3 ms·

Maybe you want to consider to switch to a whole food plant based diet. Other than the other „lifestyle“ diets such as low carb, the plant based is actually back

Maybe you want to consider to switch to a whole food plant based diet. Other than the other „lifestyle“ diets such as low carb, the plant based is actually backed by science. A good source is nutritionfacts.org and the book „how not to die“ by the same author. If you asked me to switch two months ago, I‘d say no way. But the science behind it convinced me to try it and it is so much easier than expected.

iamben 8y ago
Appreciate the comment; I tried veganism as a test for a month a few years ago and didn't get on with it at all. Keto seems to work pretty well for me - I enjoy the food and there's plenty of science to geek out on :-)
JanSt 8y ago
The science is actually very shaky. I've looked at the first 30 or so studies Greger cites and they often seem not to give (with statistical significance or at all) what he seems to claim. There are also many duplicated sources to increase the citation page count. He also cherry-picks very strongly.
coldtea 8y ago
If the science is a private website and a book by the same person, it's not really "science". And by mixing and matching different research papers, any diet peddler/author/etc can make it appear as their specific diet is "backed by science" (when it's just a bunch of disparate papers in its favor, without context -- e.g. later responses to those papers, quality and reproducibility, papers that study the exact opposite claims and also work, etc). The only real science is not in studies (that are a dime a dozen, of widely different quality, and most are shoddily done and discredited by later studies), but in what's accepted by the nutritionist/medical professionals as nutrition 101.
- laforge 8y ago
  Generally I agree, but I don't think that this applies to nutritionfacts.org. The website is not by a single individual with commercial interests. All revenue from the book goes to his foundation, which runs the website. And the book has round about 100 pages of references. Here is a video where he explains how he does his research and how the videos are created: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/behind-the-scenes-at-nutritionfacts-org/ https://nutritionfacts.org/video/behind-the-scenes-at-nutrit...
- coldtea 8y ago
  >* The website is not by a single individual with commercial interests. All revenue from the book goes to his foundation, which runs the website* Not sure for the particulars of this case, but setting up a "foundation", "non profit (which gives one huge salaries as 'expenses')" and so on, are the oldest tricks in the book for con-men, from churches, to donations, activists, etc... So "all money goes to the foundation" is hardly comforting (the foundation can be setup to cut them a big payslip for their consulting/services/running it, save him tax, etc, in the end make them more than they would make with a "for profit" entity).
fifnir 8y ago
What's the best that we can eat? --> What we're evolved to eat What did hominids eat up to 10.000 years ago? --> Everything except carbs as we know them today There's your connection of science to low-carb Carbs in the quantities that we have them these days are ridiculously unnatural,

iamben 8y ago

Appreciate the comment; I tried veganism as a test for a month a few years ago and didn't get on with it at all. Keto seems to work pretty well for me - I enjoy the food and there's plenty of science to geek out on :-)

JanSt 8y ago

The science is actually very shaky. I've looked at the first 30 or so studies Greger cites and they often seem not to give (with statistical significance or at all) what he seems to claim. There are also many duplicated sources to increase the citation page count. He also cherry-picks very strongly.

coldtea 8y ago

If the science is a private website and a book by the same person, it's not really "science". And by mixing and matching different research papers, any diet peddler/author/etc can make it appear as their specific diet is "backed by science" (when it's just a bunch of disparate papers in its favor, without context -- e.g. later responses to those papers, quality and reproducibility, papers that study the exact opposite claims and also work, etc). The only real science is not in studies (that are a dime a dozen, of widely different quality, and most are shoddily done and discredited by later studies), but in what's accepted by the nutritionist/medical professionals as nutrition 101.

laforge 8y ago
Generally I agree, but I don't think that this applies to nutritionfacts.org. The website is not by a single individual with commercial interests. All revenue from the book goes to his foundation, which runs the website. And the book has round about 100 pages of references. Here is a video where he explains how he does his research and how the videos are created: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/behind-the-scenes-at-nutritionfacts-org/ https://nutritionfacts.org/video/behind-the-scenes-at-nutrit...
coldtea 8y ago
>* The website is not by a single individual with commercial interests. All revenue from the book goes to his foundation, which runs the website* Not sure for the particulars of this case, but setting up a "foundation", "non profit (which gives one huge salaries as 'expenses')" and so on, are the oldest tricks in the book for con-men, from churches, to donations, activists, etc... So "all money goes to the foundation" is hardly comforting (the foundation can be setup to cut them a big payslip for their consulting/services/running it, save him tax, etc, in the end make them more than they would make with a "for profit" entity).

fifnir 8y ago

What's the best that we can eat? --> What we're evolved to eat What did hominids eat up to 10.000 years ago? --> Everything except carbs as we know them today There's your connection of science to low-carb Carbs in the quantities that we have them these days are ridiculously unnatural,