Top 10 Nutrition Sources Online

[toasty7718]

Made by an MD Ph.D., very well-rounded and evidence based approach to nutrition as a whole without entrepreneurship, bias, and with a great degree of nuance and truthfulness. 
 

1. https://www.redpenreviews.org

2. https://peterattiamd.com/

3. https://drguess.substack.com/ 

4. https://twitter.com/Drlipid?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

5. https://m.youtube.com/@biolayne1

6. https://m.youtube.com/@DrBradStanfield

7. https://twitter.com/KevinH_PhD?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

8. https://twitter.com/deirdre_tobias?lang=en

9. https://theproof.com/podcast/

10. https://sigmanutrition.com/podcast-welcome/

[Michael569]

??

Good quality sources all of them.

I wish redpenreviews got a major investor onboard and could afford to increase the size of the team to counter the entire world of nutritional quackery books

Edited May 29, 2023 by Michael569

[UnbornTao]

What about Michael Greger?

I'm not a nutritionist so can't tell whether his work is solid. But hey, I find it inspiring.

Edited June 1, 2023 by UnbornTao

[toasty7718]

Video made by the same highly-respected individual. If you really loved Dr. Gregor, then you’d have no problem with him getting fact checked and being held to scientific rigor. When Gil makes these fact-checking videos, he only examines the scientific evidence and sees if it matches the evidence. He never goes after the individual. Highly recommend if you want a more clear picture.

 

Essentially - Michael Gregor is known for cherry-picking his studies to fit the vegan agenda. On numerous instances he’s been known to read out a study and mention the “strict vegetarian” percentages and completely ignore the omnivorous percentages (which show benefit as well). He’s also known to stretch the truth and make claims without nuance, uncertainty, and correction. Dr. Gregor has said on numerous occasions that his influences are Caldwell Esselstyn and Dean Ornish, both of whom wrote studies about heart disease reversal and the role diet plays in this process.

 

The Esselstyn report is an observational description of the patient’s outcomes, which is fine by itself - but it’s not a randomized control trial that has been repeated with control groups and randomization. It’s something that generates a hypothesis, not a conclusion.

 

The Ornish Trial is a randomized control trial that followed 48 participants over a period of five years. The group that received treatment was put on a vegetarian diet, not a strict-vegetarian / vegan diet (even Dr. Gregor acknowledges this, saying “an overwhelmingly plant based diet”). The treatment group also exercised, was given stress-management techniques, and was told to quit smoking. How do you know any of these factors contributed to the outcome or not? Saying that the diet is the what caused xyz is like saying that quitting smoking caused xyz. The report only suggests a reduction of plaque size. An interesting finding, but Dr. Gregor over-exaggerates these claims by saying that HIS diet is the ONLY diet that’s EVER been shown to completely reverse heart disease. CORDIOPREV is a recent randomized control trial that followed 939 participants over a period of seven years and also suggested a reduction in atherosclerotic progression on a Mediterranean diet, and they only changed diet (not lifestyle). Instead, Dr. Gregor should come out and say that a diet rich in fruit, vegetables, and unprocessed plants is a great tool to help prevent and manage cardiovascular disease. That claim is scientific nuance, not a stretching of the truth to fit a certain agenda.

 

Point is, I highly respect Dr. Gregor and believe that he has helped millions of people (myself included) get off their crappy western diets and switch to a diet that’s rich in unprocessed whole grains, legumes, nuts, seeds, fruits, and vegetables with his Daily Dozen. The comments of his videos are just so many anecdotal reports of his diet healing people and their families from their many ailments and chronic diseases. And unlike so many people in the field of nutritional quackery, Dr. Gregor actually uses evidence to back up his claims. I myself have followed his content for years now and still occasionally watch his videos if it’s something that peaks my interest, like a new study done on a WFPB diet and stage 3 kidney cancer, for example. He cherry-picks, but the cherries he picks are very ripe and fresh. His claims are backed by evidence, but he just needs a little more nuance and acknowledgement that other dietary patterns that are high in unprocessed plant foods and with or without animal products also have been shown to have benefits in the field of nutrition. I’m not a nutritionist by the way, I’m just repeating what Gil has to say about it 

Edited May 30, 2023 by toasty7718

[toasty7718]

@UnbornTao

 

[UnbornTao]

@toasty7718 thank you, good to know.

[Cireeric]

Very nice! Thanks. 

[Kinjal]

What about Dr. Eric Berg. Is he any good? I consume his content. 

[undeather]

46 minutes ago, Kinjal said:

What about Dr. Eric Berg. Is he any good? I consume his content. 

"Dr" Eric Berg is a con artist.

[Cireeric]

2 hours ago, undeather said:

"Dr" Eric Berg is a con artist.

How so? I have not consumed any content from him but my father talks about him all the time since a month or two? 

[toasty7718]

@Cireeric

 

Maybe this will help

 

Might as well rename this thread to the top ten Gil Carvalho videos 

[Michael569]

12 hours ago, Cireeric said:

How so? I have not consumed any content from him but my father talks about him all the time since a month or two? 

He is a grifter selling more problems than solutions. I don't believe Eric Berg believes in the stuff he talks about anymore. He probably used to when building the Dr Berg empire but he probably doesn't anymore. 

He is intelligent enough to know that people on medical Twitter are challenging him constantly for a reason. He is rejecting most invitations for an honest debate because his position is often undefendable.  But he has a horse in the race and a very fat and wealthy one so if he became fully honest and questioned his own conscientiousness more thoroughly he would realise that he could not, in clear consciousness continue his work. And that hurts emotionally. It also costs you followers, fame and reputation. 

So what does he do? Pump out more pseudoscience poisoning the market and polluting the already polluted waters even more because the only other way is social media suicide. 

I don't blame him, it is a difficult choice to make. He is not a bad person, he has just gone too far to turn back ever again the way people like Layne Norton or Rhonda Patrick have when they were intellectually honest to admit where they were following a dogma and eventually rejected it. 

Edited June 1, 2023 by Michael569

[UnbornTao]

Who fact-checks the one who does the fact-checking? 

Meta-fact-checking.

 

[undeather]

3 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Who fact-checks the one who does the fact-checking? 

Meta-fact-checking.

 

Everyone can! That's the beautiful thing on the interet, isn't it. 
Once you get a general grasp on the topic of nutrition, it becomes abundently clear who is using solid evidence/argumentation and who just makes shit up  

Edited June 1, 2023 by undeather

[toasty7718]

6 hours ago, undeather said:

Everyone can! That's the beautiful thing on the interet, isn't it. 
Once you get a general grasp on the topic of nutrition, it becomes abundently clear who is using solid evidence/argumentation and who just makes shit up

Absolutely.

 

But this is also a double edged sword.

[Cireeric]

Thanks for clarifying @Michael569& @toasty7716 !

[UnbornTao]

7 hours ago, undeather said:

Everyone can! That's the beautiful thing on the interet, isn't it. 
Once you get a general grasp on the topic of nutrition, it becomes abundently clear who is using solid evidence/argumentation and who just makes shit up  

 

[LfcCharlie4]

@toasty7718 Simon Hill is the go-to Vegan source for me. 

His book Plant Proof is amazing 

And his podcast is even better now he brings on guests from all realms of nutrition 

[Jason Actualization]

The #1 source went without mention, but namely, it is the feedback you get from taking massive action and actually, honestly assessing what happens. How well are you sleeping? How is your libido? How are your major markers of endocrine function such as total and free testosterone, and estradiol? What is your fat free body mass index? What is your grip strength? What percent (approximately) body fat do you carry? What is your oxidized LDL level? What about HDL to triglyceride ratio, A1c, and fasting insulin? How is your erection quality? Are you sleeping like a rock and waking up as hard as one? In other words fellas, what is actually happening to you and your health qualitatively and quantitatively, in your direct experience? Leo's apt distinction of theory versus practice is of paramount importance to apply here.

Never outsource your own intuition and firsthand experience gentlemen.

[toasty7718]

1 hour ago, Jason Actualization said:

The #1 source went without mention, but namely, it is the feedback you get from taking massive action and actually, honestly assessing what happens. How well are you sleeping? How is your libido? How are your major markers of endocrine function such as total and free testosterone, and estradiol? What is your fat free body mass index? What is your grip strength? What percent (approximately) body fat do you carry? What is your oxidized LDL level? What about HDL to triglyceride ratio, A1c, and fasting insulin? How is your erection quality? Are you sleeping like a rock and waking up as hard as one? In other words fellas, what is actually happening to you and your health qualitatively and quantitatively, in your direct experience? Leo's apt distinction of theory versus practice is of paramount importance to apply here.

Never outsource your own intuition and firsthand experience gentlemen

Absolutely. Our firsthand experience with the food we eat can be very beneficial if we have an immediate reaction to it because of an allergy, for example. But subjective experience can only take us so far. We should take advantage of the documented long-term health outcomes to gauge our own decisions. You don’t feel the plaque growing in your arteries until it’s too late. Personal experience and scientific data are complementary.

 

There are lots of things that make us feel good in the short-term that are terrible for us in the long-term. Take smoking, for example. Someone who quits smoking may report that they are easily aggravated, restless, having trouble sleeping, and putting on weight - does that mean that their entire belief system around cigarettes should be based on the fact that these symptoms go away when they smoke? Of course not. 
 

Subjective experience only takes us so far and can have negative outcomes if you ignore evidence that points in the contrary. Completing ignoring subjective experience and only focusing on the evidence is also just as short-sighted. Try to go for a balance between the two.

 

The modern healthcare system is designed for the management of symptoms without treating the underlying cause. This superficial approach is problematic for a multitude of reasons, but the same can be said for how many people treat diet. If you have fiber intolerance, instead of completely avoiding fibrous foods for the rest of your life you can work on healing the cause of your intolerance naturally. Point is: go straight to the root of the issue without putting band aids over it.

Edited June 1, 2023 by toasty7718