Do I Owe Vegans An Apology? New Study Review | Educational Video | Biolayne 

And who would have thought you'd have healthier biomarkers in just eight weeks?

@@Joseph1NJit’s pretty expected at least LDL positive or negative changes can be seen within 3 weeks.

@@The_Legend_Himself yup.

Yes

Seconded

The guy liked the comment….I can die fulfilled now. 😂 RN & Trainer here. Thank you for what you do. You’ve helped shape the coaching I do. Ya da man!

You can have a lack of saturated fat? I don't think you need any. Alpha-linolenic acid and linoleic acid are the only fats/fatty acids that are essential.

WTF are you talking about? Where did I ever say you needed saturated fat? You are using big words but have no reading comprehension skills. Two options here, you didn't watch the video, so you took my comment out of context, or you clearly don't have the ability to comprehend what you read. smh @@jakubchrobry3701

@@jakubchrobry3701lack of X can just mean “less of X than is expected/normal”, it doesn’t have to mean “less of X than required/wanted”

@@Al-.-ex Can you provide a source for your definition of "lack." According to Oxford, lack is "the state of being without or not having enough of something." How can you not have enough of a nutrient that's not essential?

@@jakubchrobry3701 different dictionaries disagree on whether the missing thing is required, or just wanted, or even just customary / expected. Some omit even that. The tragedy of stupid prescriptivists is they have no smart prescriptivists to learn from.

Is this just really good sarcasm?

Lol!

As long as you are not a couch lard behemoth, you're good to go.

Carnivore diet is as stupid as veganism. Look at your damn teeth people, they tell you what you’re made to eat.

Exactly hahaha 😅

how does it risk safety?

@@devvyas6751 "satiety"

mah bad @@Joseph1NJ

Exactly. When you substitute animal protein for plant protein, you naturally eat more fiber and less saturated fat. It's a no-brainer. Trying to dissociate it is delusional.

@@davisantos3431 It gets dissociated since there is no reason someone eating meat can't get enough (or even excessive) fiber unless they are full-on carnivore. Any diet with a sufficient amount of plants will do this, and you don't need to eat nothing but plants to achieve it.

One of the big points in the series is that animal agriculture is bad for the planet. You have not mentioned this at all in your video. If you are going to eat meat and if you care for the future of the planet, then you should know where your meat and fish come from! Factory farming is unsustainable. A person can eat meat but obviously eating less is better for the person and the planet.

Eat leaner meats and more plants. Not hard to figure that out.

Not so strenge. Norton has financiël links to the meat and eg industrie, dude is a clown.

And it's just easier to do on a whole foods plant based diet than any other

You claimed in another post that Fish and dairy are healthy, they may be healthier than other animal products, but they are not the optimal foods compared to plant foods.

@@avinashtyagi2 plant based lacks proteins.

@@tatywork9126Lol, no it does not. Plenty of protein in plants.

@@tatywork9126 One Block of Super firm Tofu has 70 Grams of Protein

Lean meat is amazing. We need to stop vilifying it.

Non-GMO / Organic Veggies & Fruits, Grains, Beans, Roots.

Right? Diabetes, obesity, heart disease. Some of the leading causes of death and wfpb is better at preventing all of those, but people will still refuse to admit that it's better.

ANY diet has fewer calories if someone wants it to. Even a diet of Icecream and donuts could have less calories. The participants chose to eat less calories, probably through satiation but any restrictive diet provides more satiation. Not to mention this is was a gardener study (beyond meat funds them). On a side note I really hate the term "WFPB" since it often piggybacks veganism with omnivore success. Mediterranean, vegetarian, pescatarian, some Japanese diets and even up to 20% animal diets (so my damn diet) all fall under the "WFPB" umbrella. So yeah it is a silver bullet when it is so vague it literally means any diet with a decent amount of plants.

my thoughts exactly 😅

No the fat in meat is not all saturated fat. Especially with animals that have been fed conventional feed they have a lot of PUFA and MUFA. Only animal-based fat sources like butter and ghee are mostly SFA, and I believe coconut oil which is a plant based fat source has more saturated fat than the former two foods.

@@JohnSmith-yt8didon’t even try with the zealots, they refuse to read the study and understand the fact they decided the results then designed a fake study to get said results.

On what planet is meat "almost all saturated fat"? Do you think meat is pure lard? Have you not heard of lean meat before?

Because they're meatheads?

Cause meat is manly. Hunting is manly. They have the image of a big muscular primitive man single handedly taking down mammoths with primitive tech, so they look up to it. It's an image of strength and manliness which hampers their ability to consider contrary information.

Get leaner meat and eat more fiber, genius. Fish is mostly unsaturated fat as well.

To some extent, anyone can obviously eat a poor diet that's lacking in nutrients. But in general, I think eating a wider variety of foods is better than limiting yourself to one food type as far as nutrients go. There are many other potential reasons to want to cut out certain foods though that may be more important than possible vitamin deficiencies.

​@@Stormie33❤😅

People should take care on all diets, but veganism even more so since malnutrition risk increases, and the number 1 reason for quitting veganism is malnutrition concerns.

Discovering fire

The real takeaway is don’t be dumb enough to believe a study from woke assed Stanford.

In practice, not in theory.

He can't say that because he would lose subscribers. He won't even say to stay away from beef.

If you ignore protein and muscle synthesis. Yes.

@@russell3038 Why would you ignore protein and muscle synthesis? I'm not sure what that has to do with eating plants.

@@jakubchrobry3701 harder to get enough protein (not impossible!) and also animal protein has a more effective amino acid stack)

who is fiber

Whole foods plant based is superior, I'm losing a ton of weight without ever counting a single calorie, and I never feel like I'm starving, it's like having cheat codes.

Why do you think a diet being optimal is more important than being ethical? If eating humans was the most optimal diet, would you adopt it?

@@Nanashi-sz6wc Optional and optimal doesn’t mean the same thing Also eating cows or chickens doesn’t equate to eating humans

@@C0d0ps That was a typo, I meant to say optimal in both instances. I never said they were the same thing, or equated them. Could you answer the question?

@@Nanashi-sz6wc Animals eat animals... When a lion kills a wildebeest it's far often more slowly and horrific then when a butcher kills an animal. Have you ever seen a polar bear slaughter a seal? Some animals are cannibalistic... A praying mantis eats her partner after mating... Some animals even seem to enjoy maiming other animals Ever seen a chimpanzee ripping a monkey to pieces? Some animals eat their own newborn babies... Hamsters do this... So what/who's ethics? Definitely not nature's... Plants and trees provide us with oxygen.... So, it seems a bit silly to eat those, right? Or use wood as a building resource. Also, maybe plants have feelings too... :P Again, what/who's ethics? Definitely not nature's... It's fine that people decide for themselves to make a certain choice. Just don't push that personal view onto others and/or shame/blame them for choosing differently. *That* is quite unethical.

But behind it all, fiber = bad for humans, saturated fat = good for humans. And higher cholesterol is not associated with heart disease in non-biased studies.

Read the comments in the carnivore videos to see many thousands of people who have a lived experience. Including many ex-vegans.

literally, this guy is a clown

​@@stevem8318ah yes... anecdotes..the best form of evidence

FOR THE ALGORITHM

I am all 4 it.

Algorithm!

I believe there are studies looking at psyllium husk fibre supplementation showing LDL decrease. But a supplement is a supplement stick to whole foods as a primary source and a supplement as extra insurance.

There really isn't a number that would allow for you to have an inextricable understanding of how much is too much and how little is too little. There's a lot of variances that goes into stuff like this. I would start with a number and go from there. Keep in contact with your doctor and make sure they're on the same page with your experimentations as well.

The American Heart Association recommends less than 10% of one's calories from saturated fat. So if you eat 2000 cal, the upper limit would be 20 gram per day. Recommendations for fiber is: at least 25 grams. In general more fiber is usually better (as long as you don't have gut problems). Also if you are used to very low fiber, build up slowly, so that you give your micobiota time to develop.

I feel like I have heard layne say that fiber should be 15grams per 1000 calories so 30 grams for a 2000 calorie day. I don't know about cholesterol.

What you are describing is familial hypercholesterolemia. There really isn't a dietary answer for that, unfortunately. Your body produces extra cholesterol. All you can really do is watch for signs of CVD. Optimize your diet, sure, but you will never really be able to get your cholesterol to "healthy" levels, as described in lipid panel data.

​@@BaresarkSlayneThat sounds a bit depressing. Are you sure that a light statin, or other Lp(a)- and apoB-lowering drugs, would not help?

Eat lettuce and carrots all day. See how long you live. I will eat cheese and steak for every meal. I will live longer and be stronger

Oh but he doesn't deny it, he says that eating more of that its better. That's why he says if you are choosing to go for "meat, cheese or eggs" you have to be dilligent and concious about your other food. The key part is explaining the information so as the viewer knows how to make their decisions. If i eat low calorie food rich in fiber, low in saturated fats and mostly plant based foods (which i do) im full with a little amount of calories which means i still have plenty of room to include others food that i could enjoy independent of their macros/micros and it won't have an impact on my health.

He never denied that. Just admit vegetarianism or veganism is your new religion. In fact, that some practical advice he has given in the past for people trying to lose weight. Eat more starches, eat more vegetables, eat more high fiber food as it's more satiating.

​@Eustres but then, why not ditch the meat, cheese and eggs if they provide no benefit?

Yes it makes sense, thanks for the answer. But as we know there is a dose response between fiber intake and decrease mortality (As Layne also said in other videos) it would just make more sense to avoid foods groups that are high calories and don't contain any fiber. But I think the reason why Layne don't do that way in hie reasoning even if he doesn't outline it clearly, is that as he is an high level athlete, it is for him more convinient to keep on having animal products to get high amouts of easy available protein. But this reasoning doesn't applies well for the the overwhelming majority of the population I think :) @@PaulC-xv4zr

It does. The presenter was just coping since he really likes his meat. Thus why he tries to re-interpret everything to fit his bias.

Saturated fat does. You can get leaner pieces of meat. Everyone seems to pretend all meat is the same when it's not. Get turkey breast if fat worries you.

@@VegetaPrinceOfSaiyans even lean increases ldl

@@jaymills1720 Cite that because that's essentially implying protein increases LDL, which makes zero sense. Check PMID: 15927927

I’m jealous. #ibsgang

I eat 90 grams of fiber a day@@throbbinwoodofcoxley6830

This is a misunderstanding. The 20% is from the fats profile as in 20% saturated fats, 35% polyunsaturated fats and 45% monounsaturated fats. Vegans consumed 36% of calories from fats and omnivores 39% of calories from fats overall. This would put for omnivores something like 31% of 39% of calories which is around 12% of calories from saturated fats, while vegans consumed 23% of 36% of calories, that is around 9% of calories from saturated fats.

I do. Actually a lot more than that. Still ripped af.

I didn't know alcohol and dark chocolate were meats...

The study designer also knew for actual scientific evidence, you’d have to feed both groups either “clean diet” or “dirty diet, instead of feeding the group you want to show as more healthy a clean diet and the group you want to show as less healthy a dirty diet. The difference in diet cleanliness is likely the difference in the findings. It’s absolutely disgusting that none of the content creators seem to want to mention this point, being that it basically invalidates the entire study.

@@throbbinwoodofcoxley6830 I believe the study also had scientists funded by beyond meat, which gives some incentive as to why they biased it against the omnivore group. Also the fruit and vegetable recommendations for the omnivore group was ridiculously low, like half the servings usually recommended.

Keto is snake oil. This study is invalid for a plethora of reasons.

Something tells me you don’t understand as much as you think you do.

I love when people use the word "debunks". It totally doesn't.

Unfortunately the fact the calories weren't equivalent ruins any meaningful interpretation. You can't simply say plant based diet is optimal when the improvement in blood markers could simply be due to the calorie deficit. I say that because the guy who recently ate only Macdonald's for a month but halved the portions ended up with improved blood markers. The reduction in calories improves things even when it's fast food. I'm really disappointed they didn't cover that after taking the time to.find twins for the study.

​@@noggintubethe deficit was miniscule.

As long as you are not a couch lard behemoth, you're good to go.

@@BaresarkSlayne yes it does. Along with many, many other studies.

Because it's a diet study, not isolated ingredients study. It would be like isolating saturated fat for animal products. No, it's part of the thing, and you eat it in a normal diet. You don't exclude it in your results. Just like fiber is an inseparable part of plant foods. The study tests real life actual ways people will eat, and that's what affects their health in practice. Same for the calories. Plant foods in general naturally control your calorie intake and it's harder to overeat , and that's how most people eat. They don't track anything, they go by taste and hunger. And whole foods plant based diets can automatically keep you at healthier weight on average. While others, not so much.

@mitkoogrozev I think you're missing my point. Im not saying to exclude anything. Im saying they should have controlled for fiber, macros, and calories in both groups as best as possible. If diet is what they wanted to test for, then why go through the trouble of getting twins? The point of getting twins is to take the variable of genetics out, or rather, match/control the genetics. Since they went as far to control for genetics, they clearly wanted to see the health results strictly from the diet. So why not control the dietary variables as well? If they only cared about how things would turn out naturally, for a person who isn't tracking, then they could have just used any person.

​@Atypical_Chad how exactly do you control fiber intake in a plant based diet if most plant foods are high in fiber? Only refined carbs and fats don't have fiber. If you were to equate the intake of every nutrient this study would make absolutely no sense. YOU are the one missing the point, because the study was meant to evaluate the outcomes of the healthiest possible versions of a plant based and omnivorous diets. The whole point is that the nutrients will be different.

@davisantos3431 You add more low calorie, fiber dense foods to the omnivorous diet, as the healthiest version should be high in fiber regardless. Again, the question is, why match genetics then? Did we need twins to tell us what the differences in nutrients would be? No. So I doubt that wad the primary focus. The only thing I can think of is that they didn't want to do a crossover trial, but I would imagine the results would be very similar.

That’s not even scratching the flawed surface of this fake study. They knew the answers they’d get before they conducted the theatre.

That’s really hard to do and also match calories. Because all plant food has fibre. Very few have much saturated fat. And no animal products have fibre and have high or at least a non negligible amount of saturated fat. You really can’t get everything to be equal

Yes, but you have to stretch the definition of "omnivorous" to it's limits . The diet is almost plant based at this point. At 95% whole food plant based , if the other 5% is meat or veggies, then it's hard to say which one is better. And since there's massive environmental and ethical problems associated with meat consumption, just make that last 5% to be made out of plants as well.

@@mitkoogrozev I agree. I was making fun of what he was saying. I'm 100% plant-based.