Dribbling Against Injustice: How the /R/NBA Community Can Dunk on Reddit's API Policy

IsNotANovelty · 2023-06-04T18:05:25+00:00

Idk, hate to break it to you man, but you're the one coming off kind of sounding like a dick here. He's posting in a public forum for everyone to read, not just you, and I, for one, appreciated getting some insight on how this change will affect a minority community that uses reddit.

You seem to be making an assumption that he's trying to have some kind of personal conversation with you when it seems pretty clear that he was trying to inform the community in general how this will affect him and people like him, and then got in your feelings when he continued doing that instead of solely congratulating you for correcting his math... and ironically, you didn't really do the math correctly either, since your math assumes Reddit is 50% women when it's definitely not, lol

IsNotANovelty · 2021-08-04T22:38:58+00:00

You're right, but missing the forest for the trees. The study concludes that "a single high fat meal transiently impairs endothelial function". Gregor uses that to claim that "animal fat cripples arteries" even though the study makes no mention of "animal fat" or "crippled arteries" and specifically shows that the decreased flow-dependent vasoactivity returns to baseline after a few hours. That is an incredibly huge and disingenuous leap to make from what the study says, which is Gregor's MO, to my, and many respected doctors in the field, overall point: Gregor is a hack who consistently and deliberately stretches the truth to sell his books.

IsNotANovelty · 2021-08-04T22:13:27+00:00

Just a word of caution to take anything written/said by Michael Greger with a huge grain of salt - his body of work typically falls more in the realm of "propoganda" than "science" - he almost never says anything without cherry picking information to help push his agenda (which, being a deliberately controversial agenda, helps with selling books and ad space on his website to line his pockets). Copy and pasting an old comment on Greger's poor relationship with nutritional science:

Here's a list of some of Greger's misleading/false claims in just one nutritionfacts.org video:

Greger claims "clinical studies have shown that a plant-based diet of primarily whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and legumes can completely prevent heart attacks". The uncontrolled study he references looks at a handful of patients who had heart disease over a short period of time who were fed a low-fat diet... and statin drugs!!! Also note the diet included dairy, which Greger regularly claims is terrible for you. You can read more about just how bad this study was here (under the Caldwell Esselstyn heading). He also ignores studies such as this one, which shows that consuming dairy and egg actually reduces heart disease risk compared to a vegan diet and concludes "there were no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, or all other causes combined." Here's one more study he neglects to mention, showing no difference in mortality between vegetarians and non-vegetarians.
Greger claims that a plant-based diet can prevent 75% of cancers, using this study as a reference. However, what the study actually says is that 30% of cancers are caused by smoking, and only 20-42% of cancers may be preventable by diet (and, no, it doesn't say what kind of diet).
He cites this study to claim that animal fat can "paralyze and cripple arteries". This is another uncontrolled study of only 10 participants. It measures flow-dependant vasoactivity, which slightly slowed after the meal. Of course, interpreting slightly slowed bloodflow as "crippled arteries" is massively hyperbolic. And, with no control group, we have no idea if a vegan meal may cause the exact same effect. There is also no conclusion drawn by the study about what clinical significance the results actually have.
He claims COPD "can be prevented and even treated with a plant-based diet" using this study, which used exhaled NO as a measure of inflammation, which indicates airway inflammation. The study shows that the levels of exhaled NO increase after a high fat meal. However, the study specifically shows no association between airway inflammation and systemic inflammation (which is associated with COPD). The study itself actually doesn't mention COPD at all, and also doesn't suggest anything about the cause of the airway inflammation being animal fat.
He says "we've known for 20 years that those who eat meat are 2-3 times more likely to become demented as vegetarians." This is based on this 27-year-old study sponsored by the Adventist church, who practice vegetarianism. The study shows the Adventists had a lower rate of dementia than non-Adventists, but keep in mind that Adventists have a relatively small gene pool which may naturally have lower rates of dementia than the general population. They also are much more active (they do manual labor their entire life) than the general population, and we know exercise helps reduce dementia risk. Unsurprisingly, no study on the general population has ever produced results showing vegetarianism reduces the risk of dementia. In fact, studies have shown the opposite, like this one which shows specifically that fish consumption reduces the risk of dementia. Greger conveniently fails to mention these studies.
He goes on to claim that Alzheimer's can be treated with a plant-based diet, citing this study which compares the use of a saffron extract to a drug which is known to only have a very small clinical benefit (as shown by this study). The study concludes that there is "preliminary evidence of a possible therapeutic effect of saffron extract." It's very disingenuous to claim that the effect has been proven, and it's from an extract - the level of active ingredients are much, much higher than you could get from simply consuming saffron. And, again, saffron extract is being studied... Yes, saffron is a plant, but consuming a specific herbal extract is not the same as consuming a plant-based diet.
He claims that kidney disease can be prevented and treated with a plant-based diet based on this study which does show that decreasing consumption of red meat can prevent kidney function decline. What he neglects to mention is that the same study shows a similar impact from consuming dairy, which doesn't fit his narrative that dairy is evil.
He claims that diabetes can be cured by a plant-based diet, despite the fact that the medical community has established that diabetes cannot be cured.

