Moderators: JeffN, carolve, Heather McDougall
Adrienne wrote: Dr G said that last year there were 24,000 nutrition articles published on nutrition and that if you are still saying the same thing you said 10 years ago then you are not keeping up in the field. Do you agree with that?
"A number of empirical studies show that 80-90% of the claims coming from supposedly scientific studies in major journals fail to replicate."
Adrienne wrote: And of all those articles how many do you think are actually relevant?
Adrienne wrote: And on the subject research, Dr G mentioned that he was in fact enrolled to a joint MD/PhD program but then decided to switch to a straight MD program. In your opinion, how important is formal training in conducting/interpreting studies?
Adrienne wrote: Do you think that a joint MD/ PhD physician scientist degree would have offered Dr Greger an advantage, and therefore improved the quality of his videos and articles?
Adrienne wrote: When AJ asked if he missed working with patients he said yes, but that he doesn’t “have the luxury to do that anymore when our society is so sick." Right before that he said that when he was seeing patients perhaps he could reach dozens of people a day, when he was speaking he could reach thousands, but now he can use the same research, skills and background to spread this lifesaving info to as many people as possible.
I assumed he was referring to the work he does with Nutrition Facts (reading studies, making videos) since, after all, people are not “so sick” with bird flu, mad cow and other infectious d diseases related to his work at the humane society, but with obesity, heart disease, diabetes etc…
So basically it came across like he thinks he can help more people making three five-minute videos a week than seeing a handful of patients a day. Do you agree with that? Do you think the world would be better off if suddenly you, Dr McD, Craig McD, Dr Ess, Dr Davis, Dr Ostfeld etc suddenly decided to stop seeing patients b/c, technically, you all could “reach” more people sitting at home making with You Tube videos? Of course this would require the “luxury” of being able to do that, which Dr Greger seems to have. (It must take A LOT of time to read through and carefully evaluate thousands of studies.)
Adrienne wrote: Have you ever met, worked with, or heard of anyone who credits Nutrition Facts with profoundly changing their lives for the better, similar to Star McDougaller stories or FOK success stories?
Adrienne wrote: I find it ironic that he switched from the MD/PhD program to the straight MD program b/c he realized that the world needed conversion of the research for clinical practice, yet he himself isn’t even doing that anymore. I can't help but think that if Dr G was seeing patients he could make a HUGE difference in the lives of a small - yet significant - number of people. As you often point out, implementing a WFPB diet can be so difficult for many. This type of one on one, doctor/patient interaction is not something that can be replaced with short You Tube clips. On top of that if he was seeing patients he could introduce the whole concept of a WFPB diet from the beginning and explain the benefits, which are still unknown to too many people.I could be wrong but I get the feeling that most loyal NF viewers are already converted and have already reaped the benefits, to a certain degree anyway.
Adrienne wrote: Also, he mentioned that in his new book he discusses the benefits of turmeric. Do you know of any benefits to adding a little turmeric for people already eating plant-based? Is this one of those instances of unique positioning/market differentiation?
Adrienne wrote: Finally I wish there would have been some discussion regarding the enormous benefits AJ has experienced by eliminating all nuts, limiting seeds, eating a lot of white potatoes, and essentially adhering to guidelines that he once called "ego-based," "outdated" and "not the best science-based advice." It’s too bad that she didn’t call him out on that!
Adrienne wrote:Question: Who is Dr Seale? I have never heard you mention them before.
JeffN wrote:Now, I admit that I do not post every single one I think is relevant or important, just the most relevant and important ones. For arguments sake, lets double my 49 to 98, though my guess is, it is not double but more like an additional 10-15 studies. Using the 98, 98/12000 is .8%.
This number is actually more inline with my thoughts/comments on the issue, especially in regard to the way research is done today, that about 1% of the stuff published is of any true value.
JeffN wrote:Last week, I posted a review of the studies I have covered in this forum in the first 6 months of 2015, which totaled 49.
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=48778
Now, I admit that I do not post every single one I think is relevant or important, just the most relevant and important ones. For arguments sake, lets double my 49 to 98, though my guess is, it is not double but more like an additional 10-15 studies. Using the 98, 98/12000 is .8%.
This number is actually more inline with my thoughts/comments on the issue, especially in regard to the way research is done today, that about 1% of the stuff published is of any true value. As I have said in the forum, you can go away for 6 months to a year (or more) and not pay attention to any of the "breaking" health news and not miss a thing. In fact, of the 49 studies I posted, not one, was breaking health news. Not one. Not one required a major change in thinking or how you eat. They just added to the body of evidence on many of the topics I am already discussing here.
The only possible exception is 2 areas that have been developing over the last few years. The first is the negative effect of excessive exercise and that the "runners heart" that was once thought to be benign, may actually be harmful. We don't know for sure yet but to me it seems like the evidence is building in that direction. The second, is the impact of Intermittent Fasting. While this has been practiced by certain health philosophies and certain religions for quite some time, it is now being formally studied for its health impact. Again, we don't know for sure yet and there seems to be some advantage in the preliminary studies but there is so much more to learn about it. What will be important is whether or not any long term benefit equals or exceeds the benefit already conferred by this WOE, how healthy a diet must be adhered to on the non fasting days, etc etc.
I am willing to wager that there will be no major breakthrough in 2020 either
geo wrote:I am willing to wager that there will be no major breakthrough in 2020 either
I'm willing to wager there will be no better nutritional advise given in our lifetimes, than what is currently given here today...afterall, nothing has really changed in the last 45 years as far as I can see.
JeffN wrote:JeffN wrote:Last week, I posted a review of the studies I have covered in this forum in the first 6 months of 2015, which totaled 49.
https://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/view ... 22&t=48778
Now, I admit that I do not post every single one I think is relevant or important, just the most relevant and important ones. For arguments sake, lets double my 49 to 98, though my guess is, it is not double but more like an additional 10-15 studies. Using the 98, 98/12000 is .8%.
This number is actually more inline with my thoughts/comments on the issue, especially in regard to the way research is done today, that about 1% of the stuff published is of any true value. As I have said in the forum, you can go away for 6 months to a year (or more) and not pay attention to any of the "breaking" health news and not miss a thing. In fact, of the 49 studies I posted, not one, was breaking health news. Not one. Not one required a major change in thinking or how you eat. They just added to the body of evidence on many of the topics I am already discussing here.
The only possible exception is 2 areas that have been developing over the last few years. The first is the negative effect of excessive exercise and that the "runners heart" that was once thought to be benign, may actually be harmful. We don't know for sure yet but to me it seems like the evidence is building in that direction. The second, is the impact of Intermittent Fasting. While this has been practiced by certain health philosophies and certain religions for quite some time, it is now being formally studied for its health impact. Again, we don't know for sure yet and there seems to be some advantage in the preliminary studies but there is so much more to learn about it. What will be important is whether or not any long term benefit equals or exceeds the benefit already conferred by this WOE, how healthy a diet must be adhered to on the non fasting days, etc etc.
Another four years have gone by since the above post.
What has changed in the world of nutritional science and dietary intervention?
Nothing!
And what about the two items I mentioned above.
1) Excessive exercise. Research is about the same on this right now. Not much has come out but what has become more clear (which is like the flip side of excessive exercise) is how powerful even a minimal amount of exercise is. The most important message in regard to exercise is that the biggest impact on our health (personal and public) is moving from sedentary to about 30 minutes of moderate exercise. Moving up to an hour may confer some additional benefit but it will be small in comparison to what they first 30 minutes provided.
2) Intermittent fasting. Nothing has changed other then they media (and sadly some health care professional) hype. It has not proven out more effect in any area than regular consistent healthy eating. However, it has been shown to have some adverse health effects and higher drop out rates. So the main message remains, eat when hungry until comfortably full of the recommended foods. What we eat remains the most powerful aspect of dietary intervention, not when.
I am willing to wager that there will be no major breakthrough in 2020 either
In Health
Jeff
Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot and 0 guests