Eating fish and poultry at least twice a week is conspicuously left off the Mediterranean Diet list here.

Fatty fish — such as mackerel, lake trout, herring, sardines, albacore tuna and salmon — are rich sources of omega-3 fatty acids. Fish is eaten on a regular basis in the Mediterranean diet.

Seems from everything I see, seafood seems to be pretty predominant in Japanese diet intake, the other diet he mentioned in comparison.

So, I figured, let me look up some info on the Dr. presenting here. Neal Barnard is a well known Vegan and founding president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Intriguing, no? Then I looked up the PCRM he is the founding president of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_Committee_for_Responsible_Medicine). OMG, they just happen to be a non-profit research and advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., which promotes a vegan diet, preventive medicine, and alternatives to animal research, and encourages what it describes as "higher standards of ethics and effectiveness in research." Its tax filing shows its activities as "prevention of cruelty to animals."

So it is a combination of a Vegan diet promotional group AND PETA. It also seems that they don't mind omitting parts of 'competing' diets to promote their own. Basically this is the equivalent of a organization like Atkins having a doctor like Iris Shai, RD, PhD, show that a low-carbohydrate diet like Atkins had a more favorable effect on blood lipid levels than both the Mediterranean diet or a low–fat diet.

Obviously she must be right, she is a doctor and other doctors support her. So this must mean all the other doctors and diets are wrong, including this one, right?

I'm calling this *propaganda, sorry.

Indeed....
In this interview Neal Barnard admits he exaggerates and lies to get people to consider going vegan.....
https://www.livekindly.co/dr-neal-barnard-accused-cherry-picking-studies-netflixs-health/

Edit:
Far from the first time, I have yet to hear a vegan doctor who wasn't a bold faced liar about the science. One claimed the WHO had declared eating moderate levels of red meat more dangerous than smoking cigarettes when in fact the study he cited was for high consumption of highly processed cured meats and only said they appear to be carcinogenic and need more study, they did not make a comparison with cigarettes or rate the danger levels, but vegans still make that false claim based on these "doctors'" exaggerated claims because it seems being vegan rots your brain.

To be fair most groups with agendas, or people saying they are part of said group, lie, exaggerate, etc., a bit sometimes. It's defiantly not just a vegan thing. It however is quite off putting and imo does not help "the cause" as many people will likely not trust anything they say anymore.

Yeah, any type of cherry picking in studies irks me badly. For instance, I recently got into an internet argument with one of the people who try to claim we didn't land on the moon.

They were using the results of a single study that tentatively said the Van Allen radiation outside of LEO possibly causes higher rates of cardio-vascular disease in astronauts. I then read the study and found out they picked 7 out of the 13 deceased astronauts vs a sample of 100 LEO astronauts, plus the general public's rates of CVD. That set off my alarm bells, so I then looked at the ages the people died at and their actual cause of death on the internet.

Three of the astronauts died at 56, 61, and 61. So basically about a decade early. The other 4 died in their 80's, basically a decade later than average. Out of those 4, they were suffering other conditions and illnesses that might have influenced the final cardiac failure. Sadly no one in the scientific community seems willing to challenge the study, so it stays valid, and the news media posted great big headlines about it when it came out.

Like I told the person I was arguing with, the median age of death of lunar astronauts is 87, even including the three that died early. Even if Van Allen radiation increases CVD likelihood, living to 80 something is pretty damn spectacular, so it really doesn't matter if you die from CVD, cancer, or a stroke.

Moving this video to transmorpher's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

You guys think that vegans are lying?

It's a shame you do not scrutinize the sellers of these products, as much as you do with vegans - Where is the *they lied to us* comments from the meat eaters about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83q9oamxmvQ

Clearly blatant number fudging, but people are happy to overlook it because vegans are the annoying ones right?

Every single study that shows animal products are good, or neutral are funded by the people that sell them. I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO FIND A STUDY THAT SHOWS ADDING ANY ANIMAL PRODUCT TO A DIET MAKES IT HEALTHIER - WHICH ISN'T TIED/LINKED TO THE INDUSTRY. In 5 years I'm yet to find one, and almost all of them have very audacious number fudging and statistic manipulation like the above egg study.

Now compare that to the 400 studies that came out last year showing meat has detrimental effects for us...... not coming from vegans. (and this happens each and every year, since 1970).



(There are also plenty of doctors who aren't vegans (like John McDougall, Caldwell Esselstyn, Dean Ornish) who all make very strong points about avoiding animal products.) These guys still eat meat on special occasions, so clearly not vegan.

He did mention fish/white meat, however he was making the point that meats aren't what is making them healthy - the Mediterraneans are healthy despite these animal foods. They are healthy because of the large intake of whole plant foods, as is the case in Japan.

And we know this, because within Japan itself there's a clear relationship between health, and amount of animal products consumed. The traditional Okinawan diet (the place which has the most centenarians int he world) is just 6% calories from animal products, the rest being from sweet potato and rice and veg. Where as mainland Japan where they eat more animal products they don't do as well as their Okinawan neighbors.

This relationship of animal food intake & rates of chronic diseases works on a local level or a global level. Less is always better, all the way to none (Loma Linda 7th day Adventists many of which are vegan by religion tend do the best out of all of the blue zones, when it comes to chronic disease).



------


Omega 3 is present in so many plant foods - such as flaxseed/linseed, hemp, chia, and even sea algae (which is where the fish get their omega 3 from)

The benefit of getting omega 3 from plant sources means almost no saturated fat, no cholesterol, no mercury, no IGF-1 raising protein structures (and no antibiotics if you are eating farmed fish). Also they say the ocean will be fishless by 2048..... (which also coincides with the Post Atomic Horror era for the Trekkies out there lol)

Fish also don't have any fiber, (the one macro nutrient everyone pretends doesn't exist, and most people are deficient in). Stay regular and prevent diverticulitis/diverticulitis, and avoid hemorrhoids, and even varicose veins.

Flax also contains lignans which prevents/treats prostate cancer https://www.healthline.com/health/prostate-cancer/flaxseed-and-prostate-cancer.


You just get so much more nutrition out of plants over all. Animal products tend to have a higher amount of a single compound or nutrient, but they have a lot of baggage with it. It's like buying a car, you don't necessarily want the one with the biggest engine, the total package is what's important.


------

Whether or not Barnard is a vegan shill, doesn't change the nutritional profiles of foods as shown above.

It also doesn't change the fact he looks, acts and speaks amazing for someone that's 65 years old - clearly putting his theory into practice with wonderful results. And while that is anecdotal, that's certainly something nobody would say about Atkins, or Loran Cordain (Paleo advocate) or Jimmy Moore (Keto advocate), who all look like they could drop dead any minute (and Atkins literally did drop dead).

No sir....we KNOW vegans are lying.
What I can't understand is why.
There's plenty of evidence that plant based (not vegetarian or vegan) diets are the healthiest choice.
There's plenty of evidence that vegan diets are almost always lacking in nutrition....they can be healthy but it's a full time and expensive proposition.
You are wrong, studies on cultures that eat large amounts of fish show it's good, and most weren't funded by the fishing industries. The Massai are pretty healthy too, and they eat and drink beef, blood, and milk almost exclusively. They have been studied extensively. You seem to always feel compelled to exaggerate enough to be wrong.

Both of your examples are demonstrably false.

Masaai have a life expectancy of what 44? http://www.bbc.co.uk/northamptonshire/features/2004/maasai/maasai_03.shtml


Who eats the most fish in the world? (factory farm cows actually) but in the human population, it's the Inuits. And they have the worst health of any people on earth. So clearly fish aren't the thing bringing the health. Their health actually gets better when they go to a standard american diet. that's how bad eating fresh wild caught fish is.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LvGiiZyn-M

Okinawans have the opposite diet of the Inuits - mostly plants, and little amounts of fish, and they have the opposite health of the Inuits too.

Less fish and more plants = better health. Therefore fish cannot be a health food.


It's also VERY easy to meet all of your nutritional needs as a vegan, yeah those hippie dippy idiots that eat all raw foods are asking for trouble, but anyone who eats regular food with grains, beans, fruit, nuts and vegetables will get everything they need. A few fortifided foods here and there and no supplements are required. (and please don't pretend like vegans are the only ones eating fortified foods- salt is fortified with iodine, and dairy is fortified with vitamin D by US law). Anyway, point is the cheapest and easiest foods to cook are the healthiest ones - the same foods that everyone in the bluezones eats, and nobody is saying those bluezone foods are expensive or hard to make.

That's what this whole video is about, identifying the foods that are health promoting, and in vegans and in Mediterranean diets (and other bluezones diets) it's the exact same foods that are providing the health. The plants, the cheap, easy to cook and readily available plants.

I'll even level with you, there's a lot of stupid people out there who happen to be vegan and they say a lot of stupid crap, but everything I post is backed up by science. I went vegan because of the health science, the ethics to me came later (perhaps I'm a bit slow, because I didn't want to see the ethics, while I was part of the system, but that's a story for another time )

Maasai do not have heart disease or cholesterol problems attributed to red meat even though they eat almost exclusively cattle. Leading causes of death include pneumonia and diarrhoea, followed by other diseases not diet related issues.

Yes, people who cut out vegetables like Inuit have issues just like those who cut meat without going to extremes to replace what they're lacking, and most don't. You must be joking using them as an example of fish inclusive diets.
People with diets high in fish like Okinawans (1/2 an American sized serving per day isn't little to me, that's every other day having a full fish meal) that include other meat in moderation and is vegetable based are the healthiest in studies, as I indicated.

At a life expectancy of 44 heart-disease for the Masaai is the least of their concerns.... but the it's also a myth that they have perfect health on beef https://nutritionstudies.org/masai-and-inuit-high-protein-diets-a-closer-look/

Traditional Okinawan's eat very little fish - less than 4% of their calories is from animal products.
https://www.superfoodly.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/pie-chart.png

These are the people who we now see living to well over 100 years old. Where as modern Okinawa's have a far worse life expectancy now that they have more animal foods in their diet.

Both of these cultures are further examples of how fewer animal foods in the diet always has better health outcomes.

And thanks to the vegan 7th Day Adventists in Loma Linda, we know that zero animal products has the best health outcomes.

This is a very strong indication that animal products are obsolete in the human diet.

True enough about Maasai, 44+- sucks no matter what kills you.
I don't believe they have perfect dietary health, but do think they indicate genetics play a huge roll in how we process foods.

My short research indicated 1/2 serving of seafood per day on average....whatever percentage that comes out to doesn't bother me....plus occasional pork.

My grandmother ate meat almost daily and lived to days from 97, healthy the whole time except for lung issues the last years. Anecdotal evidence can be misleading.

Fewer animal foods isn't none. I agree, average Americans could probably benefit from cutting their meat consumption in half or more, but none at all wouldn't be healthier for most people.

I say the lack of top athletes who are vegan contradicts your last theory. Humans are omnivores and work best as such.

Stay tuned for James Cameron's (Terminator/Titanic/Avatar) documentary titled "The Game Changers" coming out it in Feb 2019 :-)

Indeed I have to agree with you, even with some animal products, the health outcomes for people in western nations would be immensely better if they ate fewer animal foods over all.

I'll wait for it's claims to be investigated, and for it to get to Netflix, but I'll check it out.

I didn't have to wait long for other evidence....a major study recently released in the UK showed vegans took >twice as many sick days as non vegans and needed to see a doctor >three times as often.
Sure doesn't sound healthy to me.

Clearly the statistics are stacked because we all know real vegans don't have jobs

I'd take the Fisherman's Friend study with a grain of salt :-) For starters it's going to be a biased sample, and for all we know it just means sick vegans prefer to buy Fisherman's Friend Lozengers than non-vegans.

They are going really hard with fear mongering in the UK, because veganism is taking hold - 7% of the population is now vegan :-)

Lol. Good point.....dirty hippies. ;-)

Um....what? Vegans should want to avoid them almost as much as the hunter's helper and slaughterhouse sucker brand lozenges, not flock to the brand marketed at meat harvesters.

Um...really? You think non vegans fear a vegan culinary takeover or something enough to falsify studies/polls? That's hilarious.
As to the 7% number, even vegan organizations in Britain disagree, as does Wiki....
According to a 2018 survey by Comparethemarket.com, the number of people who identify as vegans in the United Kingdom has risen to over 3.5 million, which is approximately seven percent of the population, and environmental concerns were a major factor in this development.[140] However, doubt was cast on this inflated figure by the UK-based Vegan Society, who perform their own regular survey: the Vegan Society themselves found in 2018 that there were 600,000 vegans in Great Britain (1.16%), which is a dramatic increase on previous figures.[141][142]
United States: Estimates of vegans in the U.S. vary from 2% (Gallup, 2012)[143] to 0.5% (Faunalytics, 2014). According to the latter, 70% of those who adopted a vegan diet abandoned it.

Not so much non-vegans, but companies that sell non vegan products are viewing it as a loss of revenue. Even a 7% drop in sales is a lot of money on a country sized scale. They're constantly putting industry sponsored spokes people on talk TV to tell you that being vegan will make your dick fly off like gluten :-)

Particularly primary agriculture industries. Companies further up the consumer chain just end up selling a vegan line of their product, so they aren't so worried about it - which is also why I'm more inclined to believe that the figure is closer to 7%, as I'm seeing even mainstream companies sell non-dairy variants of their flagship ice cream, and large pizza chains with vegan pizzas on their menus. I'd imagine it wouldn't be worth their while unless they had some good numbers to go by, and would otherwise leave it to niche companies.

But it could also just be that they've discovered that vegans will basically do their brand promotions for free over social media, and could just be exploiting that. (Every time a company releases a vegan version of X, a Facebook storm ensues, and companies like free advertising)

But with population increases, even if it were up to 7% after decades, there wouldn't be a loss of business, just a slower increase, which still might be enough....but I think 7% is greatly inflated and includes non vegans and part time vegans who claim they are devout.

I think you're closer to the truth with your last. Free advertising, and vegans will flock to the business because they have so few businesses serving them, making them a good type of customer to have (at least until they start driving away non vegans with their anti-meat diatribes).