie expenditure required to dig the USOs up. Improvement of tools could have been aided bipedal gate since that would have allowed tools from more distant sources to be efficiently carried as well as carrying the USOs back to a safe place where they could be consumed.




        0



        0
    3. That is a great video again from Dr G. pointing out the benefits of Fiber from fruits and vegetables. Thank you for your good comment as well about evolution.




      0



      0
  2. It should be noted the starch based diet did about as well as moderate-dose statins, despite the inclusion of yogurt, 1% cottage cheese, and 7% mozzarella. It had under half the cholesterol lowering phytosterols as the “very high” fiber diet, as it didn’t include avocado, almonds, and filberts/hazelnuts. Its possible the deletion of dairy fat and addition of phytosterols accounted for much or most of the additional benefit seen in the high fiber group, rather than the fiber, per se.

    Eleven pounds of food, and the time required for its consumption, is one reason that Miocene diets might not be compatible with modern lives. Another is that the lower caloric yield / hectare of vegetable agriculture means that its not a diet that would be sustainable for more than a tiny fraction of humanity. So I look for the happy medium of practicality and benefit, which I think is mostly starch-based, with daily nuts and liberal amounts of veggies. While the starch diet in this study used whole grains, it included only a paltry 2 oz of legumes, which are another big point of improvement. I manage around 60 g fiber daily, and much of this is from beans.




    0



    0
    1. But yet using 30% of our land base for live stock crop is sustainable? I beg to differ. How many pounds of food and water do you think a pig, or cow consume daily?




      0



      0
      1. FYI, I was curious why humans settled on grains and tubers, rather than beans, as our major dietary staples, as lentils and chickpeas have been domesticated nearly as long and are nutritionally superior. It turns out that under modern practices, the calorie yield for wheat is 3x greater, and for corn and potatoes is about 6-9x greater. These are factors comparable to the calorie yield ratios for animal agriculture.

        The ratios are less reliable for leafy crops like kale, but appear if anything higher. Hence, while its certainly possible for a few of us to eat raw vegan type diets, its not possible for 7 billion of us to do so. A similar story applies to the Western animal-based diet: there isn’t enough planet for all of us to eat this way. Much of the lurching about of food prices over the past decade has been the adjustment to new middle-classes with Western diets (and healthcare outcomes) emerging in developing nations like China and India.




        0



        0
        1. I agree that it’s going to be quite a feat to develop a way to feed an exponentially growing population starting at 7 Billion! Perhaps hydroponic gardening may be the start of a solution. I tried growing sweet potato greens over the winter in some mineral water, but I must be doing something wrong since the experiment didn’t turn out so well … nothing grew! Guess I need to do some more research :-)




          0



          0
          1. Like in China, Italy and Cuba, I believe that people will develop and learn to use permaculture techniques to grow some of their food in their yard and in their community. Cheap, healthy, and good for the planet.
            John S




            0



            0
        2. we are already feeding 70 billions of animals everyday, to feed 7billion. we could feed everyday 10 times the current population.




          0



          0
  3. It’s normal and it’s natural, just quite uncommon with our industrial agri-business, pill-eating, confused, “woe is me, gonna die anyway” de-evolutionizing society.




    0



    0
    1. It is unfortunate that eating say 5 bananas in one sitting is ‘crazy’… but multicoloured processed plastic wrapped sugar/fat ‘food’ doesn’t raise an eyebrow…




      1



      0
  4. A kilogram bowel movement? Dam! That’s likely clog up one’s modern, low-flush convenience appliance.
    BTW, it is “miocene,” not “mioscene,” but perhaps that was intentional because it is always nice to take the scenic route.




    0



    0
      1. When I did my 40-day fast, I delighted in telling eaters concerned about my survival what they, not I, were full of. And while not quite as bad as in 2016, what they were shoving IN was scarcely better.
        (I won’t advocate such a fast for most, in spite of the opportunities it provides. I had a teacher with much experience as well as good sense, neither assured in 2016 fasting. And at the end I said in a talk that I saw why Jesus had done it, why he did it in the desert, and why he never did it again.)




        0



        0
    1. I drop one like that (along with one or two less substantial loads) every day. My diet is starch-based, but I still manage to get anywhere from 80-120g of fiber per day. Breakfast usually includes oats or buckwheat along with nuts, dried coconut and dried fruit, as well as 1-2 pounds of fresh fruit. Lunch and dinner have a formula: A bean (or pea or lentil, ~75g dry weight), a green (200-250g fresh weight), and a starch (500-600 calories worth of either rice, potato or barley), as well as onions, garlic and a selection of other veggies (peppers, eggplant, mushrooms, etc). Yes, that comes out to ~3500 calories a day.




      0



      0
        1. It doesn’t take that long to consume. Most of the meals, except the ‘pre-breakfast’ pound or two of fruit, are cooked. The oatmeal or buckwheat are ground, mashed with a banana and fixins and tossed into the oven to make cookies (4 massive cookies… mmm… koo kee). The other meals are just extra-largish (2 large servings worth) of stews or stir-fries. Lunch is heavy to carry, between almost a couple kilos of foods plus the weight of the pyrex container. Not that much of a sacrifice for good health.




          0



          0
          1. The oatmeal or buckwheat are ground, mashed with a banana and fixins and tossed into the oven to make cookies..
            Sounds good. What is the recipe. I am looking for healthy cookie recipes. Thanks




            0



            0
        1. Nope. Just cycling, mostly flats, ~25kph. I’ve been trying to do 50km/day, but have so far only been averaging ~35 (mostly b/c I don’t bike when it rains, and it rains 2x a week). I’m slightly above average height (183cm), and fairly heavy (80kg). Guess I like eating more than being lean.




          0



          0
        2. It really isn’t that much… most people just chronically undereat or underestimate what they are eating… plus ‘calories’ from plant foods are hard to estimate as to how much is absorbed/excreted due to high fiber contents…




          0



          0
  5. Um except evolution is a myth, humans are not “evolving”. In truth our DNA is mutating and getting worse. . . not better. How is it that an educated Doctor doesn’t know basic biology?




    2



    0
    1. Since evolution is a myth, what’s your explanation for infectious bacteria’s ability to resist the effect of antibiotics?

      I’ll grant you that it’s difficult to perceive evolutionary changes because a) the changes may be subtle in their effect (e.g., a disease survivor surviving by virtue of genetic adaptation vs minor exposure) b) we likely don’t even know what changes to look for, and c) it typically takes many generations for an evolutionary adaptation to take hold in the population.

      But difficulty in perceiving a slow process doesn’t mean it’s not present (e.g., even though we don’t see the moon become progressively small and smaller because the Earth’s pull is too small to hold onto the moon doesn’t mean the moon isn’t gradually escaping at athe rate of 4 cm/yr.) Over time, we do see evolutionary advacements like the ability to digest cow milk in European populations.

      So, what’s your specific evidence that humans are devolving?




      0



      0
      1. …and to piggyback on all that’s said, how can anyone define DEvolving, unless by supposing that evolution has direction? Steven Jay Gould maintained, to his satisfaction, that it doesn’t.




        0



        0
      2. Have you ever noticed that Darwinists (not referring to Dr. Greger here) continually foist this speculative theory on us as if it were a fact, yet no one (not even Dawkins) has ever adduced a single empirical proof defending macro-evolution. There is not a shred of empirical proof supporting phyletic gradualism (the sine qua non of Darwin’s general theory of descent through modification) leading to macro-evolution. Yet the proponents have been forth-telling it as truth since we were kids. Here I’m not referring to bacteria morphing into drug-resistant bacteria (a variation of the same kind of organism) or Darwin’s finches adapting to different island climates (a variation of the same kind of organism) or Abert’s squirrels morphing into Kaibab squirrels on the North Rim of the Canyon (still a squirrel). I’m talking about the Neo-Darwinist doctrine of macro-evolution, i.e., descent with modification that produces another “kind” of creature.

        Even 150 years after Darwin the fossil record continues to be a pathetic witness to phyletic gradualism, as is the ongoing classification of living creatures on the earth today, as are the more modern protein/nucleic acid sequence studies conducted by molecular biologists. All these studies point to stasis (perpetuation of the same kind of organism) and gaps between the kinds of organisms. Stasis and gaps are the opposite of what Darwin predicted.

        Again… there is not a shred of empirical proof that men evolved from australopithecines, apes, or the fabled Homo habilis. “Empirical” means observational, verifiable, reproducible experimentation and outcomes. Empirical conclusions are not substantiated by speculation, circular reasoning, or leaky syllogisms (the only three tools in the evolutionist’s toolbox since Darwin).

        There are only three possible explanations for the origin of species (or anything else, for that matter): Divine Intervention (teleology), pantheism (somehow Nature has the miraculous ability to create design and innovation contrary to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), or … Darwin. Darwinism is a humanist religion that attempts to explain origins without referring to the supernatural. Fine, if you want that, but there is not a shred of empirical proof to support it.




        0



        0
        1. Dr. Cobalt, As one of the moderators on NutritionFacts.org, I must say your lengthy comments on evolution (or not) while clearly showing your strong views might be better placed on an alternate site focusing on such topics.At Nutrition Facts.org, we welcome your comments on nutrition. No shortage of discussable topics there! Thanks. .




          0



          0
  6. My cholesterol dropped from 297 to 202 by following a vegan, plant-rich diet, though doctors would have said my former diet was ideal. (I hardly ever ate processed foods, had at most 3 ounces of meat per day plus milk and so was shocked when my cholesterol was that high.) It was thrilling to see it drop nearly 100 points. Then my cholesterol crept up , and author Brenda Davis suggested cutting back on nuts to see what happened. (I had gone ape on nuts as I discovered the joys of cashew butter and almond butter, pecans, etc. ) So I went back to about a tablespoon of flax and a tablespoon of nuts, and my cholesterol went back to 207. My typical day involves 2 green smoothies (one with with ginger and tumeric, 4 ounces of green and the other with banana and soy milk plus berries and greens), a bean soup or bean dish, a giant salad with no dressing, and a veggie burger, with other cooked greens and a ton of fruit plus oatmeal. I try to follow Dr. Greger’s “Daily Dozen” but have fewer grains. I’m 5’6″ and my weight is 119. My favorite bean soup lately includes carrot juice, soy milk, beans, corn and whatever spices I’m in the mood for, especially Mexican.




    0



    0
      1. Right. I gained only one pound, but obviously wasn’t getting as much fiber because the nuts substituted for some of that fiber. I watch my total calorie intake pretty carefully.




        0



        0
        1. Thanks. That’s interesting. I eat lots of nuts/seeds as I’m underweight (and there’s a limit to how many carbs I can eat), but now I’m wondering about my cholesterol…




          0



          0
          1. Nuts and seeds are directly correlated with a longer lifespan. I still eat a lot more than the average person, thank goodness. Only the rare type of person like me, with really high cholesterol genetically, should even think about reducing their consumption of nuts and seeds. It’s great how they’re so satisfying.




            0



            0
      1. Thank you. I did have my B12 tested and it was a little too high, so I cut back a bit on supplementation. I know I had the carotid test about ten years ago and my results were excellent. I’ll try to remember to get a CRP test next time I have my cholesterol tested. Thanks for the link!




        0



        0
        1. B12 serum level is arbitrary- MMA/homocysteine studies reflect the utilisation. The levels of B12 in most countries is also far too low. Ideal levels are suggested to be over 600. See my other response to you on the other tests- its more the health of your arteries that matters not cholesterol numbers per se!




          0



          0
      2. I just checked your link and I already do all those things — avoid all sugar, avoid processed foods, eat a ton of fruits and veggies and avoid all oils. I just recently started having already-prepared veggie burgers on a regular basis (Dr. Prager’s and Trader Joe’s) which have a bit of canola oil, so I’ll soon switch back to making my own. Thanks for the tips!




        0



        0
        1. Great for you! I have worked under Dr Klaper and he usually advised that if you follow an SOS free WFPB diet with plenty of greens, and the tests come back normal, you should turn your anxiety meter to zero and be rest assured your endogenous production of cholesterol is what your body needs, it is the health of your arteries that is far more important that your cholesterol level per se.




          0



          0
        2. I’ve also seen anecdotally in patients interesting results when they stop using a blender… for smoothies, nut butters, soups etc… I know it gets to the feeling of more and more rules, but could be worth a trial! But this is after a 100% SOS free WFPB diet… definitely NO OIL :)




          0



          0
            1. He is one of many I highly recommend :) Was only a suggestion, partly because his lecture that day addressed them, with his statement- ‘we do not come out of the womb clutching a vitamix’… ;)




              0



              0
    1. Odd that your cholesterol isn’t a lot lower, even though you got a huge drop. You might try adding more garlic and onions to your diet and retesting. Garlic and Onions are elevated in compounds which lower HMG-CoA thereby further lowering production of cholesterol in the liver. Sort of a natural stain effect..




      0



      0
      1. Thanks! I do have a ton of onions every day and quite a bit of garlic, but I could probably up the garlic a bit. I have a genetic predisposition to super high cholesterol.




        0



        0
    2. Hi Joy! Wow, sounds like you’ve made a number of fantastic dietary changes to help improve your health. Congrats to you! How about exercise to help lower cholesterol? If able, we know being active and having a walking routine can help with this as well.




      0



      0
      1. Thanks Katie! I tend to get two hours a day of exercise, minimum and have since I was in my early 20s. (I’m 59 now.) I love yoga and can do back bends with one leg in the air. I ride a stationery bicycle fast for 30 minutes. I do three mile walks a few times a week. I even use a stand-up desk. I also love swimming.




        0



        0
          1. Thanks so much! I forgot to brag that last time I took my pulse (yesterday), it was 45! So I’m delighted with the 100 point drop in my cholesterol and will just try to maintain it.




            0



            0
    3. My cholesterol went from 351 to 226 in the first three months. It didn’t really drop a lot until I started to eat a pound of greens or more per day. Now, it stays at around 150 without the huge amount of greens, but it is worth going to costco and getting two bags of the broccoli and two bags of the power greens and eating both bags each week. It will be hard at first but it gets easier from there on out. I did this for about 6 months.




      0



      0
      1. Thanks for sharing that. That is how I got a hundred point drop and I’m sure it was easing up on the greens that made it creep back up. Lately I have been doing a pound a day; I’m at 13 ounces right now and the day is young. I would be thrilled if it continues to go down. Do you take Dr. Greger’s advice and have 3 one-half cup servings of grains each day? I haven’t been doing that but I could.




        0



        0
  7. I’ve always thought that the major flaw in using the paleo diet (if we can agree on what that is) as a guide for what we should be eating now is that paleo people’s lifespan (excluding deaths from disease or injury) was around 40. That means that natural selection would ignore chronic diseases that only emerge after longer lives. So I am skeptical of the conclusions we can draw from the diets of our ancestors, whether paleolithic or from the miocene. There may be some guidance there, but when we look for guidance for how we should eat, the science on modern humans is where we need to focus.




    0



    0
    1. It’s definitely interesting, because ‘most’ people now will make 40 years old regardless of how terrible they eat… but was that the median life length or average? As the average would have been greatly dragged down by infantile death rate I’d image…




      0



      0
      1. I tried to address that in my comment; not life expectancy which is an average that takes into account infant mortality, injury, sickness, etc., but lifespan, being how long people CAN live. My understanding (though there are claims across the board) is that the life expectancy in paleolithic times was in the 30’s and lifespan was in the 40’s. Genetic selection for fitness would totally ignore any dietary choices that contribute to today’s “adult onset” diseases.




        0



        0
        1. I am not sure that this is actually true. Gurven and Kaplan argue that the evidence actually indicates that humans are genetically adapted to a lifespan of about 70.
          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2007.00171.x/abstract

          This makes sense. Older people can acquire skills and knowledge not available to younger people (in the last drought 30 years ago, we travelled to X for water) and pass them on. They can also perform child rearing and other domestic tasks freeing other younger adults were out doing the athletic hunter gathering stuff. This would would deliver survival advantages., which could explain why longevity might be selected for.




          0



          0
          1. I’ve seen this referred to as the “Grandmother Effect”, but I would hope that the wise Grandfather or two could also have been an added benefit to the tribe and so extended life expectancy could have improved evolutionary fitness of a group living species like humans.

            A test for this might be to see if the percentage of the fossil remains of those past prime child bearing/rearing years increased as tool complexity increased. Tool complexity would be a good marker, I would think, of the ability of older members to pass on complicated skills that take many years to master to younger members of the group.




            0



            0
  8. I have a question which doesn’t match any of your videos, so sorry but i’ll pose it here : On what extent is scheduling meals important? I would be grateful if you could answer.




    0



    0
    1. Other than those focused specifically on a goal such as maximum muscle gain, or elite athletic results, I am yet to come across much evidence suggesting it matters much at all for optimal health, provided the foods on the schedule are the right ones ;) There is some evidence to regimes such as intermittent fasting being of benefit for some people, but not a lot else is conclusive…




      0



      0
  9. It’s an interesting study that shows the benefit of a high rich fiber diet. However I feel refer is treading dangerous waters here. I hope he does r expect people to be eating that much amount of fiber, it’s just not realistic. How can anyone have enough time to eat that much and also going to the bathroom so much? Besides this study was short term and you can gain weight from eating too much fruit, more than 500 g of carbs and de novo Lopo Genesis will be activated and the carbs will turn to fat.




    0



    0
    1. I look at it as a demonstration of the possible, not practical. Do you have a reference on the 500 gram limit for carbohydrates?




      0



      0
  10. This post is consistent with findings of the Stanford Sonnenburg Lab which studies the microbiome. Justin and Erica Sonnenburg have also published “The Good Gut” (2015) for the layman.




    0



    0
  11. i suppose we should be spending much more time every day eating. like herbivores? of course, we departed from chimps 8 million years ago, by some explanations, as a result of our adoption of meat eating, which provided more fats for our bigger brains. the paleo diet contribution is unique and valuable. the omnivore’s dilemma book makes that point that our omnivorous capacity presents a dilemma- an argument about what’s best to eat. And for what purpose? longevity, health, strength? perhaps we ate meats to avoid famine, and/or because of migration to edible plant inhospitable environs.




    0



    0
    1. Calories provide energy and we got them where we could when necessary, but the whole meat eating/fat thing for bigger brains is very questionable. Chimps are known to eat meat and use tools (weapons) to procure it, yet they are still chimps over the millennia. Yet bonobos, a relative who shared a common ancestor with both of us, physically appear very similar to chimps, but are herbivores whose behaviors are totally different. The violent chimps are a male dominated and aggressive warlike society, bonobos are matriarchal, extremely cooperative and pan sexual…make love not war. If anything the lack of meat seems to correlate with their lack of aggression, but certainly not intellect. It fascinates me because I can see so much of us in both of them, yet our bigger brains have us studying them, and not the other way around. Since cooking is one of the few uniquely human behaviors, it makes much more sense that our distinctive human ability to utilize fire and cook our food was the impetus to spur our evolution and brain growth. It also explains our reduced jaws, mouth, lips and teeth, smaller gut, etc… (Even though it gets pooh-poohed in mainstream science, I also find the aquatic ape theory a very interesting explanation for so many of our unique characteristics… upright posture, hairlessness, swim reflex and fat padding in newborns, and so on, but that is a whole other topic!)




      0



      0
  12. While the results were great, who can afford to spend all day eating, and spend all the $$ to eat 11 pounds of food a day? Not too mention spending the time to buy and store all that food. There’s a reason you don’t see people eating this style of diet. And as far as being the most satiating diet, your kidding right? 2500+ calories and 11 pounds of food to be satiating???? It can be done significantly easier and not need significant amounts of activity/exercise to burn those calories.

    How about a diet that works equally well over time if not better due to much lower fat levels, is significantly cheaper, is fully satiating, requires no more than the usual amount of daily food (3-5 lbs/day), takes no more time to eat than any other diet, contains more than adequate fiber and also causes significant bowel movements that are also very easy to pass and is fully starched based as are most all “modern” day diets eaten by humans in the last 100K+ years.

    Oh yeah, and causes more than just cholesterol to drop by significantly greater amounts than can be achieved through drugs…you know like stopping, reversing and curing all manner of chronic disease with zero side effects, zero doctor visits, and zero medical costs.

