Game Changers

[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.

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?

Uuuummmmmm, that's what I've been trying to point out in terms of one aspect of why nutritional science is junk, only one aspect.

 

[Ringel05]

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?

Uuuummmmmm, that's what I've been trying to point out in terms of one aspect of why nutritional science is junk, only one aspect.

Our knowledge is limited, our study samples are in truth too small and there are economic factors involved that shouldn't be involved. We then have to rely to a certain degree on what we have which is why we should always remain skeptical in these areas.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

But since every single person is unique there will never be a perfect.

Isn't that what you're telling me?

And who is going to spend the money to get 4.9 billion people to be involved in a study?

 

[Blues Man]

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?

Uuuummmmmm, that's what I've been trying to point out in terms of one aspect of why nutritional science is junk, only one aspect.

So who benefits from a study that advocates a whole food vegan diet
Who benefits from a study that actually says it's possible to get off of the drugs for blood pressure and cholesterol ?

Certainly not the medical industry, not the pharmaceutical industry, not the meat and diary industries.

I don't know of any American Vegetable society that gets donations from broccoli farmers of America do you?

The fact that there is no money for agribusiness and factory foods in the mix IMO that gives more credence to the results than something put out by the American Diabetes Assoc who takes huge dollar contributions from Big Pharma and the meat industry.

 

[Ringel05]

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.

But since every single person is unique there will never be a perfect.

Isn't that what you're telling me?

And who is going to spend the money to get 4.9 billion people to be involved in a study?

As I already pointed out before at least once, everyone is unique yet also share strong similarities within groups and general similarities on the whole. Maybe you missed that.
As for sample size I'll assume you also missed the caveat, "ideally" as opposed to simply not knowing what that means in this context as in it would be great but.............

 

[Ringel05]

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?

Uuuummmmmm, that's what I've been trying to point out in terms of one aspect of why nutritional science is junk, only one aspect.

So who benefits from a study that advocates a whole food vegan diet
Who benefits from a study that actually says it's possible to get off of the drugs for blood pressure and cholesterol ?

Certainly not the medical industry, not the pharmaceutical industry, not the meat and diary industries.

I don't know of any American Vegetable society that gets donations from broccoli farmers of America do you?

The fact that there is no money for agribusiness and factory foods in the mix IMO that gives more credence to the results than something put out by the American Diabetes Assoc who takes huge dollar contributions from Big Pharma and the meat industry.

Obviously you seem to believe that I'm supporting the medical, pharmaceutical, meat and dairy industries because you keep bringing it up.
Do you honestly think that everyone in the non medical, pharmaceutical, meat and dairy industries research arena is altruistic simply because they don't make broccoli donations??!! That maybe some might not have an agenda? If you think that then you have no clue as to the reality of human nature/human motivation outside of your own.

 

[buttercup]

There have been tons of studies worldwide, going back many years, that show a whole food plant-based diet reduces the risk for many chronic illnesses, and has so many health benefits. The thing is, people don't want to believe that, because the average person LOVES their meat and dairy, and they can't even imagine giving up their bacon, to start eating things like spinach.* That is precisely why trendy diets like Keto are popular, because people love to hear good things about their bad habits. Unfortunately for them, the science points in the other direction, and it has for years. A whole food plant-based diet not only prevents disease, but it is the only diet known to actually reverse disease.


*I just wanted to add that when you go vegan (which is not the same as plantbased, it's not motivated by health reasons) you don't have to limit yourself to super healthy foods like spinach. I eat tons of good foods, and pretty much anything non-vegans eat, I can eat a veganized version. These days it's SO easy to switch to a plantbased diet.

 

[toobfreak]

I just watched Game Changers, a documentary on Netflix.

Now I know this is going to be a contentious topic.

The main thrust of the movie is that diet can not only halt but reverse diseases like Type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, autoimmune diseases etc.

IMO the conclusions are valid.

So if it could be proven to you that a plant based whole food diet would reduce or eliminate your risk of heart attack, stroke, cancer, normalize blood pressure and add years to your life would you change the way you eat?

