I used to be 7th Day Adventist for +25 years and I followed the vegetarian doctrine only eating vegetables and grains, no animal products other than eggs and dairy products, my four children growed up with this diet, I ended up being a fat and sick person, I quited the religion and found and follow the paleo diet, I adopted this diet and in three months I went to my 20's waigth and the inflamation disapeared and obtained incedible health, buy now I couldn't re-educated my children, this is now my biggest trouble I need to resolve
Good for you for breaking out of such an unhealthy dietary regimen and finding your health. I'm a strict carnivore and I love it. No more gut or joint pains. More flattering body composition. And have trimmed down.
If McDonald's went back to using beef tallow instead of vegetable oils it would have a positive effect on obesity in America. Replacing all veg oils and high fructose corn syrup would be one of the best things to happen to the American diet.
@@harrymills2770 same! I was on high-school in the 70's and before the "low fat" craze and replaced real fats with processed fats food actually tasted good and there wasn't near the levels of obesity we see now.
I feel better since I increased red meat, love lamb and beef and have it every day. Also, butter, eggs, full fat dairy and seafood. I blatantly ignore government guidelines, WHO, heart and diabetes associations and my health is good, I do not have chronic conditions, I am a healthy body weight and no medications.
It's a simple fact:- _anyone_ who thinks animal husbandry/livestock-raising is bad for the land, and monocrop-agriculture good, has never been a farmer! At least in Australia, and any country with a similar climate and similarly poor topsoils, will know that after you pasture a herd in a field, another can generally be pastured on the same field immediately (assuming you're not over-stocking). This is simply not so with crops. One _must_ leave one's fields fallow for several seasons between crops; and the fastest way to replenish the field is to pasture a herd on it. There is simply no comparison to what a herd of ruminants will bring to a field. Indeed, they can turn a dead claypan with no remaining topsoil, into a lush pasture in a few short years, even just with intermittent grazing (and no cropping); and with long-term grazing, they do so even more rapidly. And that's in a climate with less than 15 inches of rainfall a year (where 15" would be a good year!). The most successful farmers in my region are the ones with the largest acreage so that they may leave their crop-fields fallow for _four or five years_ between planting, _and_ who also run sheep, that can replenish the land between crops (wheat is the primary local crop, with some canola as the seasons allow; with sheep the primary livestock, most of which are raised for meat and standard wools, but ultrafine merino are raised locally too, with some cattle). The land must be rested between crops; and unless you pasture a herd on it (sometimes even if you do), it will have to be rested for a _long_ time after a harvesting a crop. There is no grey area on these facts -- even the gentlest methods of crop-agriculture are an environmental disaster! While livestock-raising simply is not. So eat meat or don't - that's up to you and no one else cares - but you cannot deny reality:- if you choose to live on agricultural-crops, fine, but don't fool yourself that your doing so will 'save the planet' because the very opposite is true. _Your_ food-choice creates an environmental disaster in its wake; that of meat-eaters does not. And you need not take my word for it -- just look at everywhere humans have raised cereal crops throughout history -- the dead, dry, so-called 'Fertile' Cresent comes immediately to mind; as does India, as does the Sahara Desert. Compare the vast, deep-soiled prairies of north America (and I think we all know the simply enormous numbers of bison, deer, bear and wolves, and other animals, predators and prey, they historically supported). Or better yet, talk to a farmer.
Farmers know this, not only in Australia but all over the world! It's amazing how few people (apart from farmers) are aware of the facts you've presented here, which is just a measure of deliberate misinformation on the subject in our media. Our journalists are no longer real journalists but merely the stenographers of power, whether it be corporate or immediate political power.
Democrats in the USA, and Leftists in general, are immune to facts. Proof>>Despite zero evidence, they actually believe that CO2 is harmful. It's a cult
It is best to let the pasture replenish itself after the herd has been there. Most regenerative ranchers let at least two months between when they bring the animals onto a piece of land they were on before. By then, the dung they had released would have been absorbed and the grass would have grown enough for the animals to get good nutrition. If we want to save our planet, eating grass-fed meats, milk, etc. as well as pasture-raised pork, eggs, chicken, etc. is VERY helpful.
Brilliant lecture. An eye-opener for me as a medical doctor as it motivates one to pay closer attention to the scientific data behind the current dietary “guidelines”, irrespective of the institutions which endorses them.
@@giuseppebonatici7169 I have to ask, did you watch? Her argument is that the government started pushing high Carb Low Fat in the 80s, on a lack of scientific data. She wants the science. And yes, she is very much aware of how the science is corrupted by big industry money. She has a whole book about that and a lot of videos also.
Please don't get me wrong John. I love Nina and her message, but she's not the best spokesperson for our cause. She's a little like Gary Taubes. She needs to lose all the umms and don't use evolution to argue our case for god's sake. You alienate a large portion of potential supporters. She's not the only low-carb-er to make this mistake. Evolution is not real science. It's a belief, just like a vegan diet. If you don't like hearing me say it imagine how our Christian siblings hear the opposition view being thrown into the conversation for no good reason. We have an airtight case. Please don't weaken it. Love you Nina. I will always watch your videos even if I can't share them with anyone.
@@MrBoomie00 - First of all, it wouldn't matter what we evolved to eat. The question is, what can we eat? Or what should we eat? We have an airtight argument. We don't need to go off in the weeds. If you want to discuss evolution, discuss evolution. But don't randomly interject it needlessly into every other discussion. It's almost like some kind of virus. Evolution is a belief just like "Eat less move more." And that's fine. You can still use it as long as it isn't used as a fact. In true science, there are no facts. Everything is open for discussion. An honest scientific debate would always start with the word suppose. Evolutionary arguments are always circular. Not only that but claiming you know that life sprung magically from a big-bang x number of years ago is really stretching the imagination. How could we possibly know that? It isn't logical. And it doesn't match our observations. Then you need countless assumptions and miracles to get to our present existence. Evolution doesn't help our argument. The fact that so many of us think it does shows the level of programming and cognitive dissonance surrounding evolution and the archaeological record. We KNOW very little about things we believe happened 200 years ago, pass 500 years, and anything goes. Google Marco Polo or how Roman aqueducts ended up South America?
I had the thought that epidemiological studies should only be used as hypothesis generators; ten mins before she said it herself... I'm sold. Lol VERY solid information here! 👍 Docs should pay attention.
Nina continues to hit it out of the park with her research and her presentation of that material. She has done us all a wonderful favor with her focused nutritional presentations. Much thanks to Nina! Wonder if she’s working on another best selling book?? Hope so!!!
She obviously ignorant of the plain science of saturated fats and diabetes connection. If you understand the concept of intramyocellular lipids aka fat inside cells, and how this interferes with insulin sensitivity, you'll clearly see the disconnect in the so called facts presented here. The solution is whole food plant based diet and this has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to stop, control and reverse lifestyle diseases. How else can you explain Dr Dean ornish lifestyle medicine reimbursement by insurance if it did not work? Wake up people! Your health, your choice, your responsibility. Do not let industry interests decide what is good for you. They are only interested in maintaining their profits if not increase and that at the expense of your health.
Benchmark Pharmacy : Did you read her book? If not, maybe you should. It's addressed. And why does the Inuit in the Arctic have no " lifestyle diseases " and yet their diets are 60 to 70 percent saturated fat? Can't really answer that, can you!
Many man in my church and women too are overweight, some are obese. As a rule eating animal products is not recommended, instead we eat lots of soy products almost daily and mock meat. We also have many incidents of diabetes and low energy people. After this conference I'm beginning to connect some dots.😪😪😪
Soy is such a powerful plant estrogen that it's recommended to replace estrogen loss in post menopausal women. Yet, they feed it to babies! No wonder males are becoming generally more effeminate... and girls are now menstruating earlier than ever! Ever wonder where 'man-boobs' come from? Yep. Too much estrogen! Also, estrogen contributes to weight gain.
@Sudo Nim yes, keep in mind all legumes are heavy on digestion. Boiled at low fire for long hours with a little piece of Kombu makes it easier to be digested, especially for the not so young.
Since animals are much more capable of properly digesting vegetables, feed all of them to the animals, they get a better diet than the all grain diet, and we get a healthier cow and better meat.
@@Kitiwake read this the other day, and it's apparently also true of some primates. On the surface, they seem to be fueled off of primarily vegetation. However it's what happens inside that is the interesting part. As you stated with the cattle, that vegetation is actually converted to primarily fatty acids. Thus a number of primates are actually fat burners.
I love the research done by journalists...they seem to be the only ones putting truth out there, any longer...thank you so much for your courageous research...I love you...thank you
If anyone worries about the production of red meat causing damage to the planet, I recommend they listen to Allen Savory and Joel Salatin, two world-renowned leaders in the revolution against what America knows as traditional beef farming. They have taken land nearly turned to desert by wrong farming practices, and turned those areas lush and green. How? By introducing herbivores, and managing them correctly. Within only a few years, this kind of farming can produce far more food, from marginal land, than conventional farming can from prime land. And all this, while healing the planet. Just do a RU-vid search for each of those names, and take time to listen. It will completely change your perspective on farming.
