#1

This is like the only guy that can be trusted in health and nutrition, no B.S. Understands the importance of totality of evidence, quality of evidence & unbiased look at evidence without any monetary ties (direct or affiliate) to supplements or drugs or other business arrangements.

Gil Carvalho (MD, Ph.D), Nutrition Made Simple
https://x.com/NutritionMadeS3

Supplements he takes:

image
image1341×920 200 KB

"The science of healthy eating broken down… in bite-size pieces. Myth-busting. Fact-checking.

Tasty, healthy food doesn’t need to be complicated. Whether mediterranean, omnivore, pescaterian, vegetarian, vegan, keto, low carb or high carb, healthy nutrition can be simple and fun.

Nutrition Made Simple and Dr. Carvalho have no sponsors, affiliate deals or any ties to pharmaceutical or any other industry. Our content is fully independent.

All business inquiries please note: Our policy is to eschew all for-profit arrangements (sponsorships, affiliate deals, discount codes etc). We are unable to partner with any brands or products. We hope you understand. Remaining independent and disinterested is a central part of Nutrition Made Simple’s mission to provide clarity for the public."

Anyone else like him (and of course which is not selling supplements or similar)?

Please list who you cannot trust in nutrition and short why, and which one you can trust. Please also list the person who you trust which supplements they sell or are affiliated with, or other business ties. It can also be the same someone else said.

Trust defined as being confident that what the person said was true and didn’t leave out anything important, and did a thorough analysis considering the totality of the evidence and didn’t cherry pick (being misleading).

I cannot trust:

Greger (anti-pharma, anti-oil, anti-supplements, anti-stents, anti-erythriol, reversal claims, refusing debate)
Esselstyn (anti-oil, reversal claims, etc)
Ornish (false claims about reversal, refusing debate)
Carnivore/keto doctors (where do I start)
Paul Saladino
Bryan Johnson (don’t know who his team is & then I would see if I trust them, etc)
Peter Attia (nutrition skepticism - doesn’t help me, pro-processed meat, pro-sodium)
Brad Stanfield ($720 m claim, sloppy research).
Matt Kaeberlein (nutrition skepticism)
David Sinclair (probably great with hardcore biology, but a bit off mark many times)
Michael Lustgarten (n=1, doesn’t know or correct statements with residual confounding in i.e LDL-C studies).

3 Likes
#2

I “like and subscribe” to Gil Carvalho and I think he’s great for the same reasons you do but also follow 3 others on your “cannot trust” list. Someone can still have knowledge to offer without being perfect, can they not?. What do you mean by “nutrition skepticism”? All good scientists are reasonably skeptical by nature, are they not? I also like Physionic’s videos.

5 Likes
#3

Do you mean for nutritional advice and recommendations? Which ones if so?

It’s more like nutrition nihilism, Peter Attia has for example abandoned it completely except calories and protein - so it’s useless for me who want nutritional advice and recommendations by definition.

I don’t buy that it’s worth abandoning. It’s interesting to me along with other things.

1 Like
#4

You have edited your OP significantly, so I’ll attempt a more detailed reply. I will watch any video that interests me, but I am only subscribed to Attia (because I like his podcasts), Kaeberlein (Rapamycin expert), Stanfield (not as good content recently) and Lustgarten (who you added since my previous post). I’m not an expert in nutrition and each of those know way more than I do, so I think I can always learn something. I don’t know if I could ever put 100% trust into what anyone says but I see exactly why you would favour Carvalho for nutrition.

1 Like
#5

Regarding edit: I only added Lustgarten at the end on my non-trustable list & changed the title.

I meant mostly for nutritional advice and recommendations although there is some loss of trust when nutrition is done sloppily, maybe.

2 Likes
#6

I trust Dr William Bulsiewicz on nutrition.

Yes, he is biased towards being WFPB, which I am, but even for meat eaters, I don’t think he says anything that is incorrect.

I guess I would also add Valter Longo to the list.

4 Likes
#7

Just because someone is not representing a product doesn’t mean they are trustworthy
This guy lost me the minute he said he was concerned about the “environmental impact” of his food. This is a bullshit take

2 Likes
#8

Well, I guess no one’s really trustworthy then. He does probably have a slight bias in that direction.

I’m just going to follow a blueprint lite diet for most of the time instead. It can be relatively easy and simple, lol.

I went off that diet partly because other people were creating doubts. Now I know I can’t really trust others that much on nutrition. I should just follow it for most of the time + maybe altering according to biomarkers.

1 Like