Diet is the ONLY path to curing disease because bad diet is the main cause! You mean you've never studied the research of Prof. Arnold Ehret?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000KYG30W/?tag=ff0d01-20

 

[buttercup]

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?

Based on what I've seen, that is what it boils down to. The reason there is confusion, and as you said, "rise and fall" of certain products is because each time an actual study shows the truth, another "study" in response will say "Wait, we found something different!" and virtually every single time, those response "studies" are industry funded. That is just a fact, and it's demonstrable. (Although now they're starting to get more sneaky about it.) It's about maintaining the status quo so certain food companies can keep making money from those products. And I think it's also about causing confusion and doubt, so that people will end up throwing their hands up in the air and saying, "Well, I don't know what to believe so I'm just going to eat what I want."

So when someone earlier said "nutrition science" is flawed, whether that person realized it or not, THAT is what he was talking about. Thankfully, more and more people who are genuinely interested in health are realizing this.

 

[Blues Man]

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?

Uuuummmmmm, that's what I've been trying to point out in terms of one aspect of why nutritional science is junk, only one aspect.

So who benefits from a study that advocates a whole food vegan diet
Who benefits from a study that actually says it's possible to get off of the drugs for blood pressure and cholesterol ?

Certainly not the medical industry, not the pharmaceutical industry, not the meat and diary industries.

I don't know of any American Vegetable society that gets donations from broccoli farmers of America do you?

The fact that there is no money for agribusiness and factory foods in the mix IMO that gives more credence to the results than something put out by the American Diabetes Assoc who takes huge dollar contributions from Big Pharma and the meat industry.

Obviously you seem to believe that I'm supporting the medical, pharmaceutical, meat and dairy industries because you keep bringing it up.
Do you honestly think that everyone in the non medical, pharmaceutical, meat and dairy industries research arena is altruistic simply because they don't make broccoli donations??!! That maybe some might not have an agenda? If you think that then you have no clue as to the reality of human nature/human motivation outside of your own.

I don't think anyone is altruistic

But big donor money from parties that have a vested interest in keeping people eating meat or dairy or taking medications fro the rest of their lives makes the organizations who take that money more suspect than those that don't

Not perfect but perfect is the enemy of good.

Do you really think the AMA would recommend something that resulted in a net loss of profits for the medical industry?

 

[Blues Man]

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?

Based on what I've seen, that is what it boils down to. The reason there is confusion, and as you said, "rise and fall" of certain products is because each time an actual study shows the truth, another "study" in response will say "Wait, we found something different!" and virtually every single time, those response "studies" are industry funded. That is just a fact, and it's demonstrable. (Although now they're starting to get more sneaky about it.) It's about maintaining the status quo so certain food companies can keep making money from those products. And I think it's also about causing confusion and doubt, so that people will end up throwing their hands up in the air and saying, "Well, I don't know what to believe so I'm just going to eat what I want."

So when someone earlier said "nutrition science" is flawed, whether that person realized it or not, THAT is what he was talking about. Thankfully, more and more people who are genuinely interested in health are realizing this.

And many of those studies are done by organizations that take big money from the meat or dairy industries or Big Pharma.

Just look at the list of sponsors for the American Diabetes Assoc or the AMA and you learn pretty quickly whose interests those organizations are serving

 

[Blues Man]

I just watched Game Changers, a documentary on Netflix.

Now I know this is going to be a contentious topic.

The main thrust of the movie is that diet can not only halt but reverse diseases like Type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, autoimmune diseases etc.

IMO the conclusions are valid.

So if it could be proven to you that a plant based whole food diet would reduce or eliminate your risk of heart attack, stroke, cancer, normalize blood pressure and add years to your life would you change the way you eat?

Diet is the ONLY path to curing disease because bad diet is the main cause! You mean you've never studied the research of Prof. Arnold Ehret?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000KYG30W/?tag=ff0d01-20

I have and as I said before I have been tweaking my diet for many years.

But when I am eating as clean as I am and still have to take blood pressure and cholesterol meds then I have to think that it is something in my diet.

