Bewertung
3,4
Durchschnittlich · von 5 Sternen
Non-Profit-Organisationnutritionfacts.org
Nutritionfacts Erfahrungen
3,4von 5 · Durchschnittlich
Nicht beansprucht Beanspruchen Antwortet blitzschnell
Stimmen
28
3 in den letzten 12 Monaten
Non-Profit-Organisation
57%
Anteil 5-Sterne-Bewertungen
Bewertungen (28)
3 in 12 MonatenIhre Stimme
Erfahrung zu Nutritionfacts schreiben
Bob
Verifizierte Bewertung
Biased and cherry picked
Since vegans love citing Greger/NutritionFactsOrg/How Not To Die as a credible source on nutrition, I put together a few examples of how Greger selectively cites his sources. He will never acknowledge the positives of any animal product or white meat, cherry picks many things and selectively uses data. In Uprooting The Leading Causes Of Death, Greger asks "what happens if we put cancer on a vegan diet?" He proceeds to cite several studies from Dean Ornish and The Pritikin Institute. Have a look at this paper and you can read what sort of diet the Pritikin scientists used: "the diet consisted of natural whole grains, fruits and vegetables with limited amounts (<3.5 oz) of fish, fowl or lean meat and nonfat milk." So, the diet was NOT vegan, but rather LOW in animal foods. The Ornish study is hidden behind a paywall everywhere I look, and I'm not in the mood to pay for it, but I suspect Greger is pulling the same trick, since Ornish allows his patients to eat small portions of fish and nonfat dairy. Greger cited the Pritikin researchers again on page 222 of How Not To Die, calling the diet "plant-based." If you look up the study Greger cites, you see the same thing as above: "Food was provided ad libitum except for animal protein that was restricted to 3.5 oz portions, mainly cold-water fish or fowl, served 3 days per week." This is a good example of how the term "plant-based" can mislead. It allows people who advocate eating no animal foods at all to piggyback off of findings on low animal food diets, when they're not the same thing. Greger reported on a meta-analysis linking egg consumption with fatal prostate cancer, but made no mention of poultry being inversely associated with advanced and fatal prostate cancer in the same study. Later in the same video, Greger cites another study, and neglects to mention advanced and fatal prostate cancer inversely associating with chicken and fish consumption. Greger's video on the findings of the Harvard Nurse's Health Study is rather misleading. He plucks out the part of the abstract which says “substitution of other healthy protein sources for red meat is associated with a lower mortality risk," and mentions that substituting red meat with nuts was associated with the greatest decline in all-cause mortality. What Greger does not mention is that poultry, fish, and low-fat dairy were three of the things the authors considered "healthy protein sources," and that substituting these three things for red meat was also associated with a significant decline in mortality, just not to the same extent as nuts. Greger badly misrepresents a study of half a million people from the NIH. The abstract clearly says "Red and processed meat intakes were associated with modest increases in total mortality, cancer mortality, and cardiovascular disease mortality." Greger says "Meat intake means increases in cancer mortality, and cardiovascular disease mortality. End. Of. Story." The study didn't find anything negative for white meat except a mild increase in CVD risk for men. White meat consumption inversely associated with cancer and all-cause mortality in both men and women. Greger cherry-picks a study in a video about dietary sources of phthalates, which are used in plastic manufacturing. Greger mentions one type of phthalate being most concentrated in poultry, but not another type of phthalate being most concentrated in potatoes and tomatoes. I'm not arguing against potato or tomato consumption, just pointing out Greger's selective reporting. His video editing is also rather convenient. Within seconds, a text excerpt from later in the study whizzes onto the screen, and covers up the text in the abstract incriminating potatoes and tomatoes. Here's another good one from Denise Minger's critique of How Not To Die. Greger cites a study from India which correlated meat consumption with asthma, but left out that milk consumption was inversely associated with asthma.
0
Nichole
Verifizierte Bewertung
A trusted source
I’ve had good results using the information on this site as a resource. My doctor is impressed. I’m confused why there would be any negative reviews for this site, especially for “not citing” when they go out of their way to do so. I’ve gone on to read many of the studies myself for further information.
0
J.......
