HOW NOT TO DIE Michael Greger MD

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You know nothing about diet and nutrition, let alone how the human body works. Your posts are condescending and insulting. "too lazy to prepare actual food?" Really? Did it occur to you that people going through chemotherapy need it to live? Or that people, for WHATEVER REASON, cannot get enough calories and nutrients to thrive?

Diets vary. My own diet is proof of that, but that does not negate the fact that plant based diets cure and reverse chronic disease directly caused by western type eating.

My mother used and currently my Mother in Law uses this garbage called ensure. They substitute it for actual food which their bodies need more than ever. Perhaps they do it because they are too lazy or no longer able (clearly not the case) to prepare actual food. But for certain they use it because they walked into a doc's office and he suggested it. So now instead of supplementing with it they actually use it for food, which hastens their death and disability.

Or maybe in their case it's the best they can do, a kind of inevitable dietary change that extends life (or death) by some years whereas said person would have been buried generations ago. But I think that's not it. I think stuff like ensure is just part of the western diet that causes disease. But if it works for you then continue to use it.

And I would be interested in discussing your situation just out of curiosity. I'm always trying to learn when it comes to health.

It likely never occurred to you that diet and cancer are linked, that the western diet is associated with higher cancer risks, all other things being equal, including genetics. But I don't know your eating habits or even where you live.

BTW I know a lot about diet and nutrition.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Here's a sampling of Greger's argument, here talking about fiber:

Fiber

Inadequate fiber consumption may also be a risk factor for breast cancer. Researchers at Yale University and elsewhere found that premenopausal women who ate more than about six grams of fiber a day (the equivalent of about a single cup of black beans) had 62 percent lower odds of breast cancer compared with women who consumed less than around four grams a day. Fiber’s benefits appeared more pronounced for estrogen-receptor-negative breast tumors, which are harder to treat: Premenopausal women on a higher fiber diet had 85 percent lower odds of that type of breast cancer.

How did the researchers arrive at these figures? The Yale study was what’s called a case controlled study. Scientists compared the past diets of women who had breast cancer (the cases) to the past diets of similar women who did not have breast cancer (the controls) to try to tease out if there is something distinctive about the eating habits of women who developed the disease. The researchers found that certain women with breast cancer reported eating significantly less soluble fiber on average than the cancer-free women. Hence, soluble fiber may be protective.

The women in the study weren’t getting their fiber from supplements, though; they were getting it from food. But this could mean that eating more fiber is merely evidence that the cancer-free women are eating more plant foods, the only place fiber is found naturally. Therefore, fiber itself might not be the active ingredient. Maybe there’s something else protective in the plant foods. “On the other hand,” noted the researchers, “an increased consumption of fiber from foods of plant origin … may reflect a reduced consumption of foods of animal origin … “ In other words, maybe it’s not what they were eating more of but what they were eating less of. The reason high fiber intake is associated with less breast cancer may be because of more beans – or less bologna.

Either way an analysis of a dozen other breast cancer case-controlled studies reported similar findings, with lower breast cancer risk associated with indicators of fruit and vegetable intake, such as vitamin C intake, and higher breast cancer risk associated with higher saturated-fat intake (an indicator of meat, dairy and processed food intake). And according to these studies, the more whole plant foods you eat, the better it is for your health: Every twenty grams of fiber intake per day was associated with a 15 percent lower risk of breast cancer.

One problem with case-control studies, though, is that they rely on people’s memory of what they’ve been eating, potentially introducing what’s known as “recall bias.” For example, if people with cancer are more likely to selectively remember more of the unhealthy things they ate, this skewed recall could artificially inflate the correlation between eating certain foods and cancer. Prospective cohort studies avoid this problem by following a group (cohort) of healthy women and their diets forward (prospectively) in time to see who gets cancer and who doesn’t. A compilation of ten such prospective cohort studies on breast cancer and fiber intake came up with similar results to the dozen case-control studies mentioned above, a 14 percent lower risk of breast cancer for every twenty grams of fiber intake per day. The relationship between more fiber and less breast cancer may not be a straight line, though. Breast cancer may not significantly fall until at least twenty-five grams of fiber a day is reached.

Unfortunately, the average American woman appears to eat less than fifteen grams of fiber per day – only about half the minimum daily recommendation. Even the average vegetarian in the United States may only get about twenty grams daily. Healthier vegetarians, though, may average thirty-seven grams a day, and vegans forty-six grams daily. Meanwhile, the whole food, plant based diet used therapeutically to reverse chronic disease contain upward of sixty grams of fiber.

I have omitted all his citations because I don't know how to include them but every page is cited probably a dozen times with the notes taking up about 150 pages of small type at the end of his book.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I was/am a fan of The China Study which seems similar to How Not To Die.
I was vegan for about five months until a job/move disrupted it. For me the best part was the psychological change. As I progressed meat and dairy became less appealing, particularly the sight of raw meat and melted cheese. Beans and mushrooms started to satisfy me in the same way meat did. I was eating more and loosing weight. Chopping vegetables became an almost daily occurrence. Even feeling somewhat hungry on a regular basis I came to terms with. This took awhile until I realized (or convinced myself) what I was feeling as a carnivore was something between full and stuffed all the time. Further, I began to look at food as sustenance and not a source of happiness. I still enjoyed life without meat and ice cream, even my beloved breakfast foods. I didn't feel like I was missing out on the party.
My cholesterol dropped within weeks and I was off the meds. I felt wonderful. Like I was born again in the produce isle. My weight did level off after loosing about 25 pounds. I believe I was overdoing it with the potatoes and pasta.
I'm back to my old weight now and am planning to get back on the wagon. I intent to follow Rip Esselstyn's Engine 2 Diet. I still don't eat dairy. I eat about half as much meat as I used to. I have a physical coming up at the end of the month and am concerned about what the blood test results may show. I've been eating healthier lately. I feel like I'm cramming for my blood test.

Sounds good. Getting off meds by changing your eating habits is not what most people do, though for the vast majority that is all that is needed.

One thing I need to do is figure my protein intake to be certain I am getting enough. I think I am because my strength is increasing, but I should still crunch the numbers. I know that losing weight is not the same as losing fat so I'm trying to keep the muscle and lose the fat. So far so good. I want to bottom out at about 170 lbs. Should be there by the end of February.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here's a sampling of Greger's argument, here talking about fiber:

Fiber

Inadequate fiber consumption may also be a risk factor for breast cancer. Researchers at Yale University and elsewhere found that premenopausal women who ate more than about six grams of fiber a day (the equivalent of about a single cup of black beans) had 62 percent lower odds of breast cancer compared with women who consumed less than around four grams a day. Fiber’s benefits appeared more pronounced for estrogen-receptor-negative breast tumors, which are harder to treat: Premenopausal women on a higher fiber diet had 85 percent lower odds of that type of breast cancer.

How did the researchers arrive at these figures? The Yale study was what’s called a case controlled study. Scientists compared the past diets of women who had breast cancer (the cases) to the past diets of similar women who did not have breast cancer (the controls) to try to tease out if there is something distinctive about the eating habits of women who developed the disease. The researchers found that certain women with breast cancer reported eating significantly less soluble fiber on average than the cancer-free women. Hence, soluble fiber may be protective.

The women in the study weren’t getting their fiber from supplements, though; they were getting it from food. But this could mean that eating more fiber is merely evidence that the cancer-free (so far) women are eating more plant foods, the only place fiber is found naturally. Therefore, fiber itself might not be the active ingredient. Maybe there’s something else protective in the plant foods. “On the other hand,” noted the researchers, “an increased consumption of fiber from foods of plant origin … may reflect a reduced consumption of foods of animal origin … “ In other words, maybe it’s not what they were eating more of but what they were eating less of. The reason high fiber intake is associated with less breast cancer may be because of more beans – or less bologna.

