Good Fact-Based Vegan/Health YouTubers? Websites?

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

I already follow Ginny Mesina, Jack Norris, Unnatural Vegan, Bite-Sized Vegan, and a few others. I am just curious because I am getting tired of all these Holier-than-thou "I am superior to you" Vegans who argue with you over absolutely nothing.

I just had a guy argue with me because I said that there are no plant-based sources of Vitamin D, so he was going to have to supplement. This guy told me I was wrong, and linked me to a supplement! He also said that I said Nutritional Yeast didn't naturally have Vitamin B12 in it, ignoring that I called it "Fortified". He said that I just wasn't vegan long enough to be as knowledgeable as him, and that I don't know science.

He also said that whites are highly likely to have Vitamin D deficiency... despite the fact that only 3% do, compared to about 30% of blacks, and 13% of hispanics, as well as a ton of Asians. And when I said that correlates to Lactose Intolerance levels, I was told that I was unscienctific... despite the CDC saying that: http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/ ... ients.html, http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/lactose-intolerance

I am getting kinda worn out from all these people like this, be it Happy Healthy Vegan attacking UV for being Pro-GMO, or Vegan Gains sending death threats, Freelee claiming that some carnists don't deserve to live, etc, etc. I like this diet, and will continue to be on it because it is healthy, but I am getting a little worn out with all the bad vegans and not enough good vegans floating around.

So does anyone have my links to good, evidence-based vegans that don't stand on a moral pedestal and look down on people?

[brimstoneSalad]

Bad vegans are just really loud, and good vegans are mostly quiet -- that's the problem. We just have to make our voices louder. Most vegans are actually very calm and sensible, it's just the rowdy/crazy ones that get attention (for being rowdy/crazy).

Bite-Sized Vegan

She is unfortunately unreasonable on the B-12 topic.

I just had a guy argue with me because I said that there are no plant-based sources of Vitamin D, so he was going to have to supplement.

Well, there are fungus based sources (D2): Put your mushrooms in the sun, and they can produce vitamin D, which you can then eat.
That's not technically a plant, though. It's also going to be a more expensive and less reliable source for anybody who is able to purchase things on the internet (or even go to a grocery store).

He probably linked you to vitashine. It is actually a 'plant' based supplement, in the colloquial sense, which is made from lichen... which is kind of a 'plant'... Sort of.
http://vitashine-d3.com/

Our exclusive vegan Vitamin D3 (Cholecalciferol) comes from a special, organic plant source called a Lichen. We analysed the plant itself, the processed (filtered) material, and the extracted oil to prove and quantify the presence of Vitamin D3.

If you went and ate those lichens, you'd probably get vitamin D from them. Like, ate a LOT of lichens. So, technically he may be kind of sort of right, but he's also wrong since it's not really a biological plant.
There's a "plant" source, but it's just not a plant people would normally eat... and it's not really a plant, it's a fungus and algae (also not in the plant kingdom) in intimate symbiosis. The D3 is probably coming from the fungus part anyway.

If you drop the semantic quibble about "plant", there are vegan sources.

Mushrooms are a common food, so that could be a viable source for people who are willing to be careful to buy the right kind of mushrooms, expose them to sunlight adequately, and eat enough of them. It's not trouble I want to take, though.
Also, there's just sunlight: Go outside for a few minutes each day, as long as you have good exposure and your skin isn't too dark, you should be able to make enough to prevent serious problems.

He also said that I said Nutritional Yeast didn't naturally have Vitamin B12 in it, ignoring that I called it "Fortified".

Right, yeast doesn't provide B-12. Nutritional yeast (some kinds) may be fortified.

There are apparently a couple vegan sources of 'natural' B-12 (aside from coprophagy, which is the source most herbivores get B-12 from, including our closest relatives).
This article suggests Purple Laver:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4042564/

In addition, high levels of Vitamin B12 were detected in the commercially available dried shiitake mushroom fruiting bodies (Lentinula edodes), which are used in various vegetarian dishes. The Vitamin B12 contents of dried shiitake mushroom fruiting bodies (100 g dry weight) significantly varied and the average Vitamin B12 value was approximately 5.61 μg [50]. Dried shiitake mushroom fruiting bodies rarely contained the inactive corrinoid, Vitamin B12[c-lactone] as well as Vitamin B12 [50]. Lion’s mane mushroom (Hericium erinaceus) fruiting bodies also contain considerable amounts of Vitamin B12[c-lactone] [51]. Stabler et al. [52] demonstrated that Vitamin B12[c-lactone] binds very weakly to the most specific Vitamin B12-binding protein, i.e., the intrinsic factor involved in the gastrointestinal absorption of Vitamin B12, and it strongly inhibits Vitamin B12-dependent enzymes, methylmalonyl-CoA mutase and methionine synthase.

The consumption of approximately 50 g of dried shiitake mushroom fruiting bodies could meet the RDA for adults (2.4 μg/day), although the ingestion of such large amounts of these mushroom fruiting bodies would not be possible on a daily basis.

We'd be looking at something like $30 of mushrooms a day.

A survey of naturally occurring and high Vitamin B12-containing plant-derived food sources showed that nori, which is formed into a sheet and dried, is the most suitable Vitamin B12 source for vegetarians presently available. Consumption of approximately 4 g of dried purple laver (Vitamin B12 content: 77.6 μg /100 g dry weight) supplies the RDA of 2.4 μg/day.

That's a lot of nori, but it could potentially be viable if you were a crazy person who refused to supplement (despite supplements being made from bacterial fermentation and plant products anyway).

He said that I just wasn't vegan long enough to be as knowledgeable as him, and that I don't know science.

That's silly of him to say.

He also said that whites are highly likely to have Vitamin D deficiency... despite the fact that only 3% do, compared to about 30% of blacks, and 13% of hispanics, as well as a ton of Asians. And when I said that correlates to Lactose Intolerance levels, I was told that I was unscienctific... despite the CDC saying that: http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/ ... ients.html, http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/lactose-intolerance

Whites both have lower levels of lactose intolerance (so consume more fortified dairy), and lighter skin which allows more efficient synthesis of D in the winter. Which is why dairy is a terrible way to supplement the public with vitamin D. Whites need the least help, and dairy targets them disproportionately with extra vitamin D.

He sounds kind of dumb.

So does anyone have my links to good, evidence-based vegans that don't stand on a moral pedestal and look down on people?

I'm interested in this too. Although I'm not worried about the pedestal thing so much. I just want people to use reason and evidence. Them acting like jerks and being arrogant is OK, as long as they're right. It's the crazy ones doing it that bothers me.

[Seachants]

ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote: So does anyone have my links to good, evidence-based vegans that don't stand on a moral pedestal and look down on people?

Michael Greger: https://www.youtube.com/user/NutritionFactsOrg. He also has a separate web site.

Mic. the Vegan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N7Sk1ZRohU

I like that Mic shows screenshots of actual studies, as Michael Greger does. I haven't read all the primary sources on the topics in their videos to verify whether they're cherry picking studies or not though. Mic sometimes sounds like he's on a pedestal, but he seems light-hearted about it, as indicated by the play on words in that I-nu-it video title.

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote: So does anyone have my links to good, evidence-based vegans that don't stand on a moral pedestal and look down on people?

