The Best Advice on Diet and Cancer

The Best Advice on Diet and Cancer
4.8 (96.09%) 138 votes

What the best available balance of evidence says right now about what to eat and avoid to reduce your risk of cancer.

Discuss
Republish

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

In 1982, a “landmark report on diet, nutrition, and cancer” was released by the National Academy of Sciences, “the first major, institutional, science-based report on this topic.” The report started out saying that yes, scientists must be careful in their choice of words, whenever they are not totally confident about their conclusions. But, for example, by that time, it had become “absolutely clear” that cigarettes were killing people. But, “[if] the population had been persuaded to stop smoking when the association with lung cancer was first reported, these cancer deaths would now not be occurring.” If you wait for absolute certainty, millions of people could die in the meantime. That’s why, sometimes, you have to invoke the “precautionary principle.”

For example, emphasizing that “fruits and vegetables [may] reduce the risk of several common forms of cancer.” We’re not completely sure, but there’s good evidence, and what’s the downside of eating more fruits and vegetables? So, why not give it a try?

The 1982 National Academy of Sciences report continued: “The public is now asking about the causes of cancers that are not associated with smoking. What are these causes, and how can these cancers be avoided? Unfortunately, it is not yet possible to make firm scientific pronouncements about the association between diet and cancer. We are in an interim stage of knowledge similar to that for cigarettes 20 years ago. Therefore, in the judgment of the committee, it is now the time to offer some interim guidelines on diet and cancer.”

For example, they raised concern about processed meats. And, 30 years later, it was confirmed: processed meat was officially declared “carcinogenic to humans.” Maybe if we would have listened back then, maybe we would have been spared Lunchables, which, if taken apart, a CEO of Philip Morris describes reading, “the most healthy item in it is the napkin.”

“The findings of this [diet and cancer] report generated a striking level of disbelief from the cancer community and outright hostility from people and the industries whose livelihood depended on the foods…being questioned,” to the point of accusing one of the authors of the report of “killing people,” with formally organized petitions “to expel [the researchers] from their professional societies…clearly, a very sensitive nerve was touched.”

The American Meat Science Association and other members of the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology criticized the report. Yeah, maybe it would save lives, but the recommended “reductions in meat consumption would sharply reduce incomes to the livestock and meat processing industries.” “The fruit and vegetable industries would clearly benefit…if consumers were to implement the guidelines. However, fruits and vegetables account for less than 15 percent of cash receipts.” Most of the money is in “cattle, hogs, poultry products, feed grains, and oil crops.” That reminds me of the tobacco industry memos where Philip Morris spoke of the tobacco industry going “bankrupt.”

“Maybe it’s not the meat that’s causing cancer,” the industry critique continued, but all the “marihuana” people are smoking these days. “How…can one argue that such an abundant diet causes cancer?” Maybe you’re all just jealous of all the good food we’re eating, like the Puritans that “condemned bear baiting, not because of the pain for the bear but because of the pleasure of the spectators.” You can’t tell us to cut down on meat; “one of mankind’s few remaining pleasures is that of the table.”

The day the National Academy of Sciences report was published was “The Day That Food Was Declared a Poison,” declared Thomas Jukes, the guy who discovered you could speed up the growth of chickens by feeding them antibiotics. How dare the National Academy of Sciences recommend people eat fruits, vegetables, and whole grains daily, which were said to contain “as yet unidentified compounds that may protect us against certain cancers”? “How can one select foods that contain unidentified compounds? This is not a scientific recommendation; it sounds like ‘health food store’ literature.”

My favorite, though, was to think about the human breast. How can animal fat be bad for us if breastfeeding women create so much of it? Women are animals; their mammary glands make fat for breast milk. Therefore, we shouldn’t have to cut down on burgers. Huh?

So, anyway, what did the latest science tell us about nutrition and cancer? What were the other five recommendations? We talked about eating more fruits and vegetables. Consumption of soy products may not only reduce the risk of getting breast cancer, but also increase chances of surviving it. Then, in terms of dietary-guidance-suggestions-on-foods-to cut-down-on, where evidence is sufficiently compelling, recommendations included “limiting or avoiding dairy products to reduce the risk of prostate cancer; limiting or avoiding alcohol to reduce the risk of cancers of the mouth, [throat], esophagus, colon, rectum, and breast; avoiding red and processed meat to reduce the risk of cancers of the colon and rectum; and avoiding grilled, fried, and broiled meats to reduce the risk of cancers of the colon, rectum, breast, prostate, kidney, and pancreas.” In this context, they’re talking about all meat, including poultry and fish.

Look, we all have to make dietary decisions every day. We “cannot wait for the evolution of scientific consensus.” Until we know more, “to protect [ourselves and our families, all we can do is act on] the best available evidence [we have right now].”

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: Kristina DeMuth. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

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

In 1982, a “landmark report on diet, nutrition, and cancer” was released by the National Academy of Sciences, “the first major, institutional, science-based report on this topic.” The report started out saying that yes, scientists must be careful in their choice of words, whenever they are not totally confident about their conclusions. But, for example, by that time, it had become “absolutely clear” that cigarettes were killing people. But, “[if] the population had been persuaded to stop smoking when the association with lung cancer was first reported, these cancer deaths would now not be occurring.” If you wait for absolute certainty, millions of people could die in the meantime. That’s why, sometimes, you have to invoke the “precautionary principle.”

For example, emphasizing that “fruits and vegetables [may] reduce the risk of several common forms of cancer.” We’re not completely sure, but there’s good evidence, and what’s the downside of eating more fruits and vegetables? So, why not give it a try?

The 1982 National Academy of Sciences report continued: “The public is now asking about the causes of cancers that are not associated with smoking. What are these causes, and how can these cancers be avoided? Unfortunately, it is not yet possible to make firm scientific pronouncements about the association between diet and cancer. We are in an interim stage of knowledge similar to that for cigarettes 20 years ago. Therefore, in the judgment of the committee, it is now the time to offer some interim guidelines on diet and cancer.”

For example, they raised concern about processed meats. And, 30 years later, it was confirmed: processed meat was officially declared “carcinogenic to humans.” Maybe if we would have listened back then, maybe we would have been spared Lunchables, which, if taken apart, a CEO of Philip Morris describes reading, “the most healthy item in it is the napkin.”

“The findings of this [diet and cancer] report generated a striking level of disbelief from the cancer community and outright hostility from people and the industries whose livelihood depended on the foods…being questioned,” to the point of accusing one of the authors of the report of “killing people,” with formally organized petitions “to expel [the researchers] from their professional societies…clearly, a very sensitive nerve was touched.”

The American Meat Science Association and other members of the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology criticized the report. Yeah, maybe it would save lives, but the recommended “reductions in meat consumption would sharply reduce incomes to the livestock and meat processing industries.” “The fruit and vegetable industries would clearly benefit…if consumers were to implement the guidelines. However, fruits and vegetables account for less than 15 percent of cash receipts.” Most of the money is in “cattle, hogs, poultry products, feed grains, and oil crops.” That reminds me of the tobacco industry memos where Philip Morris spoke of the tobacco industry going “bankrupt.”

“Maybe it’s not the meat that’s causing cancer,” the industry critique continued, but all the “marihuana” people are smoking these days. “How…can one argue that such an abundant diet causes cancer?” Maybe you’re all just jealous of all the good food we’re eating, like the Puritans that “condemned bear baiting, not because of the pain for the bear but because of the pleasure of the spectators.” You can’t tell us to cut down on meat; “one of mankind’s few remaining pleasures is that of the table.”

The day the National Academy of Sciences report was published was “The Day That Food Was Declared a Poison,” declared Thomas Jukes, the guy who discovered you could speed up the growth of chickens by feeding them antibiotics. How dare the National Academy of Sciences recommend people eat fruits, vegetables, and whole grains daily, which were said to contain “as yet unidentified compounds that may protect us against certain cancers”? “How can one select foods that contain unidentified compounds? This is not a scientific recommendation; it sounds like ‘health food store’ literature.”

My favorite, though, was to think about the human breast. How can animal fat be bad for us if breastfeeding women create so much of it? Women are animals; their mammary glands make fat for breast milk. Therefore, we shouldn’t have to cut down on burgers. Huh?

So, anyway, what did the latest science tell us about nutrition and cancer? What were the other five recommendations? We talked about eating more fruits and vegetables. Consumption of soy products may not only reduce the risk of getting breast cancer, but also increase chances of surviving it. Then, in terms of dietary-guidance-suggestions-on-foods-to cut-down-on, where evidence is sufficiently compelling, recommendations included “limiting or avoiding dairy products to reduce the risk of prostate cancer; limiting or avoiding alcohol to reduce the risk of cancers of the mouth, [throat], esophagus, colon, rectum, and breast; avoiding red and processed meat to reduce the risk of cancers of the colon and rectum; and avoiding grilled, fried, and broiled meats to reduce the risk of cancers of the colon, rectum, breast, prostate, kidney, and pancreas.” In this context, they’re talking about all meat, including poultry and fish.

Look, we all have to make dietary decisions every day. We “cannot wait for the evolution of scientific consensus.” Until we know more, “to protect [ourselves and our families, all we can do is act on] the best available evidence [we have right now].”

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: Kristina DeMuth. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Doctor's Note

The level of evidence required to make decisions depends on the level of risk. If we’re talking about some new drug, for example, given the fact that medications kill more than 100,000 Americans a year (Why Prevention Is Worth a Ton of Cure) you want to be darn sure that the benefits outweigh the risks before you prescribe it (or take it!). But what level of evidence do you need to eat broccoli? Do you need randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials? (How would you even design a placebo vegetable?) Even if all the evidence suggesting how powerful broccoli is turned out to be some crazy cruciferous conspiracy, what’s the worst that could have happened? It’s healthy anyway. That’s the beauty of safe, simple, side effect-free solutions provided by the lifestyle medicine approach. It can only help.

I’ve got tons more videos on diet and cancer. How Not to Die from Cancer may be a good place to start.

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here and to my audio podcast here (subscribe by clicking on your mobile device’s icon).

186 responses to “The Best Advice on Diet and Cancer

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

  1. I think the video should have addressed some of the quotes instead of mocking them. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachable_moment)

    At 4:30 for example there is this quote about how human breast milk contains a high saturated fat and cholesterol content. Why not explain to us why it is good for a human baby to drink a substance that has 50% of it’s fat coming from saturated composure.

    While cholesterol is made in ample amounts by the adult body, why does human breast milk contain it? In this fashion; if a baby would follow dietary recommendations, I would have to stop drinking mother’s milk all together. It would have been informative to learn something from these (nutrition)facts.

    German, J. B., & Dillard, C. J. (2010). Saturated fats: a perspective from lactation and milk composition. Lipids, 45(10), 915-923.

    1. The US 2015-20 Dietary Guidelines don’t apply to children under one year of age.

      Also, the nutritional needs of unweaned infants and adults are universally recognised as being different.

      As an example, one thing to bear in mind is that there is no fibre in breast milk. The human body uses fibre to help manufacture important short chain fatty aids like butyrates (these are saturated fatty acids) which are important in not just wider fat synthesis but also cholesterol synthesis. .Therefore it is not surprising that human breast milk would provide relatively high levels of both (saturated) fat and cholesterol since totally breast-fed infants are unable to synthesise these in the same way that adults and older children can.

      It is therefore rather risible to argue that the nutrional content of milk provides a good guide to the nutritional needs of fully grown adult humans (or cattle for that matter).

      1. Perhaps I should clarify my last sentence by amending it to read:

        ‘It is therefore rather risible to argue that the nutritional content of milk provides a good guide to the DIETARY needs of fully grown adult humans (or cattle for that matter).’

        1. Tom,

          Thanks for the reply.

          I haven’t really learned about these topics all that much.

          It seems like breast milk is something animals/humans only get for a short time period across the board and I have never contemplated why. Are you giving the reason they need it and then they stop needing it?

          Sorry for sounding uneducated in such things (because I am uneducated in it.)

          I can look it up sometime, but since you are making comments I will ask.

          1. Sorry Deb, I don’t really know enough about it to give you an authoritative answer. To be honest, I am not sure that anybody does. There is a fair bit that is still not known

            However, while many creature hatching from eggs can forage and feed themselves from the start, mammals and eg montremes can’t. Their systems aren’t fully developed. Their nutritional needs may be different because they need to grow and develop rapidly unlike adults and even older children. Certain lipids and proteins may be required in greater quantities than for adults. The literature on this is pretty specialist and far above my intellectual pay grade. However, this article might be worth a read if you want to go into some detail:

            ‘ Little is known in this respect about the development of digestive function and the digestion and absorption of lipids by the newborn. This review gives a detailed overview of the distinct functionalities that dietary lipids from human milk and infant formula provide and the profound differences in the physiology and biochemistry of lipid digestion between infants and adults.’
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3528963/

      2. “As an example, one thing to bear in mind is that there is no fibre in breast milk. The human body uses fibre to help manufacture important short chain fatty aids like butyrates (these are saturated fatty acids) which are important in not just wider fat synthesis but also cholesterol synthesis. .Therefore it is not surprising that human breast milk would provide relatively high levels of both (saturated) fat and cholesterol since totally breast-fed infants are unable to synthesise these in the same way that adults and older children can.”

        That was exactly what I was looking for, good stuff, thanks.

        1. Breast milk may not contain fiber, but it contains other indigestible carbohydrates that perform the same function of feeding, and encouraging the growth of, healthy gut bacteria.

        2. Awesome response from Tom. But if Dr. Greger addressed every single ridiculous comment (and I only know about the ones highlighted, I’m sure there were many others), this video may have to be turned into a series.

          1. “Yes, it was laughable of me to use it really.”
            – – – – – –

            As are many of our comments: laughable.

            The Life of Brian guys were really unique. Biggus Dickus. :-)

  2. Well, eggs were not banned (here)… but other than that, is there any animal food not excluded? Especially interesting because it is a review, so great news!

    1. @Rick

      There’s no benefit to eating something that will not cause cancer if it’s going to cause heart disease.
      As a rule, all animal based foods are excluded from a healthy human diet.

      From an evolutionary standpoint you would have to eat or rather “supplement”, your primate diet with insects and an occasional lean meat at no more than 5% of total calories. And even this is an evolutionary trade off for scarce nutrients that comes with slightly worse cardiovascular health.

    2. Rick,

      Fish is the one only included in the cooked category.

      There are toxins in most of it, so that is another subject, but it is not covered and that was your question.

      The Dr. in Ireland who applied T. Colin Campbell’s work to his Cancer patients allowed them to eat a small amount of fish and they were able to succeed at staying alive with that. The patients who cheated too often died.

  3. I don’t need randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials. I’ve been on board for a few years now and the only side effects have been a stable healthy weight, lower blood pressure, better nutritional blood sample results, and feeling better in general. Thanks for your very informative videos and posts! They help confirm things I’m trying to accomplish with my health, and it is working.

    1. I saw T. Colin Campbell arguing in a recent talk, that what we are witnessing here (current trials and research on a WFPB diet) is in fact the discovery of nature.

      1. “I saw T. Colin Campbell arguing in a recent talk, that what we are witnessing here (current trials and research on a WFPB diet) is in fact the discovery of nature.” AGREE!! Oh how brilliantly put… that is exactly it.

    2. I think I get what you mean, but in PW none of the four paradigms can be validated by empirical analysis. It’s more of a “what makes the most sense” philosophical issue, as I understand it. But with nutrition the more analysis and research you can complete, the better you are able to make a sensible choice. For example, if Dr. G. kept finding studies that vindicated eggs and dairy as health promoting or healing, that would (slowly) compel me to move across the line from WFPB to lacto-ovo WFPB. (But, I don’t think that’s ever going to happen.)

      Just like PW, though, we’re all “in” one of the paradigms at any time. Stimmt das?

        1. Well, that’s not exactly where I was going there… I was contrasting Pascal’s philosophical Wager with an empirical science, like nutrition. “Science,” as I define it, is mankind’s attempt to make sense of Creation. That’s how the two are related. We are busy compiling a database of scientific knowledge (some true, some not entirely true) based on what we observe. We are never done learning new things and replacing old, errant data with revised data as we go along. I have a significant interest in the “nutrition” knowledge database we are compiling and how it relates to health. That’s why I’m here.

          Regarding Pascal… I never did care for his “wager” that much. A bit inadequate for my liking. Yet, for my own reasons, I choose to believe in and acknowledge a Designer of all things, including the amazing human digestive system.

        2. Umm, not sure why spiritual views are being brought into this. I guess I should counter with my own in saying that God is real and so is nutrition… but I don’t normally state spiritual beliefs as facts presented to everyone and it irritates me when people do thus my response.

  4. I mostly agree but:

    SUGAR.

    None of the quoted excerpts say anything about the role off sugar
    in destroying health and, among other things, causing cancer.
    Any time any food with ANY form of sugar is eaten,
    that means less antioxidants etc are being eaten. That means less health.

    1. Sydney,

      I don’t know if that is a true sentence. Not trying to argue, but I am not sure if someone only eats their berries with sugar if they get more antioxidants leaving the berries out. That would be an example.

      Dr. McDougall is “use a spoonful of sugar or a pinch of salt if it is what it takes to make the food palatable.”

      Salt, Dr. Greger has given an argument against, based on studies and some people argue against it, but there are studies.

      I don’t know if there is a “spoonful of date sugar” or a “spoonful of Stevia” or a “spoonful of honey” studies.

      Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down would be the song playing in the background.

      And, no I don’t really use sugar, but my relatives really would eat berries or tea with sugar and wouldn’t eat any without them.

      I just hated berries and sugar wouldn’t help, but I have done an extensive reprogramming process for it.

      1. Deb 14

        I am a bit confused.

        I find most berries and fruit to be much too sweet for me and I have to eat them with meat and oil.

        But I am strong advocate of “re-educating ones taste buds” to learn to enjoy foods that are not sweet.

        1. Sydney,

          Yes, I have been working on that for myself, but my family is SAD diet and sometimes Keto and aren’t open to fruits and veggies. They don’t eat fruits and veggies almost at all, but they will eat something like berries with whipped cream.

          The question is whether they are better never eating the fruit or eating it with the sugar.

          They wouldn’t drink tea at all unless there was something sweetening it.

          Which is worse, drinking soda or beer or drinking iced tea with a spoonful of sugar? I haven’t decided.

          1. I’ve always taken both tea and coffee straight….nothing added. Never ever got into the soda “pop” habit. Blech! :-(

            My sister likes cold drinks and I like water to be room temperature. When I’m at a restaurant I always tell them “no ice, please.” (But then I also bring my own filtered water/ACV concoction with me when I eat out — ever since the time I got parasites from who-knows-what one time.)

            http://www.doctoryourself.com/honey.html

    2. Sydney, Do you mean to include fruit?

      Eating fruit, even lots of fruit, is very healthful. I eat quite a lot of fruit in my 100% whole plant food diet and my A1c was 5.0 at last measurement, which equates to an average daily blood sugar level of 97 over a 3 month period. Also, my triglycerides were only 73, total cholesterol 137, LDL 83 (no statins), even though I also eat lots of intact grains as well as lots of fruit. But I also burn the calories I eat with lots of challenging exercise. At age 71, I laugh when my GP says that according to current recommendations I should be on a statin! Ok, went a bit off topic…but the bottom line is that a WFP diet with lots of fruit is working for me – no meds whatsoever. I hope my experience will encourage others to go 100% W

      1. I should add, under th current statin recommendations, no matter what your cholesterol profile or lifestyle or medical history is like, if you are old enough, statins will be recommended. Crazy!

        1. Absolutely crazy.
          This one local fitness guru out here was always advocating for their use and buying into the idea anyone at a certain age had to have them.

          Well yes, he on them now for 15 years…go figure..side effects, of the kind that can not be ignored and thus forced to get off them.
          So problem not solved and seemingly by my read unless he changes his diet…a big problem lies ahead.

        2. Gengogadushka, I am surprised that your doctor recommended that you take statins; did he provide a reason? My husband is now 75, and his PCP has not recommended statins to him –instead, the advice is basically to just keep on doing what he’s doing. Vegetarian after he met me 10 years ago (as a widower eating SAD, he was happy to eat my cooking — even if it was vegetarian), and then a gradual transition to WFPB eating. He’s lost about 45-50 pounds over the years (he was overweight when we met), and does only moderate exercise (yard work, vacuuming, dishes (yay!!), walking, slow cycling, climbing stairs, etc). He was taking niacin when I met him, and aspirin to control the side effects (prescribed by another Dr who is now retired — old school?), but that soon stopped (at my request; I thought it was crazy!). Like you, he takes no meds, and he doesn’t plan to.

          1. Statins are of no great benefit for those aged over 75 – unless they are diabetic. The benefits are quite significant for aging diabetics.
            Personally, I would never supplement with statins unless also co-supplementing with coenzyme Q10. Statins diminish CoQ10 levels, which is already declining with age.

      2. MY APOLOGIES.

        I meant to say any form of ADDED sugar causes ill health.
        I have no idea what studies may have been done.
        It is just my own experience.

        Most berries and fruit are fine,
        though I suspect over the last thousands of years
        fruit has been selectively cultivated to be sweeter and sweeter.
        It is actually the first form of GMO.

        1. When I said Dr. McDougall’s answer.

          He wasn’t against a spoonful of sugar, but he was against refined carbs like white flour and white pasta, so I had better clarify.

          1. I don’t think I ate any fruit at all for 30 years.

            I found out that it is easy for me to fall back into not eating fruits and vegetables.

            I ate more salad when I used to eat salad dressings or when I would put some pasta salad on it, but that had oil, too.

            I found out that I could be a mono eater of whatever I start eating.

            Right now, I am back in chili most nights. Then, I can go through a few months of beans and rice.

            Then, I end up doing the blue corn tortilla tacos for a few weeks. Those have tortillas, which has oil, so I try not to do those as often.

            Anyway, once I get in those habits, I tend to not eat fruit or veggies.

            I have started pausing and having veggie wraps for a few weeks every now and then, but if I didn’t have a mental “Nope, I need some veggies” I wouldn’t eat them. It is even easier to not eat fruit.

            Beans and rice and textured vegetable grounds and veggie chicken would be what I would eat probably eat every day, except that I have watched studies telling me that maybe too many of the soy burgers aren’t good for me and I really should eat something other than beans occasionally. I even end up just eating beans or just eating rice or just eating pasta or just eating potatoes.

            I have something wrong with the part of my brain where you move onto the next thing. I don’t know how to explain it, but I am very, very, very good at being single focused right now, including with food.

            1. Wow Deb….I’m the opposite. I call myself The Casserole Kid; I like a little of this and a little of that. And ALWAYS a raw salad with the main meal. (I have fruit at lunchtime…)

              To go so long without fruit and veggies like you? Nope, I’d go bonkers for sure if I ate the very same thing for dinner day after day after, with no variety. ‘Tis interesting how we’re all so different.

      1. Pam, I was equally amazed to see the candy, cookies, cake, potato chips & donuts in the chemo section at an oncologist’s office. Actually, amazed isn’t the word. I was appalled.

        1. I can not even begin to count all of the respiratory therapists I have met that give severely ill emphysema patients breathing treatments that have cigarettes in their own pockets. Some of the most unhealthy people work in medicine. Most rush through a convenient lunch and do not notice the weigh gains and health problems made possible by choosing poor quality nutrition until they get told they have a condition. And even then very few are even told they ate themselves there. Instead it’s ‘take this pill and keep doing it’.

          1. Jimbo, in defense of medical professionals: They often have grueling schedules. My daughter is a nurse, and worked 12 hour night shifts at a hospital — she told me she was lucky to get 15 min to eat anything, and rarely had time to use the bathroom. Then she had to work additional hours just to complete her charting. Now she’s a visiting nurse, mostly hospice — with the same crazy schedule. It’s nuts. I don’t think her situation is unique.

    3. Sidney, are there any studies linking sugar intake with cancer? Are you talking about refined sugar?

      I agree that every calorie of processed food has a nutritional opportunity cost. This principle has had a huge impact cleaning up my diet and making every calorie count.

    4. Sydney

      Table and other refined sugars have no place in a whole food plant based diet. However, the claim that sugar directly promotes cancer has no scientific basis as far as I know. It is a claim that is vigously promoted by defenders of high saturated fat consumption who seem to think that if sugar can be seen as promoting cancer (or cardiovascular disease), that would somehow automatically exonerate high saturated fat consumption. The logic of this argument escapes me but it seems to be widely made on the internet. According to the American Institute for Cancer Research:

      ‘Does sugar feed cancer? This is one of our most frequently asked questions.
      There is no strong evidence that directly links sugar to increased cancer risk, yet there is an indirect link.
      All cells in our body — including cancer cells — need sugar (glucose) from our bloodstream for fuel. We get that blood sugar from foods containing carbohydrates, including vegetables, fruits, whole grains and low-fat dairy sources. Some glucose is produced within our bodies from protein.

      But eating a lot of high-sugar foods may mean more calories than you need, which leads to excess weight and body fat. It is excess body fat that increases risk of many common cancers. That is why AICR recommends eating a diet rich in nutritious and filling foods, such as whole grains, vegetables, fruit and beans and replacing sugary beverages with low- or no-calorie drinks’
      http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-cancer-risk/diet/sugar-and-cancer-risk.html

      Again, Dr Greger’s views here are reflective of the dietary recommendations of mainstream organisations like AICR – this is because they all base their analyses and recommendations on what the science shows.

      Fruits nevertheless contain high amounts of natural sugar and are jam-packed with anti-oxidants.
      https://nutritionfacts.org/video/antioxidant-content-of-300-foods-2/

      You wrote ‘that means less antioxidants etc are being eaten. That means less health.’ You eat beef and eggs every day yet they are very low in antioxidants.
      Isn’t there an inconsistency here?

    5. Sydney, where is the evidence on that? You didn’t provide any. There is evidence that sugar from whole plant foods, such as fruit, does not harm health. There’s actually a video on here where they were trying to find the limit to healthy fruit intake or something like that, people were eating I forget how many servings of fruit everyday (it was an incredible amount) and their health improved. I eat fruit all the time and I use maple syrup to sweeten things sometimes, make desserts with natural syrup, coconut sugar, etc. and my health doesn’t seem to suffer, I’m healthier than I ever have been since going WFPB, of course I don’t eat sugary foods all the time, except natural whole foods like fruit.

  5. The beginning of this video was quite entertaining.

    “the most healthy item in it is the napkin.” is a good one.

    You’re killing me figuratively as an argument to not letting people know what is killing them literally is a fascinating use of logic.

    1. I actually found the lunchables thing really sad… It was funny and true but I thought about all the moms (and dads) back when there wasn’t this much information out there, getting their kids these things and justifying it because they were taught to believe the protein was good or the dairy was good or good enough to consider it a healthy ENOUGH snack. The misinformation is really sad when you think about the victims it creates. Then of course you have the deeper side which is the misinformation about what the animals go through to make these things and it’s an unbelievable tragedy. Just horrible all around.

  6. I was most impressed by the video on methionine restriction, to prevent cancer. And this video suggests avoiding animal protein, that is effectively the same thing. But plant protein is OK due to being low in methionine. I’d like to hear more about that.

    1. Dave,

      Yes, pulling off the Methionine restriction diet is an interesting thing.

      I saw a YouTube video of a woman who went all fruit alternating with WFPB to get rid of Cancer.

      I think it was that.

      She looked at the sources of Methionine and looked for the lowest levels.

      I think I read that there is a risk of developing anemia staying too low for too long, but that might have been for animals.

      There are humans who just eat fruit and they do have some nutritional and dental concerns, but YouTube does have a woman who did an N of 1 on Methionine restriction and her own Cancer.

    2. “But plant protein is OK due to being low in methionine.”

      Not only that, but plant protein is also safe as opposed to animal protein because its structure is so different from our own protein and because of this, it does not raise IGF-1 hormones–which cause, spread, and proliferate cancer–when we consume it. The only almost sort of exception is soy because soy is the closest plant protein to animal protein, however, you’d have to eat ridiculous amounts of soy in a day in order to accomplish this. He has two videos on this, I wish I could remember the title, I loved with the one where he explained the similar structure of our own protein to that of other animals and the problem with this, the soy video would be easy to find.

    3. Hello Dave!
      That’s Right, there’s a link between methionine consumption and cancer risk. If you want to know more about it, you can check these couple of videos by Dr. Greger:

      https://nutritionfacts.org/video/methionine-restriction-as-a-life-extension-strategy/

      https://nutritionfacts.org/video/starving-cancer-with-methionine-restriction/

      Also

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22342103
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29733806
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5341870/

      Hope it helps!

    1. Charles, I too had that problem – but no more :-) Try Apple Cider Vinegar, start with a teaspoon or so in a glass of water (as needed) and move up the dose – as you start to enjoy – to about 1-2 tablespoons. Counter intuitive? I know it is! But, it works for many. You will only know if it works for you if you try it.
      Literally thousands of “anecdotal” articles out there such as https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/apple-cider-vinegar-for-heartburn-2018032813530.

      Good luck Charles.

      1. Added note: Tom made a good point below about caution re the added sodium. 3/4 of a tsp equates to about a gram of sodium and some people are sensitive. In the video, Dr Greger says specifically that in the one study there was no change in blood pressure, and in the other people had an improvement in blood pressures. And ! Their cholesterol was lower in both studies, by 10 % and by 15% which is why Dr Greger suggests giving it a try.
        https://nutritionfacts.org/video/alkaline-water-a-scam/

        http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=15113945

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=19954956

    2. Charles, you might enjoy this older video of Dr Greger’s that specifically addresses drinking baking soda in water. Interesting studies too. I keep meaning to make it a habit to drink more water in a day – thanks for the reminder! Btw, I did suffer acid reflux and took proton pump inhibitors for years which I then detoxed from when I started wfpb eating. I rarely have a problem now – I try not to overeat, and I get up and walk after meals usually. Good luck!

      https://nutritionfacts.org/video/alkaline-water-a-scam/

    3. Baking soda is very high in sodium so I’d be very wary of ingesting it on a reguar basis. This livestrong.com article might be wrth a read
      https://www.livestrong.com/article/491110-the-risks-of-using-baking-soda-to-reduce-stomach-acid/

      As for apple cider vinegar, it is highly acidic and too much could damage your tooth enamel or the tissues in your mouth and or throat. So, it would probably be best to take it with food or, if drunk, then diluted in water.

      1. Tom, you are quite right. A very close relative is terminal with a huge stomach mass because (according to his cancer specialists) he well and truly overdid the apple cider vinegar. More is not always better.

        1. Thanks Peter. I must admit I’m surprised because the only other warnings I’ve seen about (apple cider) vinegar consumption concern eg gastroparesis, osteoporosis risk and a possible adverse effect on potassium levels. It’s ironic because acid reflux drugs (PPIs) themselves increase gastric cancer risk. This is one reason, of course, why people take ACV instead.

          It’s of interest to me because I have type A+ blood and type A blood is a known risk factor for stomach cancer
          http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-type/stomach/risks/?region=on

          To be honest, though, I would have thought long-term baking soda consumption more likely to have been associated with increased risk of gastric cancer bcause of its high sodium content.

          It just goes to show that foods can be very powerful drugs with the potential to do both good and harm.

          1. Incidentally Tom, my long response to Dr G’s post on this subject appears to have been censored….again ! In effect, it evidenced research studies on the (modest) link between prostate cancer and dairy, suggesting it is more likely the combination of excess calcium, perhaps supplemented vitamin D, and (especially) a vitamin K deficiency. In regards milk, this may manifest in skim or low fat milk, and a vitamin K deficiency exacerbated by the removal of fat soluble vitamins. The richest source by far of vitamin K2 is dairy, far more so than plants (vitamin K1). Obviously, scientific evidence is only scientific when it corresponds to the belief system being propagated. Those who are interested in the studies can try contacting me directly.

            1. “The richest source by far of vitamin K2 is dairy, far more so than plants (vitamin K1).”
              – – – – – –

              So dairy does have its good points?

            2. Peter

              I’d try asking the Support Staff to confirm that. One of my posts disappeared over the weekend too. I think it may have been a technical fault but I have been too lazy to follow up on it.

              Another post of mine failed to appear this morning because it had a link to a Diabetes.co website in the UK. I just deleted the link on the third attempt at posting and hey presto it appeared.

              I’ve noticed in the past, that te system spits the dummy when posts contain certain weblinks. I think it is some kind of automatic spam filter or something of that kind rather than a deliberate policy of censoring inconvenient information. Certainly, we’ve had some shockers of posters here who have been tolerated for a long time and I doubt that your very reasonably expressed posts would be deleted. As I say, I think that the problem was probably not your post as such but some technical issue with one or more of the links it contained. You can get round this by giving the name(s) of the papers you were referring to rather than an actual link.

              Try posting again without the actual link if it’s not too much trouble and/or contact the support staff using the button at the bottom of the page. I’d certainly be interested in seeing what you have to say.

              1. Tom, thanks for the reply. I was also blocked from posting after my initial post. Which suggests something more is happening. All I can do is reply to comments.
                My initial post was also critical of T.Colin Campbell – not the man (who I do respect) but rather the science. If I had known he was a user of the service I would not have done so. Anyhow, that may have been part of the problem. Dr G quotes Mr Campbells work when attacking dairy consumption, linking it to prostate cancer. There is so much research that links dairy consumption to cancer prevention, and it gets ignored. The one anomaly is prostate cancer, which does appear to have a weak link to dairy consumption. My post provided a scientific explanation, and references.
                That is, the combination of skim or low fat milk and vitamin K deficiency.
                Which is common in the elderly. In effect, it is more a calcium problem, which is deposited in the arteries and organs when vitamin K is deficient (low fat milk) and especially when vitamin D is supplemented. It also causes atherosclerosis, so it is a serious problem.

            3. I m sorry to hear that Peter. It is surprising to me since some very ‘contrary’ posts containing links and references have been published here over the years. It is not clear why they would single you out for different treatment. Have the Support Staff confirmed that your posts were deliberately deleted?

              As for the cancer dairy link, I think this is still debated. One meta analysis found a link between dairy consumption and prostate cancer

              ‘High intakes of dairy products, milk, low-fat milk, cheese, and total, dietary, and dairy calcium, but not supplemental or nondairy calcium, may increase total prostate cancer risk. The diverging results for types of dairy products and sources of calcium suggest that other components of dairy rather than fat and calcium may increase prostate cancer risk. Any additional studies should report detailed results for subtypes of prostate cancer.’
              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25527754

              while another meta anaysis from earlier this year found:

              “Total dairy products intake have no significant impact on increased all cancer mortality risk, while low total dairy intake even reduced relative risk based on the non-linear model. However, whole milk intake in men contributed to elevated prostate cancer mortality risk significantly. Furthermore, a linear dose–response relationship existed between increase of whole milk intake and increase of prostate cancer mortality risk.”
              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5073921/

              As for mechanisms, the vitamin K2 deficiency theory sounds a little thin to me since even skimmed and low fat milk would contain higher amounts of K2 than alternative plant foods.
              https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=338581

              Also the meta analyses above suggest that calcium is not the primary risk factor. One mechanism that has been suggested to exlain the link between dairy and prostate camcer is micro-ribonucleic acids (miRNAs):

              “The presented milk-mediated miRNA-p53-DNMT1 pathway exemplified at the promoter regulation of survivin (BIRC5) provides a novel explanation for the epidemiological association between milk consumption and acne vulgaris and prostate cancer. Notably, p53- and DNMT1-targeting miRNAs of bovine and human milk survive pasteurization and share identical seed sequences, which theoretically allows the interaction of bovine miRNAs with the human genome. Persistent intake of milk-derived miRNAs that attenuate p53- and DNMT1 signaling of the human milk consumer may thus present an overlooked risk factor promoting acne vulgaris, prostate cancer, and other p53/DNMT1-related Western diseases.”
              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5556685/

    1. Looks like the usual soy fear mongering by someone without any scientific credentials. Complete with links to Mercola and Westonprice, “antinutrient” mumbo jumbo, and warnings about vegetarians being especially at risk. The study referenced was on a group with advanced cancer, and the dependent variable was a gene expression, not any actual worse disease outcome. The study authors’ conclusion is quite a bit more modest than the dramatic article headline would suggest.

      Anyway, worlds’ highest breast cancer incident rate is in Denmark, where soy is rarely consumed. The age standardized breast cancer rate for women is 145/100k in Denmark. In Japan, where soy is regularly consumed, the rate is 89. Of course soy consumption is far from the only difference, but I find it hard to get worried about reasonable intake of soy (though I do avoid isolated soy protein and limit processed food in general).

    2. Craig,

      Soy is a complicated topic.

      There is organic versus GMO

      Soy isolates versus whole foods. The isolates cause cancer the organic whole food in moderate dosage prevents it and keeps people alive.

      Salted versus unsalted. Salted can cause stomach cancer. I believe the mechanism was the salt causing leaky gut. Asia is where this happens.

      PLUS, there is the ability to eat high numbers of servings and undo the benefits, because at high servings it triggers IGF-1.

      I am trying to remember if there was something else.

      1. Oh, I can give an abstract one.

        If you put your soy milk in your tea, you won’t get the antioxidant value.

        However, you may become an equol producer.

        1. Go to the soy videos to watch them to make sure you understand them for yourself.

          Salted soy, GMO soy and the isolates aren’t good for you. Soy protein drinks fit in the not good for you category.

          Organic soy, soy milk and Tempeh are good for you.

          1. But stay below 15 servings per day and don’t drink the soy milk in your green tea.

            And because I am in America, and Americans do wrong serving sizes most of the time, I will back up and say

            I think Dr. Greger recommended 3 to 5 servings per day, but 15 is when you can turn your IGF-1 on.

    3. Hi, Craig. I agree with KB. This is the usual anti-soy rhetoric from the usual sources. You can find everything about soy on this site here: https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/soy/ Most of the research showing adverse effects of soy have involved isolated compounds from soy, or unnaturally large quantities. This systematic review reflects the overall results of many studies, and finds a likely protective effect for soy with regard to breast cancer: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24453272 I hope that helps!

    4. Hi Craig, I went back to what Dr Greger had indicated in his vedio about soy and breast cancer and I wanted to include the findings here for you.
      “[S]oyfoods have become controversial in recent years,…even among health professionals,…exacerbated by misinformation found on the Internet.” Chief among the misconceptions is that soy foods promote breast cancer, because they contain a class of phytoestrogen compounds called isoflavones. Since estrogens can promote breast cancer growth, it’s natural to assume phytoestrogens might too.

      But, people don’t realize there are two types of estrogen receptors in the body—alpha and beta. And, unlike actual estrogen, soy phytoestrogens “preferentially bind to and activate [estrogen receptor beta]. This distinction is important, because the 2 [types of receptors] have different tissue distributions…and often function differently, and sometimes in opposite ways.” And, this appears to be the case in the breast, where beta activation has an anti-estrogenic effect, inhibiting the growth-promoting effects of actual estrogen—something we’ve known for more than ten years. There’s no excuse anymore.

      The effects of estradiol, the primary human estrogen, on breast cells are completely opposite to those of soy phytoestrogens, which have antiproliferative effects on breast cancer cells, even at the low concentrations one gets in one’s bloodstream eating just a few servings of soy—which makes sense, given that after eating a cup of soybeans, the levels in our blood cause significant beta receptor activation.

      So, where did this outdated notion that soy could increase breast cancer risk come from? The concern was “based largely on research that showed that [the main soy phytoestrogen] genistein stimulates the growth of mammary tumors in [a type of] mouse.” But, it turns out, we’re not actually mice. We metabolize soy isoflavones very differently from rodents. The same soy leads to 20 to 150 times higher levels in the bloodstream of rodents. The breast cancer mouse in question was 58 times higher. So, if you ate 58 cups of soybeans a day, you could get some significant alpha activation, too. But, thankfully, we’re not hairless athymic ovariectomized mice, and we don’t tend to eat 58 cups of soybeans a day.

      At just a few servings of soy a day, with the excess beta activation, we would assume soy would actively help prevent breast cancer. And, indeed, “[s]oy intake during childhood, adolescence, and adult life were each associated with a decreased risk of breast cancer.” Those women who ate the most soy in their youth appear to grow up to have less than half the risk.

      This may help explain why breast cancer rates are so much higher here than in Asia—yet, when Asians come over to the U.S. to start eating and living like Americans, their risk shoots right up. For example, women in Connecticut—way at the top of the breast cancer risk heap—in their fifties have, like, ten times more breast cancer than women in their fifties living in Japan. But, it’s not just genetic, since when they move here, their breast cancer rates go up generation after generation, as they assimilate into our culture.

      Are the anti-estrogenic effects of soy foods enough to actually change the course of the disease? We didn’t know, until the first human study on soy food intake and breast cancer survival was published in 2009 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, suggesting that “[a]mong women with breast cancer, soy food consumption was significantly associated with decreased risk of death and [breast cancer] recurrence.” Followed by another study, and then another, all with similar findings.

      That was enough for the American Cancer Society, who brought together a wide range of cancer experts to offer nutrition guidelines for cancer survivors, to conclude that, if anything, soy foods should be beneficial. Since then, two additional studies have been published, for a total of five, and they all point in the same direction. Five out of five, tracking more than 10,000 breast cancer patients.

      Is Soy Healthy for Breast Cancer Survivors?

      These are the citations
      Chen FP, Chien MH. Phytoestrogens induce differential effects on both normal and malignant human breast cells in vitro. Climacteric. 2014 Dec;17(6):682-91.
      Chi F, Wu R, Zeng YC, Xing R, Liu Y, Xu ZG. Post-diagnosis soy food intake and breast cancer survival: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14(4):2407-12.
      Setchell KD, Brown NM, Zhao X, Lindley SL, Heubi JE, King EC, Messina MJ. Soy isoflavone phase II metabolism differs between rodents and humans: implications for the effect on breast cancer risk. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011 Nov;94(5):1284-94.
      Messina M, Messina, VL. Exploring the Soyfood Controversy. Nutrition Today: March/April 2013 – Volume 48 – Issue 2 – p 68–75.
      Rock CL, Doyle C, Demark-Wahnefried W, Meyerhardt J, Courneya KS, Schwartz AL, Bandera EV, Hamilton KK, Grant B, McCullough M, Byers T, Gansler T. Nutrition and physical activity guidelines for cancer survivors. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012 Jul-Aug;62(4):243-74.
      Korde LA, Wu AH, Fears T, Nomura AM, West DW, Kolonel LN, Pike MC, Hoover RN, Ziegler RG. Childhood soy intake and breast cancer risk in Asian American women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009 Apr;18(4):1050-9.
      Ziegler RG, Hoover RN, Pike MC, Hildesheim A, Nomura AM, West DW, Wu-Williams AH, Kolonel LN, Horn-Ross PL, Rosenthal JF, Hyer MB. Migration patterns and breast cancer risk in Asian-American women. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Nov 17;85(22):1819-27.
      Kelsey JL. A review of the epidemiology of human breast cancer. Epidemiol Rev. 1979;1:74-109.
      Shu XO, Zheng Y, Cai H, Gu K, Chen Z, Zheng W, Lu W. Soy food intake and breast cancer survival. JAMA. 2009 Dec 9;302(22):2437-43.
      Guha N, Kwan ML, Quesenberry CP Jr, Weltzien EK, Castillo AL, Caan BJ. Soy isoflavones and risk of cancer recurrence in a cohort of breast cancer survivors: the Life After Cancer Epidemiology study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009 Nov;118(2):395-405.
      Kang X, Zhang Q, Wang S, Huang X, Jin S. Effect of soy isoflavones on breast cancer recurrence and death for patients receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy. CMAJ. 2010 Nov 23;182(17):1857-62.
      Caan BJ, Natarajan L, Parker B, Gold EB, Thomson C, Newman V, Rock CL, Pu M, Al-Delaimy W, Pierce JP. Soy food consumption and breast cancer prognosis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011 May;20(5):854-8.
      Zhang YF, Kang HB, Li BL, Zhang RM. Positive effects of soy isoflavone food on survival of breast cancer patients in China. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13(2):479-82.
      Paruthiyil S, Parmar H, Kerekatte V, Cunha GR, Firestone GL, Leitman DC. Estrogen receptor beta inhibits human breast cancer cell proliferation and tumor formation by causing a G2 cell cycle arrest. Cancer Res. 2004 Jan 1;64(1):423-8.
      Mueller SO, Simon S, Chae K, Metzler M, Korach KS. Phytoestrogens and their human metabolites show distinct agonistic and antagonistic properties on estrogen receptor alpha (ERalpha) and ERbeta in human cells. Toxicol Sci. 2004;80(1):14-25.

      1. Interesting stuff. Do we know how soy consumption affects male fertility and the like?

        I would not dispute western diets increase breast cancer risk, but am uncertain as to what it is. Superficially at least, it does not appear to be dairy.

        *Alpha-lactalbumin (in bovine milk) is also reported to have anticarcinogenic activity. In mammalian cancer cell line cultures it has been shown to constrain cell division (Ganjam et al., 1997) and induce apoptosis (Hakansson et al., 1995). *

        https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/alpha-lactalbumin

        1. A Finnish study of ~ 4700 women over 15 years demonstrated a 58% reduced risk for breast cancer in those consuming dairy: *‘there is a protective effect associated with the consumption of milk’* (Sponsored by the Swedish Cancer Association)

        *Fermented milk is inversely associated breast cancer risk* (Le et al, 1986, van’t Veer et al, 1989)

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2074353/pdf/brjcancer00033-0135.pdf

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2074353/

        2. ‘*Intakes of dairy products, calcium, or vitamin D were not statistically significantly associated with breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women. In premenopausal women, however, consumption of dairy products, especially of low-fat dairy foods and skim/low-fat milk, was inversely associated with risk of breast cancer. The multivariable RRs comparing highest (>1 serving/day) and lowest (≤3 servings/month) intake categories were 0.68 (95% CI = 0.55 to 0.86) for low-fat dairy foods and 0.72 (95% CI = 0.56 to 0.91) for skim/low-fat milk. *

        https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/94/17/1301/2519873

        3. ‘*We found no significant association between intakes of total meat, red meat, white meat, total dairy fluids, or total dairy solids and breast cancer risk’. *

        https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/31/1/78/655928

        4.* ‘We combined the primary data from eight prospective cohort studies from North America and Western Europe with at least 200 incident breast cancer cases, assessment of usual food and nutrient intakes, and a validation study of the dietary assessment instrument. The pooled database included 351,041 women, 7379 of whom were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer during up to 15 years of follow-up’.*

        *‘We found no significant associations between intake of meat or dairy products and risk of breast cancer’. *

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11914299

        *5. ‘The summary relative risk of breast cancer for the highest intake of total dairy food compared with the lowest was 0.85 (15% lower risk with high consumption vs low consumption)* *‘For milk consumption, the summary relative risk was 0.91* (9% lower risk) *‘In conclusion, findings of the present meta-analysis indicate that increased consumption of total dairy food, but not milk, may be associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer’.*

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21442197

        *‘A lower risk of breast cancer was observed with high total dairy product consumption in the whole population (RR = 0.55) and among premenopausal women with a RR of 0.35’*

        *‘Our data support the hypothesis that dairy products, through calcium content or a correlated component, might have a negative association with the risk of breast cancer, particularly among premenopausal women’.*

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17536191

        *‘Consumption starting at two or more servings of dairy products per day was likewise inversely associated with (breast cancer) risk (RR, 0.81)*

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16365007

    1. Hi Wayne, I need this too. 10 years VEGAN 100% – last colonoscopy a couple of months ago – LITERALLY covered in polyps, so much so the person doing the colonoscopy said QUOTE: “far too many to remove, I have removed one from your rectum and will send for analysis, the others don’t look “angry”, see you again in three years” END QUOTE. The one removed was benign!

      5 years prior, I had cancer removed AND the (then) benign Polyps… I had only been VEGAN about 5 years when the cancer surfaced. I WAS a heavy meat eater for most of my life.

      About 2-3 years before I became VEGAN I went Pescatarian for about 12 – 14 months – ate fish, 2-3 times a day. I have often wondered if the fish consumption and associated pollution, tripped the cancer formation.

      Wished I knew what I could include/remove from my current 100% plant based diet that could help in this area.

        1. Are you using vegetable oils? Or drinking alcohol?

          The things they recommend are fruits and vegetables and fiber.

          Gleaning from Dr. Greger’s #1 vegetable for Cancer video, which doesn’t have the exact Cancer, but Stomach was close enough, so I would say: Garlic, Onions, Leeks, Broccoli, Brussel Sprouts, Cabbage, Cauliflower, Radish, Kale, Rutabaga, Beets, Green beans. Then, add in Walnuts and Pecans and Lemon and Cranberries and Black Beans and Lentils. I think it was Lentils. (The beans videos were a little confusing, but beans are good for you, so whichever you will eat.) Amla or lab-tested Triphala, Turmeric, Ginger, Cloves, Blueberries, Strawberries, Apples with their peels left on, Cardomom. Parsley, artichoke.

          See Dr. Greger’s videos for why.

          See: Anti-angionesis, apoptosis, and look them up in the topics.

            1. From the Adventist Study Rice and Legumes and cooked green vegetables and dried fruit

              “Consumption of legumes at least 3 times/wk reduced the risk by 33% after adjusting for meat intake. Consumption of brown rice at least 1 time/wk reduced the risk by 40%. These associations showed a dose-response effect. High frequency of consumption of cooked green vegetables, dried fruit, legumes, and brown rice was associated with a decreased risk of colorectal polyps.”

              1. https://www.consumerreports.org/dietary-supplements/calcium-supplements-may-raise-the-risk-of-colon-polyps/

                Do you take those?

                Hey, can we hear if you eat things like veggie burgers or soy protein shakes or Miso?

                Not trying to pry. It is just that information is always helpful.

                Alcohol would be one of the things, which would be a risk factor.

                Soda would be one. Smoking is a cancer risk factor.

                Sodium would be a risk factor.

                Too little fruit and too little non-starchy vegetables are both considered risk factors.

                But too much soy or the wrong kind might be, too.

                With WFPB, it helps to hear what people are doing.

                I will try to help look things up, but I am not as good at it as a medical person or a science person.

                1. Flaxseed is another help https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16898866

                  So that is Green tea, organic unsalted Soy, Flaxseed…

                  Turmeric https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3837545/

                  Ginger is also being studied.

                  A cool one about the colors of the vegetables lowering the risk and it appears to work differently for women and men.

                  “High total intake of vegetables and fruits was strongly associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer in women (OR = 0.32, 95%CI: 0.21-0.48 for highest vs lowest tertile) and a similar inverse association was observed for men (OR = 0.60, 95%CI: 0.45-0.79). In the analysis of color groups, adjusted ORs (95%CI) comparing the highest to the lowest of the vegetables and fruits intake were 0.49 (0.36-0.65) for green, and 0.47 (0.35-0.63) for white vegetables and fruits in men. An inverse association was also found in women for green, red/purple and white vegetables and fruits. However, in men, orange/yellow vegetables and fruits (citrus fruits, carrot, pumpkin, peach, persimmon, ginger) intake was linked to an increased risk of colorectal cancer (OR = 1.61, 95%CI: 1.22-2.12).”

                  1. Here is another longer one. This one has that you need to eat enough foods with folic acid / B6. It also says Calcium from food is protective. Supplements increase the risk. Are you taking supplements?

                    “Excessive alcohol consumption and cholesterol-rich diet are associated with a high risk of colon cancer. A diet poor in folic acid and vitamin B6 is also associated with a higher risk of developing colon cancer with an overexpression of p53. Eating pulses at least three times a week lowers the risk of developing colon cancer by 33%, after eating less meat, while eating brown rice at least once a week cuts the risk of CRC by 40%. These associations suggest a dose-response effect. Frequently eating cooked green vegetables, nuts, dried fruit, pulses, and brown rice has been associated with a lower risk of colorectal polyps. High calcium intake offers a protector effect against distal colon and rectal tumors as compared with the proximal colon. Higher intake of dairy products and calcium reduces the risk of colon cancer. Taking an aspirin (ASA) regularly after being diagnosed with colon cancer is associated with less risk of dying from this cancer, especially among people who have tumors with COX-2 overexpression.16 Nonetheless, these data do not contradict the data obtained on a possible genetic predisposition, even in sporadic or non-hereditary CRC. CRC is susceptible to screening because it is a serious health problem given its high incidence and its associated high morbidity/mortality.”

      1. One can be began and still eat bad food. Technically potato chips and things made with high fructose corn syrup are vegan. We know fried food and most processed food are the culprit. Even many of the ‘vegan’ meat replacement are so processed they are not recommended in the whole food plant based diet this website doctor promotes.

        1. Jimbo,

          Yes, you are right.

          Many people are junk food vegans.

          I can go back to Dr. Barnard and he uses transition foods and some people have a longer transition than others.

      2. Hi, Mal Lee. Congratulations on switching to a plant-based diet! I am glad the polyp removed was benign, but sorry you still have this concern. You say you were a heavy meat eater before changing your diet. It may take a significant amount of time to undo all of the damage. If you have not already done so, make sure you are avoiding salt and fried foods, even if vegan. Load up on cancer-fighting foods such as cruciferous vegetables, onions and garlic, as well as foods rich in beta glucans. You can find everything on this site about colon cancer here: https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/colon-cancer/ I hope that helps!

  7. “…. ate fish, 2-3 times a day.”
    — – – – – –

    Yuck. :-P I’d get awfully sick of eating it so often. Once or twice a week sounds more doable IMO.

  8. Thank you, Dr. Greger for an informative and interesting video. It’s always nice when you review the bizarre, yet specious, arguments proffered by those who make money from products that harm the health of their users. And you (almost) had something good to say about marijuana, for which I’m most grateful (beggars can’t be choosers).

  9. Regarding breast milk, many women are told NOT to breast feed by their doctors.

    If human breast milk came stamped with an ingredients label, it might read something like this: 4 percent fat, vitamins A, C, E and K, lactose, essential minerals, growth hormones, proteins, enzymes and antibodies. But read down the label, and the fine print, at least for some women, sounds considerably less appetizing: DDT (the banned but stubbornly persistent pesticide famous for nearly wiping out the bald eagle), PCB’s, dioxin, trichloroethylene, perchlorate, mercury, lead, benzene, arsenic. When we nurse our babies, we feed them not only the fats, sugars and proteins that fire their immune systems, metabolisms and cerebral synapses. We also feed them, albeit in minuscule amounts, paint thinners, dry-cleaning fluids, wood preservatives, toilet deodorizers, cosmetic additives, gasoline byproducts, rocket fuel, termite poisons, fungicides and flame retardants.

    Breast milk tells the decades-old story of your diet, your neighborhood and, increasingly, your household décor. Your old shag-carpet padding? It’s there. That cool blue paint in your pantry? There. The chemical cloud your landlord used to kill cockroaches? There. Ditto, the mercury in last week’s sushi, the benzene from your gas station, the preservative parabens from your face cream, the chromium from your neighborhood smokestack. One property of breast milk is that its high-fat and -protein content attracts heavy metals and other contaminants. Most of these chemicals are found in microscopic amounts, but if human milk were sold at the local market, some stock would exceed federal food-safety levels for DDT residues and PCB’s.

    And with the recent Consumer reports finding that many drugs not ever supposed to be used on food animals are in fact in MOST OF THEM, the animals as food industry seriously has a complete lack of credibility and concern for humanity over their profits.

    1. All certainly true Jimbo, but the risk with other used supplement as opposed to breast milk, are generally much higher in thought negative impact.
      Mixing matching how much water how much powder or how much formula how hot, how cold, what is the expiration date, and this and that overweigh with the potential of doing it wrong the harm of contamination particularly in third world countries.

      Generally unless lack of supply is the issue it is safer to breast feed a infant.
      And as you have said on occasion….we have been doing this for so long and so often, the burden is to find harm not to prove this harmful until proven otherwise.
      However all must be qualified. If mom to be worked bottleing herbicide by hand, in a third world plant run by a subsidiary of Monsanto….we may care to use formula.

      1. Ron,

        Dr. Greger did the video on obese children from Round-Up.

        You are in a WFPB forum, but way more women exist out there in the world drinking alcohol, smoking, soda, coffee, eating junk food. Tons of processed food. I go to the grocery store almost every day and there are very few people in the organic foods produce section or in the natural foods section. I have been noticing that half of the produce even in Whole Foods is conventional. More and more women getting pregnant are morbidly obese. Lots of pregnant women end up with Diabetes.

        On top of that eating disorders are so high. I have had some relatives who didn’t gain any weight at all while pregnant. My father was less than 4 pounds when he was born and I have known people whose children were so premature. They couldn’t go home for quite a while.

        I suspect that Jimbo’s whole list are things the doctors weigh as risk factors when they consider what to tell women.

        What do you tell a woman with anorexia or a woman who doesn’t eat vegetables or fruit or take supplements?

        The problem is that women don’t need to want to become mothers to have a child. They just needed to have sex. Even more true for the fathers.

        1. The American college of pediatrics is quite unequivocal in this regard..they recommend breast feeding up until 6 months to exclusion and this generally reflects world wide concensus on the issue… pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/129/3/e827#ref-13
          Which I suppose I could provide if necessary.
          The Trump administration has recently stood against this recommendation before the UN.
          I do not support their opinion in any manner shape nor form.
          Formula with some rare exception is better than breast milk only when the mother does not produce enough. Many infants die each year by formula used outdated, mixed improperly, and or with often contaminated waters and contaminated containers.

          Exception would be a known present identifiable contaminant such as a opioid present in the mother who is breast feeding or some equilivent such as known toxicologicial exposure and some disease specific disorder..

          1. Here is part of that listed..
            “Breastfeeding and human milk are the normative standards for infant feeding and nutrition. Given the documented short- and long-term medical and neurodevelopmental advantages of breastfeeding, infant nutrition should be considered a public health issue and not only a lifestyle choice. The American Academy of Pediatrics reaffirms its recommendation of exclusive breastfeeding for about 6 months, followed by continued breastfeeding as complementary foods are introduced, with continuation of breastfeeding for 1 year or longer as mutually desired by mother and infant. Medical contraindications to breastfeeding are rare. Infant growth should be monitored with the World Health Organization (WHO) Growth Curve Standards to avoid mislabeling infants as underweight or failing to thrive. Hospital routines to encourage and support the initiation and sustaining of exclusive breastfeeding should be based on the American Academy of Pediatrics-endorsed WHO/UNICEF “Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding.” National strategies supported by the US Surgeon General’s Call to Action, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and The Joint Commission are involved to facilitate breastfeeding practices in US hospitals and communities.”

            The current administration by my read seems quite alone in their opinion on this.

            1. Here from the WHO site is their opinion on breast feeding which mirrors that above..
              ” Breastfeeding is the normal way of providing young infants with the nutrients they need for healthy growth and development. Virtually all mothers can breastfeed, provided they have accurate information, and the support of their family, the health care system and society at large.
              Colostrum, the yellowish, sticky breast milk produced at the end of pregnancy, is recommended by WHO as the perfect food for the newborn, and feeding should be initiated within the first hour after birth.
              Exclusive breastfeeding is recommended up to 6 months of age, with continued breastfeeding along with appropriate complementary foods up to two years of age or beyond.”

              I could find multiple sources of the same authority in this but hopefully these two will suffice.

              1. The CDC as well mirrors this…”Breastfeeding provides unmatched health benefits for babies and mothers. It is the clinical gold standard for infant feeding and nutrition, with breast milk uniquely tailored to meet the health needs of a growing baby. We must do more to create supportive and safe environments for mothers who choose to breastfeed.”
                Dr. Ruth Petersen, Director of CDC’s Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity”

                Their site mentions six or so medical conditions of infants which are lower in risk amongst breast fed than not. Compounded with four or so for the mothers as well.

                1. From the nutrition site of the USDA…”Research suggests that breastfeeding lowers your baby’s risk of certain infections and diseases, including these:
                  Ear infections,
                  Asthma,
                  Lower respiratory infections,
                  Diarrhea and vomiting,
                  Childhood obesity,
                  Eczema,
                  Type 2 diabetes,
                  Childhood leukemia, or
                  Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).
                  For moms, breastfeeding can help you recover more quickly from childbirth. It can also reduce your risk for certain breast and ovarian cancer and type 2 diabetes. Breastfeeding may also help you lose weight after childbirth.”

                  1. Other countries every country virtually is saying the same thing..from the government of Canada health section..
                    “Infant Feeding

                    Breastfeeding is the normal and unequalled method of feeding infants. Health Canada promotes breastfeeding – exclusively for the first six months, and sustained for up to two years or longer with appropriate complementary feeding – for the nutrition, immunologic protection, growth, and development of infants and toddlers.”

                    1. Cool Ron!

                      I always love that you are going to bring everything to the table about a topic!

                      Yes, breastfeeding is the way to go!

                      I do wonder though what happens to the equation when so many women have eating disorders and medical conditions and substance abuse of one type or another? Does pot smoking affect infants? It probably is better than crack. When I was out in California, I had a friend who worked with crack babies.

                    2. I don’t know.
                      Is a mother who is a crack addict going to go to her doc and say…hey doc I am a crack addict should I breastfeed…I suspect not.
                      Could a active crack addict be able to mix formula correctly and not fudge the ingredients to save a bit of money for crack and be trusted then to give the right amount of formula paying attention to boiling bottles and all the rest …..don’t know that as well. But also suspect not.

                      Known toxins some diseases some contaminants all things considered I think very few mothers are told by physicians not to breast feed. And typically I would guess by at least a thousand to one those are not considerations of your typical going to breastfeed mother.

                      Drugs opioids and such a pregnant woman should certainly be already cautioned against use. The risk would not suddenly present only when breastfeeding but likely have equal or more hazard in the womb. Such as is present with alcohol.

                      I think the numbers per year US, of infant deaths related to some aspect of formula use is somewhere in the range of 3000 or so. Generally they dilute it to save some money and or contaminate it.
                      But could look that up if necessary. Infants dying from toxins in breast milk…I suspect the numbers fall significantly lower.

                    3. 3000 is pretty low.

                      I suspect the same woman who is diluting it or who is so messy that she would contaminate it also might be the one drinking during pregnancy or other things like that.

                      People who are inconsistent are inconsistent and people who are so poor that they dilute it are so poor that they don’t eat properly and don’t make enough milk.

                      My cousin was that case. She didn’t gain any weight and I would have said anorexia, but honestly, she was raising three kids on part-time minimum wage and didn’t eat very much herself. Still probably doesn’t. She never made enough money, but she loves her kids and is hard-working.

                      I have people who are dear to me who are hoarders who I have helped to clean their houses more than once. They have had their kids photos on the floor with fast food ketchup packets and half-eaten burgers. I think I filled 100 garbage bags for one person, but it was annoyingly that their valuables were mixed so thoroughly in the trash that every single thing had to be picked up one at a time and there were so many fruit flies and so much mold. Two of the people have gotten better. Not sure about the others. I have been out of the volunteer house cleaning business for a few years, but when my mind was more broken, my house got disorganized. I would end up buying the same things every time I went to the grocery store and I would find myself overflowing my closet with cleaning supplies. Then, I couldn’t find the supplies and would end up buying one more to do the task. Luckily, my mind is getting better.

            1. Deb…this involved three cases of sepsis related to a specific infectious cause in preterm infants.
              It has very limited carryover to the safety of breast milk as opposed to formula.
              Yes with certain diseases and/or in the presence of overt unhygienic circumstances even breast milk may cause illness. In a statistical manner this presentation is very rare.

    2. Jimbo,

      That is the most profound comment I have seen on this site in many ways.

      Articulate and filled with good information.

      Well-written.

      I love the sentence beginning:

      “If human breast milk came stamped with an ingredients label, it might read something like this:”

      Excellent!

      1. This particular article attest to the current nature of the debate…https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/well/breastfeeding-trump-resolution.html
        One side says they pressured other nations the other side says they did not.
        What is not in question is our side, our government, requested removal of a section of the UN proposed recommendation that breast feeding be suggested as the preferred source of nutrition for infants.

        But the article itself goes on to a pretty good explanation of the rational for recommendations of breast feeding particularly in the third world and poor peoples. It is a good read for that.

        1. NIH has done a study on the contaminants in breast milk and their conclusions are the same as I have mentioned above. Breast milk is almost always better.
          They have found no mortality result in other than a critical toxicological event(meaning one that likely killed the mother) from such exposures.
          Bu the entire document bears reading and one can draw their own conclusions… https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2569122/

          1. This part of it suggests a protective effect from breast milk on the presence of toxins which likely were present on exposure in womb prior to breast milk…
            “Nevertheless, Dórea asserts that the neurodevelopmental benefits of human milk tend to override the potential adverse effects of neurotoxicants. “There is much evidence that breastfeeding plays a role in attenuating and reversing exposure to neurotoxic substrates, including lead and mercury,” he says. Breastfeeding may also indirectly affect the metabolism of mercury in exposed infants by increasing elimination of the toxic metal.” Human milk contains many brain-protective substances, including selenium, glutathione, vitamin E, cysteine, tryptophan, choline, taurine, S100B protein, sialic acid, and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Dórea asserts that the nursling’s brain may be protected through the combination of these neuroprotective substances.
            One component of human milk that could account for its ability to potentially buffer the nursling from the harmful effects of environmental toxicants is whey protein. Human milk is 80% whey protein, a compound that may greatly increase the body’s endogenous production of glutathione, a ubiquitous cellular antioxidant with many important roles in detoxification and immunity. This helps explain the common experimental finding that tumor prevention by dietary whey protein is accompanied by increased glutathione levels in serum and tissues as well as enhanced immunologic activity.”

            1. Basically what they seem to be saying it is 3000 as opposed to close to none…”After having considered the problem of environmental contaminants in human milk, the WHO, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the American Academy of Pediatrics continue to recommend breastfeeding. “After three decades of study, there is now fairly good evidence that little if any morbidity is occurring from the more common and well-studied chemical agents found in human milk,” says Walter Rogan, a clinical investigator in the NIEHS Epidemiology Branch. “There are very few instances in which morbidity has been described in a nursling that was due to a chemical pollutant in milk.”

            2. Persistent toxins were first discovered in breast milk in 1951, when black mothers in Washington were tested for the pesticide DDT. In 1966, a Swedish researcher thought to test his wife’s breast milk for PCB’s, or polychlorinated biphenyls, after he discovered them in the tissue of a dead eagle. Five years later, Sweden banned PCB’s, with the United States following a few years later. But because of those chemicals’ widespread use and persistence, they are still the highest-concentration toxins in breast milk, even in mothers born after the 1978 ban. Most scientists maintain that prenatal exposure to PCB’s — considered by the Environmental Protection Agency to be a probable human carcinogen — can do real damage. Researchers in the Great Lakes region, the Arctic and the Netherlands found that babies born to mothers with mid- to upper-range background levels of PCB contamination (probably because of diets rich in contaminated fish and animal products) have delayed learning capabilities, lower I.Q.’s and reduced immunities against infections. The longitudinal studies on which these findings were based showed that some problems persisted at least into early adolescence.

              The message from these studies about breast-feeding, however, was not what you might expect. Although the children who were breast-fed had higher PCB levels than children who were exposed only in utero, they consistently performed better than those who drank formula. When researchers controlled for socioeconomic factors, the differences were more subtle but still there. In other words, breast milk appears to be at least partly protective against the effects of toxic chemicals. In fact, the World Health Organization and other groups continue to recommend breast-feeding for all women. At first this sounds reassuring, until you wonder how much better the breast milk would be without the companion chemicals. We’ll never know, since an uncontaminated control group doesn’t exist.

              It’s the law of the food chain, and it’s called biomagnification.

              To refresh that lesson from seventh grade, here’s how it works: Animals at the top of the food chain receive the concentrated energy and persistent chemicals of all the biota underneath them. Each member up the food chain takes in exponentially more fat-loving toxins than its counterpart below. This is why a slab of shark contains more mercury than its weight in plankton. Ocean food chains are longer than terrestrial ones, so people who eat many marine carnivores carry higher body concentrations of some chemicals than the vegan at your local salad bar. When it comes to these fat-soluble toxins, the Inuit Eskimos are among the most contaminated populations on earth, even though they live in the remote Arctic. Diet matters the most when it comes to reducing toxins in breast milk according to this research.

              1. Well to refresh……… here’s how science works….since we are going way way back to the 60’s I guess 88 will do as well..
                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3361685

                Aluminum in formula. Need we produce one on salmonella or a type of bacteria found in the powdered stuff? I guess they have finally gotten around to removing the BPA from the darn stuff but how about its counterparts now found likely as harmful?

                Talk about processed………….. formula is about as processed as it can get.
                I am often not on the natural bandwagon but this is about as clearly favoring a natural thing as it can get.

                    1. How about some nanoparticles?

                      “Whether the manufacturers knowingly added these particles to their formula is not clear. At this point, it’s not even clear why they might have been added, as hydroxyapatite does not appear to be a substantial source of calcium in most formula. (Calcium in formula can come from a number of sources, including milk solids, calcium carbonate and calcium chloride.) If the nanoparticles’ inclusion was intentional, though, current FDA guidelines suggest that the regulator wouldn’t consider the material safe by default, and should be subject to further evaluation.
                      Certainly, from the data presented, these particles – so uniform in size and shape – look like they were intentionally manufactured to be nanoscale and needle-like. It’s possible they were supplied to the various manufacturers without any indication of their “nano-ness.” This doesn’t absolve the manufacturers of responsibility. But it does suggest that greater scrutiny and accountability is needed in the supply chain for food ingredients.
                      And regardless of the benefits and risks of nanoparticles in infant formula, parents have a right to know what’s in the products they’re feeding their children. In Europe, food ingredients must be legally labeled if they are nanoscale. In the U.S., there is no such requirement, leaving American parents to feel somewhat left in the dark by producers, the FDA and policy makers.”

                      Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-05-nanoparticles-baby-formula-parents.html#jCp

                      Like GMO’s they may even be good for us..how about it baby up for some nanoparticles?

                    2. And these companies that make this stuff..great companies nestle spells the very best..chocolate and all the rest….

                      Quite fine to trust them baby…drink up some nestle formula comin down the pike….

                      “Nestlé is one of the companies facing legal action in the US. Last week the company, along with Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, failed in its bid to get the US Supreme Court to throw out a lawsuit seeking to hold them liable for the alleged use of child slaves in cocoa farming in the Ivory Coast.
                      This puts the company in the unfortunate position of disclosing slavery in one part of its operations, while at the same time fighting through the courts to fend off accusations that it exists in another – more profitable – part of its business.”
                      from a guardian article.

                      Baby …..perhaps its a good thing you can’t read…slavery…..does that mean…….we may find them doing things on occasion like some in the industry have been found to do at times..like selling sugar water for applejuice….???
                      Never mind that baby…drink up…none of that breast milk for you…that stuff is contaminated…..biomagnification.

                    3. Well now lets see I need another refresher…”To refresh that lesson from seventh grade”
                      Doesn’t seem to be making sense, so please do.

                      Or should I just continue on…a hundred or so more to go I suppose….
                      Breast milk or formula..unless the mother has a problem with producing it, or there is known obvious toxin/med involved, the mother has consumed or is consuming, or the mother has certain diseases present….

                      Breast feeding is the way to go, the preferred option always.
                      The current administration is completely off base to equate them as equal, requiring that in statement of public health policy before the UN..they simply are not.

                    4. Arsenic..of course not..”https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2012/02/new-study-finds-arsenic-in-infant-formula-cereal-bars/index.htm

                      Hey jeb……we biomagnified arsenic into our rice syrup…same as we did in senvth grde lab rember?

                    5. The arsenic in this sampleing of infants by urine test analysis…. 5.5 times that found in those exclusively breast fed.

                      Not percent times.

                      https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/cohort/resources/cohort755406.cfm
                      The culprit in this incidence of study was most probably by majority the water used to dilute/constitute the formula.
                      It likely contained arsenic found in many areas in water due to agricultural use and/or geological formation type.
                      Far exceeding that apparently trending down to the infants in breast milk, despite the mothers assumedly consumeing the same arsenic laden waters.

                      Which speaks exactly to not a biointensification effect found in breast milk but a probable remediation effect or mechanism that prevents assimilation by some substances found within it.

                    6. Breast milk found at lower levels of heavy metals than formula….www.irjes.com/Papers/vol3-issue3/G03035153.pdf

                      Go figure.
                      Recommendation of study…breast feed as opposed to formula.

                    7. This study a bit harder to read, a Canadian study references the presence of metals.
                      AI is referenced as being less than 100nng for premature infants as a necessity. It also states the findings of 900nng per sample of one product
                      https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19393210.2011.571795

                      It does not offer conclusions on any behavior by mothers, but as the intention is stated to equal the contaminate level found in breast milk or exceed it to the downside….we can only assume as better maufactureing practices are being called for within it…the sampleing overall does not meet the standard.

                    8. Which we could assume is the NIH’s stance on the issue from their published research in their environmental pollution section…
                      ”After having considered the problem of environmental contaminants in human milk, the WHO, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the American Academy of Pediatrics continue to recommend breastfeeding. “After three decades of study, there is now fairly good evidence that little if any morbidity is occurring from the more common and well-studied chemical agents found in human milk,” says Walter Rogan, a clinical investigator in the NIEHS Epidemiology Branch. “There are very few instances in which morbidity has been described in a nursling that was due to a chemical pollutant in milk.”

                      And leading me to repeat again my statement….”Biomagnification my a&^”

                    9. Counting up my references I have produced content by reference approximately 25 times, some in source link manner, some just by source search manner, and some in quote from source manner…… all in support of my opinion.
                      Though admittedly several are repeats or repeat of content in links.
                      And you have produced…..your opinion. With zero supportive evidence provided.

                      And I must then….”To refresh that lesson from seventh grade, here’s how it works”
                      Be taught from you.
                      I find that quite a odd thing.

  10. Hi,

    All good, nice and probably true: but Broccoli is just not something I envy to eat, as opposed to Chocolate or a steak.
    How to make Broccoli something I want to eat, not must eat, like a medicine (it smells like a medicine) ?
    Thank you for a good and working idea !!

    1. You could also try broccoli sprouts, you might actually like them. They don’t really taste like broccoli at all, they taste like any other sprout pretty much… a little spicier than alfalfa sprouts. Awesome in salads. But don’t underestimated your own brain. If you want to acquire a taste for broccoli, try it in recipes to your liking and every time you eat it, remind yourself of how amazing it is for you and how it’s this incredible thing that you’re lucky to have. I’ve actually developed a taste for a lot of things this way including algae, no joke.

    2. You want a simple way to make broccoli taste good? Steam it til bright green, then run under cold water to stop the cooking process. Add a small amount of lemon-garlic-extra virgin olive oil to the middle of a stainless bowl. Toss the broccoli in the dressing.

  11. Hi, Franz. Try cutting it up and eating it with other vegetables you do like, with or without a tasty sauce. You could put broccoli in lasagne, for example, or in soups or casseroles. You could put it in something like this: https://www.veganricha.com/2018/09/chickpea-flour-frittata-vegan-frittata.html It would make a tasty breakfast! I find that broccoli is tastier when cooked with finely minced onion, carrot, celery, garlic, and a variety of dried herbs. I hope that helps!

  12. Dr. Greger does it again! His commentary on relating the world of science evidence with the public narrative is spot on. Too often, we become captivated with certainty and dogma before we make decisions and, in the process, lose more than we gain!

    1. I’m starstruck… So awesome to see a comment from Dr. T. Colin Campbell! So grateful for all the amazing work you and Dr. Greger have done and continue to do.

  13. Oh poor wandering in the dark us, with naught but the best available evidence to guide us… which happens to be like an overflowing spring!!!!!! There is so much incredible evidence out there on how animal products harm us and how plant products do just about everything but make us fly. These people sound like archaic whining little words I shouldn’t say on this site… I see an old court room of wig-wearing men complaining about women speaking and why then they must witches and be hanged or something as equally ridiculous. Scared little men afraid of their world –which suits them for their purposes–being taken from them. It’s simultaneously obnoxious, infuriating, hilarious, unbelievable, all too believable, and nostalgic.

    This was an incredible video, great job to Dr. Greger and his team!

    1. And if only wishes were fishes and cattle were kings, the world would be full of such wonderful things. But you are right on one thing Shaylen. It is imprudent and unwise to ply a sexist and ageist argument for a half-baked scientific argument. If memory serves me correctly we refer to wise old folks not wise young one’s – but I guess this is (like) passé.
      That is, unless you happen to be T.Colin Campbell. In which case your ageist and sexist reference turns to mush. Right ?

      1. Pete, don’t be ridiculous… You should be able to be taken back to the scene I refer and realize that I refer to it simply because at one time, things were that way; the world was ran in such a way and said scenes existed… roughly. Nothing ageist or sexist about it in the least and we should be able to use history as examples of irony and use as metaphors without being accused of being ageist, sexist, racist, homophobic, claustrophobic, and so on.

        1. Oh and “men” is a general term, I realize a lot of people have an unreasonable contempt for proper language, but men or man has always been used to refer to humankind.

  14. Hi, Can someone please address the findings of these scientific papers…they all seem to come from reputable journals like JAMA and New England Journal of Medicine stating low carbs is better than low fat for cardiovascular health. Are they ALL wrong or funded by big beef? Really confused. Thanks in advance.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on7puw2zoL8
    Low Carb Diets: Are They Dangerous? Thomas DeLauer…

    3 month studies conducted:
    Study – Diabetic Medicine, 2006-
    102 patients with Type 2 diabetes were randomized to a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 3 months – The low-carb group lost 7.8 lbs, while the low-fat group lost only 2 lbs (1)

    Study – Diabetic Medicine, 2007-
    3 diabetic and 13 non-diabetic individuals were randomized to a low-carb diet or a low-fat diet for 3 months – The low-carb group lost 15.2 lbs compared to 4.6 lbs in the low-fat group (2)

    6 Month Studies:
    Study – New England Journal of Medicine, 2003-
    132 obese individuals with severe obesity were put on either a low-fat or a low-carb diet for 6 months – many subjects had type II diabetes. The low-carb group lost an average of 12.8 lbs while the low-fat group lost only 4.2 lbs. Triglycerides went down by 38 mg/dL in the low-carb group, compared to only 7 mg/dL in the low-fat group. Insulin levels went down by 27% in the low-carb group, but increased slightly in the low-fat group. Fasting blood glucose levels went down by 26 mg/dL in the low-carb group, only 5 mg/dL in the low-carb group (3)

    Study – Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 2003-
    53 healthy but obese females were randomized to either a low-fat diet, or a low-carb diet. Low-fat group was calorie restricted. The study went on for 6 months. The women in the low-carb group lost an average of 8.5 kg (18.7 lbs), while the low-fat group lost an average of 3.9 kg (8.6 lbs) Whilst HDL improved slightly in both groups, there was a significant reductions in blood triglycerides in the low carb group. The study concluded: A very low carbohydrate diet is more effective than a low fat diet for short-term weight loss and, over 6 months, is not associated with deleterious effects on important cardiovascular risk factors (4)

    12 Month Studies:
    Study – Journal of the American Medical Association, 2007-
    311 overweight/obese premenopausal women were randomized to 4 diets: a low-c arb diet and then 3 low-fat diets for 12 months. At the end of the 12 months the low-carb diet lost, on average, 5lbs more than the 3 low-fat groups (not combined, but in comparison to each one, individually) The low-carb group also had the greatest improvements in blood pressure, triglycerides and HDL (5)
    Study – American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2009-
    118 individuals with abdominal obesity were randomized to a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 12 months – The low-carb group lost 14.5 kg (32 lbs), while the low-fat group lost 11.5 kg (25.3 lbs)
    The low-carb group had greater decreases in triglycerides and greater increases in both HDL and LDL cholesterol, compared to the low-fat group. (6)

    2 Year Studies:
    Study – the Annals of Internal Medicine-
    Also a two-year study that came to the same results as the 12 month studies – had very similar results in terms of weight loss; however, during the first 6 months, the low-carb group had greater reductions in diastolic blood pressure and triglyceride levels. To sum up the studies: In every study, the low-carb groups lost more weight on average and critical health markers, like blood pressure, insulin, HDL, and triglycerides improved more in the low-carb groups – even at 2 years (7)

    References:
    1) Short-term effects of severe dietary carbohydrate-restriction advice in Type 2 diabetes–a randomized controlled trial. – PubMed – NCBI. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1

    2) A low-carbohydrate diet is more effective in reducing body weight than healthy eating in both diabetic and non-diabetic subjects. – PubMed – NCBI. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1

    3) A low-carbohydrate as compared with a low-fat diet in severe obesity. – PubMed – NCBI. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1

    4) A randomized trial comparing a very low carbohydrate diet and a calorie-restricted low fat diet on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in h… – PubMed – NCBI. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1

    5) Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN diets for change in weight and related risk factors among overweight premenopausal women: the A T… – PubMed – NCBI. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1

    6) Long-term effects of a very-low-carbohydrate weight loss diet compared with an isocaloric low-fat diet after 12 mo. – PubMed – NCBI. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1

    7) Weight and Metabolic Outcomes After 2 Years on a Low-Carbohydrate Versus Low-Fat Diet. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti

  15. Well sure I will give it a shot.
    I clicked on your links starting from the bottom up…. 7 did not exist
    6 was about methanol poisoning.
    5 was about methanol poisoning.

    So I stopped there.

    1. Looking now at the addresses for your links… they are all the same methanol link with the exception of 7 which does not exist…..
      Curious

      So as methanol is the topic apparently….my advice is do not drink it.

      1. As to the confusion I think I may have found its source….
        It is very hard to derive nutritional information from NIH study source reference materials, which are centered upon methanol, not nutrition, despite the relative excellence of that respective source material, repetitive though it may be.

        All sorts of confusion and misapprehension may arise.
        So I hope that helps…;)

          1. I haven’t looked at these specific links, but I was looking at links a few days ago because of a post on Dr. McDougall’s site and I have seen studies where they used very-low-calorie Keto, which is the same as every very-low-calorie diet nothing to do with Keto.

            Dr. Greger has already said that very-low-calorie helps and it helps whether you use Keto or not.

            The studies I saw, Keto helped with blood sugar for the first 3 months, then it stopped. Where Plant-Based often took a few weeks to work because you are waiting for the fats to come out of the Pancreas.

            Also, the studies I have seen allow refined carbs in the “low fat” group and the WFPB doctors tend to not allow refined carbs or sugar or processed food in their plans for heart disease or diabetes.

  16. Okay, starting at #1.

    Mic the Vegan and Ryan from Happy Healthy Vegan already took that man on and Keto on.

    Let’s see. I can’t watch all of the videos I watched. I will try to remember things. One was that the man wasn’t arguing the facts – he was doing ad hominem attacks and actually wished for a doctor at Harvard to die in his rant. I think it was Harvard. He said that the reason people die 50% more often from cardiovascular and 51% from cerebrovascular and 35% more from Cancer on the lowest carb diets is because they weren’t low carb enough and that they didn’t do the study double-blind placebo, which Ryan said is hard to do when people have to die.

  17. The thing is the studies called “low fat” were not Whole Food Plant Based no refined carbs, very-low-saturated-fat studies.

    Notice that they aren’t saying Vegan or Whole Food Plant Based.

    The doctors in WFPB don’t defend refined carbs or things like low-fat dairy, which has a lot of sugar.

    They manipulate data in more than one way in the studies I saw.

    One allowed refined carbs and processed foods in the carb category but didn’t include trans fats in the fat category.

    Where WFPB does not include refined carbs.

  18. The Ornish study. #5

    What I remember is that they included people who went off the diet in the results and if you don’t actually do WFPB it doesn’t work and the people who were assigned to the Keto group were still doing the program at the end of those weeks.

    That does mean that some people had a hard time staying on the Ornish plan, but they also acknowledged that they didn’t walk the people through it the way Dr. Ornish does with the people in his plan and his plan has been tested and approved and is effective enough that it is covered by Medicare and insurances and that is based on results.

    The speaker was basically saying that for the length of the study, it was the Keto people who found it easier to stick with the plan. That being said they are more likely to die from heart attack, stroke and cancer.

    I have 4 Keto people who just had to go through biopsies this past month. Both of my sisters-in-law, my step-mother and my closest friend and I do suspect Keto is behind it but I can’t prove it to them and they just like meat very much and hate vegetables.

    1. Thanks so much Deb- 14 weeks!!! and everyone else who took a crack at making sense of all this. Truly helpful and gives me more motivation to stick with WFPB diet, cause I will tell ya…it’s much easier to eat steak everyday instead!

    1. ‘Dairy consumption was associated with lower risk of mortality and major cardiovascular disease events in a diverse multinational cohort’.

      Carolina, it is no great surprise to me. Its a recurring theme with dozens of similar studies and meta-analysis. They all find that dairy is protective. And I should add, full fat dairy, not skimmed milk or low fat milk. Best it is milk produced from grass-fed cows, not feed lot stuff.

      If you have an ethical problem with drinking milk, dont drink it. But the scientific evidence is overwhelming. Milk is very good for you. By extension, this means saturated fat when it is dairy is good for you. It is virtually impossible to come to any other conclusion.

      The best diet is the Mediterranean diet. Lots of greens, olive oil, nuts, grains, fruit, vegetables, seafood, wine, cheese and dairy. I would also add non-alkalised cocoa and green tea. Also tastes fantastic.

      1. Mmm it’s surprises me because I’ve always seen dairy (ignoring ethical concerns for a bit) as strongly liked to inflammation and weaker, not stronger, bones. I wonder if there are weaknesses in the publication but sadly I don’t have time to dig into each piece of info myself.

        1. Carolina, dairy is anti-inflammatory, unless you are allergic to milk, in which case it is inflammatory.

          A recent systematic revue of 52 clinical trials demonstrates dairy foods are anti-inflammatory in nature:

          *Dairy products and inflammation: A review of the clinical evidence.*

          *’Inflammation is a major biological process regulating the interaction between organisms and the environment, including the diet. Because of the increase in chronic inflammatory diseases, and in light of the immune-regulatory properties of breastfeeding, the ability of dairy products to modulate inflammatory processes in humans is an important but unresolved issue. Here, we report a systematic review of 52 clinical trials investigating inflammatory markers in relation to the consumption of dairy products. An inflammatory score (IS) was defined to quantitatively evaluate this interaction. The IS was significantly positive for the entire data set, indicating an anti-inflammatory activity in humans. When the subjects were stratified according to their health status, the IS was strongly indicative of an anti-inflammatory activity in subjects with metabolic disorders and of a pro-inflammatory activity in subjects allergic to bovine milk. Stratifying the data by product categories associated both low-fat and high-fat products, as well as fermented products, with an anti-inflammatory activity. *

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

          The calcium in dairy strengthens bones so long as there is adequate vitamin D and vitamin K. Vitamin D extracts more of the calcium from the milk, whilst vitamin K ensures calcium is deposited in the bones – rather than the arteries or organs. If the ratio of these vitamins is optimal, then calcium in milk will strengthen bones. If it is suboptimal it will cause health problems.

          1. For those interested in factual details, here’s a link to the full article cited by Pete, here’s a link to the original full text
            https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2014.967385

            Even though I went dairy-free years ago and will never go back, I found the meta-analysis interesting but not convincing. The authors constructed a new metric for inflammatory response (what they called ‘IS’) by combining many different markers. Different individual markers showed different, often contradictory, results across the studies selected. It seemed to me the results using IS were a wash (pro-, anti-, neutral).

            The authors’ conclusions were accordingly weak:
            “Taken together, our review suggests that dairy products, in particular fermented products, have anti-inflammatory properties in humans not suffering from allergy to milk, in particular in subjects with metabolic disorders. As the clinical relevance of inflammatory markers is currently debated among researchers and regulatory authorities, the translation of these findings into dietary guidelines remains to be clarified.”

            Note too that they have no way to link their novel IS metric to clinical outcomes, which is what we, of course, ultimately care about.

          2. Wait, Pete are you one of the commenters here who had admitted to being affiliated with the dairy industry? It’s been a while and I don’t remember names so I’m not sure if you’re who I’m thinking of or not. Perhaps someone else will remember if Pete is unable to respond.

        2. Carolina

          Pete is very pro-dairy if you hadn’t already guessed.

          One of the questions about studies apparently showing no or inverse associations between dairy consumption and inflammatory markers, is what was dairy mpared to in the studies concerned? Food industries often fund studies comparing their products to products that are known to be ‘worse’ so that their own prioducts appear relatively healthy.

          Inflammation aside, a review from Harvard six months ago concluded

          ‘Substitution analyses based on prospective cohorts suggested that replacing dairy fat with vegetable fat or polyunsaturated fat was associated with significantly lower risk of cardiovascular disease.’
          https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11883-018-0724-z

          1. Oops …… ‘what was dairy COmpared to in the studies concerned’

            Would fruits and other vegetables have been even less inflammatory for example?

      2. Pete,
        I’d say you are guilty of overgeneralizing. Even if one assumes, for argument’s sake, that dairy is not a problem for cardiovascular disease, there is still the issue of its relationship to prostate cancer.

        https://www.pcrm.org/health/health-topics/milk-consumption-and-prostate-cancer
        “In conclusion, several lines of evidence indicate that consumption of dairy products is associated with increased risk of prostate cancer incidence and mortality. Avoidance of these products may offer a means of reducing risk of this common illness.”

        This overview is a bit old but here’s a 2017 overview of a Swedish Study by Dr. Samadi (world-famous prostate surgeon):
        https://www.roboticoncology.com/news/does-dairy-intake-hurt-or-harm-prostate-cancer-survival/

        ” For the 230 men who had localized prostate cancer, a high-fat milk intake was associated with an increased prostate cancer-specific mortality. Also among the men who consumed more than 1 serving of total milk each day, those who drank more high-fat milk than low-fat milk, regardless of the amount, had an association with an increased risk of both prostate cancer specific and mortality.”

        Here’s a link to the orginal study.
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28187509

        Also, claiming that the Mediterranean diet with oil, cheese, dairy and wine is “the best” is a big stretch – it’s better than many but there’s no reason to think it is “the best”. At best, that’s highly debatable.

    2. Carolina

      I can’t open the link but I assume that this is the PURE study led by a team from McMaster University in Canada. It has been widely promoted by people associaed with the dairy industry and low carbers

      McMaster is an ackowledged ‘partner’ of the Canadian dairy industry, by the way.
      https://www.dairyfarmers.ca/who-we-are/our-partners

      In essence the study compares poor people in poor countries with underdeveloped public health and medical systems, who consume nutritionally inadequate diets based on cheap low quality carbs, with rich people in rich countries who have access to excellent public heath and medical systems, who eat rich diets containing greter quantities of dairy and other animal foods Not surprisingly poor people in poor countries tend to have higher rates of mortality etc than rich people in rich countries. Ascribing this effect to higher levels of dairy consumption is some what of a stretch, to ut it kindly.

      The study paper’s conclusions have been widely criticised as poor science by Harvard among others
      https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2017/09/08/pure-study-makes-headlines-but-the-conclusions-are-misleading/
      https://nutritionstudies.org/pure-studys-conclusions-fats-carbs-misleading/
      https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/diet-health-puzzling-past-paradox-pure-understanding-david?trk=mp-reader-card

        1. Only accidentally – not sure how it happened. Perhaps I should call myself Mr Fumblefingers from now on.

          Or perhaps it was my cheap low spec laptop which is very slow and laggy at the best of times. Or perhaps it is the NF comment management system which does some strange things from time to time.

      1. Thank you! This kind of unfair comparison is what I’m fearing may be behind this.
        One of the reasons behind my frustration with this topic is noticing how all sorts of inflammation I had (mild nothing severe) went away as soon as I stopped dairy completely, despite testing negative to ALL food allergies. So, I bet there’s more than that. BTW, I used to share Peter’s foodie enthusiasm about dairy until I felt so good without it that well, I don’t think it’s worth going back. But that’s hardly a meta study, proper stats or hard science.
        Back to the point, largely vegan/plant based communities may not be the subject of new studies, so the relative comparison between wealthy dairy eaters and healthy individuals eating appropriate plant based diets is unlikely to be clear. Sigh.

  19. As a recovering cancer patient, I have just come across research on the anti cancer properties of drinking deuterium depleted water.
    This research looks to originate from Hungary and Romania, but is published, the science seems sound and the results look impressive.
    It’s possible to buy deuterium depleted drinking water but it’s very expensive.
    Is it worth the cost?
    John

Leave a Reply

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

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This