I can never understand why it's so hard for people to understand that a lot of bad data is still bad data. Epidemiology CAN be helpful for certain things, but it's not the nitty gritty science we need more of when trying to determine what people should eat. Thankfully we seem to have been getting better trials & studies looking at metabolic health in recent years. I saw on a recent podcast somewhere (cannot remember where, but it was probably The Metabolic Link), but Dr. Dom D'Agostino showed a graph of the # of published studies on ketogenic diets in the past decade, & it has continued accelerating over the years.
Side note, I lol'd at twitter notes saying Frank Mitloehner was a lobbyist.
"I honestly don’t understand what he is trying to say here"
I think he is trying to make a point about if something is unhealthy enough, it could still be discovered even in very crappy data. So even if smokers do a lot of other bad stuff, the act itself is so harmful that the signal is strong enough to get through in the crappy data.
Still seems to me better to look at a quality trial to get good data, like for smokers if we don't know it is bad, we look at a study where we just isolate smoking as the difference between the two groups. Even if that is say 50 people probably better data than 500k people doing a survey.
OK that makes more sense. That would be another very weak argument of Bryan's considering the relative risk (already a very worthless metric) for red meat leading to say cancer is something like 20% but smoking is 1100%. iirc Bradford Hill famously said anything under 200% isn't worth paying attention to
I've been watching your videos for 8 years and have significantly improved my health thanks to you, I consider your approach to learning impressive, and I respect your knowledge a lot.
I want to remind you that both you and Brian are working towards the same goal of improving health and moving health science forward, even if the approaches are radically different, but this is good!
(and making money while doing it, which is understandable)
Two different points of view can lead to a very healthy scientific debate (Newton/Hooke) and usually leads to good results, which is what I'd expect from an intelligent individual like you.
P.S. he's not testing on others, he's testing on himself, he's being a guinea pig, which is admirable and valuable for your knowledge too, you can use this to some degree! Brian is a brilliant example of what will happen if you follow the latest scientific advice for a vegan diet and lifestyle from medical professionals. (He looks a bit unhealthy IMHO)
You don't win a fight by throwing the most punches, you win by throwing the strongest, best aimed ones. How can you be the healthiest when you're catching hooks on the chin?
It seems like Brian is more of a Twitter sensationalist than actually trying to prove something. I’d probably flip a coin as to whether or not he writes his own tweets or his vegan science team does.
Critics completely ignored that we went beyond "observational" to present molecular and cellular mechanisms of harm linked to red meat consumption...
OMG, I can give him numerous mechanisms that prove the opposite. E.g. cancer needs a lot of glucose or glutamine, thus food rich in carbs feeds cancer.
Keep at it dog, fight the good fight.
I can never understand why it's so hard for people to understand that a lot of bad data is still bad data. Epidemiology CAN be helpful for certain things, but it's not the nitty gritty science we need more of when trying to determine what people should eat. Thankfully we seem to have been getting better trials & studies looking at metabolic health in recent years. I saw on a recent podcast somewhere (cannot remember where, but it was probably The Metabolic Link), but Dr. Dom D'Agostino showed a graph of the # of published studies on ketogenic diets in the past decade, & it has continued accelerating over the years.
Side note, I lol'd at twitter notes saying Frank Mitloehner was a lobbyist.
I lost it when I saw the scores better than Bryan's hahah
Someone must be paying him to spread this nonsense. How can anyone be this adamant in ignorance without being paid to do so?
His victi, ehm I mean confused customers do.
I have a strong urge to call him a retard after seeing that burden of proof counterargument
I think his point is saying that eventually red meat will be proven to be harmful just like smoking was in the past. That's a bad argument though.
"I honestly don’t understand what he is trying to say here"
I think he is trying to make a point about if something is unhealthy enough, it could still be discovered even in very crappy data. So even if smokers do a lot of other bad stuff, the act itself is so harmful that the signal is strong enough to get through in the crappy data.
Still seems to me better to look at a quality trial to get good data, like for smokers if we don't know it is bad, we look at a study where we just isolate smoking as the difference between the two groups. Even if that is say 50 people probably better data than 500k people doing a survey.
OK that makes more sense. That would be another very weak argument of Bryan's considering the relative risk (already a very worthless metric) for red meat leading to say cancer is something like 20% but smoking is 1100%. iirc Bradford Hill famously said anything under 200% isn't worth paying attention to
I've been watching your videos for 8 years and have significantly improved my health thanks to you, I consider your approach to learning impressive, and I respect your knowledge a lot.
I want to remind you that both you and Brian are working towards the same goal of improving health and moving health science forward, even if the approaches are radically different, but this is good!
(and making money while doing it, which is understandable)
Two different points of view can lead to a very healthy scientific debate (Newton/Hooke) and usually leads to good results, which is what I'd expect from an intelligent individual like you.
P.S. he's not testing on others, he's testing on himself, he's being a guinea pig, which is admirable and valuable for your knowledge too, you can use this to some degree! Brian is a brilliant example of what will happen if you follow the latest scientific advice for a vegan diet and lifestyle from medical professionals. (He looks a bit unhealthy IMHO)
We evolved canine teeth to open up transmission lubricant cans, obviously.
Does your fasting protocol work for women as well as men?
You don't win a fight by throwing the most punches, you win by throwing the strongest, best aimed ones. How can you be the healthiest when you're catching hooks on the chin?
It seems like Brian is more of a Twitter sensationalist than actually trying to prove something. I’d probably flip a coin as to whether or not he writes his own tweets or his vegan science team does.
Critics completely ignored that we went beyond "observational" to present molecular and cellular mechanisms of harm linked to red meat consumption...
OMG, I can give him numerous mechanisms that prove the opposite. E.g. cancer needs a lot of glucose or glutamine, thus food rich in carbs feeds cancer.
This is excellent counter journalism to Bryan’s weak claims. You’re fighting the good fight, Joe!