Game Changers

[Ringel05]

Let me add to the above.

How do you know how a diet change will affect your blood pressure, cholesterol etc if you don't try it and compare all your health markers both before and after?

If enough people did try the change and presented their actual lab work results and that all of them saw a reduction of all the markers we look for at what point is it enough evidence for you?

You're talking about the human body, individually complex, one of the most complex systems we know of. How nutrition affects us individually is connected to not only genetics but also age and lifestyle. In nutrition what's good for the goose is not always what's good for the gander.
An all plant based diet would be wonderful for some but potentially detrimental to others. Basically what has been discovered to be mostly true is: nutritional balance, moderation, portions and exercise. If anyone truly wishes to try an all plant based diet then be my guest but don't tout it as a panacea because some documentary that was put together in such a way to make that specific case said so.

We are all far more alike than we are different.

If we all thought like you then why bother treating any illness or disease because if we're all so different it would be impossible right?

And give me some real life examples of a plant based diet being detrimental to health.

Think about it we eat animals that eat nothing but plants. What does an animal do to the plant matter that is so magical that we mere humans beings can't just eat the plants?

No we are not far more alike, each of us is genetically different though some groups are genetically "similar" withing those groups.
I didn't say medical science was bad, I said food (nutritional) science is heavily flawed. You're looking for black and white, either or, it doesn't exist in this realm of science so giving specifics would be as useless as trying to prove an all plant based diet would benefit all.
Read what I'm saying not what you think I'm saying.

I never look for black or white.

Like I said I have been a meat eater my whole life. I've been an amateur student of nutrition for years. I've tweaked and changed my diet almost constantly for 20 years.

I am an exercise nut and I look for what a change in diet does to my performance. Right now I currently have a couple hundred dollars of free range poultry and grass fed beef as well as some venison in my freezer. I'm not looking for any way to confirm an existing vegan lifestyle since I currently don't follow one.,

But even though I am in good shape and at a healthy weight I have to take blood pressure meds and statins.

I wrote it off to genetics since my mother was half African American and we know that hypertension and high cholesterol are common in Blacks, right?

What if we're not right?

WHat if I can stop taking meds if I change my diet?

I have read books by more than one Dr who has presented decades of clinical evidence that a whole food plant based diet has helped hundreds of patients halt and even reverse coronary artery disease. Ive heard the testimony of elite athletes who say they perform better on a whole food plant based diet.

So when is it confirmation bias in my case as you claim it is?

Because you were already asking yourself that question. Maybe subconsciously you were looking for an excuse to change your diet, given what you just relayed concerning your nutritional travels through life it's highly possible. If you think it will work for you then go ahead, no one is trying to stop you least of all me. My argument has to do specifically with the veracity of overarching nutritional health benefit claims for specific diets, nothing more nothing less.

 

[Ringel05]

Here is the FDA guideline for drug studies

Step 3: Clinical Research

You see Phase 3 ?

300 - 3000 subjects not all of which get the drug in the study

So would you say that's too small a sample size in relation to the size and genetic differences in the entire population of the planet?

Way too small and that is the real problem, these studies should include tens of thousands as has been pointed out in the links that I'm sure you didn't peruse or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Blues Man]

Let me add to the above.

How do you know how a diet change will affect your blood pressure, cholesterol etc if you don't try it and compare all your health markers both before and after?

If enough people did try the change and presented their actual lab work results and that all of them saw a reduction of all the markers we look for at what point is it enough evidence for you?

You're talking about the human body, individually complex, one of the most complex systems we know of. How nutrition affects us individually is connected to not only genetics but also age and lifestyle. In nutrition what's good for the goose is not always what's good for the gander.
An all plant based diet would be wonderful for some but potentially detrimental to others. Basically what has been discovered to be mostly true is: nutritional balance, moderation, portions and exercise. If anyone truly wishes to try an all plant based diet then be my guest but don't tout it as a panacea because some documentary that was put together in such a way to make that specific case said so.

We are all far more alike than we are different.

If we all thought like you then why bother treating any illness or disease because if we're all so different it would be impossible right?

And give me some real life examples of a plant based diet being detrimental to health.

Think about it we eat animals that eat nothing but plants. What does an animal do to the plant matter that is so magical that we mere humans beings can't just eat the plants?

No we are not far more alike, each of us is genetically different though some groups are genetically "similar" withing those groups.
I didn't say medical science was bad, I said food (nutritional) science is heavily flawed. You're looking for black and white, either or, it doesn't exist in this realm of science so giving specifics would be as useless as trying to prove an all plant based diet would benefit all.
Read what I'm saying not what you think I'm saying.

I never look for black or white.

Like I said I have been a meat eater my whole life. I've been an amateur student of nutrition for years. I've tweaked and changed my diet almost constantly for 20 years.

I am an exercise nut and I look for what a change in diet does to my performance. Right now I currently have a couple hundred dollars of free range poultry and grass fed beef as well as some venison in my freezer. I'm not looking for any way to confirm an existing vegan lifestyle since I currently don't follow one.,

But even though I am in good shape and at a healthy weight I have to take blood pressure meds and statins.

I wrote it off to genetics since my mother was half African American and we know that hypertension and high cholesterol are common in Blacks, right?

What if we're not right?

WHat if I can stop taking meds if I change my diet?

I have read books by more than one Dr who has presented decades of clinical evidence that a whole food plant based diet has helped hundreds of patients halt and even reverse coronary artery disease. Ive heard the testimony of elite athletes who say they perform better on a whole food plant based diet.

So when is it confirmation bias in my case as you claim it is?

Because you were already asking yourself that question. Maybe subconsciously you were looking for an excuse to change your diet, given what you just relayed concerning your nutritional travels through life it's highly possible. If you think it will work for you then go ahead, no one is trying to stop you least of all me. My argument has to do specifically with the veracity of overarching nutritional health benefit claims, nothing more nothing less.

Don't try to psychoanalyze me.

Tell me what is the reason for your insistence of denying that diet can be used to treat diseases like coronary artery disease?

 

[Blues Man]

Here is the FDA guideline for drug studies

Step 3: Clinical Research

You see Phase 3 ?

300 - 3000 subjects not all of which get the drug in the study

So would you say that's too small a sample size in relation to the size and genetic differences in the entire population of the planet?

Way too small and that is the real problem, these studies should include tens of thousands as has been pointed out in the links that I'm sure you didn't peruse or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So the sum total of small sample treatment groups, large scale studies like the China study, and other mid sized research studies add up to tens of thousands of people.

You talk about conformation bias what about the bias of the studies run by drug companies?

Here's the thing the studies on diet and health I am looking at and using as evidence weren't underwritten by drug companies or the meat and dairy industry.

I'll ask again do you think a drug company is going to admit that a diet change can eliminate the need for one of their drugs?

And you wonder why these people say nutrition is junk science

 

[Ringel05]

You're talking about the human body, individually complex, one of the most complex systems we know of. How nutrition affects us individually is connected to not only genetics but also age and lifestyle. In nutrition what's good for the goose is not always what's good for the gander.
An all plant based diet would be wonderful for some but potentially detrimental to others. Basically what has been discovered to be mostly true is: nutritional balance, moderation, portions and exercise. If anyone truly wishes to try an all plant based diet then be my guest but don't tout it as a panacea because some documentary that was put together in such a way to make that specific case said so.

We are all far more alike than we are different.

If we all thought like you then why bother treating any illness or disease because if we're all so different it would be impossible right?

And give me some real life examples of a plant based diet being detrimental to health.

Think about it we eat animals that eat nothing but plants. What does an animal do to the plant matter that is so magical that we mere humans beings can't just eat the plants?

No we are not far more alike, each of us is genetically different though some groups are genetically "similar" withing those groups.
I didn't say medical science was bad, I said food (nutritional) science is heavily flawed. You're looking for black and white, either or, it doesn't exist in this realm of science so giving specifics would be as useless as trying to prove an all plant based diet would benefit all.
Read what I'm saying not what you think I'm saying.

I never look for black or white.

Like I said I have been a meat eater my whole life. I've been an amateur student of nutrition for years. I've tweaked and changed my diet almost constantly for 20 years.

I am an exercise nut and I look for what a change in diet does to my performance. Right now I currently have a couple hundred dollars of free range poultry and grass fed beef as well as some venison in my freezer. I'm not looking for any way to confirm an existing vegan lifestyle since I currently don't follow one.,

But even though I am in good shape and at a healthy weight I have to take blood pressure meds and statins.

I wrote it off to genetics since my mother was half African American and we know that hypertension and high cholesterol are common in Blacks, right?

What if we're not right?

WHat if I can stop taking meds if I change my diet?

I have read books by more than one Dr who has presented decades of clinical evidence that a whole food plant based diet has helped hundreds of patients halt and even reverse coronary artery disease. Ive heard the testimony of elite athletes who say they perform better on a whole food plant based diet.

So when is it confirmation bias in my case as you claim it is?

Because you were already asking yourself that question. Maybe subconsciously you were looking for an excuse to change your diet, given what you just relayed concerning your nutritional travels through life it's highly possible. If you think it will work for you then go ahead, no one is trying to stop you least of all me. My argument has to do specifically with the veracity of overarching nutritional health benefit claims, nothing more nothing less.

Don't try to psychoanalyze me.

Tell me what is the reason for your insistence of denying that diet can be used to treat diseases like coronary artery disease?

Psych is one of my backgrounds, what you're doing is obvious to those who are trained to see it. I never denied the diet wouldn't be beneficial to some, maybe even to many. You're still focused on the either or and mischaracterizing what I am saying.

 

[Ringel05]

Here is the FDA guideline for drug studies

Step 3: Clinical Research

You see Phase 3 ?

300 - 3000 subjects not all of which get the drug in the study

So would you say that's too small a sample size in relation to the size and genetic differences in the entire population of the planet?

Way too small and that is the real problem, these studies should include tens of thousands as has been pointed out in the links that I'm sure you didn't peruse or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So the sum total of small sample treatment groups, large scale studies like the China study, and other mid sized research studies add up to tens of thousands of people.

You talk about conformation bias what about the bias of the studies run by drug companies?

Here's the thing the studies on diet and health I am looking at and using as evidence weren't underwritten by drug companies or the meat and dairy industry.

I'll ask again do you think a drug company is going to admit that a diet change can eliminate the need for one of their drugs?

And you wonder why these people say nutrition is junk science

Yet all genetically different. Bias exists in all aspects of life even in all aspects of science to one degree or another. The history of medical and nutritional science was to find a one size fits all yet we now know that approach is quite limited specifically in some realms of research.
I never said anything about drug companies admitting or denying any research nor would I, that would be stupid.

 

[Ringel05]

We are all far more alike than we are different.

If we all thought like you then why bother treating any illness or disease because if we're all so different it would be impossible right?

And give me some real life examples of a plant based diet being detrimental to health.

Think about it we eat animals that eat nothing but plants. What does an animal do to the plant matter that is so magical that we mere humans beings can't just eat the plants?

No we are not far more alike, each of us is genetically different though some groups are genetically "similar" withing those groups.
I didn't say medical science was bad, I said food (nutritional) science is heavily flawed. You're looking for black and white, either or, it doesn't exist in this realm of science so giving specifics would be as useless as trying to prove an all plant based diet would benefit all.
Read what I'm saying not what you think I'm saying.

I never look for black or white.

Like I said I have been a meat eater my whole life. I've been an amateur student of nutrition for years. I've tweaked and changed my diet almost constantly for 20 years.

I am an exercise nut and I look for what a change in diet does to my performance. Right now I currently have a couple hundred dollars of free range poultry and grass fed beef as well as some venison in my freezer. I'm not looking for any way to confirm an existing vegan lifestyle since I currently don't follow one.,

But even though I am in good shape and at a healthy weight I have to take blood pressure meds and statins.

I wrote it off to genetics since my mother was half African American and we know that hypertension and high cholesterol are common in Blacks, right?

What if we're not right?

WHat if I can stop taking meds if I change my diet?

I have read books by more than one Dr who has presented decades of clinical evidence that a whole food plant based diet has helped hundreds of patients halt and even reverse coronary artery disease. Ive heard the testimony of elite athletes who say they perform better on a whole food plant based diet.

So when is it confirmation bias in my case as you claim it is?

Because you were already asking yourself that question. Maybe subconsciously you were looking for an excuse to change your diet, given what you just relayed concerning your nutritional travels through life it's highly possible. If you think it will work for you then go ahead, no one is trying to stop you least of all me. My argument has to do specifically with the veracity of overarching nutritional health benefit claims, nothing more nothing less.

Don't try to psychoanalyze me.

Tell me what is the reason for your insistence of denying that diet can be used to treat diseases like coronary artery disease?

Psych is one of my backgrounds, what you're doing is obvious to those who are trained to see it. I never denied the diet wouldn't be beneficial to some, maybe even to many. You're still focused on the either or and mischaracterizing what I am saying.

Given the "funny" obviously this discussion is at an end, any further attempt to continue would be fruitless, a waste of my time. Have a nice day.

 

[Blues Man]

We are all far more alike than we are different.

If we all thought like you then why bother treating any illness or disease because if we're all so different it would be impossible right?

And give me some real life examples of a plant based diet being detrimental to health.

Think about it we eat animals that eat nothing but plants. What does an animal do to the plant matter that is so magical that we mere humans beings can't just eat the plants?

No we are not far more alike, each of us is genetically different though some groups are genetically "similar" withing those groups.
I didn't say medical science was bad, I said food (nutritional) science is heavily flawed. You're looking for black and white, either or, it doesn't exist in this realm of science so giving specifics would be as useless as trying to prove an all plant based diet would benefit all.
Read what I'm saying not what you think I'm saying.

I never look for black or white.

Like I said I have been a meat eater my whole life. I've been an amateur student of nutrition for years. I've tweaked and changed my diet almost constantly for 20 years.

I am an exercise nut and I look for what a change in diet does to my performance. Right now I currently have a couple hundred dollars of free range poultry and grass fed beef as well as some venison in my freezer. I'm not looking for any way to confirm an existing vegan lifestyle since I currently don't follow one.,

But even though I am in good shape and at a healthy weight I have to take blood pressure meds and statins.

I wrote it off to genetics since my mother was half African American and we know that hypertension and high cholesterol are common in Blacks, right?

What if we're not right?

WHat if I can stop taking meds if I change my diet?

I have read books by more than one Dr who has presented decades of clinical evidence that a whole food plant based diet has helped hundreds of patients halt and even reverse coronary artery disease. Ive heard the testimony of elite athletes who say they perform better on a whole food plant based diet.

So when is it confirmation bias in my case as you claim it is?

Because you were already asking yourself that question. Maybe subconsciously you were looking for an excuse to change your diet, given what you just relayed concerning your nutritional travels through life it's highly possible. If you think it will work for you then go ahead, no one is trying to stop you least of all me. My argument has to do specifically with the veracity of overarching nutritional health benefit claims, nothing more nothing less.

Don't try to psychoanalyze me.

Tell me what is the reason for your insistence of denying that diet can be used to treat diseases like coronary artery disease?

Psych is one of my backgrounds, what you're doing is obvious to those who are trained to see it. I never denied the diet wouldn't be beneficial to some, maybe even to many. You're still focused on the either or and mischaracterizing what I am saying.

Where did I ever propose an either or choice?

The categorical denial of cumulative evidence is just as bad as confirmation bias.

Better yet try it yourself and see if all your risk markers come down.

Every diet tweak I have ever done was to evaluate the results on my performance.

I gave up dairy products years ago and have suffered no calcium deficiency and that flies in the face of what the USDA food pyramid tell us.

I've moved to what I believed were cleaner sources of animal protein ( very little red meat, more poultry and fish) but still need medication for blood pressure and cholesterol

And again I'll ask you what does a plant eating animal do to vegetable material that transforms it so much that people who don't eat the animal but rather eat the plant matter are going to be malnourished?

That last question is more of a thought experiment

 

[Blues Man]

No we are not far more alike, each of us is genetically different though some groups are genetically "similar" withing those groups.
I didn't say medical science was bad, I said food (nutritional) science is heavily flawed. You're looking for black and white, either or, it doesn't exist in this realm of science so giving specifics would be as useless as trying to prove an all plant based diet would benefit all.
Read what I'm saying not what you think I'm saying.

I never look for black or white.

Like I said I have been a meat eater my whole life. I've been an amateur student of nutrition for years. I've tweaked and changed my diet almost constantly for 20 years.

I am an exercise nut and I look for what a change in diet does to my performance. Right now I currently have a couple hundred dollars of free range poultry and grass fed beef as well as some venison in my freezer. I'm not looking for any way to confirm an existing vegan lifestyle since I currently don't follow one.,

But even though I am in good shape and at a healthy weight I have to take blood pressure meds and statins.

I wrote it off to genetics since my mother was half African American and we know that hypertension and high cholesterol are common in Blacks, right?

What if we're not right?

WHat if I can stop taking meds if I change my diet?

I have read books by more than one Dr who has presented decades of clinical evidence that a whole food plant based diet has helped hundreds of patients halt and even reverse coronary artery disease. Ive heard the testimony of elite athletes who say they perform better on a whole food plant based diet.

So when is it confirmation bias in my case as you claim it is?

Because you were already asking yourself that question. Maybe subconsciously you were looking for an excuse to change your diet, given what you just relayed concerning your nutritional travels through life it's highly possible. If you think it will work for you then go ahead, no one is trying to stop you least of all me. My argument has to do specifically with the veracity of overarching nutritional health benefit claims, nothing more nothing less.

Don't try to psychoanalyze me.

Tell me what is the reason for your insistence of denying that diet can be used to treat diseases like coronary artery disease?

Psych is one of my backgrounds, what you're doing is obvious to those who are trained to see it. I never denied the diet wouldn't be beneficial to some, maybe even to many. You're still focused on the either or and mischaracterizing what I am saying.

Given the "funny" obviously this discussion is at an end, any further attempt to continue would be fruitless, a waste of my time. Have a nice day.

You don't know shit about me yet you think you can tell me what I'm thinking and why I am thinking it

That's funny

 

[Blues Man]

Here is the FDA guideline for drug studies

Step 3: Clinical Research

You see Phase 3 ?

300 - 3000 subjects not all of which get the drug in the study

So would you say that's too small a sample size in relation to the size and genetic differences in the entire population of the planet?

Way too small and that is the real problem, these studies should include tens of thousands as has been pointed out in the links that I'm sure you didn't peruse or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So the sum total of small sample treatment groups, large scale studies like the China study, and other mid sized research studies add up to tens of thousands of people.

You talk about conformation bias what about the bias of the studies run by drug companies?

Here's the thing the studies on diet and health I am looking at and using as evidence weren't underwritten by drug companies or the meat and dairy industry.

I'll ask again do you think a drug company is going to admit that a diet change can eliminate the need for one of their drugs?

And you wonder why these people say nutrition is junk science

Yet all genetically different. Bias exists in all aspects of life even in all aspects of science to one degree or another. The history of medical and nutritional science was to find a one size fits all yet we now know that approach is quite limited specifically in some realms of research.
I never said anything about drug companies admitting or denying any research nor would I, that would be stupid.

https://psmag.com/environment/1000-genomes-variations

So you want to tell me the China Study is invalid for Americans right?

 

[Ringel05]

Here is the FDA guideline for drug studies

Step 3: Clinical Research

You see Phase 3 ?

300 - 3000 subjects not all of which get the drug in the study

So would you say that's too small a sample size in relation to the size and genetic differences in the entire population of the planet?

Way too small and that is the real problem, these studies should include tens of thousands as has been pointed out in the links that I'm sure you didn't peruse or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So the sum total of small sample treatment groups, large scale studies like the China study, and other mid sized research studies add up to tens of thousands of people.

You talk about conformation bias what about the bias of the studies run by drug companies?

Here's the thing the studies on diet and health I am looking at and using as evidence weren't underwritten by drug companies or the meat and dairy industry.

I'll ask again do you think a drug company is going to admit that a diet change can eliminate the need for one of their drugs?

And you wonder why these people say nutrition is junk science

Yet all genetically different. Bias exists in all aspects of life even in all aspects of science to one degree or another. The history of medical and nutritional science was to find a one size fits all yet we now know that approach is quite limited specifically in some realms of research.
I never said anything about drug companies admitting or denying any research nor would I, that would be stupid.

https://psmag.com/environment/1000-genomes-variations

So you want to tell me the China Study is invalid for Americans right?

That's what's called an either or question......... I never said it was invalid, you claim I did. I said it was "incomplete" thus potentially flawed based on what we now know about this area of research.

 

[Ringel05]

No we are not far more alike, each of us is genetically different though some groups are genetically "similar" withing those groups.
I didn't say medical science was bad, I said food (nutritional) science is heavily flawed. You're looking for black and white, either or, it doesn't exist in this realm of science so giving specifics would be as useless as trying to prove an all plant based diet would benefit all.
Read what I'm saying not what you think I'm saying.

I never look for black or white.

Like I said I have been a meat eater my whole life. I've been an amateur student of nutrition for years. I've tweaked and changed my diet almost constantly for 20 years.

I am an exercise nut and I look for what a change in diet does to my performance. Right now I currently have a couple hundred dollars of free range poultry and grass fed beef as well as some venison in my freezer. I'm not looking for any way to confirm an existing vegan lifestyle since I currently don't follow one.,

But even though I am in good shape and at a healthy weight I have to take blood pressure meds and statins.

I wrote it off to genetics since my mother was half African American and we know that hypertension and high cholesterol are common in Blacks, right?

What if we're not right?

WHat if I can stop taking meds if I change my diet?

I have read books by more than one Dr who has presented decades of clinical evidence that a whole food plant based diet has helped hundreds of patients halt and even reverse coronary artery disease. Ive heard the testimony of elite athletes who say they perform better on a whole food plant based diet.

So when is it confirmation bias in my case as you claim it is?

Because you were already asking yourself that question. Maybe subconsciously you were looking for an excuse to change your diet, given what you just relayed concerning your nutritional travels through life it's highly possible. If you think it will work for you then go ahead, no one is trying to stop you least of all me. My argument has to do specifically with the veracity of overarching nutritional health benefit claims, nothing more nothing less.

Don't try to psychoanalyze me.

Tell me what is the reason for your insistence of denying that diet can be used to treat diseases like coronary artery disease?

Psych is one of my backgrounds, what you're doing is obvious to those who are trained to see it. I never denied the diet wouldn't be beneficial to some, maybe even to many. You're still focused on the either or and mischaracterizing what I am saying.

Where did I ever propose an either or choice?

The categorical denial of cumulative evidence is just as bad as confirmation bias.

Better yet try it yourself and see if all your risk markers come down.

Every diet tweak I have ever done was to evaluate the results on my performance.

I gave up dairy products years ago and have suffered no calcium deficiency and that flies in the face of what the USDA food pyramid tell us.

I've moved to what I believed were cleaner sources of animal protein ( very little red meat, more poultry and fish) but still need medication for blood pressure and cholesterol

And again I'll ask you what does a plant eating animal do to vegetable material that transforms it so much that people who don't eat the animal but rather eat the plant matter are going to be malnourished?

That last question is more of a thought experiment

The last question is a fallacy. Think about it.
What works for you will work for others but not all. What works for me may not work for you. What works for someone else may not work for either of us.

 

[Blues Man]

Here is the FDA guideline for drug studies

Step 3: Clinical Research

You see Phase 3 ?

300 - 3000 subjects not all of which get the drug in the study

So would you say that's too small a sample size in relation to the size and genetic differences in the entire population of the planet?

Way too small and that is the real problem, these studies should include tens of thousands as has been pointed out in the links that I'm sure you didn't peruse or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So the sum total of small sample treatment groups, large scale studies like the China study, and other mid sized research studies add up to tens of thousands of people.

You talk about conformation bias what about the bias of the studies run by drug companies?

Here's the thing the studies on diet and health I am looking at and using as evidence weren't underwritten by drug companies or the meat and dairy industry.

I'll ask again do you think a drug company is going to admit that a diet change can eliminate the need for one of their drugs?

And you wonder why these people say nutrition is junk science

Yet all genetically different. Bias exists in all aspects of life even in all aspects of science to one degree or another. The history of medical and nutritional science was to find a one size fits all yet we now know that approach is quite limited specifically in some realms of research.
I never said anything about drug companies admitting or denying any research nor would I, that would be stupid.

https://psmag.com/environment/1000-genomes-variations

So you want to tell me the China Study is invalid for Americans right?

That's what's called an either or question......... I never said it was invalid, you claim I did. I said it was "incomplete" thus potentially flawed based on what we now know about this area of research.

What we know from who?

Who is the arbiter of that determination?

Do you listen to the Doctor who has had hundreds of patients see beneficial results and also hundreds of others who didn't make changes and saw no improvement in their heart disease?

Or do you listen to the guy who is underwritten by the drug companies and isn't likely to tell you not to take a drug?

 

[Blues Man]

I never look for black or white.

Like I said I have been a meat eater my whole life. I've been an amateur student of nutrition for years. I've tweaked and changed my diet almost constantly for 20 years.

I am an exercise nut and I look for what a change in diet does to my performance. Right now I currently have a couple hundred dollars of free range poultry and grass fed beef as well as some venison in my freezer. I'm not looking for any way to confirm an existing vegan lifestyle since I currently don't follow one.,

But even though I am in good shape and at a healthy weight I have to take blood pressure meds and statins.

I wrote it off to genetics since my mother was half African American and we know that hypertension and high cholesterol are common in Blacks, right?

What if we're not right?

WHat if I can stop taking meds if I change my diet?

I have read books by more than one Dr who has presented decades of clinical evidence that a whole food plant based diet has helped hundreds of patients halt and even reverse coronary artery disease. Ive heard the testimony of elite athletes who say they perform better on a whole food plant based diet.

So when is it confirmation bias in my case as you claim it is?

Because you were already asking yourself that question. Maybe subconsciously you were looking for an excuse to change your diet, given what you just relayed concerning your nutritional travels through life it's highly possible. If you think it will work for you then go ahead, no one is trying to stop you least of all me. My argument has to do specifically with the veracity of overarching nutritional health benefit claims, nothing more nothing less.

Don't try to psychoanalyze me.

Tell me what is the reason for your insistence of denying that diet can be used to treat diseases like coronary artery disease?

Psych is one of my backgrounds, what you're doing is obvious to those who are trained to see it. I never denied the diet wouldn't be beneficial to some, maybe even to many. You're still focused on the either or and mischaracterizing what I am saying.

Where did I ever propose an either or choice?

The categorical denial of cumulative evidence is just as bad as confirmation bias.

Better yet try it yourself and see if all your risk markers come down.

Every diet tweak I have ever done was to evaluate the results on my performance.

I gave up dairy products years ago and have suffered no calcium deficiency and that flies in the face of what the USDA food pyramid tell us.

I've moved to what I believed were cleaner sources of animal protein ( very little red meat, more poultry and fish) but still need medication for blood pressure and cholesterol

And again I'll ask you what does a plant eating animal do to vegetable material that transforms it so much that people who don't eat the animal but rather eat the plant matter are going to be malnourished?

That last question is more of a thought experiment

The last question is a fallacy. Think about it.
What works for you will work for others but not all. What works for me may not work for you. What works for someone else may not work for either of us.

What works for me? What about what works for 100000 people all over the world?

Tell me give me some evidence from a stud of any size that people have had their health deteriorate by eliminating animal based foods

OK so really what about your body's nutritional requirements are so different from mine that you would get sick if we followed the same diet?

You do know yours is not a dependable position because there will never be enough evidence to say that anything is beneficial or detrimental

You might as well say that smoking 3 packs a day can be good for some people but not for others because we just don't have enough evidence

 

[Ringel05]

Way too small and that is the real problem, these studies should include tens of thousands as has been pointed out in the links that I'm sure you didn't peruse or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So the sum total of small sample treatment groups, large scale studies like the China study, and other mid sized research studies add up to tens of thousands of people.

You talk about conformation bias what about the bias of the studies run by drug companies?

Here's the thing the studies on diet and health I am looking at and using as evidence weren't underwritten by drug companies or the meat and dairy industry.

I'll ask again do you think a drug company is going to admit that a diet change can eliminate the need for one of their drugs?

And you wonder why these people say nutrition is junk science

Yet all genetically different. Bias exists in all aspects of life even in all aspects of science to one degree or another. The history of medical and nutritional science was to find a one size fits all yet we now know that approach is quite limited specifically in some realms of research.
I never said anything about drug companies admitting or denying any research nor would I, that would be stupid.

https://psmag.com/environment/1000-genomes-variations

So you want to tell me the China Study is invalid for Americans right?

That's what's called an either or question......... I never said it was invalid, you claim I did. I said it was "incomplete" thus potentially flawed based on what we now know about this area of research.

What we know from who?

Who is the arbiter of that determination?

Do you listen to the Doctor who has had hundreds of patients see beneficial results and also hundreds of others who didn't make changes and saw no improvement in their heart disease?

Or do you listen to the guy who is underwritten by the drug companies and isn't likely to tell you not to take a drug?

Again you're mischaracterizing what I am saying. The arbiter is the scientific community at large and given the fact that we (the scientific community) know that there is no overarching panacea when it comes to nutritional science and that said science is inherently flawed as I have shown in those links. That and that ONLY is my argument, take any and all nutritional science that claims an overarching panacea with a healthy dose of salt.

 

[Ringel05]

Because you were already asking yourself that question. Maybe subconsciously you were looking for an excuse to change your diet, given what you just relayed concerning your nutritional travels through life it's highly possible. If you think it will work for you then go ahead, no one is trying to stop you least of all me. My argument has to do specifically with the veracity of overarching nutritional health benefit claims, nothing more nothing less.

Don't try to psychoanalyze me.

Tell me what is the reason for your insistence of denying that diet can be used to treat diseases like coronary artery disease?

Psych is one of my backgrounds, what you're doing is obvious to those who are trained to see it. I never denied the diet wouldn't be beneficial to some, maybe even to many. You're still focused on the either or and mischaracterizing what I am saying.

Where did I ever propose an either or choice?

The categorical denial of cumulative evidence is just as bad as confirmation bias.

Better yet try it yourself and see if all your risk markers come down.

Every diet tweak I have ever done was to evaluate the results on my performance.

I gave up dairy products years ago and have suffered no calcium deficiency and that flies in the face of what the USDA food pyramid tell us.

I've moved to what I believed were cleaner sources of animal protein ( very little red meat, more poultry and fish) but still need medication for blood pressure and cholesterol

And again I'll ask you what does a plant eating animal do to vegetable material that transforms it so much that people who don't eat the animal but rather eat the plant matter are going to be malnourished?

That last question is more of a thought experiment

The last question is a fallacy. Think about it.
What works for you will work for others but not all. What works for me may not work for you. What works for someone else may not work for either of us.

What works for me? What about what works for 100000 people all over the world?

Tell me give me some evidence from a stud of any size that people have had their health deteriorate by eliminating animal based foods

OK so really what about your body's nutritional requirements are so different from mine that you would get sick if we followed the same diet?

You do know yours is not a dependable position because there will never be enough evidence to say that anything is beneficial or detrimental

You might as well say that smoking 3 packs a day can be good for some people but not for others because we just don't have enough evidence

What percentage of the world population is 100,000...........? Your last statement was about as fallacious as you can get, we're talking nutrition not smoking, partially related but different areas of causative research.
Of course we don't know empirically whether certain things are detrimental of beneficial, we're still scratching the surface of our knowledge of the human body and it's interactions with all things that potentially affect it. The genome project has opened a door and given us a small peek but we most likely have decades if not centuries of research to do before we can start making larger definitive claims in the area of nutritional research.
I will say this again, maybe you'll get it this time; I never claimed a non meat diet wouldn't be beneficial to some, maybe even to many, maybe even to most on a short or long term basis, I said take current and past nutritional research with some degree of skepticism especially if that research claims an all encompassing cure all.

 

[Blues Man]

So the sum total of small sample treatment groups, large scale studies like the China study, and other mid sized research studies add up to tens of thousands of people.

You talk about conformation bias what about the bias of the studies run by drug companies?

Here's the thing the studies on diet and health I am looking at and using as evidence weren't underwritten by drug companies or the meat and dairy industry.

I'll ask again do you think a drug company is going to admit that a diet change can eliminate the need for one of their drugs?

And you wonder why these people say nutrition is junk science

Yet all genetically different. Bias exists in all aspects of life even in all aspects of science to one degree or another. The history of medical and nutritional science was to find a one size fits all yet we now know that approach is quite limited specifically in some realms of research.
I never said anything about drug companies admitting or denying any research nor would I, that would be stupid.

https://psmag.com/environment/1000-genomes-variations

So you want to tell me the China Study is invalid for Americans right?

That's what's called an either or question......... I never said it was invalid, you claim I did. I said it was "incomplete" thus potentially flawed based on what we now know about this area of research.

What we know from who?

Who is the arbiter of that determination?

Do you listen to the Doctor who has had hundreds of patients see beneficial results and also hundreds of others who didn't make changes and saw no improvement in their heart disease?

Or do you listen to the guy who is underwritten by the drug companies and isn't likely to tell you not to take a drug?

Again you're mischaracterizing what I am saying. The arbiter is the scientific community at large and given the fact that we (the scientific community) know that there is no overarching panacea when it comes to nutritional science and that said science is inherently flawed as I have shown in those links. That and that ONLY is my argument, take any and all nutritional science that claims an overarching panacea with a healthy dose of salt.

Where did I use the word panacea?

And don't forget the places where you are getting a large amount of this "science" are beholden to the food industry and drug companies

When the money comes from the meat industry do you think that the American Diabetes Assoc will ever tell people to stop eating meat?

 

[Blues Man]

Don't try to psychoanalyze me.

Tell me what is the reason for your insistence of denying that diet can be used to treat diseases like coronary artery disease?

Psych is one of my backgrounds, what you're doing is obvious to those who are trained to see it. I never denied the diet wouldn't be beneficial to some, maybe even to many. You're still focused on the either or and mischaracterizing what I am saying.

Where did I ever propose an either or choice?

The categorical denial of cumulative evidence is just as bad as confirmation bias.

Better yet try it yourself and see if all your risk markers come down.

Every diet tweak I have ever done was to evaluate the results on my performance.

I gave up dairy products years ago and have suffered no calcium deficiency and that flies in the face of what the USDA food pyramid tell us.

I've moved to what I believed were cleaner sources of animal protein ( very little red meat, more poultry and fish) but still need medication for blood pressure and cholesterol

And again I'll ask you what does a plant eating animal do to vegetable material that transforms it so much that people who don't eat the animal but rather eat the plant matter are going to be malnourished?

That last question is more of a thought experiment

The last question is a fallacy. Think about it.
What works for you will work for others but not all. What works for me may not work for you. What works for someone else may not work for either of us.

What works for me? What about what works for 100000 people all over the world?

Tell me give me some evidence from a stud of any size that people have had their health deteriorate by eliminating animal based foods

OK so really what about your body's nutritional requirements are so different from mine that you would get sick if we followed the same diet?

You do know yours is not a dependable position because there will never be enough evidence to say that anything is beneficial or detrimental

You might as well say that smoking 3 packs a day can be good for some people but not for others because we just don't have enough evidence

What percentage of the world population is 100,000...........? Your last statement was about as fallacious as you can get, we're talking nutrition not smoking, partially related but different areas of causative research.
Of course we don't know empirically whether certain things are detrimental of beneficial, we're still scratching the surface of our knowledge of the human body and it's interactions with all things that potentially affect it. The genome project has opened a door and given us a small peek but we most likely have decades if not centuries of research to do before we can start making larger definitive claims in the area of nutritional research.
I will say this again, maybe you'll get it this time; I never claimed a non meat diet wouldn't be beneficial to some, maybe even to many, maybe even to most on a short or long term basis, I said take current and past nutritional research with some degree of skepticism especially if that research claims an all encompassing cure all.

Here we go again

What percentage of the 7 billion people on the planet need to be involved in any study so as the results are acceptable to you?

Do you not take any drug prescribed to you because there weren't 5 billion people in the study?

 

[Blues Man]

Don't try to psychoanalyze me.

Tell me what is the reason for your insistence of denying that diet can be used to treat diseases like coronary artery disease?

Psych is one of my backgrounds, what you're doing is obvious to those who are trained to see it. I never denied the diet wouldn't be beneficial to some, maybe even to many. You're still focused on the either or and mischaracterizing what I am saying.

Where did I ever propose an either or choice?

The categorical denial of cumulative evidence is just as bad as confirmation bias.

Better yet try it yourself and see if all your risk markers come down.

Every diet tweak I have ever done was to evaluate the results on my performance.

I gave up dairy products years ago and have suffered no calcium deficiency and that flies in the face of what the USDA food pyramid tell us.

I've moved to what I believed were cleaner sources of animal protein ( very little red meat, more poultry and fish) but still need medication for blood pressure and cholesterol

And again I'll ask you what does a plant eating animal do to vegetable material that transforms it so much that people who don't eat the animal but rather eat the plant matter are going to be malnourished?

That last question is more of a thought experiment

The last question is a fallacy. Think about it.
What works for you will work for others but not all. What works for me may not work for you. What works for someone else may not work for either of us.

What works for me? What about what works for 100000 people all over the world?

Tell me give me some evidence from a stud of any size that people have had their health deteriorate by eliminating animal based foods

OK so really what about your body's nutritional requirements are so different from mine that you would get sick if we followed the same diet?

You do know yours is not a dependable position because there will never be enough evidence to say that anything is beneficial or detrimental

You might as well say that smoking 3 packs a day can be good for some people but not for others because we just don't have enough evidence

What percentage of the world population is 100,000...........? Your last statement was about as fallacious as you can get, we're talking nutrition not smoking, partially related but different areas of causative research.
Of course we don't know empirically whether certain things are detrimental of beneficial, we're still scratching the surface of our knowledge of the human body and it's interactions with all things that potentially affect it. The genome project has opened a door and given us a small peek but we most likely have decades if not centuries of research to do before we can start making larger definitive claims in the area of nutritional research.
I will say this again, maybe you'll get it this time; I never claimed a non meat diet wouldn't be beneficial to some, maybe even to many, maybe even to most on a short or long term basis, I said take current and past nutritional research with some degree of skepticism especially if that research claims an all encompassing cure all.

We obviously don't know anything since one day eggs are bad for you and the next they aren't
One day red meat is good for you the next it's not


Do you think the rise and fall from favor of these products has anything to do with the amount of money spent by the supporting industries spend and given to the so called health associations and agencies that we look to for advice?

 

[Ringel05]

Psych is one of my backgrounds, what you're doing is obvious to those who are trained to see it. I never denied the diet wouldn't be beneficial to some, maybe even to many. You're still focused on the either or and mischaracterizing what I am saying.

Where did I ever propose an either or choice?

The categorical denial of cumulative evidence is just as bad as confirmation bias.

Better yet try it yourself and see if all your risk markers come down.

Every diet tweak I have ever done was to evaluate the results on my performance.

I gave up dairy products years ago and have suffered no calcium deficiency and that flies in the face of what the USDA food pyramid tell us.

I've moved to what I believed were cleaner sources of animal protein ( very little red meat, more poultry and fish) but still need medication for blood pressure and cholesterol

And again I'll ask you what does a plant eating animal do to vegetable material that transforms it so much that people who don't eat the animal but rather eat the plant matter are going to be malnourished?

That last question is more of a thought experiment

The last question is a fallacy. Think about it.
What works for you will work for others but not all. What works for me may not work for you. What works for someone else may not work for either of us.

What works for me? What about what works for 100000 people all over the world?

Tell me give me some evidence from a stud of any size that people have had their health deteriorate by eliminating animal based foods

OK so really what about your body's nutritional requirements are so different from mine that you would get sick if we followed the same diet?

You do know yours is not a dependable position because there will never be enough evidence to say that anything is beneficial or detrimental

You might as well say that smoking 3 packs a day can be good for some people but not for others because we just don't have enough evidence

What percentage of the world population is 100,000...........? Your last statement was about as fallacious as you can get, we're talking nutrition not smoking, partially related but different areas of causative research.
Of course we don't know empirically whether certain things are detrimental of beneficial, we're still scratching the surface of our knowledge of the human body and it's interactions with all things that potentially affect it. The genome project has opened a door and given us a small peek but we most likely have decades if not centuries of research to do before we can start making larger definitive claims in the area of nutritional research.
I will say this again, maybe you'll get it this time; I never claimed a non meat diet wouldn't be beneficial to some, maybe even to many, maybe even to most on a short or long term basis, I said take current and past nutritional research with some degree of skepticism especially if that research claims an all encompassing cure all.

Here we go again

What percentage of the 7 billion people on the planet need to be involved in any study so as the results are acceptable to you?

Do you not take any drug prescribed to you because there weren't 5 billion people in the study?

Look at the counter indications that come with all drugs....... It's called a "catch all" because the study groups were limited in size........ You're still mischaracterizing what I'm saying. Ideally a 30% sample will give us an extremely better picture, 50% would be amazing, 70% and we'd really have it close to perfect.