3 ms·
That liver article is really a stretch. The two studies I've found which reference it simply say consumption of liver or vitamin A supplements should be limited
by noondip 11y ago
That liver article is really a stretch. The two studies I've found which reference it simply say consumption of liver or vitamin A supplements should be limited to avoid excess exposure to retinol, although may be used as a last resort for nutrition in poor populations, and is also not teratogenic in pregnant women. Not very appealing reasons to take up meat-eating, in my opinion.
I think your assessment of Dr. Greger's position on antioxidants is flawed. One of his oldest videos (published 7 years ago) reaches the same conclusion as your Harvard article:
> The studies so far are inconclusive, but generally don’t provide strong evidence that antioxidant supplements have a substantial impact on disease.
> At the same time, abundant evidence suggests that eating whole fruits, vegetables, and whole grains—all rich in networks of antioxidants and their helper molecules—provides protection against many of these scourges of aging.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/antioxidant-vitamin-supplements/ http://nutritionfacts.org/video/antioxidant-vitamin-suppleme...
> With two notable exceptions we should try to get nutrients from produce, not pills.
In fact, he even comments on his own video:
> I’m afraid many millions of Americans have been bamboozled by the multi-billion dollar supplement industry. I’ll be posting more videos on this–stay tuned!
To affiliate him with the industry he so vehemently protests is a tragic misunderstanding. He is quite outspoken about corporate influence and lobbying, if you care to explore more of his ad-free web site.
Finally, your cited study on gluten-free, casein-free diets is several years newer than his video, which I believe is an unfair comparison.
- duckmysick 11y agoIf I recall correctly you were looking for references supporting the claim that "any meat consumption is beneficial or healthy". I provided you with so. I didn't realize the goalposts moved in the meantime to "appealing reasons to take up meat-eating". > One of his oldest videos (published 7 years ago) reaches the same conclusion as your Harvard article I haven't seen that particular video, so it seems there are good bits on that website. My point on not taking everything for granted still stands. > He is quite outspoken about corporate influence and lobbying, if you care to explore more of his ad-free web site. I did and I found his thoughts about corporate patents [1] interesting. And I wouldn't call it "ad-free" when it tries to sell me books and DVDs. > Finally, your cited study on gluten-free, casein-free diets is several years newer than his video, which I believe is an unfair comparison. And I believe it is a fair one, for two reasons. First, while this particular video might be several years older than the study I cited, Mr Greger publishes new videos every week. He can publish a new one about recent studies. In fact, that's one of the mission of his non-profit. To provide "free updates on the latest in nutrition research via bite-sized videos". Second, this excuse might be ok if it was a paper book, but we're talking about a website which can be easily modified. Also, YouTube videos offer annotation feature for situations just like those. If anything, it's unfair to those who are unaware of the latest research - which is the target audience of that website. 1 - http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/09/08/plants-as-intellectual-property-patently-wrong/ http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/09/08/plants-as-intellectual-...