Thank you very much! People are too inclined to read sensational headlines and misleading headlines and stop there. It's important, if the subject is important enough to you, you must continue delving into the article and the facts supporting it. Again, thank you!
Can’t believe these flawed studies are passing muster. It take people like you to keep revealing the inaccuracies to hopefully make a difference, for us everyday people to not just accept findings willy nilly. 👏
Soooo helpful. Thank you for using your logical, inquisitive mind to teach us how to analyze the news and the studies. Everyone needs to learn to do this. Even doctors often just skim headlines.
You’re very welcome! It’s a really important skill to have and once you get the hang of it, you’ll be able to tell if a study is high-quality or not within a minute or two👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Jenny you are way more intelligent than most medical professionals now! All we need to do is to have an independent mind and BELIEVE that we cannot gain true intelligence by relying on any news or social media. We all need to be true skeptics about anything in the internet!
Thank you for looking at this. I'd appreciate a video about which are the journals that can be trusted, to go read the studies myself, or how/where to search for articles.
Girl, you're on fire.🔥 Thanks for exposing such shoddy research! As a nurse we were taught to follow empirical data. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to exist anymore. Those in the industrial medical complex seem to have their own agenda...and it's not for truth!🤨
Hello and thank you so much! There is still some high-quality research going on out there, but unfortunately, big food and big Pharma have gotten their hands into it, and they tend to fund studies that muddy the water in their favor. That’s why it’s so important to be able to glance over one of these studies to see if it’s high-quality or not😀😀😀
The thing that amused (and infuriated) me most was the assumption that the people studied consistently ate the same way throughout the intervening 11 years as the day that was surveyed. I don't know how anyone can take this seriously or even call it research.
Interesting breakdown, thank you for sharing. It is indeed odd that the size of the groups was so different. If the math is done right though, a larger group doesn't necessarily lower the numbers. But averages over a larger group do provide more accurate/reliable percentage. Personally when headlines or articles look so clickbaity I don't even bother anymore to look into them further. Even just from the choice of words you can already see that they seem more focused on the clicks instead of what is accurate/correct. To me interesting articles should look as boring as can be, but who is going to click on titles like "unspecified high fat, lowish carb diet shows correlation to a higher levels of LDL when compared to unspecified standard diet. Is there also a causation?"? 😄
Hello! To a degree yes. Big pharma and big food fund a lot of studies, and some of them are skewed in their favor because of that. Unfortunately it’s very hard to get studies funded and sometimes researchers have to take funding from companies in order to do their study. That’s why I think it’s important to take a look at the funding source, but that is not the only thing you should be looking at. There are plenty of good studies out there that are funded by corporations, but do not skew their data. That’s why it’s so important to learn how to read these studies 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Can you go into detail why a different number changes the precentage? I can see that a smaller number increases the uncertainty, but why should it change the % if you were to include more similar people in the group? 1 in 305 is 0.33 %, 1 in 1220 is 0.08 %. The distance is 5.5 %, or 17 events.
Sure! Let’s say 30 people in each group had heart attacks. If we take 30/305 we get .098 or 9%. 30/1220 is .024 or 2%. Same amount of heart attacks, but the larger number of people in the second group makes for a technically smaller percentage. Why not just compare 305 people to 305 people? That is my rationale for that section of the video. And, of course, that is just a minor issue compared to the major issue with this paper which is that the people they said were eating a ketogenic diet were NOT eating a ketogenic diet.
They’re STILL publishing articles saying high cholesterol is correlated to high risk of heart disease, after it has been debunked by numerous interventional studies? Shame on whoever wrote it, accepted it as peer reviewer, or green-lit it as editor.
Hello! Yes, it is a shame. Unfortunately, there is $1 trillion on the line in the case of big Pharma, they use this crappy research to push statins on people.
@@JennyMitich what gets me is that part of Ph.D. training was responsible conduct in research. Had to do a certification yearly. How do these academics knowingly lie and take funding from those corpos to push these agendas? Or are they really such unskilled scientists that they don’t even see the flaws of their studies and the fallacious assumptions on which their research is based?
Do we know of anyone getting a stroke or heart attack while being a long term Carnivore? Like 5 years or more. I only know of one, Beth, and she had a hole in her heart and had taken the MRNA vaccine shot (not saying those caused it, just pointing out variables). I only know RU-vidrs when it comes to Carnivore, and I've never heard of anyone getting anything at the 5, 10, 15, 20 year ranges. Most look like magazine models, in fact. But I want to poll the community, since even Reddit seemed scarce. So, has anyone heard of any ill long term effects of the Carnivore diet?
Hello! That’s a really good question. There are several creators on RU-vid that are longer-term carnivore. One is carnivore Doctor, she’s been on it for 15 or 20 years. Kelly Hogan has been on it for 12 years or so. One of the reasons why I’m so forthcoming with my metabolic health data is because I want to show the long-term effects of carnivore on the human body body. I don’t know if I’m going to stay on the diet forever, but for as long as I do, I will continue to share those numbers with you. I talk to thousands of people every week and by and large most of them have seen vast improvements in their health using carnivore or keto. We all have to die from something though, and I wonder if a person has been longer-term carnivore and then suffers a heart attack what their diet was before, if they have some kind of genetic anomaly, or something else. Unfortunately, it’s really hard to pinpoint. Also, heart disease is caused by a myriad of issues. High levels of stress, oxidative damage from environmental exposures, clotting factors such as fibrinogen, and so many other things have been postulated as being the “cause” of heart disease. The simple fact is that we don’t know with any degree of certainty what causes heart disease at this point of time. To answer your question, I have not heard of any longer-term carnivores suffering from heart attacks or strokes. But that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Again, great question👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻😀😀😀
Okay, so I found another person on RU-vid who had a really bad experience on Carnivore, the channel is "Stephies plant based Journey to get healthy ." As far as I can gather, she's missing a gallbladder, and that combined with Carnivore landed her in the ER. She's going plant based now, also she was not a long term Carnivore. I feel like i'm scraping the bottom of the barrel here for poor anecdotes for Carnivore, which bodes well overall. If you eventually stop carnivore, it'd be nice to still see your blood work off Carnivore, because it'll help determine if the carnivore diet is a healing diet or a necessary diet. Healing diet= a temporary diet that heals you and then you can go back to eating more omnivore without insulin spikes. Necessary diet= The best diet in terms of health outcomes and should be sustained. By the way, i'm on day 5 myself, my sleep and energy has improved a bit. Can't wait to see my 30 day results. Can you recommend what blood work I should get done at the 30-day mark? @@JennyMitich
@@MohseenLala do you have baseline Bloodwork to compare it to? I always recommend people get the following basic tests once a year: A1c Fasting insulin Comprehensive metabolic panel (includes fasting glucose) Standard lipid panel HsCRP
I believe in the carnivore diet but I dislike steak which seems to be the go-to meal in carnivore. I like fish, chicken, and turkey but is there enough protein without having steaks for Carnivore diet?
Hello! Oh, 100% you can do carnivore with fish, chicken, and turkey. The main appeal of steaks is the fat, I think. You can just add fats with butter or bacon grease or tallow or whatever other animal fat you like to use👍🏻
Keto is NOT eating less than a specific number of carbs. Keto, properly understood, is being IN KETOSIS. If you're not in ketosis, you're not keto, regardless of how low your carbs are.
@@JennyMitich That's not true for everyone. The human pancrease can produce enough insulin to knock you out of ketosis, even when eating less than 20 grams of carbs. For some, fasting must be combined with extreme low carb in order to achieve meaningful ketosis. Ask me how I know. Even on carnivore, it can be difficult.
Keto 'like'. The magic word is 'like' which means can be anything but just add 'like' why can't they do a straight up keto study but then it will not support their narrative. 😅😂😊
Typical nonsense "study" violating all principles of Statistics - this is standard in nutritional medicine. A mice study experiment would have more weight than this, but it is much easier to sift through a data base and publish a "study" like this. People in the "keto-like" diet group were interrogated only 1 time for 10 years about their diet, were more overweight than on the "regular diet", and probably were self-selected to do a low carb diet because they were already having health problems. As Jenny points out, the difference in LDL between the two groups are clinically insignificant and do not support the sensational conclusion that the low carb diet caused the worse outcome, since the real difference in the two studied groups were not interrogated at all. Anyone that is not overweight is automatically out of the group studied and the fake "conclusions" do not apply to them.
I don't believe any sort of restrictive diet, that cut outs food groups, adds time restrictive rules, or removes one macronutrient entirely is healthy for general population (both mentally and physically), but if its a diet that allows you to lose weight and keep it off, it's a healthy diet for you. As long as you are lean, healthy and physically active you can get away with any diet or macronutrient composition, as long as you are providing all the necessary micronutrients. Having sugar or saturated fats in your diet will do you no harm as ,long as you are not gaining weight. Obviously, I'm not saying that you should be eating ultra processed crap all the time, but the more important thing than food itself is not overeating it.
That’s OK! You don’t have to believe in it. Carnivore works really well for a lot of people, but it is definitely not the only healthy way to eat. I 100% disagree with you about sugar though and food quality. There is not a healthy level of vegetable seed oils you should be ingesting. There’s not a healthy amount of Oreo cookies you should eat. But I do think that if most people focused on eating a real food diet, cutting out ultra processed foods, vegetable seed oils, and added sugar, they would be doing marvelous things for their health👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
@@JennyMitich heh I'm not saying that there's a healthy amount of oreos we should consume, but having some added sugar in your diet isn't as groundbreaking for health as people claim them to be. The biggest problem with them is that those are added calories which make people gain weight. There were numerous randomized control trials where they fed healthy active people high amounts of sugar, including one where participants were drinking 150g worth of fructose "shakes". There was no increase in systemic inflammation, decrease in insulin sensitivity or increase in visceral fat levels, for people that weren't eating in a calorie surplus. For people that were gaining weight from a diet like that... Well that's a different story. Professional tour de France cyclists can consume up to 600g of sugar a day, and they are very much fine since they burn everything off. I do sure agree that an average human being should minimize the consumption of added sugar though :) As for vegetable oils, yeah they are crap, personally I don't use them, but again there's not a single randomized control study that shows those oils or linoleic acid actually increase inflammation in humans. So I do think this is also overblown. But so are things like meat consumption increasing cancer risk.
