Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: plant positive? page 2

  1. #11
    glorth2's Avatar
    glorth2 is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    521
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by gdot View Post
    Can one live for years and years on just steak and eggs, or just beans and wheat? Probably - but I contend it would be very unlikely that one would thrive. We clearly evolved as omnivores and omnivores we are still.
    But anyone that thinks that this is what paleo/primal is is sadly mistaken.

  2. #12
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Forgotmylastusername View Post
    If you watch enough of his video's you'll see a lot of the paleo gibberish de-bunked first hand. If anyone sees mistakes in his arguments then point then point them out to him. He is more than willing to correct any mistakes made.

    If you want a more rational approach to the 2010 meta analysis, Please view plant positives 2 part breadik down]'''
    Alas there is only so much time in a day and in life. His videos fall in the "I don't give a shit" category on my to do list with all other vegan propaganda. Hell even though Durianrider is a delusional crack head.....at least he is entertaining! Probably won't get around to PP in my lifetime. -

  3. #13
    Daemonized's Avatar
    Daemonized is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Olathe, KS
    Posts
    2,253
    Anthony Colpo and PP (as Anthony calls him) had a minor row a while back. Reading what Colpo had to say about him was rather amusing. It seems like Plants had a different name that he was using the past as well.

  4. #14
    Zahc's Avatar
    Zahc is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    TT
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by not on the rug View Post
    I actually linked that meta analysis that I saw you put on another thread today. his response was that it was funded by the national dairy council and therefore no good. he then told me to rest assured knowing that practically every nutrition expert in the world believes saturated fat is bad for you.
    Is he equally skeptical of research done by vegans or the pharmaceutical industry for example? I could probably find about four other saturated fat reviews besides the 2010 meta, that found exactly the same thing -- no harm from safa.

  5. #15
    FrenchFry's Avatar
    FrenchFry is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    world
    Posts
    1,212
    noise

  6. #16
    Zahc's Avatar
    Zahc is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    TT
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by not on the rug View Post
    has anyone ever seen this site?
    Yep, propaganda is the correct word here. I'll give an example:

    Go here to read a transcript if you can't handle his voice - plantpositive - Catalyst Corrected 1, The History of Diet-Heart 1

    It would be tedious and a waste of time to go though all the claims made in this video, but two claims deserve to be mentioned since they allegedly prove that cholesterol is harmful.

    Referring to LDL-apheresis PP claims that “This is not a drug like a statin, with the possibility of multiple effects. All this device does is selectively remove their bad cholesterol particles.”

    It's easy to find studies showing that there are indeed multiple effects, contrary to what PP says e.g.
    Pleiotropic effects of LDL apheresis. [Atheroscler Suppl. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
    Lipid and low-density-lipoprotein apheresis. Effect... [Cytokine. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

    Also, LDL-apheresis would also be removing modified cholesterol particles which is increased in familial hypercholesterolemia patients. Therefore, if LDL-aphereis actually works, there is no evidence that it does so by lowering cholesterol or cholesterol particles per se.

    The real question is, does LDL-a work? PP cites this study (Long-term efficacy of low-density lipoprotein a... [Am J Cardiol. 1998] - PubMed - NCBI) which was a NON-RANDOMIZED study and as a result there were a few imbalances in baseline characteristics like less smokers in the LDL-a group. Being non-randomized, it is almost certain that other variables were also not equally distributed. Therefore, this study is not designed to prove anything. Nevertheless, while the 72% reduction may sound impressive, when we look at the hard endpoints there were actually only 2 deaths in the study — 1 death in each group due to myocardial infarction. What a bummer.

    Next PP states: “Another method of dealing with high cholesterol that has nothing to do with drugs is partial ileal bypass surgery. This long term trial has demonstrated that it is effective at lowering LDL cholesterol. Again, the only mode of action of this procedure relevant to heart disease is a lowering of cholesterol.”

    Actually, they were numerous lipid changes in the POSCH trial (non-blinded BTW), such as increases in HDL, HDL2, HDL/LDL ratio, apo A-1, and decreases in Apo-B. Hey, maybe the procedure decreased susceptibility to oxidized/modified LDL by increasing cholesterol turnover, or by improving HDL function. Again, no justification for blaming cholesterol per se. The big kicker here, is that this trial was actually a trial of surgical weight loss. The surgery group in this study had a lower BMI (25.8 vs 27.5), a mean weight loss of 5.3 kg and a decrease in blood pressure. Furthermore, the primary endpoint in this study was not statistically significant at the end of the formal trial. What PP refers to is an observational follow-up, and what those subjects did between the end of the study and such a long uncontrolled follow-up is anyone's guess.

    So yea, the amount of BS this guy spews is incredible.
    Last edited by Zahc; 05-02-2014 at 12:38 PM.

  7. #17
    Elliot's Avatar
    Elliot is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    811
    People who think the ideal diet is a low-fat diet rich in fruits and vegetables should explain the results of the Women's Healthy Eating and Living trial.

  8. #18
    gdot's Avatar
    gdot is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    1,369
    Quote Originally Posted by glorth2 View Post
    But anyone that thinks that this is what paleo/primal is is sadly mistaken.
    Completely with you on that.

    I do get it as a cyclic sort of thing - if that's what floats the boat.
    Last edited by gdot; 05-02-2014 at 05:39 PM.

  9. #19
    gdot's Avatar
    gdot is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    1,369
    Quote Originally Posted by Elliot View Post
    People who think the ideal diet is a low-fat diet rich in fruits and vegetables should explain the results of the Women's Healthy Eating and Living trial.
    With you on this one! I think one can accomplish good health on this sort of plan in general. But it's not the best possible approach. And having done it from 1980-1995 I can definitely attest to the fact that it's not the easiest or most fulfilling approach either.

    I seriously doubt that I will ever eat another skinless chicken breast without being forced by the business end of gun.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •