[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?