I agree. I've been looking into regenerative agriculture for the last 10 months and decided to limit my meat to grass-fed beef and lamb; pasture-raised pork, chicken, and eggs; and milk, butter, and cheese from grass-fed cows. I can't believe how much more delicious these foods are. I recently got a grass-fed filet mignon, always risky because I'm the one doing the cooking, but it was the best tasting steak I can ever remember having. BTW, grass-fed meat generally will cook at a lower temperature than factory-farmed meats. Supporting regenerative agriculture with my dollars can make a difference in a whole range of issues. I totally recommend it. I found this talk extremely interesting. It made me feel like my choice was valid, based on science, and good for the planet. I thought about being a vegan for a while but then when I found out they didn't eat honey because it was an "animal excretion," I thought this is too much for me. It's good to eat honey since it helps the beekeepers and farmers both. At any rate, I'm happy to see that more and more of these products are showing up in stores from regular supermarkets to Trader Joe's to Sprouts and various health-food stores. And btw, the bacon is simply heavenly!
@@paperinik69 been keto carnivore for 2 yrs.... blood pressure is now perfect... 22 bmi... never crave never crash.. ever... if Im busy and forget to eat... no big deal .. Takes time to change programming away from the processed crap american diet
Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize in Physics 1965 on fundamental work in quantum electrodynamics) said, "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything." Proof in scientific research is more like a correlation of occurrence within stringent levels of significance. A research paper usually recommends areas needing further study. I have read Ms. Teicholz's book and it is part of my validation that a Carnivore way of eating is beneficial for my continued health.
I think we're really omnivores, so enjoy your fruits and vegetables, too. :) But yeah, I'm all for eating meat, especially from animals privileged to live on regenerative farms, fed exclusively on excellent forage and grass finished. Yum!
@@wendyscott8425 Modern fruits are just tree candies! Humans evolved to eat fruits for at most two weeks at the end of summer to fatten up for the coming winter. Vegetables are just a garnish on my steaks ! Humans are essential carnivores and there are no essential carbohydrates needed in human diet! No grains, no fruits, no potatoes works for me . The official dietary advise has been proven factually wrong and a lie .
@@thalesnemo2841 So do you only eat fruits in season? I've thought about the whole keto thing or paleo or whatever it is you're doing, but I just couldn't imagine never having a bowl of cereal or a piece of toast in the morning, or rice with my steak, a baked potato, ice cream, etc. It just seems like life wouldn't be as fun, as delicious as grass-fed or pasture-raised meats are. Of course, there are various opinions as to whether humans are essentially carnivores or herbivores. I just think we're omnivores when you look around the world and see the vast variety of things people live on, including various bugs and even snakes! We can eat anything and it usually won't kill us. :) Well, almost anything. :)
Nina - just ran into your vids yesterday. I try and follow the science behind all this, as much as I can grasp anyway. Gotta say, your presentations are down to earth and so comprehensive. Thanks for all the work you put in.
It wasn't called sugar diabetes because of any dietary cause. It was causes sugar diabetes but cause sugar was in the urine. The other type was called water diabetes, which is a problem with the hormone that controls urination (nothing to do with blood sugar levels or the flushing of glucose through the urine).
I did chuckle when she said she was a vegetarian.....that ate chicken and fish. I agreed with so much of it, since I went on keto, I have started feeling like a new person, meat isn't the threat, that is undoubtedly sugar.
I have changed my diet i want to say thank you & gary taubes i lot over 50 pounds I cut out carbs and sugar and most processed foods . I hope something really can change with the food industry The pyramid is all wrong my child in school and now I am sending her with a lunch healthier meals
Ironically, if they were being honest, they could easily study if red meat is a factor by comparing people on the 'standard American diet' against people on the Keto diet, which would essentially remove carbs from the equation. But they already know how that would turn out, which is why they specifically study people on the standard American diet and stay clear of people on the Keto diet. It isn't science if you are going into it with the conclusion already determined.
It is worth mentioning that several university and commercial trials of managed grazing for livestock has produced results that prove that such grazing techniques coulld sequester more carbon than any and all other proposed methods designed to reduce carbon emissions. Of course that is essentially a moot point since we also have proof that our present increase in carbon has been a vegetation boon for our planet.
Vegetation isn't necessarily what absorbs carbon. The carbon used to be in the soil, and when managed grazing is used, the soil vastly improves, the plants are able to absorb more water when it rains, their roots can go far down into the soil to pull up nutrients, the soil microbiome becomes healthy, and the carbon is put into the soil pretty much for good. Grasslands are the best at absorbing carbon into the soil while releasing oxygen, then bushes, then trees.
Sounds good. If your American and you care about your health, the American dietary guidelines are to be revised in 2020. Unfortunately of the 20 people on the panel that will decide what changes should be made to the guidelines is a Seventh Day Adventist who believes that eating meat is a sin. There are also some died in the wool vegans who would never tolerate saying yes to any kind of meat.even though there is NOT one single CLINICAL study linking red meat to heart disease. The rest are the old guard who put out the corrupted data the guidelines have been using for decades. So, unless there is a revolt by the American people the guidelines will remain the same ole same ole garbage guidelines.
Seventh Day Advertists do NOT believe eating meat is a sin. Some are vegetarian. They follow the Leviticus food restrictions and insist on kosher animals (no pork, no shellfish).
What Nina did not mention about a pound of red meat compared to a pound of plants is that a pound of meat goes a lot further, and sustains you for far longer. Also, that growing plants does not mean going easier on the planet with all of the chemicals that go into growing these plants, the huge amounts of deforestation to grow these plants and its associated widespread slaughter of wildlife, and the lack of biodiversity that comes from mono-cropping. While cattle and sheep can live on land that is unsuitable for agriculture, and can replenish soil depleted through agriculture. The cult of vegetarianism has a lot to answer for, and not just its detrimental health effects.
AMEN! Growing corn, wheat, SOY, etc as well as INDUSTRIALLY GROWN fruit, green and other vegetables constantly being pushed on us-AHEM: growing vegetables use lots of chemicals which contribute to pollution: just think of the TONS of FUEL, FERTILIZER etc. used to bring those crops to market. More than the methane released by cattle. And cattle actually serve to benefit the pastures they graze on. But NO, Seventh Day Adventists do NOT claim that eating all meat is a SIN! Just look it up! Yes, they do indeed, discourage meat eating, but only NON-KOSHER FLESH FOOD IS A SIN! I attended SDA “ Andrews University” for a year over 40 years ago…the food was delicious but totally vegetarian. And I ended up the year perfectly healthy. My fellow students were lovely, truly good people. Of my friends-about 2 dozen delightful “ girls,” I kept track of, ALL ARE DEAD except for one and she is in a care facility. I’m nearly 90, a widow in good health who lives independently-drive my own car, etc…I’m a Type 2 diabetic, diet controlled ( Discovering Dr Akins saved/changed my life.) I EAT LOW CARB, LOTS OF MEAT! Including RED MEAT! My late husband was a Scientist ( PhD..Biology Professor at University of Michigan for 25 years and HE thought that Ancell Keyes was A NUT CASE! 😁🎶 ( PS I don’t spend much time seeing a doctor and gobbling pills. 😁)
michael gregor even told a vegan/animal rights group he was lecturing that one of their challenges is to find out why vegans are more likely to be found with heart disease than meat eaters - and in another video tells us we should be vegan to avoid heart disease.
@@ApexHerbivore - You can easily find it for yourself. It's a 1 hr youtube video (or slightly longer, I forget) where he finally discloses a 10 yr study re: vegan vs meat. It turn out that yes, vegans do die of heart disease on the same level that meat eaters do. Look for the video yourself.
@@OMGaNEWBIE if it's so easy - you find it. I just scrolled thru 3 years of his videos. They are all 4-7 minutes long except his Q&As which are all around half an hour long. The first 1hr+ video I came across was from August 2016 and was a lecture about "how not to die". I'd love you to show me what you're on about. But after 7 months, the OP hasn't replied, and I doubt you will. Not with any pertinent information anyway. You're both full of shit.
I'm a creationist and I'm very much into evidence-based science, I just deny evolution. I do however agree with everything else Nina says! Excellent presentation, as always!
Because they don’t care about you or your health, they only care about money, especially when ur just another number in their computer system. If these people had direct contact with the pissed off people who want to help themselves then it may be a different story.
@Julie Mitchell but most of those cattle still spend 4-6mos in a CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation) to be fattened up on corn and grain that has been sprayed with agrochemicals. Many CAFOs use antibiotics as a growth strategy rather than only using them on sick cows. Some have more integrity than that and only use them on sick cows but the "factory farming" is still the reality for those last few months of a cow's life.
@Julie Mitchell They may be partially pasture raised, but most cattle is grain finished in disgusting feedlots, and this is supposed to be good for us? I don't think so. Regenerative farmers feed their cattle on pastures only, and they move them often. The only thing they add is an assortment of minerals that the animals choose from if they feel the need, which then mostly get pooped onto the pasture and goes back into the soil and into the next growth of grasses and forbs. It sure makes a difference in the taste! So yes, a lot of cattle are raised using the Columbus method. The farmer puts them out to pasture in the spring and then sees if he can discover them in the fall. This does not make for healthy cows or pastures.
Teicholz states, around 40;00, "we cannot deny our evolution." This is a fair statement and I agree with it. Plant-based and vegan agenda people will argue that we've moved beyond our evolutionary past, that we are due to evolve to a higher or transcendent level. I think we all understand that biology doesn't work that way. We are a bipedal ape in a George Jetson environment. Total mismatch and incompatibility that can't be transcended. I think there are some people that can tolerate a vegan diet and remain in relatively good health long-term. But these are the remarkable exception rather than the rule. Most people are going to be damaged by practicing a vegan diet long term (many won't last "long-term"). The evidence is clear. This vegan movement is very insidious and very dangerous and it ultimately only serves the food and supplement industries.
Michael Rose (evolutionary biologist and leading expert on aging) points out that after 100 generations of an agricultural diet, many humans up to age 40 have developed a "tolerance" for agricultural products such as grain, legumes and dairy. But after that age, humans lose their tolerance for such foods that weren't part of their ancestral diet. But those races that don't have 5,000 years of consumption of agricultural products are less able to tolerate such foods. even before age 40.
@@aquamarine99911 this is interesting, would you happen to have a source you could point to, and I don't mean that it has to be an academic paper, I'm not politely trying to shut you down. I ask because my own personal thoughts, and that's all they are, are that this period that we can all point to examples in our own lives was more of a symptom free wearing down of the body's defences, my logic from an ancestral prospective being that in our past there must have been periods of even years where nature conspired against our optimal diet. But as I've said these are just my own personal thoughts and I would like to see other avenues in this area, regards.
Look at the studies done on heart disease, say, before 1900. Almost non existent. At least according to a Dr. who's talk I listened to on the RU-vids. Second hand passed on to you all. Look it up. I did.
Re Charles Dickens. There's a missing slide at the start - the comment at the start makes no sense. This is what Dickens had to say about an American breakfast: "In our private room the cloth could not, for any earthly consideration, have been laid for dinner without a huge glass dish of cranberries in the middle of the table; and breakfast would have been no breakfast unless the principal dish were a deformed beef-steak with a great flat bone in the centre, swimming in hot butter, and sprinkled with the very blackest of all possible pepper" "At eight o’clock, the shelves being taken down and put away and the tables joined together, everybody sat down to the tea, coffee, bread, butter, salmon, shad, liver, steak, potatoes, pickles, ham, chops, black-puddings, and sausages, all over again. Some were fond of compounding this variety, and having it all on their plates at once. As each gentleman got through his own personal amount of tea, coffee, bread, butter, salmon, shad, liver, steak, potatoes, pickles, ham, chops, black-puddings, and sausages, he rose up and walked off. When everybody had done with everything, the fragments were cleared away: and one of the waiters appearing anew in the character of a barber, shaved such of the company as desired to be shaved; while the remainder looked on, or yawned over their newspapers. Dinner was breakfast again, without the tea and coffee; and supper and breakfast were identical. "
@@wendyscott8425 The stomach will adjust (years ago, I had the same thought as you). It takes around a month to adjust to a carnivore diet, but it's better in the long run. I eat leafy greens as well, but the majority of my calories are from animal sources. My cardiac health is athletic.
@@billybbob18 Well, I was really talking about that Dickens breakfast, which seemed more like someone's last meal before an execution. LOL I'm using up all my carb-heavy food and considering going keto. Now that I've found grass-fed beef, I'll be happy to eat a lot of it and see how I feel. My son is doing that, so we could coordinate better when he comes over. Of course, his wife and kids aren't on the keto diet so I'd still have to provide some rice or something, but it would work, I'm sure.
At about 4 minutes in, the two meat consumption charts do not jibe with each other. One shows total meat consumption going up, the other shows it going down.
I am more interested in what they are going to substitute for the hot dogs after they are banned. Carb/Grain rich food or some other healthy meat or fish? That answer will tell us a lot about the intent.
I add 1 oz liver to 1 lb ground beef. I get all of the wonderful benefits of liver without having to taste it, and in small amounts that my body can handle. Liver will basically liquify when processed in a blender or food processor and is easy to comine with the meat. I also add beef fat to my ground beef the same way.
Wow. Talk about your unsung hero. Nina has done so much good for humanity by spreading these inconvenient truths, and yet hardly anyone knows who she is. One reason for this is that Funko Inc. has never seen fit to issue a Funko Pop in her likeness. Please, everyone, let's make our voices heard: WE DEMAND A NINA TEICHOLZ FUNKO POP!
She went into it with no preconceived ideas (she was actually vegetarian), not trying to push an agenda, not supported by any food lobbyists. She just goes where the data takes her. That says it all.
People aren't involved with heavy work like a former generation. I'm 70 years old and my father's generation worked harder than most people do in 2019. So, they don't need as much meat in their diet. I remember eating more organ meats like liver and kidneys and chicken hearts and and gizzards smothered with onions than people do to today. That was when I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s. We didn't have that much beef, more lamb, pork, goat and chicken. In fact we raised our own chickens and pork.
The other two big problem with the argument that a lb of grain takes less energy/water to grow than a lb of beef. The first is humans don't eat by volume they eat by calories. To get the recommended 2000kcal a day you need to eat many many more lbs of grain. This is made worse by the fact the cow eats the entire plant the human only eats the seeds. Also if you are eating high carb you are likely at least for many to over eat compared to low carb. So instantly that gap is dramatically reduced. The second and bigger problem in my opinion is that they are only talking about raising the grain or animal. If you take an end to end process the grain would I believe take much more. For example even buying meat from a big supermarket in the UK the chances are the meat was raised in the UK, so it hasn't traveled very far. The only processing is the slaughter and butchering, this means there is minimal infrastructure/power etc required to process the product so uses much less fuel/water and pollutes less. If you get your meat from a good local butcher it has likely traveled only a few miles, and comes with little to no packaging (plastic). However, when you pick a grain product off the shelf, it, or it's ingredients, has likely traveled half way around the world, and they tend to be highly processed (I consider the grinding of wheat they way it is done today, highly processed). When a cow is fed grain even in factory farming it isn't processed its the whole plant and they are usually grown on farms near to the farm (it's cheaper that way). This processing for human consumption is done in large polluting factories (it is rare, if ever that someone would find a grain product grown and processed via even vaguely traditional methods locally, like you can with meat by just going to a good local butcher). Finally inevitably grain products are wrapped in much more plastic, even worse if it comes in single serving products. By the time you take into account the air miles, the processing and the packaging etc, a plant based diet doesn't look so great for the environment.
Just to give a minor correction: humans do not even eat by calories, but by satiety (as you hinted on). The human body has no frickin idea what a calorie even is and different macronutrients have different metabolic/thermic effects. That's one big factor for why obesity exists. I experienced, first switching from SAD to 'clean eating', then to zero carb keto, then to carnivore a staged decline in consumed daily calories.
@@marcelwindpassinger5572 true, but if we are going to measure how much an average human eats we measure that in calories. If we are going to make a counter argument we need to be able to quantify the amount and saying to satiety is not quantifiable therefore gives us no way to argue the point. KIilo Calories is the unit of measurement we use to measure how much humans eat. We can then take the average of that in kilo calories and do the math from their. The math should work in our favor because meat is far more calorie dense and because a human will be satiated far quicker eating meat. When I say humans eat by calories that admittedly was not quite what I meant, what I meant was, that calories or more accurately kilo calories is the unit of measurement we use to calculate the amount of energy a human consumes from their food, we do not measure the weight of food. because the weight of the food in no way is meaningful, potentially the volume is as stomach stretch will help signal satiety but not weight. If the mechanisms to signal satiety are working correctly the amount an individual human eats over time should remain fairly constant. Which allows us to do the math. Saying it that way isn't quite as snappy as saying humans eat calories not not kg!
@@serenitygoodwyn Fine, we need to be able to quantitative measures of nutrition. But why choose an ineffective one; one that does not mechanistically relate well to nutrition and does not have great predictive power as soon as we want to talk about different diets? I don't care what narrative benefits from using calories, I care about accuracy and truth. Burning things and measuring their heat production is a terrible tool in that endeavour.
@@serenitygoodwyn Metabolic rate responses as well as endocrinology effects of macro-nutrient combinations. Calories are useful if you're talking about differences in quantity in one diet only. As soon as the aforementioned factors vary due to entirely different dietary approaches, we need to talk about those first.
this video is very interesting... it ends with a mystery about the concern for the "side-effect of cancer" for the diet that is recommended to the American public and that they couldn't figure it out. Didn't this whole mess start with the "precautionary principle" of the heart-diet hypothesis when the studies and science weren't available? Given the runaway disease today -- why isn't the same principle applied given the evidence is much stronger and studies proving the exact opposite? (I know it's largely a rhetorical question, too many interests controlling the narrative, but still...)
Full (no pun) carnivore x 2 mos. Used to be disgusted with meat’s fat. But, *knowledge* helped me to realize fat’s importance - now, fat is delicious! Mindset change.
The last question from the audience was the most important question "Why do Vegatarians have higher rates of colon cancer? I will tell you why. All plants and grains are infected with mold! And mold spores which sprout in the colon....FACT
Red meat causes colo rectal cancer ?!?! I survived colo rectal cancer stage 4 and before I hardly ever ate red meat just a load of processed crap grains, sugar, oils etc etc. I'm now carnivore ,red meat ,beef butter eggs, dairy and no gut issues or feeling like crap. Feel better than ever on carnivore no aches, no pains, more energy. 😉👍 ( Even with only half a digestive system ?!?! )
As a complete dietary idiot I’d add only one thought - a conscientious Keto diet and a conscientious vegan diet tend to have in thing in common: neither one consumes factory foods; cookies, desserts, junk foods and so on. So could some of the good results often experienced by people on either diet be due to what they DON’T eat?
Nina. Thank you for this I totally agree with you. At 40 minutes …. saying we are not meat eaters is being like a creationist…. Nina. I am a creationist I believe that God created the world in seven days. In genesis, we started out as vegetarians. Then, after Noah’s flood, God said we can eat meat. Dr. Doug Petrovich first day of creation. Great RU-vid video. Dr. Kurt Wise in-depth study of Noah’s flood. Two hours and 20 minutes. Great stuff.