Mic. the Vegan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N7Sk1ZRohU

I like that Mic shows screenshots of actual studies, as Michael Greger does. I haven't read all the primary sources on the topics in their videos to verify whether they're cherry picking studies or not though. Mic sometimes sounds like he's on a pedestal, but he seems light-hearted about it, as indicated by the play on words in that I-nu-it video title.

Funny you should mention Mic The Vegan, as i literally just found his channel like, 20 minutes ago. He seems to be pretty accurate in his studies and research, albeit I have a slight issue with his first video about vegan blood being a cancer fighter, and the video in which is claims, without evidence, that Cheese is addictive due to Casomorphines (There is no science behind that claim at all, absolutely none! But Master Greger said it, so it must be true!!! right?). Some of his videos seem to be fine though, so I'll subscribe.

I personally don't like Michael Greger, and have issues with a lot of his work, so i tend to avoid him. For instance, he thinks cheese is addictive despite a lack of evidence. He is anti-sucralose because one case study involving a single woman showed a side effect. He thinks the WHO said that processed chicken nuggets cause cancer... it didn't! Greger might be accurate on some things, but he misrepresents and lies about so much I just can't trust him with a 10 foot pole.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think you're too hard on Greger; I haven't seen him lie or misrepresent anything. He cites his studies he's referring to, and if you disagree with his interpretations, they're right there.

I disagree with him on sucralose, but I don't share his nutrition philosophy that if something doesn't have a health benefit there's no point in eating it.
Of course sucralose is nutritionally useless -- it's not an antioxidant, it doesn't provide any vitamins and minerals. So, in Greger's reasoning, if it even has a remote chance of being harmful, it should be avoided. He doesn't understand that normal people care about the taste of food a lot more, and don't have enough money to sweeten everything with fresh berries.

He probably is a bit inconsistent on Stevia, though. I think he trusts it more since it's been used longer in places like Japan.

I'm not familiar with the others, but I would expect it is a similar issue of misunderstanding something in his nutrition philosophy (like why he would rule that way on sucralose).

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

I think you're too hard on Greger; I haven't seen him lie or misrepresent anything. He cites his studies he's referring to, and if you disagree with his interpretations, they're right there.

I disagree with him on sucralose, but I don't share his nutrition philosophy that if something doesn't have a health benefit there's no point in eating it.
Of course sucralose is nutritionally useless -- it's not an antioxidant, it doesn't provide any vitamins and minerals. So, in Greger's reasoning, if it even has a remote chance of being harmful, it should be avoided. He doesn't understand that normal people care about the taste of food a lot more, and don't have enough money to sweeten everything with fresh berries.

He probably is a bit inconsistent on Stevia, though. I think he trusts it more since it's been used longer in places like Japan.

I'm not familiar with the others, but I would expect it is a similar issue of misunderstanding something in his nutrition philosophy (like why he would rule that way on sucralose).

His nutrition philosophy is "Suralose causes migrains and therefore is bad for you" based off a single case study of one person. There would be a difference is he said "The evidence states that these are safe for consumption, but you have to be careful for _____insert reason here_____. It's good to wait for further research, and in the meantime here is an alternative. "

He doesn't do that though. He makes a bullshit claim (Vegan blood kills cancer cells, Cheese is addictive due to Caso-morphines), backs it up with studies that say nothing of the sort, or studies that have a flawed or non-existent methodology, and since he is famous for helping Oprah with Mad Cow Disease, people believe him without question. Despite him not being a nutritionist OR a registered dietitian, he finds it necessary to take it upon himself not only to dish out 'expert opinion' as if he is such, but also to make bank by selling DVD's and Books galore, and donating the money to his own charity. Not the ASPCA, Not Mercy For Animals, His own website is a 501(c)3 Charity, which is about as impressive as nothing, as you don't need to work hard to get that status (The Institute of Noetic Sciences).

He is a biased individual that completely ignores all data ever to show any beneficial effect of meat, chicken, eggs, dairy, or fish, and only focuses on the awful side effects of too much in your diet, which he usually blows out of proportion by using relative, instead of absolute, risks.

Greger's reasoning is to inflate the benefits of veganism, or demonize other foods without merit, by misrepresenting and cherry-picking studies, no different than a fundementalist who wants homosexuality to be choice, or an anti-GMO/Antivaxxer who wants beyond all doubt for their beliefs to be seen as accurate.

Michael Greger might be right about many things, but due to his constant misrepresentation of the facts, I cannot trust him. And sadly, he has a whole hoard of followers who will never question the word of Greger, for no other purpose than the fact that he makes claims that the majority of vegans enjoy hearing. I trust him about as much as I trust Dr Robert W. Carter as a source for information on evolution.

[brimstoneSalad]

His nutrition philosophy is "Suralose causes migrains and therefore is bad for you" based off a single case study of one person.

He says the same about acrylamide in potato chips, but not about bread.

http://nutritionfacts.org/2014/04/22/sh ... e-avoided/

So sure, we can use our concern about the probable carcinogen,acrylamide as yet another reason to avoid potato chips and French fries, but until we know more I wouldn’t cut out healthful foods like whole grain bread. (For more on Acrylamide, see my video Acrylamide in French Fries).

Similarly, I’d use potential concerns about carrageenan as additional motivation to avoid unhealthy foods like cream cheese, but I wouldn’t cut out healthful foods until we know more. I would, however, suggest that those with inflammatory bowel syndrome or other gastrointestinal problems try cutting out carrageenan at least temporarily to see if symptoms improve.

The apparent double standard comes from the fact that potato chips have no real health benefit, but that whole grain bread does.

The problem is that -unlike whole grain bread- he doesn't understand the benefits of sucralose, so if he finds any little thing, no matter how remote, he's going to recommend against it.

There would be a difference is he said "The evidence states that these are safe for consumption, but you have to be careful for _____insert reason here_____. It's good to wait for further research, and in the meantime here is an alternative. "

That would have been better, sure. Better yet, recommend it to anybody who doesn't have migraines.

I disagree with that point of his nutritional philosophy, and I think he should be more open to the idea that people want food to be cheap and taste good, and are willing to sacrifice health, or take minute risks, to get it.

It's important to be critical of Greger on these issues he is failing at, but overall, he is NOT comparable to a freelee/Durianrider/Happy Healthy Vegan/etc.

He doesn't do that though. He makes a bullshit claim (Vegan blood kills cancer cells, Cheese is addictive due to Caso-morphines), backs it up with studies that say nothing of the sort, or studies that have a flawed or non-existent methodology,

You'll have to show me what you mean here.

Despite him not being a nutritionist OR a registered dietitian,

He is a "nutritionist". "Nutritionist" doesn't mean anything; it's just a person who gives nutrition advice as a profession (which he does in these videos). Only dietitian is a protected title.

but also to make bank by selling DVD's and Books galore, and donating the money to his own charity. Not the ASPCA, Not Mercy For Animals, His own website is a 501(c)3 Charity, which is about as impressive as nothing, as you don't need to work hard to get that status (The Institute of Noetic Sciences).

He doesn't donate the money; all of that stuff is owned and operated by his charity; it's never going through his pockets (that's not how non-profit works). It doesn't even make that much money.

http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/ ... s-org.aspx

People are way too quick to jump on anything with an income to demonize it.