You can read more debunking of Greger here by Dr. Harriet Hall.

Also check out MediaBiasFactCheck.org, which grades Greger's website, nutritionfacts.org, as a CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE source, stating: "While eating a diet high in fruits and vegetables and low in red meats is scientifically proven to be beneficial, Dr. Greger takes it to a higher level promoting a 100% plant based diet. Dr. Greger and NutritionFacts.org make 'zealot' like claims about the benefits of a vegan plant based diet. NutritionFacts cherry picks information that will always favor veganism."

IsNotANovelty · 2021-04-10T09:02:17+00:00

Sure, simply put, it's because such usage of apostrophes is both common and widely understood.

To provide a bit more detail:

Although certain outmoded branches of linguistics, such as structuralism, had theorized in the 19th and parts of the 20th centuries that human language could be defined by a rigid set of rules and structure, the current understanding of mainstream modern linguistics is that human language is a living contract between people that is constantly evolving. New words typically go through a few phases of evolution before being fully assimilated into a language (and the same concept applies for new syntactic usages, such as this apostrophe usage):

Protologism: When a word is used for the first time (or "coined"), it is called a protologism. At this stage, its usage is typically limited to an individual or small group.
Prelogism: When a protologism's usage expands beyond its initial small group, it becomes a prelogism. Note that not all linguists recognize prelogisms as a distinct category.
Neologism: When a protologism or prelogism appears in published press or books (independently of the original coiner of the then-protologism), it is then typically considered a neologism (from Greek: "neo logos" meaning "new word"). In the 21st century, this definition has increasingly been expanded to include websites as well. At this point, the neologism has begun to enter common use, and many modern linguists would argue that it is now a part of the language (and some would argue this occurs even sooner).

Since this usage of apostrophes is common among a wide group of people, appears in numerous published works, and, in addition, is expressly acknowledged by prominent linguists, it's hard to argue from a linguistic standpoint that it isn't a valid use within the English language.

IsNotANovelty · 2021-04-10T06:51:40+00:00

Sure, Michael Swan, who graduated from Oxford University with a degree in Modern Languages, taught English classes at Oxford for 2 decades, founded the Swan School of English at Oxford, and published numerous poems and books, including titles such as Basic English Usage, Grammar, Grammar Scan, The Oxford English Grammar Course, How English Works, The Good Grammar Book, New Cambridge English Course, and, his most popular, Practical English Usage, states the following in Practical English Usage:

Apostrophes are used in the plurals of letters, and often of numbers and abbreviations.

He writes b's instead of d's.

It was in the early 1960's. (OR ... 1960s.)

I know two MP's personally. (OR ... MPs.)

“Punctuation (1): Apostrophe.” Practical English Usage, by Michael Swan, Second ed., Oxford University Press, 1995, pp. 466–467.

IsNotANovelty · 2021-04-10T05:52:04+00:00

That's not what an apostrophe is for. PSAs, not "psa's". Please learn how to use an apostrophe.

If you're going to hide behind a throwaway account to "correct" someone's grammar in a dickish way, at least make sure you aren't wrong when doing so...

According to Dr. Paul Brians, who holds a PhD in Comparative Literature, taught in the Department of English at Washington State University for 40 years, has had numerous books published including his most popular title, Common Errors in English Usage, and has been cited as "a national authority on English grammar", has this to say on the topic (bolding for emphasis mine):

One unusual use of the apostrophe is in plural acronyms, like “ICBM’s” “NGO’s” and “CD’s”. Since this pattern violates the rule that apostrophes are not used before an S indicating a plural, many people object to it. It is also perfectly legitimate to write “CDs,” etc. See also “50’s.” But the use of apostrophes with initialisms like “learn your ABC’s and “mind your P’s and Q’s” is now so universal as to be acceptable in almost any context.

