| I have already learned to ignore anyone who seriously cites "The China Study". The Wikipedia article even has a warning at the top: >This article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view, and explaining the responses to the fringe theories. SBM does a good job: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/385/ >I'm not appealing to his authority—you should review the scientific literature he cites. This is still an appeal to authority -- different researchers will cite different literature, etc. I've devoted many hours of my life to reading scores of scientific articles on nutrition, and one thing I've learned is that anyone who thinks they've discovered the one easy trick to eating healthy is trying to sell you something. There's always contradictory evidence. For example, one central claim of "The China Study" -- it's been cited at me at least a dozen times in the last ten years -- is that IGF-1 is, like, totally evil. However, there are also problems associated with low IGF-1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4702316/ It seems unlikely to me that such oversimplified explanations of how metabolic signalling works are going to promote understanding that leads to better eating. |
I do appreciate your well-reasoned response, and respect the amount of nutritional research you have done. I merely recommend trying Dr. Greger's nutritional advice for yourself for a month, to see if it personally works for you. Following it plus reintroducing exercise to my life each played a large part in breaking out of a major depressive episode.
In the end, what matters is finding what works for us personally. I have no vested interest in convincing anybody to follow my nutritional advice, other than wanting them to flourish. I'm sorry for accidentally butting heads, I seem to have rubbed you the wrong way. Hope you have a wonderful day.