Seriously, what 45 year old doc would you take nutrition advise from?
Greger looks twice the age of Naiman, but these guys are the same age.
Dr Michael Greger loves magical thinking. Sugar is sugar, no matter how its packaged.
The dude lost all credability after appearing in a few Kip Anderson monstrosities, trying to dress up animal rights issues as nutritional science, stacking up lies and half truths and glueing them together with confounded associational observatinal crap studies..
Fiber helps slow the release a tiny bit, but dates are still just candy regardless. Biochemistry really doesn't care about magical thinking and natural vs processed sugar.
I go with the overwhelming body of data, not with magical thinking based on some spurious single study results. Sugar molecules don't magically become healthy because they are packaged in something that grows on a tree. Yes, if by being healthy you mean being at the gym working out enough time to call it a part time job, you might burn the crap fast enough to not harm your health, but that would count for a snicker bar as well. An active lifestyle attenuates the negative health effects of sugar. Putting a natural label on the molecules and acting as if that magically makes sugar a health food does not.
And its not about liking Greger vs Naiman, it is about the credibility of doctors who practice what they preach with respect to nutrition when you consider their physique and attributes of aging. Greger at 45 looks malnourished and at least 55 years old. Naiman at the same age looks 10 years younger than his age and in better shape than most 20 years younger than him in these days.
The science isn't on the side of ultra-high sugar food. The data isn't on the side of ultra-high sugar food. The credibility of doctors with a high-sugar narrative isn't on the side of ultra-high sugar food. The only thing on the side of ultra-high sugar food is the magical thinking of natural vs added sugar.
Seriously, stay away from taking nutritional queues from the walking talking embodiment of the 1984 book.
vs some Greger quotes:
It is beyond me how anyone can take someone who looks like Greger does and who makes statements that are pretty much Orwellian, serious.
Seriously, what 45 year old doc would you take nutrition advise from?
Greger looks twice the age of Naiman, but these guys are the same age.
Dr Michael Greger loves magical thinking. Sugar is sugar, no matter how its packaged.
The dude lost all credability after appearing in a few Kip Anderson monstrosities, trying to dress up animal rights issues as nutritional science, stacking up lies and half truths and glueing them together with confounded associational observatinal crap studies..
Fiber helps slow the release a tiny bit, but dates are still just candy regardless. Biochemistry really doesn't care about magical thinking and natural vs processed sugar.
You might not like Greger, but he didn't do the studies. Believe what you like, I'll go with the overwhelming body of science.
Fruit is not harmful to a healthy body.
I go with the overwhelming body of data, not with magical thinking based on some spurious single study results. Sugar molecules don't magically become healthy because they are packaged in something that grows on a tree. Yes, if by being healthy you mean being at the gym working out enough time to call it a part time job, you might burn the crap fast enough to not harm your health, but that would count for a snicker bar as well. An active lifestyle attenuates the negative health effects of sugar. Putting a natural label on the molecules and acting as if that magically makes sugar a health food does not.
And its not about liking Greger vs Naiman, it is about the credibility of doctors who practice what they preach with respect to nutrition when you consider their physique and attributes of aging. Greger at 45 looks malnourished and at least 55 years old. Naiman at the same age looks 10 years younger than his age and in better shape than most 20 years younger than him in these days.
The science isn't on the side of ultra-high sugar food. The data isn't on the side of ultra-high sugar food. The credibility of doctors with a high-sugar narrative isn't on the side of ultra-high sugar food. The only thing on the side of ultra-high sugar food is the magical thinking of natural vs added sugar.
Seriously, stay away from taking nutritional queues from the walking talking embodiment of the 1984 book.
vs some Greger quotes:
It is beyond me how anyone can take someone who looks like Greger does and who makes statements that are pretty much Orwellian, serious.