So, if I’m craving a Coke and a Hershey Bar, I guess my body “needs” them – as opposed to my brain “wanting” them?
I don’t necessarily agree with the vegetarian theories – especially the crap put out by Gregor (simply graduating from medical school does not entitle one to claim he specialized in clinical nutrition – the nutrition taught in med school is virtually nonexistent), but the “my body craves what it needs” theory is equally incorrect. The brain (especially hypothalamus) has a huge role in what we eat. Unfortunately, our foods have evolved faster than we have and once a person is obese, the normal hormonal feedback loops that regulate appetite are AFU (that’s a technical term!) rendering the “my body knows what it needs” theory invalid.
I agree with you that meat isn’t bad. I just disagree that the body knows what it needs (at least when our food selections include our modern food choices).
Dr. Greger went to medical school where they teach virtually nothing about nutrition or exercise. From what evidence I can find, he did NO postgraduate training, yet he says he specialized (in med school) in clinical nutrition. That’s like saying that because I got an undergraduate degree in history and had an interest in finance, my expertise in finance is equivalent to Wes’ PhD. It’s BULL$%&#
Dr. Greger is a biased charlatan. He had his mind made up about meat before he even completed his undergraduate degree – and his opinion was based on “feeling” (he thought the stockyards were gross) rather than on science. Instead of actually delving into the science and completing his PhD, he opted to drop out of that program and simply proclaim himself an expert. The easy way is seldom the right way.
Berating yourself for not having discipline is silly. If you’re craving a steak, your body knows what it needs at the moment, i.e. iron or saturated fat or who knows what nutrient. Vegetarians/vegans are deficit in a ton of nutrients, so it’s nothing to want to emulate wholesale. Look at Dr. Gregor … he’s already sarcopenic and ostereoporosis is probably next. Imagine what he’s going to be dealing with in another 10-20 years if he doesn’t dump his ideology. You don’t want health regrets like that when its then too late to fix it. If you’re concerned about the iron from red meat, then donate blood or use IP6 rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The other site is actually more of a closed-minded, skeptic, party line site rather than actually evidence-based, so it’s flawed in another way just as the biased vegan one you presented is. For nutrition, http://www.examine.com is pretty much it for now.
What’s wrong with the following logical argument?
Premise 1: The guy provides nutrition recommendations based ONLY on published peer-reviewed research
Premise 2: Most published peer-reviewed research is false (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327). This is based on a very simple idea: If a few dozens researchers investigate one topic, a few of them are bound to find statistically significant results simply by chance (5 out of 100 if p-value of 5% is used). These results are the ones that are then published (negative/insignificant results are not published). Therefore, what we see as published research is most likely the outliers and is not representative of the true nature of reality.
Conclusion: The guy’s recommendations are false!!!
Seems pretty iron clad to me
Wes, I just reread this after a long period of putting in considerable effort combining all the learnings incorporated from quant studies w/ making additional considerable effort to read conference calls and make notes of companies I’m investing in and considering. Ultimately I’m disappointed at this point in my results.
I “want” to believe that putting in the time and effort will pay off. I’m a fan of Buffett and he talks about reading all the time and identifying companies w/ sustainable competitive advantages. I just don’t know if I’ll ever get there, and one of the most frustrating things is not knowing whether what I’m doing is fatally flawed, or whether it’s just not working right now. The evidence above suggests my approach is fatally flawed and I should abandon the subjective part of my process. I’ve known this was likely outcome both from reading your book and blog, but to see it borne out in investing results is upsetting because I think most of simply want to think that trying harder, investing in a businesslike manner, should produce better results.
Now I’m in process of “inverting” some ideas like Munger suggests, wondering under what conditions it might be better to look for richly valued companies, with low quality, and poor momentum? Wondering if I would I be better to look for reversion potential in that pool of company stocks?
Seemingly I should not be able to consistently underperform (excluding transaction costs), so I think I’m onto something interesting even if my underperformance results from efforts to select investments with what I expect to be superior performers. Seemingly by avoiding what I’m doing I should be able to do better. Kindof like George Castanza in doing the opposite:
For a stock, reflexivity would depend on the extent that valuation changes affect management’s estimate of the equity cost of capital. In my experience, some managements tie the two together while others do not. It’s too long a theory to put in a comment box. Here’s a longer explanation: http://undervaluedstocks.info/reflexivity-feedback/
Nick de Peyster
Thanks for sharing. The site discussed is certainly not perfect, but the guy running it is trying his best to share the “truth.”
The site you’ve sent it also great and thanks for sharing!
Selective quoting of studies, including some that don’t provide statistically significant results isn’t exactly evidence based.
Not necessarily bad to adopt a vegetarian diet, but the site completely misrepresents the medical research.
Below link summarizes some of the issues:
I can’t really make any recommendations, but I was somewhat surprised to find that there is indeed a T-Bill ETF offered by SSGA: https://www.spdrs.com/product/fund.seam?ticker=BIL
That being said, the fees are a little steep for what you’re likely to get in return with our current interest rate environment. The 3 and 5 year returns are slightly negative–not really surprising
Again, not a recommendation, but what I’ve done in the past is cut out the middle man and purchase Bills directly from the US Treasury. They’re auctioned weekly and can be purchased through Treasury Direct or an online broker. My broker doesn’t charge for auction purchases and there’s a minor fee for secondary market transactions, so it’s been a better option than an ETF from a transaction cost perspective