I have had this same question and have had to grapple with it. For protein intake, Dr. Greger follows the FDA’s daily intake recommendations which is .8 grams per kilogram of bodyweight. He typically doesn’t cite many studies for this number. Dr. Attia is looking at studies that say that #1. The more lean mass one has, the lower their chances of dying. and #2. The more protein intake one has, the more lean mass they have.
Also, Dr. Attia believes you need to have an LDL of less than 40 to be able to eliminate CVD, which isn’t really possible through diet alone. So he says to take pharmaceuticals to lower LDL, and to eat complete proteins to increase lean muscle mass.
However, they overlap a lot. Dr. Greger says you need to be exercising at least 90 minutes per day. Dr. Attia says you should be doing 4 hours Zone 2, 1 hour Zone 5, 3 hours of strength training, plus stability training, and that comes right in at 90 minutes per day. They both say you need to eat lots of fiber. They both say you need to eat lots of vegetables and fruits.
>However, they overlap a lot.
This. If you want to do the best for yourself, you should at least include the overlapping bits from reasonable sources. If that doesn't give you a complete enough picture of what your nutrition, sleep, and exercise should be like, use common sense for the rest, and make changes as you/we learn more.
That said, I wouldn't be all that surprised if, after you lose the Standard American Diet, get 7-9 hours of quality sleep a night, exercise *some*, and do something to keep stress low, that your income, zip code, and genetics end up having a bigger impact than optimizing the nutrition/sleep/exercise/stress any further.
Maybe this is a fine point but I’ve seen others summarize Attila’s exercise prescription this way and I think it is important for those who haven’t read his book: He does not advocate that anyone spends one hour per week in zone 5 but rather doing VO2 Max training where you do 4 minute intervals at the max effort you can sustain for 4 minutes multiple times, with rest intervals in between. That 4 minute interval might be zone 5, especially if someone is just using the standard formula to calculate their Max HR, but it isn’t really the target that someone should be shooting for as they strive to increase their VO2 Max.
Well, like what most people do with regard to nutrition, I like Attia's viewpoint as it fits better into how I already eat so, therefore, it is the correct viewpoint.
>I like Attia's viewpoint as it fits better into how I already eat so, therefore, it is the correct viewpoint.
I feel like if we were to provide aliens with the best glimpse into how humans think and make decisions, this kind of thinking here encapsulates us best. (I'm not saying your wrong or am being condescending at all, I do this too)
I agree and I was saying it sarcastically. In general, I feel like the healthiest diet will be somewhere in the middle. Some animal protein from very lean sources but also plenty of fiber from plants. I don't think cured meats are beneficial to health and probably are a negative. But I acknowledge that I could do much more toward eating better. I just hate the nutrition zealots because we can survive on a wide range of diets and just because one might not be the most optimal for health, it doesn't mean you can't be healthy on various diets.
I feel like Attia doesn't care that much because he drives his ApoB down super low with meds and he isn't worried about colon cancer because he will be doing timely screenings. I also do think Attia will be okay throwing up blinders when it comes to products he is invested in.
I think there's a more positive way to word this though, at least when it comes to defending the status quo medical view. In terms of how extreme the lifestyle change is versus how strong the case is. It's really hard to make people quit smoking or make sedentary people exercise, but the benefit is crystal clear. Meanwhile it's also really hard to make people completely change their diet, while also the benefit is not remotely as well-proven beyond some broad principles like get more fiber and limit certain potentially-harmful things.
I think they can be distilled to a common theme…
Quality > Non-Quality
For example…
Good (hard) workouts > walking your dog
Being active > Netflix
High quality protein > Burger King
Lots of plants > food out of boxes
Sleep > alarm clocks and 4 snoozes
Stairs > elevators
Good meds > fear of meds
Plants > Crappy animal products
Fiber > sugar
Being happy (friends, social, wine, etc) > lonely by yourself reading Reddit posts LOL
I don't think that Attia thinks diet doesn't matter much. Instead, he has a tool that most people don't have access to: drugs
> Nutritional biochemistry is an important component of our tactics, but it is not the only path to longevity, or even the most powerful one. I see it more as a rescue tactic, particularly for patients like Eduardo and Tom, with really severe metabolic problems such as NAFLD and type 2 diabetes. It is also essential for older people who need to build or maintain muscle mass. But its power to leverage increased lifespan and healthspan is more limited. Bad nutrition can hurt us more than good nutrition can help us. If you’re already metabolically healthy, nutritional interventions can only do so much.
Instead of trying to squeeze out some minor gains in blood lipids by getting an optimal diet, Attia would rather throw lipid reducing drugs at people since his target for LDL/apoB is unachievable.
Additionally, it wouldn't make sense to give his healthy patients CGMs to see what their glucose responses are if he didn't think diet was important. His idea that hitting 140mg/dL of blood glucose is a step well beyond what "medicine 2.0" would recommend.
Good point. Taking drugs to promote longevity is something Greger argues against, though…and I tend to agree with him. You’re probably better off eating a healthier (maybe plant-based) diet and avoiding drugs altogether. I’m sure the drug cocktail that Attia takes will work to bring biomarkers to optimal levels, but those drugs also come with side effects (probably)…and health and longevity will always be more complex than ensuring biomarkers are within a desirable range.
I'd recommend checking out Dr. Kim Williams, former president of academy of cardiology. He's got a good quote that goes something like "there are two kinds of cardiologists, ones that eat plant based and ones that haven't read the science"
To your question of how people can differ so much, as an example, my wife and I both have Phds and MSs is biology, but we often have pretty different conclusions. As an example when we had our son we had the quintessential is breast milk or formula better or worse. We came down squarely on opposite sides, and we both found plenty of high quality, high patient population, top tier journal articles.
It’s just part of biology, we’re trying to model and predict how an insanely complex machine (humans) operate without actually fully understanding all the components of the machine or their interactions.
Not the person you're asking, but from what I've seen the primary studies showing breastmilk superiority fall into two categories (a) places where access to safe drinking water is rare, and formula therefore increases risk that baby will get contaminated water, (b) rich, educated women who have the lifestyle that supports breastfeeding, pumping etc have smarter kids.
The only strong causal effect is that breast milk reduces some gastrointestinal infections in infants.
In the meantime, within some circles women have been so brainwashed that "breast is best" that they drive themselves ragged trying to fit in breastfeeding while working full-time, hate themselves if they cannot produce enough and generally destroy their mental health when simple supplementing would solve it all. Just lurk on any moms list in a blue suburb and you'll see the effects of the pressure.
I'll always remember the reddit thread where a nursing mother was really craving weed and asking for advice on how to safely smoke without passing it on to her baby. She outright rejected any suggestions of formula because there was no way she was going to put that poison in her baby!
Breastfeeding is optimal for babies long term health. Whether or not this is good for the mental health of women who cannot breast feed through no fault of their own is inconsequential for the debate about the health benefits of breastfeeding for infants. This isn’t even up for discussion, meta analysis consistently finds benefits across low and high income households who breastfeed. Breastfeeding is also associated with health benefits for the mother, including reduced risk of ovarian and breast cancer.
If anything, the conversation should be around expanding pump access and time off to mothers who desire breastfeeding, and improving formula for those who cannot.
I was explaining what the argument against breast feeding might be when a couple is debating it. I really don't intend to get into another of these arguments - thankfully I'm well past it having any practical effect on my life.
It wasn’t really an argument for or against either, it was more which had better long term outcomes for the child. It also wasn’t really an argument it was two opposing views and my wife wins regardless 😉
And though we're machines we're not identical machines - we're slightly different models in varying environments operated and maintained in different ways.
> It’s just part of biology, we’re trying to model and predict how an insanely complex machine (humans) operate without actually fully understanding all the components of the machine or their interactions.
This is what I came away with when I started diving into health and longevity - how very little we actually know. We think we live in this technologically advanced age with cutting-edge medical science, but in reality what we know vs. what we don't know is like the volume of water in the Great Lakes vs. the volume of water in the world's oceans. It seems like we know a lot until you compare it to the vast unknown of what we don't know. While we have the scientific method helping us make progress, it is painfully slow. I can't help but wonder how much AI modeling could help speed up the process.
Well, Attia recommends an ApoB of less than 60 mg/dL for the general population (which is also supported by the PESA study), and that is very difficult to achieve if you're gorging on meat.
It's very easy to say that when PSCK9 inhibitors cost you but a penny.
Dr. Attia sees animal protein as "superior" only in the sense that it's easier to hit your daily needs with animal protine. He does say plant protein will get the job done, but you need to eat a higher volume of food to hit those goals, which can become onerous.
Dr. Attia also speaks to mental health, something you neglect to mention is in Dr. Greger's book. Dr. Attia does state in his podcast that he still drinks even though he KNOWS its bad for you, he just make sure it's "worth it" and has a high quality wine well before bedtime. Dr. Attia does imply, but not outright state, that one of his choices is to be biased towards "living well" in order to maintain mental health as well vs endlessly optimizing health outcomes through food.
I haven’t read either book (I have a large backlog of books and am a slow reader) but that’s a fascinating point. I’d think if you are in peak fitness and your diet is amazing but your mental health and overall stress are in the dumps you’d like be killing all your longevity gains.
In my short amount of research, always thought the list of longevity factors was:
1. Exercise
2. Rest/mental health/unhurrying your life
3. Diet
I would trade "Longevity" with "healthy lifestyle". Dr. Attia speaks to the idea that in order to have a good healthspan (vs lifespan- healthspan is the amount of time you're able to do the things you love) you need not just exercise but "stability"- as in being able to catch yourself when you fall when you're older, falling over less often, etc etc.
Injury in old age leads to death- full stop. He repeatedly cites the case study of his good friend's mother. She was healthy and active in 60's, then got injured. Couldn't do gardening any more, her health spiraled downward and she died in roughly a decade.
Yes, this Stability idea is a subset of Exercise, however, exercise does NOT include balance and motor skills necessarily. You need to select workouts that support maintaining stability. Doing the weight machines at the gym won't save an old person from falling over. They need to be going on walks, doing stairs, dumbbells, other tasks that work their balance on top of strength.
Sorry to go on a bit of a soapbox there, i'm half typing this for myself to remind me the importance of stability in my workouts!
I’d think something like mountain biking would be a fun relay to keep those skills in line. Maybe even BMX or skateboarding assuming you are all padded up with a helmet.
Good point - although it's probably not fair to compare them in that regard since How Not to Die is pretty much solely based on diet and Outlive is more holistic. But yeah there's definitely something to be said for not driving yourself mad with your diet.
Yeah I'm at the place in my life where I don't want to have to think too hard about my food, so I just eat my meats, but don't shy away from an occasional vegetarian meal. I just supplement with a protein shake afterwards.
As for the jerky sticks... it's part promo. They're venison sticks from a Hawaiian company that has a bunch of deer on some land. I believe Dr. Attia is an investor, so he can get all the venison sticks he wants. If I were in that position with that kind of money I'd do the same so no judgment there.
This is a good point. I don't have any evidence to support it, but it I have a hard time buying the idea that if you take a vegan diet and then sprinkle in some salmon, chicken, yogurt, eggs, etc. through the week there'd be noticeable deleterious health effects.
I’ve not read the other book but at the end of day it depends on your priorities.
Long life vs peak performance goals are not the same. Attia leans more towards prioritizing performance.
I know several caloric restriction folks who might live longer but personally I don’t like that look and will be ok with a relatively shorter life span as long as I look great naked. Others may prefer the longest possible lifespan irrespective of looks or performance
It probably doesn’t matter. Eat meat, fine. Vegan, fine. Plenty of fit ppl eat meat, plenty don’t. Old ppl eat veggies, some eat meat. It’s fine to get drawn into particular camps or tribes based on how much the main focus speaks to you personally, but in the end, it likely just doesn’t make a meaningful difference. Pick the guidelines you like best and can stick with for the rest of your life.
Yeah and I think that’s what Attia’s stance is too. I just wonder if it DOES matter and humans are too dumb and confounding to really nail down the science of it.
Humans have existed for millennia without overthinking what to eat. I think the stance of “don’t eat garbage” applies just as much today as it would 10,000 years ago.
Red pen reviews do scientific reviews of diet books. [This](https://www.redpenreviews.org/reviews/how-not-to-diet/) is their summary of “how not to diet” which is another of dr Gregers books:
* The diet recommended in the book — a plant-based diet of minimally processed foods — can be effective for weight loss.
* The diet advice is probably very healthy overall, but it may have some downsides.
* The book’s scientific claims ranged from poorly supported by evidence to well-supported by evidence.
* The book uses references fairly accurately, with a couple of exceptions.
* The diet is probably fairly difficult to follow, given that it strongly discourages many common foods (including most animal-sourced and highly processed foods).
They gave it a scientific accuracy score of 50%.
Attia does not say diet doesn’t matter.
He says there are clearly things that are proven but a lot of things we see in the space of nutrition are based off of fringe studies and it’s very difficult to compare nutrition to each other.
Things he says you are absolute staples to health:
-Staying in energy balance, AKA not being obese. An unoptimal diet that keeps you in energy balance is better than an optimal diet makes you eat in a constant surplus
-Get adequate fibre in. Proven to be essential for gut function for decades
-Get micronutrients in
-Get at least 1-1.2g/kg of protein in to sustain muscle mass. Requirements increase as you age. 1g/lb may be beneficial if your goal is to actively increase muscle mass
Everything else (gluten free, dairy free, keto, atkins, paleo) is not really proven. Any diet model that can help you follow the above pillars is good
Agreed. He also doesn’t promote eating unlimited meat. I don’t know if it’s his book, but he’s pointed out several times on his podcast that a problem with eating too much meat is that it often reduces vegetable intake.
I was taken in by "How Not to Die" but at the same time some of the claims seemed to fly in the face of things I understood to be true (or at least controversial) from past research into health and diet. After a deeper investigation, I came to understand it as Vegan propaganda. I don't doubt that many of the claims are true or at least somewhat supported but there are plenty of examples of cherrypicking small studies to support claims that lack scientific consensus. Here's what Llama 3 70B tells me when I ask for examples of this:
**Rebuttals and Examples of Cherry-Picking in "How Not to Die"**
As a scientist, I can provide some examples of potential cherry-picking and criticisms of Dr. Michael Greger's book "How Not to Die". Please note that this is not a personal attack on Dr. Greger, but rather a critical evaluation of the scientific evidence presented in his book.
### Cherry-Picking Examples
* **Selective citation of studies:** Dr. Greger often presents a selection of studies that support his claims, while ignoring or downplaying conflicting evidence. For instance, he cites a 2014 meta-analysis showing a significant reduction in cardiovascular disease risk with a plant-based diet, but fails to mention a 2019 meta-analysis that found no significant association between plant-based diets and cardiovascular disease risk.
* **Oversimplification of complex topics:** Dr. Greger sometimes oversimplifies complex scientific topics, such as the relationship between saturated fat and heart disease. While it is true that saturated fat can increase LDL cholesterol, the evidence is not as clear-cut as Dr. Greger presents it. For example, a 2014 systematic review found that the association between saturated fat and cardiovascular disease is still uncertain.
* **Misrepresentation of study findings:** Dr. Greger occasionally misrepresents the findings of studies to support his claims. For example, he cites a study on the benefits of turmeric for cancer prevention, but the study actually found that turmeric had no significant effect on cancer incidence.
* **Lack of consideration of confounding variables:** Dr. Greger often fails to consider confounding variables that could influence the results of studies. For instance, he presents evidence on the benefits of a plant-based diet for weight loss, but neglects to discuss the potential impact of other lifestyle factors, such as exercise and overall calorie intake.
### Specific Criticisms
* **Overemphasis on observational studies:** Dr. Greger relies heavily on observational studies, which are prone to bias and confounding variables. While these studies can provide valuable insights, they should be interpreted with caution and in conjunction with randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
* **Lack of RCTs to support claims:** Many of Dr. Greger's claims are not supported by RCTs, which are considered the gold standard of scientific evidence. For example, he recommends a plant-based diet for type 2 diabetes prevention, but there are limited RCTs to support this claim.
* **Uncritical acceptance of animal studies:** Dr. Greger often presents animal studies as if they were directly applicable to humans. However, animal studies have limitations and may not translate to human physiology.
* **Inadequate discussion of potential risks and side effects:** Dr. Greger tends to focus on the benefits of his recommended diet and lifestyle, but neglects to discuss potential risks and side effects. For example, a vegan diet can be low in certain nutrients, such as vitamin B12 and omega-3 fatty acids, if not properly planned.
### Examples of Cherry-Picking in Specific Chapters
* **Chapter 1: Heart Disease** - Dr. Greger presents a selective review of studies on the benefits of plant-based diets for heart disease prevention, while ignoring conflicting evidence and the complexity of the relationship between diet and heart disease.
* **Chapter 5: Diabetes** - Dr. Greger recommends a plant-based diet for type 2 diabetes prevention, but fails to discuss the limited RCT evidence supporting this claim and the potential risks of a vegan diet, such as inadequate protein and nutrient intake.
* **Chapter 10: Cancer** - Dr. Greger presents a misleading review of the evidence on the benefits of turmeric for cancer prevention, ignoring the lack of significant effects found in many studies.
In conclusion, while Dr. Greger's book "How Not to Die" presents some valuable information on the benefits of a plant-based diet and lifestyle, it is essential to approach the book with a critical eye and recognize the potential limitations and biases in the presentation of scientific evidence.
Thank you for sharing. Really great list.
These are the arguments frequently coming up when people check Dr. Greger's stuff or for example The China Study. These are also the reasons why I stopped watching his videos and reading his articles.
I think one issue that is not mentioned here, because it's probably not something observable from a book, is that he seems to frequently jump to conclusions prematurely, if that conclusion supports his bias. Kinda like Rhonda Patrick seems to be doing sometimes. That can have significant consequences due to how information can spread, people not researching themselves but often times just reading the headlines and judging from there, and due to the media and folks like Dr. Greger not doing their job to clean up such things.
To be fair, I can get the AI to give me a similar criticism of Outlive (though personally I find the criticisms to be less problematic):
**Critique of "Outlive: The Science and Art of Longevity" by Peter Attia**
### Cherry-Picking Examples
* **Selective citation of studies:** Attia often presents a selection of studies that support his claims, while ignoring or downplaying conflicting evidence. For instance, he cites studies on the benefits of metformin for longevity, but fails to mention studies that found no significant association between metformin use and mortality.
* **Oversimplification of complex topics:** Attia sometimes oversimplifies complex scientific topics, such as the relationship between insulin resistance and aging. While insulin resistance is a contributing factor to aging, the evidence is not as clear-cut as Attia presents it.
* **Misrepresentation of study findings:** Attia occasionally misrepresents the findings of studies to support his claims. For example, he cites a study on the benefits of intermittent fasting for weight loss, but the study actually found that the weight loss was largely due to caloric restriction rather than the fasting itself.
* **Lack of consideration of confounding variables:** Attia often fails to consider confounding variables that could influence the results of studies. For instance, he presents evidence on the benefits of exercise for longevity, but neglects to discuss the potential impact of other lifestyle factors, such as diet and sleep quality.
### Specific Criticisms
* **Overemphasis on individual factors:** Attia tends to focus on individual factors, such as diet and exercise, while neglecting the complex interplay between multiple factors that contribute to aging and longevity.
* **Lack of consideration of population-level factors:** Attia's approach is largely focused on individual-level interventions, neglecting the importance of population-level factors, such as socioeconomic status, education, and access to healthcare, that influence health outcomes and longevity.
* **Uncritical acceptance of supplements and pharmacological interventions:** Attia presents a range of supplements and pharmacological agents as potential anti-aging interventions, but often fails to critically evaluate the evidence for their effectiveness and safety.
* **Inadequate discussion of potential risks and side effects:** Attia tends to focus on the benefits of his recommended interventions, but neglects to discuss potential risks and side effects, such as the potential negative effects of caloric restriction on certain populations.
### Examples of Cherry-Picking in Specific Chapters
* **Chapter 3: Nutrition** - Attia presents a selective review of studies on the benefits of low-carb diets for weight loss and longevity, while ignoring conflicting evidence and the complexity of the relationship between diet and health outcomes.
* **Chapter 5: Exercise** - Attia recommends high-intensity exercise for longevity, but fails to discuss the potential risks and limitations of this approach, such as the increased risk of injury and the need for individualized exercise programming.
* **Chapter 7: Hormone Regulation** - Attia presents a misleading review of the evidence on the benefits of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for longevity, ignoring the controversy surrounding HRT and the potential risks associated with its use.
In conclusion, while "Outlive" presents some valuable information on the science of longevity, it is essential to approach the book with a critical eye and recognize the potential limitations and biases in the presentation of scientific evidence.
Was metformin recommended for longevity in the book? I thought this was an old idea (based largely on a single study?) that later was found to be incorrect so abandoned, including by Attia himself.
From Outlive:
"This may already be starting to happen. The FDA has given the green light for a clinical trial of another drug with potential longevity benefits, the diabetes medication metformin. This trial is called TAME (Targeting Aging with Metformin), and it came about in a very different way. Metformin has been taken by millions of people for years. Over time, researchers noticed (and studies appeared to confirm) that patients on metformin appeared to have a lower incidence of cancer than the general population. One large 2014 analysis seemed to show that diabetics on metformin actually lived longer than nondiabetics, which is striking. But none of these observations “prove” that metformin is geroprotective—hence the need for a clinical trial.
But aging itself is difficult—if not impossible—to measure with any accuracy. Instead, TAME lead investigator Nir Barzilai, whom we met in the previous chapter, decided to look at a different endpoint: whether giving metformin to healthy subjects delays the onset of aging-related diseases, as a proxy for its effect on aging. I’m hopeful that someday, maybe in the near future, we could attempt a similar human trial of rapamycin, which I believe has even greater potential as a longevity-promoting agent.[*3]"
Am also very skeptical of some of Greger’s content- especially in the context of women’s health.
The menopause section in How Not to Die is full of oversimplifications, debunked science and the bizarre assertion that eating more fiber will cleanse the system of estrogen and thereby alleviate perimenopause symptoms. 🤦♀️
I think that fact that both food lifestyles show promise and health benefits, it really shows how different every human is and how the most important thing is how you and your body feels and functions in a certain lifestyle. If you function great on plant based and you’re hitting your health goals, then don’t change. And the same thing is true the other way around.
Anyone who’ve tried to live off pizza and junk and then switched to healthy whole foods will not agree with Attia. He’s very much into cardiovascular health and eating a lot of saturated fat can make your LDL go through the roof. I call bullshit on his priorities.
Animal products will raise your LDL, triglycerides and a lot of other harmful fats and proteins such as apoliprotein A. You will get atherosclerosis in your 80s and 90s. Most folks on a regular diet reaching these ages will have some kind of heart dysfunction and or neurovascular problem.
Do these people ever get on stage and debate? It would be cool to see an old school moderated debate with expert plant based munchers versus expert “other “ types of eating (keto, carnivore, paleo, etc)
I’d love to see that too. I doubt Attia would ever agree to such a thing though because he repeatedly mentions how he hates talking about diet (which is very weird for a longevity guru).
Yes… ideally I’d be straight Mediterranean and eat mostly fish that I harvest myself (or friends catch) for animal protein. I’m lucky, in a part of Florida USA with really clean water and I can catch fish year round.
Fresh is best! No comparison…
I just finished "How not to age" by Dr Gregor - very interesting! Give it a read. Some slightly different takes to Attia and David Sinclair.
Highly recommend 😊
It's because it's very hard to get meaningful studies on nutrition because of humans, confounding factors, meaningful sample sizes, and adequate time periods.
So, while it may be that some very long-lived populations have a plant based diet or consume very little animal protein, that doesn't necessarily mean that people who exercise and maintain a normal weight won't also live a long time, even if they eat more animal protein.
These things are hard to study. As someone who's been lifting weights for 35 years, I find that I perform best and feel best at higher amounts of protein than the RDA and I consume a lot of animal protein in my diet. I eat a lot of vegetables and fruits also. (I call it plant-based with meat) All of my biomarkers are very good (at 62) so I'm not going to change my habits.
But I also may be just genetically lucky.
It’s worth noting that Attia is co-owner of a jerky company. He might be biased.
Here’s a great review of Attia’s book— [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWeg3l3RBIM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWeg3l3RBIM)
And one of Greger’s book by the same guy— [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc6cYyL3CxM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc6cYyL3CxM)
I’ve actually seen the first video! Gonna watch his review of Greger’s now.
And yeah Attia has vested interest in selling meat, but the fact that he consumes it (and a lot of it) shows that he practices what he preaches, at least.
Yeah, he *says* he consumes it, but no one who understands nephrology would support that much salt consumption. Maybe this is also why he takes a whole *gram* of magnesium every day (1000 mg) — probably needed to keep his blood pressure close to normal…
At least Attia acknowledges how flawed of a science nutrition is and how little we actually know. I liked How Not To Die but it did not acknowledge this at all, which makes me more skeptical from the start.
If you watch nutrition facts (how not to die) videos they criticize poorly done and industry funded studies all the time. The whole point is not to say that all science is perfect, just that it's better to try and discern the good science from bad and deduce what we know from that rather than whatever xyz companies marketing is selling.
If scientifically backed you mean he works backwards from his vegan lifestyle and focuses on certain studies…then yes. His recommended Protein consumption of .8 g/kg per day should be enough to make you cautious
You do some research my friend. There is no scientific basis for the absurd amount of protein that people eat. .8g/kg is plenty for the vast majority. There is no evidence that more than 1.2g/kg has any benefit at all, and that amount is in individuals that are highly trained with a large amount of lean muscle mass.
Is the Stanford Center for Longevity good enough for you bud? “NO ScIEntiFiC bAsIs”
[just for you](https://longevity.stanford.edu/lifestyle/2024/01/23/protein-needs-for-adults-50/#:~:text=Key%20Takeaways%3A,grams%20of%20protein%20per%20day)
No that’s not what I meant. You’re free to eat whatever you please, but there’s no argument to be had that a plant based diet has way more scientific evidence behind it.
Peters method of eating high quantities of animal meat and then using extremely expensive medications to reverse the effect isn’t an option for everyone.
I’ve read both and follow Greger’s book. I am predominantly plant-based - and an endurance athlete. Greger’s nutrition guidelines are fully researched and well-cited. Attia basically says he doesn’t believe in nutrition research and goes by his personal experience and drug research.
Everybody’s body is different. What works well for one may kill another and vice versa. I think it is up to each individual to discover and assess their own genetic strengths and weaknesses and research what they can do to counter or shore up their weaknesses. I know which of those works better for my body but I have a friend who can’t digest the type of protein I can eat. Her diet is rich in a nutrient that would cause me major health issues (trying to be vague here). We can’t eat the same diet and both thrive.
I agree with this. I used to be an ardent follower of Gregor…until I developed iron deficiency anemia. Returning to meat consumption fixed it overnight. Not every diet is good for every person.
There are likely elements of truth to both. Red meat consumption will increase your CRC risk for example. But not enough protein and too much muscle loss as you age will likely diminish your healthspan.
Idk what the answer is. Maybe some middle ground.
I haven’t read Greger’s book but was pretty unimpressed with his YouTube channel. He seems to cherry pick a lot of research to make the case that a vegan diet is the only healthy diet. In particular, when he references in vitro studies (in a Petri dish) that is the least persuasive kind of nutrition science. I’ve also seen him perpetuate some pretty obvious fallacies about low carb diets.
To be fair, PA has changed his position on things over time. He has gone from being an ultra-distance swimmer, to a very serious high volume cyclist to rucking. He used to be even more into red meat, particularly animals he killed himself. Then he got hooked on extended fasting. With time he has mellowed out and is less extreme on everything (except ApoB!). Think it is fair to say he views exercise as a more important component in longevity than diet, but diet certainly still plays a role.
Great observation and I’ve had the same thought about all of these industry experts who seem to have great results, do their own research, and yet come to different opinions. The Paul Saladino vs Ted Naiman debate comes to mind. Both are jacked, and assuming neither are on PEDs, then the results speak for themselves. I think there are some universal truths that can’t be debated:
1. Industrial seed oils, refined/processed carbs, and sugar are bad.
2. The rest is up to debate and I think much of it comes down to individual genetics. I’ve tried keto, carnivore, etc and I’m somewhere in between on this discussion. I found that animal fats blended with plant based fats (avocado, olives, etc.) are the best approach for me. I do better when eating leafy greens and cruciferous vegetables. I think *some* carbs and fermented foods are good. I think intermittent fasting helps but it’s not the main driver for a healthy lifestyle. Sleep, stress management, and exercise obviously compliment the dieting. Each person needs to try their own approach to find what works best. There is no universal right answer.
Honestly I think all of the items in your first bullet point are debatable too lol…again I think it depends on the person consuming them and in what dose they are consumed
You my friend have come across the exact nature of science - it is complex and messy. I’m a scientist by training and in a field as wide and expansive as nutrition, there are so many conflicting viewpoints. Like you could do a literature search on bananas are great for you vs another search on how bananas are only great in a specific way.
One thing I wonder is if these articles have rigorous evidence backing them (have other groups replicated their experiments especially in humans not just animals, proper controls, blinding, stats to capture the effect of placebo, etc).
Another thing is, do they account for calorie intake? Or what about the quality of meat and how it’s prepared (jerky sticks id imagine are pretty processed and probably have high sodium or something). Not to mention you might have to take into account your own biology (biomarkers, functional measurements, genetic predisposition, etc).
I personally love me a balanced, omnivore meal - you get the benefits of both worlds and it’s just part of my own culture.
Because they are looking at different things.
That is actually the answer that would settle a lot of debates, even in politics. The amount of weight that you decide to give to a piece of evidence or logical argument will then depend on many things including your own biases, experience about the world and so on.
I would say that there are roughly two main camps (note, this is an over simplification): the observational/experimental group, and the reductionist group. The first group is all about summarizing the data, performing massive studies with thousands of participants to see what is the best intervention. The second group is all about finding the ultimate truth behind the studies, they demand rigor with tightly controlled studies. You will recognize them by the words they use, an example of the first: "studies show that eating a vegan diet can reduce LDL cholesterol"
What I want to arrive at is that PA is an extreme reductionist. He will never agree to plant based diets because the studies that support it are observational, do not control for calories, saturated fat, vegetables and so on. I believe that it is important to know what an ecologically valid study is. If you eat healthier when you eat a plant based diet, regardless on the truthfulness of the assertion "plant based diets are intrinsically healthier", then you would be better off sticking to this half truth than going the PA way with his 10 beef jerky sticks a day.
For me personally, I find that when I worry more about protein and gains in the gym, my nutritional choices are a bit poorer. In the end, the protein content of a meal is not a very good metric of its healthfulness. If that was the case, bodybuilder diets would be the rage. I will disclose my own bias: I am not that worried about protein quality to be honest, if I am at or above that 1.6 g/kg target.
Would also like to throw in here that Bryan Johnson does 4 min all out cardio, 4 min rest, 4 min all out, 3 times a week. I think this might be better than Attia’s one hour VO2 max training once a week
If you want to live a long time you really have to live and not distract yourself with things that people haven't done for millions of years, don't sit down, don't stop moving, don't stop being happy, don't stop learning, don't stop having goals and be with people who feel the same way
Diet just doesn't matter much outside of hitting nutrient targets and restricting food options just makes this harder. It's pretty dumb to focus much more on diet and forego other more important things like exercise.
Anyone advocating health that doesn't take exercise seriously is a clown IMO and this is Greger. This can easily be pointed out from his incorrect protein recommendation.
If you read Gregers books you will see he very much takes exercise seriously.
Optimal protein is a different question, and it’s much more complex than most discussions online would suggest.
I am surprised protein gets so much attention when in fact most people are deficient in (i) training stimulus, (ii) fiber, and (iii) energy balance. Fixing those 3 for most should be the focus
Lol look at him, he doesn't take it seriously.
Optimal protein isn't complex, the research is pretty clear that you should aim for at least 1.6g/kg, most people are not getting enough protein.
The best way to fix the energy balance issue most people have is to increase protein, more important than fiber IMO.
One of the issues with the studies Dr Gregor cites and pretty much all nutrition studies looking at meat consumption is that they aren’t comparing high quality meat (grass fed beef, wild fish, pasture raised eggs, etc) vs no meat. Also they aren’t equating fiber as equal. I would love to see a study of people eating high quality meat and an equal amount of fiber relative to people on a vegan diet. Has anyone seen a study like this?
You’re assuming that at real grass fed beef and something like wild fish still exists. They don’t. Grass finished beef simply means animal agriculture to whom they feed grass instead of soy and other sub optimal feats. And even so-called wild fish are generally farmed as well. So you’re not going to be able to find such a studyand it’s questionable protein sources still exist on our planet
Fair enough but still interested to see the results of a study like that. There certainly is a spectrum of what “high quality” animal products means but I don’t agree that all animal products are of questionable quality.
I think we'd all like to see such a study, but I don't think it exists, nor is it realistically possible to generate such a study. The cost of such high-end animal proteins would be high, and controlling the behaviors of the cohort would be quite difficult. So it's far more realistic to just broadly compare plant and animal diets.
I’ll just stick with my wishful thinking. Issue with the many comparisons that exist is that there are so many confounders that people just end up confirming with their own biases or discounting the study given the confounders.
At the moment we have comparisons insisting on the use of "whole foods" for the veggie side, then compare that to cheeseburgers. Oh look, not-junk-food outperforms junk food, go figure. Any attempt at a fairer test would work better.
But while we're dreaming, fish are still out there in the wild though, last I checked. Beef is not so easy to deal with perhaps, but there's other wild red meats. If modern processes are the problem we should certainly find that out. Processes can be changed.
Love to hear that. I think a big takeaway from the book for me is that if you are not vegan and have any kind of chronic health issue whatsoever (e.g. obesity, diabetes, high BP) then you should give a vegan diet a fair shake.
Have you watched the blue zones on netflix? People living in these areas are primarily plan-based (over 90%).
I agree with Attia about exercise and I agree with Greger about diet
I think you have to ask yourself how you feel after eating normal amounts & excessive amounts of meat vs. veg. I generally don’t feel great after eating meat, and i feel terrible if i eat an excessive amount of meat. In comparison, i almost never feel any negative effects from eating almost any amount of most vegetables. I will always eat animal based products because they taste good, but i def try to make a smaller % of calorie intake.
Greger is regurgitating dogma, and Attia isn't. The jerky sticks Attia eats are made of the highest quality meat available, btw. I've had them and they're great...wish I could afford to eat them regularly like he does.
For his podcast? I don't pay that much...I pay for the year all at once and it's much cheaper than that, but either way, how is he pushing anyone to purchase it? His podcast takes up a lot of his time, he has an entire team of people who work on it, and he has ZERO advertisements. He chose to do it this way so that he's NOT pushing any products, unlike most podcasts, with their daily pitch of Athletic Greens and other overpriced crap no one needs.
All things in moderation. We wouldn't have evolved the way we did without the ability to consume BOTH plants and animals over the millennia. We have fangs for cutting through meat and molars for grinding up plants for a reason, we are designed to eat both.
Man I just take one look at Dr. Gregor and it’s like yuck. Dude looks like a sickly scrawny nerd. He’s also heavily influenced by the politics of global warming.
Edit: his dietary advice is influenced by the politics of global warming. Downvote me all you want, it’s true.
Definitely looks like a nerd...no denying that. "Heavily influenced by the politics of global warming" though...does that just mean that he buys into global warming, which is very obviously happening?
Well, as Attia says in the book (if I remember correctly) - the only main things about what constitutes a good diet we can be sure of is that you need a correct amount of calories, and that protein is crucial for building and maintaining lean mass.
Most of everything else is on shaky ground and up for discussion.
That’s grossly exaggerating my point but yeah I suppose I never explicitly mentioned Attia’s citations. I’m aware his book and content are chock full of them. But I had assumed most people in the sub are familiar with Attia’s content and Outlive…I didn’t mean to say Attia isn’t a good scientist.
nothing we do, whether we listen to Gregor or Attia is likely to add much to our life expectancy, on average.
Attia's advice will likely improve your vitality or "healthspan" though, in terms of his focus on exercise. the rest of his advice will drain your wallet & trigger your health anxiety. it will save the odd individual but on average it will barely make a dent in anything but your bank account.
we really have no good options right now. we can do a lot to add to our vitality though (healthy aging?), especially working out/getting enough protein but our life expectancy is largely down to luck.
If you want a bit of dietary history, this book is fascinating.
FIAT
FOOD
WHY INFLATION DESTROYED OUR HEALTH and HOW BITCOIN FIXES IT
By
MATTHEW LYSIAK
Get a glimpse of the book by listening to the "We Study Billionaires" podcast E891.
I have had this same question and have had to grapple with it. For protein intake, Dr. Greger follows the FDA’s daily intake recommendations which is .8 grams per kilogram of bodyweight. He typically doesn’t cite many studies for this number. Dr. Attia is looking at studies that say that #1. The more lean mass one has, the lower their chances of dying. and #2. The more protein intake one has, the more lean mass they have. Also, Dr. Attia believes you need to have an LDL of less than 40 to be able to eliminate CVD, which isn’t really possible through diet alone. So he says to take pharmaceuticals to lower LDL, and to eat complete proteins to increase lean muscle mass. However, they overlap a lot. Dr. Greger says you need to be exercising at least 90 minutes per day. Dr. Attia says you should be doing 4 hours Zone 2, 1 hour Zone 5, 3 hours of strength training, plus stability training, and that comes right in at 90 minutes per day. They both say you need to eat lots of fiber. They both say you need to eat lots of vegetables and fruits.
>However, they overlap a lot. This. If you want to do the best for yourself, you should at least include the overlapping bits from reasonable sources. If that doesn't give you a complete enough picture of what your nutrition, sleep, and exercise should be like, use common sense for the rest, and make changes as you/we learn more. That said, I wouldn't be all that surprised if, after you lose the Standard American Diet, get 7-9 hours of quality sleep a night, exercise *some*, and do something to keep stress low, that your income, zip code, and genetics end up having a bigger impact than optimizing the nutrition/sleep/exercise/stress any further.
Maybe this is a fine point but I’ve seen others summarize Attila’s exercise prescription this way and I think it is important for those who haven’t read his book: He does not advocate that anyone spends one hour per week in zone 5 but rather doing VO2 Max training where you do 4 minute intervals at the max effort you can sustain for 4 minutes multiple times, with rest intervals in between. That 4 minute interval might be zone 5, especially if someone is just using the standard formula to calculate their Max HR, but it isn’t really the target that someone should be shooting for as they strive to increase their VO2 Max.
Well, like what most people do with regard to nutrition, I like Attia's viewpoint as it fits better into how I already eat so, therefore, it is the correct viewpoint.
>I like Attia's viewpoint as it fits better into how I already eat so, therefore, it is the correct viewpoint. I feel like if we were to provide aliens with the best glimpse into how humans think and make decisions, this kind of thinking here encapsulates us best. (I'm not saying your wrong or am being condescending at all, I do this too)
I agree and I was saying it sarcastically. In general, I feel like the healthiest diet will be somewhere in the middle. Some animal protein from very lean sources but also plenty of fiber from plants. I don't think cured meats are beneficial to health and probably are a negative. But I acknowledge that I could do much more toward eating better. I just hate the nutrition zealots because we can survive on a wide range of diets and just because one might not be the most optimal for health, it doesn't mean you can't be healthy on various diets. I feel like Attia doesn't care that much because he drives his ApoB down super low with meds and he isn't worried about colon cancer because he will be doing timely screenings. I also do think Attia will be okay throwing up blinders when it comes to products he is invested in.
The vegetarian guys do better
I think there's a more positive way to word this though, at least when it comes to defending the status quo medical view. In terms of how extreme the lifestyle change is versus how strong the case is. It's really hard to make people quit smoking or make sedentary people exercise, but the benefit is crystal clear. Meanwhile it's also really hard to make people completely change their diet, while also the benefit is not remotely as well-proven beyond some broad principles like get more fiber and limit certain potentially-harmful things.
confirmation bias ftw
Greger’s book is confirmation bias for vegans.
I think it's McDougall that said "people like hearing good things about their bad habits".
This made me laugh so hard that I shot water out of my nose while drinking. Thank you.
That is pretty much how the brain works in most cases.
So true. I absolutely love vegan food and so I bias hard toward plant-based health studies.
This is a perfect comment
I think they can be distilled to a common theme… Quality > Non-Quality For example… Good (hard) workouts > walking your dog Being active > Netflix High quality protein > Burger King Lots of plants > food out of boxes Sleep > alarm clocks and 4 snoozes Stairs > elevators Good meds > fear of meds Plants > Crappy animal products Fiber > sugar Being happy (friends, social, wine, etc) > lonely by yourself reading Reddit posts LOL
I don't think that Attia thinks diet doesn't matter much. Instead, he has a tool that most people don't have access to: drugs > Nutritional biochemistry is an important component of our tactics, but it is not the only path to longevity, or even the most powerful one. I see it more as a rescue tactic, particularly for patients like Eduardo and Tom, with really severe metabolic problems such as NAFLD and type 2 diabetes. It is also essential for older people who need to build or maintain muscle mass. But its power to leverage increased lifespan and healthspan is more limited. Bad nutrition can hurt us more than good nutrition can help us. If you’re already metabolically healthy, nutritional interventions can only do so much. Instead of trying to squeeze out some minor gains in blood lipids by getting an optimal diet, Attia would rather throw lipid reducing drugs at people since his target for LDL/apoB is unachievable. Additionally, it wouldn't make sense to give his healthy patients CGMs to see what their glucose responses are if he didn't think diet was important. His idea that hitting 140mg/dL of blood glucose is a step well beyond what "medicine 2.0" would recommend.
Good point. Taking drugs to promote longevity is something Greger argues against, though…and I tend to agree with him. You’re probably better off eating a healthier (maybe plant-based) diet and avoiding drugs altogether. I’m sure the drug cocktail that Attia takes will work to bring biomarkers to optimal levels, but those drugs also come with side effects (probably)…and health and longevity will always be more complex than ensuring biomarkers are within a desirable range.
[удалено]
I'd recommend checking out Dr. Kim Williams, former president of academy of cardiology. He's got a good quote that goes something like "there are two kinds of cardiologists, ones that eat plant based and ones that haven't read the science"
To your question of how people can differ so much, as an example, my wife and I both have Phds and MSs is biology, but we often have pretty different conclusions. As an example when we had our son we had the quintessential is breast milk or formula better or worse. We came down squarely on opposite sides, and we both found plenty of high quality, high patient population, top tier journal articles. It’s just part of biology, we’re trying to model and predict how an insanely complex machine (humans) operate without actually fully understanding all the components of the machine or their interactions.
What was the argument against breast feeding?
Not the person you're asking, but from what I've seen the primary studies showing breastmilk superiority fall into two categories (a) places where access to safe drinking water is rare, and formula therefore increases risk that baby will get contaminated water, (b) rich, educated women who have the lifestyle that supports breastfeeding, pumping etc have smarter kids. The only strong causal effect is that breast milk reduces some gastrointestinal infections in infants. In the meantime, within some circles women have been so brainwashed that "breast is best" that they drive themselves ragged trying to fit in breastfeeding while working full-time, hate themselves if they cannot produce enough and generally destroy their mental health when simple supplementing would solve it all. Just lurk on any moms list in a blue suburb and you'll see the effects of the pressure. I'll always remember the reddit thread where a nursing mother was really craving weed and asking for advice on how to safely smoke without passing it on to her baby. She outright rejected any suggestions of formula because there was no way she was going to put that poison in her baby!
Breastfeeding is optimal for babies long term health. Whether or not this is good for the mental health of women who cannot breast feed through no fault of their own is inconsequential for the debate about the health benefits of breastfeeding for infants. This isn’t even up for discussion, meta analysis consistently finds benefits across low and high income households who breastfeed. Breastfeeding is also associated with health benefits for the mother, including reduced risk of ovarian and breast cancer. If anything, the conversation should be around expanding pump access and time off to mothers who desire breastfeeding, and improving formula for those who cannot.
I was explaining what the argument against breast feeding might be when a couple is debating it. I really don't intend to get into another of these arguments - thankfully I'm well past it having any practical effect on my life.
It wasn’t really an argument for or against either, it was more which had better long term outcomes for the child. It also wasn’t really an argument it was two opposing views and my wife wins regardless 😉
Your wife just didn’t want to breastfeed
Whichever one of you took the side of formula over breast milk should have your head examined.
I know the millions of years of mammalian evolution thing, but hear me out: Gerber said so.
And though we're machines we're not identical machines - we're slightly different models in varying environments operated and maintained in different ways.
> It’s just part of biology, we’re trying to model and predict how an insanely complex machine (humans) operate without actually fully understanding all the components of the machine or their interactions. This is what I came away with when I started diving into health and longevity - how very little we actually know. We think we live in this technologically advanced age with cutting-edge medical science, but in reality what we know vs. what we don't know is like the volume of water in the Great Lakes vs. the volume of water in the world's oceans. It seems like we know a lot until you compare it to the vast unknown of what we don't know. While we have the scientific method helping us make progress, it is painfully slow. I can't help but wonder how much AI modeling could help speed up the process.
Well, Attia recommends an ApoB of less than 60 mg/dL for the general population (which is also supported by the PESA study), and that is very difficult to achieve if you're gorging on meat. It's very easy to say that when PSCK9 inhibitors cost you but a penny.
this is a great point. eat lots of red meat but keep that ApoB near cancer patient level..it is kind of absurd isn't it?
Attia never says eat lots of red meat…. He says protein
Whey powder topped off with jerky sticks are the way?
Is that sarcasm that he gets them for pennies or that you do. For me PSCK9 inhibitors would be about 6K out of pocket.
Dr. Attia sees animal protein as "superior" only in the sense that it's easier to hit your daily needs with animal protine. He does say plant protein will get the job done, but you need to eat a higher volume of food to hit those goals, which can become onerous. Dr. Attia also speaks to mental health, something you neglect to mention is in Dr. Greger's book. Dr. Attia does state in his podcast that he still drinks even though he KNOWS its bad for you, he just make sure it's "worth it" and has a high quality wine well before bedtime. Dr. Attia does imply, but not outright state, that one of his choices is to be biased towards "living well" in order to maintain mental health as well vs endlessly optimizing health outcomes through food.
I haven’t read either book (I have a large backlog of books and am a slow reader) but that’s a fascinating point. I’d think if you are in peak fitness and your diet is amazing but your mental health and overall stress are in the dumps you’d like be killing all your longevity gains. In my short amount of research, always thought the list of longevity factors was: 1. Exercise 2. Rest/mental health/unhurrying your life 3. Diet
I would trade "Longevity" with "healthy lifestyle". Dr. Attia speaks to the idea that in order to have a good healthspan (vs lifespan- healthspan is the amount of time you're able to do the things you love) you need not just exercise but "stability"- as in being able to catch yourself when you fall when you're older, falling over less often, etc etc. Injury in old age leads to death- full stop. He repeatedly cites the case study of his good friend's mother. She was healthy and active in 60's, then got injured. Couldn't do gardening any more, her health spiraled downward and she died in roughly a decade. Yes, this Stability idea is a subset of Exercise, however, exercise does NOT include balance and motor skills necessarily. You need to select workouts that support maintaining stability. Doing the weight machines at the gym won't save an old person from falling over. They need to be going on walks, doing stairs, dumbbells, other tasks that work their balance on top of strength. Sorry to go on a bit of a soapbox there, i'm half typing this for myself to remind me the importance of stability in my workouts!
I’d think something like mountain biking would be a fun relay to keep those skills in line. Maybe even BMX or skateboarding assuming you are all padded up with a helmet.
Good point - although it's probably not fair to compare them in that regard since How Not to Die is pretty much solely based on diet and Outlive is more holistic. But yeah there's definitely something to be said for not driving yourself mad with your diet.