Verifizierte Bewertung
NF obscures their own disclaimer
Michael Greger MD overtly uses his degree to give medical advice on various topics with hundreds of videos on his own website Nutritionfacts.org and YouTube. Clearly people believe they are listening to a practicing physician who gives free medical advice judging from most comments under his videos and even positive comments here. There are no disclaimers anywhere on his videos or youtube I can find. Yet hiding on his own website TOS it says: "Nutrition Facts. org does not provide medical advice". When this is put into a comment under a video it is deleted repeatedly even though it does not violate any TOS. They appear to intentionally hide their own disclaimer. Refusing to put the disclaimer at the beginning of each video and burying it in the TOS of his website when he also posts on youtube is dishonest and likely illegal in most states. He wants the respect and attention of a doctor but is just an internet influencer churning out videos for monetary gain that he and his organization do not stand behind if someone is injured or killed by it's advice. Michael Greger's alleged medical practice listed on plantrician.org claims to be in Maryland but only lists a P.O.box, has an Oakland California phone number, and is named Nutritionfacts.org which is not a medical office.
0
Jack Odinsen
Verifizierte Bewertung
The most honest nutrition information you can find.
Dr. Greger not only provides an excellent analysis of the topics he discusses, he ALWAYS provides references supporting everything he says.
0
Tony Edwards
Verifizierte Bewertung
As vegan since 1967 always health…
As vegan since 1967 always health conscious no alcohol or smoking I am now dealing with high blood pressure and a diagnosis of hypothyroidism, neverthe less probably leading to a very long life without levothyroxine! . A vegan as I will have nothing do with the systemic cruelty inevitable in producing affordable animal products. I think for those who are only concerned with optimum health only adding a small quantity of the highest quality meat to an otherwise Vegan diet,no dairy products. B12 essential supplement and D advisable,make friends with a hunter:-) or purchase fish from clean waters or make sure there is an iodine dietary source not having one for sure the cause of my issues, a couple of sheets of nori a day the best way.
0
Die Akte
Antwortet blitzschnell
Typische Antwortzeit unter 24 Stunden.
Alternativen zu Nutritionfacts
Non-Profit-Organisation-Ranking →Häufige Fragen zu Nutritionfacts
Ist Nutritionfacts seriös?
Nutritionfacts erreicht aktuell 3,4 von 5 Sternen aus 28 unabhängigen Bewertungen — Gesamturteil „Durchschnittlich“. Zur Einordnung: der Firmensitz (6800 Wisconsin Avenue #1185, 20815 Chevy Chase, US) ist öffentlich dokumentiert, Kontaktdaten liegen offen. Alle Stimmen bleiben öffentlich: erfahrungen.app löscht keine Bewertungen gegen Geld.
Wie bewerten Kunden Nutritionfacts?
Kundinnen und Kunden bewerten Nutritionfacts im Schnitt mit 3,4 von 5 Sternen („Durchschnittlich“) auf Basis von 28 Bewertungen. 3 davon stammen aus den letzten 12 Monaten.
Wo hat Nutritionfacts seinen Sitz?
Nutritionfacts hat seinen Sitz in 6800 Wisconsin Avenue #1185, 20815 Chevy Chase, US. Die Angabe stammt aus öffentlichen Quellen und dem Impressum.
Welche Alternativen zu Nutritionfacts gibt es?
Die bestbewerteten Anbieter in der Branche Non-Profit-Organisation sind Associazione Olivami (4,9 von 5), om | nieuwe energie (4,3 von 5), International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (4,7 von 5). Das vollständige Ranking mit allen Anbietern finden Sie in der Branchenübersicht auf erfahrungen.app.
Ist das Profil von Nutritionfacts beansprucht?
Nein. Das Profil von Nutritionfacts ist öffentlich, aber nicht vom Unternehmen beansprucht. Deshalb kann Nutritionfacts hier nicht auf Bewertungen antworten. Die Firma kann das Profil kostenlos beanspruchen.
Antwortet Nutritionfacts auf Bewertungen?
Nutritionfacts: Antwortet blitzschnell. Typische Antwortzeit unter 24 Stunden.
Kann Nutritionfacts negative Bewertungen löschen lassen?
Nein. erfahrungen.app löscht, versteckt oder verkauft keine Bewertungen — auch nicht für verifizierte Unternehmen. Firmen können öffentlich antworten, aber Kritik bleibt stehen.
Wir löschen keine Bewertungen.
Auch nicht für Geld. Unclaimed ist fair. Claimed gibt das Mikrofon — nicht den Radiergummi.