They mention it in the article and couldn't come to any conclusions.
I don't see anything that stands out as saying these couldn’t have been written by the same person (especially separated by a decade),” he wrote. “Nor do I see any similarity that wouldn’t also be true for many other authors and codebases. At a minimum, however, if they were written by the same person that person’s styles changed a lot (either due to time or intentionally hiding them).
That is certainly not what I would consider "quite a lot of food"! If I was forced to use your meal plan I'd eat it in a single sitting in the evening and fast the rest of the day.
This is why I hate the term "Two pizza teams". At best that is me and one other person. On a hungry day (say after training squats) I'd be working on my own.
While there are a few comments that this is a single meal. This is pretty much how I consume my food each day. The only exception is that I tend to add an Icelandic style yogurt to breakfast and some turkey sausage. Puts me around 1,000 calories.
I think you can mitigate a lot of the time and volatility risk by trading on margin, i.e. buy coin on one side and sell on the other. You can still get called on either side but the risk should be smaller.
Or a diet rich in resistant starches? Higher levels of butyrate et al might help keep these B. fragilis communities in check. Or maybe not. That's sort of the kicker with gut bacteria, it's such a complex system and so hard to measure that getting at causality can be tough.
A recent book called The Plant Paradox argues exactly this (among many other things). (But, also see my question about the author of the book elsewhere in this thread).
Resistant starch is awesome for your good bacteria as it helps them produce butyrate and other short chain fatty acids that are really good for your gut cells. Excellent video on the subject here: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/getting-starch-to-take-the-...
- Someone with 2 comments in total pointing to the same site
- A site called 'facts' showing a doctor selling books
- A site about nutrition focusing almost entirely on veganism
- A doctor who seems to push a vegan agenda and has a sort of cult following in the vegan community
- Cherry picking sources. It's quite obvious from reading some of the articles, and while I don't doubt veganism is good for you, it makes me doubt the site's credibility even more.
> Someone with 2 comments in total pointing to the same site
I have some more posts here, and also refer to the site a lot.
> A site called 'facts' showing a doctor selling books
I think the name of the site is a pun on the label that provides some info on the macros of many packaged food products. Afaik that label is titles "nutritionfacts" in the states.
The book he sells is great. Most (I guess all) of the info is also available for free on the website. And he donates the proceeds of the book. I'm also wary of doctors selling stuff (and pharma for that matter), but this guys seems not to be getting excessively rich on this. He seems intrinsically motivated.
> A site about nutrition focusing almost entirely on veganism
It focuses on evidence based nutrition. The doctor and his team claim to have evidence that a "whole plant food" diet is superior when it comes to preventing/reverting some diseases that are the leading killers/disablers in the western world.
> A doctor who seems to push a vegan agenda and has a sort of cult following in the vegan community
There's a list of prominent doctors that come to the same conclusions. Sure vegans feel at home with this narrative. But that should not make it less valuable information.
> Cherry picking sources. It's quite obvious from reading some of the articles, and while I don't doubt veganism is good for you, it makes me doubt the site's credibility even more.
That he (and others in this "nutrition against disease" movement) is cherry picking is often said. I believe it is hard to prove or disprove. And there is a lot of evidence that pharma is also guilty for cherry picking and manipulation. So it comes down to us having to make a choice ourselves. Who do you trust? Doctors/pharma selling chemicals without any consideration of diet, or doctors telling you to fix your diet to something "whole plant based" before trying chemicals? This is the main question for me at least.
I agree with your last point, it's hard to trust, which is why I err on the side of caution and try to avoid sites pushing one radical opinion over others. Paleo, vegan, atkins, there are tons of people, physicians included, insisting their research is the best.
So I think it's prudent to hold a more moderate stance on nutrition, an attitude of 'we don't know, let's find out' instead of 'I know best, trust me'.
Vegans almost always point to that site as some sort of gospel. Meanwhile, in the real world, the conclusions of the authors of many of the studies Greger cites don't line up with the conclusions he draws from them.
They research it because the doctors can't be bothered with that even though it's their job. Why doctors aren't fired in masses is bewildering.
Got this issue with my doctors. They just don't care about me. They want to do as little work as possible. They refuse to read the papers I give them. They refuse to use effective medicines according to the research. They refuse to listen to me period. They're lazy sadistic assholes.
Finding a doctor that actually cares, works and fight to heal you is very difficult. As rare as unicorns.
Here here. Cancer patient. I've met a LOT of doctors... only two of whom I trust more than my own research. I had to diagnose myself (!!!) after two doctors gave me the old "it's nothing", took months while it spread, demanded biopsy. Am now stage IV while they're still raking in the cash, coasting through their half-assed careers.
It's bewildering to me that I'm expected to put more effort and research into building some stupid web app than they do for being responsible for a human life, for a fraction of the money.
People who've not been through the system have NO idea just how dysfunctional it is. It's sickening and criminal, at every corner -- and NOTHING is being done.
You say that as though there were some well-known reason we should have stopped. So far as I am aware Snopes continues to be a reliable source of information about urban legends.
They've been wrong on a number facts, and have been shown to largely ignore any corrections or feedback + they've also shown a fairly clear political agenda in the last 12 months and have been creating 'facts' that simply aren't true to support that agenda.
