I know, sorry, wrong choice on wording from my side
so what’s the new approach to “Material reversal of atherosclerosis” then? I’m curious
This is the best I’ve come across so far, but still a far cry from substantial reversal. Once ya got it, ya got it.
Perhaps the ultimate negator of this #1 killer would be to go vegan your entire life. Once you’re off mother’s milk…veggies4life!
The hard read –
The easy read –
1 Like
Don’t look now, but Joe Rogan hosted a “debate” with James Wilks (one of the producers) vs Chris Kresser. Fair warning, it’s almost 4 hours. I got tired of listening to James browbeat Chris after 83 minutes.
3 Likes
I think Chris Froome is now Gone plant based.
Agreed. I was holding out some hope this would be interesting, but nope. James Wilks doesn’t seem to understand how to read and interpret scientific studies.
You did better than me. I only made it 5 minutes.
And why would he? He’s not a scientist.
I’d be far more interested in a debate where at least one member of each ‘side’ actually had some credentials as a nutritionalist. In this case, its three people who haven’t got a clue arguing the toss. Kresser’s “Masters-level training in nutrition” doesn’t really count for much.
It’s worth listening to the entire podcast. James Wilks absolutely destroyed Kresser’s “de-bunking” of the Game Changers. It took them a while to stop talking over each other, but once they did, Kresser comes across as a total chancer/shyster. I finished the podcast thinking that Wilks is one of the most impressive people I’ve heard in a long time. Even Joe Rogan was impressed.
4 Likes
Well, he chose to make a movie according to his understanding of the scientific state of the art. He chose to defend his movie, so when he gets into the ring with someone who knows scientific arguments and he doesn’t, I’m not sorry for him.
I don’t think this matters at all, the understanding was much more basic than that. Just dealing with basic concepts like percentages and statistical hypothesis was staggering. If 50 % of studies support your claim and the other 50 % don’t, then the totality of the studies does not support your claim (nor the opposite).
PS I should say that I lasted about 35 minutes or so.
Seriously, if you want to criticize Wilks, listen to the whole podcast first. He tears Kresser to pieces. I was embarrassed for Kresser by the end. I’ll be interested to see how Joe Rogan’s beliefs develop after this. He was extremely impressed by Wilks. That’s why he praised Wilks when introducing the podcast.
2 Likes
Better being hypocritical and actually trying to do something than criticizing others and doing nothing. yes I’m hypocritical…but at least i’m trying to make a change rather than doing nothing.
I am doing something, I’m valuing human life, I consider it more important than a chicken.
Btw, I’m 23 minutes into Rogan’s recent podcast and am shocked by James Wilks inability to follow simple logic. Or he might just be deceptive.
Your not valuing human life too much buy aiding the meat industry into tying up natural resources to feed livestock. Also look at the quality of that chicken your eating. Rolling around in his own shite for most of his short life. Each to their own though but ignorance can be bliss
That Insta-story picture is what every plant based source has used to make the claim.
He was totally correct in what he was saying. Kresser is the one that cannot interpret the scientific literature. This becomes embarrassingly apparent as the podcast goes on. Listen to the entire podcast.
These type of discussions always highlight how scientifically illiterate the general population are. People like Chris Kresser base their entire business model on taking advantage of these people. I really hope Joe Rogan will now stop giving airtime to quacks like Kresser.
I watched the whole podcast on YouTube whilst doing a 4hr endurance ride on the Kickr. I’d recommend watching so you can see everybody’s body language. Brilliant 
2 Likes
Dairy product consumption and development of cancer: an overview of reviews
71% showed no evidence
13% showed decreased risk
16% showed increased risk
And James Wilks uses that to prove that dairy causes cancer. Facepalm x 10.
1 Like
The point he was trying to make was that Kresser was wrong to conflate the 71% “no evidence” with the 13% “decreased risk”. Kresser was being disingenuous. Why did he not add the 16% “increased risk” to the 71%. That was un-scientific. As Wilks said “the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence”. This is a very important point. As the podcast goes on, it becomes more apparent that Kresser is extremely dishonest in how he represents scientific literature. Listen to the entire podcast. It’s worth your time.
2 Likes
Check out this thread about the podcast by Kevin Bass. He is extremely knowledgeable about nutrition, and more importantly brutally impartial(similar to Layne Norton). He was very critical of Wilks and the Game Changers. He also hates snake oil salesmen like Kresser
1 Like
Wondering if the day will ever come when we figure out exactly how the human body functions so we can stop with all slap fights. 
3 Likes
Why? Because it was a study about the increase in cancer risk, that is a very important point. 84% showed no increase in cancer. The problem was that James was simply trying to set the 71% aside, and concentrate on the 13% - 16% difference. The 71% should not be ignored. That’s like doing 1000 studies, from which 9997 studies indicate no evidence, 2 studies indicate A, and 1 study indicates B, and you make the claim that the entire collection of studies indicates that A is the most probable outcome, because A is higher than B, while ignoring the other 9997 studies as if they’re useless. Rogan called him out on that flaw in his logic.
1 Like
As I said, the point Wilks was making was that Kresser misrepresents the science, he’s disingenuous, he cherry picks the evidence and he was 100% correct to point that out in this instance. That’s not how science works.
Let me know when you’ve listened to the entire podcast. You listened to 23 minutes of an almost 4 hour podcast. There’s no point having a discussion about something you haven’t listened to 