[markstos]

The link between animal protein was investigated in some detail in the China Study. Also in the documentary Forks Over Knives. Evidence found that there were “diseases of the west” that correlated with the western diet. Since then, the Cleveland Clinic has used plant-based diets to reverse heart disease successfully. Other programs use it reverse heart disease.

The book How Not to Die covers many of the top killer diseases in the US and what food are best and worst to eat to avoid those fates based on reviews of scientific literature. The trend thoughtout is that plant-based diets fare best. Not surprising that this correlates with Blue Zone diets.

The book Fiber Fueled looks the science of gut health and what foods are best for gut health. The answer: a variety of plant foods.

As a study size of one, I’ve personally been able to recover quickly enough to do 6 26.2+ mile runs in six months in my forties. I think that would difficult and injury prone on a high-inflammation diet.

[durirbfocisbs]

Do any of these books reference studies that provide causation for the observations? If not, it’s hard to judge how reliable these are. Maybe more than “I saw my boy frank go vegan and lose weight” but even then…I intimately know frank and can be reasonably sure the diet helped him lose weight. Can’t say the same for all these observational studies.

This has always been a major concern for me with a lot of studies. People seem ok with it and I’ve never understood why. It’s like trying to understand a bug by looking at the broader logs / data instead of reading the code (which is absolutely a useful tool, though the more complicated the code - like with the human body - the less useful it is. And I certainly wouldn’t be advising any fixes based off of it). And far too often reading the code tells a wildly different story.

[markstos]

See for yourself. Plug your favorite disease that’s killed a relative into https://nutritionfacts.org/ and find related scientific nutrition studies explained. It’s associated with the doctor who wrote How Not to Die. I believe, yes, sometimes the specific nutrients at play are understood. Take some toxins and heavy metals for example. Some accumulate in animals and travel up the food chain. So it’s no surprise there are more toxins and heavy metals that have accumulated in bigger fish. Since big beans don’t eat small beans, there’s not bio-accumulation there.

Even the USDA in trying to promote fish advices choosing fish that are “lower in mercury”. Or you could not eat fish and skip a major source of mecury exposure.

[nradov]

That is not a scientific source which shows causality. It is a propaganda site created to promote a particular lifestyle.

[markstos]

Can you provide an example from the site that has a flawed analysis of scientific literature?

[garduque]

Also a distance runner (half and full marathons) in my 40s. I would absolutely say that dropping meat and dairy from my diet (a few months ago) has been beneficial to my running performance. Anecdotal, of course, but I know that you and I are not the only ones.

Also, yes, all of those things you cited, and others. In particular the existence of The Esselstyn Heart Disease Program [1], founded by Dr Esselstyn of Forks Over Knives fame, at the world's top heart hospital, is noteworthy.

[1] https://my.clevelandclinic.org/departments/wellness/integrat...