    My results: https://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35090

    How I did it (an everyday, fully detailed, 1 year journal): https://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=27969

    geos




    0



    0
    1. Oh I definitely don’t think this was presented to be what one MUST do… but a good heads up to those NOT eating much fiber or fruits and vegetables. The most satiating doesn’t mean the starch diet wasnt satiating either… Either this study or a similar one most people struggled to finish the food, so most satiating could be that they were uncomfortably full!

      And I totally agree with you, McDougall’s outlines are a GREAT option for many people, especially to address the points you mentioned of less volume, less cost, less time to eat, and achieves significant health advantages with minimal to no adverse effects :)

      Fantastic story by the way!




      0



      0
  13. When I tracked in Cronometer, I could see that on my all-whole-plant diet I could easily consume 85-90 grams of fiber per day.




    0



    0
    1. Yes I feel they made some interesting choices volume-wise and probably could have hit the fiber numbers easier with some different food choices~




      0



      0
  14. This is pretty close to what Don, my husband, was finding while he was researching for his book, Powered By Plants. It seems as if there are many ways to eat a plant-based diet, and it is an evolution to finding the appropriate balance for each person depending upon where they live in therms of climate, and what is native to their region (tropical vs. temperate climate zones for example), along w/ one’s constitution, condition, energetic needs, and time and financial budget! Great video.




    0



    0
    1. Kathleen: I don’t think Dr. Greger nor the researchers are promoting this diet for long term modern use. It is just making some points, such as learning about what types of food are good for humans to eat. Dr. Greger’s recommended diet for modern humans living today is exemplified by his “Daily Dozen” (a free app you can get and learn more about in his book How Not To Diet) and on this page: http://nutritionfacts.org/2011/09/12/dr-gregers-2011-optimum-nutrition-recommendations/




      0



      0
  15. Wow brought tears to my eyes….maybe it’s normal NOT to have heart disease…maybe it’s NOT normal to have appendicitis, hemorroids….etc….just such a powerful closing! Thank you.




    0



    0
      1. The ending initially caught me as well. I replayed it and thought about it. “It’s normal” isn’t quite correct. The “is” would be better replaced with “should” or “needs to be”. ‘Normal’ is whatever the norm is for a particular (sub)population. Obesity is now normal, as are numerous other chronic diseases, in many Western industrialised countries. They shouldn’t / needn’t be.

        I recently had this argument with my parents when they were telling me for the umpteenth time that how/what I ate wasn’t normal. I pointed out to them that a) even thought the actual foods they ate were “normal”, the amount they consumed was beyond normal and b) even if they ate the right amount, the foods they ate weren’t healthful. I pointed out that I happened to be the only person in our family (parents plus two siblings) who weighed less than 100 kg, the only one who wasn’t on meds for T2D and HBP, the only one who didn’t need to wear glasses, and the only one who could look down and see his feet without bending over. Surprisingly, that convinced my dad to give it a go. He’s just started a WFPB diet. Convinced him to give it an honest effort for at least two weeks. Fingers crossed.




        0



        0
    1. Isn’t it ironic that by not following the ‘normal’ diet… you don’t have to experience ‘normal’ diseases :)




      0



      0
    2. Before starting medschool (1992) I had an intuitive feeling that if you eat healthy – lots of vegetables, fruit, fiber, starch, and limited consumption af meat, you could avoid a lot of diseases – this feeling disappeared completly during medschool (thought provoking!) and the years that followed working as a doctor. By chance a came across Michael Greger, McDougall, Ornish, Campbell, Fuhrman, Robbins, Klaper and others, which again brought me back on track – a mostly plantbased diet is the right diet for humans – no doubt about that!




      0



      0
  16. Can you tell me if there is any research on a plant based diet in relation to a Chiari Malformation? I have two family members suffering from this and if a plant based diet would help I think they would finally be motivated to change their lifestyles.




    0



    0
    1. The BEST thing about a WFPB diet though is even for whatever reason it does NOT help their particular condition… at least it will help prevent them having comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, strokes etc…




      0



      0
      1. Not to mention give them energy as they do battle with their disease. Also the problems due to compression on the cerebellum and brainstem by the Chiari formations is likely to be compounded by local as well as global inflammation. A plant based diet is very high in anti-inflammatory compounds and very low in pro-inflammatory compounds, some of which will cross the blood-brain barrier, and so could offer some amelioration of the the pressure. Curcumin is one such compound that will cross the blood-brain barrier, and so you might look at the many videos on this site that discuss turmeric and curcumin.




        0



        0
  17. I find that I can get much of my fiber by eating multiple small meals, mostly fruit, except for lunch which is a large vegan meal, as I do not get reflux by eating the largest meal around 1 PM. With my oatmeal in the AM, I have blueberries, strawberries, raisins, banana, home made granola using the almond fiber I collect from making almond milk. Then on most days I have 2 apples, 1 orange, 2 servings papaya, 1 fig, and for dinner light steamed vegetables. Before 50, when I developed 2 cancers requiring multiple surgeries and years of IV drugs; I ate terribly,( meat, eggs, & milk products despite lactose intolerance) and needed 4 pills/day just to have a bowel movement and had 3 hemorrhoid surgeries including a sphincterotomy, just because of constipation. Transitioning to a vegan diet was easy because I had always loved fruit and vegetables, and has helped me avoid cancer recurrence but also no more meds or further sequelae of constipation, now at age 67.




    0



    0
  18. I don’t think the powers that be, who run the economy of this planet and especially this nation want the masses of people to be eating 100 grams of fiber per day and to avoid all of the illnesses associated with the standard american diet. The standard american diet is designed to siphon money into Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big oil, Big Transportation, and Big medicine. The standard american diet will keep the wage slaves functional until they reach retirement age, at around retirement age when the wage slaves are no longer productivity the accumulation of plaque in the arteries eliminates millions of unproductive people and the great industrial complex no longer has to pay these wage slaves a retirement, social security, and other benefits such as continued health care. If the masses of sheeple were eating 100 grams of fiber everyday, staying healthy, and not eating meat, dairy, and oils then the Big AG and the grocery store chains would lose tremendous profits, and the elites who own the stocks of these huge corporations would not be happy. If the sheeple lived healthy lives they would not be spending their hard earned money at the doctor’s office and Big Medicine would lose profits. If the sheeple lived to be into their 90’s then the industrial / governmental complex would be forced to continue to pay people huge amounts of money in retirement, social security, and other benefits. The system is designed to keep the sheeple unaware of the benefits of eating 100 grams of fiber everyday and adopting a whole plant food diet. This is why Big Food, Big Ag, Big Pharma, Government, and other Big Industries spend billions of dollars every year to brainwash the sheeple to continue to enjoy the American Standard Diet.




    0



    0
    1. If only agriculture and supermarkets realised how much they would THRIVE if people demanded this much produce though! Oil companies could merge into wind/solar resources to power production of produce farms and transportation. Pharma could morph into finding ways to create eco balance and restore our world’s natural environments as opposed to a ‘poison kill destroy’ mentality! They could also find ways to optimise human health and the environment rather than a simplistic reductionist approach. Transport isn’t going away but can be made more sustainable and eco-friendly. Medicine will always exist, even if only broken bones and the like. It’s sad they don’t see they won’t disappear, they just change focus…




      0



      0
    2. At $100,000 for a bypass, a retired wage slave can be an enormous drag on the economy. Hardly a low cost way to get rid of unproductive workers. True it will make money for some of the Big industries, but the sickening of society will sink the entire ship of state. Thus even the most ravenous industry could not have such a conscious long term goal actions, even if they can make a ton of money selling bilge pumps as it sinks.

      I think the real issue is that capitalism only knows one answer to every problem, make money. Now this one trick pony is actually pretty good at finding good solutions, but only ones where good changes are profitable changes. Likewise it is just as good at finding bad solutions if bad solutions are also profitable solutions. One only need consider concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to understand this limitation.

      As such Big Pharma is great at finding solutions to health problems. But because of it is limited to only profitable solutions it can not find truly optimal solutions. All the other “Big” industries are constrained by this same limitation. So obviously it is not the long term and global interest of even Big Medicine for a significant fraction of the population burns through hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars each in a long drawn out slide into the grave since the horrendous burden on the society as a whole will cause a general decline in the economic health. Such a decline will eventually negatively impact all of these Big industries. They just can’t do anything about it because they are legally required to make as much money for their investors as possible. That isn’t intrinsically a bad thing, just an acknowledgement of capabilities and limitations.

      That is why we need effective government to set limitations on what solutions are open to industry. With a common, if somewhat constrained, playing field, the free market can do what it does best and find the most profitable solutions. I liken it to a rancher building strong fences in which is her wild horses are free to run as much as they want.

      And our government simply isn’t doing its job of using perspective not motivated by profit to see where the fences need to be placed. So I don’t really blame the Big industries for trying to make as much money as they can. That is like blaming a scorpion for stinging you. Stinging is simply what it does. Assuming that a scorpion will behave like a butterfly is unrealistic. Ultimately I view the problems that are often discussed here as a failing on the part of our government to govern in the best interest of the society as a whole.




      0



      0
  19. After reading all of the other posts, I found the debate about apes versus humans in the ability to digest starch to be interesting. It was pointed out by one person that apes changed green leafy vegetables into fatty molecules by their internal gut flora. Another person suggested that apes could still digest and use starch because they had at least a few copies of AMY-1 genes. Another person suggested that apes would really need more than a few AMY-1 genes to be successful at using starchy tubers as a good form of fuel to power the brain and other body systems. I’ll tell you what, why don’t we test these theories out on present day apes. One could feed a group of apes strictly starchy tubers and see how they turn out. The other group they could feed the typical green leafy diet and see how they turn out. That should clear up a lot of speculation.




    0



    0
  20. In a 10 year study, researchers came to the conclusion that a high consumption of dietary fiber increased the likelihood of successful aging:
    “These epidemiological data suggest that lifestyle interventions increasing the intake of fiber-rich foods could be a successful strategy in reaching old age disease free and fully functional.”.
    The paper is called “Association Between Carbohydrate Nutrition and Successful Aging Over 10 Years”, was published in April this year and is open access: http://biomedgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/05/23/gerona.glw091.full
    Might be interesting to read for Dr. Greger.




