Grocery Prices

[BG2008]

What are your thoughts on saturated fat and cholesterol?

[BG2008]

What about salt? Any take on what's healthier, eating red meat or eating something that comes in a box from the grocery store.

[rb]

This line of thinking forgets that pre-agricultural people did not live to 70 or 80 years old. So you don't really know whether pre-agri diet was good or not. You don't know which parts of the omnivorous diet were good ones and which ones were not. You know that pre-agri people mostly did not die from food problems, but that actually hurts your reasoning and does not help it.

 

Pre-civilized humanity was pretty interesting in terms of life expectancy. It was essentially a tri-modal distribution: lots of deaths around birth/infancy, around 25-30 (usually dying of tooth infections), and the remainder actually living into their late years (50s, 60s, 70s).

 

Sources?  8)

I'm not gonna dig it up for you, but I know that Sweeden has kept good mortality tables going back a long time. I was really surprised when I first found out.

 

Big surprise, life expectancy isn't really increasing by much and it isn't increasing more than before.

[Jurgis]

This line of thinking forgets that pre-agricultural people did not live to 70 or 80 years old. So you don't really know whether pre-agri diet was good or not. You don't know which parts of the omnivorous diet were good ones and which ones were not. You know that pre-agri people mostly did not die from food problems, but that actually hurts your reasoning and does not help it.

 

Pre-civilized humanity was pretty interesting in terms of life expectancy. It was essentially a tri-modal distribution: lots of deaths around birth/infancy, around 25-30 (usually dying of tooth infections), and the remainder actually living into their late years (50s, 60s, 70s).

 

Sources?  8)

I'm not gonna dig it up for you, but I know that Sweeden has kept good mortality tables going back a long time. I was really surprised when I first found out.

 

Big surprise, life expectancy isn't really increasing by much and it isn't increasing more than before.

 

I did dig a bit, see my edit. And it's not as good as the "ancient humans lived to old age just fine" crowd presents.

Sweden mortality tables clearly do not cover pre-agricultural society either.

 

Edit: I have to acknowledge that I'm not an expert in this and 5 minutes of Google may be uncovering as much mis-information as information. Unfortunately, I am not sure anyone else on this thread is an expert either. So knowing what's true and what's debunked by scientific community would take much longer. I think I'm gonna cede the podium and not try to reach a definite conclusion. Have fun.

 

Edit2: Actually, screw it. I pretty much believe these folks: https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy And they show it's not just child mortality that affects life expectancy. They don't cover the pre-agri societies though and they only have long data from England (and the data you mentioned from Sweden in another graph). So FWIW.  8)

[Guest]

I was hardcore into healthy eating like 7 years ago (after getting married and having kids...I let some things slide a little).

 

While I haven't kept up with the latest research, I don't know how healthy a vegan diet really is. You're missing some important vitamins like B12. You can take supplements for that though. Personally, I'd rather get my vitamins from natural sources. I do think eating some (but pretty low) levels of meat is probably the best bet.

 

I get the feeling that a lot of people are vegan because they don't want to hurt animals. That's fine and all but I'm not convinced that eating super processed food (fake meat) is better than eating grass fed organic beef. From my understanding, all of these studies showing that red meat is so bad for you is based on conventionally grown beef. Grass fed beef tends to be higher in CLAs and more vitamins, less fat, etc.

 

The best book on wheat that I know of is Wheat Belly. I know when I cut off wheat I lost a lot of fat.

 

The Big Fat Surprise and Eat the Yolks are also supposedly pretty good (been on my list but haven't gotten to them yet).

 

 

Overall, I think genes play way more of a factor than our diet though. Look at Buffett!

[Jurgis]

What about salt?

 

Low sodium is very likely good.

[Gregmal]

I'm watching last night's ABC news on Hulu.  This fear over a pork shortage due to covid-19 is such a non-crisis.  The best thing that could probably happen to the US health is to cut meat consumption down by 80%, even 100%.  It's alarming that Trump used an executive order to keep meat packing plants open, so unnecessary.

 

Trigger alert!

 

Doctors hate this trick! I cut my net carbs down to 20 grams/day and all a sudden i lose 40-45lbs in a 16 month period.  I didn't even exercise much.  My diet is a little heavy on bacon and eggs at the moment. 

