I´m skeptical that red meat causally increases diabetes risk but I don't think anyone knows for sure and hearing directly from the scientists conducting the research is so crucial and so rarely done, thanks for giving them a social media platform!!!
@@abel78750and yet Italy’s diabetes rate from ages 24-73 is 6.4% 2011-2021. The US for the same ages/years? 11% Italians eat a lot of bread, pasta, potatoes (believe it or not). Meat? Not nearly as much (holidays are an exception) Weird. Almost as if bread doesn’t cause diabetes
Let's see. A food with a ZERO glycemic index raises diabetes risk. Meanwhile, there are untold stories of people who have stopped or reversed diabetes by eliminating grains, starches and sugars, which shoot blood sugar to the moon. But what would you expect from a sclerotic dinosaur like Walter Willet.
Hello Chris, I want to thank you in advance for reading this long post. I began my whole foods vegan diet almost two years ago when I was 48 years old. I have been educated on-line by many nutrition experts; Dr. McDougall, Dr. Greger, Dr. Essylsten, Dr. Ornish, Dr. Barnard, Dr. Fuhrman Dr. Campbell and many more. When I found your channel 2 years ago, I was not only impressed with your mind but also with your approach and your humility. Your personal story and your Ted Talk are gut-wrenching. You are a great inspiration. I am pleased to have watched your channel evolve as you have gained great respect within the nutrition community. Every video is better than the last. You work so hard and I'm sure that I speak for tens of thousands of subscribers when I tell you how much I appreciate you. In the Jewish religion we would call you a "mensch." There is nothing higher than a mensch. A mensch is a man of outstanding character, great humility, ever-expanding knowledge and most importantly, wisdom. You are a great man. God bless you and your family.
Great video! So rare to see the authors of the studies interviewed. Huge props to Plant Chompers and hopefully they are setting the standard for more transparency in the health and nutrition industry.
I'm watching the video ATM and I don't see any real debunking. Just plant comparison bigging up people's qualifications as being a reason that people should not do their own research and just listen to the "experts". No consideration of potential bias due to governments pushing a vegetarian diet. All that's needed to debunk plant chomper is the fact that all apes and plant rating animals are gut fermenters. They turn plant matter into fats and actually run keto. You know what they don't discuss? That humans can't do that on plant matter. We don't digest most plant matter. Plant matters contain anti-nutrients. My own personal example. I make a lot of kidney stones naturally. Pee'd them out every 1-2 days since they were small. So imagine peeing out grit. Not nice. I go carnivore and remove all oxalates from food (most my stones were calcium oxalate and phosphate) and guess what? No more kidney stone grit, at all. I feel fantastic too. So Iis it of your opinion that I should just eat plants, feel terrible, get joint pain, stomach pain, and pee grit every 2 days, which hurts like frick, and walk around hunched over with a hurting peen, just because a study that was probably paid for where carnivore studies can't get funding, just because you all think so? Oh yeah. My cholesterol raised, but guess what? My heart attack risk went down since my HDL raised from 0.4 to 1.7 and evened it out. My doctor was laughing and couldn't believe it. "I don't know whether it's a good thing or a bad thing... your cholesterol jumped up but the calculator says a risk of 0.95%" I'm on TRT to so my cholesterol is supposed to get worse. If i stopped smoking it would be 0.65%. Huge improvement from the 3-4% it was pre-carnivore. Would you prefer me have a 1/200 - 1/100ush chance. Not that you would even answer that. Noob
This long-winded episode completely ignores the very prominent issues with this weak study. - Discuss the inherent flaws of FFQ's, which the study is based on. - Discuss the definition of red meat in this study, which is quite surprising. - Explain how the study shows women consume more red meat than men (first one ever, I believe). - Discuss the healthy user bias and how this affects every single epidemiological study. - Discuss how the headlines all use relative risks, when the absolute risks are miniscule.
@@zealous.y Decades of nutritional debate and public suspicion of nutritional claims are hardly settled by that interviewee's responses. Nutritionist: We understand the methodologies and outcomes of nutrition studies and metastudies can be perplexing to laypersons and the popular press. _Epidemiologist_ Xiao: Hold my beer... I don't eat a lot of red meat anyway, and I don't torture it into excreting advanced glycation products, PHAs, but if I was into char-broiling the stuff once a week, I question whether it would do me significantly more harm than tofu or tempeh or beans equally demolished tastily. I gave up on veganism 30 years ago. I eat everything. To each his own.
Dear Chris, Just a quick note to say thank you very, very much for your many interesting and well done videos. Your breadth of knowledge and background has been impressive and I can t tell you how stimulating it has all been. Please keep up the good work, sorely needed...
Harvard study: We found a strong association with diabetes and consuming red meat. We'll ignore food preparation, and additives(fillers) to 'unprocessed meat' like hamburgers. Therefore consuming red meat increases risk of diabetes. Same Harvard study: We found an even stronger association with diabetes and consuming fish. But that is probably due to food preparation and additives(batter, deep fried in seed oil). So we'll ignore fish then.
When a university is funded by pharmaceutical companies, Big food, and the CIA. What possible conflict of interest could arise there? They also recently submitted "scientific" evidence that highly processed food is not causing obesity.
Who paid for the study and who funds the people who did it. That is all I ask, and it is always the part hidden behind the paywalls. We do know that in the late 80s the big tobacco industry bailed on tobacco and took all their money and scientists and moved it into the junk food industry. Is this the result? Tobacco science?
@@TRcommander Enjoy your tobacco science, because that is exactly what this is. In the late 80s the tobacco industry took over the junk food industry and moved all their "science" over to that. This is where your science comes from.
Your ability to actually interview the people conducting the research absolutely sets you apart from 99.9% of all the other channels. I think Andrew huberman is the only other YT channel consistently doing this as well. I've learned a lot from this. Thank you
If this was true he would be interviewing opposing views like that of Dr Benjamin Bikman who has headed quite a few studies that would go against these results. He chooses who to interview that fits his ideology, nothing different than what others are doing on YT.
@@Siegfried5846 Oreo's and Coka Cola is a vegan diet. I would like to bet that this diet leeds faster to diabetes than any animal based diet. Remember that the SAD diet is 80% plant based. You cannot find a single carnivore with diabetes.
@@Siegfried5846 Vegans Generally have a lower risk of diabetes than people who just follow the "standard American diet" Partly because vegans are more health conscious meaning they also exercise more. Also when and how you consume sugars matter. If vegans eat 400 grams of sugar each day combining that with they're meals of beans and veggie's the blood sugar wouldn't go up as much, Their insulin spike would be less and insulin resistance would be lower. Now If a someone who isn't vegans drinks a a litre of coke throughout the day, starting the day with a diet coke and ending the day with diet coke. They will definitely get diabetes earlier even though they consumed less sugar than the vegan.
Been a carnivore for 8mths and love it. I do not, however, only keep in the carnivore/keto echo chamber. THIS CHANNEL IS BOSS! Thank u for the alternate, backed by scientific papers and data objective view. My body loves this diet right now, but I need to know possible short comings and risks etc. Lotsa love my man!!