For 2013 total revenue was under half a million, and with expenses, the non-profit is only making a quarter million. None of this looks unusual or ungainly for a small non-profit.
I've just looked over the 990 (for 2013), and I'm a little surprised to see that Greger isn't paid a penny from the non-profit's revenue. The expenses are mainly going into book/DVD printing and inventory, and web maintenance/video production which it looks like he contracts to web developers and editors, and then what look like travel expenses for promotion, along with advertising the site.

Most of it appeared to be going into interest bearing or investment accounts, which will soon be bearing enough to support the website (but are not yet doing so from the looks of things).
They're being smart about the use of the revenue (there are five people on the board).

They also gave what looks like a 30k grant, but I could be reading this wrong. They may be supporting some research somewhere. I would expect that behavior to increase dramatically, along with expansion of the site, in the next year or two as their investment income starts to exceed their operating expenses.

He makes three videos a week, and spends a substantial amount of time on reading, writing, and interviews... and apparently makes nothing from any of it. His time investment is reported to be 40 hours a week. For free. He is apparently living on savings from his medical career.
The rest of the board is also volunteer staff.

The charity's finances and taxes are also professionally prepared and audited by an independent company, by the looks of it.
If you know anything about non-profit law, you know that income (or the rulings of the board) can not inure to the benefit of private individuals.

Non-profit status says nothing about scientific credibility, but as long as it's not a church and there's some independent accounting, it does say something about the way money is spent and who benefits from it.

You're looking for a dragon to slay here, but everything I'm finding is completely above board.

He is a biased individual that completely ignores all data ever to show any beneficial effect of meat, chicken, eggs, dairy, or fish, and only focuses on the awful side effects of too much in your diet,

He's not ignoring anything. There's nothing wrong with not going out of your way to highlight possible minor benefits from something otherwise unhealthy -- particularly benefits which can be gained in other better ways.

Like the government ignores all of the beneficial effects of smoking, and just focuses on the negative side of too much smoking. Shame on them!
There are beneficial effects to smoking, you know. But they're vastly outweighed by the negative -- yes, even in moderation. Like with animal products. There's no reason to eat these things for B-12, for example, when you can just take a supplement which is not only healthier but more effective.

Look: People are stupid, and when they want to do something unhealthy, they're glad to grab onto any potential benefit they can rally around no matter how trivial. If the government spent some of its revenue on advertising the benefits of smoking along with the risks, do you think that would be cost effective toward their goals? Don't you think a lot of people, bad at weighing consequences, would take that minute benefit as a reason to just keep smoking, since they can't understand magnitude and cost benefit analysis?

When we're talking about doing public good (which is the point of the website, as stated explicitly), it doesn't make sense to confuse people with irrelevant and minute hypothetical benefits of smoking or eating meat when they are obviously outweighed by the risks.

And even so, he has done videos on how meat eaters can reduce their cancer risk from meat:

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/reducin ... eateaters/

Why would he even mention that boiling meat can reduce cancer risk, if all he wanted to do is paint the most negative picture possible of meat? Wouldn't he ignore the fact that meat can be prepared in different ways, with different risk profiles?

I don't always agree with the guy, but your accusations come off as irrational, and your expectations of him downright unreasonable. He has no obligation -- in fact, he has the opposite -- to confuse people by presenting weak conflicting evidence when the evidence against meat is already overwhelming.

which he usually blows out of proportion by using relative, instead of absolute, risks.

He reports the numbers correctly from the research -- that's the extent of his job. Is it really his fault that people don't understand the difference between relative and absolute risk? Is he required to teach a math lesson in each video?

"Double your cancer risk" is a lot more catchy and memorable than saying "increase your cancer risk by 1% from 1% to 2%"
Both are equally true, but one is much more likely to get people to think about their health and actually eat better.
Particularly because people are morons and they look at small numbers and disregard them completely.

Look at how pricing works in stores: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_pricing

Due to the ignorance of the population, playing with the way numbers are presented is unfortunately a tool in the box of anybody advocating to the public. It's kind of like negative political campaign ads -- it works, and it's unfortunate that it works, but if you don't do it, your opponent will win because he or she is holding no punches.

I'm concerned with technical accuracy much more than with presentation; in terms of presentation I'm concerned with what works, and what encourages people to make more positive change for their health and the environment around them.

When the meat and dairy industry do this and report numbers to try to make people ignore the risks, I hate it -- why? Because of the consequences: This is harming people.

When health professionals do it to highlight risk and make people understand that cancer is serious business -- for their own good -- I have no problem with that, because of the consequences: This is helping people.

Greger's reasoning is to inflate the benefits of veganism, or demonize other foods without merit,

Without merit? Really?

I'm starting to worry that you're having trouble with cost benefit analysis here, particularly in terms of overall public health. The reported benefits -- gladly exaggerated by meat proponents as why we should have meat based diet despite the damage (and usually ignoring it) -- are easily obtained from other foods or supplements. There is no objective merit to meat itself.

I don't see why this is so difficult. We're talking about change in DIRECTION vs. change in apparent MAGNITUDE.

Let me try a less emotionally charged analogy (and one of actual deception):

Let's say you have two stock brokers. Mr. Carn, and Mr. Verd.

Mr. Carn has invested your money in a way that you are actually losing money, losing $100 a month, and has chosen to report it to you in a way that makes you think you're gaining money from this investment, gaining $900 a month.
Mr. Verd has invested your money in a way that you are gaining a little money, only $100 a month, but has chosen to report it to you in a way that makes you think you're making a lot more money than you are from the investment, $1100 a month.

Do you see the difference here?

One is making a loss seem like a gain.
One is making a small gain seem like a larger gain.

Both of them, in terms of raw benefit exaggeration (adding $1000), may be doing the same thing, but one of them has crossed the line from loss to gain, making you ignorant of the overall truth of the matter that you are losing money, and the other has merely exaggerated gain.

If you invest in Mr. Carn based on his embellishments (direct or subversive), you will eventually be broke.
If you invest in Mr. Verd based on his, you will still gain money, but just a lot less than you had expected.

Do you see the difference here?
Not all exaggerations are equal in effect or consequence.

no different than a fundementalist who wants homosexuality to be choice, or an anti-GMO/Antivaxxer who wants beyond all doubt for their beliefs to be seen as accurate.

It's profoundly different both in the consequences (see above), and in his typical standards of evidence.

Greger isn't perfect, and he should be criticized so he can improve, but this kind of criticism is not helpful.
He's not one of the profound nutcases, like Graham or even the more moderate McDougall advocating bad practice of sugar/starch, he's not a raving youtuber who completely disregards science.

Michael Greger might be right about many things, but due to his constant misrepresentation of the facts, I cannot trust him.

I haven't seen him overtly misrepresent anything, calling him a liar is just not fair or useful.
Sometimes he cites a study that isn't very good, or makes a poor argument.
He makes hundreds of videos a year, 99% of them are good -- you've had a lower hit to miss rate I'm sure, are you a liar? Nobody is right all of the time, and it's unfair to try to hold somebody to that kind of standard. We're human beings.

Criticize him for his mistakes, not as a person.

Don't trust him? Fine. Then DON'T just trust him. Don't take his word for it -- you don't have to. You shouldn't be taking anybody's word for anything, really. Read his arguments, and look at the studies he cites.
Sometimes he's wrong. Usually he's not. Make your own decisions, as he encourages people to do.