Yes, thank you for saying this! That was the only part of the presentation I disagreed with. I too am a creationist and am by no means anti-science. There is no scientific method or control studies when it comes to determining evolution (which is still considered a theory by the way), much of it is purely observational & prone to bias of the observer. I am pro-true science and definitely not against red meat.
Or the foods an lifestyles associated with meat intake, not the meat itself. When you eat a burger inside of white bread bun with french fries and a Coke/Pepsi, they blame the carcinogic effect and other unhealth effects on the burger not on the crap eaten with it.
Dear Nina: Very important analysis! Would you give us your take on Neu5Gc in red meat? According to Dr. Gabe Mirkin, on Sept 2018, he indicated researchers have identified the CMAH gene in meat, dairy, and even caviar from some fish that produces a sugar-protein called Neu5Gc, which may explain the association between eating red meat and increased risk for certain cancers (Genome Biol Evol, Jan 1, 2018;10(1):207-219). Epidemiological studies show that eating red meat (beef, pork, and lamb) is associated with an increased risk for some cancers and other diseases. Researchers followed 536,000 men and women, ages 50 to 71, for an average of 16 years and found that those who ate the most meat from mammals and processed meat had a 26 percent greater risk of dying within the study period than those who ate the least (Brit Med J, May 9, 2017). High mammal meat consumption was associated with increased rates of death from cancer, heart disease, respiratory disease, stroke, diabetes, infections, kidney disease, and liver disease. The study was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI).Neu5Gc and Risk for CancerWe do not have an explanation for the association between eating meat from mammals and various diseases in humans, but a leading theory was offered by Ajit Varki in 1982 when he discovered a sugar-protein on the surface of all cell membranes in mammals except humans. He called this sugar-protein Neu5Gc, and in 2014, he published data showing how Neu5Gc may cause cancer (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published online April 7, 2014).He explained that when you eat red meat, the Neu5Gc from the meat is absorbed into your body and your body treats this sugar-protein in the same way that it treats germs that try to get into your cells. Your immunity recognizes germs by the sugar-proteins on the surface of their cells. If the surface proteins are the same as those on your cells, your immunity lets the protein enter your cells, but if the surface proteins on membranes are different from those on your cells, your immunity tries to kill the invading germs.The same applies to cancer cells. Every day, your body produces millions of cancer cells. Your immunity recognizes cancer cells as being different from normal cells and produces antibodies and cytokines that attach to and kill these cancer cells. This is exactly the same mechanism that your immunity uses to try to prevent germs from growing in your body. If your immunity produces large amounts of antibodies against cancer cells, you kill them and they disappear from your body. If you produce only small amounts of antibodies to cancer cells, the cancer cells can grow and spread through your body.How Neu5Gc May Cause CancerAll mammals except humans have Neu5Gc on the surface of their cells. Humans receive Neu5Gc only when they get it from eating meat or dairy products from mammals. When you eat red meat, you absorb Neu5Gc into your body, and your immunity treats the sugar-protein as a germ that is trying to attack your body. For more than 30 years, Varki has wanted to do studies to show how Neu5Gc could cause cancer, but it is illegal and immoral to do studies that cause cancer in humans. Ten years ago, a company in New Hampshire developed mice that do not have Neu5Gc for use in Varki’s experiments. Because they have no Neu5Gc, they are like humans and different from all other mammals, and their immunities recognize Neu5Gc as an invading germ. Varki took these mice and fed them Neu5Gc. The mice immunities treated Neu5Gc from red meat just as those of humans would do. Their white blood cells and cytokines attacked the Neu5Gc as if it was an invading germ. Then he gave the mice antibodies that attach to and try to destroy Neu5Gc. When he gave them low doses of antibodies against Neu5Gc, tumors developed and grew rapidly. In mice who were given high doses of antibodies, the antibodies attached to and killed the tumors. He feels that when your immunity is working properly, it produces enough antibodies to kill the cancer cells. However, if your immunity produces only small amounts of antibodies, it appears that cancer cells are able to grow and spread through your body.How Varki Found Neu5GcVarki ground up cow’s muscle and put it into a 20-foot column of gel with a positive charge on one side and a negative charge on the other. This separated out almost 1500 different protein and sugar molecules. He did the same with human muscle. He found a sugar protein in cow’s muscle that was not in human muscle and called it Neu5Gc. He explains that at one time, all mammals had Neu5Gc in their cells. However, a mutation occurred in humans that converted Neu5Gc to another sugar protein that he called Neu5Ac. Today all mammals except homo sapiens have Neu5Gc. Humans have Neu5Ac in its place.Varki’s Explanation of How Red Meat Could Cause Cancer Many studies show that people who eat red meat or dairy products have Neu5Gc in their cells. Much higher concentrations of Neu5Gc in a human’s body is found in cancer cells with the highest concentration of Neu5Gc in humans found in cancer tumors that metastasize (spread through the body and kill). If you have strong immunity, your body will produce very large amounts of antibodies against Neu5Gc and you will kill the cancer cells. However, if your immunity does not produce enough antibodies against Neu5Gc, the cancer cells can grow, and can spread through your body. Varki is now trying to cure cancers by working on ways to increase antibody production. Thanks,
The whole presentation is just a pseudoscience garbage with studies to support a particular narrative... which makes money thesedays apparently. Pritikin would be rolling in his grave if he ever heard this ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qOj4rzSkqok.htmlm52s
@@TB1M1 I wonder why you call this sudo science, there is a lot of evidence to debunk the work of Ancil Kies (sorry no idea on the spelling ) and he is the lynch pin of the modern carb focused diet, I stand to be corrected on this. Regards
@@OMGaNEWBIE by that standard every meat eater is a vegan cause it’s not living when we eat meat either... who eats live animals? are you joking? i sense you’re joking.. but one could be silly enough to believe that logic, being a vegan and all..