Either way an analysis of a dozen other breast cancer case-controlled studies reported similar findings, with lower breast cancer risk associated with indicators of fruit and vegetable intake, such as vitamin C intake, and higher breast cancer risk associated with higher saturated-fat intake (an indicator of meat, dairy and processed food intake). And according to these studies, the more whole plant foods you eat, the better it is for your health: Every twenty grams of fiber intake per day was associated with a 15 percent lower risk of breast cancer.

One problem with case-control studies, though, is that they rely on people’s memory of what they’ve been eating, potentially introducing what’s known as “recall bias.” For example, if people with cancer are more likely to selectively remember more of the unhealthy things they ate, this skewed recall could artificially inflate the correlation between eating certain foods and cancer. Prospective cohort studies avoid this problem by following a group (cohort) of healthy women and their diets forward (prospectively) in time to see who gets cancer and who doesn’t. A compilation of ten such prospective cohort studies on breast cancer and fiber intake came up with similar results to the dozen case-control studies mentioned above, a 14 percent lower risk of breast cancer for every twenty grams of fiber intake per day. The relationship between more fiber and less breast cancer may not be a straight line, though. Breast cancer may not significantly fall until at least twenty-five grams of fiber a day is reached.

Unfortunately, the average American woman appears to eat less than fifteen grams of fiber per day – only about half the minimum daily recommendation. Even the average vegetarian in the United States may only get about twenty grams daily. Healthier vegetarians, though, may average thirty-seven grams a day, and vegans forty-six grams daily. Meanwhile, the whole food, plant based diet used therapeutically to reverse chronic disease contain upward of sixty grams of fiber.

I have omitted all his citations because I don't know how to include them but every page is cited probably a dozen times with the notes taking up about 150 pages of small type at the end of his book.

A boatload of supposition up there... and once again, we are left with a boatload of more questions, while he is trying to point to an answer. Americans need to eat more veggies and eat less meat. This is established fact. But starting to draw trends indicating x grams of fiber leads to a reduction in breast cancer is a trying to cross a bridge made of matchsticks.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Here's a sampling of Greger's argument, here talking about fiber:


I have omitted all his citations because I don't know how to include them but every page is cited probably a dozen times with the notes taking up about 150 pages of small type at the end of his book.

A boatload of supposition up there... and once again, we are left with a boatload of more questions, while he is trying to point to an answer. Americans need to eat more veggies and eat less meat. This is established fact. But starting to draw trends indicating x grams of fiber leads to a reduction in breast cancer is a trying to cross a bridge made of matchsticks.

But if more veggies and less meat is established fact I think added fiber benefits is not so much of a leap.

But that's probably point number two. Point number one is still to simply get the junk out of the diet.

 

[PyramidHead]

Just gonna chime in here and, like EricK, point out that there is no reason to think that eating more vegetables and less meat is healthy per se. As long as refined carbohydrates are not a large part of one's diet, you can get all the nutrients you need from pretty much anywhere. As it turns out, meat is easier to digest and tastes better.

Unsurprisingly, there are many examples of cultures that have thrived for long periods of time eating almost only meat, and no examples of completely vegan cultures. The existence of populations of people who nearly never ingest plant matter and are nonetheless nutritionally stable and healthy (Inuit, Eskimo, some Australian Aborigine tribes, many native American tribes pre-colonization, and for that matter all humans pre-agriculture) proves that nobody actually needs to eat plants.

These civilizations did not succumb to rampant heart disease, high blood pressure, or obesity, nor were they chronically constipated due to lack of fiber. There are large communities of people today who eat only meat, and anecdotally report no ill effects and many positive effects.

I'm not saying that everybody should stop eating vegetables, but rather that there are no nutritional necessities that are most efficiently obtained from vegetables, and many (B vitamins, for instance) that are most efficiently obtained from meat.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A boatload of supposition up there... and once again, we are left with a boatload of more questions, while he is trying to point to an answer. Americans need to eat more veggies and eat less meat. This is established fact. But starting to draw trends indicating x grams of fiber leads to a reduction in breast cancer is a trying to cross a bridge made of matchsticks.

But if more veggies and less meat is established fact I think added fiber benefits is not so much of a leap.

But that's probably point number two. Point number one is still to simply get the junk out of the diet.

Point One is to determine what foods offer what risks (and potentially to who). Point Two is to determine what foods offer what benefits (and potentially to who). Point Three, is there a potential symbiosis between generally risky and generally beneficial foods.

Our understandings of both of these, while not exactly neolithic, isn't really beyond the elementary level of understanding. So when a person says more fiber means less breast cancer because of 20 studies, I really don't take that with any weight at all.

Too many books on diets to take any of them seriously, in my opinion. Eat a good deal of veggies, don't splurge on meats, drink a lot of water. Now give me $20.

 

[Playball40]

You're an idiot. Cancer has been around a lot longer than the so-called diet you are claiming is so bad. And you don't know a lot about diet and nutrition if you continue to label food as "bad" or "good". That tells me right there you don't know what you are talking about.

You know nothing about diet and nutrition, let alone how the human body works. Your posts are condescending and insulting. "too lazy to prepare actual food?" Really? Did it occur to you that people going through chemotherapy need it to live? Or that people, for WHATEVER REASON, cannot get enough calories and nutrients to thrive?

It likely never occurred to you that diet and cancer are linked, that the western diet is associated with higher cancer risks, all other things being equal, including genetics. But I don't know your eating habits or even where you live.

BTW I know a lot about diet and nutrition.

 

[Playball40]

Even that isn't completely right. Eat foods that will give you a good nutritional balance so you can grow and live. There, I'm done.

But if more veggies and less meat is established fact I think added fiber benefits is not so much of a leap.

But that's probably point number two. Point number one is still to simply get the junk out of the diet.

Point One is to determine what foods offer what risks (and potentially to who). Point Two is to determine what foods offer what benefits (and potentially to who). Point Three, is there a potential symbiosis between generally risky and generally beneficial foods.

Our understandings of both of these, while not exactly neolithic, isn't really beyond the elementary level of understanding. So when a person says more fiber means less breast cancer because of 20 studies, I really don't take that with any weight at all.

Too many books on diets to take any of them seriously, in my opinion. Eat a good deal of veggies, don't splurge on meats, drink a lot of water. Now give me $20.

 

[Playball40]

A boatload of supposition up there... and once again, we are left with a boatload of more questions, while he is trying to point to an answer. Americans need to eat more veggies and eat less meat. This is established fact. But starting to draw trends indicating x grams of fiber leads to a reduction in breast cancer is a trying to cross a bridge made of matchsticks.

But if more veggies and less meat is established fact I think added fiber benefits is not so much of a leap.

But that's probably point number two. Point number one is still to simply get the junk out of the diet.

Actually occasional 'fun foods' are very good for the psyche and therefore also have nutritional benefit. "Junk" as you put it does NOT need to be "out of one's diet" to be healthy. Like everything in life, moderation is key. Of course dividing food into "good" and "bad" and adding some sort of moral failing to eating "junk" does nothing but expand our disordered eating society.

 

[PyramidHead]

There is something to be said for how delicious meat is compared to how terrible most vegetables taste, and the degree to which humans have needed to modify/breed vegetables to remove the toxins they naturally secrete to defend themselves. Much plant matter is indigestible and becomes little more than a feast for our gut bacteria.

Fiber is considered healthy because it interferes with the processing of sugars and other carbohydrates. This lowers insulin levels and can have instrumental benefits. Yet, unless you're eating a lot of carbs, fiber doesn't really do much for you. You can poop without it. You can live without it. Plenty of people have and still do.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You're an idiot. Cancer has been around a lot longer than the so-called diet you are claiming is so bad. And you don't know a lot about diet and nutrition if you continue to label food as "bad" or "good". That tells me right there you don't know what you are talking about.

It likely never occurred to you that diet and cancer are linked, that the western diet is associated with higher cancer risks, all other things being equal, including genetics. But I don't know your eating habits or even where you live.

BTW I know a lot about diet and nutrition.