Same. I too believe people should do whatever works for them, makes them feel the best & be the healthiest version of themselves. No side should be more like a cult &/or bash others. I've been T2D for 26 years now & as I laughed at a friend during a lunch who was having a burger with no bun, nothing on it, no fries, sides, veg, nothing.. They said I could prove them wrong in 30 days. I took that challenge & it's now been nearly 9 months. BBBE. I've NEVER EVER felt better. Sleeping through the night, brain fog/depression lifted, aches/pains gone (whether that's cutting out the processed stuff, seed oils, being meat/protein/fat based or a combination of, frankly... i don't care, LOVE the results) My stomach is no longer achy, upset, no more bathroom issues, bloating, nothing AND best of all.... my Blood pressure is down, cholesterol is way down & my blood sugars for the first time, are normal & unmedicated! Win, win, win, WIN. Oh & I've lost 30 lbs as a side-note. :) Be well.
respect! I've tried carnivore twice but I end up with heart palpitations no matter what electrolytes I do plus I get angina. I even tried it being monitored under a doctor. Wasn't for me but I imagine for some people it might work. Sticking with only what was in my dogma made me sick when I was younger. Was vegan for 6 years and ended up dangerously low in iodine, b12 and vitamin d. Even though I was supplementing I found out my body wasn't absorbing it properly for some reason. I tried so many different types of veganism too. Now I just eat food mostly plants and try not to freak out about it. Also I take triple the vitamins I used to and get checked twice a year instead of once a year.
It seems like our bodies can work on a number of diets. I'm plant based and it works great for me. If many diets can work, maybe the deciding factor could be something else, like ethics or environmentalism
Members of my own family insist that genetics are responsible for everything, so diet and lifestyle don't make any difference. Really! They're an unhealthy bunch, most of them taking drugs to stay alive and constantly undergoing tests for one thing or another. I'm slender, muscular and fit. But hey, I guess my healthy diet and active lifestyle had nothing to do with it!
There has very recently been a TV program aired in the Uk called 'Secrets of the Big Shop' in which people said what they ate. However when Michael Mosley secretly checked them out and filmed what they were buying all kinds of junk food in supermarkets that were never mentioned. The bottom line is that people lie about what they eat. They knew what they were eating was not good for them but did not want to let others know how bad they were eating. So how do epidemioligists get round this?
Exactly. One of the studies referenced relied on a Food Frequency Questionnaire, the least reliable form of nutrition study for this very reason. It relies on people telling the truth about what they are eating, or even accurately remembering what they ate. It's not like they keep a daily food journal.
@@lloydhlavac6807 Many who would tell roughly the truth about main meals could easily just ignore snacks, so all that bad sugar/fat from highly processed biscuits, crisps, sweets, fruit etc would make the survey totally pointless. While I am open to arguments that certain saturated fats could lead to plaque build up, strokes and heart attacks, I am convinced that the science about diabetes is much more related to the consumption of sugar in the diet (including whole grains and starches). The glycemic index exists for a reason and it is fairly clear which are the biggest culprits on the subject.
@@hata6290 Yes I did but then I am the type of person who researches both sides of an argument and is not satisfied by one side alone. I agree saturated fats are risky, especially when over consumed, but there are also big risks with high sugary food and highly processed food of all kinds and this influencer in my opinion is ignoring the risks with plant foods. Phytates, gluten, oxalates, pesticide/fertilisers, heavy metals, nutrition depletion of soils from overfarming, etc. Every food has risks, even water. But without them we would die in no time.
@@dennisward43 What do beef cattle eat????.......Plants, ....grasses, legumes, grain, hulls, alfalfa, clover and many other forage plants. They sure don't eat meat. I don't think they are fed meat. They will eat common greens in human diets if allowed along with other vegetables. even sugars. Just as many lands are being cleared for bovine consumption and dairy. I'm Vegan and it works for me but may not for you or the next person. Just eat what you want, if food doesn't kill you something else will. I just happened on this video but didn't watch it and I ignore all the "naysayers" from both sides. He was mentioned in a few comments above, but Dr. Gil Carvalho, NutritionMadeSimple is a great channel. The only one I listen to.
Hmm. Riddle me this… why then, are diabetes rates high and increasing in India? They have the highest rate of vegetarianism in the world, and an exceptionally low rate of red meat consumption.
@@r_se EXACTLY. So sure, perhaps red meat and fish consumption are statistically correlated to diabetes in the US, but what every culture where diabetes is rising seems to share is high visceral body fat levels, and a lack of regular exercise. There may be a lot of things killing us, but it isn’t that debatable that step 1 is, start moving and lose some visceral fat. If you don’t do that, I rather doubt cutting fish or red meat out if your diet will matter all that much.
@@hata6290 allegedly. That said, some of what was hastily speculated as an excuse for fish, probably applies to beef. If fish have forever chemicals, wouldn’t factory farmed non-organic beef? That fish part cracked me up. The entire discussion emphasized the need to be data driven, but when the conclusion was fish was just as bad, suddenly there were a list of possible reasons it is good, you just need the RIGHT fish/cooking method.
Well, it was 10:30 pm here in Japan, and I was thinking, "You wasted another day in front of the computer. Time to go to bed." And then a new Plant Chompers video popped up on RU-vid. What a treat! I couldn't pass it up! It was another deep dive into the science of nutrition with an author of a significant new study. What a pleasure! Oh no, Dr. Greger said that people who go to bed between 10:00 and 11:00 live longer. Now I guess I'm going to die a little sooner. Well, at least I'll die with a little more cumulative happiness!
@@Hertz2laugh How much experience do you have with this study? I assume you read it in detail, and are not just parroting whatever Ken Berry said. Right?
It looks like there is a serious problems with this study: If you look at the average total number of calories per day that were calculated for each quartile of the three groups in Table 1 (presumably these values were derived from the food questionnaires), the number of calories appear to be way too low. For example, for the NHS cohort, quartile 1, which reported the lowest number of red meat servings, the average daily calories is just 1202. That would reflect severe calorie restriction, given that this age group for women would require about 2000 calories per day (assuming moderate activity). Even a sedentary women of this age would need about 1800. If they were truly only consuming 1202 calories per day, their average BMI would likely be well below 20, rather than the actual reported value of 23.9 (presumable calculated from weight and height data). The other quartiles for the NHS group, as well as the other quartiles for the two other cohorts, also appear to underestimate the calories in their diet -- except perhaps for quartile 5 in all 3 groups, representing the people that ate the most red meat. But even the quartile 5 calories seem a bit low to me, compared to their measured BMI. Here is the point. The higher quartiles representing higher meat consumption, reported food intake that resulted in higher daily calories, and this was reflected in their higher BMIs. The HPFS group reported an average daily caloric intake of nearly 2500 calories, yielding an average BMI of 26 (note that this is in the obese range). So what the study really seemed to be showing was that the more calories you consumed, the higher your risk for diabetes. And that higher calorie intake just corresponded with higher red meat intake, possibly because, red meat tends to be high in fat, which by itself could have accounted for the higher calorie intake. The interviewer did ask the researcher about BMI, who admitted that higher BMI accounted for about half the association for higher diabetes risk. But nothing about calories was mentioned, so I'm assuming the researchers did not adjust for it. Also, there is no information at all on how much junk food (cookies, crackers, cake, chips, etc.) any of these people consumed. Might that not be a much larger driving risk factor, and might that not also correlate with red meat consumption? Too much missing from this study.
Dear Chris, Thank you for the incredible work you are doing. As an experimental psychologist, I really appreciate your commitment to disseminating accurate information to the public by doing a deep dive into research studies and verifying original sources. Your videos are an invaluable resource and I look forward to watching more of them!