The results i have seen from hundreds of cases of people adopting a whole food vegan diet leads me to believe that the only thing in my diet that is causing my hypertension and high cholesterol is the meat I eat even though I only eat small amounts of grass fed beef and mostly eat free range poultry and fish. I already eat a ton of veg and moderate amounts of brown rice and legumes.

 

[Ringel05]

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?

Uuuummmmmm, that's what I've been trying to point out in terms of one aspect of why nutritional science is junk, only one aspect.

So who benefits from a study that advocates a whole food vegan diet
Who benefits from a study that actually says it's possible to get off of the drugs for blood pressure and cholesterol ?

Certainly not the medical industry, not the pharmaceutical industry, not the meat and diary industries.

I don't know of any American Vegetable society that gets donations from broccoli farmers of America do you?

The fact that there is no money for agribusiness and factory foods in the mix IMO that gives more credence to the results than something put out by the American Diabetes Assoc who takes huge dollar contributions from Big Pharma and the meat industry.

Obviously you seem to believe that I'm supporting the medical, pharmaceutical, meat and dairy industries because you keep bringing it up.
Do you honestly think that everyone in the non medical, pharmaceutical, meat and dairy industries research arena is altruistic simply because they don't make broccoli donations??!! That maybe some might not have an agenda? If you think that then you have no clue as to the reality of human nature/human motivation outside of your own.

I don't think anyone is altruistic

But big donor money from parties that have a vested interest in keeping people eating meat or dairy or taking medications fro the rest of their lives makes the organizations who take that money more suspect than those that don't

Not perfect but perfect is the enemy of good.

Do you really think the AMA would recommend something that resulted in a net loss of profits for the medical industry?

Yes they would and they do. Of course if one is paranoid then they might think like you.

 

[Blues Man]

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?

Uuuummmmmm, that's what I've been trying to point out in terms of one aspect of why nutritional science is junk, only one aspect.

So who benefits from a study that advocates a whole food vegan diet
Who benefits from a study that actually says it's possible to get off of the drugs for blood pressure and cholesterol ?

Certainly not the medical industry, not the pharmaceutical industry, not the meat and diary industries.

I don't know of any American Vegetable society that gets donations from broccoli farmers of America do you?

The fact that there is no money for agribusiness and factory foods in the mix IMO that gives more credence to the results than something put out by the American Diabetes Assoc who takes huge dollar contributions from Big Pharma and the meat industry.

Obviously you seem to believe that I'm supporting the medical, pharmaceutical, meat and dairy industries because you keep bringing it up.
Do you honestly think that everyone in the non medical, pharmaceutical, meat and dairy industries research arena is altruistic simply because they don't make broccoli donations??!! That maybe some might not have an agenda? If you think that then you have no clue as to the reality of human nature/human motivation outside of your own.

I don't think anyone is altruistic

But big donor money from parties that have a vested interest in keeping people eating meat or dairy or taking medications fro the rest of their lives makes the organizations who take that money more suspect than those that don't

Not perfect but perfect is the enemy of good.

Do you really think the AMA would recommend something that resulted in a net loss of profits for the medical industry?

Yes they would and they do. Of course if one is paranoid then they might think like you.

Really?

Then why does the American Diabetes Assoc still recommend meat and dairy?

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that they get huge money from those industries.

Does Merc or Boerhinger tell people to eat a whole food vegan diet to get off their high blood pressure or cholesterol medications?

 

[Ringel05]

Uuuummmmmm, that's what I've been trying to point out in terms of one aspect of why nutritional science is junk, only one aspect.

So who benefits from a study that advocates a whole food vegan diet
Who benefits from a study that actually says it's possible to get off of the drugs for blood pressure and cholesterol ?

Certainly not the medical industry, not the pharmaceutical industry, not the meat and diary industries.

I don't know of any American Vegetable society that gets donations from broccoli farmers of America do you?

The fact that there is no money for agribusiness and factory foods in the mix IMO that gives more credence to the results than something put out by the American Diabetes Assoc who takes huge dollar contributions from Big Pharma and the meat industry.