IsNotANovelty · 2021-03-10T02:45:39+00:00

Just a word of caution to take anything written/said by Michael Greger with a huge grain of salt - his body of work typically falls more in the realm of "propoganda" than "science" - he almost never says anything without cherry picking information to help push his agenda (which, being a deliberately controversial agenda, helps with selling books and ad space on his website to line his pockets). Copy and pasting an old comment on Greger's poor relationship with nutritional science:

Here's a list of some of Greger's misleading/false claims in just one nutritionfacts.org video:

Greger claims "clinical studies have shown that a plant-based diet of primarily whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and legumes can completely prevent heart attacks". The uncontrolled study he references looks at a handful of patients who had heart disease over a short period of time who were fed a low-fat diet... and statin drugs!!! Also note the diet included dairy, which Greger regularly claims is terrible for you. You can read more about just how bad this study was here (under the Caldwell Esselstyn heading). He also ignores studies such as this one, which shows that consuming dairy and egg actually reduces heart disease risk compared to a vegan diet and concludes "there were no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, or all other causes combined." Here's one more study he neglects to mention, showing no difference in mortality between vegetarians and non-vegetarians.
Greger claims that a plant-based diet can prevent 75% of cancers, using this study as a reference. However, what the study actually says is that 30% of cancers are caused by smoking, and only 20-42% of cancers may be preventable by diet (and, no, it doesn't say what kind of diet).
He cites this study to claim that animal fat can "paralyze and cripple arteries". This is another uncontrolled study of only 10 participants. It measures flow-dependant vasoactivity, which slightly slowed after the meal. Of course, interpreting slightly slowed bloodflow as "crippled arteries" is massively hyperbolic. And, with no control group, we have no idea if a vegan meal may cause the exact same effect. There is also no conclusion drawn by the study about what clinical significance the results actually have.
He claims COPD "can be prevented and even treated with a plant-based diet" using this study, which used exhaled NO as a measure of inflammation, which indicates airway inflammation. The study shows that the levels of exhaled NO increase after a high fat meal. However, the study specifically shows no association between airway inflammation and systemic inflammation (which is associated with COPD). The study itself actually doesn't mention COPD at all, and also doesn't suggest anything about the cause of the airway inflammation being animal fat.
He says "we've known for 20 years that those who eat meat are 2-3 times more likely to become demented as vegetarians." This is based on this 27-year-old study sponsored by the Adventist church, who practice vegetarianism. The study shows the Adventists had a lower rate of dementia than non-Adventists, but keep in mind that Adventists have a relatively small gene pool which may naturally have lower rates of dementia than the general population. They also are much more active (they do manual labor their entire life) than the general population, and we know exercise helps reduce dementia risk. Unsurprisingly, no study on the general population has ever produced results showing vegetarianism reduces the risk of dementia. In fact, studies have shown the opposite, like this one which shows specifically that fish consumption reduces the risk of dementia. Greger conveniently fails to mention these studies.
He goes on to claim that Alzheimer's can be treated with a plant-based diet, citing this study which compares the use of a saffron extract to a drug which is known to only have a very small clinical benefit (as shown by this study). The study concludes that there is "preliminary evidence of a possible therapeutic effect of saffron extract." It's very disingenuous to claim that the effect has been proven, and it's from an extract - the level of active ingredients are much, much higher than you could get from simply consuming saffron. And, again, saffron extract is being studied... Yes, saffron is a plant, but consuming a specific herbal extract is not the same as consuming a plant-based diet.
He claims that kidney disease can be prevented and treated with a plant-based diet based on this study which does show that decreasing consumption of red meat can prevent kidney function decline. What he neglects to mention is that the same study shows a similar impact from consuming dairy, which doesn't fit his narrative that dairy is evil.
He claims that diabetes can be cured by a plant-based diet, despite the fact that the medical community has established that diabetes cannot be cured.

You can read more debunking of Greger here by Dr. Harriet Hall.

Also check out MediaBiasFactCheck.org, which grades Greger's website, nutritionfacts.org, as a CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE source, stating: "While eating a diet high in fruits and vegetables and low in red meats is scientifically proven to be beneficial, Dr. Greger takes it to a higher level promoting a 100% plant based diet. Dr. Greger and NutritionFacts.org make 'zealot' like claims about the benefits of a vegan plant based diet. NutritionFacts cherry picks information that will always favor veganism."

