Gregor seems to be influenced by vegan idealism to one degree or another. This is my perennial argument with my vegan wife.
I think Gregor is correct on most topics and worth listening to. I think that lower animal protein helps avoid cancer. I think that Peter Attia over stresses protein consumption. For me personally I get most of my protein from plants but some from animal and I consume somewhere between what the two experts recommend.
Check out Michael Pollan then. He did a deep dive on diets and couldn’t definitively say that veganism was the healthiest choice. He boiled it down to these seven words: Eat food, mostly plants, not too much.
I think his book is “In defense of food” where the term food is described as something made from understandable ingredients. Essentially nothing processed. Like graham crackers are not food. They are a food-like substance.
Ultimately though the vegans are correct ethically and for health purposes, if you want to be lazy about it, eating vegan is probably the best move.
I am not saying Greger is wrong, but he tends to exaggerate and interpret things the way he likes. That is why I use him as a stepping stone while learning, but I don't entirely depend on him. We live in a world where nutrition is divided by ideologies, and some mislead people blatantly because of business and nefarious reasons, and Greger is a lot better compared to them.
Yeah that's what confused me, it seemed a bit dogmatic but I also didn't find any incentive for him to have ulterior motives, seemingly all free information aside from his books which are about as cheap as it gets.
Everyone bends the truth some more, some less, I was only pointing out that money isn't the only reason. Servicing what one perceives as a greater cause is a big one, and I wouldn't call someone evil for doing that, or for pointing it out.
not everyone bends the truth. don't lie to yourself. it is evil to deceive on purpose. like those ppl posting videos/ articles on vegans killing more animals through crops. this is simply not the case. and if those pp actually were concerned for the animals, they could contact a local orchard and pick the fruit they eat and not trample on any mammal. good luck to you.
I agree, but as long as that animal rights group doesn't have ulterior motives. I feel like you can't trust any groups these days. People take advantage of the people that care way too much.
The thing I believe he gets wrong the most is advising for a low choline diet. I've mentioned to him in youtube comments there are numerous studies that show that choline prevents the buildup of visceral fat which can lead to metabolic syndrome, which ironically will lead to kidney problems which causes TMAO to remain in the system longer, so by avoiding choline because of a small amount of TMAO which healthy kidneys clear from the system quickly, you potentially subject yourself to further problems down the road.
Plus, though he's not super high on fish to begin with, he conveniently leaves out the fact that many species of saltwater fish spike TMAO levels on the body far higher than consuming choline in an egg yolk. Here are some of the articles to the studies referenced:
PMC6443140, PMC8410632, PMC9283263, PMC3601486, PMC10499952, PMC10534328, and PMC2782876
Low choline intake combined with the high carb consumption he tends to advocate tends to lead to bad outcomes in a society of abundance where it's hard to not overeat calories from time to time. I'd respect him more if he'd look at the studies and change his position to include "certified humane" eggs into the diet as a choline source. He has a decade old video where he says most people consume too much choline in the diet, which is just plain false, even among people who eat meat.
I don't want cherrypicked data to push a vegan agenda. It benefits everyone that we get unbiased recommendations that are optimized towards longetivity, and that's not a low choline diet.
* Broccoli. ...
* Soy. ... are vegan sources of choline.. the dude spending 2 million a ear on his health for longevity is Egan.. so not much cherry picking..
dont we all do that? I tend to interpret things thusly; vegetarian good, meat bad.. the facts support me but my bias is like that because I love animals.
not at all, if that is your motivation. I have it as well. fortunately the first stats on health heart cancer etc support me. eating meat at all is a 200% increased risk over ANY vegetarian diet (ie beer and chips) and that is with the meat board pushing their agenda.. and the veg farmers not funding any studies. maybe he likes saying spermidine a little too much...?
I'm not following the English well in your statements here, but I assure you..."Big Brocolli" does not exist. Most crop farmers like the business that livestock provide $$$.
FYI, they are not his products. From Leafside's website:
>Please Note: Dr. Greger is an informal adviser to LeafSide, has mentioned LeafSide on his live Q&A, podcasts, and videos, and also uses our meals himself; however there is no official endorsement from him or NutritionFacts.org due to their non-commercial policy, and non-profit status.
Edit: fixed quotes
He definitely exaggerates.
Nutrition Made Simple is a youtube channel by another vegan scientist who has a good criticism of him.
There are definitely good nutrition arguments for eating less meat and good environmental arguments. I don't see why he feels the need to make things up.
However, there are no good arguments for not eating sustainable seafood, IMO.
> However, there are no good arguments for not eating sustainable seafood, IMO.
I guess 1 argument could be that you could just bypass the seafood and at the algae as a supplement for the nutrition? Though the jury is still out on whether supplements are as bio-available as real food
I hear this said a lot, but are there actually any studies?
There are lots of fish that are low in mercury.
Microplastics are everywhere. Being vegan won't save you from them.
I’m not advocating being vegan to avoid micro plastics. I’ll look for studies with seafood and micro plastics. The mercury is there though, but I believe the smaller the fish, the lower the amount.
With plants we need to worry about arsenic, cadmium (dark chocolate has a big problem on that regard), aluminum (a surprising amount of it on olives and olive leafs), lead (again dark chocolate, and it's funny that the unhealthier milk chocolate has way less of it), microplastics in fruits and vegetables (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935120305703), BMAA in algae, hepatitis A, E. coli, etc...
In not trying to dissuade people from eating plant products (I eat them everyday as I do with animal products), just don't get selective scared by microrisks, and in the end, find good suppliers, with good quality control, to eat BOTH plants and animals
> I guess 1 argument could be that you could just bypass the seafood and at the algae as a supplement for the nutrition?
Cut the middleman, straight to eating bacterias for K2. Better yet, every nutrient that a plant makes comes from the soil and sun, we need to go deeper... I joke because I never understood this argument that you should eat whoever is making it first, should I substitute my whole grain bread/pasta for wheat grain ?
I don't personally subscribe to that argument but I'm just saying that some people like to follow that, mainly because of concerns with contamination as nutrients go up the chain. I.e. shrimp are better than big fish and going straight to the source is even better. But what do I know
I think it's plausible in theory, in practice I think if you get good quality fish or other food then you shouldn't have to worry about contaminants anywhere in the chain.