 

(Eric, to each his/her own.  Keto is the way that I keep the weight off.  Please play along with this faux meat vs Vegan drama that I am creating.)

 

Going whole foods plant-based would get you the same weight loss while also reversing cardiovascular disease, which you are not getting on the all-meat diet. 

 

If weight loss were the only goal I'd rather eat the bacon and eggs like you.  But just remember, the arteries that feed your erections are much smaller than the coronary arteries, so guess what's gonna go first.

 

I don't think my blood work has ever been so good.  Thank you for thinking of my junk.  I think going whole foods plant-based would get me depressed.  Just can't imagine skipping meat, cheese, and seafood.  Honestly, I wish I can do a Vegan diet. I doubt my body is built for that.  But then I said the same thing about carbs and now I feel much better on a higher fat diet.   

 

#All_Out_Keto_Vs_Vegan_War (Joking)

 

 

 

The blood work is not measuring the problem if you are talking about blood lipids:

 

https://www.clevelandheartlab.com/blog/the-gut-the-heart-and-tmao/

 

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/red-meat-tmao-and-your-heart

 

Eric,

 

I don't know what to think of new scientific studies on diets anymore.  For years we were told to eat 10+ servings of carbs a day.  It didn't even distinguish between refined carbs or whole grain.  Eggs were bad, eggs were good, fat was bad, fat is good.  I now try to think about a world without agriculture and what would human being eat then?  I assume that we are naturally omnivores.  We probably ate meat, fish, berries, and some sort of veggies.  Despite thousands of years of civilization, I don't think human metabolism has evolved much.  This is largely due to the fact that humans are very good at surviving and we haven't needed dramatic mutations in our genes to survive in the last 10,000 years or so.   

 

The joke is that "You're not really on a Keto diet, unless you tell people."  I guess the same goes for people on a vegan diet "You're not truly Vegan, unless you tell people."  I am self aware that I am annoying to a fault with my going on and on about Keto. 

 

If red meat causes cancer and limp dick, I guess I'll take my chances.  As I get older, my desire for red meat will likely go down and I'll focus on fish and veggie fats such as avocado etc.  To each their own.  Let's just eat what makes us happy and allow us to believe our own dietary religions.   

 

I think this way of looking at things best fits my outlook. For me, I have switched around different diets, mainly to cater to seasonal trends. IE summer can be very meat heavy, winter holidays are typically carb heavy, etc. But I think the truth is that simply controlling your eating is the best way to go about it, even without a diet. The healthiest I ever was, was probably during a stretch of high school. It was a boarding school type place, so meals were made by the kitchen staff. There was no real rhyme or reason to the food. Eggs one day for breakfast, French toast the next, biscuits and gravy the day after. BUT, every meal there were three portions, small -large, and you picked at the beginning of every month. What you got is what you got. Once a day you had a choice between a granola bar and a piece of fruit. But it was 3 meals and one moderate snack. Physical education was also 3x a week. There wasn't one overweight kid in the entire school.

 

Funny enough, in college, I ate fast food 3x a day. And some friends hated me because a wouldn't gain a pound. Blood work was always good too. Some of it is probably genetics, I was playing hockey at the time as well, but then I hit my mid 20s, and started getting the banker belly. Early 30s I noticed I had to start being even more conscious of what I ate. I remember ready a long time ago about how every 7 years we have an entirely different body. So there's that too. But I think probably the most important thing is just moderation. Too many people eat because they are bored or because it tastes good, not because they are hungry.

[BG2008]

People cite studies all the time.  But you are the expert of your own body.  No scientist will know your body as well as you do.  Non-white people generally can't stomach diary.  Insulin sensitivity is a big deal.  What have I done with my body? 

 

Bulk to to 250 in HS to play football, slim down to 215 to wrestle 3 months later.  Did this a few times in HS.  Went from mostly carb heavy and tried to eat as little fat as possible up till my 30s.  Felt hungry all the time and it was very hard to keep weight off.  Never really felt full.  I used to go on a vicious cycle of putting on weight, then deciding that I had enough of it and going full out cardio for 60 minutes, got burnt out really quickly.  Then my analyst told me about intermittent fasting.  This was completely different than the eating 6 meals a day in small increments.  Never felt better.  Just by stretching out the fasting window and compressing the eating window did wonders to my energy level, mood, focus, etc.  The weight just came off.  It's amazing that you can be taught by various government studies and Harvard studies for decades about how whole grain, veggie heavy diet is great for you.  Yet, I continue to pack 6-8lbs on every year for a long time. 