Obviously you seem to believe that I'm supporting the medical, pharmaceutical, meat and dairy industries because you keep bringing it up.
Do you honestly think that everyone in the non medical, pharmaceutical, meat and dairy industries research arena is altruistic simply because they don't make broccoli donations??!! That maybe some might not have an agenda? If you think that then you have no clue as to the reality of human nature/human motivation outside of your own.

I don't think anyone is altruistic

But big donor money from parties that have a vested interest in keeping people eating meat or dairy or taking medications fro the rest of their lives makes the organizations who take that money more suspect than those that don't

Not perfect but perfect is the enemy of good.

Do you really think the AMA would recommend something that resulted in a net loss of profits for the medical industry?

Yes they would and they do. Of course if one is paranoid then they might think like you.

Really?

Then why does the American Diabetes Assoc still recommend meat and dairy?

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that they get huge money from those industries.

Does Merc or Boerhinger tell people to eat a whole food vegan diet to get off their high blood pressure or cholesterol medications?

Uummmm, now you're beginning to sound like a conspiracy theorist. BTW, if your high blood pressure and cholesterol are genetic a vegan diet will help moderate it a bit but won't cure you. I know, my dad did all of that, didn't save him.
Instead of paying for cholesterol medications buy all natural Red Yeast Rice and Co Q 10, I get mine from Wally World (Walmart) take each once a day. My cholesterol is in normal range and has been since I started doing that. Matter of fact all my labs are normal, amazing for a 65 year old who eats anything he wants. My blood pressure would benefit from losing a few more pounds but I would always be on PB medication, it's genetic.

 

[Blues Man]

So who benefits from a study that advocates a whole food vegan diet
Who benefits from a study that actually says it's possible to get off of the drugs for blood pressure and cholesterol ?

Certainly not the medical industry, not the pharmaceutical industry, not the meat and diary industries.

I don't know of any American Vegetable society that gets donations from broccoli farmers of America do you?

The fact that there is no money for agribusiness and factory foods in the mix IMO that gives more credence to the results than something put out by the American Diabetes Assoc who takes huge dollar contributions from Big Pharma and the meat industry.

Obviously you seem to believe that I'm supporting the medical, pharmaceutical, meat and dairy industries because you keep bringing it up.
Do you honestly think that everyone in the non medical, pharmaceutical, meat and dairy industries research arena is altruistic simply because they don't make broccoli donations??!! That maybe some might not have an agenda? If you think that then you have no clue as to the reality of human nature/human motivation outside of your own.

I don't think anyone is altruistic

But big donor money from parties that have a vested interest in keeping people eating meat or dairy or taking medications fro the rest of their lives makes the organizations who take that money more suspect than those that don't

Not perfect but perfect is the enemy of good.

Do you really think the AMA would recommend something that resulted in a net loss of profits for the medical industry?

Yes they would and they do. Of course if one is paranoid then they might think like you.

Really?

Then why does the American Diabetes Assoc still recommend meat and dairy?

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that they get huge money from those industries.

Does Merc or Boerhinger tell people to eat a whole food vegan diet to get off their high blood pressure or cholesterol medications?

Uummmm, now you're beginning to sound like a conspiracy theorist. BTW, if your high blood pressure and cholesterol are genetic a vegan diet will help moderate it a bit but won't cure you. I know, my dad did all of that, didn't save him.
Instead of paying for cholesterol medications buy all natural Red Yeast Rice and Co Q 10, I get mine from Wally World (Walmart) take each once a day. My cholesterol is in normal range and has been since I started doing that. Matter of fact all my labs are normal, amazing for a 65 year old who eats anything he wants. My blood pressure would benefit from losing a few more pounds but I would always be on PB medication, it's genetic.

Personally I don't buy the solely genetic theory

So someone says my grandpa, father, uncles, cousins all have very high blood pressure so it must be genetic in the meantime they are eating chili fries and pastrami sandwiches.

Diet can affect your genome.

Why should I take any supplements if I don't have to?

I'm willing to try going whole food vegan for 90 days because it's really close to what I eat now and I won't have any trouble giving up meat. Obese people run in families too so you could say that's genetic

If you're right and my high blood pressure is solely genetic then there will be no change. We'll see.

 

[Ringel05]

Obviously you seem to believe that I'm supporting the medical, pharmaceutical, meat and dairy industries because you keep bringing it up.
Do you honestly think that everyone in the non medical, pharmaceutical, meat and dairy industries research arena is altruistic simply because they don't make broccoli donations??!! That maybe some might not have an agenda? If you think that then you have no clue as to the reality of human nature/human motivation outside of your own.

I don't think anyone is altruistic

But big donor money from parties that have a vested interest in keeping people eating meat or dairy or taking medications fro the rest of their lives makes the organizations who take that money more suspect than those that don't

Not perfect but perfect is the enemy of good.

Do you really think the AMA would recommend something that resulted in a net loss of profits for the medical industry?

Yes they would and they do. Of course if one is paranoid then they might think like you.

Really?

Then why does the American Diabetes Assoc still recommend meat and dairy?

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that they get huge money from those industries.

Does Merc or Boerhinger tell people to eat a whole food vegan diet to get off their high blood pressure or cholesterol medications?

Uummmm, now you're beginning to sound like a conspiracy theorist. BTW, if your high blood pressure and cholesterol are genetic a vegan diet will help moderate it a bit but won't cure you. I know, my dad did all of that, didn't save him.
Instead of paying for cholesterol medications buy all natural Red Yeast Rice and Co Q 10, I get mine from Wally World (Walmart) take each once a day. My cholesterol is in normal range and has been since I started doing that. Matter of fact all my labs are normal, amazing for a 65 year old who eats anything he wants. My blood pressure would benefit from losing a few more pounds but I would always be on PB medication, it's genetic.

Personally I don't buy the solely genetic theory

So someone says my grandpa, father, uncles, cousins all have very high blood pressure so it must be genetic in the meantime they are eating chili fries and pastrami sandwiches.

Diet can affect your genome.

Why should I take any supplements if I don't have to?

I'm willing to try going whole food vegan for 90 days because it's really close to what I eat now and I won't have any trouble giving up meat. Obese people run in families too so you could say that's genetic

If you're right and my high blood pressure is solely genetic then there will be no change. We'll see.

Yeah, right. Well Mr know it all amateur, it's your life, have at it.
Oh and the supplements are all natural, I take them instead of pharmaceutical statins.

 

[Blues Man]

I don't think anyone is altruistic

But big donor money from parties that have a vested interest in keeping people eating meat or dairy or taking medications fro the rest of their lives makes the organizations who take that money more suspect than those that don't

Not perfect but perfect is the enemy of good.

Do you really think the AMA would recommend something that resulted in a net loss of profits for the medical industry?

Yes they would and they do. Of course if one is paranoid then they might think like you.

Really?

Then why does the American Diabetes Assoc still recommend meat and dairy?

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that they get huge money from those industries.

Does Merc or Boerhinger tell people to eat a whole food vegan diet to get off their high blood pressure or cholesterol medications?

Uummmm, now you're beginning to sound like a conspiracy theorist. BTW, if your high blood pressure and cholesterol are genetic a vegan diet will help moderate it a bit but won't cure you. I know, my dad did all of that, didn't save him.
Instead of paying for cholesterol medications buy all natural Red Yeast Rice and Co Q 10, I get mine from Wally World (Walmart) take each once a day. My cholesterol is in normal range and has been since I started doing that. Matter of fact all my labs are normal, amazing for a 65 year old who eats anything he wants. My blood pressure would benefit from losing a few more pounds but I would always be on PB medication, it's genetic.

Personally I don't buy the solely genetic theory

So someone says my grandpa, father, uncles, cousins all have very high blood pressure so it must be genetic in the meantime they are eating chili fries and pastrami sandwiches.

Diet can affect your genome.

Why should I take any supplements if I don't have to?

I'm willing to try going whole food vegan for 90 days because it's really close to what I eat now and I won't have any trouble giving up meat. Obese people run in families too so you could say that's genetic

If you're right and my high blood pressure is solely genetic then there will be no change. We'll see.