What type of experimental psychology do you do? Are you trained like unemployed psychiatrist Dr. Neal Barnard who is highly trained to psych people out with wrong information to fool the gullible?
@@LevelUpWellness Neal Barnard is an unemployed psychiatrist which is also a type of MD. Dr. Esslestyn is a MD but not a cardiologist but a general surgeon.
It's always so different to hear an author of a study. He answered all your questions without having to make up any answers - as its done. It reminded me of Kevin Hall explaining one of his studies. Nice work Chris. PS: btw, i loved the sound of your text message :)
I rarely ate red meat in the past, and on that diet, I had pre-diabetes and developed neuropathy. I switched to low carbs and started eating more red meat (3x per week), and I am no longer pre-diabetic, and my neuropathy went away. I eat veggies with dinner and raspberries and nuts. My triglycerides and HDL also improved significantly. For now, I'm trusting my body and will continue to eat meat.
surely you can become diabetic eating foods other than red meat. Red meat is not the only source of saturated fat in the American diet. Also, simply overeating and being overweight would likely lead to diabetes for most, so my guess is that you were overweight, despite rarely eating red meat, then you likely substituted the twinkies and other processed foods in your diet with red meat, which resulted in a decrease in overall calories, which lead to weight loss and symptom improvement. This doesn't mean consuming red meat is healthy.
Doubt it is you lack of red meat that caused you the earlier problems or the presence of red meat that cured them. Sounds like a processed vs. whole foods dynamic. Studies show you can reverse diabetes and even painful neuropathy on WHOLE-food plant-based diets with 70+% of calories from whole food carbs.
@nickgregoris I was 30 lbs overweight, I was not into sweets, but I liked cereal + milk for breakfast, sandwiches for lunch plus low fat chips, and standard American diet. I ate meat before, but now I eat more meat (fish, chicken, red), plus I still eat veggies, nuts, and berries. If anything changes, I will adjust, but cutting carbs made neuropathy go away, and that's a problem. I would do anything to avoid in the future.
I was Paleo for 10 years and only towards the end of the period I started to get high BP (140/90) and signs of CVD. After 18 months of WFPB SOS free I could get off pills and BP 105/70. So it takes time for metabolic effects to really manifest.
I guess I'm perceived to be in the vegan tribe, so my inboxes are bombarded with people who couldn't cure their diabetes with meat alone, so they abandoned the tribe. Even Shawn Baker reported fasting glucose of 127.
@PlantChompers ive been consuming fatty red meat for over 2 decades making up the vast majority of my diet and my fasting glucose is consistently between 37-55
Chris makes the excellent point that fish had an even stronger association with diabetes. So why was the paper not entitled "Red meat and fish consumption and the risk of diabetes..."? Why just mention red meat? Could it be that such a title would undermine the desired narrative? The researcher stated that maybe fish has a stronger association with diabetes because of the unhealthy ways in which fish is consumed in the USA. And then Chris further elaborated, mentioning contrary studies performed in countries where fish is consumed in a healthy way. Um, hello? Why not apply the same concept to red meat? Do you think red meat is generally consumed in a healthy manner in the USA? Have Chris and this researcher never been to a McDonalds?
Quite. The Japanese eat really fatty red meat but it’s grilled in very thin slices so much of the fat melts away. Not the same as a fatty steak fried in butter.
@@r_se Cute. But unless retarded, use butter or ghee. And even then, the actual impact of using small amounts of oil can be discarded. As it is done in real research. This most likely goes above your capacity to understand; try it. The 'researched' is flawed: For example, the definition of red meat here includes lasagne and sandwiches, which is very wrong if you want to assess a food’s effect on health strictly. In this case, the study is inaccurate because the risk may be caused by bread, chips, or sugary fizzy drinks eaten with meat, not by the meat itself. The study’s results have attracted the interest of the press, which immediately ran sensational headlines. On the contrary, scientists who understand science remain astonished by this type of publication since there are meta-analyses and systematic reviews of excellent scientific quality that have already demonstrated that meat does not increase blood glucose, insulin resistance, inflammation, and the risk of type 2 diabetes. That meat does not cause diabetes is also clear from the trend in the incidence of the disease, which has increased as meat consumption has decreased while its carbohydrate-rich substitutes have increased. Meat does not contain sugar, it does not cause a spike in blood sugar, and diabetes is a recent disease, whereas we have been eating meat for thousands of years. But the definitive proof comes from phase 3 research, the many clinical trials of the highest scientific rigour, which show that by encouraging people to eat more red meat by eliminating grains, starches and sugars, it is even possible to reverse type 2 diabetes and make the symptoms of diabetes disappear after a diet rich in red meat. In practice, research on this subject has reached its final stage, refuting the original hypothesis. Instead, Willett continues to publish phase 1 studies on the hypothesis, providing the click-hungry media with false results. Even his second phase studies failed to confirm his hypothesis, as he admits in his conclusions that “An effect “has not been seen”. ULTRA-PROCESSED PLANT FOODS Yet it deliberately ignores the evidence and promotes plant protein sources as healthier and better for the planet when the opposite is true. On the contrary, it is ultra-processed plant foods full of additives, starches, sugars, refined oils and hydrogenated fats that increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, obesity and diabetes. So why deny the evidence and continue to fight against meat when all nutritionists support its vital role in a complete diet for its irreplaceable nutritional value? “The reason is quickly explained,” Nina Teicholz comments: “For 30 years, Willett has been driven by ideological beliefs, linked to a true church that promotes veganism, with undeniable conflicts of financial interest that interfere with the pure pursuit of science. This is worrying because Willett is the author of nearly 100 academic papers on red meat and disease, all based on assumptions. The experiment has confirmed none of his findings on red meat. If I assume that perfume is bad for the lungs, I have to test the hypothesis before I tell the press. Otherwise, I could cause people to avoid perfume unnecessarily and do irreparable damage to the perfume companies. However, Willett has released his hypotheses to the media for years without testing or even when the tests prove the opposite. Harvard’s public relations team almost always releases his articles to the press, generating ubiquitous headlines. His goal is for his beliefs to reach the highest echelons of power and influence global policy recommendations.
so fucking true lmao idk why these people are coping so hard. like maybe this is just their first exposure to anti (red) meat studies? i mean theres a fuck ton of evidence particularly against red meat@@r_se
Unlike the direct causation seen with smoking and cancer, determining whether red meat directly causes diabetes is challenging due to potential confounding factors. While red meat has a low glycemic index, suggesting a minimal impact on blood sugar, this doesn't rule out other possible health effects. The process of proteins converting to glucose (gluconeogenesis) in red meat isn't inherently harmful. It's essential to consider 'hidden variables' that might influence health outcomes related to red meat consumption. Thus, while smoking's link to cancer is a direct cause-effect scenario, the connection between red meat and diabetes requires more nuanced analysis to differentiate between correlation and causation.
your delusional, and making excuses to continue the biggest holocaust ever in human history. Meat is the single biggest cause of planetary destruction and diseases globally. An industry brimming with massive wealth and powerful financial interests. Every pandemic for hundreds of years has been caused by animal slaughter and consumption. @@NoName-cx3gk
The denial is astounding! Any way we can claim the study is wrong even though studies in 1921, 1922, and 1923 show the direct cause of diabetes and obesity is consuming dead animals??@@NoName-cx3gk
I'm thrown off by the idea of saturated fat causing the liver and pancreas to become fatty. It's actually the first time ever hearing it! I've only read alcohol, smoking, and high triglycerides contributing. Also diabetes is not caused by the pancreas inability to make enough insulin. It's literally caused by the cells becoming resistant to insulin. Then the pancreas has to make more than normal insulin to force glucose into cells which in turn eventually causes beta cell death. This ( I thought) is settled as much as science can be. And another thing, what I've seen and read is how low carb diets lower triglycerides substantially, and in a short time will reverse fatty pancreas and fatty liver. Not to mention visceral fat in general. This has been seen using CT scans.