 

If you think that your own genetics doesn't factor in, you're delusional.  I suspect that some people can eat a ton of diary and red meat and be fine.  Some people are likely much better off on a vegan diet.  What has not changed is that veggies are definitely good for you.  Fish is good for you.  Red meat, eggs, are probably okay in moderation to medium portions.  Diary is probably okay if you are from the Nordic country, you likely need it for Vitamin D. 

 

On genetics, just look at the different body types and the natural rate of body fat on most people.  I know people who can eat fried chicken, pizza, and coke and not gain a pound.  Some people are naturally 5% bodyfat.  I joke that I am the perfect survivor in the wilderness.  Naturally 20+% bodyfat, large frame, decent amount of muscle mass, etc.  I am naturally strong, adds muscle quickly, and can store bodyfat on some excess calories.  Those are the fittest survivor in a zombie apocalypse, not the guys who are 4% bodyfat and have amazing abs.  Those guys starve to death after 2-3 days.  So your genetics likely play a huge role. 

 

People should eat vegan if they think it's more humane for animals.  Yeah, wheat is likely bad for you.  None of the grains are really found in the wilderness.  I am Asian and I love my rice!  But I have cut it out and it has done wonders for me. 

 

Fasting is great and everyone should try it.  It does wonders for hunger control and focus. 

[BG2008]

Eric,

 

Totally separate question, are you finding any back the truck up ideas lately like you did with BAC a few years ago?  I haven't been tracking all your postings, just the ones that we happen to come across.  I always think that when you want to put 50-100% into a name, I should be paying attention. 

[ERICOPOLY]

This line of thinking forgets that pre-agricultural people did not live to 70 or 80 years old. So you don't really know whether pre-agri diet was good or not. You don't know which parts of the omnivorous diet were good ones and which ones were not. You know that pre-agri people mostly did not die from food problems, but that actually hurts your reasoning and does not help it.

 

Pre-civilized humanity was pretty interesting in terms of life expectancy. It was essentially a tri-modal distribution: lots of deaths around birth/infancy, around 25-30 (usually dying of tooth infections), and the remainder actually living into their late years (50s, 60s, 70s).

 

Sources?  8)

I'm not gonna dig it up for you, but I know that Sweeden has kept good mortality tables going back a long time. I was really surprised when I first found out.

 

Big surprise, life expectancy isn't really increasing by much and it isn't increasing more than before.

 

Look at how long the first 6 or so US Presidents lived.  And Ben Franklin.

[ERICOPOLY]

People cite studies all the time.  But you are the expert of your own body.  No scientist will know your body as well as you do.  Non-white people generally can't stomach diary.  Insulin sensitivity is a big deal.  What have I done with my body? 

 

Bulk to to 250 in HS to play football, slim down to 215 to wrestle 3 months later.  Did this a few times in HS.  Went from mostly carb heavy and tried to eat as little fat as possible up till my 30s.  Felt hungry all the time and it was very hard to keep weight off.  Never really felt full.  I used to go on a vicious cycle of putting on weight, then deciding that I had enough of it and going full out cardio for 60 minutes, got burnt out really quickly.  Then my analyst told me about intermittent fasting.  This was completely different than the eating 6 meals a day in small increments.  Never felt better.  Just by stretching out the fasting window and compressing the eating window did wonders to my energy level, mood, focus, etc.  The weight just came off.  It's amazing that you can be taught by various government studies and Harvard studies for decades about how whole grain, veggie heavy diet is great for you.  Yet, I continue to pack 6-8lbs on every year for a long time. 

 

If you think that your own genetics doesn't factor in, you're delusional.  I suspect that some people can eat a ton of diary and red meat and be fine.  Some people are likely much better off on a vegan diet.  What has not changed is that veggies are definitely good for you.  Fish is good for you.  Red meat, eggs, are probably okay in moderation to medium portions.  Diary is probably okay if you are from the Nordic country, you likely need it for Vitamin D. 

 

On genetics, just look at the different body types and the natural rate of body fat on most people.  I know people who can eat fried chicken, pizza, and coke and not gain a pound.  Some people are naturally 5% bodyfat.  I joke that I am the perfect survivor in the wilderness.  Naturally 20+% bodyfat, large frame, decent amount of muscle mass, etc.  I am naturally strong, adds muscle quickly, and can store bodyfat on some excess calories.  Those are the fittest survivor in a zombie apocalypse, not the guys who are 4% bodyfat and have amazing abs.  Those guys starve to death after 2-3 days.  So your genetics likely play a huge role. 

 

People should eat vegan if they think it's more humane for animals.  Yeah, wheat is likely bad for you.  None of the grains are really found in the wilderness.  I am Asian and I love my rice!  But I have cut it out and it has done wonders for me. 

 

Fasting is great and everyone should try it.  It does wonders for hunger control and focus.

 

Dr Caldwell Esselstein’s study is one where he took 24 of the worst of the worst cardiac patients and just put them on his prescribed diet.  None of them had another issue again, which is unheard of, and this began in the 80s. ( I believe one who went back in sugar and lamb chops had another heart attack or stroke ).  Of those who stayed on the diet,  the angiograms show their blockages opening back up, restoring flow.

 

What he is doing with these patients is very different from what qualifies as vegan or vegetarian in other studies.

 

He didn’t cherry pick the Buffett with good genes — he started with a study of 24 of the worst of the worst, triple bypass candidates.  These were his own patients, he didn’t manipulate the study through clever sampling.

[ERICOPOLY]

While I haven't kept up with the latest research, I don't know how healthy a vegan diet really is. You're missing some important vitamins like B12. You can take supplements for that though. Personally, I'd rather get my vitamins from natural sources. I do think eating some (but pretty low) levels of meat is probably the best bet.

 

On supplements...  Not many people eat a diet without fortified foods (milk, orange juice, corn flakes, grape nuts, bread, etc..).  All fortified because your diets with too few vegetables are wholly inadequate.

 

Nutritional yeast is fortified with B12 and that's how I get it.

 

 

I get the feeling that a lot of people are vegan because they don't want to hurt animals. That's fine and all but I'm not convinced that eating super processed food (fake meat) is better than eating grass fed organic beef. From my understanding, all of these studies showing that red meat is so bad for you is based on conventionally grown beef. Grass fed beef tends to be higher in CLAs and more vitamins, less fat, etc.

 

Nobody on a whole foods diet eats the fake meat or the processed sugar.  Iff they did, they wouldn't be on the diet. 

 

There are plenty of unhealthy vegans -- an Oreo cookie is vegan.  Coca-Cola is vegan.  If you do a study on them, pretty sure you'll find heart disease there.

 

Most of the time I try to avoid anything processed.  Wine of course is processed though.

 

BG2008's diet just isn't sustainable.  We can all be whole foods plant-based, but we cannot all be meat based.  Not enough land/water without additional deforestation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cigarbutt]

This line of thinking forgets that pre-agricultural people did not live to 70 or 80 years old. So you don't really know whether pre-agri diet was good or not. You don't know which parts of the omnivorous diet were good ones and which ones were not. You know that pre-agri people mostly did not die from food problems, but that actually hurts your reasoning and does not help it.

Pre-civilized humanity was pretty interesting in terms of life expectancy. It was essentially a tri-modal distribution: lots of deaths around birth/infancy, around 25-30 (usually dying of tooth infections), and the remainder actually living into their late years (50s, 60s, 70s).

Sources?  8)

I'm not gonna dig it up for you, but I know that Sweeden has kept good mortality tables going back a long time. I was really surprised when I first found out.

Big surprise, life expectancy isn't really increasing by much and it isn't increasing more than before.

I did dig a bit, see my edit. And it's not as good as the "ancient humans lived to old age just fine" crowd presents.

Sweden mortality tables clearly do not cover pre-agricultural society either.

Edit: I have to acknowledge that I'm not an expert in this and 5 minutes of Google may be uncovering as much mis-information as information. Unfortunately, I am not sure anyone else on this thread is an expert either. So knowing what's true and what's debunked by scientific community would take much longer. I think I'm gonna cede the podium and not try to reach a definite conclusion. Have fun.

Edit2: Actually, screw it. I pretty much believe these folks: https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy And they show it's not just child mortality that affects life expectancy. They don't cover the pre-agri societies though and they only have long data from England (and the data you mentioned from Sweden in another graph). So FWIW.  8)

Life expectancy, it seems, started to improve with the industrial revolution but urbanization conditions were very poor and a significant part of the improvement (on top of more available calories and general conditions) simply came from better (water) sanitation.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/cutler/files/cutler_miller_cities.pdf

TL;DR version: The gist of this thread is how to deal with excessive dietary affluence but a real game-changer happened when people stopped drinking their own feces and i shit you not.

[Castanza]

This line of thinking forgets that pre-agricultural people did not live to 70 or 80 years old. So you don't really know whether pre-agri diet was good or not. You don't know which parts of the omnivorous diet were good ones and which ones were not. You know that pre-agri people mostly did not die from food problems, but that actually hurts your reasoning and does not help it.

Pre-civilized humanity was pretty interesting in terms of life expectancy. It was essentially a tri-modal distribution: lots of deaths around birth/infancy, around 25-30 (usually dying of tooth infections), and the remainder actually living into their late years (50s, 60s, 70s).

Sources?  8)

I'm not gonna dig it up for you, but I know that Sweeden has kept good mortality tables going back a long time. I was really surprised when I first found out.

Big surprise, life expectancy isn't really increasing by much and it isn't increasing more than before.

I did dig a bit, see my edit. And it's not as good as the "ancient humans lived to old age just fine" crowd presents.

Sweden mortality tables clearly do not cover pre-agricultural society either.

Edit: I have to acknowledge that I'm not an expert in this and 5 minutes of Google may be uncovering as much mis-information as information. Unfortunately, I am not sure anyone else on this thread is an expert either. So knowing what's true and what's debunked by scientific community would take much longer. I think I'm gonna cede the podium and not try to reach a definite conclusion. Have fun.

Edit2: Actually, screw it. I pretty much believe these folks: https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy And they show it's not just child mortality that affects life expectancy. They don't cover the pre-agri societies though and they only have long data from England (and the data you mentioned from Sweden in another graph). So FWIW.  8)

Life expectancy, it seems, started to improve with the industrial revolution but urbanization conditions were very poor and a significant part of the improvement (on top of more available calories and general conditions) simply came from better (water) sanitation.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/cutler/files/cutler_miller_cities.pdf

TL;DR version: The gist of this thread is how to deal with excessive dietary affluence but a real game-changer happened when people stopped drinking their own feces and i shit you not.

 

Hulu recently had an interesting documentary series called “The Food that Built America” was pretty interesting from both a historical business perspective and a dietary/health standard one. As with most significant inventions, they are born out of necessity.

[Jurgis]

TL;DR version: The gist of this thread is how to deal with excessive dietary affluence but a real game-changer happened when people stopped drinking their own feces and i shit you not.

 

No shit!  8)

[Cigarbutt]

...

Hulu recently had an interesting documentary series called “The Food that Built America” was pretty interesting from both a historical business perspective and a dietary/health standard one. As with most significant inventions, they are born out of necessity.

Thanks for the reference; i will check it out.

It seems Heinz was a pioneer (like Henry Ford) in plant productivity and Milton S. Hershey spontaneously knew that corporate responsibility was not a bland statement in the proxy documents. Both firms have evolved and now sell leveraged and edulcorated sugar.

---

Productivity gains along the food chain (from agriculture through efficient supply chains and to the end plate) have been amazing over the years but, like many other things, seem to have reached some kind of plateau. Food inflation is a recurring (and sometimes very relevant) theme as people tend to note when prices go up while overlooking the fact that price inflation overall has shown a very favorable trend. About 100 years ago, the share of food (in-house and out) expenses vs total expenses was 40% and it has settled now at around 9.5% (2019). (Note: the degree of disposable income is an important ingredient here)

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/02/389578089/your-grandparents-spent-more-of-their-money-on-food-than-you-do

Notice the plateau since the dot-com era.

An interesting side effect of these productivity gains is that the typical American, in comparison to when a rocket was first sent on the moon, eats 400 more calories per day while adopting a more sedentary lifestyle. You can follow paleo, keto or Gwyneth Paltrow but, for the large majority of people, Lavoisier's conservation of energy applies.

So, adjusting for inflation and wages, over the last 100 years, the price of bacon has decreased 83% (according to a conservative source). Bacon to the masses and God Bless America.

[SharperDingaan]

On food production..

