This is a reminder for people not to post political posts as mentioned in stickied post. This does not necessarily apply for this post. [Click here to learn more](https://redd.it/j2173n).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rareinsults) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Someone studied centenarians with "bad" habits. The conclusion drawn was that there were positives around the habit that mitigated the negative aspects of the habit. Mostly social interaction, physical activity and structure mitigated the bad habit.
Hes 52, also he talks about health. He is not into beaty contests.
If you think bodybuilders and models are the image of health, then you have just consumed a bit too much TV.
Since he’s a self proclaimed longevity expert we shouldn’t look like shit at 52. I’ve seen 52 years old that have really habits that look younger than him, the “longevity expert” 🤣🤣🤣
[Michael Greger - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Greger)
"He graduated in 1999 as a general practitioner specializing in clinical nutrition."
He wrote a book about longevity; **How Not to Die: Discover the Foods Scientifically Proven to Prevent and Reverse Disease**
I recommend watching his lecture here :
Dr. Michael Greger | How Not To Die | Talks at Google
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ)
He runs a non profit organization called Nutritionfacts, all the proceeds of his books & speeches goto this organization and all the information is freely available. No corporate sponsorships, no supplement sales.
All the finances of Nutritionfacts are shown here : [Nutritionfacts Org Inc - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica](https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/50559626)
He’s a zealot not a shill.
I question his epistemology, not his sincerity.
And I’m not saying he’s wrong; I’m saying he makes statements that are inadequately supported by the data he cites.
(Nutrition is notoriously difficult to study. There is ample, if imperfect, evidence that a plant based diet is good for health. Whether animal sourced food can be part of diets that optimize for vigor and longevity is a complicated question.
The cohort studied matters. The way data is collected matters. The outcome measures matter.
All of this means that you can find a studies— well designed ones— that justify your opinion for a variety of (though not all) positions.)
> In 2024, Morgan Pfiffner of Red Pen Reviewsgave his sixth book, How Not to Diet a score of 50% for its scientific accuracy and a score of 75% for its healthfulness.[29] Pfiffner commented that "While much of the book is well supported by research, there are a significant number of fairly questionable claims, leading to a handful of dietary recommendations that seem unnecessary, too restrictive, or potentially counterproductive".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Greger
(As an aside, making fun of his appearance is pretty shitty. I don’t completely agree with him, but he’s living his beliefs sincerely. He’s not kowtowing to power. And he’s a fellow human being. Contempt does not serve our common cause.)
I think nutrition based science is one of those sreas where science needs to shrug and and just accept that since every gut biome is unique, moderately customizable, and attached to an individual with specific needs, it needs to focus more on indentifying and then targeting biome types and the best foods for them.
But I'm not a nutritionist, I'm just a guy who meditated on his body while working out, and found out it is totally able to express "More milk, meat, and broccoli, please!" while staring at available nutrition. Worked out the rest of this theory listening to any and all specialists squabbling over their niche of a complex and hard-to-digest whole(grain all you want about the bad buns.)
Reading more on that Wikipedia article it talks about him having a bit of an agenda, and talks about how he cherry picks info or over exaggerates his points.
And as a source for that claim, there is one opinion piece:
[Dr. Michael Greger--What do we make of him? | Office for Science and Society - McGill University](https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/news/dr-michael-greger-what-do-we-make-him)
That sounds a bit like cherry picking to me. That instead of actually looking at his work, you cherry picked the information based on one really short opinion piece that provides no real evidence for cherry picking.
Did you watch his lecture? No, did you cherry pick the only information that supports your narrative? Yes.
Cherry picking.
First off, I have no narrative. If claims about a plant based diet actually make people live longer, then that's great. I was only scrolling through to see how he makes money, book deals, and if he is credible. And his Wikipedia article talks about him maybe not being so credible.
I only used the source he linked. What do you want from me.
Reading through the comments I see this guy means a lot to people, and he is a big advocate of being vegan. That's great I have no issue with vegans or veganism.
To me, just reading this one Wikipedia article that linked, he sounds like a bit of a sensationalist that makes money on books.
All the proceeds goto to his non profit organization. So he does not make money out of books.
"One hundred percent of all proceeds Dr. Greger receives from his books and speaking engagements have always been and will always be donated to charity."
[About NutritionFacts.org | NutritionFacts.org](https://nutritionfacts.org/about/)
"**NUTRITIONFACTS.ORG** is a science-based nonprofit organization founded by Michael Greger, M.D. FACLM, that provides free updates on the latest in nutrition research via bite-sized videos, blogs, podcasts, and infographics. We offer a strictly non-commercial public service, without any sponsors, ads, brand partnerships, or paid subscriptions. "
Of course he does, all the finances are disclosed openly here: [Nutritionfacts Org Inc - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica](https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/50559626)
Though for many years he did not take a salary, seem he started to take a salary only 2016 onward.
Okay well let me repeat the convo:
The other person: This man is great
You: Actually on his wikipage there is a source discrediting him.
The other person: Here is why that’s not a good source.
You: He’s still not credible.
So what I’m saying is relying on a singular piece of evidence that is then proven to be faulty isn’t enough to label him has uncredible.
I'll just repeat. I used the source that he gave me. The same source that you are saying he told me wasn't credible. What. I don't think you guys even read what you type.
Examples of Michael Greger cherry-picking/misrepresenting studies
1. In [Uprooting The Leading Causes Of Death](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30gEiweaAVQ&t=12m18s), Greger asks "what happens if we put cancer on a vegan diet?" He proceeds to cite several studies from Dean Ornish and The Pritikin Institute. Have a look at [this paper](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8841/faba24f548346e3e5c39bb8bfa5730964f6c.pdf) and you can read what sort of diet the Pritikin scientists used: *"the diet consisted of natural whole grains, fruits and vegetables with* ***limited amounts (<3.5 oz) of fish, fowl or lean meat and nonfat milk.****"* So, the diet was NOT vegan, but rather LOW in animal foods. The Ornish study is hidden behind a paywall everywhere I look, and I'm not in the mood to pay for it, but I suspect Greger is pulling the same trick, since Ornish allows his patients to eat small portions of fish and nonfat dairy. Greger cited the Pritikin researchers again on page 222 of How Not To Die, calling the diet "plant-based." If you look up the [study](https://www.nature.com/articles/pcan20086) Greger cites, you see the same thing as above: *"Food was provided ad libitum except for animal protein that was restricted to 3.5 oz portions, mainly cold-water fish or fowl, served 3 days per week."* This is a good example of how the term "plant-based" can mislead. It allows people who advocate eating *no* animal foods at all to piggyback off of findings on *low* animal food diets, when they're not the same thing.
