3 ms·

Yeesh. That's a great visual. I'm a sedentary software engineer... gotta make some changes. It reminds me of the cancer slides in the "How Not to Die" talk http

Yeesh. That's a great visual. I'm a sedentary software engineer... gotta make some changes. It reminds me of the cancer slides in the "How Not to Die" talk https://youtu.be/7rNY7xKyGCQ?t=780 https://youtu.be/7rNY7xKyGCQ?t=780 which is partly why I'm now vegan.

andy_ppp 8y ago
Love the talking style of the speaker as well as the terrifying content!
hokkos 8y ago
Dr Greger and its undisclosed vegan agenda using cherry picked or wrongly interpreted studies to push it.
- chillingeffect 8y ago
  Would you consider adding to the discussion by presenting meta-studies showing meat is not carcinogenic?
  - close04 8y ago
    That's not how things work. A study can only prove something was not carcinogenic during the study. It cannot prove it's not carcinogenic [period]. The other way around works: if a study shows something was carcinogenic during the study, it proved it's carcinogenic [period]. All of this assumes properly conducted studies. On the other hand studies proved UV rays are carcinogenic [0]. Assuming knowing meat is carcinogenic turns you into a vegetarian let me know how you'd approach getting out of the house from now on. [0] https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/uv-radiation/uv-radiation-does-uv-cause-cancer.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposu...
    - LinXitoW 8y ago
      That's quite the comparison, considering one of those is practically impossible to do and would have a lot of negative consequences in other areas. Whereas the other is doable (as evidenced by the existence of vegans) AND has a lot of other positive consequences (environmental, moral). Most definitions of veganism include something like "reduce suffering as far as possible and practicable". It's not absolute. Of course, another objection to your comparison is that it suggests if we cannot remove ALL bad things, we ought not to do anything.
      - close04 8y ago
        I replied to a comment asking to "prove a negative". Either due to poor understanding of how it works or to skew the answer in their favor. But to the point, you could wear sunscreen. But you consider that to be too much of a hassle even when risking cancer. And no, that's not what my comparison was suggesting. What I tried to say clearly (not just suggest) is that if you live and die by studies than don't cherry pick. Don't ask for studies only when it suits you and it supports your point of view. In the end it's mostly personal preference. No study said "moderate meat consumption will cause cancer" yet people are willing to skew the conclusions to better justify a personal choice. Just give up meat if you feel like it and use the study as additional justification if needed. Don't go waving studies to justify your choice but put them aside when they don't.
- jmulho 8y ago
  It doesn't matter which cherry you pick, they all lead to the same conclusion: eating too many animals and not enough plants causes our most common diseases (obesity, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, stroke). Dr. Greger's agenda is not about the animals, it is about the people.
  - nordsieck 8y ago
    > eating too many animals and not enough plants causes our most common diseases (obesity, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, stroke) Do you actually believe that eating "too many animals and not enough plants" is the cause of diabetes (I assume you're referring to Type II)?
    - seidleroni 8y ago
      I think that is exactly the point Dr Greger makes. Specifically not enough unprocessed plant foods. (https://nutritionfacts.org/video/what-causes-diabetes/ https://nutritionfacts.org/video/what-causes-diabetes/). Click on the "sources" section to get the sources cited.
    - jmulho 8y ago
      Yes, I do believe that, and yes Type II (not Type 1). According to Dr. Greger there is mounting evidence that fat is the cause, and that problems processing carbs is the symptom. Here are his videos with many studies cited: https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/diabetes/ https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/diabetes/. Or Google type 2 diabetes and vegans. Here is the first thing I found: https://veganhealth.org/type-2-diabetes-in-vegans/ https://veganhealth.org/type-2-diabetes-in-vegans/. I'll take a 68% lower rate as some evidence. Vegans, by the way, are people who eat "too many plants and not enough animals". It helps with certain diseases.
chillingeffect 8y ago
definitely start a sit/stand desk as early as possible. I didn't think I was that unhealthy sitting all day until I had an injury from a car accident which took waaay too long to heal - primarily bc my hamstrings and IT band were shortened from all that sitting! when i left my last job, I started working from home without the sit/stand for about 2 weeks thinking "that didn't help that much," until I started noticing the tightness all over my body. I just bought a sit/stand (Varidesk fwiw) last night.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  Do you have a pad for under your desk? I find that I can't just stand all day without getting stiff either.
  - chillingeffect 8y ago
    I didn't have one and yes it took a few weeks of building up to being able to stand all day, so I would take sitting breaks for 1-2 hours. From what I understand, it's actually better to have a mix than to stand only. But yes, now that you remind me, I will get a pad! Thank you.
    - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
      > From what I understand, it's actually better to have a mix than to stand only. Yeah, we like to think that standing is something new, but cashiers have done it for years, and, having spent time as one in my youth, I can tell you that there is a lot of discomfort during the work week. I'd really recommend sitting and standing.
    - frankzinger 8y ago
      > From what I understand, it's actually better to have a mix than to stand only. Indeed. You will probably get spider veins otherwise. Happened to me. I've been working standing up since 2011 and only noticed it a couple of years ago so it might take a while.

andy_ppp 8y ago

Love the talking style of the speaker as well as the terrifying content!

hokkos 8y ago

Dr Greger and its undisclosed vegan agenda using cherry picked or wrongly interpreted studies to push it.

chillingeffect 8y ago
Would you consider adding to the discussion by presenting meta-studies showing meat is not carcinogenic?
- close04 8y ago
  That's not how things work. A study can only prove something was not carcinogenic during the study. It cannot prove it's not carcinogenic [period]. The other way around works: if a study shows something was carcinogenic during the study, it proved it's carcinogenic [period]. All of this assumes properly conducted studies. On the other hand studies proved UV rays are carcinogenic [0]. Assuming knowing meat is carcinogenic turns you into a vegetarian let me know how you'd approach getting out of the house from now on. [0] https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/uv-radiation/uv-radiation-does-uv-cause-cancer.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposu...
  - LinXitoW 8y ago
    That's quite the comparison, considering one of those is practically impossible to do and would have a lot of negative consequences in other areas. Whereas the other is doable (as evidenced by the existence of vegans) AND has a lot of other positive consequences (environmental, moral). Most definitions of veganism include something like "reduce suffering as far as possible and practicable". It's not absolute. Of course, another objection to your comparison is that it suggests if we cannot remove ALL bad things, we ought not to do anything.
    - close04 8y ago
      I replied to a comment asking to "prove a negative". Either due to poor understanding of how it works or to skew the answer in their favor. But to the point, you could wear sunscreen. But you consider that to be too much of a hassle even when risking cancer. And no, that's not what my comparison was suggesting. What I tried to say clearly (not just suggest) is that if you live and die by studies than don't cherry pick. Don't ask for studies only when it suits you and it supports your point of view. In the end it's mostly personal preference. No study said "moderate meat consumption will cause cancer" yet people are willing to skew the conclusions to better justify a personal choice. Just give up meat if you feel like it and use the study as additional justification if needed. Don't go waving studies to justify your choice but put them aside when they don't.
jmulho 8y ago
It doesn't matter which cherry you pick, they all lead to the same conclusion: eating too many animals and not enough plants causes our most common diseases (obesity, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, stroke). Dr. Greger's agenda is not about the animals, it is about the people.
- nordsieck 8y ago
  > eating too many animals and not enough plants causes our most common diseases (obesity, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, stroke) Do you actually believe that eating "too many animals and not enough plants" is the cause of diabetes (I assume you're referring to Type II)?
  - seidleroni 8y ago
    I think that is exactly the point Dr Greger makes. Specifically not enough unprocessed plant foods. (https://nutritionfacts.org/video/what-causes-diabetes/ https://nutritionfacts.org/video/what-causes-diabetes/). Click on the "sources" section to get the sources cited.
  - jmulho 8y ago
    Yes, I do believe that, and yes Type II (not Type 1). According to Dr. Greger there is mounting evidence that fat is the cause, and that problems processing carbs is the symptom. Here are his videos with many studies cited: https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/diabetes/ https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/diabetes/. Or Google type 2 diabetes and vegans. Here is the first thing I found: https://veganhealth.org/type-2-diabetes-in-vegans/ https://veganhealth.org/type-2-diabetes-in-vegans/. I'll take a 68% lower rate as some evidence. Vegans, by the way, are people who eat "too many plants and not enough animals". It helps with certain diseases.

chillingeffect 8y ago

definitely start a sit/stand desk as early as possible. I didn't think I was that unhealthy sitting all day until I had an injury from a car accident which took waaay too long to heal - primarily bc my hamstrings and IT band were shortened from all that sitting! when i left my last job, I started working from home without the sit/stand for about 2 weeks thinking "that didn't help that much," until I started noticing the tightness all over my body. I just bought a sit/stand (Varidesk fwiw) last night.

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
Do you have a pad for under your desk? I find that I can't just stand all day without getting stiff either.
- chillingeffect 8y ago
  I didn't have one and yes it took a few weeks of building up to being able to stand all day, so I would take sitting breaks for 1-2 hours. From what I understand, it's actually better to have a mix than to stand only. But yes, now that you remind me, I will get a pad! Thank you.
  - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
    > From what I understand, it's actually better to have a mix than to stand only. Yeah, we like to think that standing is something new, but cashiers have done it for years, and, having spent time as one in my youth, I can tell you that there is a lot of discomfort during the work week. I'd really recommend sitting and standing.
  - frankzinger 8y ago
    > From what I understand, it's actually better to have a mix than to stand only. Indeed. You will probably get spider veins otherwise. Happened to me. I've been working standing up since 2011 and only noticed it a couple of years ago so it might take a while.