 

A very large % of existing production is extremely wasteful, and just goes to landfill, particularly in the US - the limitations are water availability, and production volumes at the expense of quality, and wastage. The 'solution' is increasingly being seen as integrated, drip-fed vertical greenhouses and fish/shrimp farms, in run-down urban centres - processing waste water.

 

The poorest neighbourhoods eating the freshest, and highest quality, fish/veggies - because they are the cheapest food available, grown in the neighbourhood, and the largest local employer. The 'farm' now in the city itself - not hundreds of km away. And yes - fish/veggies are not the only tings that are grown in these. Gotta maintain a cash flow  :) ....

 

SD

 

 

[Guest]

While I haven't kept up with the latest research, I don't know how healthy a vegan diet really is. You're missing some important vitamins like B12. You can take supplements for that though. Personally, I'd rather get my vitamins from natural sources. I do think eating some (but pretty low) levels of meat is probably the best bet.

 

On supplements...  Not many people eat a diet without fortified foods (milk, orange juice, corn flakes, grape nuts, bread, etc..).  All fortified because your diets with too few vegetables are wholly inadequate.

 

Nutritional yeast is fortified with B12 and that's how I get it.

 

 

I get the feeling that a lot of people are vegan because they don't want to hurt animals. That's fine and all but I'm not convinced that eating super processed food (fake meat) is better than eating grass fed organic beef. From my understanding, all of these studies showing that red meat is so bad for you is based on conventionally grown beef. Grass fed beef tends to be higher in CLAs and more vitamins, less fat, etc.

 

Nobody on a whole foods diet eats the fake meat or the processed sugar.  Iff they did, they wouldn't be on the diet. 

 

There are plenty of unhealthy vegans -- an Oreo cookie is vegan.  Coca-Cola is vegan.  If you do a study on them, pretty sure you'll find heart disease there.

 

Most of the time I try to avoid anything processed.  Wine of course is processed though.

 

BG2008's diet just isn't sustainable.  We can all be whole foods plant-based, but we cannot all be meat based.  Not enough land/water without additional deforestation.

 

Well, I think it makes sense to try to get vitamins from natural sources - sunshine instead of a vitamin D pill, for instance. I understand a lot of foods are fortified. But that's because of poor diets.

 

Whole foods eating and veganism are two totally different things. I think bg's diet it's probably sustainable but not if the whole world does it.

 

With Esselstein's study, if the patients had small amounts of meat/eggs did they not receive the benefits that he was shooting for?

[ERICOPOLY]

Whole foods eating and veganism are two totally different things.

 

They're not mutually exclusive.  You have whole foods vegans (me), and then there are processed and junk food vegans too. 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

With Esselstein's study, if the patients had small amounts of meat/eggs did they not receive the benefits that he was shooting for?

 

He had nobody like that in his study. 

 

His prescribed diet is the only one that has shown a reversal of cardiovascular disease.  Others have slowed down the progression, but none other has reversed it.

 

[Guest]

With Esselstein's study, if the patients had small amounts of meat/eggs did they not receive the benefits that he was shooting for?

 

He had nobody like that in his study. 

 

His prescribed diet is the only one that has shown a reversal of cardiovascular disease.  Others have slowed down the progression, but none other has reversed it.

 

I looked more into it and this guy has decent criticism.

 

https://theskepticalcardiologist.com/2017/05/14/more-incredibly-bad-science-from-dr-esselstyns-plant-based-vegan-diet-study/

 

Has his diet been studied by others or on a larger sample size?

[ERICOPOLY]

With Esselstein's study, if the patients had small amounts of meat/eggs did they not receive the benefits that he was shooting for?

 

He had nobody like that in his study. 

 

His prescribed diet is the only one that has shown a reversal of cardiovascular disease.  Others have slowed down the progression, but none other has reversed it.

 

I looked more into it and this guy has decent criticism.

 

https://theskepticalcardiologist.com/2017/05/14/more-incredibly-bad-science-from-dr-esselstyns-plant-based-vegan-diet-study/

 

Has his diet been studied by others or on a larger sample size?

 

Bill Clinton is still alive today, following the Dean Ornish diet.  It's fairly close to the one Esselstein promotes -- Ornish allows him a serving of salmon once a week and small servings of nuts, for example.  No other meat and only fat-free dairy.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-almost-everything-dean-ornish-says-about-nutrition-is-wrong/