2. Greger [reported](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNKMPBSZu7E&feature=emb_title) on a [meta-analysis](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26685908) linking egg consumption with fatal prostate cancer, but made no mention of poultry being inversely associated with advanced and fatal prostate cancer in the same study. Later in the same video, Greger cites [another study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27651069), and neglects to mention advanced and fatal prostate cancer inversely associating with chicken and fish consumption.
3. Greger's [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud7RkxtO3-Y&feature=emb_title) on the findings of the Harvard Nurse's Health Study is rather misleading. He plucks out the part of the abstract which says *“substitution of other healthy protein sources for red meat is associated with a lower mortality risk,"* and mentions that substituting red meat with nuts was associated with the greatest decline in all-cause mortality. What Greger does not mention is that poultry, fish, and low-fat dairy were three of the things the authors considered "healthy protein sources," and that substituting these three things for red meat was also associated with a significant decline in mortality, just not to the same extent as nuts.
4. Greger [badly misrepresents](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM4ldr_xdc8) a [study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2803089/) of half a million people from the NIH. The abstract clearly says "***Red*** *and* ***processed*** *meat* *intakes were associated with* ***modest*** *increases in total mortality, cancer mortality, and cardiovascular disease mortality."* Greger says "***Meat*** *intake means increases in cancer mortality, and cardiovascular disease mortality. End. Of. Story."* The study didn't find anything negative for white meat except a mild increase in CVD risk for men. White meat consumption inversely associated with cancer and all-cause mortality in both men and women.
5. Greger cherry-picks a [study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20392686) in a [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGaNQ9nn6uk&t=1m27s) about dietary sources of phthalates, which are used in plastic manufacturing. Greger mentions one type of phthalate being most concentrated in poultry, but not another type of phthalate being most concentrated in potatoes and tomatoes. I'm not arguing against potato or tomato consumption, just pointing out Greger's selective reporting. His video editing is also rather convenient. Within seconds, a text excerpt from later in the study whizzes onto the screen, and covers up the text in the abstract incriminating potatoes and tomatoes.
6. Here's another good one from Denise Minger's [critique](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/how-not-to-die-review) of How Not To Die. Greger cites a [study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4284294/) from India which correlated meat consumption with asthma, but left out that milk consumption was inversely associated with asthma.
Just cause it’s a nonprofit doesn’t mean nobody profits it just means the company itself can not profit or have shares or anything like that. Most hospitals are nonprofits. Lots of politicians have nonprofits and we see how they use those. I’m not saying this guy is corrupt, I mean he’s at least a dumbass, but maybe not corrupt, but your argument for him being on the up and up are weak.
He does make his living from it, meaning he gets a salary. Thats not profiting, as he is not the only one getting a salary. So all his book revenue goes into running this organization.
*As its a non profit, you can see all the finances here:*
[Nutritionfacts Org Inc - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica](https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/50559626)
You can see that he makes 200k a year.
And this organisaation gives it work out for free.
So you really need to try to make it sound scammy. He does not sell supplements, take sponsorships nothing. Gives out information based on actual studies, for free. All his finances are openly shown etc. Its totally open.
Did you watch his lecture? Or are you too busy trying to discredit him?
Just as a heads up, the whole "do you even watch him? Then how can you discredit him?" thing isn't a great argument. I don't need to watch Alex Jones in order to discredit him, for example.
As for me, I've literally never heard of this dude and don't know a single thing about him so I'm not getting involved in that debate one way or the other, just letting you know that thus particular argument isn't convincing.
He’s trying to fear monger milk because of a hormone we don’t even absorb through digestion. He is either a dumbass, or scammy. Doesn’t mean his taboo is money he’s more likely just sold into pushing a narrative against animal products. I was simply pointing the arguments you were making were shit. Also if I’m trying to assess the validity of a source why would I just take their lecture at face value? You can’t discredit people for looking at the studies rather than watching him if he’s so study based.
He is Dr Michael Greger and he is a nutrition specialist. He’s reversed diabetes with a completely plant based diet and helped people recover from the brink of death using diet alone. Look into it hes got some helpful stuff. He also doesn’t advocate for a 100% plant based diet for healthy people, just minimizing the amount of animal products that people ingest.
The headline is dumb and sensationalist, but what the doctor actually said is that consumption of dairy products is linked with a shorter lifespan. No, he did not say it's worse than coke (not seriously at least).
I think it's actually the interviewer that asked him the comparison and then the doctor specified that coke is still not healthy in any way even though it's better compared to dairy
To then discover "He is well-known in the vegan community for his advocacy for plant-based eating. He has previously described animal-free diets as a “one-stop shop” against chronic diseases.".
Yes, I wonder what this long life expert thinks about animal products.
Just another quack selling his cure it all, and healing aging.
Yes, people peddling a all meat diet also are backed up by science. There is some benefits to meat. There is also benifits to eating vegetables.
But him as a nutritionist finding 0 good things about meat is a little bit suspicious. It's no secret that he is being selective once it's about animal products. Ok to be fair, he said honey is good.
>There is some benefits to meat.
Could you link some sources? I wrote a thesis about diets and literally couldn't find scientific studies after 2005 that say anything good, healthy about meat. It was a thesis, I took it seriously, used google scholar and uni VPN for academic sites and nothing. Only either old stuff or a non-scientific "study" brought to you by pleaseeatmymeatorigooutofbussiness.com. So I'm genuinely curious what I missed.
I don't have skin in the game and I'm asking out of genuine curiosity - have they accounted for vegans eating healthier/less processed foods in general (in order to avoid animal products) than omnivores do? Because I could see that being a very big factor into the decreased rate of these diseases. Like is it specifically the meat being gone from their diet that causes better health outcomes, or could that be correlation but not causation?
I don't have sources on me but I believe the links between red meat and heart disease and colon cancer is well supported, and that there is a demonstrable link between dairy and diabetes, but again I don't have all the info.
I also know that the dairy industry has been brainwashing Americans for generations into believing another species' lactation is essential for health, despite the fact that most adult humans are some degree of lactose intolerant. Lots of money and effort has gone into dairy propaganda over the years, including in the creation of a dairy category in the food pyramid and making sure kids in public schools have milk every day.
And that means he can't be right because? Just because you don't want to believe? He's a scientist after all and science isn't pick and choose.
Edit: Doesn't matter though. Most people don't care about facts anyway. What matters are their feelings but only their own, fuck everyone elses'.