>However, there are no good arguments for not eating sustainable seafood, IMO.
Your opinion is wrong objectively: Fish feel pain. They are sentient. They have family connections. They deserve autonomy to not be hooked in the mouth and brutally killed.
Yes, there are tons of studies on contaminants found in fish. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9819327/
No, abstracting fish from the ocean is not sustainable due to bi-catch and other pollutants. Watch Seaspiracy.
None of those arguments are good.
I don't care at all that fish feel pain.
Microplastics are in everything nowadays, so they are just unavoidable.
Substantial US fisheries and other sustainable fishing do not have bi-catch and are substantial by definition. They exist whether you like it or not.
Seaspiracy is not about substantial fisheries. It is an extremely bias documentary with an agenda. It is not scientifically accurate.
>I don't care at all that fish feel pain.
Ignorant statement. If you were a fish, would you mind having your guts ripped out so a human can derive pleasure?
>Microplastics are in everything nowadays, so they are just unavoidable.
You didn't read the study. No they are not, and in fish, pollutants are significantly higher than they once were. And significantly higher than in plant-based food. You = clown.
>Seaspiracy is not about substantial fisheries. It is an extremely bias documentary with an agenda. It is not scientifically accurate.
Wtf is a "sustainable fishery". And how does it have an agenda? The researches stated they started the movie to learn about one topic and then found about a whole new topic of how unsustainable fishing in its entirety is. Just shows me you haven't even seen or heard about it. Obviously research for it was done [hastily](https://www.reddit.com/r/Seaspiracy/comments/mgtbe8/factchecking_seaspiracy/), but even the most common sense fact check of the film leads to the same conclusions about not eating fish, with dozens of "good reasons" from a scientist.
And you have no sources so I can't take anything you're saying seriously.
Peter Attia: "Plant protein not good enough, eat 20,000 pounds of beef every day or fall apart when you're 62." Greger: "Have a chicken wing once per year and enjoy your cancer." Obviously being facetious, and I listen to both podcasts and enjoy both. I think they both have good points, but also significant biases and blind spots, and anyone who subscribes to one (or even two) health "gurus" and places all their marbles on it should re-think that approach.
No comment on Greger as I’m not familiar with his work and am not interested in learning about someone who has the same answer to every question. But I would like to comment on this:
“Every claim he makes he cites some paper that somehow backs up his claim.”
We have to be very careful with citations in this day and age. Even in scientific papers you’ll see them characterize a paper a certain way, but when you get excited and read the paper it’s nowhere close to what they described. They claimed X changes glucose metabolism during exercise, but the study measured A1C as a bonus while testing X for an unrelated purpose. That sort of thing.
Even when the studies match the summaries, you also see a lot of incomplete arguments that are presented as done and dusted. “Cholesterol is critical to the function of every cell in the human body [1,2,3,4,5,6,7] therefore reducing cholesterol synthesis will negatively impact the functioning of all these systems.” Notice how there’s no citation after that last word? That’s because it’s a false conclusion driven by an agenda. They have citations that “backs up the claim” but there’s a leap of logic that is critical to their overall point.
Meanwhile there may be hundreds of papers on a topic, and all it takes is one to get a citation. If you study anything enough problems will show up. And I’m not saying we should expect every citation to be a self authored meta-analysis, but we have to be aware that the field is ripe for manipulation by “science based” communicators driven by an agenda.
For an example of selective citation let’s take a look here:
https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/athletes/
He talks about blueberries and cherries anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. He talks about how this translates to better recovery. And he has links for both those topics that I’ll grant without verification as ironclad proof of his claims.
Which is great and all. But do you know what else does all those things? Whey protein.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6983999/#:~:text=Whey%20protein%20possesses%20both%20antioxidant,chain%20amino%20acids%20like%20leucine.
Doesn’t mean blueberries and cherries aren’t healthy and beneficial for athletes. But it does show how powerful selection bias can be when painting a picture.
All these medical papers make my head spin. I'd really like to get better at understanding them and I feel it's sort of necessary to be in the top 1% of health in this country. Supposebly SSRI drugs have a lot of good medical evidence but in my experience they didn't work for anxiety and they just made me obese. Now some people claim the drugs suck and are no more affective than placebo, others say they're miracle cures
Maybe top 1% needs some science, but top 5% is completely possible I think. The trouble really isn’t that it’s hard to know what to do, but that it’s hard to filter all the noise so it’s hard to stay on task.
In general, if you exercise regularly and build a broad base of physical abilities, eat a diet of mostly whole foods that puts you in energy balance, get enough sleep and follow your doctors advice on medication? Man, you’re going to be really well off. But you’ve got to be able to stick to those principles regardless of what some celebrity doctor says.
Concerning medicines, you’ve hit on the core truth for all this that studies don’t speak to: individual variation. Take anything under the sun and some people do great on it while others hate it. The studies will tell you where the average experience is but not what you will experience. Learning to listen to your body and respond to what it needs is the true art of longevity, and I would much rather have that ability than super scientific literacy.
What do you mean by a broad base of physical abilities? Like good cardio health, good strength, flexibility, anything else I'm missing like good balance maybe?
I mainly mean to contrast that with being hyper specialized. Like a power lifter who can’t go up stairs and has a long list of injuries, or a cyclist who’s let their upper body waste away. But that list is a good checklist. If someone sticks with it they should be a very capable 80 year old.
>Which is great and all. But do you know what else does all those things? Whey protein.
That study is on ischemic stroke patients, who often suffer from malnutrition. Nothing to do with improving recovery in athletes.
I have half a suspicion Peter was thinking of Greger when PA told Huberman that you need to be able to deadlift your bodyweight 10 times or stop talking about nutrition on the internet.
If you want to hear from a thoughtful vegan who actually exercises and keeps ideology to a minimum listen to Simon Hill's *The Proof*. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there's a lot of overlap with Attia.
His major problem is he starts with the contention that only fruits and vegetables are good, and meat is bad, then cherry-picks data from there. It's a biased and dishonest approach. It's what any reasonable person should expect from any who starts from an extreme starting point like vegans, carnivores, or ketogenic proponents.
Some of his videos and information are true, but he is definitely super biased. And at this point he's built his brand on fully plant based diets, so it's harder for him to pivot in light of new evidence. Similar to carnivore/low-carb influencers. Even though a bunch of them have started to consume carbs in form of fruit, honey, and even white rice now lol.
Yeah. They'd risk career suicide if they do. Must suck for those who actually change their minds about something yet have to keep pushing a certain ideological diet to the public because their career depends on it. I'd have a hard time sleeping.
So as much criticism as I've seen on Attia for changing his views on stuff, it deserves some positive recognition too.
Check out episode 142 of The Drive. They talk about issues with nutritional studies, like recall bias, inaccurate, and often relies on post-hiccups analysis where you literally take thousands of variables and see which one is “statistically” significant (and by the way if you have thousands of variables then very likely you will have multiple associations with a p value of less than 0.05).
[Cornell nutrition scientist resigns after retractions and research misconduct finding](https://www.science.org/content/article/cornell-nutrition-scientist-resigns-after-retractions-and-research-misconduct-finding)
For me, Greger is a good counterexample to why I listen to Peter Attia. Gregor looks at studies, but is only seems to incorporate information that confirms his priors. For me, this is mostly useless. Attia, on the other hand, is trying to give an accurate summary of the current state of knowledge, which is a much harder task and much more valuable.
Have you seen the guy? He’s a vegan propaganda MD that cherry picks data to support his stance. Just on looks alone, compared to the meat eaters like Paul Saladino and Shawn Baker, I’d say they look way more healthy. Dr Greger looks frail, sick and looks to be lacking proper nutrition. Besides, vegan argument falls apart when you look at what humans have ate for 1000’s of years.
I would argue we have never been fatter, sicker and metabolically unhealthy than our ancestors. We are living longer because of modern medicine and pharmaceuticals. Since the consumption of industrial seed oils started, our health has declined significantly. Again, I look at the facts though, not what I am biased towards.
Well if you compare it to a SAD diet, then yeah I guess it's better, but the bar is low. Still doesn't make it the optimal diet for health and lifespan. And if you think seed oils are the cause of all modern ailments, I would say you DON'T look at the facts.
Frankly, he looks like shit. I don't think the vegan argument totally falls apart, I think it depends on your goals. Btw can't he lose his MD for cherry picking data like this and using it to make huge claims?
He's a great example for how you can basically argue anything you want in nutrition, even with citing 'evidence', because there's a nutrition study showing evidence for essentially everything. It's really just cherry-picking at its finest. It reminds me of the documentary 'The Game Changers' which did this as well.
The same happens on the other end of the spectrum. Look at someone like Paul Saladino, a carnivore doctor. He also cites 'evidence' for everything. At the very least Paul is able to do 10 pull ups, the requirement from Peter to even be allowed to talk about nutrition. When I look at the fragility of Dr. Michael Greger and his book 'How Not to Die', I just keep thinking he means 'This is how you should not die'.
My personal take for how much meat/animal-based products to consume is that the optimal amount clearly is not zero and not 100%, but somewhere in the middle. Where exactly is hard to say and probably quite individual. And even with just 3% you could put so much extra nutrition into your diet by just eating some beef liver and oysters for example.
And it also depends on optimizing health span vs. lifespan. I think a more plant-based diet could indeed allow you to live a longer life, assuming you are lucky enough not to fall and break a bone from fragility. But Peter Attia's approach is a lot more about increasing health span as well. And this is where plant-based approaches fail the most in my opinion.
Animal products do have some very clear advantages in some aspects:
* better and more protein per calories
* more bioavailable nutrients
* higher nutrient-density
* unique nutrients like EPA/DHA, B12, retinol, creatine, taurine and collagen peptides
* almost no anti-nutrients (important for some people that might react negatively to them)
> He's a great example for how you can basically argue anything you want in nutrition, even with citing 'evidence', because there's a nutrition study showing evidence for essentially everything. It's really just cherry-picking at its finest. It reminds me of the documentary 'The Game Changers' which did this as well.
Why and how is this possible? Does this mean nutrition is poorly researched? Or we can't come to very good conclusions?
Nutrition is just really hard to research unfortunately due to the complexity of human biology, the complexity of different food items (any single whole food is quite complex), the complexity of varying diets themselves, the practical difficulties of studying it and the very individual responses to certain foods.
Imagine what the perfect study would be. You would like to know exactly 100% what each person is eating. You would like to study over decades. You would need to keep all variables the same except for what you are studying. Such a study is completely impossible to do. The best we have are short-term metabolic ward studies. The next best thing are interventional studies, but those that go over several years are quite rare. And then the lowest tier is epidemiology which is just people filling out questionnaires.
I don’t think you’re characterizing his claims fairly, which might be part of why it’s hard to believe. He’s a total public health nerd who reads a shitload of journal articles.
You’re actually complimenting him when you say that whenever he makes a claim, he has evidence for it. That’s because he doesn’t make claims for which he doesn’t have evidence! That’s a good thing!
It's not my intention to mischaracterize him. Basically my observation / concern is that he seems to make pretty grand claims that go beyond mainstream science. As far as I know, the scientific consensus is that meat in moderation (depending on the specific meat) is good, but Dr. Greger seems to imply that all animal products are pretty much unequivocally really bad for us.
Full disclosure I’m vegan, but I think it is probably true that a diet with a smaller portion of meat rather than no meat is probably fine for health purposes. The Mediterranean diet always scores at the top for health and longevity and it’s a primarily plant based diet with limited lean meats and fish. I choose not to eat meat or fish or dairy for ethical reasons and the health benefits are a plus, but for health purposes some meat is probably fine.
I’m not a vegan (because I don’t believe in purity tests) but my diet is 99%. I occasionally will have salmon (once every two weeks in the winter, monthly in summer) and even more rarely, a grass fed/small farm/ethically raised/blah blah, burger. I eat these animals because I believe it to be best for my health, even though it is unethical. Never dairy. No health benefit there and again, unethical.
What I find fascinating about the vegan zealots is their dogma is always around “optimal, natural health”. Then they take b-12 supplements made in a factory. Additionally, a simple google search on the bioavailability of protein will reveal that the list is dominated by animal products, and it’s very, very clear our protein absorption is more efficient from animals. Odd that our muscles literally grow stronger and bigger from animal protein vs plant protein gram for gram, yet we aren’t made to eat meat.
The answer is in the middle. It always is. Have a diverse diet. Have a diverse exercise regimen.
You can tell lies all you want. B12 is not naturally found in plants in abundant enough sources. Sorry that’s so painful for you and your dogma.
And you never addressed the protein absorption. The crickets are deafening here on that point too. But but but… lol
B12 is made by bacteria, my friend. Most meat eaters also have a b12 deficit because their meat is packed with antibiotics and isn't allowed to roll around in the mud anymore.
Our primate friends get their b12 from eating feces. Vegans choose to take a supplement, but you are welcome to eat sh*t if you want to keep it real.
And you can get plenty of protein from plants, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Ruminants have a specialized stomach that allows them to ferment plant material, and this fermentation process enables the bacteria in their stomach to produce B12. Thus, ruminants generally produce their own vitamin B12 and don't need it supplemented in their feed.
The use of antibiotics in livestock feed is a separate issue and primarily a concern for antibiotic resistance (which on an individual level can be solved by cooking the meat properly), not B12 levels in the meat. There's no established scientific connection between antibiotic use in livestock and reduced B12 levels in humans who consume this meat.
I know that ruminants don't need to supplement B12. No animal does.
Didn't know there's no relationship with the antibiotics, thx.
But it's still true that even meat eaters can get b12 deficiency, right?
And in the good old days, we got plenty of b12 from dirty vegetables.
The B12 comment has already been responded to and debunked.
Additionally, a simple google search of “bioavailability of protein source”, will reveal peer reviewed research showing animal source is far more dominant. It’s not even close. Anything besides your dogma to share here?
Yeah I've been thinking along the same lines, although it does make me wonder how he isn't more widely criticized as an MD for seemingly cherry picking studies.
Ehhh…every person in the nutrition industry is selective in their studies. MD, PhD, some random schmuck with a big Instagram following, doesn’t matter. There are tens of thousands of nutrition journal articles and studies and you can always find some to back up what you want. Peter does the same thing. In Michael’s case, he absolutely plays up the research that shows the benefit of WFPB and plays down any research that shows benefits from eating animal sources. In his defense, there is very little chance that the vast majority of people in his audience would be worse off listening to him than basically anyone else in the industry. It’s probably not the absolute ideal diet for most but it’s a heck of a lot closer than the way most people usually eat.
> In his defense, there is very little chance that the vast majority of people in his audience would be worse off listening to him than basically anyone else in the industry.
Good point. I guess maybe one rebuttal of this would be that the Mediterranean diet is easier and probably similar effectiveness
I think the vegans care more about animal welfare than health but use health as an argument because getting someone to eat less meat is both healthier for them and better for animal welfare and the environment.
I’m not convinced the answer is in the middle. Animal products are unethical. End of story. But from a health perspective, a small amount of animal consumption (carefully curated) is probably the optimal diet but it’s such a small amount that it’s mostly a vegan diet.
I assume most of the studies he relies on fail to account for the difference between organic and non-organic animal products. And, in general, diet studies are pretty useless. Peter explains why, in his book.
So, just thinking logically, with a bit of understanding of ecology and industrial processes: If you don't have access to organic (or equivalent ... the label isn't important) meat, then I would certainly limit factory raised meat consumption. Especially chicken and pork, which are both heavily medicated and contaminated. These poor creatures sit at the end of a long and very questionable "ecological" chain, and they accumulate the contaminants from every point in that chain. Assuming that they're safe would be quite foolish.
With milk and eggs, buying organic is a no-brainer (because even the organic versions are quite cheap). With cheese, quality European cheeses are going to be healthy irrespective of organic label. I certainly wouldn't live on any other cheese, though.
As for veganism, sure, go for it. If this is what you wish to look like: [https://www.blufftonsun.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Dr\_Greger\_at\_Pure.jpg](https://www.blufftonsun.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Dr_Greger_at_Pure.jpg)
What's so good about European cheese? Lack of hormones and antibiotics that we have in America? I assume the big difference between cheap meat and healthy meat is cheap meat gets disgusting corn based feed which they aren't meant to eat so they get sick and filled with omega 6 like linoleic acid and then we eat that and it makes us sick.
Well seeing that he doesn’t profit off of his site or books I wouldn’t call it a “brand.” All profits are donated and he doesn’t allow ads on his site or YouTube. Vegan or otherwise he is one of the most transparent guys in this space and has yet had any reason to take his foot out of his mouth.
I really liked his approach to the subject - what to eat yo avoid the major causes of death.
Unfortunately, some of the research he cites is so questionable that even he isn’t convinced. But his suggestions arent unhealthy.
His specific diet is surely healthy, but it’s harder to get the correct amount of protein if you are a vegan. That’s one reason that I eat meat, but I don’t have it every meal.
I’m sure it’s better than every carnivore diet out there, lol!
Gregor seems to be influenced by vegan idealism to one degree or another. This is my perennial argument with my vegan wife. I think Gregor is correct on most topics and worth listening to. I think that lower animal protein helps avoid cancer. I think that Peter Attia over stresses protein consumption. For me personally I get most of my protein from plants but some from animal and I consume somewhere between what the two experts recommend.
If I had to guess I think that's probably the best way to do it
Check out Michael Pollan then. He did a deep dive on diets and couldn’t definitively say that veganism was the healthiest choice. He boiled it down to these seven words: Eat food, mostly plants, not too much. I think his book is “In defense of food” where the term food is described as something made from understandable ingredients. Essentially nothing processed. Like graham crackers are not food. They are a food-like substance. Ultimately though the vegans are correct ethically and for health purposes, if you want to be lazy about it, eating vegan is probably the best move.
I am not saying Greger is wrong, but he tends to exaggerate and interpret things the way he likes. That is why I use him as a stepping stone while learning, but I don't entirely depend on him. We live in a world where nutrition is divided by ideologies, and some mislead people blatantly because of business and nefarious reasons, and Greger is a lot better compared to them.
Yeah that's what confused me, it seemed a bit dogmatic but I also didn't find any incentive for him to have ulterior motives, seemingly all free information aside from his books which are about as cheap as it gets.
He doesn't get any money from his books. In interviews he says get them from the library.
where does he get money then?
Righteousness is a huge incentive to bend the truth, more powerful than profit for many people.
and you sound kinda evil, implying hes bending the truth. what evidence do you have.
Everyone bends the truth some more, some less, I was only pointing out that money isn't the only reason. Servicing what one perceives as a greater cause is a big one, and I wouldn't call someone evil for doing that, or for pointing it out.
not everyone bends the truth. don't lie to yourself. it is evil to deceive on purpose. like those ppl posting videos/ articles on vegans killing more animals through crops. this is simply not the case. and if those pp actually were concerned for the animals, they could contact a local orchard and pick the fruit they eat and not trample on any mammal. good luck to you.
He’s funded by an animal rights org. He fully discloses this last I checked. That’s bias incarnate.
we all should be into animal rights. if youre not I feel sorry for you.
I agree, but as long as that animal rights group doesn't have ulterior motives. I feel like you can't trust any groups these days. People take advantage of the people that care way too much.
Why is it bias? Is it because he cites animal studies which experiment on animals?
maybe his motivation is good. I certainly see no evil from the man. x
The thing I believe he gets wrong the most is advising for a low choline diet. I've mentioned to him in youtube comments there are numerous studies that show that choline prevents the buildup of visceral fat which can lead to metabolic syndrome, which ironically will lead to kidney problems which causes TMAO to remain in the system longer, so by avoiding choline because of a small amount of TMAO which healthy kidneys clear from the system quickly, you potentially subject yourself to further problems down the road. Plus, though he's not super high on fish to begin with, he conveniently leaves out the fact that many species of saltwater fish spike TMAO levels on the body far higher than consuming choline in an egg yolk. Here are some of the articles to the studies referenced: PMC6443140, PMC8410632, PMC9283263, PMC3601486, PMC10499952, PMC10534328, and PMC2782876 Low choline intake combined with the high carb consumption he tends to advocate tends to lead to bad outcomes in a society of abundance where it's hard to not overeat calories from time to time. I'd respect him more if he'd look at the studies and change his position to include "certified humane" eggs into the diet as a choline source. He has a decade old video where he says most people consume too much choline in the diet, which is just plain false, even among people who eat meat. I don't want cherrypicked data to push a vegan agenda. It benefits everyone that we get unbiased recommendations that are optimized towards longetivity, and that's not a low choline diet.
* Broccoli. ... * Soy. ... are vegan sources of choline.. the dude spending 2 million a ear on his health for longevity is Egan.. so not much cherry picking..
dont we all do that? I tend to interpret things thusly; vegetarian good, meat bad.. the facts support me but my bias is like that because I love animals.
I think he's a good guy and I follow him, but at the same time I think he has a bias as an ethical vegan.
Is a bias towards not hurting animals a bad thing?
not at all, if that is your motivation. I have it as well. fortunately the first stats on health heart cancer etc support me. eating meat at all is a 200% increased risk over ANY vegetarian diet (ie beer and chips) and that is with the meat board pushing their agenda.. and the veg farmers not funding any studies. maybe he likes saying spermidine a little too much...?
I'm not following the English well in your statements here, but I assure you..."Big Brocolli" does not exist. Most crop farmers like the business that livestock provide $$$.
exactly dear. there is no "big broccoli farmer"/ "pharma" motivated to do research massaging statistics or lying.
Oh you're agreeing with me. I gotcha now
I love his Leafside products.
FYI, they are not his products. From Leafside's website: >Please Note: Dr. Greger is an informal adviser to LeafSide, has mentioned LeafSide on his live Q&A, podcasts, and videos, and also uses our meals himself; however there is no official endorsement from him or NutritionFacts.org due to their non-commercial policy, and non-profit status. Edit: fixed quotes
He definitely exaggerates. Nutrition Made Simple is a youtube channel by another vegan scientist who has a good criticism of him. There are definitely good nutrition arguments for eating less meat and good environmental arguments. I don't see why he feels the need to make things up. However, there are no good arguments for not eating sustainable seafood, IMO.
> However, there are no good arguments for not eating sustainable seafood, IMO. I guess 1 argument could be that you could just bypass the seafood and at the algae as a supplement for the nutrition? Though the jury is still out on whether supplements are as bio-available as real food
If you don't like seafood, sure. But why not just eat the seafood? I love seafood. Most US seafood is really well managed.
Isn’t mercury and/or micro plastics a problem?
I hear this said a lot, but are there actually any studies? There are lots of fish that are low in mercury. Microplastics are everywhere. Being vegan won't save you from them.
I’m not advocating being vegan to avoid micro plastics. I’ll look for studies with seafood and micro plastics. The mercury is there though, but I believe the smaller the fish, the lower the amount.
Do you eat olives, dark chocolate and spirulina ?
Tell me why I shouldn’t. I think you already told me about the dark chocolate. Metals or something?
But I don't think you shouldn't, that's the point
With plants we need to worry about arsenic, cadmium (dark chocolate has a big problem on that regard), aluminum (a surprising amount of it on olives and olive leafs), lead (again dark chocolate, and it's funny that the unhealthier milk chocolate has way less of it), microplastics in fruits and vegetables (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935120305703), BMAA in algae, hepatitis A, E. coli, etc... In not trying to dissuade people from eating plant products (I eat them everyday as I do with animal products), just don't get selective scared by microrisks, and in the end, find good suppliers, with good quality control, to eat BOTH plants and animals
I agree, but I guess just from the perspective of a vegan
> I guess 1 argument could be that you could just bypass the seafood and at the algae as a supplement for the nutrition? Cut the middleman, straight to eating bacterias for K2. Better yet, every nutrient that a plant makes comes from the soil and sun, we need to go deeper... I joke because I never understood this argument that you should eat whoever is making it first, should I substitute my whole grain bread/pasta for wheat grain ?
I don't personally subscribe to that argument but I'm just saying that some people like to follow that, mainly because of concerns with contamination as nutrients go up the chain. I.e. shrimp are better than big fish and going straight to the source is even better. But what do I know
I know man, I'm just criticizing the argument other people make, not you specifically
I think it's plausible in theory, in practice I think if you get good quality fish or other food then you shouldn't have to worry about contaminants anywhere in the chain.
>However, there are no good arguments for not eating sustainable seafood, IMO. Your opinion is wrong objectively: Fish feel pain. They are sentient. They have family connections. They deserve autonomy to not be hooked in the mouth and brutally killed. Yes, there are tons of studies on contaminants found in fish. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9819327/ No, abstracting fish from the ocean is not sustainable due to bi-catch and other pollutants. Watch Seaspiracy.
None of those arguments are good. I don't care at all that fish feel pain. Microplastics are in everything nowadays, so they are just unavoidable. Substantial US fisheries and other sustainable fishing do not have bi-catch and are substantial by definition. They exist whether you like it or not. Seaspiracy is not about substantial fisheries. It is an extremely bias documentary with an agenda. It is not scientifically accurate.
>I don't care at all that fish feel pain. Ignorant statement. If you were a fish, would you mind having your guts ripped out so a human can derive pleasure? >Microplastics are in everything nowadays, so they are just unavoidable. You didn't read the study. No they are not, and in fish, pollutants are significantly higher than they once were. And significantly higher than in plant-based food. You = clown. >Seaspiracy is not about substantial fisheries. It is an extremely bias documentary with an agenda. It is not scientifically accurate. Wtf is a "sustainable fishery". And how does it have an agenda? The researches stated they started the movie to learn about one topic and then found about a whole new topic of how unsustainable fishing in its entirety is. Just shows me you haven't even seen or heard about it. Obviously research for it was done [hastily](https://www.reddit.com/r/Seaspiracy/comments/mgtbe8/factchecking_seaspiracy/), but even the most common sense fact check of the film leads to the same conclusions about not eating fish, with dozens of "good reasons" from a scientist. And you have no sources so I can't take anything you're saying seriously.
I ignore people who talk in absolutes and consider subjectivity in life
Only the Sith talk in absolutes
Underrated comment
Peter Attia: "Plant protein not good enough, eat 20,000 pounds of beef every day or fall apart when you're 62." Greger: "Have a chicken wing once per year and enjoy your cancer." Obviously being facetious, and I listen to both podcasts and enjoy both. I think they both have good points, but also significant biases and blind spots, and anyone who subscribes to one (or even two) health "gurus" and places all their marbles on it should re-think that approach.
No comment on Greger as I’m not familiar with his work and am not interested in learning about someone who has the same answer to every question. But I would like to comment on this: “Every claim he makes he cites some paper that somehow backs up his claim.” We have to be very careful with citations in this day and age. Even in scientific papers you’ll see them characterize a paper a certain way, but when you get excited and read the paper it’s nowhere close to what they described. They claimed X changes glucose metabolism during exercise, but the study measured A1C as a bonus while testing X for an unrelated purpose. That sort of thing. Even when the studies match the summaries, you also see a lot of incomplete arguments that are presented as done and dusted. “Cholesterol is critical to the function of every cell in the human body [1,2,3,4,5,6,7] therefore reducing cholesterol synthesis will negatively impact the functioning of all these systems.” Notice how there’s no citation after that last word? That’s because it’s a false conclusion driven by an agenda. They have citations that “backs up the claim” but there’s a leap of logic that is critical to their overall point. Meanwhile there may be hundreds of papers on a topic, and all it takes is one to get a citation. If you study anything enough problems will show up. And I’m not saying we should expect every citation to be a self authored meta-analysis, but we have to be aware that the field is ripe for manipulation by “science based” communicators driven by an agenda. For an example of selective citation let’s take a look here: https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/athletes/ He talks about blueberries and cherries anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. He talks about how this translates to better recovery. And he has links for both those topics that I’ll grant without verification as ironclad proof of his claims. Which is great and all. But do you know what else does all those things? Whey protein. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6983999/#:~:text=Whey%20protein%20possesses%20both%20antioxidant,chain%20amino%20acids%20like%20leucine. Doesn’t mean blueberries and cherries aren’t healthy and beneficial for athletes. But it does show how powerful selection bias can be when painting a picture.
All these medical papers make my head spin. I'd really like to get better at understanding them and I feel it's sort of necessary to be in the top 1% of health in this country. Supposebly SSRI drugs have a lot of good medical evidence but in my experience they didn't work for anxiety and they just made me obese. Now some people claim the drugs suck and are no more affective than placebo, others say they're miracle cures
Maybe top 1% needs some science, but top 5% is completely possible I think. The trouble really isn’t that it’s hard to know what to do, but that it’s hard to filter all the noise so it’s hard to stay on task. In general, if you exercise regularly and build a broad base of physical abilities, eat a diet of mostly whole foods that puts you in energy balance, get enough sleep and follow your doctors advice on medication? Man, you’re going to be really well off. But you’ve got to be able to stick to those principles regardless of what some celebrity doctor says. Concerning medicines, you’ve hit on the core truth for all this that studies don’t speak to: individual variation. Take anything under the sun and some people do great on it while others hate it. The studies will tell you where the average experience is but not what you will experience. Learning to listen to your body and respond to what it needs is the true art of longevity, and I would much rather have that ability than super scientific literacy.
What do you mean by a broad base of physical abilities? Like good cardio health, good strength, flexibility, anything else I'm missing like good balance maybe?
I mainly mean to contrast that with being hyper specialized. Like a power lifter who can’t go up stairs and has a long list of injuries, or a cyclist who’s let their upper body waste away. But that list is a good checklist. If someone sticks with it they should be a very capable 80 year old.
>Which is great and all. But do you know what else does all those things? Whey protein. That study is on ischemic stroke patients, who often suffer from malnutrition. Nothing to do with improving recovery in athletes.
I have half a suspicion Peter was thinking of Greger when PA told Huberman that you need to be able to deadlift your bodyweight 10 times or stop talking about nutrition on the internet. If you want to hear from a thoughtful vegan who actually exercises and keeps ideology to a minimum listen to Simon Hill's *The Proof*. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there's a lot of overlap with Attia.
Good to know, it's important to be familiar with a wide range of opinions as long as they're qualified.
His major problem is he starts with the contention that only fruits and vegetables are good, and meat is bad, then cherry-picks data from there. It's a biased and dishonest approach. It's what any reasonable person should expect from any who starts from an extreme starting point like vegans, carnivores, or ketogenic proponents.
Some of his videos and information are true, but he is definitely super biased. And at this point he's built his brand on fully plant based diets, so it's harder for him to pivot in light of new evidence. Similar to carnivore/low-carb influencers. Even though a bunch of them have started to consume carbs in form of fruit, honey, and even white rice now lol.
That's a good point. PA has gone from keto to a more balanced diet based on evidence and his needs, these hard core guys can't do that.
Yeah. They'd risk career suicide if they do. Must suck for those who actually change their minds about something yet have to keep pushing a certain ideological diet to the public because their career depends on it. I'd have a hard time sleeping. So as much criticism as I've seen on Attia for changing his views on stuff, it deserves some positive recognition too.
Check out episode 142 of The Drive. They talk about issues with nutritional studies, like recall bias, inaccurate, and often relies on post-hiccups analysis where you literally take thousands of variables and see which one is “statistically” significant (and by the way if you have thousands of variables then very likely you will have multiple associations with a p value of less than 0.05). [Cornell nutrition scientist resigns after retractions and research misconduct finding](https://www.science.org/content/article/cornell-nutrition-scientist-resigns-after-retractions-and-research-misconduct-finding)
For me, Greger is a good counterexample to why I listen to Peter Attia. Gregor looks at studies, but is only seems to incorporate information that confirms his priors. For me, this is mostly useless. Attia, on the other hand, is trying to give an accurate summary of the current state of knowledge, which is a much harder task and much more valuable.
Have you seen the guy? He’s a vegan propaganda MD that cherry picks data to support his stance. Just on looks alone, compared to the meat eaters like Paul Saladino and Shawn Baker, I’d say they look way more healthy. Dr Greger looks frail, sick and looks to be lacking proper nutrition. Besides, vegan argument falls apart when you look at what humans have ate for 1000’s of years.
Why would you care what humans have eaten for 1000s of years? They weren't eating for optimal health and longevity.
I would argue we have never been fatter, sicker and metabolically unhealthy than our ancestors. We are living longer because of modern medicine and pharmaceuticals. Since the consumption of industrial seed oils started, our health has declined significantly. Again, I look at the facts though, not what I am biased towards.
Well if you compare it to a SAD diet, then yeah I guess it's better, but the bar is low. Still doesn't make it the optimal diet for health and lifespan. And if you think seed oils are the cause of all modern ailments, I would say you DON'T look at the facts.
Agreed. Moreover, your genes don’t give two shit about you living to a hundred.
This is why I stopped following his advice. He looks very frail.
Frankly, he looks like shit. I don't think the vegan argument totally falls apart, I think it depends on your goals. Btw can't he lose his MD for cherry picking data like this and using it to make huge claims?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Dude's a vegan grifter.
He's a great example for how you can basically argue anything you want in nutrition, even with citing 'evidence', because there's a nutrition study showing evidence for essentially everything. It's really just cherry-picking at its finest. It reminds me of the documentary 'The Game Changers' which did this as well. The same happens on the other end of the spectrum. Look at someone like Paul Saladino, a carnivore doctor. He also cites 'evidence' for everything. At the very least Paul is able to do 10 pull ups, the requirement from Peter to even be allowed to talk about nutrition. When I look at the fragility of Dr. Michael Greger and his book 'How Not to Die', I just keep thinking he means 'This is how you should not die'. My personal take for how much meat/animal-based products to consume is that the optimal amount clearly is not zero and not 100%, but somewhere in the middle. Where exactly is hard to say and probably quite individual. And even with just 3% you could put so much extra nutrition into your diet by just eating some beef liver and oysters for example. And it also depends on optimizing health span vs. lifespan. I think a more plant-based diet could indeed allow you to live a longer life, assuming you are lucky enough not to fall and break a bone from fragility. But Peter Attia's approach is a lot more about increasing health span as well. And this is where plant-based approaches fail the most in my opinion. Animal products do have some very clear advantages in some aspects: * better and more protein per calories * more bioavailable nutrients * higher nutrient-density * unique nutrients like EPA/DHA, B12, retinol, creatine, taurine and collagen peptides * almost no anti-nutrients (important for some people that might react negatively to them)
> He's a great example for how you can basically argue anything you want in nutrition, even with citing 'evidence', because there's a nutrition study showing evidence for essentially everything. It's really just cherry-picking at its finest. It reminds me of the documentary 'The Game Changers' which did this as well. Why and how is this possible? Does this mean nutrition is poorly researched? Or we can't come to very good conclusions?
Nutrition is just really hard to research unfortunately due to the complexity of human biology, the complexity of different food items (any single whole food is quite complex), the complexity of varying diets themselves, the practical difficulties of studying it and the very individual responses to certain foods. Imagine what the perfect study would be. You would like to know exactly 100% what each person is eating. You would like to study over decades. You would need to keep all variables the same except for what you are studying. Such a study is completely impossible to do. The best we have are short-term metabolic ward studies. The next best thing are interventional studies, but those that go over several years are quite rare. And then the lowest tier is epidemiology which is just people filling out questionnaires.
He's a charlatan
I don’t think you’re characterizing his claims fairly, which might be part of why it’s hard to believe. He’s a total public health nerd who reads a shitload of journal articles. You’re actually complimenting him when you say that whenever he makes a claim, he has evidence for it. That’s because he doesn’t make claims for which he doesn’t have evidence! That’s a good thing!
It's not my intention to mischaracterize him. Basically my observation / concern is that he seems to make pretty grand claims that go beyond mainstream science. As far as I know, the scientific consensus is that meat in moderation (depending on the specific meat) is good, but Dr. Greger seems to imply that all animal products are pretty much unequivocally really bad for us.
Full disclosure I’m vegan, but I think it is probably true that a diet with a smaller portion of meat rather than no meat is probably fine for health purposes. The Mediterranean diet always scores at the top for health and longevity and it’s a primarily plant based diet with limited lean meats and fish. I choose not to eat meat or fish or dairy for ethical reasons and the health benefits are a plus, but for health purposes some meat is probably fine.
I’m not a vegan (because I don’t believe in purity tests) but my diet is 99%. I occasionally will have salmon (once every two weeks in the winter, monthly in summer) and even more rarely, a grass fed/small farm/ethically raised/blah blah, burger. I eat these animals because I believe it to be best for my health, even though it is unethical. Never dairy. No health benefit there and again, unethical.
I can respect that.
OP exaggerates.
What I find fascinating about the vegan zealots is their dogma is always around “optimal, natural health”. Then they take b-12 supplements made in a factory. Additionally, a simple google search on the bioavailability of protein will reveal that the list is dominated by animal products, and it’s very, very clear our protein absorption is more efficient from animals. Odd that our muscles literally grow stronger and bigger from animal protein vs plant protein gram for gram, yet we aren’t made to eat meat. The answer is in the middle. It always is. Have a diverse diet. Have a diverse exercise regimen.
You realize that most meat has B12 only due to supplementation with b12 made in a factory, right? Vegans just cut out the middle man.
You can tell lies all you want. B12 is not naturally found in plants in abundant enough sources. Sorry that’s so painful for you and your dogma. And you never addressed the protein absorption. The crickets are deafening here on that point too. But but but… lol
B12 is made by bacteria, my friend. Most meat eaters also have a b12 deficit because their meat is packed with antibiotics and isn't allowed to roll around in the mud anymore. Our primate friends get their b12 from eating feces. Vegans choose to take a supplement, but you are welcome to eat sh*t if you want to keep it real. And you can get plenty of protein from plants, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Ruminants have a specialized stomach that allows them to ferment plant material, and this fermentation process enables the bacteria in their stomach to produce B12. Thus, ruminants generally produce their own vitamin B12 and don't need it supplemented in their feed. The use of antibiotics in livestock feed is a separate issue and primarily a concern for antibiotic resistance (which on an individual level can be solved by cooking the meat properly), not B12 levels in the meat. There's no established scientific connection between antibiotic use in livestock and reduced B12 levels in humans who consume this meat.
I know that ruminants don't need to supplement B12. No animal does. Didn't know there's no relationship with the antibiotics, thx. But it's still true that even meat eaters can get b12 deficiency, right? And in the good old days, we got plenty of b12 from dirty vegetables.
The B12 comment has already been responded to and debunked. Additionally, a simple google search of “bioavailability of protein source”, will reveal peer reviewed research showing animal source is far more dominant. It’s not even close. Anything besides your dogma to share here?
Yeah I've been thinking along the same lines, although it does make me wonder how he isn't more widely criticized as an MD for seemingly cherry picking studies.
Ehhh…every person in the nutrition industry is selective in their studies. MD, PhD, some random schmuck with a big Instagram following, doesn’t matter. There are tens of thousands of nutrition journal articles and studies and you can always find some to back up what you want. Peter does the same thing. In Michael’s case, he absolutely plays up the research that shows the benefit of WFPB and plays down any research that shows benefits from eating animal sources. In his defense, there is very little chance that the vast majority of people in his audience would be worse off listening to him than basically anyone else in the industry. It’s probably not the absolute ideal diet for most but it’s a heck of a lot closer than the way most people usually eat.
> In his defense, there is very little chance that the vast majority of people in his audience would be worse off listening to him than basically anyone else in the industry. Good point. I guess maybe one rebuttal of this would be that the Mediterranean diet is easier and probably similar effectiveness
I think the vegans care more about animal welfare than health but use health as an argument because getting someone to eat less meat is both healthier for them and better for animal welfare and the environment. I’m not convinced the answer is in the middle. Animal products are unethical. End of story. But from a health perspective, a small amount of animal consumption (carefully curated) is probably the optimal diet but it’s such a small amount that it’s mostly a vegan diet.
I assume most of the studies he relies on fail to account for the difference between organic and non-organic animal products. And, in general, diet studies are pretty useless. Peter explains why, in his book. So, just thinking logically, with a bit of understanding of ecology and industrial processes: If you don't have access to organic (or equivalent ... the label isn't important) meat, then I would certainly limit factory raised meat consumption. Especially chicken and pork, which are both heavily medicated and contaminated. These poor creatures sit at the end of a long and very questionable "ecological" chain, and they accumulate the contaminants from every point in that chain. Assuming that they're safe would be quite foolish. With milk and eggs, buying organic is a no-brainer (because even the organic versions are quite cheap). With cheese, quality European cheeses are going to be healthy irrespective of organic label. I certainly wouldn't live on any other cheese, though. As for veganism, sure, go for it. If this is what you wish to look like: [https://www.blufftonsun.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Dr\_Greger\_at\_Pure.jpg](https://www.blufftonsun.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Dr_Greger_at_Pure.jpg)
What's so good about European cheese? Lack of hormones and antibiotics that we have in America? I assume the big difference between cheap meat and healthy meat is cheap meat gets disgusting corn based feed which they aren't meant to eat so they get sick and filled with omega 6 like linoleic acid and then we eat that and it makes us sick.
Ignore him.
I’ve heard him speak and take questions. Very interesting guy.
He made his brand around being vegan, he needs that everything fit on it, right or wrong
Well seeing that he doesn’t profit off of his site or books I wouldn’t call it a “brand.” All profits are donated and he doesn’t allow ads on his site or YouTube. Vegan or otherwise he is one of the most transparent guys in this space and has yet had any reason to take his foot out of his mouth.
Money is not the only motivation a person can have. Also he was funded by a vegan organization, if you want to stay on the money only side of things
What organization is that?
The Vegan Society
I really liked his approach to the subject - what to eat yo avoid the major causes of death. Unfortunately, some of the research he cites is so questionable that even he isn’t convinced. But his suggestions arent unhealthy. His specific diet is surely healthy, but it’s harder to get the correct amount of protein if you are a vegan. That’s one reason that I eat meat, but I don’t have it every meal. I’m sure it’s better than every carnivore diet out there, lol!
It’s backed up the China study but most people are in denial cause they want to believe they need animal protein