"Natural" (plant-based) Health Solutions

To put this another way, a major problem with anecdotes is that it is way too easy to cherry pick. "Here's a story about someone who was cured using this treatment." But what they don't tell you is the 99 who tried it and it didn't work. So if you could round up 10 anecdotes of success, that might be convincing all by itself. But when you look at it in context where 100 people tried it and there is only 10 success stories, now it doesn't seem so convincing. Anecdotal evidence is simply finding a story that supports your position and relating it.HBD

Pointless to have a regime you can't follow. From my reading of Esselstyn's FAQ, I doubt that he would approve of any less zealous regime. It's not that. It's that half his sample group had undergone surgical treatments that could be the actual cause of their improvements. This invalidates the study. Oh you're sure. I mean, you don't actually know either way and can't be bothered to find find out, but nonetheless, you're sure.You are extremely quick to claim certainty from a position of ignorance.Mutate and Survive

quote:

---

Watch Lim's presentation.
Watch Forks over Knives.
Watch What the Health

---

In other words look at the advertising instead of trying to dig into the facts.Why would that be a good idea ?

No.I haven't even watched The Last Jedi yet, I'm not about to waste my time watching a bunch of tedious videos about nutrition.This remains a debate forum. If you have something to say, bring it. Defend it. Debate it. If you can't be bothered with that you have no business posting to a debate forum. If you want to promote nutri-woo without having to defend it, post it on your blog.Mutate and Survive

You are starting to rant. Calm down.Mainstream clinicians advise their patients to eat less saturated fat, and take on fewer calories. Cross did exactly that and his health improved. This is no surprise. This is simply false. There are thousands of professional dietitians around the world who practise dietary interventions on a daily basis. Numerous maladies are treated through diet. There is nothing remarkable or "alternative" about this. The diets you recommend are low in saturated fats, high in fruit and veg, low in refined carb's, and high in fibre. That is exactly what your mainstream doctor would recommend.That these fad diets go way beyond what doctors recommend is a flaw, not a badge of merit. I certainly hope that I might dissuade people from thinking that they can treat their cancerous tumours with carrot juice.I would not wish to dissuade anyone from improving their diet. I would simply urge them to stick to scientifically plausible, evidence-based regimes which they can actually manage long-term, rather than wasting their efforts pursuing pointlessly punishing quack regimes. Your apparent reluctance to engage with any form of evidence is very persuasive either.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Seventeen followed it and had no heart problems for twelve years... If it worked he couldn't very well object. But I'm thinking of someone else doing the study. Improvements over twelve years would not be the result of that sort of surgery in people whose diet was unchanged, or even when the diet was minimally modified. They continue to get plaque buildup. And they would not have been included in the exsperiment if they were actually free of the disease. Yes, because that's the aim of all this dietary treatment and in case after case you see them getting off their meds as the diet frees them of the need for them. It just wasn't specifically mentioned for this experiment.

About watching the various films you say Because I may not be doing the best job of getting across the necessary information.

And how often does that mainstream diet radically change the patient's health for the better? No, Cross specifically benefited from the nutritive value of the foods he was taking in. Sure they "treat" them but they have no expectation of curing them, or even getting them off their meds; and they aren't reporting the radical cures of the totally plant-based regimes. Funny they don't cure anything then while the radical alternative diets do make that claim, based on the nutritional value of the foods and not just isolated beneficial factors or the absence of particular problem foods. The emphasis of all these diets is on the nutritional value of each food. The athletes who are on such diets are maybe the best evidence since they claim actual improvement in their strength and stamina and general performance.ABE: Maybe the most appealing (as well as effective) thing about this whole foods plant based diet is the positive emphasis on foods rather than the emphasis on avoidance. I'm really enjoying the berries and other fruits and the nuts and the potatoes and the big salads with greens and beans and mushrooms and nuts and seeds, and even the oatmeal. And I'm still not really doing the diet yet, far from it. I had an egg salad sandwich for lunch, bread I shouldn't eat, eggs I shouldn't eat, mayo I shouldn't eat. I do love the recommended foods on the WFPB regimes but I have to get better organized so they're available when I 'm too hungry and tired to spend time making a meal.[abe] I did better for dinner. Still not up to much prepping. Had a plate of kidney beans, cooked cold cauliflower, cooked carrots, all flavored with oil and vinegar and garlic powder. Berry smoothie which is a vehicle for my vitamin C and other supplements. Put half and half in it to make a frosty berry shake, otherwise it would have been fine for the diet.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Because I may not be doing the best job of getting across the necessary information.

---

Looking at the videos is not a good way of getting the necessary information. Digging into the facts is a much better way of doing that. So again, why should we look at videos rather than digging into the facts ?

The films are good, full of information. Some are more investigative than promotional too, such as "What the Health" and "In Defense of Food," and "Food Choices." I'm now watching another one of that type about the food industry, titled "Food Inc." I've learned a lot watching these films.

They seem more about pushing a particular point of view. What the Health sounds especially bad. Try reading this reviewFilm and video is also not a great choice for actually investigating the real facts. And relying on it is probably one reason you have trouble finding - or even naming - studies to support your claims.

I read some of the review, but it's too long. And the guy has his own agenda anyway, being a Paleo Diet aficionado.

Text still beats video for conveying factual information. And if you are going to dismiss sources purely for bias then I guess yours go as well.I say that comparing sources with different biases - and taking the biases into account - is, in fact, far better than only looking at one side.

He also makes a lot of unsubstantiated assertions in a very dismissive tone.Yes, both sides are biased. Your sources are just as bad, and this one is actually worse.Take all the information with a boulder of salt. The films are worth watching.This one I'm still watchingt, "Food, Inc." is pretty depressing. I think we need a culture that encourages farming to become more local again, raising food including animals on a small scale. More private gardens too. We need regulations that stop the money-focused mega industries in their tracks. That's my conclusion from watching the film's coverage of the animal-and-people-abusing methods of agribusiness, as well as how they are bacteria incubators that cause food poisoning breakouts.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

He also makes a lot of unsubstantiated assertions in a very dismissive tone

---

And that is an unsubstantiated assertion, in a very dismissive tone.The films would take a lot of time to watch - even if they are available for free (I don’t know that they are) - and don’t sound very promising either. If you can’t produce anything really worthwhile from them - and so far you haven’t - I don’t see the point in spending that time.