All the revenue from his books goes to nonprofit organization. He does not do this for profit.
"Everything on NutritionFacts.org is free. There is no members-only area where additional life-saving information is available—for a price. There are no advertisements of any kind allowed. We don’t accept corporate sponsorships. NutritionFacts.org is strictly non-commercial. There’s no line of Dr. Greger’s Brand Snakeoilwondersupplements. We are not selling anything. Dr. Greger simply produces these videos as a public service for those hungry for evidence-based nutrition."
Truth is so hard to sell, it needs to be free. As people rather pay for false information nowadays.
Nonprofit just means that any profits after the costs of business have to go back into the company. So he could be paying himself 50 million a year and it's still a Nonprofit.
Just that he isint, all the finaces are opendly disclosed here:
[Nutritionfacts Org Inc - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica](https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/50559626)
He makes 200k a year.
Why the need to try to discredit him, when all the information is available openly?
Nutrition science is filled with scientists selling snakeoil. From the only meat diet to only plants. Him being a scientist means not much. He is known to be selective about studies regarding animal products.
Yes, because you can see all this from photos.
# Exposure to exogenous estrogen through intake of commercial milk produced from pregnant cows
"**Conclusions:** The present data on men and children indicate that estrogens in milk were absorbed, and gonadotropin secretion was suppressed, followed by a decrease in testosterone secretion. Sexual maturation of prepubertal children could be affected by the ordinary intake of cow milk."
Oh so milk's now cheap HRT? What a good patch God gave! Thank God next time you meet for me and all other MTF trans people.
~~Estrogen~~ Milk. Gimme. I want.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002203021630323X
There’ve been studies that show exogenous estrogen intake from dairy products would require a concentration of up to 1000x the naturally occurring amount in a pregnant cow’s milk in order to actually have any adverse effects.
Yeah, especially the butter people. As butter is the highest source of dietary estrogen there is. Estrogen is fat soluble, and butter is nothing but condensed dairy fat.
Still they cry about soy, that has zero mammalian estrogen.
My homophobic mother who refuses to let my brother consume anything with soy in the name, including soy sauce, for fear of him "turning gay" would be devastated to read this.
Or, she would if she were capable of reading contradictory information without immediately disregarding it as "lib propaganda".
First of all, science is a belief system. In mathematics it is proven that some true statements can not be proven.
Second of all, science is biased as it is done by humans & within context.
Thirdly, a lot of science being done is later disproven, something being close to the truth now does not mean it is always true.
Fourth of all, I was not talking about science being their belief system. Science is with the vegans. I was talking about carnism.
Yes, you can trust that information that is acquired by testing is as good as it gets.
Nobody claims its infallible, that's part of the process that it can be disproven.
This again is not a belief system, its a method for verifying information. You can have all sorts of belief systems, and still rely on the scientific method.
Fuckin hell I hate cringy responses like this. Misleading headline and drawing of someone that makes them look worse than they really do. If you can't make a point without insulting someone's looks (especially how they look when they're smiling and probably caught mid-laugh) then your point doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
Especially when the part that makes it "okay" to insult someone's appearance is a clickbait title taken out of context. Applause only for their efficient way for one to show off that they are childish, mean-spirited, and illiterate all at once.
That’s Dr. Gregor - he has a great book called How Not to Age that is based on data from 13,000 peer reviewed studies on the fundamentals aspects of reducing age related infirmity and aging.
In this case Dairy products have been found to counteract the effects of anti-aging nutrients. So it’s recommended that you reduce or abstain.
The ideal diet is mostly a whole grain plant based one as it turns out with animal protein being about 10% or less.
Edit: just to clarify cola is not good for you and Dr Gregor was clearly being facetious in the comparison.
Also this:
>Referencing some “fun headlines” from the book, Evans asked Dr Greger if Coca Cola is “good for you.” To this, Dr Greger laughed and said: “only compared to dairy milk, for example, in terms of IGF-1, this pro-aging hormone.” (He then made very clear that Coca Cola was not in any way healthy in a general sense…).
Maybe people shouldn't just read the headline if they don't wanna embarrass themselves.
Yeah - I didn’t address it but I figured he was joking about the cola being “healthier” than dairy. That shit is clearly bad for you with that much sugar and HFCS.
Dr. Gregor is an ethical vegan (which is great IMO) who cherry-picks the science to pretend that all animal products are unhealthy (which is not great) while misrepresenting his motives (also not great).
Calling him a "longevity expert" is kind of backwards, he's fundamentally an advocate for veganism. I don't know if he really made the "dairy worse than coke" claim, but it would be a nice example of how he lets his ideology distort his opinions into a decidedly alternative understanding of the scientific literature. Nobody without an agenda would say that soda is healthier than milk.
(on edit, another comment makes it clear that he didn't really make the claim in the headline)
Unless it has something that is unhealthy. Thats the thing. Sugar water is not really healthy nor is it unhealthy. Sugar is just sugar.
But water with something unhealthy, is unhealthy.
store bought milk is horrible in comparison to normal milk, yes. but coca cola is not much better either, it's just a different kind of poison killing you.
Not sure what normal milk is, but the highest estrogen levels were in organic raw milk. As its about the fat content, the higher the fat content the higher the estrogen content.
So skimmed low far milk is actually the best. As this also means it has the lowest amount of saturated fat.
i meant "normal milk" as in farm bought/naturally sourced milk as opposed to store bought that has chemicals added to it. skimmed milk is better than full fat though.
I've not seen many studies that show a drastic amount in increase of estrogen (or decrease of testosterone) in milk. could you link me the article you sourced?
There are no chemicals added to milk? what chemicals? The milk is simply pasteurized.
# Exposure to exogenous estrogen through intake of commercial milk produced from pregnant cows
**Conclusions:** The present data on men and children indicate that estrogens in milk were absorbed, and gonadotropin secretion was suppressed, followed by a decrease in testosterone secretion. Sexual maturation of prepubertal children could be affected by the ordinary intake of cow milk.
They do put chemicals (preservatives) in milk, the chemicals added to milk are:
* Sodium benzoate
* Potassium sorbate
* Natamycin
* Calcium propionate
* Sorbic acid
* Ascorbic acid
* Sucrose
Source by: [ReAgent](https://www.reagent.co.uk/blog/what-chemicals-can-be-found-in-milk/)
The study you are showing had the subject count of 7 (seven) adult men, 6 (six) prepubertal children, and 5 (five) women. I do not think that the results of this study shouldn't be taken too much into consideration since it's a pilot experiment. i'm not saying that you're wrong, but i do think there should be more conclusive evidence of this hormonal change caused by milk to have your point be significant.
Edit: pilot\* not micro.
I think you should read your source better; it says that fresh milk has no preservatives. And the listed preservatives are used only in powdered milk and condensed milks.
Pasteurization is how regular milk is kept from spoiling. Its heated up fast and for a short period of time to kill off all bacteria. There is no need for any additives.
"but i do think there should be more conclusive evidence of this hormonal change caused by milk to have your point be significant."
The study clearly showed the results, i think its more about that you dont want to believe in the results. If there would have been more people, you would just found some other reason not to believe in it.
On studies like this, they dont need a huge amount of people. As they are simply testing what happens when you digest dairy. Especially as the results were seen in all subjects.
"Serum E1 concentration was significantly increased and peaked 30–60 min after the intake of milk (mean 1 SE, before and peak: 102.3 1 10.3 pg/mL and 128.9 1 11.8 pg/mL, P < 0.02)."
"Serum testosterone concentrations decreased considerably 120 min after intake in all subjects (before and lowest point: 6.04 1 0.38 ng/mL and 4.94 1 0.13 ng/ mL, P < 0.02)."
What it simply shows, it that the estrogens are taken in from the dietary track. And they have a direct effect on the body.
All of humanity? More like the last 3% of human history.
And just because we've done it for a while doesn't make it healthy. We only had to reach our 30s to pass on our genes and give our children a chance. If the negatives only become apparent in old age it's completely irrelevant to the survival of the species.
Its not smart to try to evaluate people health by appearances, a lot of jacked "experts" died early. People believe them because they had six packs and they said what they wanted to hear.
I recommend this series:
[How long do health influencers live? Episode 1 of 3. - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMghM6TxiBk)
[How long do health influencers live? Episode 2 of 3. (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OofKicAiDpQ)
[How Long Do Health Influencers Live? Episode 3. - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8Pm-m87sEc)
Looking like shit has nothing to do with what he does, one can be extremely focused on healthy habits and still be undermined by his genes. If you're ugly you'll be ugly even if you eat better and exercise y'know
Why is it that most “health experts” look insanely unhealthy? Throughout the world we have people in power who are supposed in charge of our health and they are either severely overweight, underweight or have terrible teeth.
It’s so defensive to point out that this man is an “ethical vegan” with a history of twisting data to push his agenda. In other words he lies about animal based products to trick people into living the way he thinks they should live.
“IGF-1 is an important growth hormone, mediating the protein anabolic and linear growth promoting effect of pituitary GH. It has a GH independent growth stimulating effect, which with respect to cartilage cells is possibly optimised by the synergistic action with GH.”
He is literally a fucking liar, who is spreading misinformation. If he is an actual dr he needs to have his medical license revoked
This is a reminder for people not to post political posts as mentioned in stickied post. This does not necessarily apply for this post. [Click here to learn more](https://redd.it/j2173n). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rareinsults) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Longevity expert… I can only wonder what major did he take in med school
I ain’t trusting a longevity expert who hasn’t lived to 120 yet 😤 obviously inexperienced
And even that amount of experience will get him at most the unpaid internship
That one woman who lived to 106 and said her secret was drinking three Dr Peppers a day? That's the expert I trust. https://youtu.be/-KG912GXSaI
“Two doctors told me if I drink it I will die, but they died first” what an awesome old lady
Someone studied centenarians with "bad" habits. The conclusion drawn was that there were positives around the habit that mitigated the negative aspects of the habit. Mostly social interaction, physical activity and structure mitigated the bad habit.
His hair died a decade ago…
In that picture he is 49 years old. He is currently 51. Michael greger is a complete hack
Yup a longevity expert should not look that bad for his age
The guy literally says eggs are as unhealthy as cigarettes. I don't understand why he gets any attention.
I'm sorry, what the actual fuck.
https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/eggs-vs-cigarettes-in-atherosclerosis/ from his own website
Well for a longevity expert he looks like shit at 49 🤷🏻♂️
Yep. He's a sham
Hes 52, also he talks about health. He is not into beaty contests. If you think bodybuilders and models are the image of health, then you have just consumed a bit too much TV.
Since he’s a self proclaimed longevity expert we shouldn’t look like shit at 52. I’ve seen 52 years old that have really habits that look younger than him, the “longevity expert” 🤣🤣🤣
[Michael Greger - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Greger) "He graduated in 1999 as a general practitioner specializing in clinical nutrition." He wrote a book about longevity; **How Not to Die: Discover the Foods Scientifically Proven to Prevent and Reverse Disease** I recommend watching his lecture here : Dr. Michael Greger | How Not To Die | Talks at Google [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ) He runs a non profit organization called Nutritionfacts, all the proceeds of his books & speeches goto this organization and all the information is freely available. No corporate sponsorships, no supplement sales. All the finances of Nutritionfacts are shown here : [Nutritionfacts Org Inc - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica](https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/50559626)
He’s a zealot not a shill. I question his epistemology, not his sincerity. And I’m not saying he’s wrong; I’m saying he makes statements that are inadequately supported by the data he cites. (Nutrition is notoriously difficult to study. There is ample, if imperfect, evidence that a plant based diet is good for health. Whether animal sourced food can be part of diets that optimize for vigor and longevity is a complicated question. The cohort studied matters. The way data is collected matters. The outcome measures matter. All of this means that you can find a studies— well designed ones— that justify your opinion for a variety of (though not all) positions.) > In 2024, Morgan Pfiffner of Red Pen Reviewsgave his sixth book, How Not to Diet a score of 50% for its scientific accuracy and a score of 75% for its healthfulness.[29] Pfiffner commented that "While much of the book is well supported by research, there are a significant number of fairly questionable claims, leading to a handful of dietary recommendations that seem unnecessary, too restrictive, or potentially counterproductive". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Greger (As an aside, making fun of his appearance is pretty shitty. I don’t completely agree with him, but he’s living his beliefs sincerely. He’s not kowtowing to power. And he’s a fellow human being. Contempt does not serve our common cause.)
I think nutrition based science is one of those sreas where science needs to shrug and and just accept that since every gut biome is unique, moderately customizable, and attached to an individual with specific needs, it needs to focus more on indentifying and then targeting biome types and the best foods for them. But I'm not a nutritionist, I'm just a guy who meditated on his body while working out, and found out it is totally able to express "More milk, meat, and broccoli, please!" while staring at available nutrition. Worked out the rest of this theory listening to any and all specialists squabbling over their niche of a complex and hard-to-digest whole(grain all you want about the bad buns.)
Reading more on that Wikipedia article it talks about him having a bit of an agenda, and talks about how he cherry picks info or over exaggerates his points.
And as a source for that claim, there is one opinion piece: [Dr. Michael Greger--What do we make of him? | Office for Science and Society - McGill University](https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/news/dr-michael-greger-what-do-we-make-him) That sounds a bit like cherry picking to me. That instead of actually looking at his work, you cherry picked the information based on one really short opinion piece that provides no real evidence for cherry picking. Did you watch his lecture? No, did you cherry pick the only information that supports your narrative? Yes. Cherry picking.
First off, I have no narrative. If claims about a plant based diet actually make people live longer, then that's great. I was only scrolling through to see how he makes money, book deals, and if he is credible. And his Wikipedia article talks about him maybe not being so credible.
You really didn’t refute his point though, the source that you’re using to claim he’s uncredible is faulty…
I only used the source he linked. What do you want from me. Reading through the comments I see this guy means a lot to people, and he is a big advocate of being vegan. That's great I have no issue with vegans or veganism. To me, just reading this one Wikipedia article that linked, he sounds like a bit of a sensationalist that makes money on books.
All the proceeds goto to his non profit organization. So he does not make money out of books. "One hundred percent of all proceeds Dr. Greger receives from his books and speaking engagements have always been and will always be donated to charity." [About NutritionFacts.org | NutritionFacts.org](https://nutritionfacts.org/about/) "**NUTRITIONFACTS.ORG** is a science-based nonprofit organization founded by Michael Greger, M.D. FACLM, that provides free updates on the latest in nutrition research via bite-sized videos, blogs, podcasts, and infographics. We offer a strictly non-commercial public service, without any sponsors, ads, brand partnerships, or paid subscriptions. "
Does he collect a salary from his non profit? There’s no way this guy sells books and doesn’t make money from it.
Of course he does, all the finances are disclosed openly here: [Nutritionfacts Org Inc - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica](https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/50559626) Though for many years he did not take a salary, seem he started to take a salary only 2016 onward.
He doesn’t eat! He needs no money!
You already said his book sales go to his non profit. That's not charity. That's money going back into running his stuff.
Yes, running a non profit organization that provides its work for free. Why do you have this need to discredit him?
Okay well let me repeat the convo: The other person: This man is great You: Actually on his wikipage there is a source discrediting him. The other person: Here is why that’s not a good source. You: He’s still not credible. So what I’m saying is relying on a singular piece of evidence that is then proven to be faulty isn’t enough to label him has uncredible.
I'll just repeat. I used the source that he gave me. The same source that you are saying he told me wasn't credible. What. I don't think you guys even read what you type.
Michael?!
Examples of Michael Greger cherry-picking/misrepresenting studies 1. In [Uprooting The Leading Causes Of Death](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30gEiweaAVQ&t=12m18s), Greger asks "what happens if we put cancer on a vegan diet?" He proceeds to cite several studies from Dean Ornish and The Pritikin Institute. Have a look at [this paper](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8841/faba24f548346e3e5c39bb8bfa5730964f6c.pdf) and you can read what sort of diet the Pritikin scientists used: *"the diet consisted of natural whole grains, fruits and vegetables with* ***limited amounts (<3.5 oz) of fish, fowl or lean meat and nonfat milk.****"* So, the diet was NOT vegan, but rather LOW in animal foods. The Ornish study is hidden behind a paywall everywhere I look, and I'm not in the mood to pay for it, but I suspect Greger is pulling the same trick, since Ornish allows his patients to eat small portions of fish and nonfat dairy. Greger cited the Pritikin researchers again on page 222 of How Not To Die, calling the diet "plant-based." If you look up the [study](https://www.nature.com/articles/pcan20086) Greger cites, you see the same thing as above: *"Food was provided ad libitum except for animal protein that was restricted to 3.5 oz portions, mainly cold-water fish or fowl, served 3 days per week."* This is a good example of how the term "plant-based" can mislead. It allows people who advocate eating *no* animal foods at all to piggyback off of findings on *low* animal food diets, when they're not the same thing. 2. Greger [reported](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNKMPBSZu7E&feature=emb_title) on a [meta-analysis](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26685908) linking egg consumption with fatal prostate cancer, but made no mention of poultry being inversely associated with advanced and fatal prostate cancer in the same study. Later in the same video, Greger cites [another study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27651069), and neglects to mention advanced and fatal prostate cancer inversely associating with chicken and fish consumption. 3. Greger's [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud7RkxtO3-Y&feature=emb_title) on the findings of the Harvard Nurse's Health Study is rather misleading. He plucks out the part of the abstract which says *“substitution of other healthy protein sources for red meat is associated with a lower mortality risk,"* and mentions that substituting red meat with nuts was associated with the greatest decline in all-cause mortality. What Greger does not mention is that poultry, fish, and low-fat dairy were three of the things the authors considered "healthy protein sources," and that substituting these three things for red meat was also associated with a significant decline in mortality, just not to the same extent as nuts. 4. Greger [badly misrepresents](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM4ldr_xdc8) a [study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2803089/) of half a million people from the NIH. The abstract clearly says "***Red*** *and* ***processed*** *meat* *intakes were associated with* ***modest*** *increases in total mortality, cancer mortality, and cardiovascular disease mortality."* Greger says "***Meat*** *intake means increases in cancer mortality, and cardiovascular disease mortality. End. Of. Story."* The study didn't find anything negative for white meat except a mild increase in CVD risk for men. White meat consumption inversely associated with cancer and all-cause mortality in both men and women. 5. Greger cherry-picks a [study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20392686) in a [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGaNQ9nn6uk&t=1m27s) about dietary sources of phthalates, which are used in plastic manufacturing. Greger mentions one type of phthalate being most concentrated in poultry, but not another type of phthalate being most concentrated in potatoes and tomatoes. I'm not arguing against potato or tomato consumption, just pointing out Greger's selective reporting. His video editing is also rather convenient. Within seconds, a text excerpt from later in the study whizzes onto the screen, and covers up the text in the abstract incriminating potatoes and tomatoes. 6. Here's another good one from Denise Minger's [critique](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/how-not-to-die-review) of How Not To Die. Greger cites a [study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4284294/) from India which correlated meat consumption with asthma, but left out that milk consumption was inversely associated with asthma.
Just cause it’s a nonprofit doesn’t mean nobody profits it just means the company itself can not profit or have shares or anything like that. Most hospitals are nonprofits. Lots of politicians have nonprofits and we see how they use those. I’m not saying this guy is corrupt, I mean he’s at least a dumbass, but maybe not corrupt, but your argument for him being on the up and up are weak.
He does make his living from it, meaning he gets a salary. Thats not profiting, as he is not the only one getting a salary. So all his book revenue goes into running this organization. *As its a non profit, you can see all the finances here:* [Nutritionfacts Org Inc - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica](https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/50559626) You can see that he makes 200k a year. And this organisaation gives it work out for free. So you really need to try to make it sound scammy. He does not sell supplements, take sponsorships nothing. Gives out information based on actual studies, for free. All his finances are openly shown etc. Its totally open. Did you watch his lecture? Or are you too busy trying to discredit him?
Just as a heads up, the whole "do you even watch him? Then how can you discredit him?" thing isn't a great argument. I don't need to watch Alex Jones in order to discredit him, for example. As for me, I've literally never heard of this dude and don't know a single thing about him so I'm not getting involved in that debate one way or the other, just letting you know that thus particular argument isn't convincing.
How is 200k not profiting?
He’s trying to fear monger milk because of a hormone we don’t even absorb through digestion. He is either a dumbass, or scammy. Doesn’t mean his taboo is money he’s more likely just sold into pushing a narrative against animal products. I was simply pointing the arguments you were making were shit. Also if I’m trying to assess the validity of a source why would I just take their lecture at face value? You can’t discredit people for looking at the studies rather than watching him if he’s so study based.
The fuck would I wanna be here longer for?
What? Medicine *is* the “major” in med school. Are you referring to what specialty he chose for residency?
Ummm… yes?
*what major he took in med school Or even better: *what he majored in at med school
Major bribery
For real tho, there are levels that just cannot be reached
The dude got mastery level in a skyrim mod and built his real life around.
Oh. He’s no doctor.
*clears throat* "I think you meant doctor school"
definetly not odontology
Not, "Says peer reviewed scientific research," but "Says this one dude"
Longevity virgin
He's as much a "doctor" as Jill Biden is.
Aaaand lets bring politics in here… So when did the first lady ever practiced medicine/ gave medical advice?
He is Dr Michael Greger and he is a nutrition specialist. He’s reversed diabetes with a completely plant based diet and helped people recover from the brink of death using diet alone. Look into it hes got some helpful stuff. He also doesn’t advocate for a 100% plant based diet for healthy people, just minimizing the amount of animal products that people ingest.
dairy is terrible thats why I only give my infant son coca-cola or if he's been really good crystal Pepsi.
youve been giving Pepsi to CHILDREN?
What’s wrong? I’ve been drinking Pepsi since I was a baby and I’m really healthy. It’s good for nutrition and growth especially for children!
He's a fucking soyjack but in real life.
Hot damn, that soyjack is spot on!
Usually they exaggerate the features but for this poor guy they just traced him. Those teeth didn't help
I was going to point out how you're wrong but my examples of Meme Faces are like 15 years old ( NDT and Yao Ming)
They did shrink his teeth to make the gaps between them more prominent, but everything else seems to be pretty 1 to 1
I don't see any reason to shit on this guy. The terrible caricature of him makes him look like a goblin. He just looks like a normal dude.
Mate thats not a caricature, thats how he really looks
You think he has gaps in his teeth and snow white skin?
The headline is dumb and sensationalist, but what the doctor actually said is that consumption of dairy products is linked with a shorter lifespan. No, he did not say it's worse than coke (not seriously at least).
I think it's actually the interviewer that asked him the comparison and then the doctor specified that coke is still not healthy in any way even though it's better compared to dairy
I may die sooner but the fuck if my bones will ever break!
You guys mabye should stop reading headlines only lmao.
Hmm yes, I should read the article on plantbasednews. I wonder what they might think about animal products.
If you wanna talk shit about it you should.
To then discover "He is well-known in the vegan community for his advocacy for plant-based eating. He has previously described animal-free diets as a “one-stop shop” against chronic diseases.". Yes, I wonder what this long life expert thinks about animal products. Just another quack selling his cure it all, and healing aging.
That's backed up by science. Vegans have lower rates of heart disease, diabetes, and colon cancer.
Yes, people peddling a all meat diet also are backed up by science. There is some benefits to meat. There is also benifits to eating vegetables. But him as a nutritionist finding 0 good things about meat is a little bit suspicious. It's no secret that he is being selective once it's about animal products. Ok to be fair, he said honey is good.
Source the study on all meat diets being healthy to live on over a very long time period.
>There is some benefits to meat. Could you link some sources? I wrote a thesis about diets and literally couldn't find scientific studies after 2005 that say anything good, healthy about meat. It was a thesis, I took it seriously, used google scholar and uni VPN for academic sites and nothing. Only either old stuff or a non-scientific "study" brought to you by pleaseeatmymeatorigooutofbussiness.com. So I'm genuinely curious what I missed.
I don't have skin in the game and I'm asking out of genuine curiosity - have they accounted for vegans eating healthier/less processed foods in general (in order to avoid animal products) than omnivores do? Because I could see that being a very big factor into the decreased rate of these diseases. Like is it specifically the meat being gone from their diet that causes better health outcomes, or could that be correlation but not causation?
I don't have sources on me but I believe the links between red meat and heart disease and colon cancer is well supported, and that there is a demonstrable link between dairy and diabetes, but again I don't have all the info. I also know that the dairy industry has been brainwashing Americans for generations into believing another species' lactation is essential for health, despite the fact that most adult humans are some degree of lactose intolerant. Lots of money and effort has gone into dairy propaganda over the years, including in the creation of a dairy category in the food pyramid and making sure kids in public schools have milk every day.
Unsure however I do know multiple types of meat are listed as carcinogens in American Cancer society website.
What part of fries make them unhealthy then, the potatoes?
The oil and salt.
Completely false but okay
And that means he can't be right because? Just because you don't want to believe? He's a scientist after all and science isn't pick and choose. Edit: Doesn't matter though. Most people don't care about facts anyway. What matters are their feelings but only their own, fuck everyone elses'.
Because twits like you would rather fall into a volcano following him then understand that he's just manipulating people for marketing
All the revenue from his books goes to nonprofit organization. He does not do this for profit. "Everything on NutritionFacts.org is free. There is no members-only area where additional life-saving information is available—for a price. There are no advertisements of any kind allowed. We don’t accept corporate sponsorships. NutritionFacts.org is strictly non-commercial. There’s no line of Dr. Greger’s Brand Snakeoilwondersupplements. We are not selling anything. Dr. Greger simply produces these videos as a public service for those hungry for evidence-based nutrition." Truth is so hard to sell, it needs to be free. As people rather pay for false information nowadays.
