[nutritionfacts.org]

An easy 58 minutes to laugh and learn. I haven't spent a better hour in a long time. I not only learned while watching it, my stress abated and I was more mellow than I have been in a long time. Enjoy. If you want to send a DVD to a friend, it's $10.

Paul

This was super duper informative, so I thank you for posting it, Paul. Also, what a deLIGHTful man Greger is, which is something that doesn't come across in his audio posts, my main point of familiarity with him. I'd like to buy that man [vegan]dinner!

That was a terrific video! Thank for sharing. I've never heard of Dr. Greger before so I've got a whole new websight to explore. Sending the link to friends and family.

I was really disappointed when Greger made reference to the Nurses’ Health Study around the 1 minute mark because “nutritional analysis by recall questionnaires is notoriously unreliable” - see PS below. However, I loved the very end where he shows the Credentials of the Members of the Advisory Committee on the USDA and this snippet from the Food and Drug Law Journal:

Members of the Advisory Committee are no less susceptible to influence and bias. They can manipulate the Committee’s recommendations by selectively relying or not relying on particular science in order to justify their desired outcomes. For example, the 2005 Committee included long and well-cited discussions of the health benefits of eating fruits and vegetables, whole grains and milk products, in attempts to justify the Committee’s recommendations for those food groups.95 But while the Committee also recommends consuming a variety of foods from the “meat and beans” group on a daily basis, there is oddly no discussion at all of the scientific research on the health consequences of eating meat.96 If the Committee actually discussed this research, it would be unable to justify its recommendation to eat meat, as the research would show that meat increases the risks of chronic diseases, contrary to the purposes of the Guidelines. Thus, by simply ignoring that research, the Committee is able to reach a conclusion that would otherwise look improper.

Personally, I would have started my Presentation with this instead of having it at the end, but I guess he wanted to end on a good note, just like the comedian leaves his best joke for the end.

Peace and Love..........John

PS In “What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Menopause” Dr. John R. Lee writes,

“I’m going to give you a rather technical and detailed critique of the Nurses’ Questionnaire Study, because it is the cornerstone of proof for estrogen’s alleged cardiovascular benefits. I want you to understand how easily statistics are manipulated, and how much media hype and advertising can be created around flimsy evidence. I’m also very aware that most mainstream doctors are pushing HRT very hard, largely based on this study. I want you to know the real facts.

The primary impetus for the estrogen/heart disease claim followed the 1991 New England Journal of Medicine report commonly known as the Nurses’ Questionnaire Study, purporting to show that postmenopausal estrogen therapy reduced the risk of dying from heart disease. In truth, this seemingly impressive study is a curious report, being long on statistical abstractions and short on clinical evidence. Its data comes from questionnaires mailed every two years from 1976 to 1986 to a large number of female nurses. In 1976, some 121,700 female nurses returned completed questionnaires. The study population was limited to postmenopausal women free of any history of cardiovascular disease or cancer during the 10 years from 1976 to 1986; 48,470 women were eventually included in the study.” p. 189

“For our purposes here, we will look at only a few of the oddities of the present study. While there is no doubt that a mass of statistical data was collected from these 48,470 nurses, it is odd that such reliance was based on mere questionnaires. For instance, nutritional analysis by recall questionnaires is notoriously unreliable. Yet the authors calculated precise figures for dietary intake of saturated fat, cholesterol, polyunsaturated fat, dietary fiber, and alcohol use from these questionnaires, and then used these figures to make adjustments in risk factors for estrogen and heart disease. Who can recall their precise alcohol and dietary intake over a two year period? p. 190

Well, John, I would assume that, being trained clinicians, the nurses were probably taking scrupulous notes all along in order to have data to enter into questionnaires once they were received. It would have been bizarre for them to have simply winged it on a questionnaire received only every two to four years! The nurses also had to submit to tissue testing, so I think they would have exhibited a certain amount of diligence. Nothing irregular really shows up in the assessments; I am not familiar with Lee's book, but if he had some concrete problem with the methodology of one of the largest epidemiological studies ever, there must be evidence for it elsewhere . . .

Hey Tam, not to be too anal about this, but the Nurses’ Health Study is Not “one of the largest Epidemiological Studies ever” as Wikipedia claims - it’s “one of the largest Cohort Studies ever” and this Study has been responsible for several False Conclusions:

1) In the 1990s, use of HRT was widely believed to confer protection from cardiovascular events on the basis of consistent findings of benefits in prospective cohort studies.56–59 For example, in the Nurses’ Health Study, a prospective cohort study of 59 337 women with 16 years of follow-up, HRT was associated with a significantly lower risk of major coronary heart disease events.57 As a result of this body of evidence, HRT was widely prescribed for this indication. [circ.ahajournals.org]

2) And Low-Fat Diet Does Not Cut Health Risks, Study Finds [www.nytimes.com]

Here is Dr. Joel Fuhrman’s response to the article above…

[drfuhrman.com]
October 2005
Question:
Dr. Fuhrman, What's your view on The New York Times article written by Gina Kolata, that raises the question: can a healthy diet prevent cancer?

Here is a small snippet that addresses the differences between Different Kinds of Studies:

Understanding Different Kinds of Studies

There are different ways of studying the relationship between nutrition and cancer.

Epidemiological studies look at populations with varying characteristics for comparison. These have shown overwhelmingly that there is a connection between diet and cancer.

Case control studies compare two groups: one with the disease in question, and one without. (Past food intake is determined by questionnaires.)

Cohort studies follow two groups over time, looking for differences that appear years later.

As the Times acknowledges, hundreds of epidemiological studies show in any number of convincing ways that there likely is a connection between diet and cancer. In The China Study, for instance (which the Times earlier called “the Grand Prix of all epidemiological studies” and “the most comprehensive large study ever undertaken of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease”) researchers compared the varying diets in various Chinese towns, and found that as the amount of animal products increased in the diet, even in relatively small increments, so did the emergence of the types of cancers that are common in the West. The researchers noted that most cancers increased in direct proportion to the quantity of animal products eaten and decreased relative to the amount of fruits, vegetables, and beans consumed. Areas of China with exceptionally low intakes of animal products were virtually free of the cancers and heart disease that develop in most people living in Western countries.

The China Study is one of many epidemiological studies showing a diet-cancer connection. Among those aged 50-75, cancers of the digestive tract, breast, and prostate are 20 times higher in the United States than in Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand. The huge geographic variability in the incidence of these cancers suggests dietary factors as the main cause. When people from a low-risk country migrate to the United States, their cancer rates increase considerably, and their offspring get cancer at the same rate as other Americans. This demonstrates that the lower incidence of these cancers in Asia is not due to a lower genetic susceptibility in Asians, but rather to the lack of exposure to Western lifestyles.

Fat, particularly animal fat, has been implicated as a cause of cancer, while the consumption of fruits and vegetables had been shown to protect against cancer. For instance, Boyd et al reported on this in a 1993 study published in the British Journal of Cancer, as did Steinmetz et al in a 1996 article in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, and La Vecchia et al in a 1998 article in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention. Studies on laboratory animals also implicate omega-6 oils and saturated fat intake as cancer promoters. (Examples include Hursting et al in a 1990 Preventive Medicine article, Zhao et al in Nutrition and Cancer in 1991, Fay et al in Cancer Research in 1997.)

The Times article draws heavily on the many recent cohort and case-control studies that have been something of a fly in the ointment. They have created confusion and doubt, because with a few exceptions, they have not confirmed the findings of the epidemiological studies.

Case control studies have shown an association with animal fat consumption and cancer, but this was not considered convincing evidence, as patients with cancer have a tendency to exaggerate their prior fat intake on diet recall questionnaires.

The cohort studies are more respected because they follow separate groups over a long time period. The cohort studies have not shown a clear-cut relationship between dietary fat (even saturated fat) and cancers of the breast, prostate, and colon or have only shown a moderate relationship. The Nurses’ Health Study showed that American women who reduced their fat intake did not see a decreased incidence of breast cancer.

Why do the epidemiologic and cohort studies show different results? Do these conflicting results mean that saturated fat is not a significant risk factor for cancer? Is a high-fiber diet that includes large amounts of natural, unrefined plant foods such as fresh fruit, raw nuts and seeds, vegetables, and beans not protective? Is this huge amount of data collected in the China Project and other convincing epidemiological studies wrong?

Cohort Studies: Measuring Too Little, Too Late

Because all the epidemiologic studies can’t be wrong, there are two possibilities. The first is that these cohort studies followed adults who are past the age when diet plays a significant role. The middle-aged adults who attempted to eat more carefully to prevent cancer were already past the age when diet has its most powerful effect. In China, for example, the dietary pattern observed was present during gestation, infancy, childhood, and beyond.

The second possibility is that the lower ranges of saturated fat intake tested were not sufficiently low to be protective. The dietary variation from one group to another may not have been enough to show a significant difference. (For instance, people eating lots of pasta and chicken, but not lots of leafy green vegetables, beans, nuts, etc. would be considered to be eating a low fat diet, but they would not be eating the diet that the evidence suggests would be optimal for cancer prevention. As I explain elsewhere, the key to a healthy diet is nutrient density.)