    0



    0
    1. Interesting article! I think fiber is often a good way arguments on ‘carbohydrates’ Vs whole plant food sourced carbohydrate intake as reflected here




      0



      0
  21. Is there is a downside to consuming too much fibre? I am a endurance cyclist and train 20+ hours a week and pyarticipate in 200km+ rides. I eat a WFPB diet. To get enough energy I was eating a LOT of fruit and vegetables and legumes/starches. My fibre intake was 100g+ a day. I saw a qualified and experienced sports dietitian recently who was alarmed at my fibre intake and said it can bind with and remove oestrogen and essential minerals from the body, which can be a big problem for hormone levels (causing menstruation to cease) and general nutrition in female athletes. She sent me several studies to support this. She has recommended a meal plan which replaces a lot of the whole foods with more processed carbs (white rice, juice, jam) to get my fibre level down to between 40-50g a day. She’d prefer it was 35g a day, but hasn’t been possible with vegan diet. What are your thoughts on this?




    0



    0
    1. This sounds highly improbable.

      Humans have been eating high fibre diets for virtually all of our evolutionary history. Even today populations eating traditional high complex carb diets consume a lot of fibre. Certainly if you look at this video, and the studies referenced there, we find that rural African etc population consume 60 to 150 grams of fibre per day and do not suffer the typical problems associated with Western diets including hormonal diseases like breast cancer and prostate cancer. However, these latter are the perhaps the most common cancers in Western countries but are virtually unknown in such traditional communities. Where I live in Australia for example:

      “Prostate cancer was the most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australia in 2012. It is estimated that it will remain the most commonly diagnosed cancer in 2016.”
      https://prostate-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/statistics
      “Breast cancer was the 2nd most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australia in 2012. It is estimated that it will become the 3rd most commonly diagnosed cancer in 2016.”
      https://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/cancer-types/breast-cancer/breast-cancer-statistics

      High levels of estrogen are linked with increased breast cancer risk (and increasingly with prostate cancer in men)
      https://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/Table6Bloodestrogenlevelsandtheriskofbreastcancerinpostmenopausalwomen.html
      http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/742985

      Simply put, lowering estrogen etc with a high fibre diet should reduce (breast) cancer risk (and perhaps ovarian etc cancer risk) not increase it.

      The 35g a day figure is effectively from the NIH/USDA but that is in he context of an average US consumption of just 16 grams a day and what is considered realistic.
      https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002470.htm

      Nor are those rural populations eating traditional diets noted for fertility or menstrual problems. Also, the levels of physical labour by the women in such societies is high and rivals that of athletes in Western countries I believe. It seems much more probable that the normal levels of fibre consumption and estrogen production in Western societies generates hormonal problems and diseases, rather than do the normal levels of fibre consumption and estrogen production in traditional rural societies. Certainly low fibre diets in Western countries have been associated with unnaturally early menstruation – perhaps they also prolong menstruation in Western women, However, as far as I am aware the only studies showing adverse effects from excess fibre intake concern isolated wheat bran or supplement intake not whole food fibre intake but I would certainly be interested in seeing the studies cited by your dietitian.

      As for the essential minerals claim, I quote Medline (a more credible source than a single dietition, I think):
      Too much fiber may interfere with the absorption of minerals such as iron, zinc, magnesium, and calcium. In most cases, this is not a cause for too much concern because high-fiber foods tend to be rich in minerals.”
      https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002470.htm
      this seems more like a natural defence mechanism to avoid eg excess iron etc absorption and not a problem as such. It may however be a problem however where the fibre comes from isolated bran or supplements rather than whole foods.

      In short I think your dietitian has taken some findings and studies out of context and generalised them to reach an incorrect conclusion. However, to repeat, it would be interesting to see the studies she relies upon for her opinions.




      0



      0
      1. Hello all
        Thanks for your responses. Below is one of the articles, I will see if I can locate the other two online (I only have them as PDFs).

        I share most of your opinions posted here, given my WFPB diet and my following of this website and others (McDougall, Fuhrman etc) over many years. However, rather than relying on what are basically our (educated) assumptions that ‘more is better’, I posted this question here as I am wondering if there is actually any quality science/research that factually confirms that 100+gm fibre a day is safe/better for you (or at least no worse) than, say 30-40g, especially if you are female and engaged in heavy endurance training? I have no health issues, and have not had gastrointestinal issues at all, although my most recent blood test taken when I saw the dietitian did show that my previously normal stored iron levels have indeed fallen in the last 3 years since I took up long distance cycling – despite carefully following a healthful WFPB diet including lots of legumes, sweet potato, seeds/nuts, soy, and many vegetables and fruits – and so I am now taking an iron supplement to get the level back up (and I have also stopped donating blood for the moment – which I also started doing in the last 3 years). All my other indicators on the blood test were in normal range.

        See this link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26148242

        Thanks, Michelle




        0



        0
        1. Thanks. This paper is behind a paywall so I can only comment on the abstract.

          Frankly, I do not see how this applies to you unless you are not consuming sufficient calories. A diet high in legumes, seeds/nuts, soy etc does not seem to be a low energy density diet or low fat diet even for an endurance athlete. Nor is it low in carbohydrates. and yet the abstract explicitly states:

          “However, FHA and LEA subjects shared the same dietary characteristics of lower energy density (ED) [(P = 0.012; P = 0.020), respectively], and fat content [(P = 0.047; P = 0.027), respectively]. Furthermore, FHA subjects had a lower intake of carbohydrate-rich foods (P = 0.019), higher fiber content (P < 0.001), and drive for thinness score (P = 0.003)."

          Clearly, your dietitian must be assuming you have an eating disorder ( I am assuming "drive for thinness" is a euphemism for this) and believes, like Meatloaf, that two out of three ain't bad – ie high fibre intake and drive for thinness – and is simply ignoring the third (lower-intake of carbohydrate rich foods) aspect.

          Seriously, how is this supposed to apply to you? As far as I know, as long as you are consuming sufficient calories to meet your needs (ie you do not have an LEA issue), the amount of fibre you consume is not, as a single factor, demonstrated to be important by this article. Pardon the pun but her argument seems a little thin.

          You may find this link below helpful. I may be putting two and two together and getting five but I can't help suspecting that perhaps your dietitian is one of those people who thinks vegetarianism is an eating disorder.
          http://www.ausport.gov.au/ais/nutrition/factsheets/basics/female_athlete_triad




          0



          0
    2. I was hoping to see someone address this question. I was told something similar, without benefit of being given studies to see. I was also repeatedly told that eating too much fiber was the cause of my stomach distress. Being vegan, cleared that up, and I am eating more fiber than ever, so, it would be good if those studies were good found to have any base in reality or not.




      0



      0
      1. Parenthetically, I think vegan cleared up some of my stomach distress caused by emotional or moral issues; cognitive dissonance…




        0



        0
    3. I think that your diet is so far outside the experience base of your dietician that a big red flag went up. And remember it is the animal, processed and fast food industries who underwrites the education and profession societies of dieticians. It is not in the commercial interest of these groups to include the positive health effects of a high fiber plant based diet, since nobody could achieve such a diet eating their products. Thus the ADA prostitutes itself to Big Meat, Big Dairy, Big Egg and Big Junk in return for financial support and then allows these industries to write the “educational” material that the ADA supplies to universities and as part of on-going professional education. They can’t truthfully say that fiber is unhealthy (though I wonder sometimes if they would if they thought they could get away with it), so they preach the “all things in moderation” message. Thus when your sports dietician saw that you were eating an immoderate amount of fiber all the distorted information that she got during her training tells her that this amount of fiber just couldn’t be good.

      And consider that many (most?) studies in nutrition are sponsored by industries with a commercial interest in a particular result. And those industries in turn pay journals for large numbers of reprints of studies favorable to their products which they then send out to doctors and dieticians. So I would wonder how unbiased and balanced are the studies that she has at her fingertips (considering who made sure that they were).




      0



      0
    4. Hi Michelle! I’m a registered dietitian as well and it’s alarming that this dietitian was recommending you to include more processed foods. I would be curious to read the articles she provided you. Too much fiber could cause GI upset – but if your body is used to high amounts that may not even be an issue for you. Some questions to ask yourself – Any medical issues (missing periods as you mentioned above)? Are you having normal/regular bowel movements? Are you consuming enough water/staying hydrated? If not, I don’t see a problem continuing with your WFPB meal plan. If you’re still concerned, you can always schedule a physical exam with your health care provider. They would be able to order lab work that would check for vitamin/mineral deficiencies, etc. You can find medical providers that specialize in plant-based lifestyles here: Plant-Based Doctors




      0



      0
  22. Just a note on the interesting observation that chimp diets are 98% plants: they said that less than 2% of stools contained evidence of animal consumption, but it may be (and seems likely) that even *those* stools were *partly* vegetable matter. So perhaps the amount of animal matter in chimp diets is significantly lower than even 1.7%?




    0



    0
  23. The title of this website is NutritionFacts. Facts are facts and not theories. Here is a quote…food for thought… “Through the natural sciences, the world around us is observed for the purpose of discovering the rules governing it. Experimentation and observation (e.g., measuring and weighing) are the basic “modus operandi.” Hans Sachsse, who specialized in natural philosophy and chemistry, described (natural) science as “a census of observational relationships which cannot say anything about first causes or the reasons for things being as they are; it can only establish the regularity of the relationships.” The observational material is organized systematically, and the principles derived from it are formulated in the most general terms possible (e.g., construction of machines). Questions about the origin of the world and of life, as well as ethical questions, fall outside the scope of science, and such questions cannot be answered scientifically. Conclusions about matters that do fall within the scope of (natural) science can be formulated with varying degrees of certainty….” Werner Gitt




    0



    0
  24. Dr Greger, what is the highest vegetarian source of dietary fiber? And what do you think is the ideal fiber intake for an adolescent girl?