"I'm thrown off by the idea of saturated fat causing the liver and pancreas to become fatty. It's actually the first time ever hearing it! I've only read alcohol, smoking, and high triglycerides contributing. " Dr. Greger has a good video explaining the cascading effects: It starts with eating lots of fat causing fatty to build up in cells/muscles (higher levels of intramyocellular lipids).
Those guys are just demagogues. You can't convince them with actual high-quality research that proves the opposite. Sad that so many risk their health by believing those pseudo scientists.
Been following your channel i think about two years now and your editing (which has always been so good) still just gets better and better. This seriously plays out like a documentary, looking at so many angles from the nutrition science itself with the actual study authors, to the contextual history, economics, and politics. Nobody else puts out content this engaging, really look forward to every vid. Many thanks👏👏👏
The meat consumption was reported on a 2+ year food questionnaire. Who can do that accurately? I would be hard pressed for 2 weeks. Another thing that wasn't controlled is what was eaten WITH the meat. Large fries and ice cream and cake? We don't know. The hazard ration was small. It didn't say it caused it, it said "may". also means may not. If this was the case they should have proposed a mechanism for this to happen. They didn't.
Very nice, thorough video based around an in depth interview with the lead author himself. I like your defense and analysis of epidemiology. What many do not understand that all kinds of scientific studies have their valid place with strengths and weaknesses included. Of course every study should be critically analyzed and fact and method checked and methodologies have a kind of degree of importance. And while people love to complain about epidemiology, in vitro vs in vivo, human vs animal model studies, all are eqally important. Good luck observing genetic drift, mutations, nutritional effects or behavioural change over time; in a controlled environment; in hundreds to thosands participants over dozens to hundreds of generations without mice, rat, drosophilia or nematode models. Or your valid point about environmental toxins. It was also nice to listen to in reflection of my three publications in the field of nutritional-social epidemiology from years back. Especially because i personally preferred to work in a lab earlier using instrumental chemical analysis methods.
It's a shame plant chomper neglected to say that Charles Poliquin had a series of heart attacks in his 30's due to magnesium deficiency and mercury poisoning from fillings and that two of his brothers died of heart attacks at a young age (congenital family problem) ... but, it's all because of meat and sat fat, right, chomper?! Keep building that narrative.
I’ve been around long enough to remember when Shawn Baker, after eating his carnivore diet for some time, had his blood work done it he came back as pre-diabetic. His video where he goes over his blood work may still even be up on RU-vid
@@Jojo-o6o6w sometimes youtube doesn't like you posting links in the comments, so if you can't see the link i posted, just google "robb wolf episode 385". it's from robb wolf's podcast with shawn baker in 2018. Timestamp on the podcast is 40:40.
I saw the podcast you did with Simon Hill and was quite intrigued. I am a 46 year old male, former competitive bodybuilder. For decades I consumed pounds and pounds of red meat, 12 eggs a day and well, it worked and served it purpose. About two months ago I started transitioning to a more plant domiminat based diet. And let Me just say, so far so good, I have kept my strength levels up as well as my performance. I feel good and my bodyweight is down about 9 pounds. Now, I still plan on enjoying a steak once in a while and some chicken, but the bulk of my diet now includes veggie/fruit smoothies, bowls of rice, beans and lentils as well as tofu I plan on keeping this diet model and even more so as I get closer to age 50 Thank you for all the hard work you do! New subsciber Shawn
Well done. I'm 48 years old and have been weight lifting since 1995. Beans, nuts, and lentils now form a greater part of my diet; beef and pork intake having dropped the most. I'm prediabetic despite eating a healthy diet, losing weight, and getting lots of exercise. I wonder if there could be more people who are pre and don't know it, abandoning red meat not because they watch videos like this, but just because of the high cost. I feel I had been taken in, earlier in my life, by the following ideas, due to my frustration about being genetically skinny and not able to build as much mass as some of my peers: 1. Men should eat red meat to get really ripped; it contains creatine, don't you know. 2. Proteins that have lower bioavailability are nutritionally inferior and my body can't absorb them properly. I had then loaded up on whey protein, knowing that one was at the top of the list. 3. I did too much cardio, I would lose muscle mass or not be able to build it. As an engineer, I now feel ashamed, as those were all based on anecdotes and not science. What I dislike the most, is drama queens on RU-vid, making claims about how this or that is either the new superfood, or is killing everybody slowly. If a healthy range for the item isn't stated anywhere in the video, I usually abort it and try and find someone who can answer that question. I will be researching my cheese and yogurt shortly; that accounts for most of the saturated fat I eat now.
I'm a former power lifter turned into endurance athlete 15 years ago. Was eating 4 eggs a day and lots of steaks. Vegan for 7 years. Muscle mass is really hard to lose. Lance Armstrong is a great example as a bigger climber 30-40lbs heavier than true climbers. My grip strength is also still pretty good, I'm 5'11' 155lbs and can still close a 1.5 COC gripper after 15 years without any strength training.
I eat lots of red meat and just reduced my carb intake to keto type of levels. I was at A1C of 13.2 and now at 5.7 a year and a half later. I like the way I eat now. Of course, eliminating the sugars and refined carbs did the heavy lifting of my health transformation but I also can't help feel my health is also great from this WOE. If you like to eat only plants, that's you. I have absolutely stellar lab numbers now so I don't see any reason to change the way I eat. Maybe if that changes in the future, I will rethink my ketovore way of eating but I'm not messing with success.
I don't have anything clever to add - I'm here to learn, and I always learn something new from these videos. You're going to get really big one of these days, Chris, and I'm not talking about BMI.
Great video...I recently decided to transition to a mostly Whole Food Plant Based diet for health reasons and have good results. This Harvard study basically strongly seems to support that decision. Thanks for the great work.
Quite the opposite for my wife and I. Dumped plant based and both feel better than 20 years ago - plus, and a big plus, I am off medication I've had to take for 20 plus years. Weight has also come down and is no issue to manage.
Unfortunately it appears the study does not consider a low carb keto diet. It was all about including red meat or not in what keto would consider a high carb diet. Hopefully studies will be completed in the future that compare a low carb keto diet that includes red meat and one that does not include red meat. Another study that compares a vegetarian diet with a keto diet would also be welcome.
Love your defense of Epidemiology! This is a great breakdown of this paper. I don't think it could be any better than visiting and speaking with the authors face to face.
But veganism is closer to a religion than anything else. Lots of beliefs and opinion supported by no evidence in the scientific sense. Food frequency questionnaires and meta analyses of those? Please...
Wow, that's really cool that you put a face to the research. I'm impressed how you get so many interesting interviews on you channel. I always feel like I learned something. Your channel is a really good counterbalance to the hugely popular keto/carnivore channels
Forgive the off topic comment Chris, but I was reminded of my first colonoscopy a few years back. While we, the post test patients were lined up in recovery beds, our GI doc came out and literally went down the line patient to patient and gave each one of us the exact same advice, "Eat more fiber, less red meat." In fact he said it four times, once for each of us. Shortly after I recall reading an alarming statistic about the rise in colorectal cancer in younger Americans. Here's a more recent one, "An American Cancer Society report released on March 1, 2023, indicates that the rate of new colorectal cases among Americans younger than 55 years increased from 11 percent of all cases in 1995 to 20 percent in 2019." Of course no one can say with 100% certainty its red meat alone, but we should take the "eat less red meat" advice with deadly seriousness. It's really tragic our national health advisory institutes continue to fail to _advise_ us.
@@albertcamus1979 it's been proved that red meat actually fights cancer instead of causing it but these vegan cultists only listen to the shitty research that is not done very well
@@JoeyViking1993 You can get a small amount of short chain fattty acids from some fibres but compared to herbivores it's negligible, not an amount you could survive off.
The comments about Willet betray ignorance or malice. I just read Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy and the lack of specific "diet" advice was the loudest part of the book.
The fact that he also includes fish and chicken among healthy protein sources in his book shows that all the people claiming that he's trying to convert America to a vegetarian diet haven't actually taken the time to understand his views.
thank you for sitting down with dr. gu, his explanations to your questions helps me understand the process of collecting data and accurately reporting it.
It's accurate to say that there is a causal relationship between obesity and diabetes. Obesity increases the risk of insulin resistance, which is a key factor in the development of type 2 diabetes. Similarly, there's a clear causal link between the consumption of sugary drinks, like cola, which are high in rapidly digestible carbohydrates, and an increased risk of diabetes. These drinks lead to rapid spikes in blood sugar, which over time can impair the body's insulin response. The situation with red meat, however, is different. While some studies have shown a correlation between red meat consumption and an increased risk of diabetes, causality in this case is not clearly established. The correlation often remains weak even after adjusting for known risk factors like obesity and lack of physical activity. This suggests that if there is any effect, it is likely to be small. The "hidden value" or variable that might play a role here has not been definitively identified. Possibilities could include different dietary habits, the processing of the meat, genetic factors, or other lifestyle factors that influence both meat consumption and diabetes risk. This makes interpreting studies on the relationship between red meat and diabetes complex and highlights the need to consider various factors for an accurate assessment.
I worked at a university for 34 years. You might want to look into who funds these "studies." Follow the money. BTW....how accurate were the experts on the jab? Trust the $cience.
Now this is how you put together a video….if you are willing and able to put in the time and research. Thank you Chris for yet another fantastic video.
Why does India, despite its lower meat consumption compared to many Western countries, have a higher rate of diabetes? What factors, beyond the simplistic association with red meat consumption, could be contributing to this significant health challenge, taking into account the complex interplay of genetics, lifestyle changes, dietary habits, body composition, and socio-economic factors?
@@lf7065 We found evidence of weak harmful effects between unprocessed red meat consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes, with a mean RR of 1.14 (0.97-1.32) at 50 g d−1 relative to no intake and a mean RR of 1.23 (0.96-1.52) at 100 g d−1 relative to no intake (Table 2 and Extended Data Fig. 2). The BPRF value was 1.01 and the corresponding ROS was 0.01, equating to a two-star rating at the lower threshold of two-star pairs (at the boundary between weak evidence and no evidence of an association between consumption of unprocessed red meat and increased risk of type 2 diabetes).; Health effects associated with consumption of unprocessed red meat: a Burden of Proof study
@@lf7065 Yes, the evidence linking red meat to diabetes is rather weak. The problem with diabetes is more complex than just red meat consumption. The emphasis on red meat seems to be driven by an agenda to discourage its consumption, possibly due to environmental concerns. I'm convinced that if lab-grown meat becomes mainstream, such studies would be less prominent. There appears to be a push towards carbohydrate-rich diets and seed oils, which in themselves are not necessarily healthier and could contribute to health issues.
I'm a scientist as are you, physics and biology, and I really enjoy your videos. I've first discovered your Greger interview and watched every single one since. What I really would like is for you to talk about your process of study. I have to say, even after years of this I still get angry and I can't really get into much of the stuff you're getting into, like the various youtube doctors (who usually turn out to be physical therapists) because it's bad for my blood pressure... How do you do that, how did you get there?
I got goosebumps from this interview. Wow. Thankful for the internet that i get the chance of getting all this knowledge. There’s no way i could have come across this knowledge living where i’m at. Thank you PlantChompers, your eloquence is just amusing must come from reading all those books and your association with all those great people.
I'm new to this channel. Thank you so much for interviewing the biostatistician of the paper. It was a great interview. I'm grateful that he was available and willing. I'll watch again!
Really good informative and enjoying channel with good well-spoken knowledgeable speakers. However, I did find one point for improvement though, we need more video's ;)
Never too much plant chomping. 👍 That aside, these videos of Chris clearly take a lot of research which would be lost if they came too fast. I really look forward to these terrific entertaining and informative videos.
Here is a quote from the study: "In both females and males, those with higher total red meat intake had higher BMI and total energy intake, were less physically active, were more likely to be current smokers, and were less likely to use multivitamins." In other words, red meat eaters were generally less healthy and less health conscious. There are likely myriad other ways in which they were unhealthy. You cannot control for these myriad other factors. Also, upwards of half of the participants were overweight. Perhaps red meat is only unhealthy if you are overweight, but it is not unhealthy if you are lean, muscular, and active, e.g. LMHRs from Dave Feldman's study. Also, we live in a society where a large portion of red meat is consumed in the form of a patty--a patty that is fried in oxidized vegan oils, topped with sugar-laden vegan condiments, flanked with a vegan refined-wheat bun, served alongside vegan high-glycemic potatoes fried in more oxidized vegan oils and then dipped in more sugar-laden vegan condiments, all washed down with vegan soft drinks containing ungodly amounts of high fructose corn syrup. In such a society, red meat will ALWAYS be associated with adverse health outcomes. Just saying.
Your points are valid, but I imagine the participants are a more accurate respresentation of the general population..,the video does address those who are more fit here at 38:56
The LMHR study is really being used as the universal cope strategy by meat advocates, it's astonishing and goes completely against what both Dave and Nicholas Norwitz have publicly stated it's useful for
Yes, good point regarding the analysis of those with higher levels of physical activity, wherein red meat consumption had an even stronger association with diabetes. However, I wonder if the researchers did a similar analysis of other health factors, such as bmi, smoking, drinking, access to healthcare, home cooking, etc. Was there a similar effect with these other factors? Or did the researchers simply mine through the data and find the one factor that fit their narrative?@@just_that_average_joe
Also, the fries and buns at fast food restaurants are generally not vegan, but nice try pretending that vegans eat only refined carbs, which only a moron would believe. Just saying.
True of so many carnivores (and bodybuilders). Next few years will be interesting for Baker, Saladino, Berry et al.., mind you if anything happens likely they’ll try and cover it up, as with Atkins..allegedly!