I appreciate that cogent analysis.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There is something to be said for how delicious meat is compared to how terrible most vegetables taste, and the degree to which humans have needed to modify/breed vegetables to remove the toxins they naturally secrete to defend themselves. Much plant matter is indigestible and becomes little more than a feast for our gut bacteria.

Fiber is considered healthy because it interferes with the processing of sugars and other carbohydrates. This lowers insulin levels and can have instrumental benefits. Yet, unless you're eating a lot of carbs, fiber doesn't really do much for you. You can poop without it. You can live without it. Plenty of people have and still do.

I don't artificially add fiber to my diet. Nor do I go after foods that are fiber rich. I just eat real whole food and it takes care of itself.

Humans were never meant to eat any particular diet, contrary to what many diet doctors would claim. If anything they were meant to eat, mature sexually, fuck, and therefore make more of themselves. They ate what was around is all.

I did have some pulled pork last night. Pretty damn tasty. Happens out of social necessity and I don't want my diet to be a religion anyway like many people make it. I just wish to do what's best for my long term health, which is what I think I'm doing based on the evidence.

There isn't any heart disease in my family but I don't want to be the first so I'll stick to mostly plants.

 

[PyramidHead]

There is something to be said for how delicious meat is compared to how terrible most vegetables taste, and the degree to which humans have needed to modify/breed vegetables to remove the toxins they naturally secrete to defend themselves. Much plant matter is indigestible and becomes little more than a feast for our gut bacteria.

Fiber is considered healthy because it interferes with the processing of sugars and other carbohydrates. This lowers insulin levels and can have instrumental benefits. Yet, unless you're eating a lot of carbs, fiber doesn't really do much for you. You can poop without it. You can live without it. Plenty of people have and still do.

I don't artificially add fiber to my diet. Nor do I go after foods that are fiber rich. I just eat real whole food and it takes care of itself.

Humans were never meant to eat any particular diet, contrary to what many diet doctors would claim. If anything they were meant to eat, mature sexually, fuck, and therefore make more of themselves. They ate what was around is all.

Exactly. And depending on climate, geography, and season, edible plants could be plentiful or nonexistent; thus, there is no way that humans could have required a steady intake of plant matter. Plants greatly differ in their nutritional composition from species to species, continent to continent, but the one source of food that would have been plentifully available all year round anywhere humans decided to settle was animal flesh. Meat does not vary greatly in its nutritional content based on the animal it comes from. Bison, caribou, salmon, boar, whale, hyena, and pheasant are all nutritionally complete foods that are high in fat and efficiently digested by all humans. They were "what was around" consistently, regardless of whether humans lived in the tundra or in the wilderness.

I would pedantically agree that evolution never meant for us to eat a particular way (as in purposefully intended), but we are certainly adapted to eating mostly meat in a number of obvious ways. Functionally, our digestive apparatus is most similar to other carnivores, less similar to other omnivores, and least similar to herbivores. A common myth is that our molars show we evolved to eat plants, but in action they barely resemble ruminant molars. Ruminants have flat molars that grind plants from side-to-side; ours are ridged and optimized for crushing insects.

I did have some pulled pork last night. Pretty damn tasty. Happens out of social necessity and I don't want my diet to be a religion anyway like many people make it. I just wish to do what's best for my long term health, which is what I think I'm doing based on the evidence.

There isn't any heart disease in my family but I don't want to be the first so I'll stick to mostly plants.

Why do you believe that meat eating has anything to do with heart disease? You do realize heart disease is a fairly recent phenomenon, and humans ate pretty much only meat for the first 2 million years of their existence? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying a plant-based diet is unhealthy (unless the plants include many grains and legumes), just that it's counter-intuitive. Your body is a fat-burning machine that evolved to extract energy from animals as a rule, with plants as an occasional backup. Match the fuel to the vehicle, is really my point.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why do you believe that meat eating has anything to do with heart disease? You do realize heart disease is a fairly recent phenomenon, and humans ate pretty much only meat for the first 2 million years of their existence? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying a plant-based diet is unhealthy (unless the plants include many grains and legumes), just that it's counter-intuitive. Your body is a fat-burning machine that evolved to extract energy from animals as a rule, with plants as an occasional backup. Match the fuel to the vehicle, is really my point.

Here's a balanced article that I like because it talks about the difference between meat and meat that constitutes the western diet:

Red Meat Scapegoat: The New York Times & Heart Disease

What kind of meat was it really?

The researchers most certainly measured widely available CAFO industrial meat because the relied on data from patients who visited a hospital. CAFO meat comes with a host of issues for the human body. First, CAFO meat contains antibiotics that alter the gut biome and could solely be responsible for the noted effects. The vegetarians in the study did not show the same rise in TMAO levels as the regular meat eaters because, most likely, the antibiotics from industrial meat had not impacted their gut bacteria.

Hands down, the average careful, educated vegan has a healthier gut biome than the average standard American meat eater. This is why I NEVER eat non-grass fed beef or lamb. Instead, I’ll fast or eat butter and vegetables to get by. The scientists did not measure what else was in the meat! It is unscientific to base a study on an assumption that every piece of red meat has the same things in it when we know that’s not the case.

CAFO industrial meat also calls into question the presence of mycotoxins that accumulate in the tissue of animals eating corn and grain. Corporate CAFO operators test for mycotoxins in animal feed, not to avoid feeding it to their animals, but so they can buy cheaper (moldier) feed, and feed it to their animals at levels just below what will kill them or cause them to lose weight.

Mycotoxins are a major contributor to heart disease according to over 900 studies published by AV Costantini in a groundbreaking series of books titled Fungalbionics. Some of his studies link mycotoxins to arterial lesions which the body tries to repair, creating the arterial plaque. You can find entire posts dedicated to addressing mycotoxins in our food, especially coffee and meat, and the effects they have on our minds and body on this site when you just enter “mycotoxins” into our search bar. My best mycotoxin video is here.

How was the meat prepared?

The article explicitly states, “The researcher himself bought a George Foreman grill for the occasion, and the nurse assisting him did the cooking.” The researchers didn’t think outside the scientific box. Searing as a cooking method creates more of a known carcinogen – nitrosamine! Nitrosamines are methylated by bacteria in the gut, which forms a substance called dimethylnitrosamine, which is a very toxic breakdown product of TMAO, the very substance the scientists were investigating. Did the paper measure the presence of nitrosamines in the meat after cooking, or test whether the inflammatory effects of it were at fault? Nope… but they did show that the straight carnitine has an effect on TMAO levels in people with some kinds of gut bacteria, so at least some of the cause is not from the overcooked/burned meat.

What else raises TMAO?

TMAO levels mattered before this groundbreaking new study, and they matter even more now. Biochemistry shows that TMA and TMAO are precursors of dimethlynitrosamine, which is linked to cancer, cellular immunity problems, and liver cirrhosis, which are linked to heart disease. TMAO itself fuels the growth of e. coli and salmonella and other gram negative bad bugs that are linked to heart disease. Note how TMAO doubled the growth rate of bacteria below. The research report didn’t look at TMAO’s impact on TMAO consuming gut bacteria.

But who of us in a western diet are eating "meat" in that sense you discuss? Hardly anyone actually. So I think the study is legit in that sense.

 

[Derec]

Veganism is about not eating any animal products. Seems qualified as a diet to me. You're probably just being pedantic.

It is about not using any animal products. Veganism contains a (highly restricted) diet, but it's much broader than that.
Question: can a vegan breastfeed? And what about oral sex?

 

[Derec]

Lucky you.
I've been lectured to at a party by a vegan for wearing a leather belt. Exactly because it offended her veganism. Then she found out they were serving ice cream and went to lecture the hostess about milk being a maltreatment of cows.

Seems you played (and won) the "find the vegan at a party" game.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Well I did drop a 20 pound butterball turkey from the frame. Actually walked past one at the store. Also managed to try some new foods like purple sweet potatoes and multicolored carrots.

Onward and downward.

 

[fromderinside]

We have color vision which must be used for something fitness important. So I'm conditionally saying "go for the multicolored things."

 

[thebeave]