I've found him right about things that I'm mistaken on (and corrected my position after looking into it), and found him wrong on other things.

Yes, he has some fervent followers -- so? People shouldn't be cultists, but that's a problem across the internet.

I trust him about as much as I trust Dr Robert W. Carter as a source for information on evolution.

That's not a fair comparison by any means. But you don't need to trust him. Look at his sources and make up your own mind if you find something incredible. He's doing good work most of the time, and it's worth watching his videos.

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

Not going through this whole thing to try to do a point by point, but will respond to specific things:

He says the same about acrylamide in potato chips, but not about bread.

The problem is that -unlike whole grain bread- he doesn't understand the benefits of sucralose, so if he finds any little thing, no matter how remote, he's going to recommend against it.

He actually gives exact reasons for that though. "Whole-wheat bread has health benefits while chips don't" but he doesn't do that with Sucralose. And if you're right, and he "doesn't understand the benefits of sucralose" then maybe he shouldn't be talking about it at all. He's supposed to be a science researcher, not an activist researcher.

He doesn't do that though. He makes a bullshit claim (Vegan blood kills cancer cells, Cheese is addictive due to Caso-morphines), backs it up with studies that say nothing of the sort, or studies that have a flawed or non-existent methodology,

You'll have to show me what you mean here.

He mentions in a talk, Uprooting The Leading Causes of Death (which he claims that "Death in America is largely a foodborne illness.") that Vegan blood kills cancer cells. http://nutritionfacts.org/video/uprooti ... -of-death/ His source for this "fact" is... one study.

This study includes an experiemental group that

"...were prescribed an intensive lifestyle program that included a vegan diet supplemented with soy (1 daily serving of tofu plus 58 gm of a fortified soy protein powdered beverage), fish oil (3 gm daily), vitamin E (400 IU daily), selenium (200 mcg daily) and vitamin C (2 gm daily), moderate aerobic exercise (walking 30 minutes 6 days weekly), stress management techniques (gentle yoga based stretching, breathing, meditation, imagery and progressive relaxation for a total of 60 minutes daily)"

Shocker shocker, the group of highly supplemented high-plant-based healthy fortified people with did tons more exercise, and even meditation, everyday, had healthier blood then the control group. Therefore all vegans? Including junkfood vegans? High-fat low-carb vegans? Lazy sedentary vegans? He takes the entire study full of confounding factors and states

" ...the blood of those on a vegan diet was dramatically less hospitable to cancer. Even the blood of those on a standard American diet fights cancer; if it didn’t everyone would be dead. It’s just that the blood of those eating vegan fights about 8 times better.

The blood of those on the standard american diet slows cancer growth rate down about 9%. Put people on a plant-based diet for a year, though, and their blood just tears it up. The blood circulating within the bodies of vegans has nearly 8 times the stopping power when it comes to cancer cell growth."

That sounds rather trustworthy, right?

He then claims

"Opiate-like casomorphins liberated from the cow’s milk protein casein are accused of participating in the cause of such conditions as: autism"

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/cows-mi ... nd-autism/ Yes, accused... by a study of 90 children. Ignoring a 2008, and 2014, Cochraine review stating that there is not http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24789114 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18425890, both concluding that " Few studies can be regarded as providing sound scientific evidence since they were blinded randomized controlled trials, and even these were based on small sample sizes, reducing their validity. We observed that the evidence on this topic is currently limited and weak"

But Dr Greger loves that kind of Pseudoscience, right? Isn't that what a trustworthy person would do? Ignore the evidence?

And like I said before, Artificial Sweeteners http://nutritionfacts.org/video/a-harml ... sweetener/ , which he claims are harmful because "There is a verdict on sucralose, though. What do you think? Harmful or harmless? Harmful, based primarily on the role it may play as a migraine trigger." But the study he links to states http://wealthandhealth.ltd.uk/articles/ ... teners.pdf

"Bigal and Krymchantowski (2006) discuss migraines triggered by sucralose. Multiple blinded posttests were provided for this client once she was migraine free to determine if sucralose was the trigger for her migraines. In all cases, on consumption of sucralose, her migraines returned. The client refused further participation in the study due to the migraines associated with the sucralose containing test solution."

One case study. The same paper he links to also states:

"McLean Baird, Shephard, Merritt, and HildickSmith (2000) published a study of sucralose tolerance in humans. Sucralose was administered to eight individuals for up to 12-week intervals. They experienced no adverse health effects at doses up to 10 mg/kg/d and repeated doses increasing to 5 mg/kg/d for 13 weeks. "

And people usually eat far less than that a day. He also ignores the over 100 studies that attest to the safety of Sucralose (http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPack ... #Sucralose), because it does not fit his anti-artificial preconceived notion.

Greger also mentions that chicken contain deadly arsenic http://nutritionfacts.org/video/arsenic-in-chicken/, based on a study of incomplete data from 1975? A study that draws no conclusion besides "this might happen but we have limited research?" And one last study that talks about Rice bran? Claiming that the extremely minute amounts of inorganic arsenic might harm children dying of malnourishment?

I will leave that there and go one with some other points.

He is a "nutritionist". "Nutritionist" doesn't mean anything; it's just a person who gives nutrition advice as a profession (which he does in these videos). Only dietitian is a protected title.

To be honest, I didn't actually know that until a few hours ago when I read it in passing in a post by Ginny Messina. My apologies.

"He doesn't donate the money; all of that stuff is owned and operated by his charity; it's never going through his pockets (that's not how non-profit works). It doesn't even make that much money. "

Not entirely true, on both Nutritionfacts.org and his own website, Drgreger.org, it states "All speaking fees and proceeds Dr. Greger receives from the sale of his books and DVDs are donated to charity." Meaning he donates them, because the funds are his royalties. And where does he donate them? His own 501(c)3 charity, which pays for him to speak, write books, and make DVD's. I call that Circular Funding.

"But he isn't earning a penny" no, he's not. He's earning publicity through circulating all the funds he receives back into allowing him to to get more publicity. And this isn't a dragon to slay, as I would feel better if he kept the money himself, than having him donate the money to himself. Claiming that Nutritionfacts is separate from Greger is like claiming that Feminist Frequency is separate from Anita Sarkeesian, it's not. Both can't function without the speaker, because the charity is built for the notoriety of the speaker, and not to actually provide legitimate help to anybody.

And yes, he might spend 40 hours a week on it, and I spend about the same amount researching and writing for my blog, as well as juggling a relationship, family, a 25-30 hour a week job, nutrition planning for myself, and fitness. I guess I should start my own 501(c)3

He's not ignoring anything.

Except peer reviewed studies, meta-analyses, the text of the studies he spends 40 hours a week sourcing, and hundreds of safety studies.

Don't you think a lot of people, bad at weighing consequences, would take that minute benefit as a reason to just keep smoking, since they can't understand magnitude and cost benefit analysis?

No, actually. I have never met anybody that seriously believes smoking to be a healthy habit. Nor anyone who thinks Potato chips are a health food. What you have is a very bleak view of humanity.

When we're talking about doing public good (which is the point of the website, as stated explicitly), it doesn't make sense to confuse people with irrelevant and minute hypothetical benefits of smoking or eating meat when they are obviously outweighed by the risks.

Like the risks of implying that veganism will make you live forever? That's also what is implied in his new book "How Not To Die." Claiming that vegan blood, for example, kills cancer cells 8 times more often, gives people this crazy notion, like the way they did with Linus Pauling when he claimed that overconsuming supplements will cure cancer? Since Greger claims that "Death in America is Largely A Foodbourne Illness" or claiming in his new book discription "The 15 leading causes of death claim the lives of 1.6 million Americans annually. This doesn’t have to be the case. By following Dr. Greger’s advice, all of it backed up by peer-reviewed scientific evidence, you will learn which foods to eat and which lifestyle changes to make to live longer.", he is giving ideological erroneous advice to people who fear death, and enact shame upon people who eat animal products, making the dying believe that their cancer, their heart disease, is their own fault, even when genetics plays a major role.

Need I remind anyone, removing processed and red meat from your diet lowers your absolute risk of developing colon cancer by less than 1% in your lifetime, and as Ginny Messina puts it:

I’ve lost three friends to colon cancer. Two were vegetarians who died in their early 50s, and one was a vegan who died in his early 40s. It definitely feels a little surprising when vegans die from this disease, since there is very good evidence that diet affects colon cancer risk. Red and processed meats and excessive alcohol all increase risk while fiber appears to decrease it. The environment of vegetarians’ colons—the types of bacteria that live there, for example—is significantly different in ways that protect against cancer.

The bottom line though, is that some vegans—including those who are doing all the right things as far as we know—get cancer. It’s popular to say that a vegan diet will make you “bullet proof” against disease. And it’s possible that some vegans become complacent because of this. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine suggested that removal of polyps through colonoscopy (advised for everyone after the age of 50) could reduce colon cancer risk by as much as 50 percent. Vegans who erroneously believe that their diet guarantees that they won’t get colon cancer might not bother with this exam, thereby increasing their risk.

And this kind of Snake Oil, even if it is partly accurate, is not a good message to send.

He reports the numbers correctly from the research -- that's the extent of his job. Is it really his fault that people don't understand the difference between relative and absolute risk? Is he required to teach a math lesson in each video?

"Double your cancer risk" is a lot more catchy and memorable than saying "increase your cancer risk by 1% from 1% to 2%"
Both are equally true, but one is much more likely to get people to think about their health and actually eat better.
Particularly because people are morons and they look at small numbers and disregard them completely.

It's called "Lying With Statistics." And yes, as a researcher, he has to take into account that his audience isn't well-versed in statistical analysis, and not to take statistics that blow up his figures to amounts far beyond what is seen, which is why he should also not claim a vegan diet will make you live forever. I am sorry that you believe everyone is as intelligent and well-verse in scientific and mathimatical literature as you are, cause they're not. For instance:



This graph makes many believe that the sale of meat has plummeted, due to the extremely steep deline slope, when in reality, the slope has only declined about 7% if the numbers started from 0, and not 180. For instance:



Is this important? Yes. Global Warming Deniars, Anti-vaxxers, Creationists, and many other distortion-loving groups love to bend the graphs and statistics to drive the not very knowledgeable fanbase in their favor. So claiming that "this will double your risk" instead of claiming that "this will increase your risk from 0.3 to 0.6%" is something that Yellow Journalism does often.

I usually write nasty things about news articles that claim that "Increasing your intake of processed meat increases your risk of cancer by 18%". The claim might be helpful, but it is misleading, and that is wrong. 50 grams of processed meat consumed daily increases your risk of colon cancer by an absolute risk over the course of a lifetime, from 4.5% to 5.3%. That might not sound as flashy, but it's more accurate.

So no, since Lying is what is one of the many factors which is causing veganism to remain stagnant instead of increase, lying to the public in the hopes of helping a few people drawn to you looking for the Philosophers Stone is not a helpful practice.

"Greger isn't perfect, and he should be criticized so he can improve, but this kind of criticism is not helpful.
He's not one of the profound nutcases, like Graham or even the more moderate McDougall advocating bad practice of sugar/starch, he's not a raving youtuber who completely disregards science."

Actually this kind of criticism is 100% helpful, because misrepresenting studies, not reading his own studies, and flat out lying to the public, is a source for criticism. If you don't like that, fine, but I can't trust someone who repeatedly misrepresents evidence in favor of veganism/health, and ignores hundreds of studies showing him wrong.

"Don't trust him? Fine. Then DON'T just trust him. Don't take his word for it -- you don't have to. You shouldn't be taking anybody's word for anything, really. Read his arguments, and look at the studies he cites.
Sometimes he's wrong. Usually he's not. Make your own decisions, as he encourages people to do."

But you have a lot of... what did you call them? "Morons," who suckle his teet and drink every last drop that comes out as if Greger is a god and everyone else is wrong if Greger says so.

Yes, he has some fervent followers -- so? People shouldn't be cultists, but that's a problem across the internet.

That would be fine if he didn't advertise himself as a cult leader. He acts as if he is an expert on anything he is writing, and he is not even a Dietition. In fact, he often gets his facts wrong, but criticizing him for getting his facts wrong is seen as Blasphemy.

If you view him as trustworthy, fine. But he is NOT a good source for information, and he IS biased, and IS often wrong about stuff, and his credibility IS shot. To claim that Greger is being villified by me for no reason is a joke, and not even a particularly funny one. Everything I said regarding him are facts, showcasing how he ignores data, has a bias towards a subject, uses awful studies, and doesn't even read many of the studies he posts, or at least ignores the parts that don't favor his opinion. If claiming those FACTS are an unjust vilification, than fine. But Greger is not MY god, I owe him nothing.

[brimstoneSalad]

He actually gives exact reasons for that though. "Whole-wheat bread has health benefits while chips don't" but he doesn't do that with Sucralose.

I know, and he should. He relies too much on the knowledge of his viewers, but there's too much context that people miss. And not everybody is going to have watched enough of his videos to understand his nutrition philosophy.

You're taking everything he's doing out of the context of his philosophy: Which is absolute optimization of nutrition and minimization of disease risk (not elimination, because it's not possible for most diseases).
Outside of that context, it seems wildly impractical, and grasping at straws: Which IS what it is. It's not meant to be practical, and it's meant to be on the edge of modern research, which is why he changes his mind on things so often when new studies come out.
Where there's solid evidence, he works with that. Where there's one tenuous study, he tentatively works with it -- and updates if more evidence comes in.

It IS true that splenda may be a little unhealthy. It IS true that is has no real health benefits compared to, say, drinking your coffee black (just learning to like it that way: I do).
The notion that people like sweet coffee, and that splenda is better than sugar, is lost on him because he doesn't understand why you don't just drink it black or sweeten it with some exotic berry that costs $30 an ounce.

THIS is the problem with Greger. THIS is the criticism to make. Not strawmanning him for things he's said taken far out of context like you're doing, or complaining about the way he says something because you think it's too sensational and he shouldn't be trying to get people excited... because you don't like it, and stupid people will supposedly misunderstand it?

And if you're right, and he "doesn't understand the benefits of sucralose" then maybe he shouldn't be talking about it at all. He's supposed to be a science researcher, not an activist researcher.

You miss the whole point of his videos/site. He talks about the newest evidence for each thing constantly. He even switches his rulings on things as new evidence comes to light.

His site is about IDEAL diet in terms of fighting disease, not adequate nutrition or practical nutrition. People who follow him know what he's about. He basically has a zero tolerance policy for junk food -- it's something I don't agree with him on.

In the very least, he needs to make that more clear regularly so people stop taking him out of context and misunderstanding what he's doing.

Shocker shocker, the group of highly supplemented high-plant-based healthy fortified people with did tons more exercise, and even meditation, everyday, had healthier blood then the control group. Therefore all vegans? Including junkfood vegans? High-fat low-carb vegans? Lazy sedentary vegans? He takes the entire study full of confounding factors and states

" ...the blood of those on a vegan diet was dramatically less hospitable to cancer. Even the blood of those on a standard American diet fights cancer; if it didn’t everyone would be dead. It’s just that the blood of those eating vegan fights about 8 times better.

The blood of those on the standard american diet slows cancer growth rate down about 9%. Put people on a plant-based diet for a year, though, and their blood just tears it up. The blood circulating within the bodies of vegans has nearly 8 times the stopping power when it comes to cancer cell growth."

That sounds rather trustworthy, right?

Yes, it sounds fine. He cited the study so you can see for yourself, and It was a clever catch phrase that was qualified and expanded -- he made it clear that ALL diets "kill cancer", that is slow the growth rate, and that vegan diets in this study just did so more.

Greger is not exactly a journalist, but even if he were, that would be a fair headline to sell papers as long as the article explained clearly.

Greger has spoken against potato chip vegan diets in the past, and it should have been obvious to any competent viewer that he wasn't talking about that since he was referencing a lifestyle study: researchers would NOT have prescribed a nutritionally inadequate diet.
It should be obvious enough that wasn't the case.
Anybody who was curious could look at the details.

HOWEVER, if you want to complain that not all of his audience is competent, and thus will be misled? Sure! I complain about that too. He needs to be more clear about what he's saying because others will parrot him without citing the study. I'm very critical about that. That's one of my main criticisms of his work -- he assumes WAY too much of his audience.

This is not an issue of his honesty, this is an issue of underestimating human stupidity. Which you have also done in this thread with regard to smoking and statistics (as we will see).

It would be good if he talked about the kind of diet a bit more, but it's likely the sort of diet he tends to recommend (although he hates recommending supplements, aside from B-12 -- that's another one of the things I don't agree with him on), but I'm not going to call him a liar for not going into absurd amounts of detail about the couple supplements and yoga or whatever.

It wasn't a great study (a lot of variables), but I can tell you most of the things they did likely had no effect on cancer growth rate. They did not do "tons" more exercise, and it's unlikely that the supplementation or yoga/meditation did much either. The only thing they changed that has significant evidence is diet -- and that probably comes down mainly to methionine restriction, and increase in vegetable consumption.

All of these criticisms look like similar issues. Greger makes a headline claim, and then explains it more conservatively but since he doesn't read the entire paper word for word and give every detail (despite clearly linking it), and expects a little too much from his audience, people cry foul.

Should he do that? Maybe not, but it seems to catch attention so it may be effective. Should he explain things better for the more dogmatically inclined in the audience? Yes, I think so.

I'm not going to call him a liar for doing what pretty much everybody does,"clickbait", and showing his sources so people can get more details. At worst he has omitted likely irrelevant details and occasionally used a more limited study because there just wasn't anything better available (that's his whole thing, he always tries to find the latest studies, and go over them even if the evidence is still coming in and the conclusions are not yet clear -- again, why he changes his stances on things).

Not entirely true, on both Nutritionfacts.org and his own website, Drgreger.org, it states "All speaking fees and proceeds Dr. Greger receives from the sale of his books and DVDs are donated to charity."

That's probably technically inaccurate. Read the tax forms.
He more likely assigned the royalties to the charity, or donated his TIME to the charity, which then earned money from it.
Donating money works differently in a legal/tax sense, and would have increased his tax obligation, so it's unlikely that he did that (it's also not what he has done in the past).
That line on the website was probably written by somebody who didn't understand the technicalities of taxation or non-profit law, and instead just wrote what was going on in generally understandable layman's terms.

The point is, Greger doesn't get any of that money, and can NOT get any of it.

Meaning he donates them, because the funds are his royalties. And where does he donate them? His own 501(c)3 charity, which pays for him to speak, write books, and make DVD's. I call that Circular Funding.

I only had one form 990, but he received no compensation from the charity in any form, or any associated companies, in 2013.
So, no. The money is not going out one pocket and in the other. You just don't understand non-profit law.
Greger does not have control of that money -- it's not his, it belongs to the non-profit which runs the site, and has five board members (Greger is only one of them) who vote on expenditure, and it can NEVER be his money.

This could have changed in 2014 or 2015, but it's unlikely.

He's earning publicity through circulating all the funds he receives back into allowing him to to get more publicity. And this isn't a dragon to slay, as I would feel better if he kept the money himself, than having him donate the money to himself.

That's perfectly fine. And I have no idea why you would feel better about that; that's absurd.

Claiming that Nutritionfacts is separate from Greger is like claiming that Feminist Frequency is separate from Anita Sarkeesian, it's not.

You... just don't understand non-profit law. At all.

And yes, he might spend 40 hours a week on it, and I spend about the same amount researching and writing for my blog, as well as juggling a relationship, family, a 25-30 hour a week job, nutrition planning for myself, and fitness. I guess I should start my own 501(c)3

Yes, you probably should. There are advantages and disadvantages to doing so, though, so research it carefully before you do, and make sure you're earning enough revenue to do so.
You will lose most control over the money you get, will be limited in what you can pay yourself, and may not save anything on taxes if you're a small company, and the IRS will hit you with a very heavy hammer if you break the rules; which could mean jail time if there's evidence of intentionally doing so. You'll also lose the ability to comment strongly on politics or support a political party or candidate.
Don't do it unless you're making good bank, or need to encourage sizable donations with the tax deduction.

It's not free money. That's a common myth.

Don't you think a lot of people, bad at weighing consequences, would take that minute benefit as a reason to just keep smoking, since they can't understand magnitude and cost benefit analysis?

No, actually. I have never met anybody that seriously believes smoking to be a healthy habit. Nor anyone who thinks Potato chips are a health food. What you have is a very bleak view of humanity.

There was a forum member not long ago who was arguing that smoking in moderation was healthy. You're just a bit sheltered.
Public perception in the U.S. has shifted, and I've only met a few U.S. citizens who believed that smoking wasn't harmful, or was healthy in moderation, and that's thanks to extensive government campaigning against it -- a campaign which didn't need to highlight the minuscule benefits of smoking.

Abroad, and particularly in Asia, Africa, and even South America and some of Europe the healthfulness of moderate smoking remains a persistent myth.

Anyway, my point wasn't regarding smoking in modern America, but regarding the attitudes about smoking when it was first discovered to be a problem. Cigarette companies and avid smokers alike would cling to any scrap of evidence about the benefits of smoking, however much it was outweighed by the cons.

The same is true of animal products now -- there is no reason to highlight supposed benefits of them, which are trivial, and can be better achieved with supplementation anyway. It's not about ignoring all of the evidence, it's about considering it rightly irrelevant and just confusionist, and not bothering your audience with it.

Like the risks of implying that veganism will make you live forever? That's also what is implied in his new book "How Not To Die."

It's a headline/book title. Only morons take that stuff seriously. The thing Greger doesn't understand is that there ARE morons in his audience, and he needs to be more careful about it.

I like his title, "How Not to Die"
It's clever; and it's clearly not about immortality from the description.
He's talking about the ways we shouldn't kill ourselves -- it doesn't cover being hit by a bus, or any of the dumb luck of genetics or environment which may result in disease whether we like it or not -- just the dietary factors that improve odds.

The book summary from the site:

The vast majority of premature deaths can be prevented through simple changes in diet and lifestyle. In How Not to Die, Dr. Michael Greger, the internationally-recognized lecturer, physician, and founder of NutritionFacts.org, examines the fifteen top causes of death in America—heart disease, various cancers, diabetes, Parkinson’s, high blood pressure, and more—and explains how nutritional and lifestyle interventions can sometimes trump prescription pills and other pharmaceutical and surgical approaches, freeing us to live healthier lives.

The simple truth is that most doctors are good at treating acute illnesses but bad at preventing chronic disease. The 15 leading causes of death claim the lives of 1.6 million Americans annually. This doesn’t have to be the case. By following Dr. Greger’s advice, all of it backed up by peer-reviewed scientific evidence, you will learn which foods to eat and which lifestyle changes to make to live longer.

History of prostate cancer in your family? Put down that glass of milk and add flaxseed to your diet. Have high blood pressure? Hibiscus tea can work better than a leading hypertensive drug—and without the side effects. What about liver disease? Drinking coffee can reduce liver inflammation. Battling breast cancer? Consuming soy is associated with prolonged survival. Worried about heart disease (our #1 killer)? Switch to a whole-food, plant-based diet, which has been repeatedly shown not just to help prevent the disease, but arrest and even reverse it.

In addition to showing what to eat to help prevent the top 15 causes of death, How Not to Die includes Dr. Greger’s Daily Dozen—a checklist of the foods we should try to consume every day. Full of practical, actionable advice and surprising, cutting edge nutritional science, these doctor’s orders are just what we need to live longer, healthier lives.

Every word true.

The vast majority -- yes, because the majority is heart disease, and that can be most easily prevented (compared to cancer, where it's not quite as strong, but still substantial given the dietary changes he's advocating -- which is not a potato chip vegan diet).
Largely a foodbourne illness -- true, it is LARGELY, though not entirely. Again, mostly thanks to heart disease.

I could go through every line. All true.

Claiming that vegan blood, for example, kills cancer cells 8 times more often, gives people this crazy notion, like the way they did with Linus Pauling when he claimed that overconsuming supplements will cure cancer?

A great scientist, regarded as one of the greatest of all time. Yes, he made a mistake -- a big one, which is taking its toll.
But quacks will also inevitably latch onto any pseudoscience they can get their hands on. It's kind of like the argument against gun control; if you want to kill somebody, a knife will do too. That's no reason to provide people with more guns to make it easier, but it's something to consider. Giving birth accidentally to a pseudoscience is not necessarily much more harmful than not.

Greger should be more clear about some of these things. That doesn't make him a liar, or a zealot, it makes him unclear. It makes him a human being, and I would hope he deserves to be treated like one.

He has said a lot of things I disagree with. I could write pages of criticism easily -- and he definitely needs to be criticized. Mainly in terms of the impracticability of many of his ideals; he's dealing with optimizing nutrition and reducing risk as low as possible, budget be damned, taste be damned. I don't think that's as useful as what Norris or Messina do. But it's also garnered a lot more attention, so there's that.

But I still respect the man and the work he does, and I think he's a good person.
I'm not interested in attacking his character, and I take it as a sign of poor character from others when it seems that's all they're interested in doing. Not cool.

and enact shame upon people who eat animal products, making the dying believe that their cancer, their heart disease, is their own fault, even when genetics plays a major role.

Heart disease? That's pretty much preventable regardless of genetics (just harder for some than others). Cancer is more random, but dismissing the fact that you can drastically reduce your odds of "getting it", and improve your odds of surviving it over time if you do, through diet and lifestyle is not helpful.

I'll note that I'm not that concerned with dying people thinking it's their fault: Look at that loon Jen with the breast cancer who skipped chemo and went for juice instead. She needs to know it WAS her fault for refusing treatment, and that she would be alive and have good prospects today if she hadn't been stupid. And other people need to know this too.

The important thing Greger needs to understand, or highlight more if he does understand it, is that it's only specific types of vegan diets that are particularly good at this, and that there are other important steps we can't be lax about. Complacency isn't helping anybody, and we need to be vigilant about more than just diet.

Need I remind anyone, removing processed and red meat from your diet lowers your absolute risk of developing colon cancer by less than 1% in your lifetime

No, this is not useful. AND it's deceptive to say. I would even call you a liar for saying it. Or I would, if I went by the same standards you're holding Greger to.
You see, "1%" is technically accurate, but it paints an inaccurate picture and misleads people. People can't understand numbers like this. You're lying with statistics and making it appear less significant than it actually is -- as much or more than Greger has.

The bottom line though, is that some vegans—including those who are doing all the right things as far as we know—get cancer. It’s popular to say that a vegan diet will make you “bullet proof” against disease. And it’s possible that some vegans become complacent because of this. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine suggested that removal of polyps through colonoscopy (advised for everyone after the age of 50) could reduce colon cancer risk by as much as 50 percent. Vegans who erroneously believe that their diet guarantees that they won’t get colon cancer might not bother with this exam, thereby increasing their risk.

This IS useful.
And this is a good thing to remind Greger of. He should always talk about colonoscopy and its even larger reduction in risk -- and that even a vegan diet isn't 100% -- when talking about colon cancer.

However, he isn't a PSA, and he has no obligation to do so. While I would like him to, and really think he should, I'm not going to fault him for not doing it.
If he doesn't, we just need to try even harder to make sure to get the word out there.

It's called "Lying With Statistics." And yes, as a researcher, he has to take into account that his audience isn't well-versed in statistical analysis, and not to take statistics that blow up his figures to amounts far beyond what is seen

Like it or not, that's exactly what you're doing when you say the reduction in risk is only 1%. People are morons, and they will discount 1% because it sounds like nothing.

It's the same reason that products that say "99% fat free!" can sell as well as 100% fat free products. They're still 1%, and can be pretty damn significant, but to most people 99% is almost the same as 100% because of the way they see numbers, and 1% is the same as nothing.

You are in effect telling people it's useless to care about diet in preventing colon cancer -- because that's what they'll take away from it when you phrase it like that. It's absolutely not useless.

18% increased relative risk per 50g portion is very meaningful, and when you phrase it like that the psychological effect in terms of risk perception lines up more closely with the actual risk, which makes that phrasing actually LESS deceptive than trying to minimize the numbers by talking about absolute risk (which will cause them to be ignored).

There are better ways of expressing these numbers accurately (and achieving a good understanding of them) than either of those methods, but they're also more cumbersome.

For example:

"One in ten people will die of this cancer, and eating 200g of processed meat a day (about four hot dogs or the equivalent) will more than double your risk of contracting it."

Note how I had to increase the amount, in order to get up to double risk -- this is easier for people to understand in relative terms rather than an arbitrary percentage. I also expressed the death rates, which is important to understand that it's not the #1 killer, so the overall risks are lower, but it's still very significant.


Anyway, can you see what I'm getting at here?

The glass is half empty. The glass is half full. The glass is at 50% capacity.

All of these can be true, and are basically saying the same thing, but perception is different. None of them is necessarily the "proper" unbiased default way to deliver this information, and all contain pros and cons in terms of perception and psychology.

If Greger is a liar for the way he expresses statistical information for it being sub optimal, then so are you (my way of expressing it is superior to both of yours in terms of layman comprehension, so you can all suck it).

Or, maybe, they're just different ways of presenting the same data that have advantages and disadvantages, and nobody is actually trying to lie?

which is why he should also not claim a vegan diet will make you live forever.

Hello straw man. This is a claim I have not seen him make. His book title doesn't even say this, unless you misread it as "How to not die"

I am sorry that you believe everyone is as intelligent and well-verse in scientific and mathimatical literature as you are, cause they're not. For instance:

No, I explicitly said they were morons, and can't understand statistics. Particularly the difference between absolute and relative risk, and they will fail to understand the actual cumulative magnitude of absolute risk.

When you express something to the public, you have to do it in the way that is:

1. Technically accurate (it has to be true).
2. More useful to them (in terms of encouraging healthier/better behavior that is good for them).
3. For people who aren't complete morons: At least easy to understand the general idea of it.
4. Doesn't look transparently wrong and attract undue criticism (#3 can help with this, but sometimes people will shit on you no matter what you do or how hard you try to make something understandable).

This graph makes many believe that the sale of meat has plummeted, due to the extremely steep deline slope, when in reality, the slope has only declined about 7% if the numbers started from 0, and not 180. For instance:

1. Yes
2. I'm not sure how it would be.
3. Yes
4. No, it's kind of weird. Particularly given #2, it probably isn't very useful.

They should have instead focused on the bottom line, that people were eating something like 20 pounds less meat each year. That's both likely more useful than a chart, and less likely to attract criticism.

Is this important? Yes. Global Warming Deniars, Anti-vaxxers, Creationists, and many other distortion-loving groups love to bend the graphs and statistics to drive the not very knowledgeable fanbase in their favor. So claiming that "this will double your risk" instead of claiming that "this will increase your risk from 0.3 to 0.6%" is something that Yellow Journalism does often.

It's irrelevant who uses particular framings of statistics to get their points across or propagandize/sell papers. You're making the fallacy of guilt by association. "Hitler did it, so it's bad".
You can frame things to confuse people further and promote ignorance, OR you can frame them to correct for an intrinsic tendency toward poor understanding of statistics and risk to achieve a more accurate perception of the overall idea than the viewer would looking at a different framing.

I usually write nasty things about news articles that claim that "Increasing your intake of processed meat increases your risk of cancer by 18%". The claim might be helpful, but it is misleading, and that is wrong.

You shouldn't. It's less misleading than the way you frame it, so you're in the wrong here.

50 grams of processed meat consumed daily increases your risk of colon cancer by an absolute risk over the course of a lifetime, from 4.5% to 5.3%. That might not sound as flashy, but it's more accurate.

No, it is not. It's equally accurate, but more misleading because of the way people read and misunderstand numbers. Framing it in that way is your own version of lying with statistics, which will simply lead people to ignore a risk which is represented as a small looking number.

Yours are misleading for the same reason something that says "99% fat free!" or worse "90% fat free!" is misleading. It discounts something serious by framing it to look very very small.

The difference is that I'm not inclined to write nasty articles about those who say it increases lifetime risk from 4.5% to 5.3% or call them liars for doing it.

So no, since Lying is what is one of the many factors which is causing veganism to remain stagnant instead of increase, lying to the public in the hopes of helping a few people drawn to you looking for the Philosophers Stone is not a helpful practice.

I agree with this, but you're just wrong about how statistics work, and how they're perceived by the public. There are two sides to presenting statistics, and you're assuming a default of presentation which is NOT the only honest way to do it -- and I would say is quite misleading in practice.

Actually this kind of criticism is 100% helpful, because misrepresenting studies, not reading his own studies, and flat out lying to the public, is a source for criticism.

It is useless when you accuse him of that. Pot calling the Kettle black much?

He has no more lied than you have. Given your broad misrepresentations of him, I would say much less. I don't know what led you to these conclusions, but you're taking him out of context and are far too high on that pedestal of yours to see clearly the complex issue that is presenting statistics to the public. You need to come back down to Earth, and consider that you may have misunderstood.

Addressing the real issues is much more useful than stimulating infighting over straw men.

But you have a lot of... what did you call them? "Morons," who suckle his teet and drink every last drop that comes out as if Greger is a god and everyone else is wrong if Greger says so.

That's a problem, which is why we need more people making LEGITIMATE criticism of Greger that isn't transparently biased and misrepresentative of him. Otherwise, all you're doing is polarizing things more than they already are, and closing those followers off from hearing further criticism.

That would be fine if he didn't advertise himself as a cult leader. He acts as if he is an expert on anything he is writing, and he is not even a Dietition. In fact, he often gets his facts wrong, but criticizing him for getting his facts wrong is seen as Blasphemy.

I don't think he does advertise himself like that, and he says he doesn't know about things quite often. Watch more of his videos.

Sometimes he gets things wrong, but if people aren't receptive to your criticism, consider the fact that YOU might actually be wrong, and misrepresenting him. Don't be surprised if they don't take you seriously as you slay the straw dragons.

If claiming those FACTS are an unjust vilification, than fine. But Greger is not MY god, I owe him nothing.

You owe yourself enough intellectual honesty to look at the other side of the story, and consider the possibility that you may be jumping to conclusions, and taking some things out of context.
You owe him only the respect we should owe to any human being. Give him the benefit of the doubt and try to understand where he's coming from. I do, I don't always agree (I often disagree), but I understand why he's saying what he's saying, and I can at least respect him for the work he's trying to do even though he makes some mistakes (and needs to be called out on them when they're legit).

[Lightningman_42]

It IS true that is has no real health benefits compared to, say, drinking your coffee black (just learning to like it that way: I do).

How useful is it to drink coffee black? Each day, I usually drink one mug full of 3/4 coffee and 1/4 unsweetened-soymilk. Would it be better to drink a full mug of black coffee, not diluted with soymilk?

The notion that people like sweet coffee, and that splenda is better than sugar, is lost on him because he doesn't understand why you don't just drink it black or sweeten it with some exotic berry that costs $30 an ounce.

I've been reading your posts in this discussion thread, as well as many of your past comments about the health-benefits vs. monetary-cost of berries. Perhaps you can give me some advice about antioxidants:

What are the best foods for antioxidants, relative to price? Berries are quite good (especially blackberries), but can be quite expensive. During the past week or two, my nearest produce store has been selling blackberries for $0.99 per 18 ounces. This is a great price. I've been buying many of these low-price boxes of blackberries, and eating large quantities of them. However, this is a temporary (and very rare) sale. They're usually about $3 or $4 per pound, and frozen berries are only slightly cheaper. Are there some foods with higher antioxidant-to-price ratios than blackberries? Thank you.