@@inthevortex-de1rh you’re entitled to your opinion, I know it’s possible to feel great on carnivore, but I also know it’s possible to feel great as a whole food vegan. The latter just comes with so many more advantages if you do it right, including longevity and healthspan and I personally trust the studies that show this, whereas the ‘carnivore community’ and the meat industry obviously argue strongly (but with weak facts and short term anecdotes) against that. When it’s a lived experience it’s convincing for either camp. So one man’s bull shit is another man’s (and woman’s) strong long, lean, healthy ethical life. You pays your money and make your choice, that’s life!
@@dj.h7424 exactly everyone is entitled to their opinion. Also, everyone is different. I was a vegan and felt miserable to say the least! Thank God, I started to watch ex vegans testimonials and that opened my mind. I was having the exact same horrible health issues! In my case it's not my opinion!! Facts talk by themselves! If I am not mistaken, most carnivores are carnivores because it's the last thing they do to recover their health! By the way I am not a carnivore. But after feeling terrible being a vegan, I am thinking about it.
Watching your video at midnight in Singapore. Can never resist watching your videos. Always entertaining and science based. A masterclass in nutrition and critical thinking.
Thank you so much Chris for talking to the first author of an important paper. Please do more such interviews of first authors and last authors of important papers. God bless!
The sad truth is that people will always find excuses to eat things that are unhealthy for them and in order to make money and become famous there are no shortage of people willing to give them those excuses.
Some people drink too, perhaps vegans. Some people work themselves to an early grave, also sometimes vegans. Point being... All kinds of people do all kinds of things that are bad for their health. Over time, those willing to look at the patterns will live longer, but if the others are happy, are they really doing anything wrong? It is what it is. People are probably more likely to pick up on those patterns if we don't critisize them. More education, less screeching vegans blocking the butcher shops.
True for some but there are thousands of people who've switched to keto and carnivore diets, lost tons of weight, feel better and reversed diabetes and other ailments. So it's a hard sell to tell them they're wrong and at the very least, the results seem quite the opposite of unhealthy.
@@melaniekolomyja7335 That's fine, but what's the best strategy to pull people to your cause? Take note, the radical carnivore movement didn't take off until the vegans started blocking roads and butcher shops. Perhaps correlation is not causation here. Then again, did Hamas attack Israel out of the blue, or was there pressure in the form of an oppressive blockade from Israel that pushed Hamas in that direction? Point is, radicalism tends to breed opposing radicalism. A softer approach would be more appropriate, and likely more successful, hence the recommendation for more education and less criticism. Blame your opposition and you attack their ego. Then they get defensive and likely dig deeper into their echo chambers. I recommend blaming the poor education and for-profit food industry instead, and focus your effort on changing those structures. Claiming the moral high ground makes you come off as arrogant, and it's no way to change your opposition's mind. Forgiveness, empathy, and the Socratic method will serve you better. Just my two cents.
Ok. Here goes. About a year ago I saw a plantchompers video suggesting a link between saturated fats and elevated blood glucose. Can’t remember the details now, but it seemed reasonable. So, I switched my low carb, high(er) fat diet to a very low sat fat diet that was all but eliminated red meat and most poultry. I increased my intake of fish and, maybe most importantly (?), I dramatically increased consumption of carbs from beans (mostly canned) and whole grains (barley, oat groats, brown rice, etc). I also added back some very dense German rye bread and whole grain bread from a local bakery. For protein I eat approx 5-6oz non fat Greek yogurt (with the oat groats) every day and approx 4 oz tofu and 8 oz beans, and 3-4oz of nuts/seeds every day. I also eat as much veg matter as I can stuff into my mouth. I do occasionally have a small portion of meat (usually in take out Chinese) and occasional slice of pizza. And I drink a few cans of light beer daily. So what happened after a year? My previously stubbornly high (120’s-130’s) morning glucose readings are now firmly in the 90’s-105 range. It has remained this way for multiple months after a year of not testing. I was astonished! My blood glucose has been in the 125+ zone for over 10 years. This is the only change in diet that did anything. I’m also a regular cyclist (10+ hrs/wk) but had been all through the previous 10 years. Is it possible that swapping lots of fiber and fish and tofu for chicken, meat, and eggs could drop my glucose a full 25%?
Wonderful! 👏💪♥️ Thanks for letting us know. I do think it's very intuitive to think eating sugar would increase diabetes risk because it does increase blood sugar after a meal. But I think Roy Taylor (and a whole bunch of other scientists) got it right: saturated fat for some reason gets stored in the liver and sets off the trend towards diabetes.
@@PlantChompers one more thing. I’m a retired statistician and spent a lot of my prof life in marketing and advertising research and later in big data media analytics. You might be surprised to know that the statistical models used in those areas are very similar (basically the same) as those used by epidemiologists and bio stat people. In grad school I often read the journal of epidemiology just to find very clear descriptions of the statistical methods. Your guest spoke my ‘language’, so to speak. Couldn’t stop smiling. Your comment about stat research types being cautious is so true. I was often pressed hard by stakeholders to word my findings more definitively. My career suffered a bit because of my resistance to do so. Not sure if others feel the same, but I’d love to see more interviews like this one. Keep up the great work!
I'm thinking your body is now having to produce much more insulin than when you ate low carb. Chronically high insulin levels are not good. Have yours checked, to be on the safe side.
@@lf7065 interesting thought. There’s no question my total carbs are significantly higher now. Is there a test for ‘insulin level’? I’m not familiar with it. Thanks for responding.
Your channel is by far the best at clearing up so much confusion and down right lies or stupidity on nutrition. We need more like you Chris but people like you are far and few......Many deep thanks to you my friend.....Plant based 50 years and going strong.........whoops spelling error
RU-vidr Stars: Studies are useless, absolutely trashy Also RU-vidr stars: Our ancestors eat red meat all the time They jumped on the nature fallacy bandwagon real quick
These studies are shit though. They compare apples to oranges and extrapolate context of metabolism and apply to other metabolism that isn't studied at all. Goes against bio chemistry. Sorry but this is all propaganda. Stop being brainwashed. Appeal to authority fallacy is dangerous. Quit relying on human "nutrition" aggrandized epidemiology as gospel and wake the fuck up.
I took a couple of graduate-level epidemiology courses at the University of Basel a few years ago and realized just how little MOST people, including medical doctors understand about the rigor and integrity of these well-designed studies. It’s no surprise, however, that people who barely made it out of a cut-rate undergraduate program or a for-profit masters-by-mail program think they’re more intelligent and informed on how to conduct a study than these brilliant scientists at Harvard. Americans really are in a society where people are taught that they can “be anything”, even smarter than a brilliant scientist (all without understanding science beyond a 6th-grade level).
@@Bill-ni3es If that’s your takeaway, you sum up why true education is so important. You failed to understand the very basic point of my comment-quite often the case with folks who are envious and jealous of those who went through rigorous studies (and no, that does not include skimming a few posts, a Google search or two, and a weekend of RU-vid binging on unscientific fodder and thinking that one is suddenly enlightened). Reading at a high-school level is one basic skill, but comprehension of what one reads is an even greater goal. Be well and enjoy that.very uniquely American way of thinking that you’re somehow more intelligent and informed that brilliant scientists who spend hundreds and even thousands of hours becoming experts in their fields. Absolutely incredible.❤️
One thing ive definitely noticed about the personalities of diet influencers is that the ones promoting keto, low carb and especially carnivore tend to be quite arrogant and sure of themselves. Whereas most of those promoting a more plant heavy diet tend to be more academic, cautious, thorough and humble when interpreting health studies. It would be interesting to do a study on the dark triad personality types of health influencers. I enjoyed the one you did on how long health influencers live and the finding that the low carb meat eaters had the shortest life spans and those eating the most plants had the longest life spans.
At first when I was introduced to the data reporting this association between red and processed meat with type 2 diabetes I was confused. But then I kept seeing these associations in meta-analyses and even in newer umbrella analyses which can include several to dozens of meta-analyses. I was able to connect the logic dots that red and processed meats are often accompanied by less health promoting diets in general, and by consequence often are consumed in less active people which tend to have high BMIs and body fat percents. Which we know body fat, especially around the organs and in the liver and pancreas, causes progressive insulin resistance then eventually type 2 diabetes. We also know that saturated fat containing animal meat fattens the liver and pancreas quite well compared to unsaturated plant fat. Love the video as always Chris!
So you think only fat people and unhealthy people are eating carnivore? Well, maybe that's how it starts out because in a very short period of time, those fat people, and those unhealthy people will become lean and fit and healthy.
@@Livetoeat171 no I didn't say only people with overweight or obesity eat carnivore, I just mentioned that these are general dietary patterns we see and generally within these dietary patterns, other behavioral patterns like being less active often accompany them. The way I see it, if someone can lose a ton of fat mass off their body with carnivore, that's great. Their health will improve in various ways from blood pressure, to potentially cholesterol and blood sugar (not super certain though given saturated fat raises cholesterol and liver fat). But if this same person can lose the same fat mass with less red meat and more plant matter, their health is likely to improve even further. But this is a balancing act of sustainability and feasibility for the person that requires shared decision making and collaborative efforts. Once the person loses the fat though, we have strong consistent evidence that the diet they sustain should contain as little red meat as possible and more plants, with other protein alternatives making up the bulk of their protein intake.
@@Livetoeat171 How weird that you inferred this from Parker_Miller's comment. But then, you think becoming lean automatically leads to health, which is a very basic understanding of human physiology, so that explains it.
@@Livetoeat171so what’s your take on the meth diet? That leans people right up! Lol… yes, that’s what you sound like. If skinny = healthy, then how you get there shouldn’t matter? Right?
16:41 16:11 this young asian guy is the lead author of the new study from Harvard, so he is a top researcher, and here he says he eats some animal protein and he is not biased. this is a good bit to share with the animal-based people who think there is an evil agenda to push plant-based diets.
Well I don't know about 'evil', but there absolutely is an agenda to push plant based diets. The evidence is everywhere. Good quality foods of all types including meats, whole grains dairy etc, and avoiding overly processed foods and sugar is a perfectly healthy way to go. I will quit eating meat when I quit eating period.....
Thank you so much for your interviews of the scientists such as Dr Gu who are the researchers behind these monumental studies. They not only bring the studies to life but also give us an insight into the people involved. Brilliant.
17:20 pancreas, liver, and kidneys are diving the glucose problem, not the other way around. The proteins in red meat are what damages these organs, storing fat from red meat in the liver and pancreas .
@@zelareka I can get sick in any and every diet. But, in fact, I'm healthier and stronger now. My sleep is also better. There no one diet fits all, but focusing in plants and, simultaneously, preserving the traditional foods of my culture is working amazingly well for me. When looking to the ancient people that lived here and influenced our diet, in Brazil, every single one of them focused on plants and many also ate minimally processed foods. I'm honoured to continue this tradition. Plants are life.
Thank you for your great content. I think there is nearly no video over the last two years on your channel that I haven't watched at least twice. Thank God, finally, your channel is growing, and you are getting the followers you deserve, as the quality you are providing is unbeaten, at least on RU-vid. Don't let the rivaling diet tribes push you down, even if they threaten you. You are a great inspiration, and I hope you continue your great work, continuing to be a force for good for many more years.
I think people need to ease up on the comments this time around... that student is young and obviously put a ton of work into this study, I just don't think he understands what he waded into by agreeing to this. Let's just stick to the mechanistic science. This will blow over.
Hahaha, we talked about that in the interview but I didn't include that part. I asked why did he fly into the storm with red meat when he could have chosen other forms of epidemiology where it's revered, like for toxic substances. It's like NASA scientists choosing to go into space, where they will become rock stars, or climate science, where emotions run high. Xiao's response was something like this is too important. Diabetes and red meat are everywhere.
Iam 72 I don't eat starches or sugar or seed oils , eat salad at noon and soup at dinner , my blood sugar went from 10.1 to 5.00 in 5 days and lost 23 pounds that month January 1 to January 29, 2023.
Great video and very educational! Went Whole Food Plant Based 12 years ago, stopped all meat, and permanently lost a bunch of weight. I don't miss any of that fish or meat.
Have to ask: Why go after red meat. when carbs are known to raise blood sugar every time a person eats any ? But I did'nt hear the word even once. This study seems to be asking the wrong question. Thousands would testify cutting carbs reversed all three conditions of obesity, HBP, and diabetes, while eating red and other meats, me included. Could they all be wrong ?
Comparing this video to the videos of those doctors, who simply proclaim "I am right, they are wrong", makes one wonder. Holy cow! I sometimes think they are getting something out of promoting "carnivore" diet (sponsored or are they lobbyists themselves) or they are so fixed in their believes that, for the sake of validation, they are pushing their own ideas. I am an ethical vegan. Of course that it makes me happy that plant-based diets are good for it helps animals. But I have so many family members who are not in a good shape, have poor health and are in dire situations (younger and older). It scares me that they might stumble upon videos from shawn bakers of this world. They are everywhere and people are gullible. People would rather listen to someone who validates their lifestyle and blames it all on genetics than someone who makes them feel they should change it. That is what is scary. All of those family members eat heavy meat diet. All of them have some health problems: diabetes, cardio-vascular disease, hormonal problems, high blood pressure...some of them have combination of above. They are also heavy supplement users. I know if they where to find shawn baker doctors, they would listen, follow and even increase their meat intake (if that is even possible at this point). Thank you.
Great video, really awesome getting to interview people who author these studies. I'm glad that you didn't softball if either, that's how it's supposed to be done. I would like to caution against fear mongering too much about fish, eggs and even red meat though. Yes, chemicals exists in ALL of our foods, but whatever relative risk that may, or may not, be present in foods there are often opposite benefits that have to be taken into account. Fish intake is most of the time associated with reduced all cause mortality, improved cognitive function and fish oil in particular may be helpful in improving mood. I think reductonism, or missing the forest for the trees, happens too often in these debates when the try to narrow everything down to a single risk factor.
Thanks! The window made it, of course, but I bought a new portable lighting kit from Hobolite that rocks the houzz. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jdiGmnQDb_s.htmlsi=5JMfBXzUNHj_prH8
Another great one, Chris!!!! I especially like your last interaction with Dr. Gu. lol He was genuinely amazed at your attention to detail and depth of understanding of their paper. Chris'Obsessed!!!!
Wow, I really enjoyed hearing the information directly from the author’s mouth. I loved all the questions and I loved the back-and-forth between the two of you.
Superb! Like almost all your videos, this is required viewing Chris. Great job and thanks for taking the time to make this. It deserves the widest possible audience.
The study categorised hamburgers as unprocessed meat. Wondering what proportion of the participants ate their 'unprocessed' red meat at MacDonalds. Pity that the researchers did not attempt to record the average sugar intake of the participants in the study.
These studies have so much bias and uncontrolled variables as to be pretty much worthless. Risk is a cause and effect statement and this "study" can in no way inform on causality.
So glad I found your channel. I wonder what it is about YT's algorithm that has consistently pushed pro-keto channels. I went through a phase of eating a lot of meat but felt instinctively that it wasn't the right thing. I'm probably predisposed to CVD so I'm not interested in tribalism. I just want the truth!
I hope you don’t get discouraged by the keto/carnivore community. I’m 5’10 and in March of ‘23 I was 245lbs. Didn’t feel good and had to start somewhere so I watched a lot of them and started loosing weight. I was doing keto-like diet and steadily loosing weight. I knew that this may not be good for long term health but didn’t know what to do. Your video about longevity of health influencers was the turning point for me. Because of it I eventually found “how not to die”, “the china study”, “eat to live” and many other books. I was able to reinvigorate my weight loss at 195lbs and continue my health journey down to 165ish lbs and keep it there for about a 9 months now. I eat whole food, plant predominant diet and feel excellent. All thanks to your video. Keep making great videos like this because I’m sure I’m not the only one you’ve helped with your videos
38:53 Chris: "You calculated the risk of red meat consumption against different subsets of your cohorts...the one that surprised me the most was the people who exercised a lot... Xiao: "...for those non-active people there are more risk factors and that can dilute the associations we are targeting on, like red meat...but for those healthy people with higher physical activity, then red meat might be the only few [factors] that are associated with type 2 diabetes." I may have missed it in words or data -- what IS the rate or measure of diabetes association in highly physical people who eat red meat? I can see why Chris would find that correlation interesting. My own "intuitive non-evidence" is that it feels like meat consumption is unhealthy but highly physical people, whether they are unreached tribes in Paraguay or fitness tribes on Pelotons, work really hard to erase the harms. I am skeptical that there is a high rate of diabetes amongst fitness bros. Are we talking about blood markers or perhaps some prevalence of prediabetes?
Yeah, that is a fascinating question. I wish I'd asked a follow up. I notice even Shawn Baker posted a fasting glucose of 127. When I get a chance I'll dig into the numbers again.
I am sure that there was a high incidence of diabetes among body builders I wish I recall the source beyond trust me bro Then again there is a high incidence of t2d among the western world and maybe more testing these days
I wonder if one reason might be their overall calorie intake. Most of these bros like Shawn Baker may take in as much as 4000 calories a day, all of it as fat and protein, supposedly to "fuel" their training. As excess protein can convert to glucose via gluconeogenesis, then it becomes a sugar+high fat diet. So then their blood tests suck, so they go online and try to tweak it. Weighing their portions and getting only as much protein as they burn.. Replacing beef with liver, bone broth & fish and eating sticks of butter and stuff. Oh and don't forget OMAD (one meal a day) and water fast 1-day per week. A lot of work... just to not eat your veggies. I know because, well, I've been there. Did it for about 8 years. It's retarded.
In the last 4 million years no animal food has ever caused any health problem in any human or any other omnivore unless they: 1) consumed way too much of it 2) it was of defective or contaminated quality 3) it was prepared the wrong way such as fried chicken or cheez whiz 4) the human or other omnivore was allergic to it. Meat and poultry are the least allergenic food for human health and human teeth which shows it has been in the human diet for longer than any other food.
Yes the anti-vegans always attack nutrition experts for being vegan, even when they have been studying nutrition for years and consistently finding that eating more plants leads to better outcomes. Why would researchers not make changes according to their findings? Also, if they say that about vegetarian/vegan researchers, the same must apply to the carnivores or keto doctors. Aren’t they also biased by eating and promoting the same foods? People’s attacks on plant-based eating are lame; they really haven’t come up with anything new. Same old attacks for years.
Just because I know the detrimental effects, does not mean I stop eating red meat altogether. I do maximize plants and enjoy meat once in a while. Personal choice. Meds keep my lipids in the excellent range.
@@caliskaterboy626 I have a cardiologist that is in a hospital team of about 50 cardiologists. They have a group picture. Nearly all of them are skinny. And according to my cardiologist, more than half of them are "plant-heavy" or even fully plant-based. They have learned from what they do every day.
Love your channel. I just discover it and I must thank you for the scientific sense you bring to the table. Thanks ! Just like you, my wife thinks I've the developed GAS (gear acquisition syndrome). Could you tell us what gear is in this bag and what lighting you used in the interview with Dr Xiao. Many thanks
Thanks! I used Canon R7 cameras with the 50mm 1.2 lens at 1.4. Dr. Xiao had a window to his right with sun streaming in. Behind to his left was another window but no sun streaming in. I used a hobolite balanced to daylight to fill in the dark side of his face. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jdiGmnQDb_s.html
How about we get a cohort of Keto dieters and Carnivores and do a 10 year study, see if there is a causal link to diabetes. What would you predict the outcome of that study to be Plant Chompers ?
Keto and carnivore are only in the same sentences as diabetes only at the beginning of the diet because most people are overweight and have type 2 diabetes when they start the diet. Wait a year, and then you'll see that hardly anyone will have diabetes anymore unless they started out at 500 pounds and they're still not done losing weight. But the keto and carnivore diet does NOT cause diabetes!
Yes! This is what needs to be done. There are virtually no studies on people eating a purely ruminant based carnivore diet for long periods (10+ years). All the typically cited research includes people who eat carbs and seed oils along with meat.
Heavens no! There is so much evidence over many decades of how bad a keto diet can be for you that researchers will not do this for ethical reasons. (The deleterious consequences of a high fat diet are being shown over and over again in studies of just a few weeks that researchers who are no funded by animal farming lobbyists, the egg board etc, that they refuse to watch people get that unhealthy long term. Why do you think the keto YT stars won’t look at anything beyond a year or two at the outside?)
@@silasakron4692 It would take the public to fund such a study which It think is the issue. Sugar industry is where the profilt margins are, raising an animal is a substantially larger investment than a 6 month monocrop.
Thank you for making this video NOW, I've been seeing so much about ketogenic diets and diabetes, which is legitimate research, but then part of the platform is that "carbs are poison" which doesn't seem like it's a research-backed.objective summation.
Ketogenic, diet and diabetes are in the same sentences because most people are diabetic before they go ketogenic. But after a while, of either going ketogenic or carnivore, they will lose a lot of weight and cure their diabetes as long as it's type two.
@@Livetoeat171 My gout went away from going carnivore. A Plant based diet over 5 years made it worse and I was on crutches. People who have had diabetes or gout are the best information sources - you’re far more observant when you’re in pain!
I think the problem with low carbers is that they are coming from highly unhealthy diets and usually keep the focus on the weight loss assuming that it's the only factor in being healthy. It usually leads them to see the weight fall off and assume that they don't need to exercise at all, or at worst tend to not stop any other unhealthy habits (smoking, drinking, etc.). They can also take the journey in the other direction and overdo exercise (I've always held the people that anything more than moderate cardio or weight training for the average person is a heart attack waiting to happen no matter what diet your on). The advantage mentally with low fat or low animal product diets is that you need to commit much more energy to getting your nutrition right and therefore develop healthier habits in the process. Long story short. I don't think low carb OR low fat diets are more or less superior to each other, it's the people and the reasons they start them that cause the problems.
