Any comments on this? thanks!
This video is not supported in the format you posted and was flagged as spam. Can you please check your video link please.
There are not enough spoiler blurs in the world to cover up my comments on thisâŚ
Itâs called NutritionFacts.org but it is really Doctor Gregerâs Vegetarian Mouthpiece and Sales Pitch. Vegan nonsense.
Believe it at your peril.
It does sound convincing though⌠shame the facts utterly deny this BS.
I wonder how he would explain my reversal of T2D by eating so much saturated fatâŚdelicious, delicious, saturated fat.
âŚand reversing (still underway) my fatty liver. (but, fats are supposed to kill liver cells, right??) smirk
I gave up on one of his videos when he claimed that his fatherâs diabetes was caused by his motherâs frying their eggs in bacon fat. It clearly had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with all the bread, muffins, pies, cakes, cookies, jam, and ice cream, of course.
hi, sorry about the trouble posting the video (thanks for the help).
to be clear, I am not advocating for these people (nutrition facts, dr. Greger or whoever). It just was on my facebook feed and I thought it was interesting. This group does cite science/studies, and it is definitely in contrast to the ketogenic diet.
The fact that these people have a general philosophy that differs from keto has no significance to me - after all, the mantra of the â2 keto dudesâ is âshow me the science!â So instead of a blanket dismissal of this as âvegan propaganda,â Iâd much rather hear the reasons that the science they present is flawed or otherwise wrong.
I would love to see/hear and explanation from someone that understands the science way better than I do. Off hand, all I saw in the video were headlines and snippets from articles and studies that they used to create a narrative.
Typically, the studies quoted are epidemiological studies that rely on notoriously unreliable food questionnaires to determine what people have been eating. Not only that, but even a spectacularly well-conducted epidemiological study can only uncover correlations that need further testing. Randomized, controlled studies are required to prove any hypothesis generated by epidemiological data, and it is almost impossible to conduct a double-blind nutritional study.
Furthermore, such trials are extremely expensive, especially since the best data would come from putting couple of hundred thousand subjects on strictly-controlled diets and locking them up a in a metabolic ward for a year or twoâwhich is not going to happen. So what you get is mostly short-term, underpowered studies with few participants, yielding statiscal results that in any other field would be ignored (in physics, they wonât even pay attention unless the p-value < 0.001; in nutrition studies p-values < 0.05 are considered significant by people desperate to prove a point).
It is also not unknown for researchers to publish âconclusionsâ that are directly contradicted by the very data of their study.
Iâm not saying that this doesnât happen on the keto side, as well. As Gary Taubes points out, it is really hard and really expensive to do high-quality nutritional research, and keto researchers are just as capable of deluding themselves as vegan researchers (he quotes Feynman to the effect that âIn science, above all, you must not fool yourselfâand youâre the easiest one to fool.â). Taubes and his friend Dr. Attia tried to fund some well-done studies, and the results were not of the quality theyâd hoped for (as Taubes put it, âWe didnât really know what we were doing.â), so their backers are now devoting their money to other projects.
The claims are demonstrably and categorically wrong based on the vast number of ketonauts creating healthier pancreases and livers by eating high saturated fat diets. The âscienceâ is cherry picked BS that is mostly, as @PaulL said, associational crap for humans (that drives the majority of the faulty conclusions) or low value rat studies, probably coming out of the plant-based universities. The very basis of this propaganda, which have no doubt it is, is that it requires a lot of work to refute the clips and headlines fully, but given the utter BS of the primary claims themselves, you can skip that bit and just ignore.
Or go vegan and report back.
Dr. Greger has a habit of interpreting everything as black and white through the lens of âeating plant derived foods is good; animal derived foods are badâ.
There is a convincing body of scientific evidence for the statement made in the video that saturated fat in the context of a hypercaloric diet is harmful. He interprets that as eating animal derived products is lethal. Ignoring the context of a hypercaloric diet of refined carbohydrates. The excess of carbs alone will cause hyperinsulinemia which keeps lipolysis chronically suppressed and leads to harmfully elevated serum triglycerides. In a low insulin context, saturated fat is an excellent fuel. The vegetable oils he favors are linked to greater cancer risk.