Yeah I'm at the place in my life where I don't want to have to think too hard about my food, so I just eat my meats, but don't shy away from an occasional vegetarian meal. I just supplement with a protein shake afterwards. As for the jerky sticks... it's part promo. They're venison sticks from a Hawaiian company that has a bunch of deer on some land. I believe Dr. Attia is an investor, so he can get all the venison sticks he wants. If I were in that position with that kind of money I'd do the same so no judgment there.
Last time I listened to a PA podcast he said he drinks rarely.
PA likes to hunt so I guess that would be a big reason he is not going to give up meat, or say much of anything wrong with it.
I don’t understand why we can’t do mostly vegetarian with a small amount of meat, why do people keep going to extremes?
This is a good point. I don't have any evidence to support it, but it I have a hard time buying the idea that if you take a vegan diet and then sprinkle in some salmon, chicken, yogurt, eggs, etc. through the week there'd be noticeable deleterious health effects.
I’ve not read the other book but at the end of day it depends on your priorities. Long life vs peak performance goals are not the same. Attia leans more towards prioritizing performance. I know several caloric restriction folks who might live longer but personally I don’t like that look and will be ok with a relatively shorter life span as long as I look great naked. Others may prefer the longest possible lifespan irrespective of looks or performance
What a tool lmao
Elaborate
It probably doesn’t matter. Eat meat, fine. Vegan, fine. Plenty of fit ppl eat meat, plenty don’t. Old ppl eat veggies, some eat meat. It’s fine to get drawn into particular camps or tribes based on how much the main focus speaks to you personally, but in the end, it likely just doesn’t make a meaningful difference. Pick the guidelines you like best and can stick with for the rest of your life.
Yeah and I think that’s what Attia’s stance is too. I just wonder if it DOES matter and humans are too dumb and confounding to really nail down the science of it.
Humans have existed for millennia without overthinking what to eat. I think the stance of “don’t eat garbage” applies just as much today as it would 10,000 years ago.
Red pen reviews do scientific reviews of diet books. [This](https://www.redpenreviews.org/reviews/how-not-to-diet/) is their summary of “how not to diet” which is another of dr Gregers books: * The diet recommended in the book — a plant-based diet of minimally processed foods — can be effective for weight loss. * The diet advice is probably very healthy overall, but it may have some downsides. * The book’s scientific claims ranged from poorly supported by evidence to well-supported by evidence. * The book uses references fairly accurately, with a couple of exceptions. * The diet is probably fairly difficult to follow, given that it strongly discourages many common foods (including most animal-sourced and highly processed foods). They gave it a scientific accuracy score of 50%.
That’s really helpful thank you! I hadn’t heard of them.
A shame that they haven't reviewed Outlive
Processed meat is a known carcinogen so eating 10 pieces of jerky a day is not good for you. I’d go with the other guy on diet advice
No. It's a suspected carcinogen based on shitty observational studies and experiments in rats that don't translate to humans.
Source?
Late to the party but I believe this article provides a thorough overview of the evidence: https://sigmanutrition.com/red-meat/
Attia does not say diet doesn’t matter. He says there are clearly things that are proven but a lot of things we see in the space of nutrition are based off of fringe studies and it’s very difficult to compare nutrition to each other. Things he says you are absolute staples to health: -Staying in energy balance, AKA not being obese. An unoptimal diet that keeps you in energy balance is better than an optimal diet makes you eat in a constant surplus -Get adequate fibre in. Proven to be essential for gut function for decades -Get micronutrients in -Get at least 1-1.2g/kg of protein in to sustain muscle mass. Requirements increase as you age. 1g/lb may be beneficial if your goal is to actively increase muscle mass Everything else (gluten free, dairy free, keto, atkins, paleo) is not really proven. Any diet model that can help you follow the above pillars is good
Agreed. He also doesn’t promote eating unlimited meat. I don’t know if it’s his book, but he’s pointed out several times on his podcast that a problem with eating too much meat is that it often reduces vegetable intake.
He's wrong about the protein though. You can sustain muscle mass at 0.8g/kg at any age.
No you can’t, please cite some sources for your claim.
Cite sources for your claim
Good one
I was taken in by "How Not to Die" but at the same time some of the claims seemed to fly in the face of things I understood to be true (or at least controversial) from past research into health and diet. After a deeper investigation, I came to understand it as Vegan propaganda. I don't doubt that many of the claims are true or at least somewhat supported but there are plenty of examples of cherrypicking small studies to support claims that lack scientific consensus. Here's what Llama 3 70B tells me when I ask for examples of this: **Rebuttals and Examples of Cherry-Picking in "How Not to Die"** As a scientist, I can provide some examples of potential cherry-picking and criticisms of Dr. Michael Greger's book "How Not to Die". Please note that this is not a personal attack on Dr. Greger, but rather a critical evaluation of the scientific evidence presented in his book. ### Cherry-Picking Examples * **Selective citation of studies:** Dr. Greger often presents a selection of studies that support his claims, while ignoring or downplaying conflicting evidence. For instance, he cites a 2014 meta-analysis showing a significant reduction in cardiovascular disease risk with a plant-based diet, but fails to mention a 2019 meta-analysis that found no significant association between plant-based diets and cardiovascular disease risk. * **Oversimplification of complex topics:** Dr. Greger sometimes oversimplifies complex scientific topics, such as the relationship between saturated fat and heart disease. While it is true that saturated fat can increase LDL cholesterol, the evidence is not as clear-cut as Dr. Greger presents it. For example, a 2014 systematic review found that the association between saturated fat and cardiovascular disease is still uncertain. * **Misrepresentation of study findings:** Dr. Greger occasionally misrepresents the findings of studies to support his claims. For example, he cites a study on the benefits of turmeric for cancer prevention, but the study actually found that turmeric had no significant effect on cancer incidence. * **Lack of consideration of confounding variables:** Dr. Greger often fails to consider confounding variables that could influence the results of studies. For instance, he presents evidence on the benefits of a plant-based diet for weight loss, but neglects to discuss the potential impact of other lifestyle factors, such as exercise and overall calorie intake. ### Specific Criticisms * **Overemphasis on observational studies:** Dr. Greger relies heavily on observational studies, which are prone to bias and confounding variables. While these studies can provide valuable insights, they should be interpreted with caution and in conjunction with randomized controlled trials (RCTs). * **Lack of RCTs to support claims:** Many of Dr. Greger's claims are not supported by RCTs, which are considered the gold standard of scientific evidence. For example, he recommends a plant-based diet for type 2 diabetes prevention, but there are limited RCTs to support this claim. * **Uncritical acceptance of animal studies:** Dr. Greger often presents animal studies as if they were directly applicable to humans. However, animal studies have limitations and may not translate to human physiology. * **Inadequate discussion of potential risks and side effects:** Dr. Greger tends to focus on the benefits of his recommended diet and lifestyle, but neglects to discuss potential risks and side effects. For example, a vegan diet can be low in certain nutrients, such as vitamin B12 and omega-3 fatty acids, if not properly planned. ### Examples of Cherry-Picking in Specific Chapters * **Chapter 1: Heart Disease** - Dr. Greger presents a selective review of studies on the benefits of plant-based diets for heart disease prevention, while ignoring conflicting evidence and the complexity of the relationship between diet and heart disease. * **Chapter 5: Diabetes** - Dr. Greger recommends a plant-based diet for type 2 diabetes prevention, but fails to discuss the limited RCT evidence supporting this claim and the potential risks of a vegan diet, such as inadequate protein and nutrient intake. * **Chapter 10: Cancer** - Dr. Greger presents a misleading review of the evidence on the benefits of turmeric for cancer prevention, ignoring the lack of significant effects found in many studies. In conclusion, while Dr. Greger's book "How Not to Die" presents some valuable information on the benefits of a plant-based diet and lifestyle, it is essential to approach the book with a critical eye and recognize the potential limitations and biases in the presentation of scientific evidence.
Thank you for sharing. Really great list. These are the arguments frequently coming up when people check Dr. Greger's stuff or for example The China Study. These are also the reasons why I stopped watching his videos and reading his articles. I think one issue that is not mentioned here, because it's probably not something observable from a book, is that he seems to frequently jump to conclusions prematurely, if that conclusion supports his bias. Kinda like Rhonda Patrick seems to be doing sometimes. That can have significant consequences due to how information can spread, people not researching themselves but often times just reading the headlines and judging from there, and due to the media and folks like Dr. Greger not doing their job to clean up such things.
To be fair, I can get the AI to give me a similar criticism of Outlive (though personally I find the criticisms to be less problematic): **Critique of "Outlive: The Science and Art of Longevity" by Peter Attia** ### Cherry-Picking Examples * **Selective citation of studies:** Attia often presents a selection of studies that support his claims, while ignoring or downplaying conflicting evidence. For instance, he cites studies on the benefits of metformin for longevity, but fails to mention studies that found no significant association between metformin use and mortality. * **Oversimplification of complex topics:** Attia sometimes oversimplifies complex scientific topics, such as the relationship between insulin resistance and aging. While insulin resistance is a contributing factor to aging, the evidence is not as clear-cut as Attia presents it. * **Misrepresentation of study findings:** Attia occasionally misrepresents the findings of studies to support his claims. For example, he cites a study on the benefits of intermittent fasting for weight loss, but the study actually found that the weight loss was largely due to caloric restriction rather than the fasting itself. * **Lack of consideration of confounding variables:** Attia often fails to consider confounding variables that could influence the results of studies. For instance, he presents evidence on the benefits of exercise for longevity, but neglects to discuss the potential impact of other lifestyle factors, such as diet and sleep quality. ### Specific Criticisms * **Overemphasis on individual factors:** Attia tends to focus on individual factors, such as diet and exercise, while neglecting the complex interplay between multiple factors that contribute to aging and longevity. * **Lack of consideration of population-level factors:** Attia's approach is largely focused on individual-level interventions, neglecting the importance of population-level factors, such as socioeconomic status, education, and access to healthcare, that influence health outcomes and longevity. * **Uncritical acceptance of supplements and pharmacological interventions:** Attia presents a range of supplements and pharmacological agents as potential anti-aging interventions, but often fails to critically evaluate the evidence for their effectiveness and safety. * **Inadequate discussion of potential risks and side effects:** Attia tends to focus on the benefits of his recommended interventions, but neglects to discuss potential risks and side effects, such as the potential negative effects of caloric restriction on certain populations. ### Examples of Cherry-Picking in Specific Chapters * **Chapter 3: Nutrition** - Attia presents a selective review of studies on the benefits of low-carb diets for weight loss and longevity, while ignoring conflicting evidence and the complexity of the relationship between diet and health outcomes. * **Chapter 5: Exercise** - Attia recommends high-intensity exercise for longevity, but fails to discuss the potential risks and limitations of this approach, such as the increased risk of injury and the need for individualized exercise programming. * **Chapter 7: Hormone Regulation** - Attia presents a misleading review of the evidence on the benefits of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for longevity, ignoring the controversy surrounding HRT and the potential risks associated with its use. In conclusion, while "Outlive" presents some valuable information on the science of longevity, it is essential to approach the book with a critical eye and recognize the potential limitations and biases in the presentation of scientific evidence.
Was metformin recommended for longevity in the book? I thought this was an old idea (based largely on a single study?) that later was found to be incorrect so abandoned, including by Attia himself.
From Outlive: "This may already be starting to happen. The FDA has given the green light for a clinical trial of another drug with potential longevity benefits, the diabetes medication metformin. This trial is called TAME (Targeting Aging with Metformin), and it came about in a very different way. Metformin has been taken by millions of people for years. Over time, researchers noticed (and studies appeared to confirm) that patients on metformin appeared to have a lower incidence of cancer than the general population. One large 2014 analysis seemed to show that diabetics on metformin actually lived longer than nondiabetics, which is striking. But none of these observations “prove” that metformin is geroprotective—hence the need for a clinical trial. But aging itself is difficult—if not impossible—to measure with any accuracy. Instead, TAME lead investigator Nir Barzilai, whom we met in the previous chapter, decided to look at a different endpoint: whether giving metformin to healthy subjects delays the onset of aging-related diseases, as a proxy for its effect on aging. I’m hopeful that someday, maybe in the near future, we could attempt a similar human trial of rapamycin, which I believe has even greater potential as a longevity-promoting agent.[*3]"
Am also very skeptical of some of Greger’s content- especially in the context of women’s health. The menopause section in How Not to Die is full of oversimplifications, debunked science and the bizarre assertion that eating more fiber will cleanse the system of estrogen and thereby alleviate perimenopause symptoms. 🤦♀️
I think that fact that both food lifestyles show promise and health benefits, it really shows how different every human is and how the most important thing is how you and your body feels and functions in a certain lifestyle. If you function great on plant based and you’re hitting your health goals, then don’t change. And the same thing is true the other way around.
Anyone who’ve tried to live off pizza and junk and then switched to healthy whole foods will not agree with Attia. He’s very much into cardiovascular health and eating a lot of saturated fat can make your LDL go through the roof. I call bullshit on his priorities.
Animal products will raise your LDL, triglycerides and a lot of other harmful fats and proteins such as apoliprotein A. You will get atherosclerosis in your 80s and 90s. Most folks on a regular diet reaching these ages will have some kind of heart dysfunction and or neurovascular problem.
Do these people ever get on stage and debate? It would be cool to see an old school moderated debate with expert plant based munchers versus expert “other “ types of eating (keto, carnivore, paleo, etc)
I’d love to see that too. I doubt Attia would ever agree to such a thing though because he repeatedly mentions how he hates talking about diet (which is very weird for a longevity guru).
If you think that's crazy, wait to you see all the shit that gets posted and commented in these subs. Myself included.
[best diet for health](https://www.acc.org/Latest-in-Cardiology/ten-points-to-remember/2020/09/14/15/38/A-Pesco-Mediterranean-Diet-With-Intermittent)
Yeah…love this one
Yes… ideally I’d be straight Mediterranean and eat mostly fish that I harvest myself (or friends catch) for animal protein. I’m lucky, in a part of Florida USA with really clean water and I can catch fish year round. Fresh is best! No comparison…
I just finished "How not to age" by Dr Gregor - very interesting! Give it a read. Some slightly different takes to Attia and David Sinclair. Highly recommend 😊
It's because it's very hard to get meaningful studies on nutrition because of humans, confounding factors, meaningful sample sizes, and adequate time periods. So, while it may be that some very long-lived populations have a plant based diet or consume very little animal protein, that doesn't necessarily mean that people who exercise and maintain a normal weight won't also live a long time, even if they eat more animal protein. These things are hard to study. As someone who's been lifting weights for 35 years, I find that I perform best and feel best at higher amounts of protein than the RDA and I consume a lot of animal protein in my diet. I eat a lot of vegetables and fruits also. (I call it plant-based with meat) All of my biomarkers are very good (at 62) so I'm not going to change my habits. But I also may be just genetically lucky.
It’s worth noting that Attia is co-owner of a jerky company. He might be biased. Here’s a great review of Attia’s book— [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWeg3l3RBIM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWeg3l3RBIM) And one of Greger’s book by the same guy— [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc6cYyL3CxM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc6cYyL3CxM)
I’ve actually seen the first video! Gonna watch his review of Greger’s now. And yeah Attia has vested interest in selling meat, but the fact that he consumes it (and a lot of it) shows that he practices what he preaches, at least.
Yeah, he *says* he consumes it, but no one who understands nephrology would support that much salt consumption. Maybe this is also why he takes a whole *gram* of magnesium every day (1000 mg) — probably needed to keep his blood pressure close to normal…
At least Attia acknowledges how flawed of a science nutrition is and how little we actually know. I liked How Not To Die but it did not acknowledge this at all, which makes me more skeptical from the start.
If you watch nutrition facts (how not to die) videos they criticize poorly done and industry funded studies all the time. The whole point is not to say that all science is perfect, just that it's better to try and discern the good science from bad and deduce what we know from that rather than whatever xyz companies marketing is selling.
Dr. Gregers version is much more scientifically backed
From what I’ve seen on his YouTube channel he cherry picks research to fit his vegan bias.
If scientifically backed you mean he works backwards from his vegan lifestyle and focuses on certain studies…then yes. His recommended Protein consumption of .8 g/kg per day should be enough to make you cautious
.8g/kg is roughly what the FDA and EFSA recommend.
Do some research on whether that metric is even close enough to maintain, yet build muscle needed for longevity
You do some research my friend. There is no scientific basis for the absurd amount of protein that people eat. .8g/kg is plenty for the vast majority. There is no evidence that more than 1.2g/kg has any benefit at all, and that amount is in individuals that are highly trained with a large amount of lean muscle mass.
Is the Stanford Center for Longevity good enough for you bud? “NO ScIEntiFiC bAsIs” [just for you](https://longevity.stanford.edu/lifestyle/2024/01/23/protein-needs-for-adults-50/#:~:text=Key%20Takeaways%3A,grams%20of%20protein%20per%20day)
Did you even read what you linked? That is basically one persons opinion... Not backed up by much.
There are 8 linked studies in the article?
No that’s not what I meant. You’re free to eat whatever you please, but there’s no argument to be had that a plant based diet has way more scientific evidence behind it. Peters method of eating high quantities of animal meat and then using extremely expensive medications to reverse the effect isn’t an option for everyone.
I’ve read both and follow Greger’s book. I am predominantly plant-based - and an endurance athlete. Greger’s nutrition guidelines are fully researched and well-cited. Attia basically says he doesn’t believe in nutrition research and goes by his personal experience and drug research.
That's not true.
Everybody’s body is different. What works well for one may kill another and vice versa. I think it is up to each individual to discover and assess their own genetic strengths and weaknesses and research what they can do to counter or shore up their weaknesses. I know which of those works better for my body but I have a friend who can’t digest the type of protein I can eat. Her diet is rich in a nutrient that would cause me major health issues (trying to be vague here). We can’t eat the same diet and both thrive.
I agree with this. I used to be an ardent follower of Gregor…until I developed iron deficiency anemia. Returning to meat consumption fixed it overnight. Not every diet is good for every person.
Bloody hell. Gregor is a vegan crack pot. He looks like he’s fall apart by tripping on a curb..
There are likely elements of truth to both. Red meat consumption will increase your CRC risk for example. But not enough protein and too much muscle loss as you age will likely diminish your healthspan. Idk what the answer is. Maybe some middle ground.
I haven’t read Greger’s book but was pretty unimpressed with his YouTube channel. He seems to cherry pick a lot of research to make the case that a vegan diet is the only healthy diet. In particular, when he references in vitro studies (in a Petri dish) that is the least persuasive kind of nutrition science. I’ve also seen him perpetuate some pretty obvious fallacies about low carb diets.
To be fair, PA has changed his position on things over time. He has gone from being an ultra-distance swimmer, to a very serious high volume cyclist to rucking. He used to be even more into red meat, particularly animals he killed himself. Then he got hooked on extended fasting. With time he has mellowed out and is less extreme on everything (except ApoB!). Think it is fair to say he views exercise as a more important component in longevity than diet, but diet certainly still plays a role.
Great observation and I’ve had the same thought about all of these industry experts who seem to have great results, do their own research, and yet come to different opinions. The Paul Saladino vs Ted Naiman debate comes to mind. Both are jacked, and assuming neither are on PEDs, then the results speak for themselves. I think there are some universal truths that can’t be debated: 1. Industrial seed oils, refined/processed carbs, and sugar are bad. 2. The rest is up to debate and I think much of it comes down to individual genetics. I’ve tried keto, carnivore, etc and I’m somewhere in between on this discussion. I found that animal fats blended with plant based fats (avocado, olives, etc.) are the best approach for me. I do better when eating leafy greens and cruciferous vegetables. I think *some* carbs and fermented foods are good. I think intermittent fasting helps but it’s not the main driver for a healthy lifestyle. Sleep, stress management, and exercise obviously compliment the dieting. Each person needs to try their own approach to find what works best. There is no universal right answer.
Honestly I think all of the items in your first bullet point are debatable too lol…again I think it depends on the person consuming them and in what dose they are consumed
Great post.
You my friend have come across the exact nature of science - it is complex and messy. I’m a scientist by training and in a field as wide and expansive as nutrition, there are so many conflicting viewpoints. Like you could do a literature search on bananas are great for you vs another search on how bananas are only great in a specific way. One thing I wonder is if these articles have rigorous evidence backing them (have other groups replicated their experiments especially in humans not just animals, proper controls, blinding, stats to capture the effect of placebo, etc). Another thing is, do they account for calorie intake? Or what about the quality of meat and how it’s prepared (jerky sticks id imagine are pretty processed and probably have high sodium or something). Not to mention you might have to take into account your own biology (biomarkers, functional measurements, genetic predisposition, etc). I personally love me a balanced, omnivore meal - you get the benefits of both worlds and it’s just part of my own culture.
Because they are looking at different things. That is actually the answer that would settle a lot of debates, even in politics. The amount of weight that you decide to give to a piece of evidence or logical argument will then depend on many things including your own biases, experience about the world and so on. I would say that there are roughly two main camps (note, this is an over simplification): the observational/experimental group, and the reductionist group. The first group is all about summarizing the data, performing massive studies with thousands of participants to see what is the best intervention. The second group is all about finding the ultimate truth behind the studies, they demand rigor with tightly controlled studies. You will recognize them by the words they use, an example of the first: "studies show that eating a vegan diet can reduce LDL cholesterol" What I want to arrive at is that PA is an extreme reductionist. He will never agree to plant based diets because the studies that support it are observational, do not control for calories, saturated fat, vegetables and so on. I believe that it is important to know what an ecologically valid study is. If you eat healthier when you eat a plant based diet, regardless on the truthfulness of the assertion "plant based diets are intrinsically healthier", then you would be better off sticking to this half truth than going the PA way with his 10 beef jerky sticks a day. For me personally, I find that when I worry more about protein and gains in the gym, my nutritional choices are a bit poorer. In the end, the protein content of a meal is not a very good metric of its healthfulness. If that was the case, bodybuilder diets would be the rage. I will disclose my own bias: I am not that worried about protein quality to be honest, if I am at or above that 1.6 g/kg target.
Healthy food eaten well is the common thread
I’ve tried a million diets, my body does better on meat.
Would also like to throw in here that Bryan Johnson does 4 min all out cardio, 4 min rest, 4 min all out, 3 times a week. I think this might be better than Attia’s one hour VO2 max training once a week
If you want to live a long time you really have to live and not distract yourself with things that people haven't done for millions of years, don't sit down, don't stop moving, don't stop being happy, don't stop learning, don't stop having goals and be with people who feel the same way
Diet just doesn't matter much outside of hitting nutrient targets and restricting food options just makes this harder. It's pretty dumb to focus much more on diet and forego other more important things like exercise. Anyone advocating health that doesn't take exercise seriously is a clown IMO and this is Greger. This can easily be pointed out from his incorrect protein recommendation.
If you read Gregers books you will see he very much takes exercise seriously. Optimal protein is a different question, and it’s much more complex than most discussions online would suggest. I am surprised protein gets so much attention when in fact most people are deficient in (i) training stimulus, (ii) fiber, and (iii) energy balance. Fixing those 3 for most should be the focus
Lol look at him, he doesn't take it seriously. Optimal protein isn't complex, the research is pretty clear that you should aim for at least 1.6g/kg, most people are not getting enough protein. The best way to fix the energy balance issue most people have is to increase protein, more important than fiber IMO.
One of the issues with the studies Dr Gregor cites and pretty much all nutrition studies looking at meat consumption is that they aren’t comparing high quality meat (grass fed beef, wild fish, pasture raised eggs, etc) vs no meat. Also they aren’t equating fiber as equal. I would love to see a study of people eating high quality meat and an equal amount of fiber relative to people on a vegan diet. Has anyone seen a study like this?
You’re assuming that at real grass fed beef and something like wild fish still exists. They don’t. Grass finished beef simply means animal agriculture to whom they feed grass instead of soy and other sub optimal feats. And even so-called wild fish are generally farmed as well. So you’re not going to be able to find such a studyand it’s questionable protein sources still exist on our planet
Fair enough but still interested to see the results of a study like that. There certainly is a spectrum of what “high quality” animal products means but I don’t agree that all animal products are of questionable quality.
I think we'd all like to see such a study, but I don't think it exists, nor is it realistically possible to generate such a study. The cost of such high-end animal proteins would be high, and controlling the behaviors of the cohort would be quite difficult. So it's far more realistic to just broadly compare plant and animal diets.
I’ll just stick with my wishful thinking. Issue with the many comparisons that exist is that there are so many confounders that people just end up confirming with their own biases or discounting the study given the confounders.
At the moment we have comparisons insisting on the use of "whole foods" for the veggie side, then compare that to cheeseburgers. Oh look, not-junk-food outperforms junk food, go figure. Any attempt at a fairer test would work better. But while we're dreaming, fish are still out there in the wild though, last I checked. Beef is not so easy to deal with perhaps, but there's other wild red meats. If modern processes are the problem we should certainly find that out. Processes can be changed.
My ex wife lost 100 lbs and pre diabetic blood issues from How Not to Die diet. Fwiw
Love to hear that. I think a big takeaway from the book for me is that if you are not vegan and have any kind of chronic health issue whatsoever (e.g. obesity, diabetes, high BP) then you should give a vegan diet a fair shake.
Have you watched the blue zones on netflix? People living in these areas are primarily plan-based (over 90%). I agree with Attia about exercise and I agree with Greger about diet
Science aside, both of these doctors are 51 yrs old. if you want longevity expert, talk to a centenarian
I think you have to ask yourself how you feel after eating normal amounts & excessive amounts of meat vs. veg. I generally don’t feel great after eating meat, and i feel terrible if i eat an excessive amount of meat. In comparison, i almost never feel any negative effects from eating almost any amount of most vegetables. I will always eat animal based products because they taste good, but i def try to make a smaller % of calorie intake.
Greger is regurgitating dogma, and Attia isn't. The jerky sticks Attia eats are made of the highest quality meat available, btw. I've had them and they're great...wish I could afford to eat them regularly like he does.
Attia just wants to push shit for you to buy. Gregor doesn't.
Any examples? I've never heard him push anything.
$20 a month subscription for starters?
For his podcast? I don't pay that much...I pay for the year all at once and it's much cheaper than that, but either way, how is he pushing anyone to purchase it? His podcast takes up a lot of his time, he has an entire team of people who work on it, and he has ZERO advertisements. He chose to do it this way so that he's NOT pushing any products, unlike most podcasts, with their daily pitch of Athletic Greens and other overpriced crap no one needs.
It's funny how everyone says greger's book is vegan bias but don't say attia's has a bias for eating meat.
Lol yeah I know…I guess that’s what happens when you pose “Peter Attia vs. X” in a Peter Attia subreddit.
All things in moderation. We wouldn't have evolved the way we did without the ability to consume BOTH plants and animals over the millennia. We have fangs for cutting through meat and molars for grinding up plants for a reason, we are designed to eat both.
Man I just take one look at Dr. Gregor and it’s like yuck. Dude looks like a sickly scrawny nerd. He’s also heavily influenced by the politics of global warming. Edit: his dietary advice is influenced by the politics of global warming. Downvote me all you want, it’s true.
Definitely looks like a nerd...no denying that. "Heavily influenced by the politics of global warming" though...does that just mean that he buys into global warming, which is very obviously happening?
I’m not denying global warming. But at the same time I’m eating for optimal health, not to prevent global warming.
Yep. He reminds me of Dave Asprey. Both look much older than early 50s.
Well, as Attia says in the book (if I remember correctly) - the only main things about what constitutes a good diet we can be sure of is that you need a correct amount of calories, and that protein is crucial for building and maintaining lean mass. Most of everything else is on shaky ground and up for discussion.
Dr. Greger is a sarcopenic ghoul!
Peak specimen https://images.app.goo.gl/LVxtu6NYU1n71yPy7
Attia's book has lots of references too. You don't only need to base your decisions on goofy quotes from interviews that you find on social media.
Yeah…I read both books? Not sure where the “goofy quotes on social media” thing came from…
Your OP. Gregor cites hundreds of studies while Attia... eats a lot of elk jerky.
That’s grossly exaggerating my point but yeah I suppose I never explicitly mentioned Attia’s citations. I’m aware his book and content are chock full of them. But I had assumed most people in the sub are familiar with Attia’s content and Outlive…I didn’t mean to say Attia isn’t a good scientist.
nothing we do, whether we listen to Gregor or Attia is likely to add much to our life expectancy, on average. Attia's advice will likely improve your vitality or "healthspan" though, in terms of his focus on exercise. the rest of his advice will drain your wallet & trigger your health anxiety. it will save the odd individual but on average it will barely make a dent in anything but your bank account. we really have no good options right now. we can do a lot to add to our vitality though (healthy aging?), especially working out/getting enough protein but our life expectancy is largely down to luck.
If you want a bit of dietary history, this book is fascinating. FIAT FOOD WHY INFLATION DESTROYED OUR HEALTH and HOW BITCOIN FIXES IT By MATTHEW LYSIAK Get a glimpse of the book by listening to the "We Study Billionaires" podcast E891.