    0



    0
    1. Good news! All plant-based foods (fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, seeds, etc) contain fiber! Some of the highest sources include bran, lentils, beans (any kind), and elderberries. Here’s an article from Dr. Greger that you might find helpful. Increasing dietary fiber should be done gradually and with lots of water. Best of luck! Fiber by Dr. Greger




      0



      0
  25. Several yrs ago i tracked my fiber intake for a day – for a week or so. It was between 75 – 125 grams everyday. I was eating a WFPB and still do. I do not eat as much raw as i did at that time and do not track my fiber intake, but i would say it is around 75g at least each day. I feel good at 61. Very active and work hard 6 days a week.




    0



    0
  26. A recent Australian study found:
    “Among older adults, fiber from fruits and breads/ cereals (primarily from rolled oats and wholemeal/wholegrain breads), but not from vegetables independently predicted successful aging.”
    and
    “In summary, our study findings underscore the importance of diet for aging and age-related diseases. Specifically, we show that older adults whose diets are consistently high in fiber consumption (particularly from breads/cereals and fruits) have a greater likelihood of aging successfully in the longer term. Conversely, our findings indicate that other aspects of carbohydrate nutrition including total carbohydrate intake and dietary GI/GL are not independent predictors of successful aging. These epidemiological data suggest that lifestyle interventions increasing the intake of fiber-rich foods could be a successful strategy in reaching old age disease free and fully functional.”
    http://biomedgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/05/23/gerona.glw091.full




    0



    0
    1. High GI/GL I think are only important in the presence of insulin resistance. With normal insulin response the spike in blood sugar due to high GI/GL foods is quickly reduced as the muscles and liver respond to the increased insulin and clear the sugar out of the blood. But as insulin resistance in the muscles and eventually liver increases the insulin levels keep increasing and it takes longer for the blood sugar to drop to fasting levels. The result would be increased percentage of the total day that tissues experience elevated blood sugars. At this point a persons fasting blood sugar level could be completely normal, but they are already well on the road to T2D. Eventually the beta cells themselves being to experience lipo and glyco toxicity effects and die and insulin production drops below what is required to overcome the high insulin resistance and blood sugar can not be cleared and the fasting blood sugar suddenly shoots up. If only fasting blood sugar is measured, problems in blood sugar management are only detected at this late date. So waiting until fasting blood sugar hit a high level is very much a case of closing the barn door after the horse has already escaped.

      As such I think it would be a much better test to measure insulin resistance and insulin levels in the postprandial period rather than simply fasting blood sugar. High insulin resistance would, I think, be the first indicator of trouble and would serve as the proverbial “canary in the coal mine”. High insulin levels would seem to be actually a good thing because it says that the pancreas can still do its job and so chronic diseases could still be avoided if the root cause of insulin resistance could be addressed at the start of the disease process rather than at it terminus.




      0



      0
  27. A recent (01 June 2016) Australian study found:
    “In summary, our study findings underscore the importance of diet for aging and age-related diseases. Specifically, we show that older adults whose diets are consistently high in fiber consumption (particularly from breads/cereals and fruits) have a greater likelihood of aging successfully in the longer term. Conversely, our findings indicate that other aspects of carbohydrate nutrition including total carbohydrate intake and dietary GI/GL are not independent predictors of successful aging. These epidemiological data suggest that lifestyle interventions increasing the intake of fiber-rich foods could be a successful strategy in reaching old age disease free and fully functional.”
    http://biomedgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/05/23/gerona.glw091.full




    0



    0
  28. I’m guessing that the people in the study you mentioned never got the munchies – because they were always munching on something. Aside from the astonishing volume of fiber they consumed, they must have spent huge amounts of time simply eating. The implications of this go far beyond lowering cholesterol. Eating like our Mioscenic would create a whole different lifestyle – eat and poop, then eat some more. Keeping a schedule like that would leave little time for other things, like killing each other or watching trashy sitcoms or game shows. We wouldn’t have time to create lots of pollution, aside from the trail of droppings we left behind. Maybe that’s how the Sahara desert was created – once it was forrest, until our ancestors ate it. But, all joking aside, I am a living testament to the healing, regenerative powers of a plant based diet. Having serious health problems in 1979-80, my doctor advised that I go macrobiotic. While this diet is not exclusively vegan it can be, as was the case for me. All these years later I’m still eating that way. I can say with absolute certainty that fiber really is one of the more underrated and necessary parts of any diet.




    0



    0
  29. After viewing, I found a site that defined the # of fiber grams in most foods from A to Z. I was overwhelmed by the amount of food one needed to eat to have the # of soluble and insoluble grams. It is not possible.
    I have celiac so wheat and barley which r the best sources are off the menu, rye also is off by was not a factor.
    While my diet is largely nuts, fruit and vegetables and beans/legumes with some plain, organic yoghurt and a couple of ozs of meat, fish or chicken every couple of weeks, I get about 40 grams of fiber on my best days. I seldom if ever eat processed foods, so I can’t figure out how to get to 60 without bursting.
    As it is my husband and I partially force feed ourselves to get 9 servings of (combined) fruits, veggies, and beans.
    Everything is made from scratch, I don’t want to cook or eat all day.




    0



    0
    1. Hi Bebe! 40 grams of fiber/day is a great place to start! Sadly, the average America gets only about 15 grams/day – which is far less than the recommended amount. If you’d like to increase fiber, I’d recommend going slow and doing it with lots of water. Sounds like you’re doing many wonderful things to keep you and your family healthy. Keep up the good work! :)




      0



      0
      1. Thanks. U should know I’m nearly 70 and can’t eat as much as when i was younger. Even when I ate more meat, my cholesterol ranged from 160 to 190 with 50% of it always HDL. Doctors said my labs are beyond ideal. I have had to write out whatever I ate for a month for 1 doctor and redo labs. He’s been presenting the diet to other patients. I eat a lot of organic peanut butter and tree nuts. I also do some form of exercise an hour nearly every day.




        0



        0
        1. This all sounds fantastic! Congrats to you! Another important part of healthy eating is understanding your hunger cues – when you’re full, you’re full! And that’s ok. Please let us know if you have any additional questions. All the best!




          0



          0
    1. Even if eating that amount of lettuce was healthy , it’s simply not a sustainable way to eat , Where I live that amount of romaine lettuce would cost $45.




      0



      0
      1. Well eat cheap and then add hundreds of dollars a month in prescription cost not to mention the tens of thousands of dollars of out of pocket expenses (if you are lucky enough to have good insurance) from all the resulting medical emergencies, and an extra $45/day for a diet shown repeatedly to slash the risk of ever needing to pay those medical costs by 80% or more starts to look like a bargain. In the Unites States we spend over $9000 PER YEAR for every man, woman and child in health care costs. For a family of four that works out to $36,000 a year or just about $100/day. If we assume that shifting to a proven disease preventing diet reduces those cost by 80%, that would mean each individual could spend an additional $20/day on food and the economy would still break even.

        Now reality of course isn’t so clean. Most companies, being run by greedy bastards, wouldn’t pass along the savings in health care cost to employees in the form of higher salaries that would allow them to afford the healthier foods that enable those savings in health care costs (a very definition of a chicken and the egg problem). But you have to decide how much your health and especially that of others in your family are worth to you. What would you be willing to give up to help keep your husband from experiencing debilitating angina or even worse just drop dead one day at your kid’s soccer game (sudden cardiac death is the first indication of cardiac disease in a quarter of cases), or your wife from having to lose all of her hair to chemo and suffer terrible side effects from chemo and radiation only to still have a high chance of dying anyway.

        And it doesn’t have to be $45 worth of organic romaine lettuce a day. Just eat rice and beans (as a standard bearer for all other starch combinations) with whatever vegetables you can afford. 80% of pesticide exposure comes through animal foods, so even switching to a conventionally grown plant foods would slash your exposure to the vast majority of environmental pollutants.




        0



        0
        1. Oh I forgot,, she also consumed about 3 lbs of oranges, $4 and 2lbs of bananas $1.20 and a quarter lb of dates $3 grand total $53.20, really? I can eat healthy and eat all the things she did plus I would have some potatoes, carrots, cabbage , but not that quanity of greens she did. My point is that is stunt eating, to get more y–tubers viewers I imagine. cheers!




          0



          0
  30. You know, I agree with so much of what you say, but when the words “20 million years ago’, evolution, etc. are mentioned–nobody was there. It cannot be proved. That makes me question the credibility of the rest of what you are presenting. Please drop the evolution bit. It is passé.




    0



    0
      1. Not to mention much further back than October 23, 4004 B.C, the date of creation as determined by seventeenth-century Irish bishop, James Ussher and the date cleaved to by young earth creationist.




        0



        0
  31. I was raised on the “Theory of Evolution” I even tried mixing it with Creationism and I’ve come around to full creationist.I’m probably opening myself up for a barrage of insults BUT there is nothing you can say to alter my opinion. TOE is just that a theory and I’m not buying it anymore. Period.




    0



    0
    1. I always wonder when evolution is touted as real science if the people promoting it have ever really listened to the great creation scientists with open minds or if they are just spouting what they have been taught. There are creation scientists that were devout evolutionists that have changed their thinking after really researching both sides.




      0



      0
      1. Here is how science works. First you observe some aspect of the physical universe then you put together a hypothesis to try to explain those facts. If the hypothesis is successful in explaining the observed facts and also making successful predictions about other facts that have not yet been observed, then the hypothesis is considered confirmed and becomes a scientific theory. Scientist continue to test the theory as more observations are made. If a theory continues to explain new observations and also continues to make predictions that are subsequently found to be true, then confidence that the theory does indeed represent something about how the real universe is organized continues to grow. After a significant amount of time and work of thousands of scientists the confidence grows to a degree that the theory is considered a fact. The explanatory power of the current Theory of Evolution is so consistent, deep and broad that it is considered simply a fact.

        How science doesn’t work is to pick a theory and assume it to be correct without proof, where the basic tenets of the theory are not open to question and such is not falsifiable, can not be modified as new evidence is discovered. The Theory of Special Creation is just such a non-scientific theory. It says an outside agent (God) created the universe along with all life forms on this planet in largely their current forms within the last few thousand year. This theory is assumed true without external confirmation. It can not be falsifiable because any observations that are incompatible with the theory (geologic strata containing fossils of extinct animals and plants, stars and galaxies so far away that the light we are currently seeing left those stars billions of years ago, etc) are “explained away” (God did it as a test of our faith), and then either ignore physical facts that don’t fit with that theory or just throw up one’s hands and say “I don’t know, God did it”. And the theory can not be modified in light of new evidence.

        So there really can not be “creation science” since the primary methodology of creationism and science are in fundamental conflict with each other. So if you want to explain the universe in terms of special creation, that is completely an individual choice, but it is disingenuous to try give it an air of intellectual rigor by calling it “science”.




        0



        0
    2. So have you also decided to not buy those other things in science that are “just a theory” like gravity. It is after all gravity is “just a theory” like evolution and so do you fee that it too is open to other alternates based on personal belief?

      Which raises the question about why you are here on a site founded on a scientific approach to nutrition, which in in turn based on a scientific approach to biology. And biology only makes sense within the framework of evolution. So in a very real and direct sense everything on this website is built on a foundation of evolution.

      “The good thing about science is that it is true whether you believe in it or not” – Neil Degrasse Tyson




      0



      0
  32. Don’t know where to ask this: I’m a subscribed viewer of the videos and half-way through the book, but I can’t find what I’m looking for. I have Essential Thrombocytosis (with extremely high stroke-causing platelets). I have been doing the best I can to eat a plant-based diet, but it seems somewhat hopeless as I am not allowed the Vitamin K in leafy greens, cruciferous vegetables or fermented foods. Those all promote blood clotting and raise my platelet levels. I am seventy-seven and not on any meds except Droxia (chemotherapy) which is what my oncologist put me on after my stroke. How do I make my scarcity of options work for me?




    0



    0
    1. At nutritiondata.self.com you can search for vegetables and vegetable products lowest in vitamin k. I took a quick look and found a lot of root vegetables, squashes, mushrooms, beans and nightshades (tomatoes, eggplant, peppers, potatoes). Depending on how low you have to stay, there are also some other green vegetables on the list. I have found that website very useful for sorting foods by different nutrients. Also ask your MD about supplementing with nattokinase! (It is very anti fibrinolytic). In the natural form (natto) it has some k2 in it (which does not cause clotting anyhow, it is only K1 that does) but the extracted enzyme doesn’t have either K.

      I hope this helps! Good luck!




      0



      0
    1. Hi Jennie! I love the Forks Over Knives website for recipes. Dr. Greger’s latest book, How Not to Die, also has some really great meal planning suggestions. Best of luck and please let us know if you have any additional questions. :)




      0



      0
    2. Jennie: You were already told about the PCRM website, but I thought I would give you more specific information. I think the Physician’s Committee For Responsible Medicine has the perfect program for you! They have this program called 21 Day Kickstart. It is 21 days of meal plans, shoppoing lists, recipes, cooking and inspiration videos and even a forum for asking questions which is moderated by an awesome RD. Dr. Greger has recommended the 21 Day Kickstart program, which is generally consistent with the information on this site. If you are interested, click the green ‘register now’ button on this page: http://www.pcrm.org/kickstartHome




      0



      0
  33. SECOND TRY Don’t know where to ask this: I’m a subscribed viewer of the videos and half-way through the book, but I can’t find what I’m looking for. I have Essential Thrombocytosis (with extremely high stroke-causing platelets). I have been doing the best I can to eat a plant-based diet, but it seems somewhat hopeless as I am not allowed the Vitamin K in leafy greens, cruciferous vegetables or fermented foods. Those all promote blood clotting and raise my platelet levels. I am seventy-seven and not on any meds except Droxia (chemotherapy) which is what my oncologist put me on after my stroke. How do I make my scarcity of options work for me?




    0



    0
    1. Claire, I see that nobody has responded to you yet, and it is such a heart-felt plea that I didn’t want you to feel ignored entirely. Your question is so medically specific and potentially life-threatening if not treated correctly, that I imagine that nobody on this forum, including the MDs who frequent it, would feel comfortable giving you correspondingly specific advice. I think that there is some general advice that I think would be safe. But as always, you absolutely should discuss any changes you might make with your doctor.

      This article from the Mayo Clinic addresses aspects of diet relative to ET. Besides the advice to “eat healthy”, the one thing that caught my eye was that doctors will prescribe a low-dose aspirin to reduce blood stickiness. Well aspirin is acetylsalicylic acid which breaks down to salicylic acid in the body and it is salicylic acid that is the anti-inflammatory. Many foods naturally contain salicylic acid” and so would have same effect to make blood less sticky and so less likely to clot, but it seems without the negative gastric effects of aspirin. In addition omega-3 fatty acids are known to thin the blood, so the addition of ground flax seeds would increase the amounts of the omega-3s. And this effect is not related to the ability of the body to convert ALA (the omega-3 in flax seeds) to EPA or DHA, and so just adding a tablespoon of ground flax seeds to a morning smoothie would significantly boost ALA intake.

      Also excess fat in the blood also known as lipemia or more colorfully as “sludging of the blood” is known to increase the stickiness of the blood. Thus it seems that a diet high in foods that naturally contain salicylic acid and very low in fat, especially saturated fat, would help to keep the viscosity of your blood low, and so much less likely to stimulate the start of a clot.

      Given that modern animal breeds are bred specifically to be nice and fat (even chickens, whose meat, not just skin, now contains just as much fat as beef and pork), it would seem prudent to avoid all animal foods in order to keep blood viscosity low. Also refined liquid vegetable oils high in omega-6 fatty acids which increase blood viscosity and low in omega-3s would also be contraindicated for the same reason.

      Also when meals contain a significant percentage of calories from fat (which is nearly certain in meals containing animal foods and refined oils) negatively impact the endothelium (the cells that line the arteries). Immediately after consuming a high fat meal the ability of the endothelium to produce nitrous oxide, which besides dilating the arteries, also itself reduces blood viscosity is greatly reduced. The result is an immediate stiffening of the arteries. In the longer-term the chronic stress to the endothelial cells causes them to die, reducing baseline functioning as well.

      Ischemic stroke and heart attack happen when a plaque in the artery wall ruptures and a thrombus develops (as I am sure that you are all to much aware). The higher platelet counts then just make the situation so much worse. Not as well known is that a diet high in whole plants with very little or no animal products and refined oils can help the endothelium to heal. Plaques are reduced in size and the cap of cells that covers the smaller plaques that remain becomes thicker and much less likely to rupture. So even if platelets are higher, if the root cause of the clots that cause most heart attacks and strokes, plaque rupture, can be greatly reduced, the risk of platelet activation can be greatly reduced.

      The wonderful news is that even if our vascular tree has been under attack three times a day for decades, the body wants to heal. Endothelial progenitor cells constantly try to renew the endothelium. If given a respite from daily insults, these cells can help restore even the most devastated endothelium. So maybe the best thing for your health is to continue to help your arteries heal so that your elevated platelet count has much reduced opportunity to cause mischief.

      More directly related to reducing platelets activation, there are three videos on this web site, one on the effect of berries and the second on the effect of tomatoes on platelet activation. The third video talks about the reduction in platelet activation in onions and especially garlic. The issue with onions and garlic, unlike for tomatoes, is that the chemical that effects platelet activation is very sensitive to heat. So maybe garlic should be crushed well before it is added to a dish and then added towards the end cooking rather than at the beginning to retain as much of the effect of reduction on platelet activation as possible.

      I hope that you find this helpful.




      0



      0
  34. Hi! Can someone please explain to me what is the deal with lectins? I know the people who follow a Paleo diet demonize legumes and other types of vegetarian proteins due to this, claiming that animal protein is cleaner and better suited for a human diet. Can anyone shed some light on this, please?




    0



    0
    1. Nicole: I can understand the confusion. The amount of misinformation out there is *staggering.*
      .
      For lectins, note that it is largely destroyed by cooking. Eat your beans cooked, and viola, no problem. You can see the issue of lectins addressed on this blog post: http://nutritionfacts.org/2014/09/23/will-the-real-paleo-diet-please-stand-up/ Now, combine that information (that lectins go away when food is cooked) with this information: We have a mountain of evidence that eating beans are ultra health promoting. There are a ton of videos on this site showing the healthfulness of beans, including just living longer. Check out this summary page, especially the section showing what role bean consumption plays: http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/beans Lie #1 down.
      .
      For lie #2, I strongly recommend taking a look at this carefully researched article: http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/protein.html I used to have the same concerns you did. After doing a lot of research, including reading that article, I lost my concern about protein and I found myself educated on the topic more than just about anyone else around me. Great read! If you want to take it further, that page is just the beginning. Not only are plant proteins sufficient and healthy, but animal proteins are disease promoting. You can learn more about that topic in the book The China Study. But if you don’t want to read the book, there is a lot of information about animal proteins on this site as well. You might start by looking up the series of videos on IGF-1.
      .
      I hope this information gives you the answers you are looking for and the confidence to move forward with healthy eating. Let me know your thoughts if you have a chance to review any of this information.




      0



      0
    2. There are the stories beloved by the paleo crowd and then there are the observed facts. As Thea has noted, lectins or no lectins, beans and other legumes just seem to be good for us. Around the world, eating legumes seems to be what promotes longevity:

      “The FHILL longitudinal study shows that a higher legume intake is the most protective dietary predictor of survival amongst the elderly, regardless of their ethnicity. The significance of legumes persisted even after controlling for age at enrolment (in 5-year intervals), gender, and smoking. Legumes have been associated with long-lived food cultures such as the Japanese (soy, tofu, natto, miso), the Swedes (brown beans, peas), and the Mediterranean people (lentils, chickpeas, white beans).”
      http://apjcn.nhri.org.tw/server/APJCN/13/2/217.pdf




      0



      0
      1. Hi, Tom. Thanks for your reply. Intuitively, I knew legumes are good for you (I was born and raised in a Mediterranean country where chick peas and lentils are a staple—of course, so are a bunch of fatty animal products, but there has been a consensus on those already.)

        But, since the Paleo community presents legumes (lectins) as pretty much *poison*, I grew a bit concerned as to the validity of their claims. Glad to see solid research debunking that. And thank goodness for this site and the hard evidence it provides.

        Thanks again for your reply. People in this community seem to be so well informed and supportive.




        0



        0
        1. Thank you. The Paleo community attitude is certainly strange because there is evidence to show that humans in the Paleolithic period actually did eat legumes – and significant amounts at that – at least in certain locations and in the relevant season eg
          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440304001694

          However, it seems that once an idea becomes established in the Paleo canon it becomes sacrosanct and no mere inconvenient fact is powerful enough to overturn it.

          On lectins and health specifically, blogger has summarised the (Paleo) argument like this:
          “There is evidence that legumes provide health benefits. There is speculation that lectins cause diseases. Unfortunately, the autoimmune diseases some speculate are caused by legume lectins appear to occur more frequently in nations like the U.S., where legume consumption is rather low, than in Asian nations, where legume consumption is higher.”
          http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2011/08/legumes-neolithic-or-not.html




          0



          0
          1. Yeah, I have noticed how set in their ways people get about fad diets. It’s like a cult some times. I just want to find out the truth, even if it goes against my beliefs. I was really disappointed when I found out Coconut Oil is not as healthy as I initially thought, but… the science is the science in the end. I’m just glad olive oil is in the “amber zone”.

            Thank you so much for your input, Tom!




            0



            0
          2. Hi Tom. I agree with you about the lectins in legumes, as they are broken down by heat, but I think there is room for concern with the Wheat Germ Agglutinin lectin (found in all grains in the germ/bran fraction). This lectin is quite toxic and inflammatory and it is not at all affected by heat. This is why I try to keep my grain intake low and rely on starchy vegetables and on beans for my carbohydrates.




            0



            0
            1. Thanks but I am not so sure.

              BTW, I assume that, by definition, wheat germ agglutinin is only found in wheat but, sure, agglutinins include a range of lectin types.

              Problems with all these stories about wheat and grains are numerous. For one, they are often made by people whose credibility and reliability is dubious at best. People selling sensational books aimed at the mass market, internet entrepeneurs with websites and, well, cranks. Serious scientists and health authorities who have examined these claims do not accept them while recognising that there will be a minority of people with sensitivities to particular food stuffs.

              Another problem with such claims is that people in the past ate huge amounts of (whole) grains (compared to modern-day Americans). Some people still do. There is no record of such people suffering abnormally high rates of toxicity or inflammation-related diseases. If anything, the exact opposite is the case eg

              “This meta-analysis provides further evidence that whole grain intake is associated with a reduced risk of coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, and total cancer, and mortality from all causes, respiratory diseases, infectious diseases, diabetes, and all non-cardiovascular, non-cancer causes. These findings support dietary guidelines that recommend increased intake of whole grain to reduce the risk of chronic diseases and premature mortality.”
              http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2716

              Further, reviews of the health effects of grain lectins do not support the wild claims found on the internet or sensational mass market “health” books

              “We conclude that there are many unsubstantiated assumptions made. Current data about health effects of dietary lectins, as consumed in cooked, baked, or extruded foods do not support negative health effects in humans. In contrast, consumption of WGA containing foods, such as cereals and whole grain products, has been shown to be associated with significantly reduced risks of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, some types of cancer, as well as a more favourable long-term weight management.”
              http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0733521014000228

              Sure, it is possible to find toxic effects from grain lectins in the laboratory or in rate studies. You can find toxic effects from virtually anything if you design the study appropriately. Even water is toxic in high doses and specific circumstances. And you can turn such findings into sensational claims that garner a lot of publicity (and sales) – if you leave out all the evidence that does not suit your argument or book sales.

              It is your choice of course but I think you would be better advised to get health advice from sources like this site, Harvard, the CDC, the UK NHS and the like, rather than say Mercola and the legion of other alternative health sites.
              http://nutritionfacts.org/?fwp_search=gluten&fwp_content_type=video




              0



              0
  35. Nicole: I’m so glad I could help!!!
    .
    You are the second person in a couple of days to ask for a video about lectins. I believe that Dr. Greger keeps an eye on the forum for these types of requests. So, if there is anything to report (there may not be any information beyond, ‘it goes away with cooking’), I think Dr. Greger will try to do so.
    .
    Good luck with your new diet! I’m sure you will be happy long term.




    0



    0
    1. Thanks, Thea. I have only been fully vegan since March (vegetarian for a few months before as a gateway). So far, so good. Nutrition facts.org has helped a lot!




      0



      0
  36. Mh, intresting. But how can I figur out my daily intake of fiber? At the moment I think, every day eating only plant based food, without any oil, fad, sugar or somewhat raffined is fiber enough – mostly we, my wife, our dog an me make 21 points of Dr. Gregers daily dozend (we are not so good in sports every day and the beans sometimes are only 2 servers per day).
    OK, there is a little space to bottom up when we leaving out our morning smoothi (where can I find the vid Dr. Greger explained the problem with the destroiing fiber? Otherwise, we add to this daily smoothi 1 big tablespoon of Psyllium shells). I would be happy for any hint.




    0



    0
  37. In my face are questionmarkes… 100 g fiber every day? It seems nearly impossible. But, could it be that we have a knot in thinking, we are so focused on the science that we cant see the thinks near by?
    Could it be that not de amount of fibre intake is the most important but the relation from food intake generell to the sibstance of fibre. I mean it is a big different between 100 g poltry with 0 fiber to 100 g banana with 2,5 g fiber or even more black beans 100 g witch have abaut 5 g fibre. I try to submit the daily dozend of Mr. Greger every day – not always successful but often 21 to 22 point from 25. But hej, no chance to take 100 g…
    Beside, cann anyone give me the link to the vid about destroying fibres by making smoothies? We ad every morning 10 g Indian fleaseed husks to our smoothi each… 10 g fibre more per day. ;-)




    0



    0
    1. nutritionfacts.org/video/green-smoothies-what-does-the-science-say/
      You can look under videos for the word “smoothies” I found 4, generally there is more benefits than there are negatives to smoothies




      0



      0
  38. I would recommend a tablespoon (7 grams)ground flax seeds rather than Psylium shells. The flax gives 2 grams of fiber, but also 3 grams of fat (of which 50% is the omega-3 fatty acid alpha-linolenic acid (ALA)). Also flaxseeds are the richest source of lignans, a polyphenol that has a number of positive health effects all by itself. This website contains a number of flaxseed videos.




    0



    0
  39. I eat 90-120g/day. I have IBS-C so it’s necessary just for my GI system to work normally. To reach that I do have to use fiber powder to augment to some extent, but I get >=80g plant-based fiber a day.




    0



    0
    1. Using the theory ” someone holding a cat by the tail , knows a whole lot more about cats than someone reading a book about them” Mark Twain. I tried for 2 months a few years ago to follow a raw diet , it was great at first, lost weight, looked better, lots of positives. Then about 5th week I started getting leg cramps, at first mild, then so severe it made me sweat even to think about laying down, sometimes at night I would wake and be in excruciating pain from the cramps, after several weeks of this it got to the point where I could not lay down at all and stayed up all night ,even then I would still get cramps. I had tried magnesium and calcium but did,nt seem to help at all. So ended my experiment with raw . On the third day of a regular diet, the cramps went away.
      Now I follow a mostly McDougall, Greger type diet, really no major issues for the past 8 months.
      My blood pressure from 180/120 down to 118/79 and aweight loss of 30 lb.
      cheers!




      0



      0
  40. To Jim Felder – Gravity is NOT a theory it is a Law. Please don’t insult my intelligence. I can PROVE the Law of Gravity all day long but you can not prove the Theory of Evolution ever. In my not so humble opinion




    0



    0
    1. There is a world of difference between observed facts and the theory that explains it. So you can observe the FACT that if you step off of a cliff, you will fall to the bottom every single time. The theory of gravity to explain WHY you fall has nothing to do with the FACT that you do fall. And the current theory of gravity is known to be incomplete because there are observations that it can not explain. And so a fuller Theory of Gravity has yet to be developed. So it is in fact far from being a Fact.

      And in fact you have to be careful about which Theory of Gravity you are talking about. The Newtonian Theory of Gravity works well for everyday experiences. But it only holds when velocities are a small fraction of the speed of light. As you go progressively faster and faster F=ma becomes progressively less true if the mass used is assumed to be constant as indeed Newton’s theory does. The Einsteinian theory of gravity (also known as his Theory of General Relativity) is more complete because it successfully matches all the observations that Newton’s theory did plus observations of things traveling very fast and also about things like the sun that are very massive that Newton’s theory does not. But we know that Einsteinian theory of gravity is incomplete because it falls apart at the very small. It also fails at the event horizon of a black hole.

      Reconciling Einstein’s theory of General Relativity with Quantum mechanics, which explains the very small, but which falls apart for things much bigger than an atom, is the grand challenge facing physics today. Until then we will just have to live with an incomplete theory of gravity to explain all the facts that we have observed, like you falling when you step off of a cliff.

      Interestingly, scientist are much more confident that the current Theory of Evolution is much, much more complete than the Theory of Gravity. In fact scientists are so confident that Evolution does indeed correspond to the of how life developed on this planet that they no longer actively testing basic truth of the theory. All current research in Evolutionary Theory is aimed at understanding the full ramifications of the theory not whether or not life did evolve and continues to do so. As such the Theory of Evolution is as close to being a fact as any scientific theory is likely ever to be.

      Now I would like to ask you what scientific theory do you offer in place of the Theory of Evolution to explain the millions of observations that have been made that are explained by the Theory of Evolution? And remember in order to be a better scientific explanation it has to be able to explain every observation at least as well as Evolution does. Plus it has to make predictions of things not yet observed that are different than what the current theory predicts. Your new theory will displace the current theory if when those additional observations are made they follow what your theory says they would be and not what Evolution said they would be. But if those new observations are not what your new theory predicted, then either you have to reject your theory or modify it to include the new observations while still explaining all previous observations. So there a new theory has to do both thing, explain what has already been observed, and predict what has yet to be observed.