The bottom line is that these studies on adults in Western countries are not very accurate. They follow adults who made only modest dietary changes later in life, and who were likely past the age when dietary influence can have a profound effect on cancer occurrence.

Peace and Love..........John

All studies have limitations. Prospective cohort studies are considered to be in general more authoritative than retrospective cohort studies where the recall bias you are considered about plays more of a factor or case-control studies.

That said, the Nurses Health Study within its limits is a useful piece of work when put into context. [en.wikipedia.org] Conclusions will change as the weight of evidence and science does. But the method is sound.

The Greger piece quoted several cohort studies though, not just the Nurses Health Study. Much of what we will learn over the next 10 years will be from the Adventist Health Study 2. And what we've learned in a limited way from EPIC cohort study in Britain. Greger has commented how paultry the vegan #s have been in the past. Not so with Adventist 2. This will be very helpful.

Paul

One of the oft sited limitations of the Nurses Health Study are the limits of the cohort itself. "Low fat" for this cohort meant 29 percent fat in the lowest quartile. By comparison, 6 percent fat was typical in some rural counties of the China Study (not a cohort study, but rather an ecological one).

Yes, John, you are right--cohort not epidemiological. [sigh]

<<<Yes, John, you are right--cohort not epidemiological. [sigh]>>>

Tam, you first wrote…

“I am not familiar with Lee's book, but if he had some concrete problem with the methodology of one of the largest epidemiological studies ever, there must be evidence for it elsewhere”

… and to this I wrote…

“…not to be too anal about this, but the Nurses’ Health Study is Not … (and you know the rest)” and the only reason why I brought it up (while I was also apologizing for having to do so, i.e. being anal) was because you asked me for Evidence and that Evidence has to do with the Nurses’ Health Study (a Cohort Study) being in conflict with what you said this study was (an Epidemiological Study), which is reflected in this part of my post – “Why do the epidemiologic and cohort studies show different results? … Is this huge amount of data collected in the China Project and other convincing epidemiological studies wrong?”

Once again, if it was not pertinent, I would not have brought it up, so take your [sigh] and shove it because you made me be ANAL!!!

Peace and Love..........John

It's interesting how putting a smiley emoticon right after an overtly hostile phrase does not necessarily neutralize the hostility of said phrase.

Perhaps I misinterpret certain people's motives, sometimes . . .

Tam, I agree with you because when I see one of these emoticons after something a Psychopath says, e.g. “Poor poor little baby died being fed fruits!(sad smiley)” as chat has done 3 times on a Raw Food Website where most people are eating a lot of Fruit, I too am Suspect. I’m also Suspect when people come to their defense, although I realize most people have NOT developed their ability to reason despite the fact that they appear fairly intelligent.

As far as any hostility, you’re right - you really don’t understand my MOTIVES!!! I have no ego and you or anyone else can attack me all day long and I will NOT reciprocate!!! I NEVER have and I never will attack anyone for attacking me…

…BUT WHEN ANYONE KEEPS OTHER PEOPLE FROM PUTTING AN END TO THEIR SUFFERING or FROM FIGURING OUT THE TRUTH, YOU WON’T BE CONFUSED WHERE I STAND ON THE SITUATION!!!





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2012 09:41PM by John Rose.

John, when you say you can be under Attack, and you need not reciprocate the Attack because you have no Ego, then I question WHO is the one who feels they are under Attack? Why does it appear to us that you are angry at being questioned by Tamukha, and WHO is that is getting angry. Could it be your Missing Ego?

John Rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As far as any hostility, you’re right - you
> really don’t understand my MOTIVES!!! I have no
> ego and you or anyone else can attack me all day
> long and I will NOT reciprocate!!! I NEVER have
> and I never will attack anyone for attacking
> me…
>
> …BUT WHEN ANYONE KEEPS OTHER PEOPLE FROM PUTTING
> AN END TO THEIR SUFFERING or FROM FIGURING OUT THE
> TRUTH, YOU WON’T BE CONFUSED WHERE I STAND ON
> THE SITUATION!!!


So much sweating and shouting.....and all in vain

>Banana ice-cream rocks!<

Brian,

First of all, I do not need to have an “Ego” nor am I acting out of my “Ego” when I see someone call me a name or twist what I say or make something up or attack me in anyway, which is why I have NEVER attacked anyone for attacking me. However, if I sink down to their level, then I am acting out of my “Ego” and that is the point I was trying to make. It’s kind of funny because as soon as I read what I posted about “Not having an Ego,” I thought to myself, I bet someone is going to be ANAL about this.

So Brian, don’t you see what Tam is doing to us?

First she made me be ANAL and now, she’s doing it to you!

Secondly, if you want to believe that I am angry when I am not, believe what you want, but just because you think I’m angry does not mean everyone jumps to the same conclusion. Even Tam admits that her assumption could be wrong. Don’t you get it Brian? She made me be ANAL!!! Doesn’t that just make you want to SCREAM!!!

By the way, any time I’m not sure how to act or how to evaluate my actions and the actions of others, I always rely on answering 2 questions: How can I help? What’s in it for me? Our answers reveal whether we are coming from the Spirit or the Ego. If you’re not helping, you are coming from the Ego. So, any time we don’t ask ourselves how we can help, we are selfishly feeding our Ego.

Peace and Love..........John

>She made me be ANAL!!! Doesn’t that just make you want to SCREAM!!!

no one makes you be anything, JR.

and your desire to scream is your issue.


while i agree that (to me) there is a lot of disinfo and it can cause frustration because of ones empathy for others ignorance and suffering, we can only manage our own words and actions and hope for the best without coercion.

IT'S A JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

didn't sound like a joke to me.

-----------------
So Brian, don’t you see what Tam is doing to us?
First she made me be ANAL and now, she’s doing it to you!
Don’t you get it Brian? She made me be ANAL!!! Doesn’t that just make you want to SCREAM!!!
--------------

It must be me - I just find the word ANAL Funny.

Hey Gary,

You might find this interesting in regards to that Personality Profile I did for you back in 2000…

August 21, 2000

Dear Gary:

Enclosed is a copy of the personality test. Since you are so ANALytical, you’re going to love the precision of this knowledge. The only drawback to this test is that some personalities are so concerned about autonomy, that they are reluctant to give accurate answers. It’s real obvious to me when I give this test to those people, because they are nothing like who they claim to be. Other than the fact that some people are secretive and don’t give accurate answers, this test is amazingly accurate. Of course, the main reason why I like this test is because it helps you understand other personalities, especially the ones who are perceiving reality just the opposite of you. This will be real obvious to you once we go over the results and you read my notes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The reason why I’m bringing Personalities into this discussion has a lot to do with why I find the word ANAL to describe High Green Personality Types to be so Funny and that’s partly because Green is my overall Low Color or Personality Trait and you can tell a lot about a person by their overall Low Color or Low Personality Trait. In contrast, those people who are ANAL or the High Green Personality Types usually find no Humor at all in ANAL Jokes. It seems that most people have a hard time laughing at themselves.

As Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once said…

“Nothing shows a man's character more than what he laughs at.”

And one more thing - what kind of Humor do you expect from an Excremental Scientist?

Peace and Love..........John

PS I guess I’ve always been fascinated with Freud’s stages of normal psychosexual development (see PPS below) and if you remember Jerry Knox the Enema Man, you might also remember this - “When you find a person that is violently anti-enema or colon hydrotherapy you have found an anal retentive that was negatively toilet trained.” I’ve been using this Personality Profile for over 20 years in my business and I can spot a High Green a mile away and I haven’t met one yet that wants anything to do with Enemas, including its effectiveness for those who need them. But then again, the ANALS will disagree.

PPS Here is a small section from my file on Anal Retentive…

[www.randomhouse.com]
I've heard the term "anal retentive" used much too frequently and by people who seem to interpret it differently. Can you clarify the correct meaning, please?

The expression anal retentive derives from psychoanalytic theory. Sigmund Freud theorized that after birth, a person progresses through a series of stages that, in a healthy individual, would reach an adult state of low anxiety, mental stability, the ability to interact with others, the ability to have a sexual relationship, etc. Freud’s stages of normal psychosexual development were the oral stage, in which the mouth is the object of gratification; the anal stage, when the anus is the object, and the child is concerned with the retention or expulsion of feces; the phallic stage, when the child shifts its attention to the genitals, but not in an adult, heterosexual way; and the genital stage, when a person seeks gratification in a sexual relationship with another person.

The interruption of any of these stages results in a fixation, which would have various consequences on an adult. A person interrupted at the late stage of the anal development is an anal retentive, and this is thought to result in adult personality or behavioral traits that include orderliness, rigidity, obstinacy, obsession with rules, meticulousness, and ungenerousness. The adjective anal alone denotes this stage, and hence denotes these traits. Despite its origin in psychoanalytic theory, anal is now in broad use, and is sometimes even considered to be a slang term. Example: "I've got to see a picture exactly from the start to the finish, 'cause I'm anal" (Woody Allen, Annie Hall).

The word anal is first found in English in a 1930 psychoanalytic text; anal retentive appears by the late 1950s.
[www.randomhouse.com]

One more thing I have to say about being ANAL…

Tam, I’ll never forgive you - YOU MADE ME BE ANAL!!! Damn You - Damn You All to Hell!!!





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2012 03:49PM by John Rose.

Now, that, IMO, is clear dramatic sarcasm, declared with a trembling hand shielding the eyes, or perhaps with chest thrust outward, jaw clenched, and fists twitching at one's sides. In either case, Bravo!

But, this thread does make it clear that humor is very difficult to convey in this format, and it's understandable when someone has a hard time discerning whether someone else is being funny vs acting upset.

We all mistake one another's tone, at times--regardless of personality type

Hey Tam,

I was wondering if anyone was going to notice that there was a lesson to be learned from this post and I’m not surprised you were the one who pointed it out for everyone else…thanks.

Since we’ve diverged so far from the original post, I thought I might as well go ahead and post another one of my older posts in the hopes that we can all be more understanding of each other’s differences.

[www.living-foods.com]
If the doors of perception were cleansed...
John Rose
8-16-00

Hi Lee,

Not everyone perceives the world the same as you or I do. Fighting words to you may seem as a very catchy slogan to get a very important point out to others. Your comment tells me more about you than it does the slogan itself.

Of all the things that I have studied to help me understand how to get this message out, there is an extremely accurate and applicable personality test that is based on quantum physics and has been one if not the best tools that I have learned. Once again, not everyone perceives reality the same as everyone else. In fact, different personalities have different rules, they think differently...they go from point A to point B differently, and what's important to one personality may not only not be important to another personality, but the other personality is many times totally oblivious to it. This is the source of much, but not all, of the conflict that we see here on this site as well as in real life.

I have studied the 600 page book that the publishers said was too complicated and no one would want to read it, and as far as I know it has still not been published. I have learned how to give this $300 test and I have given it to well over a 100 people free of charge so I could learn from it. Really all this test does is to analyze our choices in life under different circumstances.

Since I've given this test to so many people and since I have studied the book with just as much enthusiasm as I do books on health, I'm getting pretty good at picking up certain clues. For example, Don R. could be described as someone who is friendly, which explains why he avoids any kind of confrontation. When Daniel accused Don as an old man set in his ways, I couldn't help but laugh, because friendly people are also very flexible. Then we have others like tao [fresh], Eden, Jeff N. that are analytical and can sometimes appear to those without that trait as unfriendly, when in fact, it has nothing to do with them, but those who are perceiving them that way. Others are quick to post without thinking and some may think of them as thoughtless. Then we have some that are creative and empathic whose feelings are easily hurt. These are the four main personality traits and usually two traits will dominate in each of the three different circumstances, which gives a total of six different personality modes.

For a quick overview, one group acts and does things quickly, another group talks and does things friendly, another group thinks and does things creatively, and the last group analyzes and does things carefully. Once again, two traits usually dominate in each of the three different circumstances, which creates six different personality modes. If one acts and talks, they are an extrovert. If one thinks and analyzes, they are an introvert. If one acts and analyzes, they are convergents. If one talks and thinks, they are divergents. And finally, if one acts and thinks, they are an individualist, and if one talks and analyzes, they are a conformists. There are actually 12 characteristics in each of the 4 main personality traits so some people have strong traits while others have only moderate traits. In addition to these six main personality modes, there also twelve secondary traits that are based on whether you have one of the four main traits in all three circumstances. For example, if you have the trait that thinks in all three circumstances, then you will have these additional traits...Imagination, Conceptualization, and Empathy.

The problem that many of us have is that we tend to take things too personally, and we don't realize that others have different rules and maybe they don't know our rules. Those who analyze, for example, are perfectionist and may seem to others as critical, because they are looking for what is wrong so that they will be perfect. These personalities are also very skeptical and can be very stubborn, if they get into their negatives. The point is that there is no such thing as a good or bad personality and all personalities have their strengths and weaknesses. And aren't we glad that there are different personalities...this would be a very boring world if we were all alike.

Anyway, I've been wanting to share this information with y’all for some time now and I hope that this will help avoid some of the [otherwise] inevitable conflicts in the future.

Peace and Love...............JR