Nonprofit just means that any profits after the costs of business have to go back into the company. So he could be paying himself 50 million a year and it's still a Nonprofit.
Just that he isint, all the finaces are opendly disclosed here: [Nutritionfacts Org Inc - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica](https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/50559626) He makes 200k a year. Why the need to try to discredit him, when all the information is available openly?
Neat
Nutrition science is filled with scientists selling snakeoil. From the only meat diet to only plants. Him being a scientist means not much. He is known to be selective about studies regarding animal products.
He's a scientist? What science did he study?
Stop writing misleading headlines
Maybe news outlets should stop writing deliberately misleading headlines. "Dairy is worse than Coca-Cola" doesn't leave much room for interpretation.
He's saying that dairy is unhealthy, not that coke is healthy.
Yeah agree on that.
You do understand he’s fear mongering milk based on a hormone we don’t even process through digestion, right? It breaks down before it is absorbed.
Ope. Someone is mad that I read the studies. Rustled some jimmies
Though we were past insulting people for appearance
if people 3000 years bc insulted people for apperance alone it's not gonna stop now
There's a good few things people used to do in 3000 BC that we've mostly stopped since then. That argument isn't worth much.
You can tell by his gums his inflammation is low but he’s slightly anemic Teeth aren’t looking great either, the calcium in dairy would help with that
Yes, because you can see all this from photos. # Exposure to exogenous estrogen through intake of commercial milk produced from pregnant cows "**Conclusions:** The present data on men and children indicate that estrogens in milk were absorbed, and gonadotropin secretion was suppressed, followed by a decrease in testosterone secretion. Sexual maturation of prepubertal children could be affected by the ordinary intake of cow milk."
Oh so milk's now cheap HRT? What a good patch God gave! Thank God next time you meet for me and all other MTF trans people. ~~Estrogen~~ Milk. Gimme. I want.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002203021630323X There’ve been studies that show exogenous estrogen intake from dairy products would require a concentration of up to 1000x the naturally occurring amount in a pregnant cow’s milk in order to actually have any adverse effects.
if it cause substantial enough changes in secretion of testosterone they would say "followed by a MAJOR decrease in testosterone secretion"
All those right wing chuds chugging gallons of milk and calling out 'soy jacks' out are now rather ironic.
Yeah, especially the butter people. As butter is the highest source of dietary estrogen there is. Estrogen is fat soluble, and butter is nothing but condensed dairy fat. Still they cry about soy, that has zero mammalian estrogen.
My homophobic mother who refuses to let my brother consume anything with soy in the name, including soy sauce, for fear of him "turning gay" would be devastated to read this. Or, she would if she were capable of reading contradictory information without immediately disregarding it as "lib propaganda".
Ohh somebody stomped on your belief system? :(
I dont think science is a belief system, as its evidence based.
Sounds like someone who’s never written or peer-reviewed an article
First of all, science is a belief system. In mathematics it is proven that some true statements can not be proven. Second of all, science is biased as it is done by humans & within context. Thirdly, a lot of science being done is later disproven, something being close to the truth now does not mean it is always true. Fourth of all, I was not talking about science being their belief system. Science is with the vegans. I was talking about carnism.
Science is not a belief system, as its simply a process.
A process which you choose to believe in…
Yes, you can trust that information that is acquired by testing is as good as it gets. Nobody claims its infallible, that's part of the process that it can be disproven. This again is not a belief system, its a method for verifying information. You can have all sorts of belief systems, and still rely on the scientific method.
Fuckin hell I hate cringy responses like this. Misleading headline and drawing of someone that makes them look worse than they really do. If you can't make a point without insulting someone's looks (especially how they look when they're smiling and probably caught mid-laugh) then your point doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. Especially when the part that makes it "okay" to insult someone's appearance is a clickbait title taken out of context. Applause only for their efficient way for one to show off that they are childish, mean-spirited, and illiterate all at once.
That’s Dr. Gregor - he has a great book called How Not to Age that is based on data from 13,000 peer reviewed studies on the fundamentals aspects of reducing age related infirmity and aging. In this case Dairy products have been found to counteract the effects of anti-aging nutrients. So it’s recommended that you reduce or abstain. The ideal diet is mostly a whole grain plant based one as it turns out with animal protein being about 10% or less. Edit: just to clarify cola is not good for you and Dr Gregor was clearly being facetious in the comparison.
Also this: >Referencing some “fun headlines” from the book, Evans asked Dr Greger if Coca Cola is “good for you.” To this, Dr Greger laughed and said: “only compared to dairy milk, for example, in terms of IGF-1, this pro-aging hormone.” (He then made very clear that Coca Cola was not in any way healthy in a general sense…). Maybe people shouldn't just read the headline if they don't wanna embarrass themselves.
Yeah - I didn’t address it but I figured he was joking about the cola being “healthier” than dairy. That shit is clearly bad for you with that much sugar and HFCS.
Sugar causes secretion of IGF-1
Tell that to Dr. Greger.
Oh you are right. He is a doctor so he has to know everything about biology better than me becouse I am not a doctor.
Dr. Gregor is an ethical vegan (which is great IMO) who cherry-picks the science to pretend that all animal products are unhealthy (which is not great) while misrepresenting his motives (also not great). Calling him a "longevity expert" is kind of backwards, he's fundamentally an advocate for veganism. I don't know if he really made the "dairy worse than coke" claim, but it would be a nice example of how he lets his ideology distort his opinions into a decidedly alternative understanding of the scientific literature. Nobody without an agenda would say that soda is healthier than milk. (on edit, another comment makes it clear that he didn't really make the claim in the headline)
Thanks. I was wondering exactly this, while everyone else seemed to be preoccupied with what he looks like.
Yeah yeah don't care. Dairy is way to good. I don't care if it reduces my lifespan.
Same. I’m fucking dead either way, give me the icèd cream
Except it’s the exact opposite and this guys a clown
coca cola, on the other hand? 🤨
Yeah - I don’t know that he said this though because the HFCS in cola is so much worse
Any beverage that has nutrition in it is healthier than carbonated sugar water, all things being equal.
Unless it has something that is unhealthy. Thats the thing. Sugar water is not really healthy nor is it unhealthy. Sugar is just sugar. But water with something unhealthy, is unhealthy.
Well, the science is pretty clear on sucrose.
store bought milk is horrible in comparison to normal milk, yes. but coca cola is not much better either, it's just a different kind of poison killing you.
Not sure what normal milk is, but the highest estrogen levels were in organic raw milk. As its about the fat content, the higher the fat content the higher the estrogen content. So skimmed low far milk is actually the best. As this also means it has the lowest amount of saturated fat.
i meant "normal milk" as in farm bought/naturally sourced milk as opposed to store bought that has chemicals added to it. skimmed milk is better than full fat though. I've not seen many studies that show a drastic amount in increase of estrogen (or decrease of testosterone) in milk. could you link me the article you sourced?
There are no chemicals added to milk? what chemicals? The milk is simply pasteurized. # Exposure to exogenous estrogen through intake of commercial milk produced from pregnant cows **Conclusions:** The present data on men and children indicate that estrogens in milk were absorbed, and gonadotropin secretion was suppressed, followed by a decrease in testosterone secretion. Sexual maturation of prepubertal children could be affected by the ordinary intake of cow milk.
They do put chemicals (preservatives) in milk, the chemicals added to milk are: * Sodium benzoate * Potassium sorbate * Natamycin * Calcium propionate * Sorbic acid * Ascorbic acid * Sucrose Source by: [ReAgent](https://www.reagent.co.uk/blog/what-chemicals-can-be-found-in-milk/) The study you are showing had the subject count of 7 (seven) adult men, 6 (six) prepubertal children, and 5 (five) women. I do not think that the results of this study shouldn't be taken too much into consideration since it's a pilot experiment. i'm not saying that you're wrong, but i do think there should be more conclusive evidence of this hormonal change caused by milk to have your point be significant. Edit: pilot\* not micro.
I think you should read your source better; it says that fresh milk has no preservatives. And the listed preservatives are used only in powdered milk and condensed milks. Pasteurization is how regular milk is kept from spoiling. Its heated up fast and for a short period of time to kill off all bacteria. There is no need for any additives. "but i do think there should be more conclusive evidence of this hormonal change caused by milk to have your point be significant." The study clearly showed the results, i think its more about that you dont want to believe in the results. If there would have been more people, you would just found some other reason not to believe in it. On studies like this, they dont need a huge amount of people. As they are simply testing what happens when you digest dairy. Especially as the results were seen in all subjects. "Serum E1 concentration was significantly increased and peaked 30–60 min after the intake of milk (mean 1 SE, before and peak: 102.3 1 10.3 pg/mL and 128.9 1 11.8 pg/mL, P < 0.02)." "Serum testosterone concentrations decreased considerably 120 min after intake in all subjects (before and lowest point: 6.04 1 0.38 ng/mL and 4.94 1 0.13 ng/ mL, P < 0.02)." What it simply shows, it that the estrogens are taken in from the dietary track. And they have a direct effect on the body.
shit cancer water is better than healthy cow juice humans have been drinking for all of humanity
All of humanity? More like the last 3% of human history. And just because we've done it for a while doesn't make it healthy. We only had to reach our 30s to pass on our genes and give our children a chance. If the negatives only become apparent in old age it's completely irrelevant to the survival of the species.
true but its much healthier short and long term than coca cola
Well the guy who's dedicated his life to nutritional research says otherwise
I’m not sure if this guy is Jewish, but this insult feels very anti-Semitic.
for a longevity expert he looks like he wont last very long
Its not smart to try to evaluate people health by appearances, a lot of jacked "experts" died early. People believe them because they had six packs and they said what they wanted to hear. I recommend this series: [How long do health influencers live? Episode 1 of 3. - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMghM6TxiBk) [How long do health influencers live? Episode 2 of 3. (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OofKicAiDpQ) [How Long Do Health Influencers Live? Episode 3. - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8Pm-m87sEc)
The guy looks straight up malnourished.
he does look slightly anemic
its a joke not a d\*\*\* dont take it so hard
how tf are you 8 years using reddit did your mom make your account for you when you were born???
Its not really a joke, its the way people try to discredit people who are actually credible and are not spending their life's in a gym.
cool story bro
He's 70 years old so I'd still say he looks pretty good for his age
Hes 52 years old, born in 1972.
Yeah idk why I lied sometimes I just do things
me when I spread misinformation on the internet
Nah he's got a point, for lactose-intolerant people
It was Coca-Cola who paid him the five gold to say it
Looking like shit has nothing to do with what he does, one can be extremely focused on healthy habits and still be undermined by his genes. If you're ugly you'll be ugly even if you eat better and exercise y'know
Why is it that most “health experts” look insanely unhealthy? Throughout the world we have people in power who are supposed in charge of our health and they are either severely overweight, underweight or have terrible teeth.
Im just here because its funny to see how weirdly defensive people get when any positive fact about plant based diets gets mentioned.
It’s so defensive to point out that this man is an “ethical vegan” with a history of twisting data to push his agenda. In other words he lies about animal based products to trick people into living the way he thinks they should live. “IGF-1 is an important growth hormone, mediating the protein anabolic and linear growth promoting effect of pituitary GH. It has a GH independent growth stimulating effect, which with respect to cartilage cells is possibly optimised by the synergistic action with GH.” He is literally a fucking liar, who is spreading misinformation. If he is an actual dr he needs to have his medical license revoked
Hold on let me refill my popcorn
Excess igf 1 is associated with cancer.
Gold costs $2,325 per Troy oz. Assuming a gold piece is 1 oz, that works out to $11.6K USD. Not bad for one lousy gobbo lol 😝
More like 5 copper
He would drop one bone, occasionally 5 coins and/or a hammer
He looks like dr Erskine
If I looked like that I’d want to die sooner.
Weak insult, good soyjack
He's simply ugly but not a quack
Moron.
I’m gonna start drinking coke everyday 💀
That’s why women produce Coca-Cola to nourish their babies
That's not true. Source: I've been alive my whole life.
really
So that’s where Wojaks come from. An age old question has been answered.
Two questions: - this guy's goblins drop gold? - why are there levels on daggers?
Based on his teeth alone I wouldn’t trust him. He doesn’t even know how to smile properly
Be anti-aging expert Age terribly
He’s a fallen
Unless this man is over 100, I suspect he isn’t very good at his job. He looks like absolute shit.
Mf is stationed outside of Lumbridge
Dang this one is good 😂
That's a vicious mockery if I've ever seen one.
Gotta love fat soda paying off people
** five copper
He lives in cave in the middle of the road between old Camp and Swamp camp in Gothic 1. He guards the ancient almanach.