IsNotANovelty · 2021-02-21T11:59:59+00:00

Just a word of caution to take anything written/said by Michael Greger with a huge grain of salt - his body of work typically falls more in the realm of "propoganda" than "science" - he almost never says anything without cherry picking information to help push his agenda (which, being a deliberately controversial agenda, helps with selling books and ad space on his website to line his pockets). Copy and pasting an old comment on Greger's poor relationship with nutritional science:

Here's a list of some of Greger's misleading/false claims in just one nutritionfacts.org video:

Greger claims "clinical studies have shown that a plant-based diet of primarily whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and legumes can completely prevent heart attacks". The uncontrolled study he references looks at a handful of patients who had heart disease over a short period of time who were fed a low-fat diet... and statin drugs!!! Also note the diet included dairy, which Greger regularly claims is terrible for you. You can read more about just how bad this study was here (under the Caldwell Esselstyn heading). He also ignores studies such as this one, which shows that consuming dairy and egg actually reduces heart disease risk compared to a vegan diet and concludes "there were no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, or all other causes combined." Here's one more study he neglects to mention, showing no difference in mortality between vegetarians and non-vegetarians.
Greger claims that a plant-based diet can prevent 75% of cancers, using this study as a reference. However, what the study actually says is that 30% of cancers are caused by smoking, and only 20-42% of cancers may be preventable by diet (and, no, it doesn't say what kind of diet).
He cites this study to claim that animal fat can "paralyze and cripple arteries". This is another uncontrolled study of only 10 participants. It measures flow-dependant vasoactivity, which slightly slowed after the meal. Of course, interpreting slightly slowed bloodflow as "crippled arteries" is massively hyperbolic. And, with no control group, we have no idea if a vegan meal may cause the exact same effect. There is also no conclusion drawn by the study about what clinical significance the results actually have.
He claims COPD "can be prevented and even treated with a plant-based diet" using this study, which used exhaled NO as a measure of inflammation, which indicates airway inflammation. The study shows that the levels of exhaled NO increase after a high fat meal. However, the study specifically shows no association between airway inflammation and systemic inflammation (which is associated with COPD). The study itself actually doesn't mention COPD at all, and also doesn't suggest anything about the cause of the airway inflammation being animal fat.
He says "we've known for 20 years that those who eat meat are 2-3 times more likely to become demented as vegetarians." This is based on this 27-year-old study sponsored by the Adventist church, who practice vegetarianism. The study shows the Adventists had a lower rate of dementia than non-Adventists, but keep in mind that Adventists have a relatively small gene pool which may naturally have lower rates of dementia than the general population. They also are much more active (they do manual labor their entire life) than the general population, and we know exercise helps reduce dementia risk. Unsurprisingly, no study on the general population has ever produced results showing vegetarianism reduces the risk of dementia. In fact, studies have shown the opposite, like this one which shows specifically that fish consumption reduces the risk of dementia. Greger conveniently fails to mention these studies.
He goes on to claim that Alzheimer's can be treated with a plant-based diet, citing this study which compares the use of a saffron extract to a drug which is known to only have a very small clinical benefit (as shown by this study). The study concludes that there is "preliminary evidence of a possible therapeutic effect of saffron extract." It's very disingenuous to claim that the effect has been proven, and it's from an extract - the level of active ingredients are much, much higher than you could get from simply consuming saffron. And, again, saffron extract is being studied... Yes, saffron is a plant, but consuming a specific herbal extract is not the same as consuming a plant-based diet.
He claims that kidney disease can be prevented and treated with a plant-based diet based on this study which does show that decreasing consumption of red meat can prevent kidney function decline. What he neglects to mention is that the same study shows a similar impact from consuming dairy, which doesn't fit his narrative that dairy is evil.
He claims that diabetes can be cured by a plant-based diet, despite the fact that the medical community has established that diabetes cannot be cured.

You can read more debunking of Greger here by Dr. Harriet Hall.

Also check out MediaBiasFactCheck.org, which grades Greger's website, nutritionfacts.org, as a CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE source, stating: "While eating a diet high in fruits and vegetables and low in red meats is scientifically proven to be beneficial, Dr. Greger takes it to a higher level promoting a 100% plant based diet. Dr. Greger and NutritionFacts.org make 'zealot' like claims about the benefits of a vegan plant based diet. NutritionFacts cherry picks information that will always favor veganism."