Yeah, right. Well Mr know it all amateur, it's your life, have at it.
Oh and the supplements are all natural, I take them instead of pharmaceutical statins.

Yeah I'm sure 90 days on a whole food vegan diet will ruin my health.

Supplements for the most part are a scam
Dietary supplements: a $37 billion-a-year scam?

 

[Ringel05]

Yes they would and they do. Of course if one is paranoid then they might think like you.

Really?

Then why does the American Diabetes Assoc still recommend meat and dairy?

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that they get huge money from those industries.

Does Merc or Boerhinger tell people to eat a whole food vegan diet to get off their high blood pressure or cholesterol medications?

Uummmm, now you're beginning to sound like a conspiracy theorist. BTW, if your high blood pressure and cholesterol are genetic a vegan diet will help moderate it a bit but won't cure you. I know, my dad did all of that, didn't save him.
Instead of paying for cholesterol medications buy all natural Red Yeast Rice and Co Q 10, I get mine from Wally World (Walmart) take each once a day. My cholesterol is in normal range and has been since I started doing that. Matter of fact all my labs are normal, amazing for a 65 year old who eats anything he wants. My blood pressure would benefit from losing a few more pounds but I would always be on PB medication, it's genetic.

Personally I don't buy the solely genetic theory

So someone says my grandpa, father, uncles, cousins all have very high blood pressure so it must be genetic in the meantime they are eating chili fries and pastrami sandwiches.

Diet can affect your genome.

Why should I take any supplements if I don't have to?

I'm willing to try going whole food vegan for 90 days because it's really close to what I eat now and I won't have any trouble giving up meat. Obese people run in families too so you could say that's genetic

If you're right and my high blood pressure is solely genetic then there will be no change. We'll see.

Yeah, right. Well Mr know it all amateur, it's your life, have at it.
Oh and the supplements are all natural, I take them instead of pharmaceutical statins.

Yeah I'm sure 90 days on a whole food vegan diet will ruin my health.

Supplements for the most part are a scam
Dietary supplements: a $37 billion-a-year scam?

Yup, conspiracy nutjob........
I'm remembering something Redd Foxx once said about all these health nuts one day lying in hospital beds dying from nothing.......

 

[Blues Man]

Really?

Then why does the American Diabetes Assoc still recommend meat and dairy?

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that they get huge money from those industries.

Does Merc or Boerhinger tell people to eat a whole food vegan diet to get off their high blood pressure or cholesterol medications?

Uummmm, now you're beginning to sound like a conspiracy theorist. BTW, if your high blood pressure and cholesterol are genetic a vegan diet will help moderate it a bit but won't cure you. I know, my dad did all of that, didn't save him.
Instead of paying for cholesterol medications buy all natural Red Yeast Rice and Co Q 10, I get mine from Wally World (Walmart) take each once a day. My cholesterol is in normal range and has been since I started doing that. Matter of fact all my labs are normal, amazing for a 65 year old who eats anything he wants. My blood pressure would benefit from losing a few more pounds but I would always be on PB medication, it's genetic.

Personally I don't buy the solely genetic theory

So someone says my grandpa, father, uncles, cousins all have very high blood pressure so it must be genetic in the meantime they are eating chili fries and pastrami sandwiches.

Diet can affect your genome.

Why should I take any supplements if I don't have to?

I'm willing to try going whole food vegan for 90 days because it's really close to what I eat now and I won't have any trouble giving up meat. Obese people run in families too so you could say that's genetic

If you're right and my high blood pressure is solely genetic then there will be no change. We'll see.

Yeah, right. Well Mr know it all amateur, it's your life, have at it.
Oh and the supplements are all natural, I take them instead of pharmaceutical statins.

Yeah I'm sure 90 days on a whole food vegan diet will ruin my health.

Supplements for the most part are a scam
Dietary supplements: a $37 billion-a-year scam?

Yup, conspiracy nutjob........
I'm remembering something Redd Foxx once said about all these health nuts one day lying in hospital beds dying from nothing....... [emoji38]

Keep telling yourself that your supplements will reverse you coronary artery disease

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk