The internet is awash with claim and counterclaim about what constitutes a healthy diet for humans. How can the average person sort the wheat from the chaff?
I understand your consternation! The targets of my ire in this post are the hucksters who peddle ridiculous dietary plans such as lectin avoidance, or eating nothing but liver, or blaming gluten for every malady under the sun. Nutrition research is far from perfect, but there has been enough well-conducted research, untainted by industry funding, to answer the question 'What should humans eat, in order to live long, healthy lives?' with a reasonable degree of confidence. The fact that researchers and nutrition professionals from very different dietary camps agree on the basics, even though they disagree passionately on the fine details, should be pretty reassuring for the public... and it also gives the lie to the oft-repeated claim that 'nutritionists can't agree about anything, so you might as well just eat whatever the hell you want'.
P.S. It's annoying as hell when clients tell me that some random person on the internet, who has never studied human anatomy, physiology or biochemistry, is telling gullible people to eat such-and-such, and avoid so-and-so, in order to alkalise their body or heal leaky gut or whatever the hell. Mostly these twits just waste other people's time and money, but occasionally they do real harm. Similarly, the 'bush lawyers' who spout their bogus versions of 'common law' annoy the hell out of my husband, an ex-lawyer. Once again, mostly this complete bollocks about using red pen instead of black, and never writing your name in capital letters, and using certain (supposedly) powerful phrases, just wastes people's time and money. But occasionally it results in them getting themselves in really deep shit with the police and courts.
I have been enjoying a lot of your stuff, and this post is very powerful.
I would suggest one more thing: One of the key reasons it has been so difficult to get healthy eating à la Campbell, Esselstyn etc. off the gound, is that maybe Esselstyn had the conviction of seeing how soldiers in Vietnam all had beginning CAD in their 20's, and that showed him how early the problem begins. Campbell had the conviction of his own reasearch showing him how turmors grow with animal protein, at least above a certain level, and how they shrink with plant-based proteins. However, for the consumer, there is no such immediate insight available, until now.
Most cardiology tests are horribly expensive and highly inaccurate. Even an angiogram sports onlyu 37% diagnostic/prognostic accuracy, so a lot is left to the interpretive skills of the cardiologist, and the high malpractice insurance in that filed is testimony to the inaccuracy of the tests, and the fact that cardiologists are often playing a guessing game.
Things are changing now, since the emergence of the MCG, Premier Heart's Multifunction Cardiogram, which is somewhat comparable to an ECG, but with just two leads, not twelve, and it takes 5 exposures in ten minutes, and then mathematically creates a functional model of the heart in operation. ALL other tests only give you a picture of the condition of the heart at one given point in time, all with varying degrees of uncertainty.
I am actively working on the introduction of this test, and it will shift preventive health back from the cardiologist to primary care, and at a time when it is not too late to do something about it. Here are two recent blog posts about the test: https://hippocratessays.com/restarting-wfpb-jumpstarts/
Suddenly, it will become possible to see trouble coming well ahead of time, and to take preventive measures via lifestyle change, long before interventional cardiology becomes unavoidable.
Thanks for the links. I'm looking forward to watching the interview with T. Colin Campbell and Alan Goldhamer, two men whose work has hugely influenced my clinical practice. Do you think the MCG would be useful in identifying people whose hearts have been damaged by COVID injections, but who have not yet had any symptoms?
yes, that is exactly the point. MCG is diagnostic AND prognostic, for it uses 5 time exposuires in 10 minutes, and constructs a mathematical model of the heart in operation. The MCG will detect ischemic changes like nobodyś business, which is exactly what the traditional tests do not do, since they are static images of the structural condition of the heart, not dynamic representation of the functioning of the heart.
Trust the experts? Follow the mainstream? Trust the science? The field of nutrition has a consensus?
Science is dead, long live the science!
Is this the same author who referenced Steven Patterson, and gave us this?
https://empowertotalhealth.com.au/the-death-of-science-part-1/
Ps- I'm just being trite, i know debunking myths is the theme here.
I understand your consternation! The targets of my ire in this post are the hucksters who peddle ridiculous dietary plans such as lectin avoidance, or eating nothing but liver, or blaming gluten for every malady under the sun. Nutrition research is far from perfect, but there has been enough well-conducted research, untainted by industry funding, to answer the question 'What should humans eat, in order to live long, healthy lives?' with a reasonable degree of confidence. The fact that researchers and nutrition professionals from very different dietary camps agree on the basics, even though they disagree passionately on the fine details, should be pretty reassuring for the public... and it also gives the lie to the oft-repeated claim that 'nutritionists can't agree about anything, so you might as well just eat whatever the hell you want'.
P.S. It's annoying as hell when clients tell me that some random person on the internet, who has never studied human anatomy, physiology or biochemistry, is telling gullible people to eat such-and-such, and avoid so-and-so, in order to alkalise their body or heal leaky gut or whatever the hell. Mostly these twits just waste other people's time and money, but occasionally they do real harm. Similarly, the 'bush lawyers' who spout their bogus versions of 'common law' annoy the hell out of my husband, an ex-lawyer. Once again, mostly this complete bollocks about using red pen instead of black, and never writing your name in capital letters, and using certain (supposedly) powerful phrases, just wastes people's time and money. But occasionally it results in them getting themselves in really deep shit with the police and courts.
I have been enjoying a lot of your stuff, and this post is very powerful.
I would suggest one more thing: One of the key reasons it has been so difficult to get healthy eating à la Campbell, Esselstyn etc. off the gound, is that maybe Esselstyn had the conviction of seeing how soldiers in Vietnam all had beginning CAD in their 20's, and that showed him how early the problem begins. Campbell had the conviction of his own reasearch showing him how turmors grow with animal protein, at least above a certain level, and how they shrink with plant-based proteins. However, for the consumer, there is no such immediate insight available, until now.
Most cardiology tests are horribly expensive and highly inaccurate. Even an angiogram sports onlyu 37% diagnostic/prognostic accuracy, so a lot is left to the interpretive skills of the cardiologist, and the high malpractice insurance in that filed is testimony to the inaccuracy of the tests, and the fact that cardiologists are often playing a guessing game.
Things are changing now, since the emergence of the MCG, Premier Heart's Multifunction Cardiogram, which is somewhat comparable to an ECG, but with just two leads, not twelve, and it takes 5 exposures in ten minutes, and then mathematically creates a functional model of the heart in operation. ALL other tests only give you a picture of the condition of the heart at one given point in time, all with varying degrees of uncertainty.
I am actively working on the introduction of this test, and it will shift preventive health back from the cardiologist to primary care, and at a time when it is not too late to do something about it. Here are two recent blog posts about the test: https://hippocratessays.com/restarting-wfpb-jumpstarts/
https://hippocratessays.com/the-heart-of-the-matter/
Suddenly, it will become possible to see trouble coming well ahead of time, and to take preventive measures via lifestyle change, long before interventional cardiology becomes unavoidable.
This test is changing the game forever.
Thanks for the links. I'm looking forward to watching the interview with T. Colin Campbell and Alan Goldhamer, two men whose work has hugely influenced my clinical practice. Do you think the MCG would be useful in identifying people whose hearts have been damaged by COVID injections, but who have not yet had any symptoms?
yes, that is exactly the point. MCG is diagnostic AND prognostic, for it uses 5 time exposuires in 10 minutes, and constructs a mathematical model of the heart in operation. The MCG will detect ischemic changes like nobodyś business, which is exactly what the traditional tests do not do, since they are static images of the structural condition of the heart, not dynamic representation of the functioning of the heart.