@@SomethinAintRightHere - A lot of typos there Salty Bear. I could barely make out what your beef is. Pun intended. Look, we're all different. Millions of people live into their 90's eating meat, boozing it up and smoking. Millions of plant eaters die young. Only the people eating the food can determine how they feel and what their health is like eating their choice of foods. One thing I have noticed is that plant eaters, "some not all", get all testy and combative. Perhaps it's the lack of animal protein in their diet that makes them so miserable. Bottom line, each of us has to take responsibility for our own body. Peoples body needs change over time. We should get regular medical checkups and make dietary changes accordingly, regardless of what diet is in Vogue or following other peoples ideology. Merry Christmas & Happy New Year.
1:52 - claims cuz she was a journalist that she had no preconceptions - this is a common mis-perception among journalists - they think they have overcome bias - yet they demonstrate bias in almost any controversial subject - she no doubt brought a vegetarian perspective with her into her study of diet - what's significant is not that she was "objective" in the subject - but that she had a vegetarian bias - and was turned about by her research 40:00 - "to say we are not meat eaters like like being a creationist" - great observation
Thanks Dr Teicholz. I had 400gm of lean rump steak for dinner with fresh veges and salad then had another 200gms more as I enjoyed it so much. I'd just walked for two days up and down a rugged river valley with my sweetheart and her 16 year old daughter and camped out by a lake. I'm 67 and eat beef daily. I don't use canola oil if I'm aware of it.
Prepare more by practicing out loud. That will reduce the number of fillers like "um". The content is great, good energy, and eye content. Less text on the visuals, and tell people where to look at them.
There are thousands of substances which are known to be carcinogenic. Don't they look for them in the food in those studies? Now if there are carcinogenic substances found what would logic impose where to look next to find a root cause? Hint: it's most likely not the food.
When Nina finishes her journalistic investigation of red meat she should seriously consider investigating climate change. Her brand of analysis will fit the deniers perfectly.
Society's willingness to accept the blathering of some authority figure as gospel is a problem. The blathering authorities know little and are encumbered by conflicts of interest. It's unfortunate people like Jeff are willing to accept what they are told as gospel instead of doing the basic research to determine the truth. It's more unfortunate people like Jeff try to denigrate those who speak out when they realize some blathering authority is telling falsehoods.
@@watsup8759, didn't I just suggest you do your own research to determine the truth? If you are interested in food, perhaps you should consider Canada's Inuit who lived on a diet of meat and fish because they live above the tree line and little grows in permafrost. Their health appears worse since southern food has been shipped in to their community. If you are interested in climate, perhaps you should consider the requirements of photosynthesis, and the geologist's work in determining the relationship between CO2 and temperature over the last 600 million years. It may also be worth looking at what commercial greenhouse operations are doing. Happy researching!
I really like Nina's lectures. But this one seemed disjointed and discombobulated! Like she was distracted all the time. I know there was good information in this - but I quit at 32 minutes because I couldn't take the stammering and jumping around anymore.
There are way too many uncontrolled variables with these studies. Is the meat grass fed? Are the grains and legumes organic and/or non-GMO? And then you get into the characteristics of the populations being tested and compared, as the last male questioner pointed out. Really, we're still dealing with theory, with insufficient data to prove anything - a Mueller report for the most important issue of our time. And still the most plausible theory is that we should eat the ancestral, pre-agriculture diet of homo sapiens. That makes the most sense to me (but I do sneak in some goat yoghurt - with Chia seeds).
Does anyone knows why does one crave sugar on a vegetarian or mainly vegetarian diet? Even when normally (not avoiding meat), one does not have a sweet tooth?
40:00 I think that creationists understand that God said in the Bible humans should eat animals that chew the cud and has split hoof. So basically ruminants are good to eat.
