Re: Debunking Michael Greger
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:55 am
I have enjoyed reading this discussion. I suppose this is why in Forks Over Knives reference is made to a "plant-strong" diet with the admonition that animal protein should be less than 5% of the calories in one's daily diet. The junk-food vegan political diatribe has failed to capture the imagination of the West, and has probably done more harm than good in turning off people to eat all they want (while getting lots of variety) of any whole, unrefined plant-based food.
Obviously, eating an oz of nuts along with starches, fruits, vegetables, and legumes is not going to do any harm to the human body; it's nuts to go nuts over nuts. But the AJ article just pointed out that if you want to lose more weight then cut out some calories such as nuts -- now that isn't nuts or nutty advice; makes sense.
As for Dr. Greger, he's just presenting the studies that on a macro level show why eating a whole, unrefined plant-based food diet without fixating on any one particular plant is an advantageous life-style.
Sometimes advocacy can become extreme. I recall reading a response to a poster about whether raw cacao powder was okay to eat, and the shoot-from-the-hip response was that it should be avoided because in pertinent part it was full of saturated fat. What? We all know that cacao powder has no fat (okay, maybe in irrelevant amount), and so it should be intuitive and obvious that eating a no-fat plant food is just fine -- and it "could" have some positive benefits synergistically along with all the other plants we eat. But why was the question dismissed with an obviously wrong answer? I think Jeff just didn't read it carefully and thought the question was regarding "raw cacao nibs" -- then his answer made sense. But the poster had to be shaking her head in disbelief. Still, Jeff's points on average are excellent as are Dr. Greger's.
Oh, some of the witty posts had me laughing and loving the poster's intellect.
I too 20 years ago would never have believed that I would become a strict whole, unrefined plant-based eater. My oldest daughter still can't believe it; but I was always interested in nutrition, and when a friend recommended that I read The China Study I thought it made sense -- and anecdotally my health has improved dramatically since the change (my arthritis in my hands disappeared, my senior moments are seldom, my cholesterol dropped to 118 (three months ago; next week I'll have it checked again); etc.).
If we can get everyone to cut back, way back, on the animal protein and junk food, processed oils, then the health benefits will be dramatic compared to the present situation we find in the West. "We have met the enemy, and it is us." Nevertheless, an extreme wing is always necessary to keep pulling us in the right direction -- so all you "fanatics" keep it up!! You are noticed and appreciated.
In health.
Obviously, eating an oz of nuts along with starches, fruits, vegetables, and legumes is not going to do any harm to the human body; it's nuts to go nuts over nuts. But the AJ article just pointed out that if you want to lose more weight then cut out some calories such as nuts -- now that isn't nuts or nutty advice; makes sense.
As for Dr. Greger, he's just presenting the studies that on a macro level show why eating a whole, unrefined plant-based food diet without fixating on any one particular plant is an advantageous life-style.
Sometimes advocacy can become extreme. I recall reading a response to a poster about whether raw cacao powder was okay to eat, and the shoot-from-the-hip response was that it should be avoided because in pertinent part it was full of saturated fat. What? We all know that cacao powder has no fat (okay, maybe in irrelevant amount), and so it should be intuitive and obvious that eating a no-fat plant food is just fine -- and it "could" have some positive benefits synergistically along with all the other plants we eat. But why was the question dismissed with an obviously wrong answer? I think Jeff just didn't read it carefully and thought the question was regarding "raw cacao nibs" -- then his answer made sense. But the poster had to be shaking her head in disbelief. Still, Jeff's points on average are excellent as are Dr. Greger's.
Oh, some of the witty posts had me laughing and loving the poster's intellect.
I too 20 years ago would never have believed that I would become a strict whole, unrefined plant-based eater. My oldest daughter still can't believe it; but I was always interested in nutrition, and when a friend recommended that I read The China Study I thought it made sense -- and anecdotally my health has improved dramatically since the change (my arthritis in my hands disappeared, my senior moments are seldom, my cholesterol dropped to 118 (three months ago; next week I'll have it checked again); etc.).
If we can get everyone to cut back, way back, on the animal protein and junk food, processed oils, then the health benefits will be dramatic compared to the present situation we find in the West. "We have met the enemy, and it is us." Nevertheless, an extreme wing is always necessary to keep pulling us in the right direction -- so all you "fanatics" keep it up!! You are noticed and appreciated.
In health.