      For example if the Theory of Special Creation (all life was created largely in its current form all at once by an external agency (i.e. God) in the last few tens of thousands of years) was true you would expect to eventually find something like a rabbit fossil, that current evolutionary theory says can be at most a few million years old, in layers of stone that geology says are hundreds of millions of year old. A rabbit fossil in stones from the Jurassic Age (150-200 million years ago) would be completely incompatible with the very core of the Theory of Evolution. If such a fossil were ever found, then the basis for the current theory of Evolution not to mention those of Geology would be proven to be false and have to be rejected. In addition nearly all of Physics, on which the dating methods of Geology are built, and Astronomy, which says that the Universe is billions of years old, would have to be rejected as well and fundamentally different theories proposed in their place to explain how the Universe appears to be billions of years old when in fact it is only thousands of years old. But maybe you have a different theory, so care to say what it is?




      0



      0
      1. Jim Felder: I admire your patience and appreciate that you took the time to write this post. I do not know how to have a conversation with someone who doesn’t understand how science works at the most fundamental of levels. I also don’t think you can use logic here. Based on the creationist logic, the universe could have been created 300 years ago. Or 3 minutes ago. You have no proof what-so-ever (based on their reasoning) that it isn’t so. God just made everything at a point in time, including some fake indications that the world is much older, like adding some fossils and carbon dating options. By that logic, maybe world creation didn’t happen a few thousand years ago. Maybe God made us a minute ago, including fossils and our memories and technology, etc. Happy birthday!?




        0



        0
        1. Oh, I didn’t write it for Cal. I wrote it for others that might read it and not be as far gone in illogic and magical thinking.




          0



          0
  41. I do not eat 11 pounds of fruits and veges a day, but I get up to about 7-8 pounds of them every day, and I can tell you when it is time to go to boys room for a BM, get out of the way ! I am 74 years old, and the last time I had trouble with a BM, was probably about 30+ years ago. Normal for me, 3-4 BMs per day. Do not know what my fiber count is in grams, but I can tell you it is a lot !




    0



    0
  42. What about trying to lose weight?
    I am late 50’s and significantly overweight. Been whole foods plant based for almost a year now without losing one pound. Not gaining but not losing either.
    I am thinking it might be good to drop grains entirely- starch- I don’t really eat that many 2-3 servings usually oats or rice or quinoa. I would like to keep purple sweet potatoes? ;)
    I cannot really find info here about this,most says yea plant based lose weight, well guess what ;)

    Any research or advice that might include these ideas- plant based but no starch?
    Short term long term, risks benefits? Or just info on stubborn fat?
    Thanks




    0



    0
    1. Hi Tevans, I am one of the site moderators. Losing weight can be complicated and we learn more and more each day it seems. There are two short answers that you might want to answer before getting into more nitty gritty. Dr. McDougall is famous for saying, “The fat you eat is the fat you wear”. Examining what fats you eat and how much you ingest will make a difference. Remember each gram of fat is more than twice as many calories as carbs and protein. Dr. McDougall has an Ultimate Weight Loss book that delineates a no fat diet for weight loss. Likewise, Dr. Esselstyn has a no fat diet that he terms “plant perfect” since his no fat regimen is what reverses heart disease. The other short question to answer is how much of your WFPB diet consists of food that will cause your insulin to spike? That is usually the case when one ingests white rice, white potatoes, dried fruit, etc… Insulin moves the glucose into your cells for use and storage. Starch is necessary for satiety and to give you enough calories to live on but balance keeps your insulin from bouncing around and causing spikes and dips in your blood sugar.

      You may want to check out the diets of the two docs I mentioned, or if you are not interested in going oil / fat free at this point the Engine 2 diet by Rip Esselstyn is termed “Plant Strong” in that it’s all plant based but not fat free so there’s more calories. I hope this is helpful.




      0



      0
      1. Thanks for this in depth reply. I think I am feeling frustrated because I have implemented most of those ideas. the only fat I get is via nuts which Dr Greger implies dont contribute to weight gain as much as one expects & I’m miraculously not gaining ;) so they could be in the way of losing.
        Insulin spiking is a good point & the only things I would contribute to that would be my intake of grains. Funny thing I would miss the nuts but not so much he grains. Our grains are whole & we don’t use oil, its basically forks & knives style.
        In terms of calorie density the grains the beans & the sweet potatoes are the big hits. I am getting that it would be folly to give up beans.

        I am curious if there are differences in how we metabolize starchy veg (like sweet potatoes) vs grains &/ or flours. ( I would make this statement bold & italic if I could)

        I don’t eat bread more than every 3-6 months but I do get some crackers form the Engine 2 people. It seems if you want to be purist grains are pretty much processed foods or they push the boundary a bit as you have to prep them- even whole grains- and cant eat them without cooking like you could almost any fruit or veg.

        I am concerned mainly because I come to this lifestyle out of fear of cancer, as a close family member just battled ovarian cancer (so it’s apple peals for me!) & being overweight seems to raise your risk.

        At any rate I will look further into the things you have mentioned & review what I think I already know but if you are able to address the starch veg vs grain issue that would be great.
        Thanks again for you feedback & where has this site been all my life!?




        0



        0
    2. tevans: You already got a great reply from a moderator. I thought I would add my 2 cents that I often share when people ask about losing weight.
      ****************
      The nice thing about your situation is that you already understand half the battle. I’m guessing from your post that you already understand about the importance of a whole plant food diet and have at least a sense of how to implement it. That’s half the learning curve. The other half is understanding the concept of calorie density and how to apply it to weight loss so that you don’t get hungry and you still get all the nutrients you need.
      .
      Dr. Greger covers calorie density, but not in enough detail in my opinion for someone who wants to apply it for the first time. I believe that Doug Lisle is one of the experts in the Forks Over Knives documentary, and he gives a great ‘calorie density 101’ talk officially called: How To Lose Weight Without Losing Your Mind. I have watched the following talk from Doug Lisle several times and think very highly of it. And it’s free!!! And it’s entertaining! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAdqLB6bTuQ
      .
      As good as Doug Lisle’s talk is, it pretty much just gives you a solid understanding of the concept, but not enough practical information in my opinion. For starting to get the practical information, I recommend a talk from Jeff Novick,Calorie Density: “How to Eat More, Weigh Less, and Live Longer,” which is no longer for sale. Argh! (I mention it just in case you can get your hands on a copy.) Happily, there is a very good second best source for that information: an article that Jeff wrote that you can get here: http://www.jeffnovick.com/RD/Articles/Entries/2012/5/20_A_Common_Sense_Approach_To_Sound_Nutrition.html
      Be sure to pay attention to the charts.
      .
      Chef AJ tells people who want to lose weight to eat “left of the red line”, where I believe the red line is on a diagram of hers representing is about 600 calories per pound. And “left of the red line” is all the whole plant foods which are below 600 calories per pound. The above article from Jeff Novick gives you a good sense of which foods are “left of the red line” by food category. But if you want to look up the calorie density of specific foods, you can find many foods on the following site: http://nutritiondata.self.com/ Most foods on that site have the option of choose an ‘ounce’ as a size. Then you can multiply by 16 to get the calories per pound.
      .
      It would be perfectly respectable if you are one of those people who are just not interested in the theory. You just want to dive right in and want straight how-to information. If you would rather not think about any of that (or start with the theory and then move onto this step), I have one more suggestion that Dr. Greger also recommends in his book, How Not To Die. Consider going through the free program from PCRM (Physician’s Committee For Responsible Medicine) called 21 Day Kickstart. The program will “hold your hand” for 21 days, including meal plans, recipes, videos, inspirational messages, and a forum (moderated by a very respected RD) where you can ask questions.
      http://www.pcrm.org/kickstartHome/
      (Click the green “Register Now” button.)
      At the end of the program, you will have a very good practical knowledge about how to eat with healthy and “low” (normal for most people) calorie density.
      .
      Another recommendation that Dr. Greger and I share is to get Jeff Novick’s Fast Food videos for tasty, affordable, fast and healthy calorie density recipes. Also, on-line and free is a YouTube series of recipes/cooking shows called something like Chef AJ and The Dietician. I know that Chef AJ will not steer you wrong in terms of weight loss and providing accurate nutrition information.




      0



      0
    3. Hello tevans I like to give also my mustard to this conversation. I’m not a NF Moderator but I’m a Registered German naturopath and a vegan for 6 years now.
      Only some thoughts by reading yours.
      What about exercise?
      How is your sleep and how long?
      What about thyroid function?
      How much beverages you consum daily and which kind of?
      Are there any empty calories, may be hidden somewhere in food from the store?
      I know there are different oppinions on this topic but it seems to be for some people also important to have a bigger gap between the main meals – some talk from 5 to 6 hours, to let the gut fulfill his task without any stress.
      And last but not least – do you cooke by your or do you go often to eat outside?

      In my own experiences by my self and my patients it would be also may helpful to keep a nutrition diary for aboout 4 weeks. So you can see what you have eaten. ;-)

      Like I said…. only thoughts. ;-) Good luck…




      0



      0
  43. In 11/14, my LDL was 101. In 11/15, it was 160. I continued the same eating and other habits, but on Sept. 5 of 2016 I switched to a plant based diet after seeing Esselstyn’s video and doing some research (which led me to this site).

    I don’t follow Esselstyn exactly; I eat hummus with Tahini; my favorite tortillas are whole corn, but have some refined wheat, and I do eat a few walnuts.

    Nonetheless, I had blood work two months later (11/16) and my LDL was down 34.4% (now 107).

    I look forward to re-testing in January :-)




    0



    0
  44. Can we truly hand this much fiber? How long did it take for these people in the study to be able to handle this much fiber? I would think they had abdominal pain, gas, and bloating alot. How would this much fiber affect our gut microbe?




    0



    0
    1. Hi Chris – I’m a volunteer moderator helping answer questions for Dr. Greger. This video certainly gives us lots of food for thought about what we consider a normal, high fibre diet (25-35 g) and what our ancestors ate (100g or more!). To try an answer your question, I went to the Jenkins article, but unfortunately I wasn’t able to access it to see if there were comments about GI distress with the study participants and adaptation response at 150 g of fibre a day, but it would make sense that there would have been some! In terms of impact of fiber on our gut microbes we could speculate given the health benefits that Dr. G has cited with numerous other videos that there isn’t a downside, other than potential GI side effects as you have wondered about.




      0



      0
  45. I just checked Cron-O-Meter for the last week – 101.6 grams ave. per day for fiber – looks like I’m right on track. Nice to know.




    0



    0

Leave a Reply

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

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This