• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Deep dive into vegan vs. low carb/keto

NicoleC1971

BANNED
Messages
3,450
Location
Epsom
Type of diabetes
Type 1
Treatment type
Pump

Geek out! Chris Masterjohn (phd nutrtionist and podcaster) reviews a discussion between a vegan cardiologist (Khan) and a low carb expert (Cresser). Good explanation of where the studies quoted come from and how to interpret them.
 
Do angels dance on pinheads? I didn't think there would be enough room mind you I suppose that would depend on how many of them there are.
 
 
Last edited:
Found this blog.

http://treeoflifecenterus.com/blog-posts-by-gabriel-cousens-m-d-deficiencies-on-a-meat-based-diet-2/

"Veganism can be problematic if it involves a high complex-carbohydrate, moderately low-fat diet. This is not the best diet, and deserves to be attacked. A high sugar diet is not the best for longevity, and certainly not the best for diabetes. The best diet is plant-based fat that hasn’t been cooked at high temperatures. Here is an example of how research findings get distorted: Meat-centered diet proponents argue that many studies showed Eskimos did well on meat. This is true, but the Eskimos ate raw meat. Once they started cooking meat, heart disease rates went up dramatically."

Then goes on to say.

"Evolutionary trends are showing that we are moving towards a global vegan diet. It’s meant to be that way. It’s a biblical prophecy, and part of preparing for the prophesized wide-scale moral refinement."

Sounds like a Vegan Crusader making one big erroneous assumption regarding evolutionary processes.
 
JohnEGreen said:
It’s a biblical prophecy, and part of preparing for the prophesized wide-scale moral refinement."
Click to expand...
That statement is scary! Better make myself some eggs and bacon now.
 
Aye. Again with taking the moral high ground (pedestal anyone?).

Well, there's no hope for me as a meat eating atheist.

Hey @briped got enough bacon for me?
 
Ultimately, dietary epidemiology in all camps is a nonsense “science” when it comes to showing causation. It’s prohibitively expensive and almost impossible to build an RCT that can prove causation. The best anyone can expect is association, which is about as conclusive as asserting that blue socks cause cancer. I recall reading not so long ago that a group of resreachers did some dummy epidemiology studies that successfully showed links between all sorts of tenuous rubbish. Not too dissimilar to the blue socks example above. Publish one of these studies in The Guardian and suddenly it’s scientific fact

What epidemiology can do however, is disprove causation through lack of statistically significant association. And there are quite a few such studies showing that much of the commonly accepted dietary dogma is little more than a work of fiction.
 
I've just been reading Moseley's piece regarding EAT Lancet, one point early on stunned me because they recommend just one egg per week as part of the animal protein allowance! One egg isn't enough to fill the gaps between my teeth.
 
Guzzler said:
One egg isn't enough to fill the gaps between my teeth.
Click to expand...
Thanks for reminding me to put them on my shopping list. I've got 3 in my fridge, and you're welcome to them. Tonight's dinner is chicken cordon bleau, if you want some.
 
briped said:
Thanks for reminding me to put them on my shopping list. I've got 3 in my fridge, and you're welcome to them. Tonight's dinner is chicken cordon bleau, if you want some.
Click to expand...

Careful! I will be wanting to move in
 
Guzzler said:
Careful! I will be wanting to move in
Click to expand...
That's perfectly fine, especially if you love cooking I will be meeting another forum member in Copenhagen come May - if Brexit permits. Look forward to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…