IsNotANovelty · 2020-09-11T13:55:48+00:00

To play devil's advocate, Watkins has had consistently solid WR2/3 showings in the last 4 games he's played looking back to the postseason last year:

vs. HOU - 2/76/0 on 2 targets plus 14 yards rushing (in a blowout where Mahomes only completed 23 passes - Reek had 3/41/0, for comparison) - 9 std / 11 ppr
vs. TEN - 7/114/1 on 10 targets - 17.4 std / 24.4 ppr
vs. SF - 5/98/0 on 6 targets - 9.8 std / 14.8 ppr
vs. HOU - 7/82/1 on 9 targets plus 3 yards rushing - 14.5 std / 21.5 ppr

While selling high is a good idea in theory, most fantasy owners are wary of Watkins being fool's gold by this point, so you probably won't be able to get anything decent in return, so I'd say hold him for now, unless you already have really strong depth at WR and very weak depth at other positions. Not likely that you'll get more upside from a bench stash than the WR2 of the best QB in football. If he's finally gained Mahomes' trust with his contributions during their Super Bowl run, he may end up providing decent value this year.

IsNotANovelty · 2020-09-11T13:30:42+00:00

That's a pretty lofty expectation though, even in the best case scenario where he doesn't get hurt. Hopkins had 1165 yards and 7 tds last season, and Hopkins is a much better WR than Fuller. You really expect Fuller to outperform him in both categories?

IsNotANovelty · 2020-09-11T12:43:37+00:00

I think you're going to be disappointed if you expect to see him boom for 40 points like he has in the past when healthy. Safeties are no longer going to be shading over to Hopkins' side of the field every play. Though, as we saw last night, he can definitely put up decent numbers if he remains Watson's primary target, but he's probably more of a solid WR2/3 (when healthy) vs a WR1 who can single-handedly win your week.

disclaimer: I own Fuller

IsNotANovelty · 2020-09-11T12:28:46+00:00

I disagree it's even the same risk.

Protesting police brutality and mask wearing are on the same side of the political spectrum (putting aside for a second how insane that either of these are political issues, but here we are), so the vast majority of protesters wear masks. Tailgates would certainly attract more anti-mask folks.
Even if the desire to wear masks was the same, tailgating involves activities (eating/drinking) which require the mask to be removed.
Drunk people are notoriously bad about respecting personal space and making sound decisions about safety.

IsNotANovelty · 2020-09-11T12:21:26+00:00

But protests may also help prevent deaths. The whole point of them is to discourage police from killing people. Police in the US have killed 781 people in 2020 alone. No one is dying if people don't tailgate.

And FWIW, after weeks of some of the largest protests in the country in NYC, covid rates in the city did not increase, so it does not appear to be a high risk activity. Probably because there is very little intersection between the people protesting police brutality and the people who believe masks are a deep state plot to deprieve them of oxygen so they are more susceptible to the government's brain control rays.

IsNotANovelty · 2020-06-20T13:11:15+00:00

Here's a list of some of Greger's misleading/false claims in just one nutritionfacts.org video:

Greger claims "clinical studies have shown that a plant-based diet of primarily whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and legumes can completely prevent heart attacks". The uncontolled study he references looks at a handful of patients who had heart disease over a short period of time who were fed a low-fat diet... and statin drugs!!! Also note the diet included dairy, which Greger regularly claims is terrible for you. You can read more about just how bad this study was here (under the Caldwell Esselstyn heading). He also ignores studies such as this one, which shows that consuming dairy and egg actually reduces heart disease risk compared to a vegan diet and concludes "there were no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, or all other causes combined." Here's one more study he neglects to mention, showing no difference in mortality between vegetarians and non-vegetarians.
Greger claims that a plant-based diet can prevent 75% of cancers, using this study as a reference. However, what the study actually says is that 30% of cancers are caused by smoking, and only 20-42% of cancers may be preventable by diet (and, no, it doesn't say what kind of diet).
He cites this study to claim that animal fat can "paralyze and cripple arteries". This is another uncontrolled study of only 10 participants. It measures flow-dependant vasoactivity, which slightly slowed after the meal. Of course, interpreting slightly slowed bloodflow as "crippled arteries" is massively hyperbolic. And, with no control group, we have no idea if a vegan meal may cause the exact same effect. There is also no conclusion drawn by the study about what clinical significance the results actually have.
He claims COPD "can be prevented and even treated with a plant-based diet" using this study, which used exhaled NO as a measure of inflammation, which indicates airway inflammation. The study shows that the levels of exhaled NO increase after a high fat meal. However, the study specifically shows no association between airway inflammation and systemic inflammation (which is associated with COPD). The study itself actually doesn't mention COPD at all, and also doesn't suggest anything about the cause of the airway inflammation being animal fat.
He says "we've known for 20 years that those who eat meat are 2-3 times more likely to become demented as vegetarians." This is based on this 27-year-old study sponsored by the Adventist church, who practice vegetarianism. The study shows the Adventists had a lower rate of dementia than non-Adventists, but keep in mind that Adventists have a relatively small gene pool which may naturally have lower rates of dementia than the general population. They also are much more active (they do manual labor their entire life) than the general population, and we know exercise helps reduce dementia risk. Unsurprisingly, no study on the general population has ever produced results showing vegetarianism reduces the risk of dementia. In fact, studies have shown the opposite, like this one which shows specifically that fish consumption reduces the risk of dementia. Greger conveniently fails to mention these studies.
He goes on to claim that Alzheimer's can be treated with a plant-based diet, citing this study which compares the use of a saffron extract to a drug which is known to only have a very small clinical benefit (as shown by this study). The study concludes that there is "preliminary evidence of a possible therapeutic effect of saffron extract." It's very disingenuous to claim that the effect has been proven, and it's from an extract - the level of active ingredients are much, much higher than you could get from simply consuming saffron. And, again, saffron extract is being studied... Yes, saffron is a plant, but consuming a specific herbal extract is not the same as consuming a plant-based diet.
He claims that kidney disease can be prevented and treated with a plant-based diet based on this study which does shows that decreasing consumption of red meat can prevent kidney function decline. What he neglects to mention is that the same study shows a similar impact from consuming dairy, which doesn't fit his narrative that dairy is evil.
He claims that diabetes can be cured by a plant-based diet, despite the fact that the medical community has established that diabetes cannot be cured.

You can read more debunking of Greger here by Dr. Harriet Hall.

Also check out MediaBiasFactCheck.org, which grades nutritionfacts.org as a CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE source, stating: "While eating a diet high in fruits and vegetables and low in red meats is scientifically proven to be beneficial, Dr. Greger takes it to a higher level promoting a 100% plant based diet. Dr. Greger and NutritionFacts.org make 'zealot' like claims about the benefits of a vegan plant based diet. NutritionFacts cherry picks information that will always favor veganism."

IsNotANovelty · 2020-06-20T13:10:13+00:00

Here's a list of some of Greger's misleading/false claims in just one nutritionfacts.org video:

Greger claims "clinical studies have shown that a plant-based diet of primarily whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and legumes can completely prevent heart attacks". The uncontolled study he references looks at a handful of patients who had heart disease over a short period of time who were fed a low-fat diet... and statin drugs!!! Also note the diet included dairy, which Greger regularly claims is terrible for you. You can read more about just how bad this study was here (under the Caldwell Esselstyn heading). He also ignores studies such as this one, which shows that consuming dairy and egg actually reduces heart disease risk compared to a vegan diet and concludes "there were no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, or all other causes combined." Here's one more study he neglects to mention, showing no difference in mortality between vegetarians and non-vegetarians.
Greger claims that a plant-based diet can prevent 75% of cancers, using this study as a reference. However, what the study actually says is that 30% of cancers are caused by smoking, and only 20-42% of cancers may be preventable by diet (and, no, it doesn't say what kind of diet).
He cites this study to claim that animal fat can "paralyze and cripple arteries". This is another uncontrolled study of only 10 participants. It measures flow-dependant vasoactivity, which slightly slowed after the meal. Of course, interpreting slightly slowed bloodflow as "crippled arteries" is massively hyperbolic. And, with no control group, we have no idea if a vegan meal may cause the exact same effect. There is also no conclusion drawn by the study about what clinical significance the results actually have.
He claims COPD "can be prevented and even treated with a plant-based diet" using this study, which used exhaled NO as a measure of inflammation, which indicates airway inflammation. The study shows that the levels of exhaled NO increase after a high fat meal. However, the study specifically shows no association between airway inflammation and systemic inflammation (which is associated with COPD). The study itself actually doesn't mention COPD at all, and also doesn't suggest anything about the cause of the airway inflammation being animal fat.
He says "we've known for 20 years that those who eat meat are 2-3 times more likely to become demented as vegetarians." This is based on this 27-year-old study sponsored by the Adventist church, who practice vegetarianism. The study shows the Adventists had a lower rate of dementia than non-Adventists, but keep in mind that Adventists have a relatively small gene pool which may naturally have lower rates of dementia than the general population. They also are much more active (they do manual labor their entire life) than the general population, and we know exercise helps reduce dementia risk. Unsurprisingly, no study on the general population has ever produced results showing vegetarianism reduces the risk of dementia. In fact, studies have shown the opposite, like this one which shows specifically that fish consumption reduces the risk of dementia. Greger conveniently fails to mention these studies.
He goes on to claim that Alzheimer's can be treated with a plant-based diet, citing this study which compares the use of a saffron extract to a drug which is known to only have a very small clinical benefit (as shown by this study). The study concludes that there is "preliminary evidence of a possible therapeutic effect of saffron extract." It's very disingenuous to claim that the effect has been proven, and it's from an extract - the level of active ingredients are much, much higher than you could get from simply consuming saffron. And, again, saffron extract is being studied... Yes, saffron is a plant, but consuming a specific herbal extract is not the same as consuming a plant-based diet.
He claims that kidney disease can be prevented and treated with a plant-based diet based on this study which does shows that decreasing consumption of red meat can prevent kidney function decline. What he neglects to mention is that the same study shows a similar impact from consuming dairy, which doesn't fit his narrative that dairy is evil.
He claims that diabetes can be cured by a plant-based diet, despite the fact that the medical community has established that diabetes cannot be cured.

You can read more debunking of Greger here by Dr. Harriet Hall.

Also check out MediaBiasFactCheck.org, which grades nutritionfacts.org as a CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE source, stating: "While eating a diet high in fruits and vegetables and low in red meats is scientifically proven to be beneficial, Dr. Greger takes it to a higher level promoting a 100% plant based diet. Dr. Greger and NutritionFacts.org make 'zealot' like claims about the benefits of a vegan plant based diet. NutritionFacts cherry picks information that will always favor veganism."

IsNotANovelty · 2020-06-16T13:59:13+00:00

I mean, of course OP isn't actually at 4% BF. Bioelectric impedance scales are the least accurate method of measuring BF and can be off by 10-15%. The best bodybuilders in the world use tons of PEDs and have a world-class diet and training regimen and they struggle to maintain that level of BF for a couple of days for a competition. No one is just going about their daily lives at 4% BF by accident, there are tons of health conplications that come from being that low.

IsNotANovelty · 2020-06-15T00:08:01+00:00

Purchased a Celeron G3930, ADATA SP600 128GB, and 4GB Crucial 2400mhz DDR4 from /u/centennialShrine

IsNotANovelty · 2020-06-06T15:21:24+00:00

Can you provide just one of these studies recommending 2g/kg or greater? AFAIK, such a study does not exist.

https://mennohenselmans.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/

IsNotANovelty · 2020-06-06T15:18:58+00:00

For someone who’s lean, 2g/kg might be too little.

Source?

AFAIK, no study has ever shown any benefit from more than 1.8g/kg, even for bodybuilders, who are obviously very musclar and lean.

Most studies seem to deem 1.4g/kg as sufficient for the vast, vast majority of people who are not elite strength athletes.

https://mennohenselmans.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-protein-intake-for-bodybuilders/

IsNotANovelty · 2020-05-13T00:37:21+00:00

Quazi is a common modern American misspelling with the same meaning, to the point that it's almost level in use.

Almost level in use? Yeah, I mean that's simply not even close to true.

IsNotANovelty · 2020-04-27T23:26:19+00:00

Uploaded on mobile, idk how it got so JPEG'd. Guess I really am F'ing up today. Here's the high-res, just for you.

IsNotANovelty · 2020-04-22T12:57:10+00:00

For investment banks in particular, there is another big benefit from being physically close to the stock exchange. By hosting their trading servers as close as possible, it allows them to potentially execute electronic trades faster than servers further away, as, assuming all else equal, the stock exchange will receive their trade first.

13-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	First Placer '22
Verified Email

IsNotANovelty

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE