How Not To Age: Dr. Michael Greger

[drewab]

2 hours ago, mccoy said:

Right, but I am not judging the contents, which I do not know. A few things I saw from the presentation appear very interesting and I usually like to read from everyone.

I'm rather commenting on the funny technique of salesmanship. 13.000 articles. I'm probably wrong but to me, it sounds like a pissing contest.

My list of articles is the longest of all other lists.

But maybe it's just genuine love for abundance, or maybe too much zeal from the fact-checkers. How much time would it take to really delve deeper into such a mangrove jungle of articles? 

I'm more with Chris McAskill's, the plant chomper, opinion (maybe because he's a geologist, a colleague of mine). Just read a few, outstanding, review articles. They will contain most of the knowledge on the topic.

 

 

There is no salesmanship whatsoever. 100% of the proceeds from all of his books, speaking engagements, and the likes go to charity. 

[mccoy]

5 hours ago, drewab said:

There is no salesmanship whatsoever. 100% of the proceeds from all of his books, speaking engagements, and the likes go to charity. 

Drewab, please do not misunderstand me, I know that he makes no profit from his books and that's a huge step above some other guys. 

The salesmanship is all there though, it's indisputable. Of course not targeted to financial gain, but to a gain of followers.

Here I'm discussing his presentation. I look forward to starting and reading the book. I'm undecided whether to order the ebook or the paper book. The latter is easier to browse.

 

[drewab]

In this video Dr. Greger and his team of 22 staff at Nutritionfacts.org are mentioned:

 

[Ron Put]

On 2/16/2024 at 10:03 PM, mccoy said:

The salesmanship is all there though, it's indisputable

Well, there is certainly a PR campaign, and also fundraising for the non-profit. But at first glance, it looks like most of the money goes to pay for staff and presumably research:

Nutritionfacts Org Inc - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica

Greger makes just over $200k a year in compensation, which is less than what Dayspring made back in 2010 shilling fish oil for Lovaza, and almost four times less than what Attia made back when he was trying to prove the miracle of keto. So, Greger is at least less greedy.

As I mentioned, the book's 13000 studies are often references to old research and other books and videos he's posted, and I see nothing wrong with touting this rather high number. He is obviously trying to sell books and he does proselytize what he believes, but that's to be expected.

I don't agree with everything Greger pushes, of course. Omega-3 supplementation is one such topic.

[mccoy]

Drifting a little off-topic, Dr. Greger sure does formidable work, but he could do better, in the sense that he could avoid exhibiting some traits of salesmanship that are typical of the keto and carnivore narrative. In a few words, sometimes he lowers down, scientifically speaking, to the same level as those guys and people notice that.

The above is very well elucidated by Gil Carvalho (a vegan doctor) in this video. Dr. Greger has his own fact-checkers but maybe he should heed them more attention...

 

[Ron Put]

On 2/18/2024 at 12:32 AM, mccoy said:

The above is very well elucidated by Gil Carvalho (a vegan doctor) in this video. Dr. Greger has his own fact-checkers but maybe he should heed them more attention...

I'd seen this a while ago. I like Carvalho. While he is a vegan, he is a believer in olive oil and the "Mediterranean diet," and also believes that most people will be turned off if pushed, so he generally qualifies with talk of "moderation," whatever that means.

His main accusation here is that Gregger is against olive oil "despite the mountain of evidence" and against fish consumption.  My problem is that based on my own research, that "mountain of evidence" for the benefits of olive oil (including EVOO) and Omega-3s is pretty much all industry generated or influenced, and it is not supported by the evidence, IMO. So I'd argue that Carvalho is wrong on that one, not Greger.

For what it's worth, I don't think I agree with anyone unconditionally. But I find Greger (and Carvalho) better than most. 

[mccoy]

On 2/22/2024 at 7:08 AM, Ron Put said:

My problem is that based on my own research, that "mountain of evidence" for the benefits of olive oil (including EVOO) and Omega-3s is pretty much all industry generated or influenced, and it is not supported by the evidence, IMO.

I cannot answer for omega 3's, but EVOO.... AFAIK there is a preponderance of evidence of its benefits even outside the industry; in Italy, it has been studied for decades and articles have been written in copious amounts by independent researchers.

Gil Carvalho seems to be pretty convinced, by the amount and quality of specific literature, about the benefits of EVOO, even if he declares that he doesn't eat it. Another video where he displays his qualities of, as you say, 'moderation'. He seems to share my disbelief at the extremism of the anti-oils vegan doctors.

I think his channel is one of the best in nutrition, presently.

 

[IgorF]

Another angle on why the answer is NO. Leonard Hayflick's way to describe the things:

https://www.issuelab.org/resources/11924/11924.pdf

(a bit ironical way to present it)

https://www.soa.org/globalassets/assets/files/resources/essays-monographs/2011-living-to-100/mono-li11-g3-hayflick.pdf

(a dry and compressed version)

 

More Hayflick

http://ibgwww.colorado.edu/pdf/hayflick_1.pdf

While thinking about a possibility to trully slow down aging in the Hayflick's distinction between aging itself, as thermodynamic phenomenon and longevity tricks I remembered another aspect from practical engineering - Ashby's works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variety_(cybernetics) and an implication that even for a deterministic machine the controlling structure has to be more complex than controlled, this does not cancel the possible tricking pathway (by hiding the controller's complexity into the controlled system via reusing its built-in capabilities in combination with decreased expectations - to do better than we do now is still a good potential achievement) but anyway, thinking about trillions of individual aging cells (those who perform the housekeeping that delays aging also) that has to be controlled via some "metabolic orchestration" creates not awe but I have no wording for it %).

We simply neither have math for such thing to be even described theoretically not even an idea (imho) about such math (yet?)

So in the coming decades the most realistic way to play with prolongation is to replace bigger parts until the brain will decline (and probably it will become unoperational in just few more years that the other body parts. Even if this will work which is not a reasonable assumption in 2024.

But regarding not to age - nope, it is impossible due to fundamental reasons, so the motto of the book is not a good choice (only from rational and nerdy perspective) for promotion of a healthy nutrition %).

 

Br,

Igor

 

EDITED TO ADD:

this one is even better:

https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/57/8/B292/556758

 Position Statement on Human Aging
S. Jay Olshansky, Leonard Hayflick, Bruce A. Carnes
The Journals of Gerontology: Series A, Volume 57, Issue 8, 1 August 2002, Pages B292–B297, https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/57.8.B292
Published:
01 August 2002

 

imho it is very unlikely that the knowledge in 2024 contradicts the fundamentals based on which the statements were made, despite of accumulation of a lot of details about particular things (which is also important but far from being a blueprint of a gamechanger)

Edited March 12 by IgorF

[5fp4]

@mccoy

 

[Alex K Chen]

Ok I finally read it - it's really good and covers a lot that isn't in the videos. It really would be the first I would recommend to others if it could have been more tactful about bias 

 

I'm just ALWAYS ALWAYS careful about what sounds like vegan apologism bc of all the haters. God it's so controversial for dumb reasons

Edited April 10 by InquilineKea

[Ron Put]

On 2/23/2024 at 1:08 PM, mccoy said:

Gil Carvalho seems to be pretty convinced, by the amount and quality of specific literature, about the benefits of EVOO, even if he declares that he doesn't eat it. Another video where he displays his qualities of, as you say, 'moderation'. He seems to share my disbelief at the extremism of the anti-oils vegan doctors.

Haha, this is our endless argument 😄

I used to be a proponent of olive oil until I started reading the actual studies and noticed patterns that raised questions for me.

I experimented with eliminating olive oil from my diet at home, and my lipid markers improved significantly. As Greger says, you don't know until you put it to the test. I strongly suggest that you test eliminating olive oil yourself for a couple of months.

[mccoy]

2 hours ago, Ron Put said:

As Greger says, you don't know until you put it to the test. I strongly suggest that you test eliminating olive oil yourself for a couple of months.

Last time I checked, my blood lipids were good, there is no reason for me to eliminate a very healthy product and cooking complement that is also widely available and produced in my whereabouts at reasonable prices.

Also, Dr. Greger insists on his vegan, low-fat narrative, and for this purpose, he sometimes subtly manipulates facts or omits important details. 

Edited April 12 by mccoy